Who's the Boss??

  • Thread starter Thread starter DavidK
  • Start date Start date
DavidK

DavidK

New member
No, not Tony Danza :mad:

I am under the assumption that the Producer is the top dog in the food chain for recordings, with the exception of labels/A+R/ inverstors. It this correct?

Where does the mixing engineer enter the picture? It is my understanding that the mixing engineer works for the producer and is a hired gun, especially if there is any tension involved. Who is in charge?
 
I would say that the engineer typically should listen to whomever he has a greater likelihood of working with again. Or, more to the point, the person whose decision it is whether they'll be using the same mixing engineer tomorrow.
 
Much of the time with major label money, it's negotiated in detail.
 
DavidK said:
No, not Tony Danza :mad:

I am under the assumption that the Producer is the top dog in the food chain for recordings, with the exception of labels/A+R/ inverstors. It this correct?

Where does the mixing engineer enter the picture? It is my understanding that the mixing engineer works for the producer and is a hired gun, especially if there is any tension involved. Who is in charge?
Click to expand...
Yeah, EZ has it about right. Those are expectations that need to be set and agreed to.

But if you really want to boil it down to gritty essentials, it's no different inthis racket than it is in any other; the real boss is the one with the hire/fire power.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Yeah, EZ has it about right. Those are expectations that need to be set and agreed to.

.
Click to expand...
They arent and havent been, nor do I expect they will be.

But if you really want to boil it down to gritty essentials, it's no different inthis racket than it is in any other; the real boss is the one with the hire/fire power.
Click to expand...

Which I assume is the producer if he hired the ME.
 
I'd have to agree with you David that the producer would be the one that makes the final decision. But then again I have 0 knowledge of what actually goes on in a pro studio. ;)
 
DavidK said:
They arent and havent been, nor do I expect they will be.



Which I assume is the producer if he hired the ME.
Click to expand...

With us, it was the band. We had control of the decision of who was going to produce. Our producer was the ME, too. The studio had a staffed 2nd engineer that was familiar with where all the gear was, and where the patches needed to be made.
 
The situation:

The producer and the band are the same person. Since this of course is a "hypothetical" situation, :rolleyes: , let's call the band SchmavidJ. :D

SchmavidJ has hired an ME that is pretty damn difficult, and it hasnt even started. I dont know if money has been paid yet, if not it would be simple, I would just fire him. If he has been I cant, its a tight budget. Err, hypothetically. ;)

Anyhoo, I am getting signs that there is trouble ahead and I want to take care of it before it happens. I am of the opinion that the artist/producer is the top cheese and a hired ME is literally a hired employee, even if I am not directly paying him. Keep in mind that I have been in the music biz for 25 years and made 59 CDs. I have not seen this before, the ME seems to think he is something he is not. He MIXES the CD. That's about it, right? I will be there for all of it, but I respect his expertise on things like eq. Musically, its a rock/classical hybrid and I doubt many people would know how to mix this. Its been a giant pain in the ass. :mad:
 
DavidK said:
The situation:

The producer and the band are the same person. Since this of course is a "hypothetical" situation, :rolleyes: , let's call the band SchmavidJ. :D

SchmavidJ has hired an ME that is pretty damn difficult, and it hasnt even started. I dont know if money has been paid yet, if not it would be simple, I would just fire him. If he has been I cant, its a tight budget. Err, hypothetically. ;)

Anyhoo, I am getting signs that there is trouble ahead and I want to take care of it before it happens. I am of the opinion that the artist/producer is the top cheese and a hired ME is literally a hired employee, even if I am not directly paying him. Keep in mind that I have been in the music biz for 25 years and made 59 CDs. I have not seen this before, the ME seems to think he is something he is not. He MIXES the CD. That's about it, right? I will be there for all of it, but I respect his expertise on things like eq. Musically, its a rock/classical hybrid and I doubt many people would know how to mix this. Its been a giant pain in the ass. :mad:
Click to expand...

You have no options. If he's been paid, you're fucked. If not, fire him and get someone you'll enjoy working with.

IMHO, the ME will be more effective if he has input on the tracking process, i.e. mic placement, mic choice, effects to tape, etc.
 
ez_willis said:
You have no options. If he's been paid, you're fucked. If not, fire him and get someone you'll enjoy working with.
Click to expand...
I agree.
IMHO, the ME will be more effective if he has input on the tracking process, i.e. mic placement, mic choice, effects to tape, etc.
Click to expand...
I also agree, and thats what I expect and need. It;s not my field of expertise by a long shot. Nor is eq, compression etc. But it stops there IMO.
 
DavidK said:
I agree.

I also agree, and thats what I expect and need. It;s not my field of expertise by a long shot. Nor is eq, compression etc. But it stops there IMO.
Click to expand...

An artist should be able to focus only on performing the songs at the highest level possible. To have distractions around would hinder that ability.
 
Some mixing engineers are paid scads of money due to their ability to make a really nice mix. With this kind of ability it would be natural for them to be very confident in how they want a mix to sound - because others have raved about it in the past... I'm referring to ego a bit here.

Bottom line though - the Producer has the final say on what the mix sounds like. The Producer would look to the mixing engineer for eq/comp/etc on the tracks so that it creates the sound or mix the Producer wants. "Give me a little more of this" "Give me a little less of that" "Ah that's it" - those kinds of comments....

It might be an idea to set down some guidelines and rules before you begin to mix. Although mixing the first track will probably be where the real head butting may occur, (one of) my comments might be something like...
"I'm looking forward to checking out your skills on this mix, I'm sure it will go a long way to helping me help me produce this better" or something like that. Sort of complimentary but still in control. It's a small world after all...
 
