Mixoff Contest with Mike Senior - Win Mike's New Book!

[karumba]

ok, i'll keep the ball rolling :-)

That said, my bottom line has always been that anyone who comes to me to have something mixed wants to walk away with something that sounds like a finished record, so it's my job to provide them with that, whatever that involves. Especially in these times of limited recording budgets, engineers are increasingly being judged in terms of what they can fix as much as by what they can mix. To quote Dave Pensado, for instance: "I think any engineer who complains about having to do that will probably be an engineer who is not working in a few years. Because that's the future. If you develop that skill set, of being able to fix anything and then mixing it, you'll be working a lot."

mike, thanks for your reply. i think everyone understood your philosophy.
my view is, fixing *recording*-problems is one thing (and i think that is what dave meant with his "quote"), but changing the production another. young griffos track is fine as it is, but just needs some fixing here & there, but no additional production gimmicks. maybe its not a perfect radio single, but it could have a good place on an album. i think it doesn't need additional production stuff, since it is authentic independent rock & doesn't need to be forced to converted to be fully compatible for the radio-play (it won't be authentic anymore IMO). young griffo had the idea to have the track like that & as an mixing engineer i don't turn a track into something else if everything (regarding the production) is fine from my view. maybe that is different in your SOS rescue articles where the songs have bigger problems with the production process itself (or even more: they do not know where to place themselves). but i just don't think that this is applicable here. i think the band knew quite well what they did from a musical / production perspective.

it seems the discussion part has been opened
looking forward to read more comments!

[manuke]

Speaking of Dave Pensado, his show is highly recommended.....
http://www.youtube.com/show/pensadosplace
Interesting that even people at his level receive tracks with phase problems, distorted vocs etc and spend plenty of time fixing before getting into the mix. Particularly enjoyed this exchange...
Dave Pensado "Mike, how do you mix on pot?"
Mike Dean "How do you mix off pot?"
Heh.

[karumba]

Speaking of Dave Pensado, his show is highly recommended.....
http://www.youtube.com/show/pensadosplace

yes, its fantastic! it shows how a versatile mixing engineer he is.

[Lastrite]

Deleted, I couldn't get my point across the way I wanted

[karumba]

Deleted, I couldn't get my point across the way I wanted

just be honest. its all about that. i've read your deleted post since i have subscribed to the thread. there is not need to delete it. send me a PM if you would like to recover your post, so i can send it to you (i think most of us have read it anyway) ;-)

[Martin Olsson]

Wow, what an honour to make to the final!  

Some cool mixes here, it's amazing in how different everyones mixes are. Every mix has it's own personality. Very cool.

[deejsirois]

It's no surprise to me that this shortlist doesn't match my own favourites at all. I knew after reading the first few critiques that Mike listened to the mixes in a very different way then me. And that's a good thing, because I wouldn't learn anything from someone who thinks exactly like me...

Now that the contest is almost over I want to say one thing though: I'm sure a better mixer would get a better result from these tracks. But I truly think that most could be gained by actually re-recording/re-producingediting it. 'Mixing' this felt more like 'fixing'. I'm not saying that to bash who-ever recorded it (I have no idea who that might be). Just want to say to the band that they could achieve much more in terms of end-result in future projects by putting more weight on those earlier stages. I hope this is taken as positive as it is intended!

I am surprised to see the mix with the vocals tuned to the wrong note in there though

Thanks again Mike for your insights, John for the creating forum and Young Griffo for the tracks!

Lastrite,

Just so you know, I liked your mix best, sonically, from the get go. You definately challenged me to up my game. And for that I thank you, even if you didin't "make the list"..as though that matters at all when it's all said and done. Are you entirely ITB?

