How does one hire a god?

[thejook]

Originally Posted by Rush909

Great Great point... anyone can name some of the great mixers out there that are NOT hot right now that might turn around a less expensive mix?

r.

Doug McBride at Gravity Studios. He is one of my favorite mixers, right up there with TLA/CLA/etc. Also, Sean O'Keefe if he's not in the middle of one of his 50 hr/day label projects. Mike Zerkel @ Smart is also amazing.

[wwittman]

Originally Posted by djui5

Dosen't matter what he did, his name is one it. It won't get radio play without a major mixer in most cases. That's what seperates some of us great mixers from the big boys...

the problem is that A&R weasels, and sometimes bands and managers, BELIEVE that

i think it's nonsense.

when the CD goes to radio without any mixer's name on it, you think the programme director rings the label and asks who mixed it?

bollocks

[dbbubba]

Be carefull!

Hiring a great mixer is not going to garantee you anything.
If your expectation is to learn anything from the guy then you are dreaming.
A big name guy isn't going to let you pick his brain or hang out and learn.
He'll have his own room or a prefered room and you'd have to travel to where he was mixing.
A name guy isn't going to be into coming to your place most likely either.

I have some friends who recorded a major label release some years back.
They "auditioned" a series of producers and settled on a guy that they felt that they wanted to hang with.
His credentials were good. He was an up and comer and had a few big selling releases.
He was a cool guy and had the label's respect.

In the end the release had a hit with a bullet on Billboard that lasted for about a month. The label pushed the single hard, but the life of the record was relatively short.

WHY?

The band had great players and pretty good songs.
Obviously since one was a hit with a bullet.
They also had a vibe that the producer and record company failed to capitalize on.
I was shocked the first time I heard the mixes!
I had tracked about sixty demos for the band and even attended some of the tracking sessions in L.A. at a fairly prestigious facilty.
Somewhow being produced and being under the "expert" eyes of the label was making the record sound DRASTICALLY different than the band actually sounded.
They were being molded in direction that was sonically different than their sound.
Ironically, the bass player's sound was homogenized to the point of rediculousness yet at the same time he was being paid good money to track replacement parts on other band's records using HIS unique tone!
The same guy was also sitting on an offer from huge mega band to be thir bass player.
They were dying to have him and said the offer was open when he was ready.
The record producer and label had no idea of this and felt his sound needed to be like every other bass player on every record out there.
I recall going away thinking that when they mixed it at A&M some kind of Hollywood, big, major label magic would make it sound like a monster release.
The band was into the making of the record and no one was expressing their dissapointment at that stage.

Now, many years later, the record sounds like a joke and the band hates it.
They hated it then, but their careers were riding on it, so they had to go along for the ride.

We have released a lot of th demos and live shows and the universal response is, "Why didn't the MC* record sound like this? This sh*t rocks like the band we knew!"

Don't look for a big name guy.
Find the best guy in your area.
A big name guy will not make the record do any better.

Danny Brown

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by djui5

Highest I've ever heard of (I can't verify this BTW, read it on here somewhere) was $8,000 a song, plus points. At 14 songs this works out to $112,000.

Nice chunk of change for less than a months worth of work. And if sales are good.....

Another rate I'm positive of is $5,000 a song, which is still a nice chunk of change.

How much does a top pitcher get PER PITCH?

[djui5]

Originally Posted by wwittman

the problem is that A&R weasels, and sometimes bands and managers, BELIEVE that

i think it's nonsense.

when the CD goes to radio without any mixer's name on it, you think the programme director rings the label and asks who mixed it?

bollocks

No, of course not, but if the program director dosen't reconize the mixer or one isn't listed, and the artist isn't on one of the big 5 (or is it 3 now) labels, it probably won't get played. There is always the "local music hour" that some radio stations do, but overall, you can't get airplay without a major label and a lot of times a major mixer/producer....

[Dirty Halo]

Our last DIRTY HALO album was mixed by a "name" that I will not name on an SSL 9000J with the whole deal... we didn't like it, we wanted to, but just didn't... but the label's perception was it would be better.

So we took that AND mixed another version under the radar, not an SSL, but still good gear, good comps to tape, etc.

We played the one we liked and the label LOVED our "big name SSL" mixed album We sent it off to Bernie Grundman and no one was the wiser...except the album sounded great.

