Re: Miroslav - on the roll of the mixing engineer in the corporate ladder

jkuehlin

New member
Re: Miroslav - on the roll of the mixing engineer in the corporate ladder

...Continued from the "transient designer" thread
AFA the guys who have to please some exec at a record company who has specific expectations...
Since you asked in the previous thread to know a little more about how these companies are usually structured, its not necessary the execs that you (the mix engineer) are shooting to please (although it ultimately is). Your concern is keeping the producer happy, who's sole job is to work out a compromise between what the artists want to and is capable of doing and what the A&R guys need in order to be able to sell/license/catalog/pitch the artists material. At this point, the material is no longer the property of the artist and the decisions are not in the hands of the artists unless A&R deems it so. For the artist - not their money at risk, not their call. This business (for me) is about figuring out who's really in charge, where the money is coming from, and keeping that party happy. CLA has emphasized the importance of being everyones friend. Of always being able to find a win-win, or at least make everyone feel that way. When there's conflict Dave Pensado tends to err on the side of the artist, but he can afford to. I tend to lean toward the side of the corporation.

I don't necessarily see that as something that has to force the hands of the artists...that they have to absolutely must follow that, but I'm sure some have to because they are not driving the bus, and maybe some producer is.
You're ultimately talking about creative control here. For an artist that is self-financing their material, I rarely work with them unless they have a producer involved. I'm picky about which producers I work with on a local level, but I'll work with damn near anyone who's established on a regional level. After being in this over 10 years, I'm just starting to work with adequately financed national level producers now (but small scale national level...not the real big guys).

When it comes down to the mix, I'm pretty indifferent to the artistic preferences of the local artists. I'll try and give them whatever they ask for, but I turn enough stuff down to where I think if the artist is going after something ridiculously or unrealistic, I tell them I'm busy and send them somewhere else. For the projects I do take, if the artist wants something less autotune, more organic sounding, or less processed I'm happy to oblige. Its really down to two questions. Who is paying, and what do they want done. People hire a mix guy because of their taste. And your own artistic background plays into this. But really (for the local independent artist), my job is still to understand and execute their idea. They in essence are the producer.

Now...you can argue with them that if they don't follow that, the execs won't like their new sound...whatever...but I just don't think that we are all now endlessly locked into that over-processed kind of sound.
There are two contrasting scenarios here. When an indie artist has made contact with an A&R guy and is pitching material to them, and when the project is being funded through a label and overseen by A&R. Different scenarios. In the case of the first, when the artist actually HAS made contact with an A&R rep, I can usually get in touch with the label and find out what the artist is needing. Most of the time the independent artist doesn't have a clue. If the artists connection to the A/R person is legit, and the artists is not merely wishing this on a god damn pipe dream (which happens quite often), the label/publishing company will usually return an email or text to clarify their interest in the artists recording and what they intent to do with it. A/R is not always honest but you catch onto this quick and learn things to spot.

In the case where A/R is driving the project with corporate cash, its usually made clear ahead of time to the producer and to the manager, that the creative control is in the hands of the corporation.

I actually hear quite many flavors in new production sounds these days, pulling from a variety of music "decades" from the past, along with the more recent, over-processed, bright flavor, but it's different from artist to artists and genre to genre. I'm not hearing so much of that "one sound" thing anymore.
It would really help if you started thinking of this beyond music production, because the audio work (and the money that makes up the audio industry) is much much bigger. And the trends extend to all facets of the audio industry. Talking about brighter, louder, more processed sound...more immersive sound...this goes just as much for film and gaming as it does music. Compare the original and the remaster of Star Wars Phantom Menace. Or Titanic. Take the original and the remaster for Halo. Compare the way sound design, foley, and dialogue was changed in-between the first Call of Duty and the most recent release of Battlefield. Compare the loudness, brightness and synthetic sound design in the music to Frozen to pretty much anything before it. Then look at Greatest Showman and put it against the 2004 remake of the Joel Schumachers Phantom of the Opera. What I was alluding to in the other thread is that the delivery of sound/audio licensing deals and contract work to these types of projects weather indie or major dwarf the amount of cash available to people who specialize in recorded music alone.