[deejsirois]

Mr Tuesday,

When I heard your revised mix, which included "the drop", I was like, he just punked my idea. The truth, howver, is that you made my "stunt" look silly in comparison. So props to you for that. When I heard it, I was like, "Damn, I can't beat that"...yet!! I will have my revenge lol

[Guitar Zero]

I was curious about the direction of some of the recent posts, so I finally took some time to listen carefully to the five final mixes.  I'm left with some observations.  Honestly, not meant as sour grapes, but more as a general query to Michael

1) if a band brought me these tracks and asked me to mix them, I could hardly expect to be taken seriously without tuning the horribly out of tune vocals, yet it appears that four of the five finalists didn't bother.  Maybe in todays music the out of tune vocal adds to the angst of a guy who has tried so hard, yet still feels like a failure, but personally, I don't get it.  So many really well done mixes submitted with tuned vocals that would be in my top five... just sayin'.  So apparently skipping the vocal tuning and moving straight to the special effects and decisions about arrangement carries more weight in this "mixing contest".  I think I understand some of the frustration now.

2) Michael seemed to pound home the importance of phase in many of his critiques, for which I'm thankful, because it made me try harder to get it right.  Yet when I listen to a couple of these mixes and switch back and forth from stereo to mono, I hear entire parts drop out.  Hmmmmmm.  Better keep them off of AM radio stations.  So is phase important or not?  This is a serious question.  Does everyone pay close attention to it when mixing or not?  Are there mix gurus who do not care about phase issues when mixing?  

3) Is the object of a mixing contest to master as well?  When I prepare a mix for the M.E. I leave headroom, and I lay off the limiting and 2 buss compression.  IMO the M.E. is better at it, has a better ear, and has more kick ass gear than I do.  Let him bring it up to production level.  So how do we compare mixes that have obviously been mastered with ones that have not?

4) Where did I leave my bottle of Jack?

Having posed these questions, which I think are fair, I would like to say that I am extremely grateful to you, Michael, for the incredible amount of time and effort you put into some seriously good critiques.  Worth it's weight in gold, for me personally.  I listened to most if not all mixes and read your feedback, and in most cases it was spot on good stuff.  Very well thought out.

I'm a completely self taught noob at mixing, and never had any delusions about winning this thing, and frankly that is not the point of the whole process.  I planned to buy your book from the beginning.  I wish we had more of these, because for me, it's the only way I can better at mixing drums, or the "wall of guitars" mix that can get so dense.

So now that it comes down to voting, I feel exactly like I do every four years in November as I go to cast my vote for president.  All my favorite candidates have already been eliminated by the press.

[Lastrite]

It's no surprise to me that this shortlist doesn't match my own favourites at all. I knew after reading the first few critiques that Mike listened to the mixes in a very different way then me. And that's a good thing, because I wouldn't learn anything from someone who thinks exactly like me...

Now that the contest is almost over I want to say one thing though: I'm sure a better mixer would get a better result from these tracks. But I truly think that most could be gained by actually re-recording/re-producingediting it. 'Mixing' this felt more like 'fixing'. I'm not saying that to bash who-ever recorded it (I have no idea who that might be). Just want to say to the band that they could achieve much more in terms of end-result in future projects by putting more weight on those earlier stages. I hope this is taken as positive as it is intended!

I am surprised to see the mix with the vocals tuned to the wrong note in there though

Thanks again Mike for your insights, John for the creating forum and Young Griffo for the tracks!

Lastrite,

Just so you know, I liked your mix best, sonically, from the get go. You definately challenged me to up my game. And for that I thank you, even if you didin't "make the list"..as though that matters at all when it's all said and done. Are you entirely ITB?

Thanks. And you're right, the learning in this was getting inside a professional's head and hear what he's hearing. It was an awesome experience! I'm entirely ITB yes.

[deejsirois]

I was curious about the direction of some of the recent posts, so I finally took some time to listen carefully to the five final mixes.  I'm left with some observations.  Honestly, not meant as sour grapes, but more as a general query to Michael

1) if a band brought me these tracks and asked me to mix them, I could hardly expect to be taken seriously without tuning the horribly out of tune vocals, yet it appears that four of the five finalists didn't bother.  Maybe in todays music the out of tune vocal adds to the angst of a guy who has tried so hard, yet still feels like a failure, but personally, I don't get it.  So many really well done mixes submitted with tuned vocals that would be in my top five... just sayin'.  So apparently skipping the vocal tuning and moving straight to the special effects and decisions about arrangement carries more weight in this "mixing contest".  I think I understand some of the frustration now.

