Have your say: Diplomacy in recording.

Whether you are a songwriter recording a song, an instrumentalist or band member adding a part to a song, or the engineer behind the desk, how much of a say can you have in the process?

I would assume diplomacy is accepted as long as it benefits the end product. But many times musicians are left disheartened when they have written a part, or a great set of lyrics and the idea is not even considered, or by something that has occurred after the recording has stopped... A guitarist has had his perfect tone that defines him pumped through signal processing that alters his tone, a bass player gets lost in the mix, a cymbal accent is lost somehow, the breathing you added for emphasis has been edited out, or when you are mixing, you compress and mix the track so that it will play better through all formats and the band complain it has lost its 'live' feel.

Are their times when your say just doesn't matter?

I would feel democracy and diplomacy should be part of any collaboration, that mutual and accepting ability to hear both sides of the discussion and go in favour of the most beneficial.

What are your thoughts?

When you record the instruments yourself, you have total control.

Typically, if you are in a band and you've made it to the point where you are recording, you will already have agreed upon how loud each section is for live performances.

Totally agree on both parts Boom.

But if we are talking about after you have recorded your parts (in a situation where YOU are not the one recording/ mixing), and you are hearing something that sounds so different to the way you hear the song, your tone, your volume and how you want to sound in the song, what then?

I believe the entire process should be collaborative. That all parties should have the opportunity to explain why they want something sounding a specific way.

In my current band/group situations, 2 of 3 drummers I play with love high bass. 1 of 5 guitarists like the bass loud. I typically want the bass to be in the forefront; especially, if the guitars are playing very simple things or are just holding out long chords. Think Tool, Primus, and Pantera.

I hate having the bass so lost in the background that one has to listen in just for the bass. If I were in control, nearly every song would be mixed this way. If I shared control with a band, I would fight for compromise. If I was hired to play bass for someone else'c recording, I would just shut up and let them make the decisions.

level is such an inconseqential mix parameter... I seldom move the faders far past my intial balance but I will frequently create bandwidth for a particular isntrument by removing parts of the frequency spectrum from other isntruments thata re critical to the track that's getting lsot at times but thata re not important components of the timbres in teh other tracks. Where there's overlap in tracks and its causing masking I will make decisions, for isntance lows centered at 80hz on abss guitar and 100 hz on kick with a sub freqnecy between 40 and 60 ghosting on the kick for a milisecond to give weight to the attack... I will also do thigns with dynamics control. If an isntrument decay is masking soemthing I will use an expander to duck it down subtley or maybe even gate. Sometiems a track is being amsked by ROOM MICS ebcause the reverb is too swampy. Its oudsn good and all bt its gotta get hut down so the music can brathe. Gate.... Copressing tracks indivdually a little and ing roups helps them to work together and duck eachother as needed. sidechain compression can improve the eprformance dynamics already implied by the musicians. Levels are emaningless because musical program material has an enormous dynamic range and wide bandwidth. Getting control of thsoe factors is most important and will generally cause other musicians to smile rather than say "I think the guitar needs to be louder." Even if people want themselves louder, often 3 or 4dB will do it for them and still work within context when you have the nuts and bolts management of the dynamic range and bandwidth in hand.

Xaq?!! help me out here

It's been different in every project I've been in, but most of the time it's been pretty positive. I can only recall 2 times the sound of things was an issue, one time it took the ear of a major Sub Pop producer (a very very well known one - X-eyed smiley hint hint) - to get them to clean some of that crap up.

Most of the time I hang around during mixing and I only say to change something if I feel it's either hiding someone too much in the background, or putting someone too much out front. More often than not we all listen to each other, and most of the tiem the producer gets it and it sounds great if I make a change.

One of the best and most democratic experiences I had with recording was working with Jerimiah Whitehall on the Smokin' 66' EP in 2008-2009. Jerimiah would send out the mixes on a hidden forum just for our band and we would review them and make suggestions. I LOVE how that EP turned out. All of us were showcased on that recording perfectly, and in that band it was very important because we had a lot of great stuff going on from all the musicians involved. I recall my focus when we were mixing down was to make sure none of us were too high or too low, that guitar solos did not mask out the orchestration, or that the bass guitar did not overshadow everything else. It was always some really tiny tweak, never anything major. None of us in that band stepped on each other's toes, such a shame it did not last longer.

