mixing with or without the client

[Kyle]

Hi all

How do you prefer to mix? Do you like the client involved through the entire process or do you like to have them come in and tweak a close mix?

Which do you think gets the best results in the shortest amount of time?

What are some of the benefits of each approach? I'm struggling with this right now and I could use some guidance.

Any advice or wisdom is greatly appreciated.

thanks

[John Jeffers]

Ultimately I have to respect the wishes of the person who's paying, but I prefer to get rough mixes alone. There are a few reasons.

- I can work more quickly without distractions and suggestions, like people asking me to make their part louder.

- People tend to get embarrassed when they hear their parts solo'ed. Especially singers.

After I get a mix to where I think it's sounding good, I'll invite the client to sit in and make suggestions.

[wiggins]

I'm probably not the best person to answer considering my inexperience, but I always mix with the band present, though it's not always necissary.

A lot of bands I record aren't too picky, and are just using me for a demo/generally don't have ears.

I always need to ask about vocal levels. I realize that I tend to mix vocals too low for most people, so it's always best to ask.

Also, I record to 8-track, bouncing the music down to 2 or 3 tracks before laying down vocals - so there's not much to mix once the record's done.

Not to sound like I'm brown-nosing Mr. Albini, but for real - the band's in charge (unless there's a producer). It's their record, they're paying you, ask them if they trust you to mix without them of if they want to be there during the process.

Mixing is usually too boring for most people to stand, anyway - you just don't want to get stuck working 5 or 6 hours on a mix alone and then send it to the band and they have all this nit-picky shit to say.

anyway, my $.02.

[Mark Alan Miller]

I prefer to at least have some representation of the band present. I am happy if they're quiet as I get the fundementals of the mix together, but it's good to have them there in the odd event I'm heading down the wrong path with something.
Ultimately, it's their record, so the more involved they are they better.

Now, I can mix a record without them there and make a perfectly good mix. Mixes are so subjective that way. But to not have the artist there makes it quite difficult to really make them happy in the long run.

If the artist is there from the first fader being pushed up, and hovering over me with every single thing I do it tends to make it an overly laborious, slow, and inefficient process. So if I'm getting a 'hover' hapenning, I tend to ask them if there's a particular reason why every single thing I am doing is being scrutinized. I explain that the first part of a mix is generally about rough balances - to see what works easily and what might need a little eq assistance, for example, and that things will change radically enough from moment to moment at that stage that them being right on top of me might just not help, as I'm not 'settling' on anything just yet. Then, as things get closer to a finished balance, I tell them that's when I really need their input about specific things they're hearing or not hearing. Almost every client has understood this and agreed that it's the way to go. With them present, but laying back for the course setup of balances and all, and more and more involved as the finer points are addresed...
I try to be as polite as possible when talking about these things, mind you - it's their record - but it's also their budget and all of our time and energy.

[Mr. Dipity]

Ultimately, it's their record, so the more involved they are they better.

There's also a perception of value thing going on - I have found that a client is a lot more pleased with the end result if A) you've shown them exactly how much effort and skill went into making it and B) they feel that they are being included in the process.

[Red Rockets Glare]

I usually ask for some direction before I sit down at the mixing board, then ask them to give me some time alone to learn the songs ins and outs, spend about an hour or two getting sounds and ideas together and then invite them to help me fine tune it.

[drumsound]

I do a good majority of the mix alone (or with interns or mix partners if I'm using them). I can work a lot more efficiently if I'm not being asked questions or asked to adjust things that the opposite of what I am addressing. I also like the wow factor of have a really solid mix for them to hear and then tweak to their hearts delight. I think Slipperman says something about having the client there the whole time robs the first impression factor from the mix once the mixer thinks is really happening.

[parlormusic]

It depends on the client's experience. Some clients know what they want their mix to sound like and can convey that message clearly either verbally or hands-on during the mix stage.

