mixing IN THE BOX / how to protect yourself ?

[stealthbalance]

hey shipshape !!

here is a question ive posed here maybe a almost a year ago. i was wondering what your perspective on this is being that as time goes on and technology goes on , i feel that it will become more and more a critical issue.
as you are now mixing entirely IN THE BOX in pro tools, of course you give the client the 2 tracks of your mix work - but is the client also entitled to your pro tools mix session?? if its someone like mutt im sure you would with pleasure and its not a question. but lets look at all the other clients who come to you for your magic . with everything being so accesible to anyone with a pro tools rig, your are for the most part just giving away your so called trade secrets. i guess its sort of like going to a fine restaurant and getting the recipe along with the meal. i dont know about you , but my first mixes i did all itb were not a pretty sight. figuring out how to approach stuff itb takes a while as we mixers figure out how to a do certain chains of routing and plugs to get that great ssl or neve sound , just as we are acustomed to on a real analog desk. also with the ego of most a&r people out there, it seems that most record label meetings would also include us producers and mixers being asked to bring the hard drive as they will want to tweak and put their ideas into motion and on the records. bring a reference cd will soon be replaced with bring the drives , we have a rig here at the label.
also , ive freely given my mix sessions itb to artists only to get a call with them saying that they have been spending time trying to figure out what i do , and that they are getting really close. couldn't we see that an artist would have you mix one song on their album and then find some second engineer to just paste the overall settings onto the other songs and basically cop your sonic vibe??
when i mix on an ssl , for the most part i dont really sweat any of this because it would cost a lot of $$ to get the room again and recall your stuff , plus i dont really want the responsibility for the mix notes in case they need a recall , remix or whatever. but ITB , it can be easily abused. plus , couldn't you see that being so liquid itb that an artist could easily open your mix session after the fact and tweak your stuff and call it their own , or worse yet leave the credit as is saying it was mixed by you???
i know that this probably comes off like im an egocentric jerk to even think about this but i see it being really scary. and if we keep the mix session , are we liable to keep that session for eternity?? if our session is lost or corrupted or the drive freezes are we in deep sh$t ?? on the previous post some said that i was just mean spirited and stingy , others said that it was not an important issue. others said that soon there would be copywriting of a mixers session. hmmm. by no means do i confuse a mixer with the real content and art of the artist and writers but .....who knows .
any way thanks for your thoughts and sorry for the really long post.

cheers
s



p.s. i spoke with quite a few MAJOR hired gun mixers today about this and they said that they have never and will never give an artist any mix notes or pro tools mix session. we all agreed that it was an issue to avoid as it could lose you a mix gig if adressed.

p.s.s. the first time i brought this up is here:

working in the box multitrack style but staying liquid??

[jpaudio]

That's a great question stealth, one that I've run into on the indie level with artists as well. My personal view is this: An artist/label is paying for the sum of the parts, not the parts themselves. They don't own a guitar track or vocal take, and therefore can't leave my studio with one. It's almost like commissioning a portrait and trying to walk away with whatever paint is left on the palette.

[doug_hti]

Originally posted by jpaudio
That's a great question stealth, one that I've run into on the indie level with artists as well. My personal view is this: An artist/label is paying for the sum of the parts, not the parts themselves. They don't own a guitar track or vocal take, and therefore can't leave my studio with one. It's almost like commissioning a portrait and trying to walk away with whatever paint is left on the palette.

Are you sure that is right? Do you feel that is right? From what role are you saying that (mixer, engineer, producer, artist developer, etc)?
i can see that being the case with so many of these "spec" deals being out there, but not with traditional paying clients with traditional situations (nothing is traditional anymore though).

But usually you must turn in the multitracks and the masters into the label.
And sure you can take off your plugins, etc. But the labels/artist usually need access to the multitracks for additional modified tv track mixes or performance multitracks or future remixes. And they aren't always wanting to have some music director sit in with a mixer at $5k a day. that's only one scenario, but I think the artist and label should have rights to the multitrack in it's fully edited way.

With ITB, I think there is a fine line between simply protecting yourself and appearing as a paranoid insecure freak that no one wants to work with.

It's like the old cooking recipes....always gotta to leave out some ingredient or proper measurement....
oh "what happened"...must be the cook's fault.

[adam_w]

Hmmm...actually I reckon they DO own the finished comp'd vocal takes, etc. You'd hand over the mulitrack in the old days, after all..

