I don't mind listening to a pretty wide range of genres. Hip Hop is cool with me. I worked in a juvenile prison a few years back teaching computer music to boys locked up for various offences. They got me onto it and I like it now. The production values are different. Bigger kicks, sub bass lines, sparseness, vocals equed and sitting on top in a different way to normal etc. Complex arrangements. very tight reverbs etc..
What I find interesting is how the same basic groove can be interpreted so many ways and so many options in terms of what is going on around it. With this mastering job I am finding their mixes are a bit grainy like and the reference material was also a bit that way too. At first I felt that their mixes could be mastered into similar to the ref material.
I found out that they gave me a CD with mp3 files on it and my car reads those. I thought I was listening to 44.1 16 bit resolution. But 128 KBits/ sec instead. I asked them for some more actual CD's of their fave artists. They gave me some but the sound I am hearing now is pristine and complex and detailed and percussive. This is a case of the ref being presented badly and creating a wrong impression! They are saying they want their final masters to sound like the CD's.
So I am thinking no way their mixes are like that. The client is about to go away overseas for three weeks. They want me to master and make it sound like that and I just know now that remixes might be in order. Trying to master it that way may be impossible. Rule No 1 of mastering. Only master a fantastic mix!
I am going to re listen to the mixes again carefully and evaluate it from there. I might be able to secure the job of remixing the tracks and mastering it as well. There are advantages sometimes when you master your own mix. You can really tailor the mix for the desired mastered sound in the end. If you want to hear detail, percussive, transient, sparse, slick etc I think one needs to get that happening right back at the mix stage.