How do you view the role of the mix engineer?

[garymusic]

In mixing a project I view the mixing as "framing the work". Much as person who would mat and frame a work of art. A great matting, frame and lighting can show off the art. I ask this because it came up in a conversation where a friend said that mixing was his chance to take the brush away from the artist. As an artist, I don't like that analogy. I don't want the mix to change the intent of the work, just show it off in the best possible light.

Your thoughts?

-Gary

[opentune]

Originally Posted by garymusic

I don't want the mix to change the intent of the work, just show it off in the best possible light.

Although this isn´t a brandnew approach... i think it´s a statement which
describes the "standard role" of a mix engineer quite well.

If i give away my tracking/ or my song to a mix engineer, then i usually
say "something wise" like in the sentence above.



But i have to admit that i caught myself changing a song during the mixdown.
Everytime when that happened i printed two versions of the mix. The client
version and my version.
Sometimes the client likes the new version - i felt happy. Sometimes my
ideas weren´t appreciated - no problem, since i had the original version...

[beyarecords]

Quite simply, the be all and end all! You can have all the best ideas as a producer/musician but if they don't translate well in the listening arena, then all is in vein!!

Beya

[Jose Mrochek]

I agree with everything mentioned above. But.. if I were to send a mix to Michael Brauer for example, I would keep my mouth shut and would expect him to take the direction HE thinks would be more appropiate. If i´m a band member or ¨artist¨why would I send it to someone else if I wanted my vision printed ? I would mix it myself no ? Unless ofcourse I know exactly what I want and need Michael Brauer to move the faders for me.. which would be kind of silly.

[opentune]

Originally Posted by Jose Mrochek

I agree with everything mentioned above. But.. if I were to send a mix to Michael Brauer for example, I would keep my mouth shut and would expect him to take the direction HE thinks would be more appropiate. If i´m a band member or ¨artist¨why would I send it to someone else if I wanted my vision printed ? I would mix it myself no ? Unless ofcourse I know exactly what I want and need Michael Brauer to move the faders for me.. which would be kind of silly.

Well, if i have a strong vision of how my song should sound - i would love
to let Michael Brauer mix it. Cause he knows how to turn my vision into reality -
i don´t have these skills....

Simple as that.

Oh, that doesn´t mean i disagree with your post, Jose! I just have a different approach on that subject.

[dave-G]

As a mix engineer myself, there's just no set answer -- My role depends so much on the client, on the song, and on the recording approach that was used. Some recordings sound like the mix already when you just put the faders up. In those cases the client is glad to hear it come back sounding great without heavy-handed embellishment. Sometimes the direction is explicit, while on others, I'm asked to "do my thing", and to paint with broader strokes and use bigger gestures in the mix stage (no, I'm not talking about interpretive dance)..

I enjoy the differing roles, and the various points between them.

Bottom line, even if there's no client to direct you, the song will usually 'tell' you what it needs anyway ...

-dave

ps: I dunno about the "frame" analogy... I think that might be a better metaphor for mastering.

[Jay Kahrs]

Why does anyone hire a mix AE?

For the perspective & the way they think.

Maybe it's turd polishing but hopefully not. I've had people (usually bands) get fed up on going in circles after working alone on the same suff after three years and all they want is for someone else to "finish" the record. Possibly on the next gig the music is calling for a lot of ear candy elements to fit within a genre or tell a story within the framework of the song. Bottom line is that the song has to speak and IMHO, the sounds shouldn’t get in the way of the songs enjoyment.

There's a bajillion possibilities but somewhere in there audio quality shouldn't be sacrificed. The mix has gotta translate and sound anywhere from good to amazing on 98% of the systems it COULD get played on.

If the mix AE can’t do that, then they didn’t get the job done.

[djui5]

I feel my job is to make the song sound like a song.

Like the artist/producers envisioned it, but a little better.

How I go about that differes greatly from song to song. In the end, if the client is happy, I'm happy. Nothing leaves my hands sounding like crap, so it's just a matter of sorting out details and making everyone happy.

Simple enough.