2) Michael seemed to pound home the importance of phase in many of his critiques, for which I'm thankful, because it made me try harder to get it right.  Yet when I listen to a couple of these mixes and switch back and forth from stereo to mono, I hear entire parts drop out.  Hmmmmmm.  Better keep them off of AM radio stations.  So is phase important or not?  This is a serious question.  Does everyone pay close attention to it when mixing or not?  Are there mix gurus who do not care about phase issues when mixing? 

Guitar Zero, Mike, and the rest,

After listening to the top five, I had the exact same observations as Guitar Zero, which left me utterly confused. No disrespect to those who made the top five, but as a listener I was shocked to hear the vocals not tuned correctly in most of them. There are a lot of great aspects to every one of those mixes that are great, so hear me on that.

I am....confused, I don't know how else to say it, not because I am not in the top, but because of the things that were stressed as important to make this song radio ready. In the process of learning, my expectation is that the bar gets raised...vocals tuned, great use of effects, tall/deep/wide/, mono compatible, timing issues worked out etc...

From my perspective, the one thing that all these mixes have is BALANCE, in stereo especially. So if balance is number one on the importance scale, then this makes a lot more sense to me. If not, then I remain confused.

It makes it very easy for me to choose the winner out of the top five for the reasons listed above. I was hoping that it wouldn't be that easy.

[JohnSuitcase]

Just wanted to chime in on the subject of production versus strictly mixing...

I do a fair bit of recording, which I mix, and I get a lot of projects that have been recorded by musicians in their home studios. In both situations, I take on the role of 'producer' to some degree, suggesting ideas, giving my perspective on things, etc. I think that getting outside input on a project is one thing that home-recordists are missing, and it's one reason so many self-produced projects are kind of flat sounding, kind of one-dimensional. Sometimes a band vetoes my more experimental ideas, but I think it always opens their eyes a little to what is possible. So far, I haven't worked with too many bands that are aiming for commercial radio (mostly punk, indie, etc, though I'm sure they would love to have some mainstream success!) but I always try to get a result that their fans will connect with, that makes a bridge between the band and the fan with as little interference as possible.

I think Mike took on a Herculean task here, and deserves major thanks from all of us. Selecting the finalists from a field of entrants is always going to be controversial, of course. I think if the band chooses a favorite, we all have to accept that, since it's their music! But Mike's selections are important, as he has the perspective of a pro, and his choices reflect that.

We all have things to learn, and this contest has been a great opportunity to see that, not only on our own critiques, but on the aggregate critiques. The tracks themselves had some shortcomings, but nothing out of the ordinary, if my experience is typical. And trying to satisfy several judges is nothing unusual, even when working with just the band (no label, etc.) It's not uncommon to have one or two members loving the crazy edit, while the others nix it.

I hope to have some more contests in the near future, though I don't know that we'll get another judge with the dedication of Mike!

[Smelly Biscuits]

Congrats to all that are still in it, I think this is a great idea right from the start and hope to see more of it.

I think Mike has been right on with alot of his comments, and has done a great job in offering constructive critism as well as solutions to the issues with some of the problems with the submissions. I think He should also be commended for taking his time and dedicating it to something like this, and the way that He was able to deal with us in a very professional manner, even though alot of us are just hobbiest or relitively unknown in the field. I'm usually not one for taking instruction or learning things from a book as I like to learn things by doing them myself, but Mike was so dead on with issues that He described in mixes and was able to describe them in such detail, that I just can't resist buying his book.

I also think that John Suitcase should be recongnized for his efforts with this site, and this contest. I think He is doing an incredible job.

One issue that has been bouncing around in the last few posts involves fixing the pitch of the vocals. Unless I was asked specifically to do so, I don't think that this is something that should be messed with. I think the track sounds good as it was recorded, if it breaks some rule of Music theory, then so be it - if it sounds good it's good. A very large percentage of the listening audience will never even notice if the pitch is off a bit. I think fixing issues like this is somewhat dishonest and makes things sound homoganized and sterile. I think a little dissonance can make things more interesting.

[Vincent]

The way this contest is ending could be a learning lesson...perhaps it would of been better if the band just picked the winner and then maybe mention one or two mixes that came close...top 3 or something.

[Guitar Zero]

Congrats to all that are still in it, I think this is a great idea right from the start and hope to see more of it.

