ART OR ARROGANCE?


I often will mix a song to make the artist happy, then remix the song for "Take 2", in which I try to create a mix that emphasizes what I feel is important in the song (even though that may be different from the artist's original vision).

With only a few exceptions, artists and producers usually go with "Take 2". Extreme examples of "take 2" have included removing specific instruments or entire sections of songs. Once I took a country song and made it sound like a Phil Spector production (the artist was thrilled).

This is always a bold move that I justify with the thought that I was hired for my input as much as my techniques.

And interesting enough, I cannot make "Take 2" unless I know I have one mix that gives the artist what they expected to walk away with.

Bearing that in mind, WHAT RIGHT DOES AN ENGINEER HAVE TO DO THIS? Am I and others who do the same thing arrogantly acting out as frustrated producers?

What is YOUR opinion on this? How much do YOU feel you are entitled/expected to bring your interpretation to the table (or mixing desk)? Would you (and even I) better serve the client by only giving them exactly what they ask for?

-B

It seems to me that if the artist and producer are allowed to make the call, then it's great!

We are all constrained by our biases, good or bad. Someone else can often introduce concepts we hadn't thought of ourselves, which may be better than our own ideas.

I think, he/she has the right to let the group know if they sound good or if they sound bad or if they could change something on the song. this is because in my case im a drumer at my church and i just sit on my instrument and go with what i feel to play (fills, rythms and some times dynamics) or what i'm feeling on the song that moment. and the rest of the group do the same but we all do it together (on the dynamic part). Through out this month i've been sitting in front of the stage and let the rest of the group play and i notice a lot of inperfection like solos. and i let the keyboard player know that is better if he dont do it that way and also the guitar and bass player to relax a little bit more and we all did, and i decided to make a take and it sounded really nice. that's why i said that the mixing engineer has the right to reinterpret the song not just on mixing but also when hes recording.

If I feel the mix the band approved didn't meet my expectations, I'll sometimes go ahead and just, well, for lack of a better term, have my way with the song.

This has ticked off a couple folks, and made others very happy, sometimes folks in the same band

quote:

Bearing that in mind, WHAT RIGHT DOES AN ENGINEER HAVE TO DO THIS? Am I and others who do the same thing arrogantly acting out as frustrated producers?

I think it's not an issue of what right do you have. I think it's more an issue that you've almost got a responsibility to try a second mix if you hear something wonderful in the tracks that's not present in the A mix. If nothing else it's fun for a lark...no need to ever present the mix to the client if you suspect they'll be offended.

As for adding your interpretation, I think it's impossible to remove your interpretation from a production. Even if your client feels you're delivering to them exactly what they want, it's still your version of what they want...
...and I think this is a good thing. I think this is one of the reasons why clients pick the people they record with in the first place.

I'm not completely sure if I am re-interpreting people's music if they percieve what I've done as flattering and ear pleasing.

If they like what I've done, it seems to me I've simply delivered what they want. If that is what they want, then perhaps I am simply showing understanding rather than re-interpreting.

I also feel that creating cohesion around a groove and focusing on the story is more on the order of delivering the goods.

I'm an amateur musician and my real world job is Graphic Designer. People sometimes come to me with a vague idea of what they want the end product to be and sometimes with a very specific idea of what they want. I try to satisfy their expectations and create what they are looking for. However, as most of the people I deal with have very little knowledge about design and layout and all the elements that make good and effective design I see it as my role to show them why their ideas may not be effective and why they may want to consider an approach that I have created.

As the exepert in the field it is the engineer's role to make the client aware of other more effective approaches to the work at hand. It's the client's job to choose based on the information provided by all the experts at hand as well as their own knowledge, intuition and feeling. I think this caveat holds true for pretty well any simmilar relationship/collaboration.