[u b k]

i recently quit an amazing band with amazing players, because the guitarist/singer was so attached to his vision of the music that he had a stranglehold on the creative process. he couldn't trust the other artists he was collaborating with enough to loosen his grip.

i loved playing with him, but i found no enjoyment in creating with him.

oftentimes, an artist professing such diehard fidelity to a "vision" is actually, from my perspective, simply clutching like a frightened child to the fragile constructs and needs of his ego. he lacks the ability to separate what he wants from what may truly serve the muse. and the muse, imo, is a bit of a slut... she is not beholden to any one path, and is happy to go where a gifted and devoted channel is willing to take her.

so i'm straight up with people who want me to mix or produce their stuff. i tell them i'm an artist too, i have gifts and a keen ear for the voices that gift us this art, and if you work with me you have to be willing to stretch your current perspective, to expand your vision. collaboration almost always yields a synergistic improvement, and the artists who are less devoted to their egos than to the music are the ones i ultimately find the most rewarding to be with.


gregoire
del ubik

[harvestmark]

Once again, very eloquent, U B I K. I guess I see it as the last creative phase of a project, although mastering is creative also. It's the last chance to happen upon lucky accidents, or to simply try things to alter what was there previously. Who better to do that than a mix engineer with loads of experience?
Mark Miller

[Samc]

The idea of a special "mix engineer" was created by people who were not making art, but were speculating on making disposable, (pop) hits. Mixing should be a continuation of the production process, not a chance to recreate something almost totally new from what was recorded. Does this special mix engineer even care about the artistic vision of the band? Or is that not important? Oh yeah, this is where his new vision is supposed to take over. Why anyone would go through the trouble of producing a recording, (completing all the steps it takes to arrive at this point), and then give it to someone else to to turn it into their vision is beyond me.

Isn't this one of the reasons why some songs now have 150 tracks by the time it gets to the mix stage? We now have to accommodate the vision of the mix engineer, which we don't know of course, so lets record 25 tracks of everything. Plus anything he doesn't like he can also replace, don't forget it's his vision now. We've already foregone good recording techniques and good musicianship because mixer dude will fix all that stuff in the mix, and mastering dude who is actually cutting in on mixer dude's mixing action, can fix anything mixer dude misses if you give him stems. It's gimmicks like these that contribute to the shite that is today's popular music.

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally Posted by opentune

Well, if i have a strong vision of how my song should sound - i would love
to let Michael Brauer mix it. Cause he knows how to turn my vision into reality -
i don´t have these skills....

Simple as that.

Oh, that doesn´t mean i disagree with your post, Jose! I just have a different approach on that subject.

I know what you mean.. I picked Michael Brauer because of his credits.. and his style of mixing, which I really identify with. In other words.. like you said, he would print your vision.. which happens to be in the same ball park as Michaels.

I should have said that first : ) Anyways, it would be damm cool if he got to mix some of my stuff. Even though he doesn´t mix unsigned people, at least that´s what he said when he was moderating : ( or I understood he said when someone asked.

[Jose Mrochek]

I think it´s cool to let the mix engineer do his thing and come in at the end of the day with fresh ears. I don´t like to be in the room when someone else is mixing. I think a pair of fresh ears is worth way more than 4 fatigued ones.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by Samc

Does this special mix engineer even care about the artistic vision of the band? Or is that not important? Oh yeah, this is where his new vision is supposed to take over.

I don't know who you've been working with/experiencing, but I don't operate like this, and know of few PROFESSIONAL's who do....

[Samc]

Originally Posted by djui5

I don't know who you've been working with/experiencing,

I happen to think that recording and mixing are closely related aspects of the production process and should not be seen as separate tasks. Since the "mix specialist" was not a part of the long recording sessions, where most of the production decisions which will set the artistic direction of the album or song, how can he accommodate all of these decisions? If he is not expected to accommodate and give justice to these decisions, what was the reason for making them in the first place? How can there be any real continuity in the project when you involve a new person who can now essentially make any artistic decision he sees fit, (like replacing parts)?

but I don't operate like this, and know of few PROFESSIONAL's who do....

Get out, really?? Are you serious? What do you call it when famous mixer dude replaces parts? What do you call it when famous mixer dude mixes sound exactly like the last 20 mixes he made?