I'm surpirsed there's even a question here - your wife's in charge. Always.
 
It depends on the terms of the inital agreement. If you're (hypothically) being paid to track the record and the mix engineer is being paid to MIX the record then he has no more right to tell you how to track than you to tell him how to mix. That said, you should probably have the discussion with whoever is writing the check. Why is the mix engineer at the tracking sessions anyway? I would tell him that you'll have his hard drive ready for him when tracking is complete.

On the other hand, I can see why a mix engineer would WANT to be present and involved in the track, I just do think it should be assumed that he can come in and start twiddling knobs.
 
DavidK said:
The situation:

The producer and the band are the same person. Since this of course is a "hypothetical" situation, :rolleyes: , let's call the band SchmavidJ. :D

SchmavidJ has hired an ME that is pretty damn difficult, and it hasnt even started. I dont know if money has been paid yet, if not it would be simple, I would just fire him. If he has been I cant, its a tight budget. Err, hypothetically. ;)

Anyhoo, I am getting signs that there is trouble ahead and I want to take care of it before it happens. I am of the opinion that the artist/producer is the top cheese and a hired ME is literally a hired employee, even if I am not directly paying him. Keep in mind that I have been in the music biz for 25 years and made 59 CDs. I have not seen this before, the ME seems to think he is something he is not. He MIXES the CD. That's about it, right? I will be there for all of it, but I respect his expertise on things like eq. Musically, its a rock/classical hybrid and I doubt many people would know how to mix this. Its been a giant pain in the ass. :mad:
Click to expand...


Trick him into thinking he's doing more than he's doing... When he goes home make it sound good, then go...wow man.that was great advice..it sounds amazing with your expertise. They'll usually just go oh well..yeah it was a great idea wasn't it... seems to work sometimes haha
 
ez_willis said:
An artist should be able to focus only on performing the songs at the highest level possible. To have distractions around would hinder that ability.
Click to expand...


Naw...I often even track myself with my laptop set up next to the drum kit (or whatever instrument) running apple remote desktop to control the computer in the control room. Doesn't hinder my playing at all. Depends on the player.
 
TerraMortim said:
Naw...I often even track myself with my laptop set up next to the drum kit (or whatever instrument) running apple remote desktop to control the computer in the control room. Doesn't hinder my playing at all. Depends on the player.
Click to expand...

How many times have you been in a studio with someone else producing or engineering the recording? You would need that to compare performances.

If recording yourself isn't taking away from the performance, then it's not a distraction.

DavidK is NOT recording himself. Having someone around that isn't cohesive with the flow of the project is a distraction that he doesn't need.

I stand by my initial post.
 
ez_willis said:
How many times have you been in a studio with someone else producing or engineering the recording? You would need that to compare performances.

If recording yourself isn't taking away from the performance, then it's not a distraction.

DavidK is NOT recording himself. Having someone around that isn't cohesive with the flow of the project is a distraction that he doesn't need.

I stand by my initial post.
Click to expand...
Yeah, David is talking a whole 'nother level altogether; he's got a pro project in the works where he's pulled together union musicians and hired out engineers all to be used in expensive studio time. He really is acting as a real producer in the traditional sense.

That means being both head coach *and* general manager. It also means hiring pros who can leave their egos at the door. Not only is there no time to be battling for project control with a hired gun, but yes it can be a HUGE distraction to the project, including a chance for loss of confidence in the project on the part of the hired musicians.

You need to work it out with this guy, David; get on the same page with him. But you need to do it off-hours, away from the studio, not in front of the rest of the project. Negotiating ego in the CR in front of "the kids" will potentially taint the sessions. Take this guy out to dinner or a AAA ball game or something and get all the laundry aired and find your common grounds and manage the egos there so you can walk back into the studio as a team.

G.
 
Follow the money. When you find out whoever is writing the checks, that's the boss.

Which is not to say that there isn't negotiation over authority, hiring/firing, artistic goals, et.c under that, there is. But ultimately the person or entity writing the checks is the boss.

It's not always a simple matter figuring out who is the boss on a production that is financed by a company or investors that have hired producers to work for them. There might be many people claiming to be the boss, but in reality only one will be. That one boss might also change throughout the course of the project, but not in an obvious way. Everyone will still be claiming to be the boss.

I've run into these types of situations on film score gigs. You might have a director and a producer (or several producers) all making decisions and choices as if they are the sole boss. You'll have a meeting with the director and he'll want one thing musically, and then the next day the producer will tell you something completely different.

It can be a real headache. I've heard screaming arguments between grown men over various things (not me, I don't get into that stuff). It can get bad, and that' certainly NOT the way to go about producing a project in my opinion. But the more money and more people involved and it can easily go that way. Unless the team is very carefully chosen.

I've worked with TV writer/director/producer Garry Marshall a couple times, and besides being an admirable guy in every respect, one of the great things he insists on is "everybody gets along". If you've got a problem with someone, then you and that person go off the property, across the street or wherever, and work it out. But when you are in the building everybody gets along.

My approach to DavidK's situation would be to speak to whoever I need to in the band and make my case about the mix engineer. The reason being the band is the producer and is possibly (probably?) the ones coming up with the money. Remember, the money is the boss. So basically, make the case for your position, and then step back and let them make their decision. Whatever that decision is, make the best of it.

If you don't share your opinion, knowledge, or experience, then the client is not getting their money's worth out of you. But at the same time, once you've shared what you have to offer, you have to let the decision makers do their thing and then work with that. No sour grapes if it goes the other way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top