As a producer, the deal is they reduce your royalty up to 1pt if someone else mixes it, as that guy has to get paid. This means you get f@@ked sometimes..However, I'm the mix guy next week. Now I'm the f@@ker. Note that is as PRODUCER originally, not engineer or the producers guy who mixes..
(unless youre shipley, andy wallace, stent, etc..then maybe you get points..Mike ?)

Personally, I'm not even gonna LISTEN to the original mix, nevermind worry about plugin settings if they are in the PT session. I will afterwards, and if need be, yep I'd cop some cool shit that might have been there if it's great.. The point is they aren't happy with the mix, so it's being done again and I have to beat the original or I don't get to do the next one..and it's all about keepin' on keepin' on..and getting better.

It's not even like the original mix has to be bad, we're talkin' record company people here !

[jpaudio]

My opininon is from my role as one half of a production team and an engineer/mixer. We follow projects from prepro to mastering. It's a policy I feel strongly about. I'm not recording a drum track so someone else can mess with it, i'm recording the way i want and anticipating how I will treat it in the mix given the artist at hand. Say what you want about my belief, but it's one i've developed out of necessity. I've taken a position of doing what i feel is in the artists best interests. This may have lost me some gigs but it's maintained my integrity, and i'm content with it. I'll deliver multitracks/harddrives of the material to a label if the label wishes to keep it archived (removing additional takes that did not make it to the final mix), but will not give them to an artist. And absolutely no mix info ever leaves my studio (not that gear settings are gonna do much good to anyone who doesn't already know what they're doing anyway, in which case they shouldn't even want them). There's much more to say an Andy Wallace mix than the settings on his EQs or compression... it's more about what's going through his head, so although this is my policy, i'm not too worried about it either.

[jpaudio]

Originally posted by adam_w
Hmmm...actually I reckon they DO own the finished comp'd vocal takes, etc. You'd hand over the mulitrack in the old days, after all..

If you're thinking of this from a studio business point of view, where the studio is charging by the hour or day, engineer is charging for his services, producer for his etc., than you would be right. I'm charging a flat rate for a project, and the artist leaves with the finished product. Just a different way of looking at it, neither right nor wrong IMHO.

[Sharp11]

Anyone can order the complete score to Aaron Copland's "Appalachian Spring".

They can see exactly how he voiced his chords, wrote his t-u-t-t-i-s and sub-divided his rhythms.

There's a lot of learning that goes with that.

In fact, after studying all of that for months, someone probably could create an "Appalachian Spring" sound-alike.

But a sound-alike is all it'd be, because by the time Aaron's scores were released to the public, he was on to other compositional masterpieces.

So my point? Creativity is inside of you, sure folks can copy what you've done, but they'll never copy what you're about to do.

[jpaudio]

Originally posted by doug_hti
With ITB, I think there is a fine line between simply protecting yourself and appearing as a paranoid insecure freak that no one wants to work with.

Haha, so true. FWIW, i track into a DAW but don't mix inside of it. My policies have more to do with protecting integrity, of both myself, my company and the artists I work with. An artist is paying for a production, and in the rare case that they think they can mix it better themselves, i'm saving them from looking like assesfuuck

I have no probs delivering multittracks to a label, at least a reputable one anyway, if they have a policy of keeping projects archived.

Just wanted to add, when i do deliver a DAW project, it's in the form of a Retrospect file. Just one extra step to ensure some sort of protection.

[enharmonic]

Just my .02,

I'd be happy to give a client a backup of the raw tracks, not unlike what they would receive if I gave them their 2" reel, but that's about the extent of it. I suppose I'd need to know if they wanted the raw files beforehand as well.

[jpaudio]

Originally posted by enharmonic
Just my .02,

I'd be happy to give a client a backup of the raw tracks, not unlike what they would receive if I gave them their 2" reel, but that's about the extent of it. I suppose I'd need to know if they wanted the raw files beforehand as well.

my issue with this, and beleive me it's something i've put thought into, is that an artist can't do anything with a 2" reel without going to a studio. That's almost guaranteed protection of someone messing with the tracks. With a DAW project, hell, everyone has a computer, and it's pretty easy to get a pirated copy of some kind of program, allowing anyone computer-savvy to drag the indivual files into whatever program they can access. In the case of my company, we're very active with our artists, even after the project is finished, so our name is closely identified with many of our projects. If someone has a free weekend and feels like getting his hands dirty, there could be a poorly mixed or mangled version of a song leaked, and since the connection between us and the artist already exists, this has potentially damaging consequences, for both myself and the artist.