Anyway, I don't think we need to argue the fact that these guys get work from people who have the misguided idea that they are supposed to bring his new special mojo to the project, as proof just read some of the posts on this thread.

The specialist mix engineer was created by people who were more interested in making pop hits, NOT ART! That's why they got specialists who had the right "mix formula."

[FFTT]

I would hope that I can trust the ears of the engineer mixing my project more than my own.

As the artist, all I can do is say "more of this" and "less of that" hoping the engineer understands what I mean, having the experience and knowledge to go for the best results.

[dougb415]

Originally Posted by Jose Mrochek

If i´m a band member or ¨artist¨why would I send it to someone else if I wanted my vision printed ? I would mix it myself no ?

I've noticed that it is very hard for band members to mix themselves down in the mix. You get so used to hearing yourself at a slightly (hopefully) louder volume than everybody else, and I think a lot of times that comes across in the mix.

[djui5]

Samc,
You seem bitter about something. Bad experience?

I mix for the song/artist, not for the current standards.

I've always found the artist enjoys a new perspective on the music. A fresh set of ears. Also a GREAT mixer can bring things to the table not thought of before.

There are also times when the mixer dosen't work. It happens. But I wouldn't discount the entire of professional mix engineers just because there's been a few bad experiences. That's not fair really.It's like saying producers are over-rated because of a couple bad seeds...
You also don't know all the circumstances. What if the client wanted parts replaced? What if the tones wouldn't work in the mix, so they had to be re-done? What if the direction of the song changed come mix time for whatever reason. It's all part of the process. Embrace it, don't fight it.

[Samc]

Originally Posted by djui5

Samc,
You seem bitter about something. Bad experience?

There is no bitterness here, I guess my communication skills are a bit off. I'm an audio engineer, have been for almost 27 years, and I've been in the position of mixer dude myself. This is not about some special dislike for mix engineers, I just strongly believe that mixing , should be a continuation of the production process that started when the band went into the studio to record, and not seen as a totally separate process that is sometimes used to recreate something different from what was recorded.

I've always found the artist enjoys a new perspective on the music. A fresh set of ears. Also a GREAT mixer can bring things to the table not thought of before.

Some artist believe in this because it is the fashion, it's what a lot of people say they should do, and most engineers support it because they are really the ones that benefit directly from this practice. With all due respect, this phrase; "fresh set of ears", which is now in vogue, is really just a crock of shite, Anybody who hears the work for the first time is bringing a "fresh set of ears" to the project, should the artist allow them to make production decisions based on this fact? If you are going to make production decisions, you should have been involved in the process since the beginning.

There are also times when the mixer dosen't work. It happens. But I wouldn't discount the entire of professional mix engineers just because there's been a few bad experiences. That's not fair really.It's like saying producers are over-rated because of a couple bad seeds...

I'm not doing any such thing, please see above.

You also don't know all the circumstances. What if the client wanted parts replaced? What if the tones wouldn't work in the mix, so they had to be re-done? What if the direction of the song changed come mix time for whatever reason. It's all part of the process. Embrace it, don't fight it.

I've been an AE long enough and worked on enough projects to know that things can and will change, in fact just last year I went back into the studio with a band after the first pressing. Record company was livid, but the band had the kind of clout to pull it off. My argument is not about wether changes can or should be made, but instead, why would an artist allow a stranger to the project decide if changes should be made and what those changes should entail.

I still stand by my statement regarding the creation of this position of special mix engineer. I also hope that my reasoning is clearer this time.

Best

[djui5]

I see your point more clearly now :)


I agree and disagree.

[beyarecords]

I'm with Samc on this one. I think the role of a mix engineer should be to articulate the audio ideas, that works across many platforms, of a producer/musician and not to bring a new vibe to the table at the very last hurdle! That final twist should already have been factored into the production by the producer/musician and not the mix engineer.

For example in Charles Dyes 'Mix it like a record' he 'mixes' a bands record which when he has finished with it has no corrilation to what the band printed to tape. Don't get me wrong the final product is excellent but I think the extra dimension added by Charles should already have been factored into the production process before it reached the mix stage.

