FYI, the mix never happened, the deal breaker was this detail.

TraceyStudios


When an mix engineer advertises their services within this forum, what would make them think that whatever they were paid to do, that I would not want to see what they did or how they did it when I paid for it?! And why EXACTLY would this be unreasonable????  I don't have any issues paying for someone to mix, or pay for help. But I do have issues paying for a "secret". Especially at the prices I was quoted.
 
I'm done with my rant. LOL.  Bottom line, I will only hire someone to mix with the expectation of getting the mix files. Its not unreasonable.
 
 
Thanks all!! :)

What would the "mix" files be? I'm not too clear on this. I don't see anything wrong for a mixer to not tell how a mix was done either. To me if one wants to know how than they need to take a class. 

TraceyStudios

sharke


I would hazard a guess that the mix engineer has certain methods and techniques that he or she considers "secret." It may be that they have a trademark sound and that they don't want anyone taking a look at how they did it. After all, you may be able to get enough clues about their methods and techniques and any "magic" that they use, that you would possibly consider having a crack at it yourself the next time instead of hiring him. 


The closest analogy I can think of would be when you hire a professional digital photographer. What you get at the end of it is a disc containing the finished flattened images. What you don't get is a disc full of Photoshop files which show all of the layers, masks and settings that they used to work their magic. They don't consider their techniques to be "open source," and so that stuff stays with them. 

I don't think it's that unreasonable to be honest, although it's probably something that you would need to discuss with them beforehand. If you would prefer to have the mix files, then find an engineer who doesn't mind releasing them. 

If I asked a photographer to take pictures and digitally manupulate them, I would expect all the photoshop files also. If I need to edit them or change them or need to send in a differrent format, whatever. They would never have existed if I didn't pay for them to be created. Mixes are no differrent! I paid to have the guitars eq'd, the bass eq'd, automation etc. Why would I not get that back also. If I ever need or want to change them, I would have it. Again, it would never have existed if I hadn't paid for the guy to do it!

You could ask for them, but I know many photographers wouldn't give them to you. You are paying for a finished product - the "final mix." You are not paying for any intermediate files, unless of course you're dealing with an artist who specifically promises that. Why should they reveal to you their trademark photography or mixing secrets? You aren't paying for a mixing tutorial, or to find out what plugs the engineer uses in what order, or what filters or other "tricks" the photographer uses. The Photoshop files, or mixing files, are not part of the finished product. They're just part of the intermediate stages. With mixing, the deal is this: you give them the raw material, they give you a finished product back. It's like taking your dog to be groomed. 

Again, what you "expect" and what the craftsman is offering are sometimes two different things. There is certainly no legal obligation for them to provide you with the tools that they used. Think of the mix files as a "scaffold" around your song. If you paid someone to do work on the exterior of your house, and they erected scaffolding around it, they're going to take that scaffolding away once the job's done. It isn't "yours." 

I completely agree with Sharke.  

What would the "mix" files be? I'm not too clear on this. I don't see anything wrong for a mixer to not tell how a mix was done either. To me if one wants to know how than they need to take a class. 

Are you a mix engineer? I'm guessing you are. You don't want anyone to know how you did anything, good for you! I thought this forum was about learning and figuring out how to do these things, not quite the same as taking a class. do you agree?  so if someone advertises their services (mixing) within this forum, if a member of this forum (remember the forum is about learning this stuff? Yes? No?) hires that person whom advertised their services in this forum, and pays that person to mix their song, is it unreasonable or suprising that the customer would like to see what and how the mix was done. Is there any signifigance to the fact that this is a forum which discusses recording, mixing, mastering via Sonar?  So if I paid for a mix and asked to see the file so I could see how it was done, and was told to "take a class"...well I guess I would not do anymore business with that mix engineer. LOL. So is that how you reply to posts?  "Take a class"?

Also, what real use would the mix file be to you? You're unlikely to have all of the plugs that the engineer used on it. You're going to load the file and Sonar is going to say "the following plugs are missing...."

sharke


Also, what real use would the mix file be to you? You're unlikely to have all of the plugs that the engineer used on it. You're going to load the file and Sonar is going to say "the following plugs are missing...."

So if I don't have all the plugins, I don't deserve to have this file? Could I buy the plugins? would another mix engineer have said plugins?

TraceyStudios

What would the "mix" files be? I'm not too clear on this. I don't see anything wrong for a mixer to not tell how a mix was done either. To me if one wants to know how than they need to take a class. 

Are you a mix engineer? I'm guessing you are. You don't want anyone to know how you did anything, good for you! I thought this forum was about learning and figuring out how to do these things, not quite the same as taking a class. do you agree?  so if someone advertises their services (mixing) within this forum, if a member of this forum (remember the forum is about learning this stuff? Yes? No?) hires that person whom advertised their services in this forum, and pays that person to mix their song, is it unreasonable or suprising that the customer would like to see what and how the mix was done. Is there any signifigance to the fact that this is a forum which discusses recording, mixing, mastering via Sonar?  So if I paid for a mix and asked to see the file so I could see how it was done, and was told to "take a class"...well I guess I would not do anymore business with that mix engineer. LOL. So is that how you reply to posts?  "Take a class"?