OK a lot to unpack here.

As an engineer:

I try to remain as transparent as possible. I feel my job is only to capture what the band sounds like and try to have as little of a footprint as possible.

Jim covered a lot of how I do that. EQ is a huge friend. HUGE. I also try and direct their intentions in a way that fills up the frequencies nicely. Sometimes that's not always a consideration that many musicians think of but as an engineer I know how to get the same desiered result by offering up ideas on subtle shifts in the arrgement, notes, chord choice, intrument used, chord inversions, etc. That's only when I feel it's merrited.

If my ideas are not welcome, no problem. I'm only there to offer as much or as little guidance as requested.

As a matter fact learning how to take the temperature of the room is a huge part of being an engineer. Anyone who successful at this for a long time will have developed a very good ability to feel where the session is going and piviot as needed. This can be exausting at times but it's part of the job.

As far as mixing for all means of consumption there is absolutely no reason that should make the music sound in anyway less alive or dull. If someone's doing that they just don't know how to do their job properly. They're using that that some sort of cover or smokescreen for their lack of ability.

Amateurs will often try and hide their lack of ability by quoting some silly shtick like "I'm doing ______ so it'll sound good on all systems" or other such nonsence.

From your post it sounds like you've had the bad luck of working with some really shitty people. It happens. Kinda like cell phone cammeras made everyone think they we're a photographer, the availibility & afforability of DAW's have lot of people thinking of themselves as recording engineeres. Nope. They've just got an app.

As a Producer:

This is a really sticky area. Not just because the line can often be blurry. A lot of people just don't fundamentaily understand what a producers role is. Part of that is the fault that being a producer can just mean so many different things in different situations.

• Some see it as some sort of creative compromise- like their deferring to someone else for all their creative decisions. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Generally I try to help them execute their goals as well as I can.

• Some think that by hiring a producer they don't need to have their chops down, that it can be handled in "post" if you will. Nope. Can't polish a turd. Yes, Auto Tune can make even the worst singer sound in key but there is a trade off in doing so. Sometimes that works, sometimes not.

To make matters worse people often hire me as an engineer and what they actually want me to do is be an engineer and a producer. Those are different things that require wildly different things and a huge shift in workload. That's when you have "the conversation" about what role would you like me to play. Something I'm always working on improving.

As a producer it's possible to serve in so many different ways. It might be light duty like doing a bit of sound design or deploying more obvious FX. Like for instance Lana Del Rey has a very specific reverb for her vocals (as well as ripping off my former music festival's type font & asthetic). That might be something I'm asked to do- create a very signature vocal sound & design something on a syth part for something that was written on say a bass guitar.

On the heavier end I might get into the arrangement & spend a lot of time coaching a performance. Sometimes that means co-writing a song. I'll also make far more recomendations of instrumentation and performance. I might bring in outside players for symphonic sauce- like a cello, violin, brass, etc, etc.

Even in the heavier end the song will still be the same song, just lifted to a whole other level. Like going from "unplugged" to Pet Sounds. Sometime you want that. Sometimes you don't. It's up to the musicians to know their goals.

Lastly-

As a musician

As a musican I expect exactlly what you mentioned. Diplomacy. Diplomacy and professionalism. I also would look for someone who could clearly articulate what their services are & then it's up to me then to decide what I want from them.

When you record everything yourself you do have total control, however when you hire out someone to do your tracking- a professional, not a hack - you get something you can't get as well when recording yourself.

You get to focus on the music 100%. No distractions. This has been somewhat undervalued in my opnion. I've got all the kit I need to record a great album but I still have had other engineers track me because I want to be able to have that focus. It's a fantastic feeling.

