What are ye? Mixing engineer or recording engineer?

[Empora]

Good post!

I have similar issues. Tracking is in some ways more exciting as you hear it all coming together and there's always that spontaneity when finding guitar tones etc.
However I still find myself sometimes having the misguided reaction of "wow! if thats how it sounds now, imagine when it's mixed!". This can lead to disappointment as sometimes I set my expectations too high and can end up overdoing it or getting overly self critical in the mix stage. I'm sure there are guys who could work wonders with my tracks but I still am striving to be that guy myself.

One day my mixing skills will catch up (I hope) a big thing I am trying to hammer home to myself right now is when to leave something alone ha ha. I do discover new things every time, this week it is "less is more". Simple automation and frequency cuts can go a long way.

Right now I am neither a engineer or producer, I am still "that bloke with all the microphones"

[Outlaw Hans]

stay on topic. shower of nitpickers.
To answer the question: yes I try to get a finished sound that works just fine as a mix with a bit of panning and level riding and a good ear. However, when I mean "mixing" I mean knowing what preset in your lexicon sounds best, how long the reverb tail should be etc. etc. Just like mastering is a different thang, mixing is. I tend to look at the mix in a way that resembles the way it was recorded. So fairly dry with a bit of room and then sweeten with a plate or something. However, sometimes clients feel that there should be a phaser on the backing vox or the rythm guitar should have more ambience. Sometimes clients seem have certain mix ideas whereas I want to stick to the instrument-mic sound be it close miked or ambient or somewhere in between. I'm conservative with compression and other effects. I find left/right balance or stereo width tricky. Too many options. With tracking I find I have a much clearer picture of the sounds I want to achieve. Of course you can't sperate the two completely. All I'm trying to say is that I'm not a dare devil come mixdown. I'm a tracking outlaw though.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by Outlaw Hans

I'm a tracking outlaw though.

A tracking rebel with a quiff

[Sk106]

I tend to do it all myself - at least for my own compositions.

If I do a song, then I need to either record the instruments of it, or use samples/synthetic sounds. At least when it comes to the music that carries with it the ”production” type approach, like pop/rock/dance.

If I am to leave it to an engineer, to mix, in my experience he won’t have too much opinions about the song, but rather on the sound of it. He will forge himself a vision of what he can make of what is there, while my vision was to make something in my head come alive. The sounds in there support much of that vision. But the engineer usually listens to what is there, and forges his own vision of what can be made with what is there. All too often, engineers don’t do more than what they think the mix can be made into. Sometimes they even think the composer is rather naïve, and that the engineer knows better, and will have to save the composer from himself.

Much of the popular music around me, you can clearly hear that the mix is a very different thing than the song itself. The two don’t support each other. This is mostly my experience when other people have mixed my songs too. It comes back sounding like WTF?!? in my ears. Not in the sense of being bad in technical terms, but in terms of for example “de-snapping and fattening” a high snappy snare, or mixing a huge booming kick into more of a snappy “Bop” type kick. Some occasions I sent a synth piano, consisting of 3 layers - a digital DX7 piano, acoustic piano samples, and a pad like piano sound - and the engineer decided to himself that the 3 tracks were different instruments, and chose to mute the DX7 type from the verse, and include the acoustic only in the intro etc etc. It doesn’t seem to have struck the engineer that I chose a booming kick for a reason, much less what reason. Ergo, he listened to it on the surface, and decided what he could make out of the material in front of him and didn’t pay much attention to what the musical statement as a whole is about. Of course he will say I got a pretty funky idea of the potential of music and sound if I chose that kinda kick when that wasn’t what was needed - (to get to his vision).

Seen from that angle, I prefer to mix myself. That doesn’t mean that I’m as technically skilled as others, or that I have a bigger rig or larger bag of tricks at all. But my mix will almost always be better, simply because my mixing will support the original vision and make it all lock together, as one statement. That mix will kick butt of any high level engineer’s mix made from listening more to the sound and less to the music. In fact, most of the mix jobs I get, I noticed that I get them because I tend to listen very carefully for the composers vision, even ask (bug) him about it with questions and double checking and some serious thinking, so I don’t screw it up by doing “a great mix” in its own right. At first, I didn't know of any other way, and I felt rather surprised that people felt I asked questions.

Same thing with arrangements of songs that other people have done and that will be mixed by a third guy. How would I deliver the arrangement? most people don’t read music, so I can’t deliver the arrangement like that. (if they do, then problem solved) So, the arrangement means I get to do both the notes and instruments (sounds) that are to be in there. And deliver the arrangement as audio. That does make alot of sense in itself, since differing between arrangement and timbre is kinda complex.

So, let’s say I do the arrangement and deliver it, with the sounds. But then the mix guy says nobody can make a good mix with sounds like those in there. His approach is that he wants to be in charge of how it sounds, but ‘how it sounds’ is inevitably linked to the base sounds that are used to convey the music itself – from the arrangement. And if he mixes it, he will mix like he thinks it should sound, using his original vision as the role model.