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. Just because someone advertises their mixing services on a help forum, does not mean that there is a general understanding that their mixing services include some kind of "tutorial." 


I understand why you're upset here on one level: the person you spoke to doesn't offer the service that you want. Sometimes it's hard to understand why a business operates the way it does until you've been in that business yourself. I used to get annoyed that Time Warner Cable could only offer me large time windows to send an engineer to fix my internet, until I started an appointment based service business myself, and then I understood how hard it is to give people exact times when you don't know how long the previous appointments are going to take. 


I don't offer that as some kind of parallel or analogy to the mixing business, I'm just saying that sometimes a business has very good reasons why they can't offer exactly what you're asking for. Sometimes they have policies in place that have a history behind them. In my business, I also have policies. I have employees who provide an ongoing service to clients on a daily basis. One of my policies is that I don't give the client my employee's cellphone number. I have very good reasons for that, which have a history behind them. Oftentimes I will get a client who goes crazy when I tell them this. They really don't get why I have to have such a policy, because they feel entitled to have my employee's full contact details. When I try to explain to them the reasons why, sometimes they understand, sometimes they don't. At the end of the day, they are free to give me the notice to get out of their service contract and look for another service. But then they quickly find that most of my competitors have the same policy. I think my speculations as to the reasons for the mixing engineer's policies are quite reasonable, although perhaps someone in the business might be able to furnish us with a different perspective. 

TraceyStudios

What would the "mix" files be? I'm not too clear on this. I don't see anything wrong for a mixer to not tell how a mix was done either. To me if one wants to know how than they need to take a class. 

Are you a mix engineer? I'm guessing you are. You don't want anyone to know how you did anything, good for you! I thought this forum was about learning and figuring out how to do these things, not quite the same as taking a class. do you agree?  so if someone advertises their services (mixing) within this forum, if a member of this forum (remember the forum is about learning this stuff? Yes? No?) hires that person whom advertised their services in this forum, and pays that person to mix their song, is it unreasonable or suprising that the customer would like to see what and how the mix was done. Is there any signifigance to the fact that this is a forum which discusses recording, mixing, mastering via Sonar?  So if I paid for a mix and asked to see the file so I could see how it was done, and was told to "take a class"...well I guess I would not do anymore business with that mix engineer. LOL. So is that how you reply to posts?  "Take a class"?

I think you may be asking a little too much. Its one thing to help people with Sonar and quite another to teach mixing. Tips and best practice are often offered but teaching all about mixing is way more than this forum is setup for. Also it is up to the individual as to how much they wish to give out. We have no right to demand that a member here teach us all their techniques. If they wish to tell us fine if not also its fine. If one contracts with a member for doing a job and the job was done well that is as far as it should go. Jim often offers help here that does not obligate him to spill all his knowledge about how he builds a computer.  

Good mixing is an art and those that do a great job mixing should be treated as artists too. 

I would not get the project file which has the final eq's, automation etc. Why does that not belong to me?

Arguably it belongs to the person who created it. You created the original tracks, so they clearly belong to you, but any work he did to modify those tracks is his original work. He can't create his work without your permission as it is a derivative work of your original tracks. But you can't use his work without his permission, since the processing he did creates a valuable new sound (or you would not pay him to do it). The nature of the relationship probably gives you the right (implied license) to publish his final mastered version, but if you really wanted to be sure that you could produce a record or upload the finished product etc. without his permission, you might want to get a written statement to that effect in your contract with him. 


Even better would be a contract that specifically states that he is doing his modifications to your tracks as a "work for hire." If the written contract uses those exact words, and is signed before he commences any work on the project, then he would have no ownership in the project at all. You cannot claim a work for hire under an implied or oral contract.


But even given that the final product is a work for hire, there is some ambiguity as to who owns the intermediate product, i.e. the files that contain his tweaks. I have seen quite a few consulting contracts that specify not only that the final product (report etc.) belongs to the client as a work for hire, but that any and all notes, recordings, communications in writing or orally etc. etc. related to the project belong to the client. Without such language, the consultant could argue that he is only being hired to create a final report, and that other potentially valuable work produced as part of the project, but not included in the final product, was his property.


This is a slightly different issue than the case of the wedding photographer, who creates his photos from whole cloth as it were. Absent a "work for hire" clause, the photographer is the sole artist/creator, and owns the right to make any copies of his photographs under copyright. Many pro photographers will enforce their copyright and charge you for extra prints. He would even have the right to stop you from making color xerox copies of the wedding photos you have already bought, or uploading them to a file sharing site, unless such permission is granted in your agreement with him. Although there is no derivative work issue here, the rights of the creator of a derivative work are similarly protected.