[blackcatdigi]

Some good points already made, and I do see both sides... However

The potential for abuse is massive.

I've already had projects 'remixed' (that were in fact, NOT) and been given NO MIX CREDIT, WHATSOEVER. Small scale stuff, no big deal. I got paid...

BUT - you should extrapolate this to the extreme, to fully consider the implications.

Picture if you will: You finally get a break and are hired to record and mix a potential 'breakout' artist on a big project. You do so, and it is magnificent. You then confidently turn in your completed files to the label (who love it), and keep your eyes and ears open for when your engineering masterpiece will 'drop' and your phone will start ringing off the hook with offers.

BUT -

"Mr. Record Co. President" (in his infinite wisdom) decides to have his flunky nephew reverse the panning on the hihat and shaker tracks, and Voila'!!! HE MIXED the record... He gets ALL the credit. His phone rings. His wall gets the platinum disc.

And you remain anonymous. Not even credited as a second.

"But you were paid for your work," you can counter, "So whats the difference?..."

Yeah, you got paid. (Maybe). But you also got screwed and somebody else is getting credit for your blood and sweat. The business or recording and mixing is 99.9% dependent on referrals (IME), so I ask: "If your work is never known to be yours, how will you build your referrals? You will not.

And yes, the flunky nephew will eventually be exposed as a fraud, but not before he reaps what should have been YOUR just rewards, and then trashes what should have been YOUR resultant big projects. OR he may work hard, actually get good, and enjoy tremendous success. All built on your broken back.

Of course, there will be legal ramifications on these issues...

"You should have covered your ass with the paperwork, and this would not have happened..."

How many unknowns are going to play legal hardball when they get called up to the big leagues for the first time? None, I would venture. Assuming you did 'cover your ass' with the proper legalities, how you gonna fight the label when they reneg and leave your name off the record? In court? Cuz generally speaking, "He with the most money, wins." And anyone trying to move up in the biz is most likely not going to be financially able to take on this kind of fight.

Please do pick this scenario apart and expose any flaws in my so-called logic...

[jpaudio]

great post casey, really cool point of view on the whole situation.


I can understand how many guys think of it from purely business, saying "well i got paid, who cares what they do with the files".... but i'm more concerned about my rep and credibility than money. Call me crazy, but one will last a LOT longer than the other.

[shipshape]

Stealth this is a very valid question and here's my way of working ..when I get any Protools session in I copy it onto my own drive and then put theirs away . I do this so that they can have their session back as it came in and then I can do whatever I feel is necessary to the session copy I have and it stays in my tape library especially as I am often asked months later for a single remix or whatever . The client never gets anything from that unless they specifically ask for a vocal track with eq for a dance mix or something or if they want some sound for the live show etc. They are paying me for the mix and that's what they get.
At the moment there is a push by certain record companies to get back not just the original session but also a protools session or bounce or whatever, that has all the eq and fx plugs and all automation for their files. So that kind of put the cat amongst the pidgeons for a minute.Everything had to be at 96k and of some specific broacast standard.!!!
Firstly I can count the number of 96k sessiions I've gotten in on one finger , so I was wondering also who was gonna pay for all the extra studio time to make these copies? the band? don't think so!!. Anyway it's still being sorted out cos it's a little out of control while record companies figure out how to archive their music. There are so many formats now that will all be out of date real soon so what's gonna happen ? Who knows.Tape vaults used to be full of 2'' reels and it was easy, now ther is no standard and its a big problem and they are worried.

[jazzius II]

I don't believe in AE secrets.........you could throw your biggest, hardest-earned secret straight in someones lap, but if they're not ready for it, they'll do nothing with it.......maybe only in 5 years they'll say: "f*ck, that's a cool trick!".......so if your tricks are so special, nobody can use them anyhow......JMHO.

[Brad Blackwood]

Originally posted by jazzius II
I don't believe in AE secrets.........you could throw your biggest, hardest-earned secret straight in someones lap, but if they're not ready for it, they'll do nothing with i.

Except maybe not pay you for the different versions they want...

[jpaudio]

Originally posted by jazzius II
I don't believe in AE secrets.........you could throw your biggest, hardest-earned secret straight in someones lap, but if they're not ready for it, they'll do nothing with it.......maybe only in 5 years they'll say: "f*ck, that's a cool trick!".......so if your tricks are so special, nobody can use them anyhow......JMHO.