If I would have a pretty clear idea of how the arrangement needs to sound to come out best, then how can I relay that to the mix engineer? Doing a rough mix to demonstrate is kinda strange to me. Then why not make the whole mix yourself while you’re at it?

In all projects, the raw tracks will sound very close to what I’m after. If not, then I don’t have the right stuff on the tracks to begin with and I need to redo it. So to make the base sound happen, somebody has gotta be on location, in the tracking session, that knows the intended sound of the end product. That means I might as well record it myself. Otherwise I will get great sounds that I can’t use to portray the song with.

Sum of it all: compose, arrange, record and mix, all yourself (?)

[Karloff70]

All that swedish thinking there makes a lot of sense to me!

Eftersom ingen jävel är en tankeläsare så blir det att man får ratta själv om visionen ska hålla ihop

[Outlaw Hans]

haha

[Saudade]

When I track I make sure I am mixing it myself, so I can blame the mixing for the bad sound. And I only mix songs I track myself, so I can blame the bad tracking. It would all sound wonderful if my alter ego didn't mess it up.

[Jules]

Tracking fun
Mixing not

[Unclenny]

Originally Posted by Saudade

When I track I make sure I am mixing it myself, so I can blame the mixing for the bad sound. And I only mix songs I track myself, so I can blame the bad tracking. It would all sound wonderful if my alter ego didn't mess it up.

Now that makes sense......I think.

[Jake Dempsey]

Most projects I get, I end up doing them start to finish. Tracking and mixing.

I enjoy mixing the most. I feel that's the most creative part of the process. If I did nothing but mix music that I like, I'd be happy. (and I wouldn't have to deal with as many bands in person )

[loujudson]

Originally Posted by Sk106

I tend to do it all myself - at least for my own compositions.

[edited for brevity]

Sum of it all: compose, arrange, record and mix, all yourself (?)

This makes a lot of sense for your perspective! Nicely put.

Just for contrast, as live sound and recording engineer who is not a musician but DO read music, much of my work is to record a performance and make it sound good as a recording - thus I have nothing to ork with except what they played live and the way they played it. So I bet I could do a nice job mis=xing what you sent me if that were to happen.

I don't understand musicians recording themselves, except as economy move, but then that is because I am not a musician, and would never change the arrangement given me to work with. That is producing or re-arranging, not engineering, to me.

Thus the title of this thread might be: What are you, mixing engineer, recording engineer, or a musician who does it all yourself???


Personally I like the old British term balance engineer.

L

[Jim Williams]

Originally Posted by TimeBandit

Then why dont you go tell all the mojority of the "ENGINEERS" in the recording business that they are not really ENGINEERS since they didnt go to school and get an engineering degree.

So what would you call "US"?

Knob Twister?

Fader Jockey?

Dream Maker?

Collection Agency?

Spiritual Advisor?

It doesn't matter what they call you, as long as they call you.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[loujudson]

Magician:
"would you do your magic on this, Lou?"

Hero

Amazing!

"You are a truly sound man, Lou"


All real life quotes...

L

[TimeBandit]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

Knob Twister?

Fader Jockey?

Dream Maker?

Collection Agency?

Spiritual Advisor?

It doesn't matter what they call you, as long as they call you.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

LOL!!Nice.OK i submit.I think i will no longer be an Engineer.I am a Dream Maker.

Nice one Jim

[loujudson]

Or on the other hand,

reality checker
bubble buster
first there, last to leave
invisible hands
The One who Gets Paid
"blame him!"
miracle worker
et cetera.

L

[Outlaw Hans]

Funny how some people prefer mixing. To me it's the part where you get easily lost in too many options, it's the part where fatigue sets in, brain freeze and general nitpickery. It's isolation. No contact with humans, no truly great ideas, no meeting of minds. Just knob twisting. If I could I would focus on tracking and have someone else mix it. However, I want to learn and 4 days mixing means pay as well. So it's all good. It's just not the rock 'n roll fun part of the process. I'd even say mastering is more fun.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by Outlaw Hans

Funny how some people prefer mixing. To me it's the part where you get easily lost in too many options, it's the part where fatigue sets in, brain freeze and general nitpickery. It's isolation. No contact with humans, no truly great ideas, no meeting of minds. Just knob twisting. If I could I would focus on tracking and have someone else mix it. However, I want to learn and 4 days mixing means pay as well. So it's all good. It's just not the rock 'n roll fun part of the process. I'd even say mastering is more fun.

What? What happened to the "Outlaw Hans tracks everything through the telefunken's and then faders to zero and everything up the middle, done!" ??

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by Outlaw Hans

However, I want to learn and 4 days mixing means pay as well. .

Maybe this is the problem.

Shoot for a day and half per song.

Will probably keep things fresher and keep you and those fellow "humans" you like on good terms. Spending 4 days on a song is a sure path to having your fellow 'humans" getting on your nerves by nitpicking every thing you do to death and keeping you from getting paid which is never a good thing.