I think Mike has been right on with alot of his comments, and has done a great job in offering constructive critism as well as solutions to the issues with some of the problems with the submissions. I think He should also be commended for taking his time and dedicating it to something like this, and the way that He was able to deal with us in a very professional manner, even though alot of us are just hobbiest or relitively unknown in the field. I'm usually not one for taking instruction or learning things from a book as I like to learn things by doing them myself, but Mike was so dead on with issues that He described in mixes and was able to describe them in such detail, that I just can't resist buying his book.

I also think that John Suitcase should be recongnized for his efforts with this site, and this contest. I think He is doing an incredible job.

One issue that has been bouncing around in the last few posts involves fixing the pitch of the vocals. Unless I was asked specifically to do so, I don't think that this is something that should be messed with. I think the track sounds good as it was recorded, if it breaks some rule of Music theory, then so be it - if it sounds good it's good. A very large percentage of the listening audience will never even notice if the pitch is off a bit. I think fixing issues like this is somewhat dishonest and makes things sound homoganized and sterile. I think a little dissonance can make things more interesting.

Good post, but I think your last paragraph is open to discussion.  I would say a fair number of people felt like the vocals didn't sound good as is, since a fair number of mixers did tune them, myself included.  Since the vocals are the centerpiece of pretty much any song, it needs to sound good.  Nothing dishonest about tuning vocals any more than re-amping a guitar take, adding reverb, or EQing the overheads.  Mixing is about making the tracks presented sound as good as possible, vocal or instrumental.

I was actually a little un-inhibited when I made my last post, and I was about to remove it today, but noticed that my +karma went from 2 to 5 within a few hours, so I figured maybe it resonated with some people.  Good topic for further discussion.

[Lastrite]

The use of pitchcorrection on vocals is debatable of course. However, using pitchcorrecting software to tune vocals to the wrong note is simply an error. That was what I was talking about personally, I was surprised to see that such an error was not seen as critical

The shortlist is perfectly fine with me. It shows me that I'm (still) undervaluing certain parts of my mixing techniques that others weigh heavier in their opinion, so it's a great lesson as far as I'm concerned!

[AnthonyMF]

The way I heard these guys they were halfway to punk anyway. To me it seemed disrespectful to take their performance and tune it/time align it. I did however feel that the arrangement was hugely lacking. No multi tracked guitars, nothing to build the sense of epicness that I sensed the guys wanting. And that lead part in the chorus robbed the song of the opportunity for a really strong hook. Plus some of the ideas clashed. The clean rhythm part in the chorus distracted from the bass, it would've been better just to layer some chords in and leave the bass it's own rhythmic space.

I guess in my experience people either come to me to produce or they come to me for a mix, but I don't really have much experience trying to do heavy production/arrangement work AFTER the song has been recorded. Chopping out a few bars is one thing, rewriting a song in the mix is another. In fact the last time that came up, I said to the artist "I think you should retrack some stuff" and took them into the studio.

[triviul]

I'll try to respond to everyone in one go if I can!

my view is, fixing *recording*-problems is one thing (and i think that is what dave meant with his "quote"), but changing the production another. young griffos track is fine as it is, but just needs some fixing here & there, but no additional production gimmicks. maybe its not a perfect radio single, but it could have a good place on an album. i think it doesn't need additional production stuff, since it is authentic independent rock & doesn't need to be forced to converted to be fully compatible for the radio-play (it won't be authentic anymore IMO). young griffo had the idea to have the track like that & as an mixing engineer i don't turn a track into something else if everything (regarding the production) is fine from my view.

It's funny, because I actually agree with all of this. It's a question of degree, though, especially in the context of the band (rather than a manager/A&R) being the client, and everyone will drawn their own line in the sand there -- but that's a really good thing, because otherwise everyone's mixes would be the same and the art of mixing as a whole would be stifled. This is why I'd hoped that we'd all disagree on this. (Even if that means me taking on the role of whipping boy! )

From my perspective, the one thing that all these mixes have is BALANCE, in stereo especially. So if balance is number one on the importance scale, then this makes a lot more sense to me. If not, then I remain confused.