You also get a more macro look at your music. Not being bogged down in the mechanics of being your own engineer it's much easier to see things as a whole. Can lead to some really amazing developments. Things can get done much faster as well if that's a concern.

...and that shouldn't mean you lose any measure of control over your sound. With a competent engineer they should be 100% trasparent unless asked otherwise. Plus, you get the bonus of using whatever great gear they've got on hand.

That said I absolutely LOVE recording myself & using the studio as an instrument. Just there are some point where I like handing off the controls to another person so I can focus on just the intruments I'm/we're playing and the music I'm/we're making.

This is where you should be getting several different mixes.

I offer up several different approches when I'm mixing & let the client tell me what's working for them and what's not.

I then adjust accordingly until they've got something they love. This can't go on forever but I usually can get them there in 3 mixes tops.

ALWAYS REACH FOR THE EQ BEFORE LEVELS.

If I could pass on one thing to anyone who is recording it'd be that.

EQ is the most powerful tool and with all the weird plugin's out there I feel like the power of just good EQ work is being overlooked. Fuck yer "One Knob" and "Sausage Fattener" stuff.

I still do test tone recognition on the regular. Listen to different boosts and cuts and guess the freq. Always honing my ears. For me it's not something you complete, it's a regular excersize.

I use a bunch of different things but Quiztones is an app you can download for your phone, tablet, or computer if anyone is interested. Can't recommend this kinda of thing enough.

"One of the best and most democratic experiences I had with recording was working with Jerimiah Whitehall on the Smokin' 66' EP in 2008-2009. Jerimiah would send out the mixes on a hidden forum just for our band and we would review them and make suggestions. I LOVE how that EP turned out. All of us were showcased on that recording perfectly, and in that band it was very important because we had a lot of great stuff going on from all the musicians involved. I recall my focus when we were mixing down was to make sure none of us were too high or too low, that guitar solos did not mask out the orchestration, or that the bass guitar did not overshadow everything else. It was always some really tiny tweak, never anything major. None of us in that band stepped on each other's toes, such a shame it did not last longer."

Now THAT is what I'm talkin' about.

there's a massive issue with the ready availability of tules and a dearth of understnding of what those tools are designed to accomplish and how they accomplish it not to mention alternative applications that can solve problems.... there's a denial of bandwidth and headroom issues too since digital replaced tape as if the rules changed when we could no longer saturate musically. This thread is just a 'musicians don't get it' thing. There are a dozen ways to skin a cat and fucking ith the levels is last priority. Get everything working together and THEN address elvel. This is subtractve Eq, dynamics control adn, well Zach, you know!

This thread is just a 'musicians don't get it' thing. There are a dozen ways to skin a cat and fucking ith the levels is last priority. Get everything working together and THEN address elvel.

Except it's not. This is a post to discuss who has a say in how a musician should sound, how a band should sound, and who gets to have governing say on these factors.

In the OP I did not mention levels at all, unless being lost in the mix is an instant quick fix waved flag for levels that I wasn't aware I was waving.

I will use a couple of examples to clarify: In 1992, a recording we released (WHICH WAS recorded to tape) as part of a compilation resulted in one of our songs, which had me using a Roland Jazz Chorus running into it clean (with a mild chorus in effect) made it to the final mix being so saturated with effects that the entire sound I recorded with, the sound I had chosen to represent that section of music, was lost. When I reported to the band running the project that this had been changed, I was told that the Engineer knew what he was doing. No Consultation.

In another recording years later, in a reknowned studio, with a reknowned engineer, our rhythm guitarist's work is barely audible throughout. Unsure if this is a "levels" thing or if a shared frequency had the two sounding too similar, but the absence of the parts he played in the songs was evident.

Another would be the example of a drop tuned metal band having their sound reduced to a fuzzy sludge and the engineer not agreeing to change it. I discussed this with Jim recently, but I feel that the artists should be able to fight for their sound or at least have their thoughts heard and the reason why the mix sounds as it does explained to them and if not the sound they wanted, they should not be completely out of pocket for the recording they could not use.