By the way not having a lot of contact with humans is what i like best about mixing. I like not having any real emotional ties to a project. Makes it easier to let go and move on/not get attached to my own opinions.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by Karloff70

Eftersom ingen jävel är en tankeläsare så blir det att man får ratta själv om visionen ska hålla ihop

the only thing I understood was the part at the end about IHOP. All over the world, that's where engineers go for pancakes after mixing.


I mix everything I track, and mix stuff tracked elsewhere as well.

I love mixing.

I love tracking as well, but the part of tracking I love the best is making tracks that I anticipate will be fun to mix!

[Knastratt]

I'm a composer, lyricist, arranger, instrumentalist*, tracker and mixer. I, however, do not master. Yet. I hear no conflict. I do love mixing other people's stuff, though.

* Drums, bass, keys, guitars and VSTi strings/horns etc. I can sing to avail but not great,

[metalfan8806]

Originally Posted by Jeff16years

i could be wrong but...

i think you need a degree in engineering to be called an engineer.

educated? yes.

degree? no.

[metalfan8806]

Originally Posted by Jules

Tracking fun
Mixing not

i partly agree.

Recording is more consistently fun. If editing happened by a little magical dwarf that went into my room at night and fixed the poorly played drums and cleaned up the guitars- then mixing would always be fun.

[te-problematique]

I do more recording than mixing and more live mixing than studio mixing, however when I do mix I'm much more into treating it like a live mix than doing lots of fiddly stuff. I hate DAW anal-type mixing, much rather play it through enough times to get inside the song, set things up so it's sounding good, a couple more times for nuance then (if i have a sweet room) bounce to 2 track and call it a day. I guess this is my live history coming through, but my no. 1 motto is "if it sounds good it is good". no, i'm never going to be hired to mix pop with an attitude like this

[vernier]

I like mixing four or six tracks, or eight at the very most.

[zacheus83]

Originally Posted by larry b

No, everyone is a "produsah" these days...yo.

They make beets.

Sorry, I had to say, this made my day! LMAO

[J.R. McNeely]

I just play Bass.

[bryancook]

Originally Posted by Karloff70

Granted, if the faders come up naked and you are not already smiling at that point, there is definite wrongness!! Still needs someone to do however few or many things for the thing to go 'click' and be at one though me thinks.....

while you are very correct, there is a lot of "wrongness" recordings in the world and there is a market for people who will make it right, with a smile, and without judgement.

then, on another day, you could be given a track that is very "right" to mix. ya never know what will walk through the door (or email box, as it were)

the role of a mixer has a lot of variables. sometimes you have to sort out the fact that things are so unorganized that the shaker is on the the bridge of the guitar track, all of which is labeled audio 9. other times, you get a great hit song, produced wonderfully just land in your lap and you need to take it the last 2%. when you enjoy both scenarios, and everything in between, i think you're probably suited for mixing.

personally, while i love the rush of recording a great take or finding that perfect part or sound that just makes the song, i find the recording process generally tedious and i find the mixing process to be creative and productive. we all have a diff take on it, which is why we all do what we do! whatever works, right?

[RCM - Ronan]

I love mixing. My work throughout the year is split about 50/50 with mixing records other people have recorded vs records that I do from start to finish (Actually about 5% of stuff I do gets mixed by other people)

I rarely describe myself a recording engineer, because it is very very rare that I engineer albums for other producers. I do however engineer most of the records I produce.

Mixing is still so much fun for me, even hundreds of albums into this, but I do have to lament a little about how the business of mixing is changing. Mixing used to be a mixer and maybe a couple people holed up in a studio trying to make something beautiful, and then moving on. But these dayspPeople are getting so into micromanaging things and wrought with chronic recall syndrome, that every year mixing becomes a little more data management and a little less art.

[bryancook]

Originally Posted by rcm

Mixing used to be a mixer and maybe a couple people holed up in a studio trying to make something beautiful, and then moving on. But these dayspPeople are getting so into micromanaging things and wrought with chronic recall syndrome, that every year mixing becomes a little more data management and a little less art.

cheers to that RCM

[Outlaw Hans]

Originally Posted by Empora

Good post!

I have similar issues. Tracking is in some ways more exciting as you hear it all coming together and there's always that spontaneity when finding guitar tones etc.
However I still find myself sometimes having the misguided reaction of "wow! if thats how it sounds now, imagine when it's mixed!". This can lead to disappointment as sometimes I set my expectations too high and can end up overdoing it or getting overly self critical in the mix stage. I'm sure there are guys who could work wonders with my tracks but I still am striving to be that guy myself.

One day my mixing skills will catch up (I hope) a big thing I am trying to hammer home to myself right now is when to leave something alone ha ha. I do discover new things every time, this week it is "less is more". Simple automation and frequency cuts can go a long way.

Right now I am neither a engineer or producer, I am still "that bloke with all the microphones"

you nailed my frustration with that post