You've certainly put a finger on one of my own personal hobby horses, as far as mixing is concerned, but to look at this from a more general standpoint for a moment... As I see it, any mix you do without the band's direct feedback is a first draft. Yes, there are clear problems with all these mixes (as Guitar Zero correctly highlights), but the bits that they do get 'right' for me contribute to a general 'spirit' in each case which is what I wanted to hear. To put it another way, if I were a member of the band, I'd personally choose one of these five mixes, even though I'd know I'd want to follow it up with a list of revisions (as I would expect any band to do with a mix in which they'd so far had no direct input). It's a question of me liking the ballpark, rather than counting the bases. (Wow. I think that's the first baseball analogy I've ever used. ) Or, to put it yet another way: it's probably easier to get ask someone who's submitted a first-draft mix to sort out some duff tuning than it is to ask them to add 'vibe', 'richness', or anything else more subjective.

I did however feel that the arrangement was hugely lacking. No multi tracked guitars, nothing to build the sense of epicness that I sensed the guys wanting. And that lead part in the chorus robbed the song of the opportunity for a really strong hook. Plus some of the ideas clashed. The clean rhythm part in the chorus distracted from the bass, it would've been better just to layer some chords in and leave the bass it's own rhythmic space.

[...]

I think fixing issues like this is somewhat dishonest and makes things sound homoganized and sterile. I think a little dissonance can make things more interesting.

Comparing these posts to those of karumba, Guitar Zero, and others just underlines the point that things like this are a judgement call, and they reflect the personality of the engineer. Which, again, is exactly as it should be.

(That's not to take away from Lastrite's relevant point, though, that pitch-correcting to the wrong note (as quite a few people did -- presumably by relying on some kind of automatic pitch-correction) is pretty easy to categorise as a clear mistake. Still, it is again a mistake that's a whole lot easier to remedy than a lot of less tangible things.)

So how do we compare mixes that have obviously been mastered with ones that have not?

Usually by deciding first whether I think the louder track has taken the processing too far, and (assuming it hasn't) by applying my own loudness processing to the unloudness-processed mix to achieve a reasonable match. Again, though, people have very different views on this issue, and while I'm not about to dismiss the importance of loudness issues in mixing, I'm not sure it's necessarily in everyone's best interests to pursue that particular well-worn topic on this particular thread when I reckon it'd be better to use people's energy critiquing each others mixes instead. So far we've heard a lot of my opinions, and I think some other viewpoints on specific mixes would help round things out, especially when it comes to top-five lists. In fact, it'd be rather interesting to see different posters' top-five lists, if only to give context to their comments. (As my own list clearly points to my own personal mixing agenda! )

The way this contest is ending could be a learning lesson...perhaps it would of been better if the band just picked the winner and then maybe mention one or two mixes that came close...top 3 or something.

I rather hope that they will do exactly that, and will encourage them to do so. And, as mentioned earlier, I've encouraged them not to restrict themselves to my shortlisted tracks. As I see it, the premise of this competition has always been that you're mixing this track with the band as the client, so it would be the most appropriate ending if the band were indeed to act as the client in making the contest decision. I can't speak for them, though, but will keep everyone posted.

Phew. Time to go hide some Easter eggs! Look forward to reading the continuing comments early next week.

[karumba]

mike, thx for your reply.

As I see it, any mix you do without the band's direct feedback is a first draft. Yes, there are clear problems with all these mixes (as Guitar Zero correctly highlights), but the bits that they do get 'right' for me contribute to a general 'spirit' in each case which is what I wanted to hear. To put it another way, if I were a member of the band, I'd personally choose one of these five mixes, even though I'd know I'd want to follow it up with a list of revisions (as I would expect any band to do with a mix in which they'd so far had no direct input).

ok, it seems i fully missunderstood the whole contest. my understanding was to not prepare a "first draft", but to provide a finished mix. so from a different viewing angle: i expected your decision to be not from "a bands perspective", but from a mixing engineer perspective. the band itself has their own perspective which you can't pretend. your decision is now based on your taste, not on the "objective" professionalism of the mixes. (yes i know, what is "objective"?).
so the question should have been (IMO): "which mix could be released *as it is*?"
but i think you already understood my view. and even if don't agree, i understood yours too

[vvv]

The way this contest is ending could be a learning lesson...perhaps it would of been better if the band just picked the winner and then maybe mention one or two mixes that came close...top 3 or something.

