WHAT’S ALL THE FUSS? WE’LL FIX IT IN THE MIX!

The mix can be considered as the product. In some ways it is quite perverse that so much value is given to the mix, but this aspect, alongside mastering, is the longest lasting image of quality which originally started with someone’s performance. This image can last generations, represent movements, and generate emotions and time stamps to many listeners.

The mix (alongside its sister process, mastering) might be likened to the paint job on a car; the motor car is still an impressive mechanical invention even by today’s standards; however, it is the paint job, the styling, the badge, and the image that give its identity and assumed quality, whether that is replicated inside the mechanics or not.

Sticking with the car paint analogy, it could be misconstrued that a car, however bad, that has a great paint job, will outstrip the competition in terms of performance. This is not going to happen. The same is true of recording and mixing. We’ve all heard the expression, “We’ll fix it in the mix.” This has become, to some, a real impression (some might say epidemic) of what can happen these days.

Mass computer access and high-quality systems such as Apple Logic and Pro Tools LE have opened up so many possibilities. Many artists and producers have retreated from the modus operandi of hiring a large, needless to say, expensive recording studio when their front room or garage could suffice. However, so many of these recordings can fall short of the sound quality expected. This is where a solid mix engineer can make all the difference and, yes, they may on occasion have to “fix it in the mix.”

However, this cannot be simply attributed to recording in a nice studio. Perhaps it is the skill and ingenuity of the traditional production team that can be lacking in home-based projects. It is now much easier to develop skills to circumnavigate a good acoustic space and good skill at performance, but this does not always live up to the real thing. As previously mentioned, we believe that the CAP (capture, arrangement, and performance) is a good way of achieving high production levels. As such, a well-recorded and executed production in the recording sessions will probably ensure the mix is of a higher standard whatever happens to it later down the production line.

Grammy award-winning mix engineer Rob Orton comments on the issues of fixing it in the mix: “More can be done in the mix but I think it’s a terribly bad idea to try and do it all in the mix. A mix generally takes a day and you’re looking for all those issues and key decisions to have been ironed out. You’re just trying to present what’s there in the best possible light and sometimes that means you’ve got to dive in and fix things, but all the time you’re doing that you’re taking away from the time that you could be spending on other more creative processes.”

WHAT IS MIXING?

This book is not intended to be a how-to guide, but, as the introduction says, a guide to guidance. Therefore, it would not be sensible for us to try to teach how to mix technically speaking, but to look at the production strategies one might employ to mix with.

If you really want to get into the process of mixing in depth, there are many good books, such as Izhaki, R. Mixing Audio: Concepts, Practices & Tools (Focal Press, 2009) which offer a wealth of insight into the world of mixing. The same is true later with mastering. A good reference here is Katz, B. Mastering Audio: The Art and The Science (Focal Press, 2008).

If you consider for one moment what mixing entails, we can suddenly think very differently about the process. In raw nuts-and-bolts terms the process is simple: mixing takes 24 channels (sometimes less or more) of different levels and treatment through some kind of summing system down to 2-track stereo (or surround if required). This is a simple process and something we probably take for granted. However, just think of the millions of permutations available simply using the faders.

On a technical level, mixing can be thought of differently. Its art form, as described above, is to squeeze the 24 channels of recording into a 2-track stereo mix: 24 fully dynamic recordings of parts to be managed, blended, and polished onto two tracks. It is a considerable expectation for this to be easily achieved, and it is simply amazing what is possible when a track becomes something larger than the sum of its parts.

However, consider this differently yet again. Through mixing, the production team have the opportunity to take a snapshot of a time and place and deliver this onto a canvas, a little like a painting if you like. A scenic painting encapsulates an image of a landscape at a particular time and place. Due to the scale the artist employs, it offers a representation of something much larger than the physical dimensions of the canvas, evoking different emotions captured in a different age (think Constable or similar). Mixing is an art, and can be considered in this way for it captures the time (the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, and so on), an emotion (whether personal or otherwise) from the age and genre.

Mixing is therefore important. However, if each producer was to continually consider the cultural impact the mixes might have, they’d perhaps fail to make so many decisions in quite the same way which make our music scene so dynamic. Spontaneity is still as much an important ingredient to the creative process as when recording the tracks.

However, a vision for the mix, as with the whole production, should perhaps be considered. In Section C (see chapter C-2, Pre-Production) we discussed the V.I.S.I.O.N. for a production; mixing still should follow this vision. Keeping an eye on the desired outcome and working to this might ensure a successful product, or should a producer not realize new scope for creativity when it presents itself, might restrict the overall possibilities.