OK...I understand now why you say you need to remove your creative interest...but I guess I don't get how that is the same thing as feeling a need to conform to something. I mean...if artists want to go in a totally different direction, do you debate that to make them aware they should follow some "standard"?
They don't even get asked. Mandy Moore has no say in how her vocal is mixed on the Frozen soundtrack. Liam Neeson and Samuel L Jackson had no say in how their voiceover cues are mixed in the Star Wars Clone Wars animated series. In recorded music, again, it just depends on who's in charge.

I'm sure many are looking for you to make their stuff sound like __________...but I would find it hard to believe that everyone is saying they want the same haircut, or that you are saying they should all have the same haircut.
Sadly, the mix is pretty inconsequential in the major scheme of things. This is why mix engineers are so much lower on the food chain than producers and creative designers. The head of sound design in a movie is immensely important. The chief mix engineer...not quite so much. Because they carry far less responsibility and impact on the end result of the video game or film. These things are pretty much set and decided at the start of the production. By the time a mix reaches my desk, the direction should already be clear and evident from the content. There's nothing artistic about how you made a loop play when a character enters a danger room on a video game. So in that sense everyone wants the same thing. They want something that works. If a character shoots a gun 9mm handgun, they don't give a shit if it sounds like a real 9mm. They don't give a shit if it sounds like a Ruger or a Beretta. They just want to hear an gunshot that makes sense in the context of the game.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for taking the time to post a lengthy, detailed response.
While I don't live in the corporate music world, much of what you say wasn't unknown or a real surprise to me. It's the same in most any corporate environment.
I worked for a short time in TV production, not major, but still with that corporate structure...and many were the times where I saw a better camera angle or a more compelling edit...but the producer and/or director would force your hand...not because they really saw something better, rather just because they had the power.

Same thing when I moved over into IT. My boss openly admitted that she didn't know anything about IT, and would come to us sometimes for the dumbest questions...but then often made global IT decisions without our input, simply because she had the power.
So yeah....what you describe of the corporate music biz is not any different or much of a surprise.

Thing is, around here, there are few who have even gotten up a few rungs of the big music biz world, so perspectives here about creative decisions are rarely considered from that corporate point, or controlled by it. So when there's talk about recording and the various approaches and decisions, it is almost entirely from the artistic, creative view. The concept of needing to conform to a higher power when it comes to music creation is not very present here.
In line with that, and as I mentioned in the other thread...there are smaller Indie/Alt artists and record/music biz companies who are not tied to that big corporate world, that do seem to have more flexibility and interest in cultivating the artistic/creative side of music creation, rather than needing to toe the line for some mega corporation. That's where I think there can be heard a step away from the over-processed, bright and very compressed sound that has dominated music the last 10 years or so. Of course, the money in those smaller business is not as big or derived from some board room, which probably allows more creative freedom.

I've always been amazed and amused at how the big corporations latch onto something that "sells"...and then they ride it well past its true creative value, but the general population is also very often controlled by these same corporations, so the buy it.
Like when there's a popular music trend...and it kinda comes and goes down in the "trenches", but then for 5 more years afterwards, you will hear that same music trend getting beaten to death in advertisements as corporations try to use it to sell their products, thinking that it somehow lets them tap into what is "hip-n-cool".
They're usually late to the party, and then stick around long after the hip-n-cool guests have gone, so they prolong that trend even after it's dead. :D

So yeah...most of us here only need to satisfy our own expectations...and why perspectives on approaches may be different.
 
Of course, the money in those smaller business is not as big or derived from some board room, which probably allows more creative freedom.

Being a mainstream artist is not for everyone. Being a mainstream actor is not for everyone. If someone really aspires to the glamour and prestige of being Tom Fucking Cruise, then they also have to deal with extraordinary amount of bullshit that comes alongside it. And loss of creative freedom is often part of that. I'm grateful for the time I spent as a musician at Di$ney, but I'm much happier not having to fill out a permission slip for supervisor approval every time I had to take a shit.