Most clients I have don't really know, so I'll work alone making edits and creating a clear mix that I think sounds pretty close. Then I'll let them listen and make notes. They'll come in and we'll make tweaks based on their notes.

[trash180]

I'll do a batch of mixes where I take care of all the stuff most bands can't even hear or don't want to hear. I dunno like compression on a kick drum or something. It's often too hard for a band to keep up with me flipping back and forth between things, and I don't want to always be explaining what I'm doing or have to stop to fix something they just heard when I'm working on something completely different. It also seems to take less time when I don't have 4-5 people in a smallish control room talking about nonsense while I'm mixing.

I'll try to take care of most of the mixing, give them references and either get notes back or have them come for the final mixing. This also enables them to take time to listen on a system they are familiar with, and to get used to the mix without making any hasty judgements about it.

Of course, being able to recall the mix is essential.

[sammyp]

Unless the client or band member has a specific interest in the art of mixing, then i'd prefer to work the mix until i had it to where i felt it was 70-80% happening, then bring em in and see how they feel.

[joelpatterson]

Most often, I'm recording a concert and a week later delivering a finished mix to the customer.

I can't imagine these turning out so well if there was someone saying one goddam word about any of it. You don't have the family of the astronaut sitting there at Mission Control and the scientists go, "Okay? You ready for us to launch? Anything else? Howzy 'bout the weather forecast for the secondary emergency landing zone in Australia? You comfortable with that?"

Any more than I tell them at the restaurant how to make the Pad Thai--even though it's my Pad Thai! I'm paying for it!

[JGriffin]

My situation is different (somewhat) since I'm not mixing music, I'm mainly mixing ads. But basically once the voice is recorded and takes selected, I try to clear the control room and edit by myself, pick some music suggestions (based on the writer and producers' requests of course) and stack up some sound effects and get a mix happening with no one else in the room. In general, most of my clients are busy enough that they welcome the opportunity to go get something else done for a half hour or so. I can work much more quickly this way as well. One of the main reasons I prefer to work alone is it enables me to try things that might not work without the client freaking out or getting antsy. This is especially the case with music searches/edits and sound effects work (not to mention the occasional extreme EQ choice). I'd much rather sit and listen through fifty effects that don't work by myself than two with a client, because by the second time you play an effect that isn't exactly it, the client decides you don't know what you're doing and the session vibe goes out the window. They don't like to see that there's sometimes some trial and error involved in this business.

[jmoose]

I think Slipperman says something about having the client there the whole time robs the first impression factor from the mix once the mixer thinks is really happening.

Yeah...the first impression is pretty valuable!

If the band is there while you've kick the kick & bass solo'd up for an hour...five hours later when you turn around and pronounce it "done" there ain't NOBODY in that room who's going to know which end is up anymore.

Haivng the distance is good. I don't even really see my clients, it all covers over FTP or by FedEx and I post or email mixes for changes and approvals. I'll get all the notes and wish lists before I start mixing and have those there the entire time. Usually there's a half-dozen or so minor things that need to be addressed, drop this, raise that. Nothing too out there.

I'll mix faster by myself then I will if the people who are waiting for the mix are standing over my shoulder with wet noodles! I'd rather send 'em to the lounge and have 'em pop their heads into the control room once in a while to listen and make suggestions. As long as they go away until I need them again it's all good!

[Roboburger]

I was just gonna highlight and comment on the same tidbit, but J beat me to it.

One of the things i love about digital is being able to save the mix, make a tweak, and then save again. Really nice to send some bands a few different things, like taking a guitar out of the verses and then having it come in for the choruses. or maybe a "vocals up" or effected mix.

[dokushoka]

Every artist has different needs, just as every song does.

Some artists can guide me in ways that never cease to amaze me, others prefer and NEED to not be present.

Usually the artist will let you know whether they want to be their or not, and then, in time, they'll figure out what the best approach is for getting a mix that they are happy with. For some artists, it could be that NOT being present is what's best.