Visiting the technical level again, mixing is, of course, much more than simply throwing up the faders in an organized arrangement. Much development and best practice has developed over the past 50 years. Key components remain, such as equalization, gating, compression, limiting, reverb, delay, and, of course, level and pan.

As with every art form and professional process, development has taken place in this arena also. We can always think of revolutionary developments that have improved our ability to mix, namely automation, audio editing (DAWs), and tuning tools (as previously mentioned) being just some. Alongside the technological-based developments are also the practice-based ones.

Each decade has seen not only its own style of sound shaped often by the equipment around it, but also practices in the studio have been set and broken time and again to create something new. Just think of the 1980s, for example. The bass was often not as big as we now would like, but the recordings were often precise and quite bright. Why? Well, we are not all that sure, to be honest, but improvements in equipment design, noise reduction systems for analog tape, and the use of more synthesizers, both analog and digital, may have improved the treble end. Culturally new musical movements, certainly here in the U.K., meant that the music was stripped down, leaving more space for clean and new digital reverberations to be heard. Each decade has its sound, both musically and in terms of engineering. Perhaps only now do we have a scenario where the technology may not define the sound of a decade.

Mixing should be something that flows naturally from the intended arrangement as set out by the producer and artist. However, these days mix engineers often edit a considerable amount to find the best vocal take, or replace or layer drum parts with better sounding samples. This aspect of mixing has become quite the normal practice in professional circles, certainly for pop recording. Every aspect of the recorded material is assessed for its perfection and repaired accordingly where necessary. Vocal tracks, both lead and backing, might be compiled from many takes and then tuned manually in Anteres Autotune (or similar). New parts might also be tracked to add effects and fill a poignant space in a recording. The art of production is still very much part of this mix process too, and can often be without a great deal of input from the producer.

VISION FOR MIXING

Mixing can be hard at the best of times, much more so before the option of total recall. When mixing on a large format console, tape machine, and so on, producers and their engineers could not afford to have commitment issues. Studio time has always been expensive and therefore has needed to be results driven.

By the end of the booked time in the studio complex, the production team would have liked to have delivered the mix for the singles and album. For some, perhaps running out of budget, there was no going back. To set up a large format console with 20 or so tracks of audio and a MIDI sequence tagging along too with any number of synths feeding in for a mix is quite a large undertaking. Without total recall, coming back to the same point can take a matter of hours, and hence is an expensive option.

In those days, it would be common for production and engineering teams to have to commit to tape. We’ve spoken about this before, in an age where tape ops were actually given an incredible level of responsibility. If they pressed “record” too soon they might wipe over the good lead vocal part from the previous section before dropping in for the new chorus. There are, of course, much scarier stories in circulation. The production team became confident professionals working within the bounds their equipment would allow them.

Producers would work on details from the start, ensuring positive performances and that each take counted. Producers were perhaps more willing to make confident decisions, as there were not many options for nonlinear editing other than splicing the tape, and across 24 tracks this is not always easy. These confident decisions were often borne out of an overall vision for the mix. Again this comes back to the vision the producer and artist have for the album as a whole. The producer should retain the overarching strategy for the production, taking into account the ideas provided by each stakeholder.

It is fair to say that the technological changes that have occurred within the music production world in the last five to 10 years have altered not only the way in which producers record, but also how, when, and if decisions are made. The ability to add more and more tracks and keep various takes until the very end means that decision-making is possibly not as pressured as it once was. This in turn has affected the size of the multitracks (in terms of track count) that some mix engineers have to deal with from time to time. This makes their ability to be decisive and discern a vision for the mix ever more important. If, as the producer, you have had, and stuck to, a clear vision for the track then you will have most likely made many of the necessary decisions along the way, thus making the mix engineer’s life a little easier.

The innate strategies for mixing can be considered on two levels: The strategy of the producer as we’ve discussed above, looking at every aspect of the production process, the mix’s place in the genre, market, and so on; and the strategy of the discrete and individual mix. Much of the strategy for each mix will be based on the engineer involved. Producers may choose to use their own engineers based on outcomes and relationships, but today, as previously discussed, there is a small army of emerging specialist mix engineers available to work remotely on the track.

