Client refs - What do you hand off and with what caveats?

[infiniteposse]

Just a note: I posted this on Gearslutz and got no feedback, but it seems to me others must have dealt with this, so I thought I'd post here and see if anyone has any thoughts.
---------------------------------------------------
I've done a number of full-length LP's this year and with each LP, the songs have gone through countless iterations as the tracking progresses. At the end of each session I hand off refs to clients for them to review so that at our next session they've got direction and have some idea about how things are coming together as a whole.

To me, each ref is a rough sketch that's usually hastily created at the end of a long day so that the client can 1) hear the quality of the recordings we captured 2) examine the performances and 3) hear the overall structure of the song/recording as it develops. I typically do very quick bussing ITB to my preset bussing structure in Logic, slap a little verb on the voice if called for, get rough levels and basically just make sure the track is listenable. If I don't do this customers are concerned about things not sounding right, but if I do it too well, I get complaints 3 weeks later as they review older refs and decide they really preferred certain sounds/balances weeks ago on an older ref I sent them home with in the midst of tracking... It sort of feels like a "you can't win" scenario - if refs are too rough they think things don't sound good but if they're too good, they're thinking I'm making final mix decisions when I'm not - I'm just trying to make things pleasant to listen to. I find that working ITB really blurs the lines of when "mixing" begins though.

At this point, I only make iterations of the "mixes" once I get to formal mixing, and once we feel like we've got something we like while formally mixing, I use "Save as" in Logic and create "Song title - Mix xx/xx/09" or the like to document where something is at on that date so we can go back to reference. I'm starting to feel like I need to do this perhaps after each tracking session so that each session would have some sort of way to reference the state of things at the end of every day, but this seems like the start of a real headache in organization/song management. I'm good about creating naming conventions and sticking to them, but haven't really figured this one out yet.

Does anyone else struggle with this? How do you create expectations with clients about what a ref is and is not? Is this expectation written out and signed, is it in your FAQ, is it verbal? How do you manage your sessions in such a way that you can get back to earlier "ideas/decisions" you might have pooped out at the end of a 10 hour day?

Any thoughts, philosophies or stories appreciated.

[chris harris]

You should start by abandoning this whole, "because we can, we shall" approach to rough mixes and recalls. I hardly ever have clients ask for rough mixes at the end of the session. I'm sure part of it has to do with confidence and trust. I haven't had a client ask me to make something sound more like a previous rough mix in years. Back then, I wasn't confident in my own abilities and that led to clients not trusting me. Most of my clients these days want to work (as in "moving forward") right up to the end of the session, rather than waste a hour at the end of a session making rough mixes of everything we've done that day.

The only advantage that ITB mixing has over OTB mixing is recalls. I think that the fact that most people don't want to deal with the size, expense, or maintenance of a console has led us to a place where a lot of people who work ITB actually subconsciously encourage all of this second-guessing. I know that when I was starting out and working ITB, I would (because of a lack of confidence in myself) ALWAYS tell the client something along the lines of, "I think it sounds great. But, if you have ANY PROBLEM with the mix at all, don't hesitate to tell me. Making adjustments is simple." Now, I mix a song on a console and have them check it in their car. Sometimes we make a few tweaks and print another. But, most times they say something like, "It sounds good. What do you think?" Then, I say, "I think it kicks ass. Let's move on to the next song." I think that I've done 2 recalls in the last couple of years. Hundreds of songs and 2 recalls! It's because I'm confident and that makes them confident in me.

Regarding rough mixes. Clients ask for them because they're either insecure about your abilities or their performances. When I started out, I would (because of a lack of confidence in myself) always leave decisions about performances to the clients. I felt like they understood their abilities better than I did, so I let the bands make the decisions. I bet there's a direct correlation between people who, after a take, ask, "how do you feel about that take?", and clients who request rough mixes. Now, if they show ANY SIGNS OF INSECURITY about their playing, I'll follow each take with one of two things: 1. "That was great. You should come listen to it." or, 2. "I think that you should do that again."

[audiogeek1]

If I do a reference copy for someone after tracking or overdubs or whatever. I always make sure that there is some noticeable thing in them so they can not be used. Like leaving the click in for 16-20 bars in the beginning. This lets them know this is not for use outside of a quick listen.

