Could any engineer copy your mixes ?

[grimtraveller]

You know how certain artists will seek out certain producers, engineer/mixers to get a desired recorded product ? I assume that part of it is because of a certain sound that they are looking for. It got me thinking about whether or not it is simply the ability of said producer/engineer that they want or whether they have a signature style in their mixing and crafting {assuming it's a producer that mixes} that is their stock in trade.
Which brings me to us here; in your mixing, do you think you have a signature style, a specific way of mixing that makes you different from everyone else and that could only be you ? Is it more art {ie, individual expression} than science {method} ?

 

[miroslav]

That's better...one question.

A long time ago I asked on a recording forum if audio engineering was more "art or science"...and the veteran engineers all threw vegetables at me.

I think it's both.
How much of it is "signature" engineering....depends on the individual.
There are some mixes out there that have a noticable "personal touch", and people can identify them as coming fom the same person....but I think you would need to be REALLY familiar with a lot of *different* mixes before you are able to pick out those that are similar, done by the same person.
Here in HR land...we mainly focus on our own mixes, and we mainly post our own mixes...so yeah, it's easier to spot someones "touch"...but I bet if we started mixing other people's music more and more, it would be harder to spot who mixed what.

Go listen to the 230 mix submissions of the same song from the Gearfest Mixing Contest...yeah there are some that stick out, but most sound very much the same.

I think with veteran pros, who mix for pro artists...there comes a point where people might feel more comfortable going with an engineer/mixer who does things a certain way...but I think a lot of the well-mixed commercial releases could have been mixed by any number of pros, and would still sound as good and about the same. There's a point where the song is really the driving force....and unless you're just slathering on FX/processing to make it be different, there's really not going to be a lot of unusually different ways to mix it....IMHO.
The real difference lies in how little you can screw up a mix, and pros do that part a lot better, with more consistancy across many styles of music.
If you just mix one style of music over, and over, and over...there's not much science or art to that...just use the same template, over, and over, and over....

 

[Guitargodgt]

I honestly think it depends. You take a guy like Joey Sturgis who sounds pretty much the same record to record and it was pretty easy for kids to copy him.

Take a guy like Colin Richardson or Andy Sneap where there records sound a bit different every time and I think it's a little harder to copy cat.

Me personally, I doubt you could copy what I do very well as it's so crappy. haha

 

[JeffroMixesYou]

When CLA gave all of his settings away in the SSL plugs, there weren't a million mixers able to cop his style. I think it's all art. Settings and the "science" end of it are about 20% of the battle.
I've just come to accept that some artists will really love what you do and some won't care for it. To each his own.

You know how certain artists will seek out certain producers, engineer/mixers to get a desired recorded product ? I assume that part of it is because of a certain sound that they are looking for. It got me thinking about whether or not it is simply the ability of said producer/engineer that they want or whether they have a signature style in their mixing and crafting {assuming it's a producer that mixes} that is their stock in trade.
Which brings me to us here; in your mixing, do you think you have a signature style, a specific way of mixing that makes you different from everyone else and that could only be you ? Is it more art {ie, individual expression} than science {method} ?

 

[Elton123]

The variable thats forgotten here and by far the most important is the musician or musicians. I understand great musicians are probably a given in your original post, but I think they play a major role in how a mix sounds. In the end, it has to be a combination of the three. Artist, producer and engineer. Can the artist provide a great sounding source, can the producer get the artist to produce the part or sound he wants, can the engineer capture it in the proper way. In professional settings i assume these are a given. Most professional mix engineers can deliver what ever a producer wants, so I would think a "signature" is more on the producer than an engineer.
In the world I play in, it's all about the performers. Greats players provide a great mix, poor players provide a weak mix.

 

[godchuanz]

Greats players provide a great mix, poor players provide a weak mix.

Totally agreed. And on top of that, it's a lot on the song composition and arrangement as well. If you listen to a lot of the records from the 1970s, you can hear a lot more "mistakes" than you do in modern recordings. But those "mistakes", and the noise, and poor frequency response didn't seem to make any of the songs less popular. People still remember those tunes from ages ago and hail them as great productions.

I'd say song composition and arrangement is the top priority. If you have a great song, you can even get away with a couple of performance mistakes and weaknesses, so long as the intended emotion is captured. Your mix can be done in many different ways too, and you may even get away with a "bad mix" - it's like you can mix the instruments in so many ways, and all the combinations sound good. So maybe you put the bass in a little too loud, or maybe you put too much reverb on the vocals, but hey the song still sounds fine.