When working with a specialist mix engineer the producer will often send a reference mix, possibly put together by the recording engineer, in order to give a flavor or direction as to where they hear the mix going. To the mix engineer this can be used as a rough template or guide, a road map for certain ideas and possible mix “direction.” It is important for the producer to communicate her vision of the mix to the engineer, as this will help further guide the process. What elements need to be picked out and focused on? Where are the hooks? How should they be enhanced and brought to the fore? How the mix engineer actually addresses these issues is down to their own judgment and interpretation (the methodologies behind how they do this is discussed a little later in this chapter), and it is this that can really add something different or special to a track.

Tim Speight’s comments not only highlight the importance of the mix engineer and the changes that they can (or sometimes not) make, but also that of the reference mix and the mix engineer’s interpretation of it:

The mix engineer is always looking to improve on what has already been achieved, and although some changes may need to be made at the producer’s, artists’ or label’s request, the goal is always to present the best possible result for commercial release. Therefore, if you, as the producer, want to make changes you should be able to discuss this with the mix engineer and end up with a result that not only pleases all those concerned but that also sounds great.

CHOICE OF ENGINEER(S)

The choice of mix engineer for a project can be based on a number of different factors and there are various stakeholders who need to be considered. Much of a mix engineer’s work arrives via a record label or producer and therefore, although you as a producer may have a particular mix engineer in mind for a project, you may also have to contend with the wishes of the record label and/or the artist. It is not unheard of for record labels and artists to request the skills or name of certain mix engineers as these can carry a certain amount of kudos and may provide the hit that all concerned are looking for. A label and their A&R will look at and consider the style, genre, and market that the record is intended for. Therefore they (or you as the producer) may listen to other similar style or genre tracks, like the sound, and request that the same mix engineer be used on the current project. For mix engineers this means that their previous work (mixes) is often the measure by which they are judged and therefore hired. This is something that was certainly evident for both Tim Speight and Rob Orton when they spoke to us for this book.

As we have already discussed in Chapter B-2, Your People, much of the reasoning behind the choice of mix engineer for a project will be based on relationship. Many of the partnerships that have been formed between producer and mix engineer in the past have occurred due to a natural working partnership where trust and creative flow have developed. This is obviously very similar to choosing a recording engineer where trust, communication and creativity are so important during the sessions. The biggest issue here for a producer is trust. If we consider that a producer may have spent a considerable amount of their time crafting and fine-tuning the production of a track, the person he then finally hands the track to work on, needs to be in the same ballpark, as it were. There needs to be some common thinking between the producer and mix engineer, and their ability to communicate their views and ideas to one another is vitally important if time and money are not to be wasted.

The other deciding factor will be the specific style or experience that a certain mix engineer can provide to a project. Most successful mix engineers will be able to deal with a wide range of styles and genres, but some may specialize in particular areas. This may not be through their own intentions but more that they have achieved specific and successful results in the past, which labels and producers then lock onto. They therefore become sought after and to a certain extent may always tend to get asked to mix certain types of track or artist.

MAKING SOME DISTANCE FROM THE SESSION

If you are producing the record and have therefore been working alongside the artist(s) for some time, you will have become close to the project. In some ways this is why mix engineers have become so attractive—not only because they can help sell records but also because they are another fresh perspective on the project.

Mix engineers today bring the unique flavor of their own style of production to the existing project and the potential value should not be underestimated. In many ways the mix engineer can refine and enhance an existing identity or redefine an existing identity into something different. There are many good examples. One rather obscure one would be Nerina Pallot’s hit “Everybody’s Gone to War” which as a single is pretty good, but it was Chris Lord-Alge’s mix that made this happen. Another good example of this is the commercial and radio-friendly sound brought to the Amy Winehouse track “Rehab” by mix engineer Tom Elmhirst. Here Elmhirst takes Ronson’s retro late ’60s soul sound and merges it with a much more contemporary hip-hop flavor. His use of kick and snare samples layered on the track assist in bringing the sound up to date, while the use of spring and plate reverbs complement the production style that Ronson has intended to capture.

If a producer is to effectively play a part in mixing the project or in directing the mix engineer, then the need for objectivity and distance from the song is essential. Many producers that do not take part in this process use the opportunity to do other activities while coming back to the project for critical listening, further direction, and approval. The amount of creative input that the mix engineer can provide can vary, but ultimately the responsibility of realizing the original vision lies with the producer.

Tim Speight prefers this way of working, saying, “As a mix engineer this is how I like to work, I don’t like the producers to be there while I mix. I prefer them to come in fresh at the end once I’ve got the mix going on and make some final tweaks.”