When I do make the copy for them. Most of my clients are just proud to show it to someone (like their girlfriend who paid for the recording, or mom and dad etc...) I rarely have an occasion that the rough mix needs to be chased as far sound etc... because I am mixing the entire time the band is recording. I work to get the best sounds that work well with each other, then do minor tweaks on the console as I go. So at the end of the session I have a static mix that actually is very solid. It is mainly just missing the last little polish that the mix session does. The automation moves etc... I have found though that I end up doing some of those as I am tracking etc... Makes for really nice headphone mixes and better performances in general.

But as a final answer. I never offer roughs at the end of the day. I will make them with the flaw and only hand them out if the client is paid up to that point. Otherwise they will not get them until I get the cash.

Just a few thoughts that might or might not help.

Mike

[junomat]

+1 to both Subatomic and Mike

I usually don't even tempt fate with roughs until at least all the tracking is done. Then I'll do a rough mix (sometimes with all the faders just zero'd out...).

[infiniteposse]

Thanks for the responses guys.

To kind of address the points that have been raised so far...

Perhaps it's just the process of the way these particular records are being made and the time-span over which they're tracked and mixed (ie - not in 1 week and then mix and then done), but not offering refs isn't really an option. These are rather complex records with lots of layers, and refs are really needed to clients to get other players on the same page (drummers/upright bassist/strings, etc) and ready to track and also for the artists to create their own road-map of what comes next for them.

I don't necessarily see this as a function of the artists being insecure or uncertain of themselves, but more a function of the process of recording often being a process of discovering what a song can "become" in the studio. I fundamentally believe that without a good song, presentation doesn't matter at all, but if you've got a great song at the core, presentation can go a lot of different directions.

Maybe if you've got a producer on-board dictating direction/scale, etc this is a non-issue, but that's not happening at the budgets my studio works with regularly. While I'm fortunate to work with extremely talented songwriters and players (IMHO), there's no budget for paid producers to manage the production every step of the way and keep things perfectly in focus. Accordingly, artists often steer their own ship, for better, for worse.

I often play a minor role as a sort of producer on a day to day basis, but unless that's a very formal declaration of "you're the producer - keep me in line" I'm not going to micromanage process. I try and help folks avoid obvious rabbit-holes which are going to derail things, but I try and walk a fine line between critical listener and being open to suggestions/directions I might not anticipate.

Regarding the idea of making a ref unusable as a final mix - love it. I'd like to put the kibosh on "we should use that old "mix" on the record." I'm also beginning to think that a one-sheet with some "About your references" might be useful to provide some perspective about what clients are receiving at the end of the day, if they do wish to talk away with references. As sort of "what your refererences are and aren't."

Regarding the mixing as you go idea and a fair amount of clean presentation being there - I'm doing this myself. However, a lot of the problem seems to be that clients are getting really attached to what it is they walk away with - which are what I consider to be rough mixes. I've setup some preset chains ITB (Kick = UAD 1081--> PSP Oldtimer for instance) to get things cleaned up and presentable very quickly, but I'm not shooting for keepers right off the bat since there's often many miles to go before I can actually hear the full context of what I'm mixing. Mixing drums perfectly before adding upright bass and strings and cello doesn't really work, so I just get things in the ballpark so that everyone has something nice to work from as they rehearse and prepare to track their parts. I feel like post-tracking though, a lot of the ITB setup for refs may or may not be the best long-term choices for actual mixes to my ears.

Just to add a little process clarity to the discussion: my process for "mixing" is now working ITB until tracking is close to being done and then breaking out stems to my Dangerous 2-Buss LT for formal mixing. The Dangerous totally changes the sound for the better, but breaking out stems earlier on takes more time to setup and also complicates tracking as I have to change my monitoring path for clients - all of a sudden they're listening to the output of the dangerous as opposed the 1-2 outs on my Apogee Ensemble, which is setup to feed my headphone queues. Perhaps I just need to setup some patch-bay feeds to accommodate for this, but that's not setup at the moment.

I guess I mention my process because I don't use a console and i don't have things up perfectly and then done. I don't ever just wipe a "version" of the mix of a board and reset the faders. I kind of wish I did because I do understand how that changes the process and also the expectation of what can or can't be recalled. ITB the expectation that anything can return is ever-present, I think.