Beya

[DirkB]

The way I see it: basically in providing any service you are trying to make your client happy.
The key to this is trying to figure out what the client wants. Sometimes it might be to fix bad tracking, put in lacking mixing skills, sometimes it might be providing a fresh perspective of what the songs is about and enhancing that.

Ergo, it's about communication and every situation therefor will be different. Top mixers or producers or architects or whatever all have obtained a great set of skills, but foremost they have mastered the art of communicating with there clients.
And then they figure out what the client really wants, but isn't able to express very cleary, and serve that mixed to perfection on a gold plate .

Oh, and personally I try to put some of my creativity in every project I do and really enjoy it when it gets noticed .

Greetings,
Dirk

[Samc]

Originally Posted by djui5

I see your point more clearly now :)


I agree and disagree.

It's all good man, the only person I expect to always agree with me is me.


nuff respect.

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally Posted by Samc

I just strongly believe that mixing , should be a continuation of the production process that started when the band went into the studio to record, and not seen as a totally separate process that is sometimes used to recreate something different from what was recorded.

I agree, but we can also agree that some people have more skill than others right ?

I find it funny how you think ¨fresh pair of ears¨is a sort of fashion!

what is a producer then ?

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally Posted by beyarecords

For example in Charles Dyes 'Mix it like a record' he 'mixes' a bands record which when he has finished with it has no corrilation to what the band printed to tape. Don't get me wrong the final product is excellent but I think the extra dimension added by Charles should already have been factored into the production process before it reached the mix stage.

Beya

thats the beauty of it. A different style to the table. Why hire him ? because you like what he brings to the table.

I still believe the best music is made with collaboration from experienced minds.

Very few I believe have the gift of .. do it allyourself and not get lost in the process. I definetly can´t picture myself doing everything. Even hiring a manager is key. Even the Floyd on DSOTM brought in a supervising engineer to the mixes because they couldn´t decide. I saw that on the documentary : )

[beyarecords]

Originally Posted by Jose Mrochek

thats the beauty of it. A different style to the table. Why hire him ? because you like what he brings to the table

I just think that those nausiences should be thrashed out between the music and/or producer. At the point of mixdown the mix engineer will have a greater grasp of what is trying to be acheived and can then offer his years of wisdom on how to make the goal being aimed for more efficient/more exciting. But for me, being old school, i'm of the opinion that a track recorded in the studio should bare some resemblance to the same track being played live.

To me what you are suggesting would be like monet/picassso etc giving one of their works of art to a framer to be framed and then, upon receiving it back, finds out that the framer has not only framed it in such a manner as to bring out the beauty of the painting but has also added his own brush strokes to the painting because he thinks it adds more flavour to the subject material. Well at that point, as far as I would be concerned, the painting is no longer what the artist intended us to see.

Beya

[dave-G]

You guys are getting hung up on what is perhaps an 'old school' notion of the mix process as a technical refinement of the recording as if that were the only way, or the only artist-true way to get a record done.

My thinking is that there is no one way that's more creatively 'valid' than another. Sometimes, a mix engineer is expected to take a more individually creative role in shaping the outcome of the production, and some artists and producers want them to explicitly.

As I said in my earlier post, I work primarily as a mixer, and I relish the role of translating the artist/producer's vision and direction as much as I relish the mixes where I'm asked to interpret the recording with my own sensibilities. It's rare to do either without any form of interaction with the artists and producer, and that collaboration is key whether I'm simply polishing and balancing the tracks or I'm reworking them into something beyond the scope of what's simply on the tape (*ehem*.. I mean hard-drive).

It's all good. Music is a pretty broad art-form.

-dave

[beyarecords]

Originally Posted by dave-G

You guys are getting hung up on what is perhaps an 'old school' notion of the mix process as a technical refinement of the recording as if that were the only way, or the only artist-true way to get a record done.

Yes, that's what a mixer does. But on the other hand if

Originally Posted by dave-G

I'm asked to interpret the recording with my own sensibilities.

then i'm no longer a mixer but a producer acting as an 'invisible' band member.

Beya