Mixing moral dilemma

S

starch

New member
I just finished mixing a 10 song cd for a person and gave it to him to proof before the premaster is made. I felt really good about the work that was done and the final product. He is the lead guitar player and plays acoustic guitar and has found others to play for this project. The songs are all original and are his so I am basically mixing this for him.

He came back asking for some changes that I feel are very wrong for the project. He has no formal (or informal) training on music, acoustics, audio engineering, etc, but is a very decent self-taught vocalist and mediocre guitar player. The changes he is asking me to make will cause things like the mix balance to be way off, the mix to be overcrowded, his vocals to be wet with fx to the point of unintelligibility, etc.

I ultimately feel like I need to give him what he wants and have tried to explain problems related to his suggestions, but also know that I will not feel good about making the changes he is asking for, and would feel the product would reflect poorly on me as a mixing engineer.

Anybody have any suggestions on how to handle this?

Thx,
starch
 
I know how you feel, however, if it's his record, do what ever he wants. You've already given him what you think sounds good. Give him just what he asked for and let hm hear it side by side.
 
That's probably the best idea! Lots of singers think they sound better with their vocals drenched in reverb that'd make Dickie Dale self-conscious. I am working with a couple right now that share that delusion. I usually approach the problem as an opportunity to "tutor" them on the mixing process. I set them in the chair I use for mixing, and demonstrate different levels of reverb...for example [if I'm applying reverb to the whole mix], I will point out the tonality & timbre changes in the instruments, [or if alone] the distancing effect the lead vocal suffers. It's time-consuming, and like many things it's more necessary with the beginners than the pros...who, after all, may have sat through more than one of those tutorials in years past! Ironically, the room I use has a nice natural reverb to it. But the singer has got to have that "processed" sound or they are not getting their money's worth! Good luck.
 
Track Rat's advice is the right approach, however, don't be surprised or hurt when you play them "what they want"; (reverbs that sound like it was recorded in a water tank and compression to the point where the wave forms are two solid lines), and they say "Yep that the sound I'm going for."

I've had this happen more than once. At this point, simply say "Glad to be of service, however keep this original that I liked in case you need a reference." That way when they come back to you because the labels will definitely point out the amateur nature of what is sounds like, you can say, "Try sending them a copy of the reference CD I gave you and see if that is more what they are looking for."
 
Has your position in the project been defined as a "producer" or an "engineer"? If he's hiring you to push the buttons for him, do whatever he feels is right. However, if he's hired you for your production talent, you might have to lay down the law a little bit.
 
I have taken on the role of the producer, not necessarily by choice, but by function. I found that I would save myself, and the client a lot of headaches if I helped him make production decisions early on that I felt were potential project killers. I don't know if I will get that label on the record, but I felt I needed to take that on to keep this project focused.

I did set him down for about 2 hours the other day and 'tutored' him on dynamics controllers and time-based-processors. We looked at how they affect the individual tracks and then what they do in relationship to the whole mix. I also brought up some music that we both felt were similar to the style he was going for and a/b'ed it with his for reference (as the room I mix in is more dead than most listening environments) Finally, I told him I would ultimately do whatever he wanted me to do, but strongly encouraged him to go easy on some of the vocal processing and dramatic instrument changes.

I think I will take your advice and at least give him 'my' version and 'his' version so to speak. I hope that after listening to it for a while he will come around. I think he is also blinded by the fact that he is a little more concious of his voice, therefore thinks wetter is better. I think if he lets enough people hear what sounds like him singing in a fish bowl he will be steered to sanity.

Is it a legitimate concern about releasing something that sounds less-than professional for my sake? I would be somewhat embarrased by some of the changes he is asking me to make and would hate to have people hear that as my product.
 
I dabble in post-production editing or mastering myself. One of the first client projects I worked on was an unprotected CD-R labelled "MASTER THIS BITCH" in an envelope marked "MAKE IT FUCKING BRUTAL". Needless to say, I gave that guy a much 'louder' record than I normally would have recommended. I need to put it on the wall somewhere.
 
Speaking of singers wanting more "wet": there's an old tale about how Leon Russell wanted to put his voice 'way back in the mix on his first record. A fellow musician told him. "Put it right up front! With a voice like yours, otherwise everybody'll think you're trying to hide it!"


...which was the point, of course. It's a tale that can tactfully be told to insecure singers who want to hide behind processing.
 
The real world sux. You cant afford to spend two hours educating every client that comes thru the door.
You have to try to give him what he wants without making it sound so bad that you want to slit your wrists. If it REALLY sux hard, dont put your name on it.
Its usually at the end of the project, too. Its all done but the mastering, and then, "ya know, could we change the vocal to be just a little bit more..."
 