And on another, I was recording for a project, and based on direction from the writer and the sound of the other instruments in the song, I recorded a part choosing the amp and effects carefully, only to have additional plug ins dropped on top of what I recorded, changing the tone and voicing. When I raised this with the artist (writer), he said that he had showed it to others, and they said the new version (his adjustments to my submitted sounds) sounds heaps better.

The post was here to see if having a say and using diplomacy was acceptable when you have commited to a project, or whether your input was limited to supplying the tracks required, then passing ownership and direction of the product YOU created on to the person you did the work for, or the engineers running the project - who work with artists all the time and know what sounds best for a finished recording.

I am not calling for a definitive right or wrong. It was entitled "have your say".

who is paying? has the usician taken elave of his enses? its too complicated and you are getting reductionist and political.. I know why, but seriously, work with quality people with talent and experience and avoid these issues

'lost n the mix' is generally musician-ee for turn me p and is only worth addressing 50% of the time... I am going to be blunt and say a lot fo people can't ehar the forus for the trees especially if one of them falls when no one is there to ehr it so it might not make a sound... i was more addressing Boom. but if its someone else's project or soemtone else's dime (or both) thne eat it or go home... here are graradations of this with labels, if you can convince themthen sure but if people aren't eharing it your way it may be you... I hate to say this bu t the label goons aren't ALWAYS wrong. i wouldn't duke it out with Jimmy Iovine erpsonally though I think eh would trust me tog et it right

if money is not changing hands and you are offended then as I told you about this recent incident? walk off... hell even if money is changing hands you can walk off whenever its not a fulfilling enterprise as long as you can deal with the repercussions, man

its ok

"In 1992, a recording we released (WHICH WAS recorded to tape) as part of a compilation resulted in one of our songs, which had me using a Roland Jazz Chorus running into it clean (with a mild chorus in effect) made it to the final mix being so saturated with effects that the entire sound I recorded with, the sound I had chosen to represent that section of music, was lost."

Ok, I get ya. Unfortunately there's not much nuance to this. Sounds like the engieer was an idiot or just wasn't interested in serving the artist but that leads me to this...

The other band you mentioned:

"When I reported to the band running the project that this had been changed, I was told that the Engineer knew what he was doing. No Consultation."

I'm not 100% clear here- were you a session musican/"hired gun" on the session? If so then it really is up to the band to make the choice on what they want- daft as they maybe- as you said, they we're the band runing the session.

I've made turds for those who wanted 'em. Sucks, but I had to pay the bills.

That's not to say I think it's a good thing to stiffle anyone's opion arbitrarily. Far from it. I just see a lot of the day by day of how this plays out so I can only explain from my vantage point; to try and deconstruct it a bit.

In anycase that sucks you had the experience.

there is this tho:

As far as going forward if anyone is interested-

Noise Creators help find a good match for bands who are looking for an engineer or a producer. Great podcast as well.

http://noisecreators.com

Think you'd get a lot outta it. They talk about this and a lot of other similar things all the time.

"In another recording years later, in a reknowned studio, with a reknowned engineer, our rhythm guitarist's work is barely audible throughout. Unsure if this is a "levels" thing or if a shared frequency had the two sounding too similar, but the absence of the parts he played in the songs was evident."

There's a lot that could have gone wrong here but this comes back to getting "test mixes".

Anytime you're gonna work with someone, as akward as it might feel, every musican should have a real talk with the with the people they'll be working with.

It's often avoided-

rock and roll not being about bisness, fuck the man and all.

A lot of people profit of the back of those not willing to innitate these conversations. I partically have to shoehorn them in before sessions when I start talking about how I work & I get a "cool man, we really dig your stuff I'm sure this will go just fine."

No, it's not. Let's be clear what we expect from one another.

Gotta have a firm commitment to an argeed upon workflow and style where you build in the insurances that you'll get at least 3 revisions, etc. Not in passing language, in a very clear "let's sit down and talk about this".

