On choosing where to Mix and also Not Killing Each Other

[TheYears]

Hey Everyone!

I'm looking for peoples thoughts and experiences on the issue of mixing.

My band just spent the last 8 months (oh my) recording tracks for an upcoming 10 song album. Since I am interested in recording arts/building my portfolio/getting experience and huge Tape Op supporter all the tracks were recorded by me and my home set-up.

After a self-imposed recording cut off date we are finally ready to send the tracks of for mixing. Some of the band is pushing to have it mixed by a friend of the band who "will work fast and cheap and is invested in the band, dude". This friend is also located in Michigan. I'm more interested in researching options in our hometown Chicago and finding someone with more professional credentials, even if we have to pay a little more since we have thus far spent no money on the recording process.

The argument has gotten a little heated in the band and I'm wondering if other people have had similar experiences and what they ended up doing. Is it better to go with someone you know or trust a stranger who does this for a living? I'm worried going with the friend is not our best option.

Please I'd love to hear your thoughts or stories about mixing, how you pick someone to mix your much beloved tracks, how to not go crazy making band decisions:), etc.


Thanks and sorry for the tome!

Adam

[jnTracks]

i noticed that you didn't mention liking any mixes this friend had done previously.

being invested in the band means he wants to do a good job, but it doesn't mean he can, or will.

listen to some mixes and look up mixes done by some other options. the sound you want should be the primary reason to chose one over another. not the only reason, but the primary one.

[kslight]

Come to an agreement with your band. Send one song to their buddy and one song to a pro. If their buddy is decent maybe your band is better to save it's money. If not then the range of difference between the two should convince the band that it's worth it for a pro.

Ultimately I feel that with my bands it's come down to the best we can afford..and we keep it in house if possible. For better or for worse. For my current band the album was basically done about 7 months before I joined...recorded mixed and mastered. However management canned a few songs and we recorded some new ones. I ended up recording , mixing, and mastering these songs to match what the pro mastering engineer did and someone else in the band had mixed the rest of the album. I had to somewhat compromise my mixes to match what he did and make mix decisions I normally wouldn't have. His mixes don't sound bad but they ran into time and money and for whatever reasons the mixes didn't turn out their best, but to stay on top of the release date we didn't have time to go back and mix and master again. For us we felt that any shortcomings we have learned from and would not repeat next time.

[nick_a]

ok, so i'm sorry if this post pisses anyone off...i feel like i've done a pretty good job of avoiding that in my 7-year stay here on this board...i want to make it clear that his is just my opinion based on my own experiences...

i feel like there are so many questions that need to be answered. is there a time crunch on the record? Why don't you take "mix investment" money and use it to mix it as a band? who's this dude you're friends with and do you like his work (as mentioned above)? is the sound you're going for in the same ballpark as how the stuff's sounding now?

I've tried all three options (self-mixed, friend-mixed, 'pro'-mixed) and in my experience they have all had their upsides and downsides.
Friends mixing your stuff can be really awesome because the communication base is already established and the back-and forth on the project can be a positive, enriching creative experience. It could end up sounding awesome and unique that way because you end up kinda keeping it in the family. However, that person, if he/she is "really into the music, dude" could be kind of seeing the project as an opportunity to add his/her mix flavor/vibe whatever (maybe heavy-handedly) to the stuff when maybe you don't want that. It could also go south when you have to wait a really long time to hear anything back but you don't want to corrupt the friendship or the hookup on work so you try to stay cool about it.

pro mixing is cool because it's a limited engagement with someone who's a semi-detached third party and they can bring a totally fresh set of ears to something you've been drilling into the ground for 8 months. This could be the best option for you if you're maybe looking to just pay up and put this one to bed, have it sound very "real" or cool or insane or all of those. There's so much to learn when working with someone like that, and it's wonderful to have kind of a mentor-y figure working on stuff that YOU made. (i love that feeling). Then again you could get a few months or a year down the road and realize you really wanted to just do it yourself because that weird thing he/she put on the guitar at 3:38 in song 3 really kills the whole thing. Not to mention the fact that, depending on your budget, you could be bummed by the invoice.