Cheers
Al

To me, mixing is truly an ARTFORM. A lot of people know how to run an ssl, or gain stage properly, or track really well, and often very similiar steps are taken to do this. Mixing is my favorite part of the entire process because it gives me a chance to add my signature to it. I prefer to mix alone, where it is just myself and the sound.
For the second part of the question, I believe that the amount of personal taste an engineer puts into the mix is entirely up to the relationship he/she has with the client. Sometimes new clients come in with an exact idea of how they want it come out and I try my best to work out their vision. On the other hand, I have other clients that know my style, and they appreciate what I bring to the table, so they let me mix the track with total freedom. When I present it to them, I may tweak a few things upon their request, but for the most part I do my thing. So, yeah its an Artform, especially when mixing in Surround Sound, now thats really my favorite!!! =D

I think it's completely up to the rapport set up and nurtured between artist and engineer. This entails respect on both sides of the glass. It ccould be interpreted as disrespect. But if a good flowing respect and rapport is established, fine. If the engineer has demonstrated his musical taste and is trusted and I'm not paying for his experimenting or "know-best" attitude good, unless I love it.

Then again, if I pay for (as artist) X amount of work for my sessions done the way I want, what happens if the new mix takes another 10 hours. If I like it then I'm out the hours for mine as well as what I didn't even ask for or want for yours? Hm.

Art or arrogance?

It could be either one. I think it depends on the approach taken and the specifics that you're dealing with. It could also mean both. Or neither.

If you had a very talented, visionary mix AE that can transform a piece of music who isn't willing to accept the viewpoints or suggestions of the producer (if there is one) or the artist, I think there's an example of arrogance no matter how talented the engineer.

On the other hand, if you've got a person that you've hired for their technical skills in critical listening and manipulating audio and then tie their hands by not allowing them to demonstrate their skill set, there's more arrogance again, but from the other side of the glass.

I don't think you can find a mix AE that can always be able to interpret the artists vision better than the artist, and very few artists that also understand all the possibilities of getting a good mix, or even how to produce. I think communication is the main key. The onus would be with the mix AE (and the producer, and the artist) to work with all the ideas and be able to provide solid consideration and arguments for or against any decisions. There's a need to establish confidence from the client.

I think doing a "mix A" and "mix B" inherently shows that you're willing to work with the clients ideas, and also willing to try to break the boundaries if possible. (and if the budget won't explode)

That's not arrogance as long as you're listening to your employer and creating the confident belief that you're working with the ideas. If they choose "B" all the time I guess you're off the hook. There still might be a risk that that's not where the client wanted to go, and I think a truly great AE would be prepared to accept that.

I've read some interesting comments about this kind of thing (sort of) on other boards. It seems like there's times when a couple of degrees in public relations and psychology might help. ("Can you make my Bamboozaphone louder?" - it'll destroy the mix!)


sl

Hi, B

I think that whatever we can do to make people feel the song it´s ok. Another question is if the artist/producer/client disagrees.

Finally, i honestly think that not only (the engineer) has the right to do his own vision, he/she has the responsability, because he/she´s the one who translates the meaning and emotions that the composer/songwriter intended with the song, to the main audience.

Bruce, this way of approaching the job of the engineer is for me prior to move faders and tweaking knobs

Peace

Pdpgpn

Awesome comments! Keep them coming.

I believe that the SONG is the most important thing...

If the song is good, recorded well, and reinterpreted so that it SOUNDS GOOD, then it may be likely that many people will like the song.

It therefore follows that if the reinterpretation of the song makes it sound better, then there is a certain definite technological and creative art involved which should be the right of anyone involved with the process of creating the recording.

However...

Whether the engineer has any right to do this would be a question that would vary from project to project and depend on factors such as artist ego, working relationships, familiarity, producer working methods, producer ego, client expectations and many other factors.

For example, I have worked with songwriters who want me to record a song demo for them and whilst the song is good, they have no idea about what instrumentation it needs, or chord structure...they don't play any instruments. In that situation, an engineer has the right to do whatever it takes to "interpret the song"...but this is an extreme example.

In short, I guess the answer would be:

"It depends!"

True, it does depend.

I have worked on mixes where the producer and artist insisted that I use the same effects and settings from the demo. Of course I mentioned that perhaps we can set up alternative effects that can fulfill the same FUNCTION and compare. In one case the client was so nervous about wasting studio time that he insisted I just use what he felt already worked.

The mix was ok, but hardly my best. I felt limited in that everything I did needed to fit well with his effect, and some of what I wanted to do to enhance what I felt was important in the song had to be cut back significantly.

So, was I trying to waste time or was he (due to his nervousness) wasting resources?

Job one is to make the customer happy.
If that is done by adding your own ideas, good.
If it makes the customer happy, you have done your job. Sometimes in a small home studio you need to act as the producer and engineer. On the other hand, if you have a customer who knows what they want, and it doesn't matter if you thinks it's right, you need to give them what they want.