Lastly, I'll say that I don't think clients are asking for refs because their insecure in themselves or me. My folks pay at the end of every day, period. They can have a ref if they want one and generally they want one. If they're doing a total of 10 days of tracking over several weeks, they want to hear how it's coming along, not because their insecure about what they've done, but because it's exciting and pleasing and rewarding to hear the progress. I'm the first person to push folks for better performances, so I'm not really letting anyone walk away with lemons. Worst case scenario is usually 3 runs of whatever we're recording then comping together for a master take. My philosophy is that if you can't get something from that you need to rehearse more...

Whew. That was a lot of typing.

Sorry for rambling. I appreciate the feedback. I think this is an interesting subject. I finally did get one really great reply at GS about this and have asked the poster if I can repost what he wrote there. If he's ok with it I'll copy/paste here shortly.

[infiniteposse]

Post by joelpatterson on GS that I found helpful/validating:
------------------------------------------------
A very common problem. The harsh reality (in my world) is that it takes a DURN sophisticated band member to be able to distinguish any of this-- to be able to gauge the "roughness" of the rough and recognize the "undone-ness" of what you hand them at the end of the day, the chanciness, the slapdashism.

I consider this all part of the training they've been through all their lives-- no one is privy to the quick mixes of Led Zepplin, and then been able to compare and contrast them with the final mix. They have to go through the process themselves to get a handle on how things play out, and yes indeed, with projects that stretch out over months, they'll complain that the quick mix including the raft of overdubs "sounds worse" than before.

I don't have even any hint of a solution. It's kind of a test of their faith in you, that you're engineering the thing with all due diligence and that when the time comes to mix, you will do that brilliantly as well. Ah... but you need to humor people at the same time...

What I do do is to get them to describe to me what about a certain quick mix grasped their fancy, and keep that in mind as progress progresses. All will be well that ends well, but you're right to describe this dilemma as maddening.
__________________
Mountaintop Studios
~the peak of perfection~
Petersburgh NY 12138

mountaintop@taconic.net

[TapeOpLarry]

Sometimes maybe the rough mixes are right. Peter Buck is infamous for using them, and I've had folks decide their rough mix was better. If you don't agree, you'd better be able to really show why.

[infiniteposse]

I don't disagree Larry. I'm just saying that sometimes what I've handed off isn't the stuff of masters, ie: 16 bit bounce, not a lot of headroom for mastering, etc... Perhaps it's totally besides the point if the client likes it, but I guess I'm striving for a certain level of quality and finding out a bounce I made at the end of the long day of tracking is becoming the master is generally not my favorite choice. I don't dispute that it could be the right one...

In the particular case I'm referring to, I was able to find the Logic session the ref was made from (I'd saved this particular iteration as its' own revision) and we were able to go back and do a 24-bit bounce with good levels for mastering purposes. I still wasn't happy with how it sounded overall though and I explained why to the client and made some alternate mixes from the same "session" for comparisons. They still preferred the rough mix though and I let it go. It's not my ideal scenario, but it's what they liked and I'm ok with that once I've done my best to explain my perspective and potential options.

[Nick Sevilla]

1.- I always regularly use the following session file naming:

song name_01-basic tracks
song name_02-bass overdub

etc....

song name_34-ruff mix Dec132009

It's so important on the mixes to have the dates included, and I usually only give the artist ONE mix per day so as to not get them too confused. Then do the fixes the next day.

I NEVER give an artist a "choice" of mix versions. Fuck that. I do not like torturing my clients. They either like the mix or I keep mixing until they do. Most of them are relieved when I tell them they get ONE mix version to approve at the end. Less work for them and the mastering engineers.

2.- As far as giving out CDs of ruff mixes, I usually prefer to deliver mp3s at a high enough bitrate to make it difficult to download no a wireless network (usually 320 kbit), but still make it listenable for the client. I put the file in a secure area of my website with a unique username / password for only that client. My website keeps a log of EVERYONE that downloads ANYTHING from my site. All the way to the MAC address of the computer that did the download, so if some jerk does get access, I know who it is.

3.- If a major label is involved, I usually have an Excel spreadsheet printed out with :

Name of person taking out CD including room for their signature.
Date of CD taken out
Which song(s) mix(es) taken out of studio
# of CDs taken out, if more than one
Date of CD brought back (VERY IMPORTANT) including room for their Signature.

And I follow up on every Friday, to make SURE no CD gets lost. Once we had one lost, and forced the artist to go home and find it. (and it was a VERY famous artist, and he was very pissed at himself for forgetting the CD).

