Band sound (pre vs. post production)

[teddy07x]

How do you guys feel about altering, fixing, correcting? shaping, molding, touching up or just changing a band sound in the mix?

Say you didn't get what you want in the tracking sessions, do you think it's ok to "fix" it or re-shape the sound in mixing? Or shall a tracking session pretty much be the foundation for the band sound?

Or to just bend the sound so it's more marketable or is just better...

Reason I'm asking, some say the Audioslave record was mixed to sound like zeppelin. Gave it a thought and it just sounded weird to me.

[dropblacksky]

I think the ideal is the have the band "sound" determined before tracking. Unfortunately, "fix it in the mix" happens all too much these days. Replacing drums, guitar amp emulators, autotune....all great tools, but massively abused . Sometimes a vision can evolve in the mixing stage which is fine, but people should get back to learning proper microphone techniques and musicians should learn how to play again....the results can only get better....

[teddy07x]

Originally Posted by dropblacksky

I think the ideal is the have the band "sound" determined before tracking. Unfortunately, "fix it in the mix" happens all too much these days. Replacing drums, guitar amp emulators, autotune....all great tools, but massively abused . Sometimes a vision can evolve in the mixing stage which is fine, but people should get back to learning proper microphone techniques and musicians should learn how to play again....the results can only get better....

I agree with you. But say the guitarist plays fine, the guitar sound and playing is there, the drummer is tight, and there is nothing to beat-detect, nothing to auto-tune and no guitars to "repair".

where is the floor or the "wall" for creative mixing?
and where does the vision stop to evolve?

I do agree with your points though.