So again it depends on the relationship.

As difficult as it may be, all involved should realize that the most important thing is the song. In that context, all involved become equal in their roles and contribute according to their strengths. Nothing will squash a good thing faster than egotistical and aggressive nature. Sure, the creator or creators of the song have a special relationship with it but need to realize that it is the song they are bringing to life. The people they have enlisted to help are there because it can't be done alone, especially if the song is to reach as many people as possible.

I think that mixing can be just as much an art as playing an instrument or singing. I am a musician and when I mix I find myself searching for the same sense of place and involvement in the song as if I were playing, with the intent of enhancing and strengthening the impact and message of the song. I don't usually try to re-interpret but rather to help it to translate. In the same way a musician will inevitably leave his "signature" people will tend to mix as well. If somebody has a specific request though then it is my obligation to fulfill that as best as I can, even if I think otherwise.

Like others have said how far I will go as far as suggestions depends on the nature of the relationship, how comfortable they are with the song as it is and what they are trying to accomplish. I really try to spend enough time with people beforehand to see what their goals are and establish a sense of working relationship. That helps me to understand them and also to define parameters.

Since I've only been doing this for 5 or 6 years, I'd be very open to hearing "take 2".

I think that if a person was paying someone for his skills and expertise, that someone should have a little freedom to use those skills and expertise to present a possible "Wow" factor to the band.

I mean, after I've heard the song a thousand times, I don't hear it like a fresh set of ears would. And if those ears happen to be attached to a guy who knows his stuff, I think it would only be to the bands advantage.

The final say goes to the band anyway, so I see no harm nor foul. And I don't think it's arrogance. I think the mastering engineer is simply doing what he was hired to do.

my 2c...........

I see the engineer as being an extra member of the band. Perspective is a valuable tool.
Yes, the band is recording their music but, they have hired the engineer to put his/her signature on the music. I have seen mix sessions where all band members are present and I have seen them when no band members are there.
In my mind, the second senario seems to work out best. Too many "cooks" in the kitchen syndrome! You hire an engineer to become part of the music. If there are four or five people throwing opinions around at the same time, it is awfully hard to get anything done. I say let the engineer mix and have the band come in to listen and make comments afterwards. Having a production meeting before the music is even recorded makes a lot of difference as well.
The engineer is as much a part of the music as the band itself. Perspective is everything!
Why hire an engineer if you think you can do it better? You have to allow the engineer creative space. How they hear the music may be completely different and this difference may possibly be the golden ingredient.

The key to the original question is that you let the artist make their mix first. Your extra track is just an option that they can choose or not. To me, that's full respect for the artist and full respect for the creative process. That you can and will offer alternative ideas is why they come to you as opposed to someone else. Hey, if you have a Dumble in the closet (that you actually let people play), do you feel bad about offering it as a choice?

In a way, what we usually do is far more incideous. How many of us, in the middle of the creation process, throw in our little twists and ideas. I talked a guy into adding bass to 2 songs, by letting him hear the void without it. That's OK. But I picked the pres that make the bass fatter and less defined and pushed the button for some distortion in a key spot and then said, "What did you think?" Sure, they could say, "I don't like it", but the meddling has already infected the creative process.

Am I going to stop messing with stuff in the middle of the process? No, not unless the artist seems to get thrown off by it. But, doing an alt. mix at the end, does feel more honest.

I always try to meet every wish my clients have, and when I´ve heard all their input, and done all their bidding, that`s when I ask them if they want to hear my ideas. If they do, I show them my own ideas (if the song gives me anything), and see how they feel about it.

Sometimes I recomend cutting parts/instruments, other times I go the other way, suggest adding alot of extra sounds, parts and all kinds of stuff. but I always remind them that I`m only saying how I would do it, not whats right. This has gotten me alot of very satisfied customers. Even the once who don`t use my ideas, still thank me for giving them a second opinion, and I always put the wishes of the client first.

My goal is to have clients leaving with such satisfaction, that they will come back, and recomend me to others. If I can add to this feeling by giving them ideas on how to improve their songs, I don`t feel arrogant. I`m not looking to get my name in the "composer" section of the credits, I just want to work with music, and have satisfied customers.

So I see nothing wrong with what your doing, Bruce