I recently communicated with a mix engineer and was suprised to learn the mixed project files would not be provided as part of the service. Basically,  i would just get a wave file of the mixed music only. Is this common practice? If so, what is the logic or reasoning behind this?
 
So if I pay someone to mix, I don't own the mix files? I have been trying to think of any other situation where you would hire someone for a service and you wouldn't own anything which was generated for you to provide that service to you. So I am confused. So who owns the mix files, the customer or the mix engineer?
 
Please note I am not trying to be negative, just wanting to understand
 
 

I'm not sure I fully understand the question. But that never stopped me in the past. I do the recording, the mixing and provide the finished product on CD or DVD depending on what it is. I do not give away my recorded files or any mixed files unless those are specifically asked for when the commission was granted and agreed to. To me those are work product and not given out. 

If on the other hand the party wants another mixer than arrangements can be made but will cost them extra. But in my case I make it clear that I control the mix and the files. They control only the finished product.  And not always that either. It depends on what is asked for and how it is to be done. I have the right to decline an offer. 

The mixer in your case may look at the work he is doing as his and keeps the unfinished portion. Just as a photographer keeps the negatives. Though, because he did not create the original files I wonder why he thinks they belong to him. If he didn't record them I don't see how he can. Nor should you be asking for the interim mix that he made. After all you still have the original files right? You shouldn't need his submix.  

Don't know how anyone else feels but I thought mixing was considered a "work-for-hire" type of job and all work product in the completion of said job usually belongs to the customer unless otherwise arranged ahead of time.  As an example from the programming world: Customer asks for a program that calculates PI to 200 decimal places, they not only get the finished executable but all "documented" source-code related to the creation of said program, along with any developer notes, flowcharts and documentation.

Not sure of how legal eagles would view this, just my opinion.

I'd find me another mix engineer, one who understands what you want.  What you are saying is that you want all of the things that were done so that you can open it up in your progam, i.e. Sonar, to see what he did to your mix, etc.?

It should all be worked out before anything happens.

Make it all clear up front and in writing if there's a written contract before money changes hands.

Each party should know all the details before starting.


Steve

Let me clarify, I would get all the tracks back that I sent him, plus the mastered wav file. However I would not get the project file which has the final eq's, automation etc. Why does that not belong to me?  What is the purpose you would keep this project file?  All materials should be copywrited by me (the customer). If I hired a photographer to take pictures of my wedding, I should get the negatives also, those are the pictures I paid for. If I choose to make additional copies, I shouldn't have to go to that photographer for those negatives to make additional copies. What purpose does a photographer keep the negatives? I am inclined to think that, they think, it will force the customer to use them and limit their options. As far as a mix goes, lets say metallica pays someone to mix, they don't own and have control of the mix files?

i had asked that questions, would I get the mix files, and was told no. John posted above, says he doesn't provide those files either. If I am the customer, those files would not ever have existed without me, and they only exist because I am paying for them to be created in order to produce the final product, the mixed audio file, therefore I feel they should be provided to me upon completion and full payment has been received!

The mixer probably considers the processes he used to get to the final product his property, not the actual music. Using the photographer analogy, you get the photos and negatives, but you don't get information about what lense the photographer used, camera settings, lighting, etc.

Still don't understand the purpose of the mix engineer owning the mix? Why? what can they do with it?

I agree, it needs to be worked out before hand because of folks who think that mixing a project gives them intellectual rights of the original raw material.  In the old days, the mixer/engineer was simply hired guns paid for by the band or their management.  They were like roadies and light men, paid to do a job.

Next thing, roadies are going to want the rights for photos taken of a band performing live.....

This is killing me, making the music is the art, the rest of you are like leeches, trying to squeeze every penny out of artists.

Sorry to come on so strong but this has been going on too long.  All of a sudden, engineers are the rock stars.  Grant you, there are some engineers who deserve the lime light but look through the magazines and their are all kind of guys (most of whom I have never heard of) being paid to be endorsers of this gear or this mic.

This guy and his band should own all of the tracks, raw, stems, final mixes, etc.  They made the music and they paid for the service.

Jim