When you and the performers can't hear the same thing

Just having a late night muse here...
 
I'm currently having a somewhat frustrating experience with a band I'm recording. I love them, great band. Crazy-as-all-hell spiky mad prog music, but done in a really ragged punky way. Live shows are fantastic.
 
But they're obsessed with Lo Fi in a way I just cannot wrap my head around. They're not happy with a mix until everything is squashed, fizzy, and smothered in so much delay it sounds like it's happening at the other end of a tunnel.
 
Now, I take the view, in production / mixing terms, that we're making their record, not mine. But I just can't make sense of what they seem to be asking for. It's like they're afraid of sounding good, because that wouldn't be cool.
 
Anyone ever grappled with this kind of thing?

That is a tricky one. I think it all starts when you start meeting with the band and they should be telling you all this before you even record anything. Then you have at least got the option of deciding whether to do it or not. If I feel like they are going to want the whole mix to sound Lo Hi but Hi Fi mixes are my thing then I don't do it. It is not worth the agony. (BTW this obsession with making everything sound retro and like it was 40 years ago is BS as well. Everything sounds way better now and we should use the current technology to get the best possible result, now)
 
But you can always learn too. Sometimes combining Hi Fi aspects of a mix with Lo Fi things can work out really great. I have had some of my ideas changed on this and been pleasantly surprised too at the outcome. But overall I still have to feel that I want things to sound a certain way at the end of the day.
 
Usually a band or artist has picked me because they heard something I did and it blew them away. Then when we get into it and they start taking over the production process.  I then have to remind of why they chose me in the first place. I tell them to bugger off about that point and go away.
 
If you have to leave your name out of any credits then you should have not done the job in the first place. How ridiculous, you do all the work and do the job but cant have your name in the credits. No I would rather be real proud of what I have done and have my name in the credits. It is the much better route. For professionals it means turning things away.
 
It also depends on how professional the whole situation is. If you are not earning huge amounts John T from this and just helping them out then yes do it because you will probably learn a lot in the process. At least you will know how to make Lo Fi mixes for example. But if you are being paid well to do a job then in my case I do it the way it needs to be done and my way and I make that very clear right from the start.
 
Danny might have some interesting things to say about this too.

Jeff, you're absolutely right in terms of treating it as a learning experience, and I do think a big part of my job here is to allow for the possibility that they've got an insight that I don't have. It's certainly not to tell them how to sound.

To give a bit more detail, we've made four tracks. There's one of the four that both I and the band love, and it kind of falls between my audio geek desire to make everything sound punchy and their punkoid desire to make everythign sound fuzzy. It's powerful and dynamic, but still scuzzy as hell. It's great; not how I'd mix left to my own devices, but really good.

I want them all to be like that, but the main chief of the band isn't biting. I can tell the bass player is on my side, but I know better than to start playing around with internal band politics.
 
Hmm, probably I should just say to them what I've said in that last paragraph but one.

Regarding the pay question: there's no upfront, but there is back end. If there was up front, it'd be easier to take the money and walk away. Since it's all back end, if it sucks, there won't be any money.

Though to be clear about this, I'm not that fussed about the money. There won't be a lot any which way, though there'll be enough for me to feel like I got paid ok. It just bugs me to let something go out of the door below par.
 
 

Jeff Evans
And even if they want it their way when it comes to putting any of that music on my own demo I will use my own mix. Not theirs.

Heh, done that before. Not so much with mixes, but definitely with cheap-ass mix-killing bad mastering jobs. I'm no mastering engineer, but I'm a lot better than any of those $10 a track internet mastering guys.

John, I just had a VERY similar experience!  It's very frustrating for all parties involved. 

Yeah Ben, I already said I wanted to make their record not mine. Keep convincing yourself you're smarter than us blue collar yobs if you want. You're not.

