musicians performance vs recording quality

[slaveern]

First off, I'm an amateur basement studio dude. I spend spare time recording local indie bands.

I think I need to improve on my mix 'tightness', where I think musicians performance play a big part (play in-tune/on-beat/no-mistake for ALL tracks). OTOH, how often should one fixes their performance (tune/beat) mistakes to make a 'tighter' sounding mix? How much time do you usually spend time with band to track (1:1 track to mix time ratio?)? Seriously, if I think everything needs to be nailed on the head, tracking would actually take much much more time than mixing (like 3x)... would you agree? When should an engineer wear a 'producer' hat and tell the band what to do, retrack...etc.?

One thing is that now I charge per hour tracking plus a fixed charge for mixing. I don't dare to tell those guys that we should 'retrack' over and over again: one thing is ego's always in the way (e.g. piss off client), the other is that $$$ is on them. It ends up that the product suffers. Previously I charge a fix price for everything, and obviously, ended up my personal time suffers.

I don't use a lot of tools in 'fixing' mistakes other than general cut/paste editing(instruments/vocal), occasional up/down tune a word or two (vocal)...etc. What are some other tools that are currently use in this area?

Greatly appreciate any opinions on this subject.

slaveern.....

[henryrobinett]

I rarely fix jack. I think a lot of it has to do with the quality of the musicians I work with, but I rarely ever have to to pull out Auto Tune or other pitch correction, or fix the timing of a performance. The most I've had to do is maybe edit out a solo or edit one song into another because an ending was better.

I just don't have the patience to do that kind of bullshit. I think it's doing the musicians a DISSERVICE. "Fixing it in the mix" is bullshit. I know I'm way in the minority here. I think musicians need to know how well or poorly they actually play so they can improve their lame asses.

[Domene]

Sometimes little mistakes add to music.

Just listen do Led Zepelin I

Absolutely perfect music is boring.

[code green]

Originally Posted by Domene

Sometimes little mistakes add to music.

Just listen do Led Zepelin I

Absolutely perfect music is boring.

1) i totally agree.

2) i don't think he's exactly dealing with zep here.

[DaveUK]

push the musicians as hard as you think you can time wise/egos/mental well being and then fix enough to be able to bear mixing it

[kafka]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

I just don't have the patience to do that kind of bullshit. I think it's doing the musicians a DISSERVICE. "Fixing it in the mix" is bullshit. I know I'm way in the minority here. I think musicians need to know how well or poorly they actually play so they can improve their lame asses.

If the musician can't tell the difference between a good performance and a bad one, how can they go back and fix it? I suppose someone might just randomly get some of the notes right, and eventually you might have enough to cobble together, but that seems like an awful hard way to make music.

Don't baby them. Egos and hurt feelings are just cover for people who can't do any better because they didn't practice enough.

[slaveern]

Great. Thanks for all the inputs. Sometimes it really puzzles me when musicians listen to their own performance claims "it's pretty good" when there's apparent mistakes here and there. I tell them about it and they come back at me saying "it's impossible to to get any better". *Sigh* I think I'll at least time to ask the performer to 'patch' in some fix instead of retracking the entire thing.

OTOH, I wonder what kind of mix-time to track-time ratio is norm for good results. Of course it depends on the performers themselves but I want to have a feel on what you guys do.

[Ironklad Audio]

honestly, my criteria for whether a mistake needs to be fixed or not is whether i can notice it while listening

if something pops out at me as not sounding right, i'll ask whoever played it "that sounds sort of weird...did you mean to do that?"

sometimes they'll say yes; most of the time they'll say "ahh shit, let's take that over". most of the time though, the band knows what they want their track to sound like, and is fully aware when they botch a take.

[joelpatterson]

It's almost like it's totally obvious to everyone when something isn't 'right,' and it always comes down to something being played 'not like it shoulda.' You can spend forever (editing) slaving over it, and after forever you'll get it into the 'ballpark of right,' more or less... or less...

When you're recording bands... the band really needs to be able to play their songs well, excitingly, with panache and a flourish and a driving, hypnotic force-- all together now. This kind of 'paint by numbers' tracking where first the drummer plays, then the guitarists, then the keyboards... that's never made any sense to me. You'll never get excitement and spontaneous musical ideas flowing that way.

I think the best way is so: the band sets up, you get everyone a good mix in their headphones, and then you start. They play a tune to warm up. Then they start in on the tunes planned for the day. Eventually--hopefully very soon-- they find their groove, and from that point on, until they tire out, they are laying down good versions of their tunes. You'll go back later and pick the 'best' out of the 'good.' Then, you mix them down, and add in the shaker or harmonica or the sax solo.

That's what 'bands' are all about, and really, just because technology has opened up many miles of loopholes betwixt the beats, and you can fix and slide and drag and drop and overhaul reality itself-- you shouldn't need to, and you shouldn't make a habit of it. 10-4.