Yes, great mixers are great because they more often than not make great mixes, but don't discount time, attention to detail and personal care for the project!

Just because someone has a "name" doesn't mean they are automatically going to turn out a great mix.

For what its worth.

-a

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by Einstein

Just out of pure curiosity, is it possible to hire the big name ME's for non-lable work? Can you call them up and hire them to do a mix for something that you recorded? I'm only curious here...if you got the money, will they do the work, or is it an honor system of some sort where you have to be somebody before they will even talk to you?

Maybe this is a stupid post, but I've never quite understood how this works.

I know one top-name mixing engineer who will do some work off of his regular rate, if he loves the music, the artist, and the music has integrity. The fact is that so many of them have to do so much bubble gum from day to day to pay the bills that they may grab at a high-integrity project if the music is good.

BK

[raal]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

Just because someone has a "name" doesn't mean they are automatically going to turn out a great mix.

For what its worth.

once worked with a multiple grammy winning engineer that's also a good friend; i just didn't like what he was doing for a particular thing... of course he's done work that's spectacular, but for this one thing it just wasn't happening. i was up front with him, he understood, we're great friends and i'd love working with him again. there's no silver bullet or magic formula. same happens with musicians, arrangers, singers, producers, whatever.

some guys can work wonders in a certain situation, and not so in another. chemistry among other things is needed just like in anything else.

on another album i called another guy i'd worked with and know well. he did a phenominal job on the whole album, excepting one track imho, where i just didn't like what was happening on the toms. after i realized i wasn't going to get my point across verbally, i let him finish up. when he was gone, i mixed it the way i heard it (i'm no great engineer) and i was very pleased with that one finally.

i've canned tracks done by drum or guitar godz in favor of more unknown guys, and of course on other tracks, the 'god' guy was just the ticket. once on a tune i played gtr on, i asked michael thompson to come in and do the part 'right'. he sat down, listened to the the track, gave me an annoyed look, said 'you already did', got up and left.

as to how to hire a 'god' it helps to know him/her first, but if you look around you may be surprised as to how accessible and nice these people can be.

Originally Posted by wwittman

(referring to name engineers being mandatory for airplay) the problem is that A&R weasels, and sometimes bands and managers, BELIEVE that

i think it's nonsense.

when the CD goes to radio without any mixer's name on it, you think the programme director rings the label and asks who mixed it?

bollocks

[Jazzy Alz]

Big names doesn't always guarantee great results.

[wwittman]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

I have some friends who recorded a major label release some years back.
They "auditioned" a series of producers and settled on a guy that they felt that they wanted to hang with.
His credentials were good. He was an up and comer and had a few big selling releases.
He was a cool guy and had the label's respect.

obviously from your story, whatever criteria they used to pick this guy needed to be reevaluated.
they picked POORLY.

but that's not a comment on how "big" or not the producer was.


only on how wrong he was for them (or just how poor he is in general)

apparently a 'good hang' is not the best criterion.

[wwittman]

Originally Posted by bob katz

I know one top-name mixing engineer who will do some work off of his regular rate, if he loves the music, the artist, and the music has integrity.

hey me too!

(meaning i do it, not just that I know people who do)

I certainly charge Razor n Tie differently than Sony and both of them different from Victory.
It's really a question of who the artiste is.

and I've also produced records where I've decided to mix some myself and hire another mixer for some.
Sometimes we've both taken a crack at the same song to see which would be better.

No one's ever been offended if I didn't use his mix.

[zboy2854]

I'll second a big thumbs up for Dave McNair, even though he's doing a lot more mastering than mixing these days. I recall how his mixes for the band Flickerstick on their independently released album blew away the remixes done by TLA once they got signed and the album was remixed/re-released.

There's no doubt there are a whole gaggle of insanely talented guys out there who don't have the "big name", but whose results stand right up there with the best of them, if not surpass them.

[minister]

a friend of mine had 3 records mixed by tchad blake (whether you think he is a god or not, he certainly is a pretty big name, and whether or not you like his work) ... the ONLY way he will work on your stuff is if he can hear it first to see if he LIKES it. he doesn't care about the money....

now, Tony Platt actually asked THEM if he could engineer and produce their next record.

sometimes it works that way if they see you and dig what you do.