I completely agree Jazzius... my posts aren't regarding secrets or mix tips, but the possibility of a dangerously inexperienced person messing with something my name has already been associated with.

BTW, Mike, I like your idea of copying the session immediately and giving back exactly what you received plus the stereo mixed track!

[cajonezzz]

Hmmmm. I thought what Shipshape described was the obvious "norm"

I always take the tracking Session and before starting ANY kind of mix, do a "save as" and then start working.

That being said, I have given full on mixes back to a few clients....but I'm no big time mixer so no harm done to my "career" .

Otherwise, I've just given the tracking session (the one I start a mix from) back to the client on a firewire drive. And i save a copy of all the Mix session documents on a personal drive. (I've tried to discourage keeping archive drives for the client as there just isn't enough room)

[juniorhifikit]

When I'm mixing ITB, I'm still patching in a a fair amount of outboard. So, I haven't had this be a problem yet. The mix file does no good without my rack.

[ixnys]

Maybe what you could do is after mixing the song, you could bounce each individual track with your efx printed to it. This way, the client can get a session where if they leave the faders now at 0db (I believe) the mix will still maintain the same level balances you chose when mixing. Also all your tracks will have been printed with their EQ inserts and automation rides.

So now they get what they originally requested, BUT they can't see how you derived the sounds. They can't see what EQ's or compressors you used or how you set them up. NOR do they have to worry about having the same plugin-ins that you had to be able to listen to the tracks.

*You can also still include a stereo bounce of course, or choose to leave the plugins on the master fader.

[jazzius II]

Originally posted by Brad Blackwood
Except maybe not pay you for the different versions they want...

possibly.....mine was just a general comment pertaining to the idea of people stealing "tricks".......the real "tricks" are unstealable.....intelligence, experience, hard work, the feeling....

[stealthbalance]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shipshape
[B]Stealth this is a very valid question and here's my way of working ..when I get any Protools session in I copy it onto my own drive and then put theirs away . I do this so that they can have their session back as it came in and then I can do whatever I feel is necessary to the session copy I have and it stays in my tape library especially as I am often asked months later for a single remix or whatever . The client never gets anything from that unless they specifically ask for a vocal track with eq for a dance mix or something or if they want some sound for the live show etc. They are paying me for the mix and that's what they get.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

thanks shipshape !

thats exactly what i do , just wondered if i was being unfair or unpro with the handful of producers and artists that have become red-assed about it.
greatly appreciate the response.

s

[Shan]

I recall a Roger Nichols article in EQ mag awhile back. The topic was copywriting our mixes. He was trying to make this happen. I cant recall the issue but I will try and find it. Anyone remember this? It was within the last year or so.

For now I do what Shipshape does.

Shane

[music]

Raw tracks only.

[syra]

Raw tracks only

Thats fair. They get what they came with plus the 2mix.

[dave-G]

Problem with ITB mix "protection" is, there's so many producers who have their own PTHD rig (at least the ones I'm working with). Because the lines between production, recording, arrangement, mixing and editing are being so consistently blurred, I often find mixing to be a much more of a session-file-sharing process with the producer; I start off copying the files to my drive from theirs, work up a mix, then email a copy of the session file back to the producer with ftp links to audio files for tracks that got printed through outboard gear.. Then the producer may do some tweaks (ie: re-comp a vocal in a bridge, etc.) and email the session file back to me.

Unless these tweaks remain fairly minor, this can make the process rather tedious, since the balances of a good mix can easily get derailed by one little change! I suppose that because nobody wants to commit to anything until the last possible moment, and because the nearly zero-recall-time fact of ITB mixes means that it can be done this way, it often is. However, any of my minor gripes aside, to the producer, it affords a window on to the way the finished mix will sound a little earlier in the production process, and informs some decisions that actually do help the end results.

Most of my work is done with a producer in another city, so maybe this is all more a reflection on my not-in-the-same-room way of doing things, but it's starting to seem not that unusual anymore, even in more conventional settings.

I guess don't really worry about "protecting" the session file. Even though many of my clients have seen the things I do in mixing, and have learned some of my "tricks" along the way, they still seem to appreciate that my decision of when to use some technique or process and my approach to balance is what makes me worth hiring, and is more valuable than the "preset vault" they could ever harvest from having a collection of my mixing-session-files and outboard gear recall documentation.