I can see where Ben is coming from and he has a point. It is an artistic decision. But it is also one of those things that has its feet onto technical ground too so because of that the artist should not have all the say, in a way as engineers we have a right to perhaps do it our way too. As engineers do we tell the musicians how to play, most often not but as soon as the artist wants a lo fi recording it is suddendly their right.
 
I am also an artist (composer having done hundreds of soundtracks) but even so I have never had the desire to dumb down the recording process unless it is for a specific reason. eg a Lo Fi intro suddenly turning into Hi Fi sound.
 
Lets talk about John Lennon for a moment. The Beatles recordings were all done a certain way because of restrictions in the available technology. But when John recorded Double Fantasy (around 1980) he pushed everything to the max. It just sounds beautiful and WAY better than anything previously he was involved with. (I was pretty amazed how good this record sounds actually)
 
One could argue that by dumbing down the (total) sound you are actually doing a disservice to yourself. There is nothing really be to gained from it. No matter what the ideas are they are always going to sound better when the production values are higher. (that brings up the argument would 'Abbey Road' or 'Are You Experienced' sound better if it was recorded today, I think it might. Take Moody Blues 'To Our Children's Children's Children' that record sounds terrible and there is no other way to describe it, imagine how beautiful that would sound if it was recorded with todays technology!)
 
And I am talking about the whole mix sounding Lo Fi. I definitley like the concept of some elements of a mix being very high quality while other parts are low quality and grungy etc.. That can sound amazing.

Jeff Evans
I can see where Ben is coming from and he has a point. It is an artistic decision. But it is also one of those things that has its feet onto technical ground too so because of that the artist should not have all the say, in a way as engineers we have a right to perhaps do it our way too. As engineers do we tell the musicians how to play, most often not but as soon as the artist wants a lo fi recording it is suddendly their right.
 
 
I am also an artist (composer having done hundreds of soundtracks) but even so I have never had the desire to dumb down the recording process unless it is for a specific reason. eg a Lo Fi intro suddenly turning into Hi Fi sound.
 
Lets talk about John Lennon for a moment. The Beatles recordings were all done a certain way because of restrictions in the available technology. But when John recorded Double Fantasy (around 1980) he pushed everything to the max. It just sounds beautiful and WAY better than anything previously he was involved with. (I was pretty amazed how good this record sounds actually)
 
One could argue that by dumbing down the (total) sound you are actually doing a disservice to yourself. There is nothing really be to gained from it. No matter what the ideas are they are always going to sound better when the production values are higher. (that brings up the argument would 'Abbey Road' or 'Are You Experienced' sound better if it was recorded today, I think it might. Take Moody Blues 'To Our Children's Children's Children' that record sounds terrible and there is no other way to describe it, imagine how beautiful that would sound if it was recorded with todays technology!)
 
And I am talking about the whole mix sounding Lo Fi. I definitley like the concept of some elements of a mix being very high quality while other parts are low quality and grungy etc.. That can sound amazing.

Hi Jeff, Double Fantasy was actually produced by Lennon, so that's interesting that you picked that up. Um I'm a little confused about To Our Children's, Children's, Children.  It's a little washy because of the amount of verb on it but what version are you listening to.  The original CD pressing was never properly remastered,  Heyward has gone on to remaster all the Moodies early stuff himself.  I haven't heard this but it would be interesting to do a comparison to see if they have fixed it.
 
As for the other statement that AR, and ELL would sound better if recorded today, it would but only if you had proper digital recording engineers who understood old school production techniques and how to translate them into the digital arena.  But this would create a paradox because without those albums being recorded then, we wouldn't have the information today.
 
Also if you haven't had a listen to McCartney's new, New album do so, best thing he's done since Band on The Run, genius and a good example of analogue techniques being applied in the digital realm.
 
Peace Ben   

This is a tough call John. Jeff has it all spot on in my opinion, so not much of what I say here will differ from what he's offered. The whole name credit thing....I know you're not really concerned with that, but it can go both ways. If you release the crappy production and people hear it, they ask "where was this recorded...this sounds like @ss?!" It's all too easy for the band to say "yeah, we know, the engineer messed it up" and it gives you a bad name.
 