then there's self-mixing for your own band. This for me has probably been the most emotionally complicated but rewarding experience of all three options. It's so much tougher (the whole cooks in the kitchen thing) to get something that everyone's really happy with and I've personally always battled with the "is it me? am i the idiot here? why can't i get the snare drum right?" problem, especially around mix revison 4 or 5. There's also the whole "oh sh*t, does this sound really bad and cheap" thing. But man, when it's right, it's right. And YOU did it. YOU. i just feel like there's nothing more rewarding than that. Not to mention the fact that even if you spent a little dough to upgrade your rig you'd probably come in money-wise at about the friend rate, or maybe even less. Then you've got more good gear stuff as a foundation for your next record, whenever you guys feel ready.

just my two cents...

[chris harris]

I think that from a band member perspective, if you just spent 8 MONTHS tracking the thing, the last thing you want is to be getting into the 4th or 5th revision of the mix. I'd put it in the hands of a professional who's done work that you all love.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

i would say at least send the michigan friend the tracks for one song and see what he does with 'em. you never know, dude could be a genius.

there's certainly no lack of talented people in chicago though.

what kind of music is it?

[@?,*???&?]

"will work fast and cheap and is invested in the band, dude".

DANGER.

Pay this person a per song rate with a defined outcome. i.e. two rounds of tweaks or whatever.

Anybody charging by the hour IS NOT INVESTED IN YOUR BAND.

[Nick Sevilla]

"will work fast and cheap and is invested in the band, dude"
Adam

And... this means what exactly?

I agree that you should send this guy one song and see what he does.

Also send one song to another mix engineer, for comparison purposes, if nothing else.

Cheers

[MoreSpaceEcho]

Anybody charging by the hour IS NOT INVESTED IN YOUR BAND.

says the guy who's famous for his hourly rate.

[Snarl 12/8]

Make it the same song and make sure to volume match very precisely when a/b ing them for comparison.

Jeff, where did he say anything about charging by the hour?

[@?,*???&?]

Anybody charging by the hour IS NOT INVESTED IN YOUR BAND.

says the guy who's famous for his hourly rate.

I do EXTREMELY little hourly work. Almost 98% of what I do is per project or per song.

You should hire me and find out. YOU GUYS have made the $35 an hour thing immortal here, not me.

[CurtZHP]

I say let the friend mix it. The worst he could do is screw it up completely, and you're vindicated. The best he could do is blow your mind, and you still come out smelling like a rose.

[Anthony Caruso]

I agree that you should send this guy one song and see what he does.

Send one song to their buddy and one song to a pro.

I just want to throw my 2 cents in and say if you're going to do this, PLEASE kick those guys at least $50 or something, and make sure that it's a fair fight.

I've come across this a lot in the last year, being "in competition" with another mixer for free. In one case the band sent me the files and then showed up to listen 4 hours later. They just wanted to get, you know, a "feel for where I'd go with it". I don't think mixing is like songwriting, where a shitty demo can get the idea across. A mix that's "almost there" is never gonna win any gigs, and you know what, that mix wasn't done, didn't get the gig, but had nothing to show for the real work I did put in. A real, competitive mix takes real time. There is no "free sample" bite of orange chicken on a toothpick. The shit is either mixed or it's not finished.

It just seems weird to me, I doubt you'd ever find an accountant who'd do your taxes for free just to see if you'd hire him.

End rant. How do others feel about doing work for free as a competitive thing? Is it just me?

[lyman]

Anybody charging by the hour IS NOT INVESTED IN YOUR BAND.

says the guy who's famous for his hourly rate.

I do EXTREMELY little hourly work. Almost 98% of what I do is per project or per song.

You should hire me and find out. YOU GUYS have made the $35 an hour thing immortal here, not me.

he's right, guys. he charges a flat fee to use an effect pedal, not per hour you're plugged into it. we apologize for making you seem unreasonable.

[cgarges]

Could we talk about the topic and not each other?

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC