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.
 

BenMMusTech
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    

Hi Ben,
 
I agree 1000% yep, totally made sense there. The problem I think is, (at least based on my personal experience) most of the younger artists aren't really sure what it is they're after and unfortunately they spend time in the studio trying to create a sound. It pains me to look at the clock when they are doing this as I'd love nothing more than to allow them to find their niche. But, you know how it goes...though I rarely watch a clock for anything and price my sessions by the job, this is one of those times where I just have to nip it or they take advantage of me.
 
If the guys are cool enough, I may pull one of them to the side and say "hey, I get done early on Saturday, come to the studio with your rig and let's experiment" or "I think you're going about this album all wrong...let me show you what I hear and how I sincerely believe I can help you make a difference for the better...it won't cost you a dime to hear me out or listen to my suggestions".
 
I can't recall a time where someone said "we're paying you to record and mix, we didn't ask for your opinion as a producer." So there's definitely trust involved as well. Thankfully most of the bands that come through my doors have an idea as to what they are going to go for sound wise. They hashed out everything via pre-production and just know what they are going to do. That's another luxury I have Ben....thankfully, 95% of my recording jobs are specialty, high priced jobs...so it's rare I'm dealing with 18 year olds that are just getting into it.
 
As much as I love kids and would do anything to encourage our youth of today, I certainly do not miss recording them or dealing with the early stage stuff we all know about. I get guys that have been doing it for years, guys with agenda's, producers, or bands with Indy deals...so it's really nice to just do what I do without worrying about the novice bands making decisions that they probably shouldn't be making, ya know what I mean? Searching for that sound is one thing...but unfortunately, some of them are still searching for themselves and you know how long that can take. They have to crawl before they can run...but I was young once...I didn't listen until I found out how true it was. LOL! :)
 
-Danny

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.
 
 

Sometimes you just have to hope the musicians can convey to you what they hear.
 

 
Here is a project I helped some old friends with recently. The musicians listened to my mix for about 6 seconds and sent it off to another colleague to get it right. :-)
 
I think maybe I made the mistake of mixing the acoustic guitar and the background vocals in so you could hear them and I used one mellow reverb that matched the sound to the picture so it felt like it was recorded in the room as shown. I also made sure the mando and banjo solos popped out front *rock star* style. I placed the drums in the back ground, again to match sound to picture.
 
The new mix has a up front "studio" style drum tonality, a lead vocal that is floating in some other space, and a nice relaxed feeling to the solos.
 
The actual "session" was a wall of sound experience... every one was smoking loud... so I took my impression of that experience and made a mix of it. The band had a broader, more detailed impression of what they are all about and they pursued it until it had a happy ending.
 
I never actually got them to articulate what they hoped to hear. In other words, I had to hear the final mix to get an idea of what they were hearing.
 
As they say, Is it what it is.
 
:-)
 
Good times!!!
 
all the best,
mike
 
 
spelling

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.

I think I'll avoid jobs like this in future, mind you. I really like the band, but it's a bit of a drag to work with your hands so tied.
 

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!
 

No upfront money. Since you are paying for it, tell them to go somewhere else. I doubt if they will get a bargain like that anywhere else.
 
They would have to be real material for anything else to happen.
 
 
 

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

I think Jeff hit on the best solution.  Do a mix the way they want it.  Leave your name off the mix.  Do one the way you would recommend, one that makes them sound the best that they can be.  Present it to them and let them hear the difference.  Keep your mix for your portfolio.  They either will hear the difference and go with what sounds best, or go with their "artistic" version.  If it sells, they will think they are genius, if it doesn't, next time they will go for a more polished sound.
 
I have a college degree in Design as well.  I am proud of it, but in the real world, it never really did much for me.  It took me many years to realize that being a starving artist was n't all it was cracked up to be.  
 
As far as the Beatles go, they were mostly genius...but they also put out their share of duds.  She Loves You and I Want To Hold Your Hand were produced with every hook in the book to appeal to the masses.  Songs like Revelation 9 or Honey Pie were done as artistic adventures.  At least with the advent of the digital world, I can easily skip those 2 songs when they come up on my iPad.