There are tons of horror stories of people getting dicked over by the music industry and while tons of them are just insane-

There are always a few times where I wish the bands would take a bit of resposobility for what they failed to do that allowed them to get fucked over. If only because I think it'd help them and others in the recounting of those stories-

Not that they deserve it, but that's just the real world-people fuck people over given the chance. I lock my car, I lock my house, etc.

Reminds me of the Libertarians constant vetching about "Liberals" not taking on enough accountability for themselves. While I'm not strictly a Libertarian, I have been almost totally self employed for nearly a decade so I gotta really watch my shit so that message does resonate with me a bit.

WOAH. My posts are getting seriously huge. Sorry bout that. This is just dead center of the world I live in.

With all the things I've mentioned I truely only aim to help or at least demistify-

but text lacks the nuance so if I sound dismissive or anyting that's not my intent.

Stumbled across this-

It's not dead on point but it's close-

Video should start at 10:35

https://youtu.be/-D4NDBzBZoY?t=636

While he's talking about a specific style but it does translates to any style.

It's a person, who is frustrated by his hard work on his instrument not coming thru in the recording.

Learning as much as you can about recording and "production" is every bit as important to delivering a song/sound/vibe to the end listener.

A bit to the left of your topic but I thought it worth mentioning.

Mainly becuase in my experience 90+% of guitarist, bassist, etc. who I track spend all their time uping their playing often don't invest anywhere near the same disciplined approach to recording or "producing".

If a person I was tracking can articulate clearly what they want in "engineering" terms I have to be honest I'd be more likely to know exactly what they're after...

That is to say:

"This sounds kinda muddy/cluttered/things are getting lost/ on "blank" instrument at "blank" part of the song."

vs

"I can hear some freq masking between the ryth guitar & 2nd guitar around 4k at the 1min 30sec mark"

I can intuit the 1st- happens all the time -

but the 2nd is descriptive in a way I'd be hard pressed not to pay a lot of attention to. It's also likely to help squlech any "I'm a pro, it's like that for a reason" type shit outta any bullshiters.

being able to hear precisely and tlak enough talk to address the issue i the 2nd way is really a good palce to be... I also have run into problems with people who are amazingly proficient in their isntrument OUT OF CONTEXT and create problems by playing in registers thata re already full using 'their sound' which may be totally inappropriate to the material as written and arranged (often their own I might add)... you might get the other 3 clients in the band on apge with you as you try to hack away with EQ at the problem and they start tog et it that maybe it would be better if he played that phrase an octave up because the bass can't go any lower to get out of his way and the groove would crumble if the bassist went up for that long? but that guy will invariably then say you got everyone ganging up on him, however he was demanding you turn him up the whole time and bitching when you had to use subtractive EQ on his sound to get the bassist audible again... maybe its a number of factors conspiring against him that he walked into the studio with and its not going to amtter a ton what you do sicne he didn't really think that through. Whats that you say? it works live? In a big enough room probably, sure, theater size is like the only limiting factor on live sound dynamics and bandwidth really. But recording media has serious limits in ehadroom and bandwidth and ignoring them will get you distortion, a bad balance, a pumping bus compressor, frequency masking.... you might need to play for the medium. Before microphones you needed some pipes to sing but belting it out slowly went outta style with good microphones... and the crooners came in. Both styles played to the strengths of their tools to reach the audience with the right feeling and also just to be heard.

anyway, don't be that guy? I guess??? the guy Iw as tlaking about how is like turn it up but don't take any abss outta it, tis deep guitar man!!! I went off on a crazy tangent, I'm really worn out from last night

"I also have run into problems with people who are amazingly proficient in their isntrument OUT OF CONTEXT and create problems by playing in registers thata re already full using 'their sound'"

This happens all the time & where I'll try & start making small suggestions even if I'm sitting in the engineering seat.

If the room will hear it. If not, I pack it in & do as they ask...

but this is incredibly common.

Be amazing if I could just quicky say:

"Hey we've got a lot going on 2-4k on tracks blank, blank, & blank & if we shift this part to blank we can avoid crowding the bandwidth so this thing can pop"

Anyway, for what it's worth learning that kinda stuff might help the democratic dialogue move forward.