YOUR INFLUENCE ON THE MIX

The producer’s influence on the outcome of the mix can be varying. There are stories from the studio that suggest some producers walk in and declare a number of changes, and when out of the room the engineer recalls the previous settings. Some producers will be happy with the attention that they have paid to the arrangement and the instrumentation (the CAP) and therefore feel able to let much of the intricate mix work go to a trusted engineer. However, there are many producers who wish to remain with the work, working the production team hard until the mix quality is reached.

As we have already mentioned, the label’s A&R will most likely want to hear the mix and will certainly have an opinion about it. Therefore, it is important to remember that the process can involve a number of parties who will all have a vested interest in the end result. The main thing to consider here is the level of compromise or certainly discussion that may be needed. Again, clear communication and understanding will help, but as the producer is the project leader as it were, their views and opinions should be heard and trusted by the other parties involved.

Of course, there is absolutely no reason why the producer can’t be entirely happy with mix coming from the mix engineer. After all, the very reason that they are involved is because of their abilities to produce great results. In this case your input on the mix may be very minimal!

MIXING METHODOLOGIES

Many engineers have their own mix strategies or methods, which could be as simple as “bass drum up” or “vocal down” mix. The “bass drum up” method is where many engineers begin, starting with the bass drum and then snare, working up the kit and bass guitar to build a solid background for the vocals to finally sit on. Other engineers work on the lead vocal first and then spend time building a collage around it, shaping and layering the sound to fill the remaining space. Neither method is right or wrong and much of the decision should be based on the individual track and what element is considered to be of primary importance.

A mix engineer employs a high level of listening skills in order to discern the various elements of a track and how they are being integrated within the recording and production. Tim Speight discusses the importance behind being able to critically listen to a track and assess what’s going on in order to formulate ideas and an opinion. “One principle that I’ve drawn on is the idea of ‘Christmas tree mixing’ where you try and see the music rather than just listening to it. It’s amazing when you start analyzing the layers of music from the foundation with drums and bass and how everything layers together and links and builds, along with the width and depth. All of a sudden you can really start to see it.”

We are sure there are other engineers such as Michael Stavrou (author of Mixing with Your Mind, 2004) who often begins with the part that interested him the most. There are often elements within a track that are unique and could be considered the nonvocal hook, whether it be a drum pattern (Soul II Soul), a vocal, a guitar riff (such as in “Layla” by Eric Clapton), a bass line (Queen’s “Under Pressure,” also sampled by Vanilla Ice for “Ice Ice Baby”), or simply a unique texture made up of a number of elements. These elements can be more memorable than the lead vocal in some cases. Therefore, it can be sensible for this prized element to replace the vocal in a vocal-down mixing strategy. As we’ve said previously, the decision to approach the mix in any of these ways will be based on the vision that is established during the initial listening of the reference mix and material.

Rob Orton describes the approach to mixing from his perspective: “First of all I always listen to and pay a lot of attention to a reference mix and I think that’s where you really start. By listening to that you get a sense of what’s intended. When you start a mix you’re looking for all the little hooks to draw out of the song, and you’re figuring out a way that’s going to draw people in. When you make those decisions you’re trying to decide what’s important about a track, quite often it’s a vocal or it might be a slightly odd balance or something. It’s a difficult one to describe as it’s always something different. A big part of the job of a mixer is trying to find that ‘thing.’ It’s about sitting down and working out what’s good about it, what’s not so good about it. How can you make the things that are good more prominent and how can you make the things that aren’t so good less prominent? That’s a big part of it.”

As many producers come from the musician-producer ethic they are not necessarily technically minded. These producers may take the opportunity to rest their ears during the mixing of a track by allowing the engineer to work alone. The producer can then return and provide constructive critical feedback based on a fresh set of ears.

Engineer-producers will likely be in the engineering hot seat themselves or will be working closely with a chosen engineer on the mix. This may be the position you find yourself in, depending on your own skills and experience. In this case the communication will be immediate and a good working relationship is needed.

Each strategy for the mix based on the producer’s involvement will be different. One thing will be assured: the producer will be aiming to hear a mix he is happy with firstly for himself, but also for his clients, whether they see that as the record label, artist, or both.

BEING HAPPY WITH THE MIX

Being happy with the mix should be something that comes relatively easily, given that as a producer and/or recording engineer you would have taken care during the tracking process to gain the best capture, performance, and so on (producers CAP), and then a mix engineer guided by your reference mix and input would have brought the best out of the track sonically speaking. If this is the case, then being happy with the mix is not really an issue and it’s a job well done.