Hell, I hope so .
-dave

[Dave Martin]

I have to say that if JPAudio is doing full projects with artists from soup to nuts, then I absolutely disagree with his position - if a band has hired you to record and/or produce a project for them, of course the raw tracks belong to the band. You're working for them, not the other way around. Perhaps his approach could work for an indie record or a small label, but I don't believe that a major will accept that. (JP, If I'm misreading the intent your posts, I apologize.)

As far as ITB mixes, the AES/NARAS delivery standard (currently usen by RCA Nashville, and I would hope some other majors) specify flattened audio files in the highest available sample rates, with all files starting at the session start time; they do NOT require that you deliver PT sessions. The recommendations suggest that 'important' effects may be printed, but don't require it. Nor do they require that the audio tracks be processed as they were for the mix. They DO require documentation, however - whether that includes plug-in lists and settings, is a matter of some conjecture.

This sort of thing should be a matter of negotiation between the production team and the label - some producers might only deliver the tracks that were actually used on the record, some deliver everything that was recorded, including any talking that made it to tape. (Again, read the delivery requirements for a specific label, and if you have a problem, negotiate).

Now regarding what mixers should turn in (as opposed to what the producer has to turn in to get paid), I agree with Thrill and Ship - nowhere does the NARAS delivery recommendation spell out that you are required to tun in your PT sessions (though I could see the label asking for consolidated audio files if what was delivered to you weren't already consolidated) - give them whatever you've contracted for (primary mix, vox up and down versions, TV mixes - whatever), and your job ought to be done. Nevertheless, this strikes me as a matter for negotiation, not a place where a producer can tell the artist at the END of the project that all they may take away from the project are the final stereo mixes.

Yet another opinion...

[jpaudio]

Originally posted by Dave Martin
I have to say that if JPAudio is doing full projects with artists from soup to nuts, then I absolutely disagree with his position - if a band has hired you to record and/or produce a project for them, of course the raw tracks belong to the band. You're working for them, not the other way around. Perhaps his approach could work for an indie record or a small label, but I don't believe that a major will accept that. (JP, If I'm misreading the intent your posts, I apologize.)

Dave,

I don't think you've misread my posts, but I also don't think there is a right or wrong way to look at this... just two different ways, which we've both expressed. The band is coming to me (my company), hiring us to produce an EP or full-length for them, and that's what they get, a finished product that they're satisified with. What are they possibly going to do with the raw files in a productive manner? In the past year, i've only had one artist even ask for his raw files, and even then he never came by for them (I told him if he brought over a Mac-formatted firewire, i'd give him the raw consolidated tracks). You're right that this wouldn't work when dealing with a larger label, and I said previously I have no problem submitting files to a reputable label if they have a policy of archiving. I deliver such data in the form of a Retrospect file, all consolidated tracks, no mix info or session files ( i don't mix ITB anyway). So I don't think we have such opposing points of view after all, but I also don't feel an artist has any business with the individual tracks.

[Blackwater]

First off- I rarely mix all ITB. But if I do, and the client wants a copy ( which is always ), and it be 2" tape or Adat's or the Blowtools session, I never include mix notes or the plugins. I always give copies of the full finished tracks before I start to tweek. I will make Notes as to what outboard gear I've used but will never give settings of gear or anything along those lines.
I'm not including these things because I am worried that they will use that info to Fu** me or finish a project somewhere else but because I am being paid to use what I have ( talent, Gear etc..) to get the best result and 2 track mix that I can for my consumer or client (I prefer the term consumer).

Now... Call me stingy, call me whatever you like-- But It's one thing to say " I ran the Vox track through a Neve " and its another thing to say " here's the plugin I used and let me show you how I did it so you can do it at home".

Now... Again... If a consumer wants to pay me to show them how to make their mixes more beautiful and spacious, thats another thread. But I'm not going to let them take my gear home with them and mix their next release.

Sorry to sound like a Bit*h but hey- cosumers come to me because of what I do and how I mix.

Just my opinion.

Chris Westerman
Blackwater Sound and Mastering

[Blackwater]

jpaudio,

I hear your point of view and I know you weren't addressing me but I have to say one thing about your comment to Dave which is this--

Every artist has the right to and deserves the individual raw tracks. They are not just hiring you ( your company) to provide them with the finished product. To say that they don't deserve the raw tracks, really takes them out of the process all together and as far as I'm concerned leaves us in quite a hollow and desperate place.

Again just my Artist, AE, Producer and ME's opinion.

Chris Westerman
Blackwater Sound and Mastering

[jlotto]

coming from a producer's point of view, we always keep a backup on our drives of every session, especially the final mix session.