I've always been amazed and amused at how the big corporations latch onto something that "sells"...and then they ride it well past its true creative value, but the general population is also very often controlled by these same corporations, so the buy it.
Sure. This is really about how a company manages innovation and execution. A company does not have to innovate something in order to substantially sell it. That's gonna end up back at the question of creative value vs functionality on an open market. If a perfectly non-creative product is selling successfully, then its 'true creative value' is arguably irrelevant to someone who's main objective is to sell a product. You asked me on the other thread how I could take pride in something like this with such an assembly line attitude toward audio. Its simply because I'm not seeking fulfillment in the artistic achievement... The fulfillment is in the fun of building a business, just like it is for any other entrepreneur. You might say that one can't build a business unless their passionate about something. This is true. But you have to be sure you distinguish between passion for the artistic merit of a song vs passion for the correct and consistent execution of the audio for an infomercial on Fox. Having done hundreds of them fucking things, I ASSURE YOU, they don't even HAVE an artistic component to be passionate ABOUT. At some point you have to grant that it is OK to simply get paid to do non-artistic audio work.
 
I watched a short interview with Harry Dean Stanton that he did a few years before his passing...and it was about acting, and he was saying how he could have taken a more up-front "leading man" path, but chose not to....and the interviewer asks him why...and Harry simply replies, "Too much work". :D

If you were working at Disney, I'm sure the corporate structure there was very controlling on all levels.

While I now understand your view about mixing, and that for you it's mostly about doing it for the business achievement aspect...that doesn't really ring for the majority of people here, who are mainly looking for creative achievement, and I do think that when you step away from the big corporate music biz, there is a section in the "middlin" music biz where fairly successful artist are doing things with a greater focus on the art and less on the business.
That was the big "promise" of the internet and digital audio...giving less known and unknown artists opportunities that were only possible in the past by getting direct access into the corporate music biz.

Sure, the money may not be as big in the DIY and Indie worlds, but when you look at the corporate music biz, it seems only a small few artists really see the big money (and the corporate "entities" behind them, of course)...but most of the smaller players who fill various rolls in that corporate structure are just working a day job, collecting a paycheck...so I can understand why most of those folks are not really seeking fulfillment in artistic achievement, and are more focused on business achievement.

Like I mentioned...I've been in that corporate structure, though never specifically with music creation and recording, so I still enjoy that somewhat blissful innocence of being able to only consider the creative aspect of music making. I'm especially now at a point where I've sorta come full circle, and find myself at that same place where I was back in younger days of being able to "dream" without consideration of any specific goals as I write and record new music.
The only focus is to come up with some interesting (hopefully) new music, and no real necessity to please anyone but myself, though certainly we all want some level of appreciation from an audience.
One of the things (trying to tie this back to the TD and over-processed discussion) that I'm working at is to tailor arrangements and recording production so that the mixes have that "open" and somewhat "immersive" feel, but without beating things into submission with post-processing.
I find that it's how you start things during pre-production and tracking that has the greatest impact...rather than the amount of manipulation when mixing, though certainly the mixing stage has the ability to draw out the "feel" even more, that the pre-production and tracking established.

That somewhat "newish" term that has in the past been mostly linked to sound for picture or video game soundtracks, but is now found in music production more and more..."sound design"...is what's taken over a lot of mainstream Rock/Pop/Country/R&B/Hip-Hop/Metal music.
It has IMO become way too much the focus of music production, and I agree, it's the combination of, and influence by, the film and gaming industries with their audio production approaches.
Everything has to be *designed* down to the smallest visual image or sound...nothing is left to chance, and has to be tweaked and polished to a high sheen before it passes scrutiny on all levels. I don't say that is a bad thing for all music production...but I do think it doesn't necessarily help all music production either, but it's still done anyway.
"Happy accidents" and the old "let's just roll tape and see what happens" mindsets don't seem to be all to common in that upper-rung world anymore like they were back in the day, when the record companies didn't really know what they had...or unless you are a REALLY big name artist who can buck the corporate system, because the execs would be happy even with a turd from you, and probably find a way to sell it to the masses! :)
 
Boy, these are some in depth discussions.
My simplistic response to Miro's last post is this.
Preproduction is everything (to a degree)
But knowing exactly what youre doing in the tracking process eliminates so much after the fact meddling.