I think the most unreasonable request I've had recently was from a band who asked if I could master their record and at some point during the mastering process, make the kick drum sound like it was recorded with a click or whatever that really sharp metallic-sounding drum sound is.

I explained that that's probably something they should have done in the recording or mixing stages, but they insisted that I try and get this sound for them.

Of course, it turned out horrible and I ended up re-doing the master like I normally would have without this odd request.
 
whoda thunk it?

about 2 years ago i wrote a song and got pissed off at my singer and the engineer for making his voice "wet" with some floating through space processed shit. i had no real recording experience but i said "why would you do that? who sounds like that? I dont like it" normally I'm not so blunt when you try to destroy a man's song...he gets a little testy.....you never kick a man's dog and you never make his song sound like its a long distance recording from Star Trek Deep Space Nine. thus was a defining moment....i dont have the singer nor the recording engineer in my list of people to call
 
i feel your pain. I just love it when guitar players what "thick" tone with a peavey or crate and they want me to crank up 100hz 10 db. Just lovely.
 
I've just come to understand that I'm going to work with people like that . . . and I have to give them what they want. When all is said and done, that's just what I'm supposed to do.


But just understand that you will also run in to situations where you have more input, and where the people will be making better mixing decisions to begin with.

You just have to take the bad with the good. Ride it out . . . you'll get someone better next time or the time after that.
 
starch said:



Is it a legitimate concern about releasing something that sounds less-than professional for my sake? I would be somewhat embarrased by some of the changes he is asking me to make and would hate to have people hear that as my product.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a legitimate concern, if you are a professional who wants to produce a good product (which you obviously do). I'd be tempted to give him what he wants reluctantly and tell hinm you feel so strongly that you don't want you'r name associated with it in any way - might just bring him to his senses if you feel so strongly!

Have you considered though, that he may just be right - after all it's the architect who has the vision of what the building should look like in the end, its the builders job to put it together not to try to change the design! (Don't get me wrong, just playing devil's advocate).
 
I HATE opinionated musicians. They're the worst kind of client!...




...oh wait....I guess that makes me an opinionated musician.
 
It doesn't matter what you like, the engineer always has to bend to meet the customers request. But if you signed on as a producer you have to do something. If you signed a contract as the producer then the client and the producer have to come to an agreement, because neither is really in the driver seat when it comes to Indie releases. If your a producer working under contract to a record company its your responsibility to make the record company happy regardless of the clients wishes. Record comapines will shelve a project if the client refuses to let the producer have full authority.
If you did not sign a contract for producer, then make sure the Client puts his name on the cd as producer and your name as engineer or mixer. That relieves you of any artistic licenses that the client took upon his/her own project. They will have no one to blame than themselves.

The last band I produced they clients got what I gave them. They were not allowed to attend the mixing nor mastering sessions. I gave them a mix copy when they left and asked for comments no less than 2 weeks later to let it sink in. I considered their advice and mixed the way I thought suited the project. My name is on the disc as producer and Im am ultimately responsible for the end product. If Im not happy then Im pretty sure they wont be either.

Its a dilemma for sure, learn as you go and make sure you communicate openly and honestly. The first couple times I produced I didn't do as well as I should have. Im still getting better. And the advice I recieved made a huge difference. I found that as a producer you have to instill in the client alot of confidence before they trust your opinions.

SoMm
 
Something some folks do when they end up being associated with a record that they think could hurt their reputation....is to use an assumed name. "Oh, please use George Jetson as the name in the credits...its my professional name for music of this genre".

-lee-
 
I really appreciate the input.

glynb said:
Have you considered though, that he may just be right - after all it's the architect who has the vision of what the building should look like in the end, its the builders job to put it together not to try to change the design! (Don't get me wrong, just playing devil's advocate).
Click to expand...

I usually meet with my clients at the beginning (as I did with this one) and discuss the project in its entirety to catch an overall vision of expectations for the project outcome. It takes time up front but I feel saves me time in the long run because I have a clearer picture of the goal, so I spend less time with trial and error.

I do think the changes this guy wants are due to insecurities about his voice, but you guys are right, he is the boss. I suppose I will try to find a compromise, voice my opinion when appropriate and then give him what he wants. Maybe when its all said and done, that is what he 'designed' the song to be like. I just hate spending all this time on something I should be very proud of, and finish the project not feeling good about it, and knowing that a year from now this guy may look back and say "what was I thinking". But then again... he's the boss.

Thanks for all the advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top