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

This is something some of you guys have never got and I'm not trolling.  Sometimes people make an artistic decision that lo-fi is what they want.  We could apply this argument John, what if you got The Sex Pistols to record one day? would you complain about the grunginess of the music then?
 
I don't even know if lo-fi exists anymore.  I think this is a real problem with the "pros", you guys whilst extremely skilled at your jobs, are not artists per sae, more technicians and this gets in the way of making art.  And at the heart of it, music should always be art.  But it's not too much these days because the perfectionist technicians boffins get in the way.
 
But this is only my opinion.
 
Ben    

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.

LOL at the idea that the Sex Pistols sound grungy. Never Mind The Bollocks is slick as all hell.
 
 

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.

Ah, John I was polite and even called you boffin, so not a blue collar yob as you put in fact if you read my words carefully you would see I gave you a back handed compliment.  I saw what you said, and if you had resigned yourself to making the record they wanted...why come on this forum and bemoan the fact??
 
As for being smarter, I have complete confidence in my abilities, I have a well grounded classical education, that not only includes audio production and music tech but also I have passed subjects in History, Philosophy, Screen Studies, Photography, Electronic Media, Music Theory and on and on, and I have the distinction of having distinctions in three different art forms!!  I am now waiting on an Honours program, which should lead to a PHD.  So whilst I may not be smart in your eyes I am doing something right.
 
Man I have done my mea culpa, and I have accepted my rants on here, have at times crossed the line but I have been under immense pressure which included an abusive bi-polar girlfriend, and errant family.
 
Again I just offered my opinion which is our privilege here, notice how I have learnt and not insulted you once.  You see I was of the opinion that you could generate interest in my activities by being controversial, which I was wrong.  I came from the old school and again that school believed that there is no such thing as bad publicity, again I was wrong.  The world is a much more sterile place than I grew up reading about in the history books.
 
If you just got over my rants of a year actually a year and a half ago, you might actually realize, that I have quite a lot of specialised knowledge that you may, look at the word "may" find useful.  Just ask Jeff!!
 
Ben     

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   

And Jeff is also right, in that the artist/musician and engineer should collaborate this is the best way to achieve the best of both worlds and all the great albums had that duopoly.  Those engineers were artists in their own right, but we have now lost this, in my opinion.
 
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

Hi Danny, I'm going to agree with you partially in that yes music that isn't produced well and does sound particularly awful is not a good look or listen, and weird for weird's sakes is also not a good look but where I disagree, is sometimes and this is where the art stuff comes in, is that an artist is sometimes searching for something and artists sometimes need time to find what it is they are searching for. 
 
This is the challenge for an engineer and producer because their job is to make a record, not to go hutting around for ethereal musings.  This is where I think engineers don't understand art, sometimes it's art for arts sake and sometimes its going to sound crap but if you listen there may be a germ of greatness.  This is what the technology has afforded us, we can now create music that is art for arts sake but it's only a step on a journey where you might start off as an elephant trying to create Van Gough but by the end of the journey you are Van Gough.
 
I hope I made sense then.
 
Ben