I rather hope that they will do exactly that, and will encourage them to do so. And, as mentioned earlier, I've encouraged them not to restrict themselves to my shortlisted tracks. As I see it, the premise of this competition has always been that you're mixing this track with the band as the client, so it would be the most appropriate ending if the band were indeed to act as the client in making the contest decision. I can't speak for them, though, but will keep everyone posted.

Ah-ha!

So them of us what thought we were out might still be able to getta hit! (My first baseball analogy{s}, +  ...   )

[Argle]

I did however feel that the arrangement was hugely lacking. No multi tracked guitars, nothing to build the sense of epicness that I sensed the guys wanting. And that lead part in the chorus robbed the song of the opportunity for a really strong hook. Plus some of the ideas clashed. The clean rhythm part in the chorus distracted from the bass, it would've been better just to layer some chords in and leave the bass it's own rhythmic space.

I agree completely.  If I was mixing the bands track for real, I would have urged them to go back and record more parts and get a better arrangement.

[Mavro]

Hi,

I know its late to hand in a mix for the competition but i was thinking that i post it here anyway just for fun so you guys can listen and give feedback if you want .

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4384939/Mixoffrock.mp3

Nice song !

Cheers

[MatG]

Hi Guys,

    Just wanted to thank all of you for your efforts in this contest. I understand that anything creative rolled into a competition is bound to get a bit divisive but I just wanted to underline that we have and will continue to listen to more than the shortlist of submissions. Not giving anything away just yet but I wanted to be clear on that 

We've though quite a bit about some of the feedback on the track and I just wanted to post some experiences and thoughts. At the end of the day, this process sort of simulates working with a customer for you guys so here is some of our thinking -

I appreciate that there is a philosophical discussion about the levels of mixing versus fixing occurring. Looking at it from a band's perspective, we had a pile of tracks consolidated with some good performance bits and some not so great in B2B. We never recorded or arranged the track for analysis from over 70 mixers and would have perhaps been a little more vigilant in what we provided if we had known! This was taken from the first day of tracking we actually recorded as a band (ever) and I feel there is a level of roughness that reflects this.

While no band of our genre wants pristine mixes and Kanye autotuned vocals, I feel there is a happy medium between mixing and fixing. I think many mixers in the industry will now correct a note here and there to enable it's placement in the mix. How far should a mixer go? Thats a tough one. I don't want a "creative replacement" of a song to a drastic extent but I think I have to also respect the ears and talent of the mixer too. My preference as a vocalist would be to nail all tracks up front and after some very painful reflection via this process, I would probably re-record this track if i wasn't so horribly scarred by this discussion 
 
But we have worked with two mixers on our EP and i want to share the customer experience with the different philosophies.
 
Mixer 1

Involved himself in the creative process, definitely fixed some issues, clearly added character to the mix and as a result we were thrilled. We smashed him with revisions and really collaborated on a balance between imperfections, character and polish. Did we take liberties with the fact the mixer was a perfectionist and passionate about getting a good result? Probably. The tracks aren't perfect but they now sound great and Mixer 1 has squeezed every bit of potential out of tracks that were not brilliantly recorded or perfectly performed. We knew the passion, message and delivery was there and we wanted the best from this. Thats the key for us.
 
Mixer 2

Was used for one track (Mixer 1 was unavailable). Mixer 2 is actually a US based pro who boasts a huge resume of working with grammy award winners. His online service was moderately priced, his samples were impressive and it was the best we could find - even if it pretty much killed our budget for the EP. But then - Mixer 2 returned a "level correction" mix. He offered us a tin can drum kit sound (because thats how it arrived), ignored the reference track (which was actually from Mixer 1) and generally sprayed flange all over the guitars ("I added some effects you see") and called it done. Nothing was corrected. Nothing was touched and perhaps, from a moral perspective, the mixer decided - "You give me a budget standard recording, I will give you a budget standard mix. It's too much of my time to do otherwise". He argued that the recording is what it is and he mixed it and this is the outcome.