[dbbubba]

Originally Posted by wwittman

obviously from your story, whatever criteria they used to pick this guy needed to be reevaluated.
they picked POORLY.

but that's not a comment on how "big" or not the producer was.


only on how wrong he was for them (or just how poor he is in general)

apparently a 'good hang' is not the best criterion.

Obviously and that was my point! It took about six weeks of tracking and mixing to realize that the end result wasn't that great. By having "producer X" involved it did get the label people interested enough to push it to radio program directors and it did have a hit with bullet for about five weeks.

One of my points was how the producer felt that it was so neccesary to water down the bass player's sound when it was so integral to the band's true sound. He pulled all of the personality out of his tracks yet a mega group had an open door for the bass player when ever he was ready to quit the band and join them. The producers and labels that were hiring him as a hired gun to replay other band's bass tracks (they were all major label acts) thought the sound was OK, too.

Maybe they should have canned the whole thing early on, but when you are finally with a major label you want to cooperate to a certian degree. There has to be some degree of trust in their decisions! In fact, doing things their own way cost the band in the end. The band has told me over the years that they weren't happy with what the record sounded like while it was being recorded, but the label people were pretty stoked so they went along. There is definite pressure to trust the label's decisions! You are definitely a part of the "machine" at that point!

The label's A&R people definitely hold sway over a band's decisions and control the decision in a lot of ways. To say that the label didn't "get" this band was an understatement! In fact, the reason they were "mis-understood" is because the V.P. that signed them and championed their cause left for another label after he signed them, but before they decided on a producer.

The producer had an impressive list of bands that he had produced. He seemed to "understand" where the band was coming from. One big problem was that this band was comprised of very performance oriented guys who just grooved as a band. Doing take after take and spending days on end working on sounds and arrangements bored them to death. Why it was so difficult to record them for a major label release I'll never know, but they were the easiest band to record that I have ever worked with. I have recorded a LOT of bands in my thirty yeears, too!

I will have to add that by the time that I flew out to L.A. things were too far along for me to "help" which was the original idea. I was busy at my studio with local folks. When I did hear what was being tracked in L.A. I was shocked. I expected to have my ears amazed with the "Hollywood" touch, but I thought that it was wimpy sounding!
The producer was emphasizing players in the band that were not really integral to the sound and not capitalizing on the true talent in the band. I'm not sure how he discounted their value myself!

They (label/producer) also picked some of the worst songs from the forty or so demos.
They picked two or three great songs and then eight or nine songs that were weak and were included in the demos to fill out the list. I think that the band was thinking, "Wow! You really like those songs? Well, I'll be!" They took it as a compliment! "We put no effort into those and they chose them for the record!" The band had quite a few other great songs demo'ed that they could have chosen. I never understood it.

Here's a funny thing:
I have managed to get MCA to let us have the 2" masters if we want to "lease" them for an independent release. No-one in the band has any desire to hear the stuff, period! They definitely don't want those performances re-mixed! I'd like to do it for fun... as if I really have the time. Maybe I could "fix" them? They say it's a waste of time. The vocalist says it's the worst stuff he has ever tracked! He has been recording in a name group since he was thirteen (I won't say who.)
We have released almost all of their 100 plus demos and have even made a version of the MCA release using the demo versions. The response from people who buy the re-released demos is almost universally, "Finally, recordings that sound like the band!" or "Why didn't the MCA record sound like this?"

The hit with a bullet resonated for quite a while though!
Too bad there was one "bad" word that MTV objected to.

Oh yeah.... the record was "stickered" too!
It was 1989/90 and people were freaking out over stuff that was too sexy!
That might have hurt, but the hit with a bullet had the "objectional" phrase.
It charted pretty high on Billboard with that "bad" stuff!

It's a tough deal ain't it?

This should be a lesson to any band.
Labels and producers can talk some big ideas, but never deliver.

I still say that finding a local "big gun" is a better idea.
You can't jump start your record by hiring a big mixer.

How good are the songs?
How good are the performances?
How well are the performances tracked?

BTW, I once talked with Huno Bettencort for a while and he told me that he re-mixed their (what was his band's name?) first record himself AFTER the big name guy mixed the record. The label used the band's version and I don't think the knew it!

Danny Brown

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

You can't jump start your record by hiring a big mixer.