Also a NON-DISCLOSURE agreement signed by all people involved, both artists, management, potty cleaner, etc... basically anyone that has access to the studio. this non-disclosure agreement is for the duration of the recording all the way to the release date, once set by the label.

This pretty much guarantees security within the studio environment, plus most musicians will be too lazy to fill out the form, and will end up not taking a CD home and listen in the studio instead.

Inevitably though, the gosh darn labels ALWAYS LEAK THE ALBUM JUST BEFORE RELEASE. FUCKERS. They do not have any security measures, and freely hand out whole albums to reviewers who then gracefully put it on the internet WEEKS before the album is due out. AND FUCK REPORTERS. They are liars and NEVER EVER hold true to their word. I have caught more than one reporter coming in for a listening session with a recording device on and recording. If the reporter does not surrender the device, I usually smash said recording device and DARE them to charge me for it. I have yet to pay for the one I did smash.

Usually, if there is going to be Media people ie reporters and / or A&R people label people that are going to review the album, I make an appointment for them to show up in the studio, sign a non-disclosure agreement on the spot, and search, yes SEARCH all of them for recording devices. I usually get the label heads pissed off a little, but fuck it, they are the ones that complain the most when an album gets leaked out. So they get searched extra thoroughly.

Cheers

[@?,*???&?]

Only 8-bit mixes until paid in full.

[joninc]

this is a great thread - lots of good points.

i can see both sides for sure and i agree that sometimes - you can lose an important element/perspective/balance when things get excessively mixed. maybe your rough had the kick really up and it was propelling the song more powerfully. maybe you featured things more extremely and there was more impact from each part. it's really easy to lose the plot when mixing over a long period of time and engineers can get caught up in the battle for fidelity over serving the song/emotion at times. so IMO the roughs can be useful for a few different reasons.

i deal with all kinds of time frames too and unless someone is in the next day or 2 - they generally always want a rough mix.

i just caution people at the start - don't listen obsessively to this stuff - don't get tunnel vision - look out for DEMO-ITIS - these are just for REFERENCE.

[LazarusLong]

I'm confident and that makes them confident in me.

Couple that with being a diligent, nice guy and you can't go wrong. This is a phenomenal piece of advice.

I do dole out roughs as a token of accomplishment. I find often times the way I'd end up tracking is laying down the rhythm tracks for, say, 3 songs in a night, with scratches for lead instruments. So they get sent home with that. I'll try to have them in the control room when "mixing it". Tell them we'll take 10 minutes to mix and now is a good time to start giving me input for any specific ideas they have for the song. This can be mixing / production / what-have-you.

Then, after we hit the next landmark - say all the guitar parts - we'll do the same. And so on... Keeps the band hands on, and I keep re-enforcing that they're giving me all sorts of input for mixing NOW. It's perhaps a little sneaky, but by the end of tracking, I have my notes of what they're "expecting" out of the mix so I can anticipate it but also shut them out - they've already told me everything I need to know. No lead singers looming over me or anything like that while I'm trying to work.

So, I've found that coupling confidence in my work with keeping the band involved in the early steps makes for very happy clients.

Thank you to the rest for this excellent thread, full of great ideas. OP: great question.

[lukeduplex]

Clients ask for them because they're either insecure about your abilities or their performances.

I think a lot of bands just want to hear the cool shit they did that day. Nothing more. It can help propel the session when they hear their progress and get stoked on it. I suppose there is a risk that the band ends up bummed on how things turned out for the day, but i'd rather know ASAP instead of finding out during the final mix session.

Usually, before a band even asks, I am burning a disc for myself anyway to play on the ride home. I love to have rough mixes that include the latest tracks to think about what I want to do with them going forward. It's easy to burn a couple more discs for the artists, whether they want them or not. Listening to the roughs also enables me to catch anything that i may have missed or overlooked while in the heat of tracking.

Another reason for roughs is that usually when a band records, it's the first time they've been able to focus on their parts so intently. Often changes will be made during the process that move it away from how they've been hearing it in their practice spaces or on their demos. Unfamiliar things are sometimes SCARY, but with the roughs it gives them more time to get comfortable with the new sounds. Hopefully by mix time there's no surprises!

As far as security goes, I've never had to worry about stuff getting out early because most of the bands/labels i work with are such small timers!

-luke