my very first time in a studio i recorded analog tracks in a nice studio
rushed the eng threw quick mix. asked him for the source tracks
payed for my one day using his great sounding room.
 then spent a intire week in my very simple at the time studio mixin those gems. never seeing that place again.
 this would be why i wouldnt give up the source unless asked to as a eng..
FYI i broke the mix and ruined the song, but i had to try.
  i remember you analog

I think that the best course of action would be to make sure to discuss and agree on what material is to be handed back to the client up front, and in writing, so that there are no such surprises.

Many companies in the business world hire a mix of employees and contractors to perform work that is produced as specified in contractual agreement between the company and the client.  There are also separate policies and contractual agreements between the company and its employees and contractors, as to what is owned by whom.

The reason for all of this is because the whole thing is one big giant "gray area", and it will absolutely be different with different companies, as well as different clients, and different situations.

All have a set of requirements and of expectations.  Getting all of it figured out up front is the only way to make sure there are no problems.

So, for future endeavors, make sure you work all of this out up front.

Bob Bone

I don't think that the professional mix engineer is under obligation to provide you with anything other than a two track mix that is acceptable to you unless you have contracted him to do otherwise.  During negotiations he has the opportunity to accept the extra work and include that in the fee or pass on the project.

Personally, if I considered myself a hotshot pro mix engineer, I wouldn't contract to provide anything but a two track mix and/or possibly instrumental tracks and vocal tracks separately.  My reason is that you have paid me to mix a song.  I don't want my name on something that may be reconstructed and no longer is my mix. 

I recently asked a client to remove my mixing credits from a work because his producer/collaborator added a lot of effects to my mix that I didn't authorize.  I'm not saying that for the genre the extra effects were not appropriate but the mix was no longer my mix and I preferred to just have the recording engineer credit only.

An interesting topic.  To me it is all in what you ask for.  This includes what is potentially contracted. If you ask for a song to be mixed, then definitely that is what you ask for and agree to pay for. If one wants a song to be mixed and detailed information relating to the process (and the time it takes to provide that information)and also the mix files, stems and program files that show this; this too should be requested and agreed upon.
 
I am not sure if this equates to training but the time it takes to meet this request is indeed billable.  In regard to the secrets of "sound" I have associates that can afford every plug, console and biz wang available but do not (most of them) have the experience and most importantly the "ears" to produce a professional level product.
 
I agree that as artists, we want to protect or should I say we want the value of our craft to be reflected... But just as a painter could give you the colors, pigments, paint type and maker, canvas type and maker, brush material and maker, it is that artist's internal interpretation that showcases his value, craft and creative (market) uniqueness. Picasso was not great because of the type of paint he used, the canvas or the makeup of the brushes, but it was how it all culminated from his artistic vision. 
 
As a business, if the customer asks for it and it is agreed upon, they can have it, contractually.  With that said, what I create through my work indeed is mine and if it is something that creates the buzz of imitation, I as an artist have to work harder to exploit that value and showcase its (my) marketable merits...
 
I appreciate this forum, its vast creative viewpoints and the capacity to learn that it offers...

I consider the automation I do to create a mix MY intellectual property.   If you make a living doing this and you give away your 'creative process', then you're giving folks the instructions for how you create.  That's not exactly fair.  So I'm in the camp of saying the intellectual parts of the mix are mine- not my clients.  So far, I've gotten no complaints from any- in 10 years and I have no intention of changing.

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. 
  
Bottom line, I will only hire someone to mix with the expectation of getting the mix files. Its not unreasonable. 
  
 
BTW, the person I communicated with was very nice, I'm sure they do a great job. In fact they have answered many of my posts and have been very helpful. I am not angry or upset, just don't understand this part. :)
I'm done with my rant. LOL.
Thanks all!! :)

 
It's funny you mentioned this as I just had someone approach me that was a bit up in arms at the stuff you are mentioning here. Really cool guy that has an incredible will to learn. He just didn't quite understand the process or agree with it.
 
That said, I just have to chime in here and explain a few things because to me, this whole thread can take a sour turn and pollute the minds of people if we're not careful. :) Since the questions here pertain to what I encounter in my business, it's only fair you hear the answers from someone such as myself that is living it with both consumer-like hobbiests, and seasoned, respected pro clients. Yeah it will be a long post, but it should put everything into perspective for you and anyone else wondering about this. I don't expect anyone to read it, but it's here if you decide to.
 
First off, I understand and feel your pain completely. Unfortunately, what you're hoping for isn't how it works. Remember, you always own your files. No one is seizing ownership. You just do NOT have the right to another engineer's templates, routings, plug configs, their experience or work flow to just be "presented to you". That is not part of "mix my song". It's just the way it is. You didn't pay for that aspect and it will not be offered for free unless some guy responds here and says "dude, I'll mix your song and send the project back to you". Real engineers in this field will not do that, I assure you.
 