It depends who.

Some guys are not just great mixers but great producers as well(Bob Clearmountain, Andy Wallce, Elliot Scheiner for example).

They can give you the heads up if things need to be done over or are not ready to be mixed.

[dbbubba]

No... a great mixer can't make the songs better.

The band could be playing "Camptown Races" like mofos, but the mixer can't make it be a hit or do any better. It's still "Doo Dah, Doo Dah" in the end!

Great mixers get attention because they get to mix "great" bands.
They mix bands that have been culled from the endless line of other less than great bands. They work on already great stuff.

Tom Lord Alge and his bro Chris as well as the other mega-mixers make good sounding bands have great sounding, contemporary mixes. The don't write the songs or craft the performances.

As an example, I have a CD from a Scandinanvian band that I've never heard of and Bruce Sweiden mixed it, too. This was right after all of the Michael Jackson mega-sellers. It's in english, but I don't want to listen to it. Bruce can't make me like the band no matter how well he mixes it! It's just wierd Scandanavian pop stuff to me regardless of how polished the mix is.

I have mixed some records for bands that have fantastic mixes sonically, but who the f*ck are they? They are good enough mixes to be included alongside major label records, but the songs and bands are not that great. The performances are tight as a gnats ass, but what are they saying?

The guy who started this thread would be better off to pull quick mixes and get the opinion of some "big guns." It'd be hard to get their attention, but he'd know where he stood in the real world. He'd definitely learn something! He needs to ask, "How good are the songs? Is the vocal delivery any good? Where do we/I need improvement?"

I just don't understand his motivation.
It's pretty rare that anyone comes up with great songs, great performances, a great recording and then falls down trying to mix it.
If all of those things are not in place then hiring a big gun is futile.

Also, I have known a few radio station PDs and they go by two things:
#1) do THEY like the song or band
#2) is it being played in the bigger markets by the big, influintial PDs?

They don't say, "Well, this record doesn't speak to me, but Tom Lord Alge mixed it, so the band MUST be good! What do I know?" PDs barely know who producers are much less who mixers are!

If a song or band is getting airplay in the big markets then a PD will give it a listen based on the record's buzz. Unless he just hates it, he's gonna' play it regardless of who mixed it!

I have seen a PD refuse to play records and material by bands regardless of how much effort the labels promo dept. put into pleading and begging him!

Hire a local big gun!
At least he'll let you watch him work (probebly.)

Danny Brown

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

No... a great mixer can't make the songs better.

Again it depends.

I've mixed songs were the artist let me add parts, replace sounds and change things around where the end result was way better and different than the original.

So i got paid not just as mixer but as a remixer and producer all in one shot.

I am sure i am not the only that has done this though.

It really comes down how much your into the song and how much you believe in it.

For some projects you go that extra mile to squeeze the potential out of it.

Especially if you know the potential wasn't realized.

[absrec]

It really does start with a song.

Although, you wouldn't know that by watching the VMAs last week.

[chymer]

Ive read that CLA will move stuff around and make edits if he thinks it will make thre song better, so I guess your getting the experience of a guy who has heard a lot of "hits" befeore they were "hits". He also said that he will revert to the original version if the band hates it.
Chymer

[Sounds Great]

But I agree, you have to have a good song, with a good hook, etc. Without the basics, the best mixer/producer in the world just doesn't have enough to work with. Unless maybe he is also a songwriter and re-writes the song.

[djui5]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

No... a great mixer can't make the songs better.
Danny Brown

Right, a great song is a great song. What a great mixer can do is make a great song much more pleasing to listen to.

It also depends on the song in question. Some songs are actually finalized in the mixdown process, like with electronic music. They use delays and filters in more of a performance than just "mixing". Also, reverb can be used at part of a songs "performance" sometimes. This blurs the line between mixing and production though, in a very big way.

What is true, is that a bad mixer can **** up a great song, really easily. What good is a great song if you can't stand to listen to it?

[wwittman]

I think you need to ask yourself if you are (or have) a mixer

if you are, MIX it.

if you're not, hire a mixer

but don't expect a miracle. just a good mix.

[minister]

you can also have an absolutely terrible song and a completely lame-ass mix that is actually quite annoying and sound and STILL have a 'HIT'

...talk about it, talk about it, talk about it. won't you take me to ....