Perhaps he is right. Perhaps we should re-record it at a higher priced studio and perhaps the track lacked quality. Perhaps all of the tracks lack quality.  But as a customer, it sounded like we got a 45 minute level fix and a clear avoidance of any great time investment or effort. Of course the track would sound better in a $1000 a day studio recording. Obviously! But we had just worked with Mixer 1 and had some new expectations 
 
I'm not saying this answers the "mix or fix" argument. But I will argue that the "mix and will fix" experience is much more pleasant than the "mix but won't fix" experience for a band. It's much better for a band and much worse for a mixer as I see it. But it is what it is.

This is the point of reference tracks in the process. It's not to say - emulate Abbey Road quality for us and we will give you junk. It's about tonal goals, fresh creative ears and there needs to be an honest upfront evaluation from a mixer. Maybe a mixer should feel free to say - "I can't give you these sounds guys". I think we would respect that - and we respect this feedback here on the forum. But I can assure you that Mixer 2 never said that. He mentioned that he was sorry we were unhappy with his mix and reminded us that there were no refunds (job done).

So my advice as both a happy and unhappy customer in recent months, is listen to the reference tracks and evaluate a track before you start. Mixing can bring out the best of a track - but it shouldn't recreate it. We also respect that there needs to be a decent track in there to work with. The mixer needs to feel a decent track is in there too - irrespective of taste. You can resolve imperfections but you can't completely overhaul a bad performance There is a creative balance in there and thats the collaboration a band needs. I guess it all starts and grows with that first conversation and the lines of acceptable effort need to be drawn up.

Cheers,

Mat
Young Griffo

[mrtuesday]

Mr Tuesday,

When I heard your revised mix, which included "the drop", I was like, he just punked my idea. The truth, howver, is that you made my "stunt" look silly in comparison. So props to you for that. When I heard it, I was like, "Damn, I can't beat that"...yet!! I will have my revenge lol

woops - it does look a bit like that doesn't it...
I hadn't actually listened to your mix (honestly) but obviously we had (almost exactly) the same idea about what that moment in the song needed!

MatG - great response & explanation to the mixing/fixing debate that's developed here.
Personally I've found the recent arguments a bit strange & have been tossing up whether to chime in or not.
I don't want to re-ignite things too much so I'll just make a couple of points:

a) if the song had been recorded perfectly, everything spot on timing & tuning, amazing sounding drums, awesome arrangement etc - it wouldn't have worked nearly as well for a mixing competition. Surely part of the idea was to see what people would do with less than perfect tracks?

b) in the brief for this competition it stated "you're completely free to use any means you wish to create your mix. So if you want to remove tracks, edit things around, do replacements/overdubs, or anything else, that's fine -- whatever it takes to deliver the most exciting mix you can and blow the band's socks off!". The band has said it's open to any and all ideas. If you don't like the ideas other mixes had or didn't want to add any yourself fine. But to say you shouldn't have to add/change anything when the brief clearly says you can seems a bit pointless.

c) on the mixing/fixing thing - I've never (yet) been in a position where there's a separate recording engineer, producer & mixer each with their own clearly defined roles. In my (limited) experience lines have always been blurred. As a mixer I can't help but get invested in the material & if I hear things that need fixing, or added, or chopped I would always suggest or try them. Obviously the client has the final say but I think in general people are open to ideas in the studio at any stage in the process - the whole fresh ears thing. Plus some ideas (or "gimmicks" as some have called them) could only happen at the mixing stage (no one's going to think of a reverse reverb re-entry in the rehearsal room for instance). I guess I'm just saying - if it sounds good it sound good, regardless of whose & when the idea came up.

Finally big thanks again to Mike - I don't think I can imagine what listening to & critiquing 70 mixes of the same song would be like! I think I listened to about 10 (plus Mike's "final five").
Plus thanks to the band - very generous & I think in the end quite brave to let everyone muck about with their song (I don't think I'd like 70 people commenting on my vocal performance & pitching!)

ok - i'm done

Cheers
Malcolm

[Guitar Zero]

Hi Guys,

    Just wanted to thank all of you for your efforts in this contest. I understand that anything creative rolled into a competition is bound to get a bit divisive but I just wanted to underline that we have and will continue to listen to more than the shortlist of submissions. Not giving anything away just yet but I wanted to be clear on that 

We've though quite a bit about some of the feedback on the track and I just wanted to post some experiences and thoughts. At the end of the day, this process sort of simulates working with a customer for you guys so here is some of our thinking -

I appreciate that there is a philosophical discussion about the levels of mixing versus fixing occurring. Looking at it from a band's perspective, we had a pile of tracks consolidated with some good performance bits and some not so great in B2B. We never recorded or arranged the track for analysis from over 70 mixers and would have perhaps been a little more vigilant in what we provided if we had known! This was taken from the first day of tracking we actually recorded as a band (ever) and I feel there is a level of roughness that reflects this.