I was listening to this Tom Petty song last night criticality, not as a fan.
It amazed me how they planned out the guitar parts to be in your face at times then dropped back to leave room for the vocals and other elements.

It wasn't any of this daw trickery of automation or ducking the levels.
No, just well planned out performances committed to tape.
They knew full well the desired outcome and what the end result would be.
That in my opinion is excellent arranging and preproduction.
In the cut and paste age those skills are learned by few.
 
Preproduction is everything (to a degree)
But knowing exactly what youre doing in the tracking process eliminates so much after the fact meddling.

Well yes...I've tried to always go with that mindset, but I'm not opposed to "manipulating" during editing/mixing if it leads to something better.

The discussion in the other thread that led to this thread (in case you didn't waste time reading the other one, ;) ) was about how there is a certain corporate standard that must be followed with mainstream music production...that it begs for a high-level of post-tracking manipulation and is over-processed, bright, edgy and compressed...so that there is a larger-than life and somewhat immersive listening experience with all mainstream music genres, and that anything less would not meet the corporate system expectations. That it's all about specific "sound design" that it must be followed in order for paychecks to be cut...etc.

I was making the opposing argument that there is emerging in some music production circles a trend away from that, and more "retro-ish" in it's approach...less processing, more open and natural...etc.
 
The discussion in the other thread that led to this thread (in case you didn't waste time reading the other one, ;) ) was about how there is a certain corporate standard that must be followed with mainstream music production...

I've been so busy working and then recording till 3am often times, that the forum has become a drive-by experience for me. I'll pop in, check the new posts and provided it's not too long, read. Often I'll only read the last post. Maybe sometimes I'll respond, maybe not.

That other thread was a bit too long for me. :D
But I saw that thread prompted a new spin off thread. Read the last post (yours), and you got the honor of a response BFD, right?
Lol :D

Anyhoo, that new 'corporate standard' is interesting. I'm not particularly a fan of it.
Cookie cutter music.
I much prefer the Sound City approach. But that was a time when capturing the magic of the performances was at least as important if not more so than the sounds.

Today profits rule, not art. I saw the beginnings of this escalation in the 80s when laywers jumped in the music business and became managers, A&R guys. Hell, in the 90s, even a politician named Mike Curb jumped on board the music profit train. I think he started a label.

Protools contributed a lot to the cookie cutter evolution of music as well.

Overall I think the best of both worlds where combining the modern technology and tools with old school music creation mentality is probably best.
But that most likely wouldn't work for a cash cow like Beyonce or other artists in the musical new world order.
:D
 
I
Cookie cutter music.
I much prefer the Sound City approach. But that was a time when capturing the magic of the performances was at least as important if not more so than the sounds.

Today profits rule, not art. I saw the beginnings of this escalation in the 80s when laywers jumped in the music business and became managers, A&R guys. Hell, in the 90s, even a politician named Mike Curb jumped on board the music profit train. I think he started a label.

I don't know about this. I think the cookie cutter approach started well before the eighties. Tamla Motown was a great example of a highly formulaic approach to recording music.
 
I don't know about this. I think the cookie cutter approach started well before the eighties. Tamla Motown was a great example of a highly formulaic approach to recording music.

Yeah...but they got their sound with live musicians capturing it as it fell, for the most part.
When you have some guys in a studio using technology to manipulate all the music that comes in so that it conforms to some corporate sonic standard...it doesn't get any more cookie cutter than that.