Me personally, the meeting I have before I work with a band dictates how much power I have in the project. To me, I'm a part of the band when I work with them and for them unless there is a producer present. I don't believe in recording "their record". It's their record but I have to have some say on it due to the reputation I have created for myself.
 
The other side of the coin here is....you never know what will break ground in the music industry next. The least favorite thing you hear may be the next big seller. It's such a horrible business these days, it almost doesn't pay to think or even care. Your best bet most times is to be a puppet on strings unless something becomes detrimental to your business.
 
Then again...let's take it to another level. Any band that gets a real deal...will get re-recorded in the major label contracted studio with a hired producer etc. Just about no band today will get a major deal out of one of our studio's unless we happen to nail something exactly the way a label envisioned it. Labels can tell talent when they hear it. BUT...a horrible representation of a band can ruin their chances too. Me personally? I'd rather go down in flames sounding the best I can without sounding buzzy or delayed etc. Let the label or people I shop to make that call. Our jobs as musicians should be to deliver our vision to the best of our ability without degrading the quality to where the song isn't a song any longer.
 
Though I can see where Ben is coming from, I have to disagree with him because of how the word "unique" has been replacing the word "great" for far too long with artistic types. Just because someone creates something weird or abstract, doesn't mean it's good...nor should it be praised just because it's artsy if it sounds like crap. Crap is crap regardless of the art.
 
"something some of you guys have never got" We get it Ben...what YOU don't get is...horrible material is horrible material. It's even worse when someone ruins material that is already great "for the sake of". What you have to understand is, it doesn't matter how much art you put into something. If the end result is bad, it's bad. I like to consider myself a pro and like to think I have decent skills. I'm also first and foremost, an artist. I may not be weird or abstract, but I am an artist...and when I suck and do something bad, I will admit that it sucked and will not try to get people to buy into it because "it's my art".
 
If something is great and different with artistic, genius flavors, I will praise it, brag about it and tell everyone I know. But just because someone throws up on a mic or decides to mic a mouse pooping or a dog scratching his bum doesn't mean it should be praised as "great". Funny, slightly demented, weird and maybe challenging, but it's only great if it morphs into something that shows talent. Every weirdo in the music business isn't great because they're weird and artsy. You need the right combination or it's just noise man.
 
If this band is ruining their material to the point of it making you cringe John, I would definitely talk to them and do what Jeff suggested if you have time. Do a mix in your own image just to show them what you are feeling. The worst thing you can do is allow a band to mix their own record. They usually don't have a clue what needs to be done and it's all about hearing more "them" individually.
 
Since there may not be anything in the back end money wise, it's even easier for you to try to get involved in this. Especially if you really believe in this band. I've been in this situation many times before. Sometimes they stick to their guns because they don't know any different. We have to teach them cause and effect in about...oh, 20 minutes worth of talking. Then you fire up your idea of what the songs should sound like and hopefully they get a clue.
 
I had a band like this about a year ago. They were quite good but the guitarist hid himself in so many effects, it was just over-kill. This dude used a flanger, delay, chorus, phaser and wah all in one shot. To me, that combination won't sound good no matter who plays the guitar. Add in extreme gain with a razor sharp tone, and you can imagine how bad this sounded. The whole problem was....the guitarist had a sound in mind, but was clueless as to how he should go about it.
 
So with some trial and error when we weren't on studio time, I worked out what he was looking for, cleaned up his tone, added the effects he was looking for in moderation and did some other cool tricks. He just needed to be taught how to listen and what would happen if you did this that this and this to the album quality. Once they have a direction (which I know you know we don't always have the time to offer) sometimes they are very receptive to what you try to add. When they know you are not trying to hurt them and literally deliver a better product while explaining the causes and effects, most times they'll welcome it with open arms. But you have to go about it just right or you'll lose them totally.
 