While no band of our genre wants pristine mixes and Kanye autotuned vocals, I feel there is a happy medium between mixing and fixing. I think many mixers in the industry will now correct a note here and there to enable it's placement in the mix. How far should a mixer go? Thats a tough one. I don't want a "creative replacement" of a song to a drastic extent but I think I have to also respect the ears and talent of the mixer too. My preference as a vocalist would be to nail all tracks up front and after some very painful reflection via this process, I would probably re-record this track if i wasn't so horribly scarred by this discussion 
 
But we have worked with two mixers on our EP and i want to share the customer experience with the different philosophies.
 
Mixer 1

Involved himself in the creative process, definitely fixed some issues, clearly added character to the mix and as a result we were thrilled. We smashed him with revisions and really collaborated on a balance between imperfections, character and polish. Did we take liberties with the fact the mixer was a perfectionist and passionate about getting a good result? Probably. The tracks aren't perfect but they now sound great and Mixer 1 has squeezed every bit of potential out of tracks that were not brilliantly recorded or perfectly performed. We knew the passion, message and delivery was there and we wanted the best from this. Thats the key for us.
 
Mixer 2

Was used for one track (Mixer 1 was unavailable). Mixer 2 is actually a US based pro who boasts a huge resume of working with grammy award winners. His online service was moderately priced, his samples were impressive and it was the best we could find - even if it pretty much killed our budget for the EP. But then - Mixer 2 returned a "level correction" mix. He offered us a tin can drum kit sound (because thats how it arrived), ignored the reference track (which was actually from Mixer 1) and generally sprayed flange all over the guitars ("I added some effects you see") and called it done. Nothing was corrected. Nothing was touched and perhaps, from a moral perspective, the mixer decided - "You give me a budget standard recording, I will give you a budget standard mix. It's too much of my time to do otherwise". He argued that the recording is what it is and he mixed it and this is the outcome.

Perhaps he is right. Perhaps we should re-record it at a higher priced studio and perhaps the track lacked quality. Perhaps all of the tracks lack quality.  But as a customer, it sounded like we got a 45 minute level fix and a clear avoidance of any great time investment or effort. Of course the track would sound better in a $1000 a day studio recording. Obviously! But we had just worked with Mixer 1 and had some new expectations 
 
I'm not saying this answers the "mix or fix" argument. But I will argue that the "mix and will fix" experience is much more pleasant than the "mix but won't fix" experience for a band. It's much better for a band and much worse for a mixer as I see it. But it is what it is.

This is the point of reference tracks in the process. It's not to say - emulate Abbey Road quality for us and we will give you junk. It's about tonal goals, fresh creative ears and there needs to be an honest upfront evaluation from a mixer. Maybe a mixer should feel free to say - "I can't give you these sounds guys". I think we would respect that - and we respect this feedback here on the forum. But I can assure you that Mixer 2 never said that. He mentioned that he was sorry we were unhappy with his mix and reminded us that there were no refunds (job done).

So my advice as both a happy and unhappy customer in recent months, is listen to the reference tracks and evaluate a track before you start. Mixing can bring out the best of a track - but it shouldn't recreate it. We also respect that there needs to be a decent track in there to work with. The mixer needs to feel a decent track is in there too - irrespective of taste. You can resolve imperfections but you can't completely overhaul a bad performance There is a creative balance in there and thats the collaboration a band needs. I guess it all starts and grows with that first conversation and the lines of acceptable effort need to be drawn up.

Cheers,

Mat
Young Griffo

Great post that adds some great perspective.  Thanks for taking the time to chime in, and thanks again for letting us all butcher your tracks.