I know Barry Gordy held tight control at Motown...but those sessions were so original on many levels, that even though there is a "Motown sound"...the artists really stood out...plus, Gordy wasn't trying to please some big corporate expectations, which at the time were pretty dismal on the Pop music front. Motown was more about bucking that system...IMO.
 
I don't know about this. I think the cookie cutter approach started well before the eighties. Tamla Motown was a great example of a highly formulaic approach to recording music.

If you carefully read what I wrote it says; "beginning of the escalation". :D

Of course there was cookie cutter music before then. It just accelerated.

Since early days there has been the differentiation of music and the music business. And any business is has a vested interest in having a product to sell.
And what is already selling by others can be sold by you.
In the 80s it got kicked into high gear. I saw it with my own eyes. Laywers, accountants, doctors etc that previously had nothing to do with bands got into the game.All in the quest for profits.
Bands looking to get signed were all too willing to take a lawyer's money and conform to hopefully get somewhere.
The sunset strip was filled to the brim with copycat bands. They all looked and sounded the same. All looking to become the next GnR, MotleyCrue, Ratt, etc

Personally I think the Seattle grunge movement was similar to the earlier punk movement in that it was a rebellion against the cookie cutter commercialism.

In the end however, commercialism won out.
:D
 
If you carefully read what I wrote it says; "beginning of the escalation". :D

Of course there was cookie cutter music before then. It just accelerated.

Since early days there has been the differentiation of music and the music business. And any business is has a vested interest in having a product to sell.
And what is already selling by others can be sold by you.
In the 80s it got kicked into high gear. I saw it with my own eyes. Laywers, accountants, doctors etc that previously had nothing to do with bands got into the game.All in the quest for profits.
Bands looking to get signed were all too willing to take a lawyer's money and conform to hopefully get somewhere.
The sunset strip was filled to the brim with copycat bands. They all looked and sounded the same. All looking to become the next GnR, MotleyCrue, Ratt, etc

Personally I think the Seattle grunge movement was similar to the earlier punk movement in that it was a rebellion against the cookie cutter commercialism.

In the end however, commercialism won out.
:D

You had me, then lost me...

The Seattle grunge movement soon became the largest cookie cutter commercialism that killed itself and many popular trends at the time. But hey, go where the money is right?

Funny how things change and how quickly it does. Actually kind of sad... Though some music just stands the test of time. I'll leave my thoughts as vague as the music industry is...
 
I meant it 'started' as a rebellion of sorts. Got transformed into it's own cash cow quickly.

But then isn't that the way it always goes? A band or bands lead the way, and 59 million other bands copy them to try to suceed?
Always been that way. You got the leaders, and then LOTS of followers.

:D
 
Last edited:
That was my point too...that whatever trend or "standard" exists, it's not like a forever thing, which is what I was getting at when I said earlier (or was that in the other thread), that I think there is now a new movement away from that over-processed, bright and "sound designed" productions to more open, somewhat "retro" sounds, meaning way back (not the '90s), like during the golden years of analog and tape.

As I said...it's got nothing to do with any analog vs digital BS...just that back then, recording wasn't as polished, as edgy and in your face, etc.
I also am seeing a step back to analog gear in greater use, because I think while plugs are certainly fantastic these days...using the analog makes it sound a bit different, and so it feels "new"...again.

3-4 years ago I thought that I was kinda done with buying any more analog hardware, that I had enough, and I certainly was loading up on plugs, and I noticed that I was using them much more...then the last several months I felt a growing desire to go back more to the hardware, and suddenly this winter I ended up picking up quite a pile of new analog hardware...almost binge-like, and way more than I had expected to...but it really felt right, and I'm excited about getting back to using more of the hardware, especially the new stuff...but I'm not necessarily abandoning the plugs.
I don't mention that as some proof of any industry trends...but I have been reading various audio magazine articles lately where I noticed the that more and more people were also mentioning their return to more analog hardware use, just to get a different vibe in their sound.
 
Back
Top