Where the mix begins to be an issue is either when original ideas don’t sound as they were intended or someone changes their mind and requires something different from what was originally agreed. The important issue here is to establish why this is the case and what needs to happen to rectify the problem. If things do not sound how they were originally intended, then it needs to be established whether this is something that has happened due to changes made in the mix process or whether the mixing process has simply highlighted a weakness that already existed in the track.

Perhaps the most simple issue to resolve is one of the mix engineer not treating the track as was expected or intended. It may be that they have highlighted different elements within the track, therefore affecting the blend between parts of the arrangement/production, or have simply processed something in a way that does not quite sit right when compared to the producer’s or artist’s original vision of the track. Either way, a chat to the mix engineer going over the issues and the necessary changes should not be a huge problem, although obviously another mix will take more time. How much more will depend on the degree of change that needs to take place. If this is only a few minor tweaks, then it may not take much time to rectify at all. Most mix engineers will be happy to make tweaks and minor changes to the track once feedback has been received, and normally the time taken to do this would not be charged for. This is an aspect that would be discussed and finalized with the mix engineer when contracts are agreed.

If the final mix highlights weaknesses in the original recording that may have been missed or weren’t as obtrusive before, there are two possible routes to take. (We would like to point out here that a good mix engineer would do their utmost to rectify any possible issues during the mix process; however, this may not always be possible.)

Firstly, there’s the “fix it in the mix” approach. This is by no means a great way to proceed, for reasons that we have already covered and the end result might still be short of the mark, given that there is only so much a mix engineer can do. However, depending on the issue, this might be a perfectly viable option (one that the mix engineer might have already taken). The alternative route to this would be to rerecord whatever it is that is causing the problem within the track and hopefully iron out the weakness that has become apparent. This solution will not only take more time and incur extra costs, but will also require the artist and musicians to be available once more for recording. This is the reason why so many producers and recording engineers will always pay so much attention to detail and quality at the tracking stage.

If you fall into the engineer-producer bracket, then you may decide to mix the track yourself or possibly alongside your recording engineer. Although we have mentioned a lot with regards to the specialist mix engineer, it is still quite common for a recording engineer to end up completing the final mixes, possibly with or without the producer. (Tim Speight and Hugh Padgham are again good examples here.) This is obviously very much a personal choice and depends on background and expertise. However, it is worth pointing out that if this is the case, then you may find it harder to maintain a level of critical distance given your close involvement in the recording sessions and overall production process thus far. Having said this, you will most likely have been steering the recording process very closely with the final mix in mind and therefore much of the hard work may have been done already.

The important issue here is knowing when you are happy with the mix and that you have done all that can be done to present the track in the best possible way. Knowing when to stop tweaking and call it a day is important, as after a certain point you may not be making any further improvements at all. Worse still, you may actually be undoing what you have already achieved. One analogy that may be helpful is that of climbing a mountain. When starting at the bottom there is a long climb ahead, but as you climb you are constantly making progress. Eventually you’ll reach the summit and be at the highest point. After this, the only way is back down, possibly even retracing your steps!

The mixing process can be very much like this at times, with the first few rough mixes making good progress until you reach, say, Mix 4 when after this the quality starts to tail off and you’re actually heading back down again!

Most of the decisions with regard to the final mix should be made with the best possible result in mind. The route that is taken to achieve this is to a certain extent secondary as long as it serves the purpose.

MIX EVALUATION

There will be down time from the recording or mixing sessions, whether that be for a cup of coffee or a longer break. Breaks are excellent to rest your ears and rejuvenate you for a refocus at another time. On returning from a break, your ears are at their most objective and it is at this point that a listen back is most useful in determining issues and the next job on the list.

Developing a personalized system by which notes can be taken quickly without drawing too much focus away from listening is recommended. The following is an example, but you should use whatever system you develop.

It is good to have a personalized method by which notes about specific issues in a mix can speed up workflow. On the first pass, symbols can be used to note there is an issue, and descriptions can be added later on subsequent passes.

The symbols in this example make the notation quick and easy to take down on a first pass, especially if there is a lot to notate in a short space of time. The symbols here show a “ – ” for timing issues, “ | ” for tuning and “ O ” for any cohesion issues needing attention. Later passes can be used to embellish the descriptions if necessary.

If you are running the DAW, then it will also be possible, say with Pro Tools or Logic, to enter markers and simply place the “ – ” or “ | ” or “ O ” in and come back with further descriptions on a second listen.