This is definitely a newb question, but I figure I would get your responses anyways.
 
For those of you who do recording for a living.
After you are done with the actual recording process and you feel comfortable to move onto the mixing stage. Do you keep the band/artist/performer in the studio while you go through that process.
Lets say you have a 10 song album. Wouldn't that be a lot for the band to sit through. Hours and hours of mixing, while people have lives, jobs, families to attend to.
 
What are your experiences and is there a set method that you personally use.
 
Thanks again,
 Vokalzz

Once you have got guidelines as to what the artist wants, maybe aided by a couple of reference songs, there is no practical reason for any of them to be there while you're mixing.
 
And there are some very good reasons to mix alone:
 

• In the long run it will save time, not having to constantly answer questions
• You are free from having to assuage the fragile ego's of band members who feel their particular instrument or voice isn't loud enough in the mix
• You're free to take breaks whenever YOU want

+1  
 
Having the band in the room for mixing/mastering is a good recipe for going crazy.  Hell, it can take me a while to figure out what needs to be done in the mix half the time - now multiply that by 4 or 5 musicians that don't know squat about the process.  Mostly what you get is "turn my instrument up." 
 
After the mixing, let them make their comments so you can fix those.  Much cleaner way to work.  
 
Also, but some limits on their requests for changes up front, or you'll find yourself trying to paint pastel yellow over  three coats of black.

It all depends on the artists. Some have no interest in the mixing/mastering, some INSIST on being there (and of course get charged accordingly!), some want to but have no business being there (they get referred to someone ELSE to mix/master LOL).
 
No preconceived rules baby!
R

If you have a paying client, and they want to be in on the mixing, then let them. It's their project, after all, not yours. Of course, if they're smart, they will have a designated band member or "producer" to sit with you for the mix. But even if they don't, the customer's always right.

This would be a hard decision for me. As im thinking about converting into being a music engineer. As "Bristol_jonesey" and "AT" pointed out, there would be a clashing of ears, so to speak. I mean, doesn't the mixing engineer get paid for their artistry in production. Isn't it like painting pictures. That would be one of the reasons why a artist/band would goto a specific producer. Right? and if everyone is present during the mixing phase, then that could compromise the artists touch on the canvas.
Then again, I would understand why a paid artist/band would want to be present if they actually took their music seriously.
My fear would be this.......
Lets say I tell the band that I work alone during the mixing and mastering phase and they agree that is ok. When it comes time to show them my finished product, what if they absolutely love the sounds, but hates the way I mixed it. That would be back tracking right? Because now I would have to spend more time adjusting everything for the sake of the client. How time consuming, draining, and daunting that would be to have to go through that.
 
I guess what im trying to say, considering everything Ive mentioned. What would be the best way to avoid all this. Is there a way to avoid this type of conflict all together.
Unless im totally over analyzing the whole process, I mean I don't have a recording studio yet, so is this a thing?
 
 

I guess this all depends on the remit of the engineer, and how much artistic license they've got in the production.
 
If I was the engineer, I'd rather be left to it and avoid all the usual band politics that could arise.
 
However having being on the other side of the fence, I'd rather be there. After securing a deal a couple of decades ago, we left the mixing/production to the record company's own engineer/producer only to find they'd removed complete parts at their own discretion (despite me giving them detailed notes). Overall the end product was great, but I wish I'd been there to argue the point. They did offer to let us be there, but we couldn't afford the trip at the time.
 

Never!
 
If a band want to sit in on the entire mix they can find someone else to do it. But that's me. I have enough work as it is so to take on a job like that I can allow to have it on my terms.
 
Now, in an atempt to be fair, I try to include the artist as much as I think is neccesary for their egos and mine, but I find that most often they can't be bothered to sit in on the mix anyway - unless they are newbies, but they find cheaper alternatives than me, usually. I do, however, let one or more band memebers sit in on a 3-4 hour rough mix session just to set things up at first. If they don't want to do that, I do the rough mix on my own and send them a high resolution mp3 to get some quick feedback. Usually they they say: "sounds great, but more cowbell, please". Then I mix according to what their initial feedback is and add in special instructions - like "delay on the lead guitar in the chorus of song X1, phaser on the drums on the intro of song x2 and autotune the bad singing on X3". Then I have (as few as possible of) them in the studio for a mix review and final adjustments. But if they can't be present for that I send them the mix on every song and receive a detailed list of changes in return. Then I implement the changes and send them the new mixes. Depending on their budget, this final process is repeated a few times but that doesn't happen very often any more. On very rare occasions I am working with someone who prove them selves to be an asset in a mix situation, who understand the process, when to shut up and when to contribute. That way we can bounce ideas off each other in the process which can be both fun and educational.
 
I think that this is the way things are done these days. I work with people all over the world, as a sound person and as a musician, with music and with film/versioning, and it seems to be the standard procedure.
 
If you don't want people to hang around in the studio when mixing, let them know that the price for the mix can easily double because of the distraction and as long as you do a good job with their music, they never really complain about saving the extra money

It depends on the person. 
I like to get the mix as best as I can before they come and listen. If the client is clueless about mixing, go home and come back later. 
But I've worked with people who were very good at making calls on the mix and having them there made my job easier. 
In other words, you need to decide which hats you are wearing. 
In a small studio we often wear all of them.  
The recording Engineer takes direction from the Producer. Are you the Engineer and the Producer? Or is the client producing? This needs to be clear before you start. 

I have been involved with 6 albums where I had financial interest in the final product.
I was in the studio for every hour of the mixing and mastering on 5 of them.  I stayed quiet 95% of the time (as there's a reason that THIS engineer has been hired), but occasionally questioned the decisions or made suggestions.
It's a balance of ownership between letting the mixer do his thing (there's a reason he's been hired) versus me getting the end product that I'm paying for.
 
The one album that was mixed without my attendance/attention was such a disaster that I thought the stereo was broken.  And these were producers and engineers that have worked on million-selling albums.  Bad communication was the likely culprit, and I can't afford to make that mistake again.