I would also like you and others to take the following into consideration:
 
1. A mix with raw files can take anywhere from 4-8 hours depending on how many tracks, how long the song is as well as how much surgery or even resampling may need to be done. The price for a mix depends on what is needed. It should be reviewed before a quote is created in my opinion. Most pro's charge about $200 give or take. No one I know in this industry supplies their actual mix project files after a mix is complete. Could they be purchased? I don't know, but I'd not be willing to sell mine. All you get is a 2-track, mixed down file of your song. We do not own your files or your song. The work files associated with the project, (not including your physical wave files) templates and configurations, are the engineers. You paid for a song mix, not his templates or internal workings of the process. The song and wave files you supply, are yours always and that NEVER changes.
 
I know you're only concerned with having mix files included, but this individual I talked to was interested in video also. So let me touch on that since he was interested in video PLUS full mix files so you can see how the process takes shape as well as why some tutorials are a bit expensive.
 
2. If there is video: The video shoot not only shows everything I do, but shows before and after, why something was done, where the client failed, where he may have done good, other options to consider as well as the final decisions made. The video footage here for each instrument can wind up being 30 minutes to an hour or longer PER INSTRUMENT if the project is done incrementally. Did I mention this would be a full video of every track in the project on a one on one basis and not just a basic 30 minute "techniques" video using some song that isn't yours like some of these companies offer? :) Surely this obliterates having the project work files back?
 
3. The video will need to be edited as well as unneccesary footage removed, captions implemented, charts, diagrams and whatever else it takes to bring the points home. The editing process takes 1.5+ times longer than it does to watch the video.
 
4. The video will need to be rendered so it can be watched by normal viewers in the media player of their choice. The rendering time for the video is about 2 times the time it takes to watch it. This ties up an entire machine as I do not like to use machines that are rendering video or audio at any time during the rendering process. Keep this in mind when you mention "video tutorials are too pricey". Think about what you are getting and what goes on within the process as well as what goes on behind the scenes. Knowledge is power, power takes time to harness....the delivery of using harnessed power correctly has a cost. Sometimes that cost is more than we can afford, but still well worth it.
 
5. When all is said and done, this project, depending on how many tracks were shared, *MAY* take me 14+ hours to complete with video included. Think about the other work someone could complete in that time that would make them more money at a faster rate. If I charged by the hour for something like this, no one would be able to afford it. Need I mention this is also a custom video created for an individual and not just a generic situation that applies to everyone? Yet he still wants my mix files and probably won't work with me because of that.
 
6. My experience as well as what I contribute to the project is worth something. I'm not only mixing, I'm teaching and supplying video of the entire project in HD baring my soul. I can't think of another imbecile other than myself that would do anything like this. LOL! That said, what I create in someones project is not open for them to "just have". They can see it on video, but it's up to them to construct it. I think that's more than a fair trade off as it forces the student to learn and create without having something given to them that is complete already.
 
7. I understand that you have questions and might not even agree with the answers you receive. But you have to do the research and find out how the system works before you rant about something no matter how emotional it may get you. As you can see, the majority of people that have posted in this thread, know how the system works and most have sided against your beliefs. That of course doesn't make you wrong, it just shows that the people that have posted against your beliefs have taken a step into the light on how things really work within this industry.
 
8. Though this forum is for learning and learn you will, you're getting into things that require a price as well as the proper experience for them to be delivered correctly. That said, you may find some forum members that are willing to go out on a limb for you and give you what you're looking for. They may even be pro's in their sound that may not be pro's in business. So there is a chance you can get lucky and make out on the deal.
 
9. In any video situation, it becomes "a lesson". The reason for that is for you to learn and create your own sounds and templates based on what you see and hear. Like the scenario I've used many times before....when you are the passenger on a long trip that you take constantly, you never know how to get there until you do the drive yourself.
 
Me or another engineer supplying a complete mix in Sonar with all our secrets, routings and weapons gives you something that is already completed. Me being a teacher, you learn nothing from that. You save the settings, you sell the settings, you share the stuff or whatever (not saying you will, but it is a possibility) and it's just not a proper way to do business nor is it a good way to learn. Isn't a full blown video of your mix enough? Are there any companies dumb enough to even include a service like that other than my dumb @ss?? LOL!!
 
Some other odds and ends you may find useful/helpful:
 
Most good name engineers are $200 per mix. Add in a grammy nomination or a few big names that they worked with....or take a guy like Beau Hill, and you're looking at $1000 per song. Video shoots...I have no clue what people charge for that, but rest assured, if it costed you $200 for the mix and $300 for a complete video shoot of your song being mixed from the ground up, I'd ask whoever quoted that price if they were on drugs because that's a steal to me. LOL! Yeah it's only one song...but man, think about what you learn on that one song if the engineer is any good. Having something like this on a drum kit alone is priceless!
 