Being dirty, punky, slightly lo-fi or even analog is fine as long as it's done right. If something sounds so loaded with effects that you can't make out what's going on and it just makes the songs sound terrible in a way that could literally tarnish your name, I think you have to try and make a difference. You're a team in the studio. A guy like you who has been in this business for a long time is a Godsend. They should be blown away to have someone like you at the helm. Granted, none of us knows what the next new "in thing" will be...but if something sounds so bad it's really bothering you, you'd be doing them an injustice by ignoring it in my opinion. Good luck with this one my friend....there are no easy answers really.
 
-Danny

Thanks Ben for mentioning the Moodies remastered thing. I have got the original vinyl recording around 1969 I think. I used to own it many years ago but only recently found a pristine copy of it here in Melbourne. The record itself is in great condition but the actual recording still sounds pretty bad. Sometimes the actual pressings are bad too. Like the imported versions of some US albums often sounded way better than the local pressings that we got here in Australia. Santana's Abraxas is a very good example. The local pressing was terrible. They must have sent out a really bad reel to reel copy and the pressings locally were just not good at all. Later I got my hands on the imported version from the US and while not up to todays standards by any means was far nicer than the local version.
 
I will try and track down the remastered version (Moodies) because he may have made it sound better. I am sure the original two track master is probably reasonably decent. Also they can pull reverb out of things too now which is quite amazing in itself.
 
Double Fantasy sounds very good and I love the production on this. He has got some stellar musicians in there too. I have heard about the latest McCartney album as well and am keen to hear it.
 

When I hear the words "lo-fi" used I think back to the early days of recording. Put the musicians in a room, set up a few mics and let them play. What they play and sound like is what you get on the tape or hard disk. Think of the early blues players and even Elvis in the early days.... One mic in the center of the room and 3,2,1, play!
 
Throw some reverb or delay on the singers voice and the overall mix and you're pretty much done if the takes were good.
 
With this band, I would do that very thing. Get the tracks they played..... mix them in the DAW and if the band actually sounds retro in the studio, the job is easy.  If they don't sound retro, that needs to be explained to them. It then becomes politics. Who's argument wins the day?
 
In Hollywood, they used to say that the camera doesn't lie.....well in this business, the mics don't lie either.
 
Good luck.
 
 

Danny Danzi
 
I had a band like this about a year ago. . .  The whole problem was....the guitarist had a sound in mind, but was clueless as to how he should go about it.
 

I suspect that the problem here is a bit like that. I'm not sure they actually want to sound the way it's coming out. I think it might be that they've made the assumption that more distortion, more delay, more whatever, will make everything sound big and heavy, when in fact it does the exact opposite.
 
I think I'm going to try to find time to do them a mix from scratch on one of the tracks. Send it to the whole band and let them argue it amongst themselves.

there's nothing tricky about this at all.
 
tell them you well help produce them to capture the sound of what they actually sound like.
which is probably the best thing for them.
 
or tell them you pass.
 
let them record themselves in a garage, using a zoom or other device, that's as lo fi as you can get (in terms of capturing eveything evenly.
 
then give them a link to a software brickwall compressor, and let them process their own mixes.
 
 
see, that was easy!
 

I find everyone points valid.
do both mixes theirs and yours if so inclined.
ultimately its their vision am I correct?
is your role is producer or engineer? (you've answered that already i think)
your call to walk away too.
I think a little careful communication (the careful of not crushing of ego's) with the band would sort it out. provide your mix (again more time invested for you and that again is your call) hopefully they can see / hear your what your saying.
 
maybe and hopefully you can find a happy medium between their vision and yours.
 
Danny's correct in that if they're picked up. it will all be recorded again. unless your product is just what they want. hopefully your contract with them (the band) will cover that if they decide to go another route your back end is still covered.
 
good luck,
dingle