Being unable to afford something like this is one thing. Calling it pricey when you've not taken into account what literally goes on within the process behind the scenes or how important the years of experience are that come with it, is another animal altogether. Personally, I wish these video tutorials would have been available to me online when I was getting into this. I would have killed to have someone that would be willing to mix an entire song for me on the DAW software I used as well as that DAW's plugins using video using MY song. Just about every book we read....just about every class we take....none of them will show you HOW TO using YOUR gear using YOUR song.
 
To me, this is the problem with books and classes. You learn or read about all this stuff when gear you don't even own or may not EVER own in this lifetime is used as your "learning tool". You go back to Sonar or whatever else you have, and wonder why some or none of it makes sense. That to ME....is the "deal breaker" if one is to be shared.
 
Your "bottom line" quote is something that you will not be successful with in regards to any engineer that considers themselves professional that runs a business. If someone made that demand to me, I would have to respectfully decline if I was approached as I do not and will not share my configurations or work files. I'd also not feel comfortable working with someone that shared these opinions that would also feel the need to start a thread of this nature. Think about how the engineer is going to feel if or when he reads this thread, bro. I'd feel pretty moved if this thread was about me. Good guy or not, you've insulted his intelligence by posting this publicly while questioning his judgement, taking it upon yourself to define his services as well as his beliefs. The fact that you mentioned he's answered your posts sort of tells people he could be someone on this forum. My name was referenced to you in another thread...they may even think it's me.
 
Anyway, hopefully this gives you and others a better understanding of the processes involved as well as why things are the way they are. Best of luck!
 
-Danny

Great post Danny, I read it all and agree 100%. 

I have nothing to add other than I see no point in wanting a CWP file of a project done on a completely different system. Jeff was the first to point out the fact that most top end engineers will be running a lot more than Sonar has to offer. 

This is the main reason we would choose this route. Anyone can balance a mix.. but we all know there's a lot more to it than balance... 
Most of us cannot afford the equipment it takes to go to that next level if so desired. Paying $200 a song is a bargain compared to purchasing $40,000 worth of gear. 

I started this thread obviously because I didn't understand who has rights to the mix. I should have just let it go after the first repsonse, If I were able to delete the post I would at this point. Last night I was frustrated and tired. I sincerely apologize, to the pros here on the forum. I feel like I put my foot in my mouth big time. I sometimes have the inability to let an argument go. as you can see, I struggled with that last night.
Danny is 100% correct, I should have gone on a fact finding mission, rather than a rant. Everything in Danny's reply makes sense. I have read back thru the thread, and all the responses from everyone make sense. Not sure why I was being so bullheaded. I have no excuse.  Believe me at this point I really wish I would have just let it go. You know you f'ed up when someone doesn't want to do business with you.
Again, I apologize.
Trace

You live in Learn Trace ;)

If you didn't know, now you know and that's better than being ignorant. No need to delete post, it will help others :)

The problem with this thread is no one has discussed what really matters.

This is no offense to anyone here but personal opinion, and how "I" do things is irrelevent to "What does the law say?"

Copyright laws are in effect for a reason. To protect the work of a the one who created it.

Photography was mentioned so lets deal with that first.

BTW I am no lawyer, but do understand at least the basics of copyrights.

You hire a studio to do the photography for your wedding.  You entered into a contract which you are hiring the expertise of the studio.  When you entered your negotiations the amount of time involved for work was discussed, number of photographs to be taken, and usually the number of prints and sizes of prints that will be made.

The photographer does his thing, and delivers what was promised in the timeframe promised.
The studio owns the photographs and any prints that are made.  If you desire more prints, you will have to pay the studio for them.  The studio usually puts their copyright information on the back of the photo and usually a warning about copying.  Anyone who copies it can be sued.  Take one of these photos to Walmart and see how they react when you ask them to make copies.

Now, if you were expecting negatives, or a disc with all photos taken, and you want the rights to print as many copies as you want of the photos, be prepared to pay several thousand dollars.  But, the studio can also decline because they own the work. The only thing they are required to do is what was stated in the contract.

They can even destroy all of the negatives after they have delivered to you what was contracted.

So what rights do you have as the one who hired their services?
You have the right to what was contracted.
If they screw up the photos, you have the right to a refund, and in most cases you can sue them for screwing up your wedding photos.

The Studio cannot use the photos for anything (unless it was in the contract). Which means if they want to use the photos for advertising, or photo disc or such they cannot do this.  You hold the rights for this, and can give them permission and charge a fee and or royalties or you can tell them no.

Now, can you find Joe Blow photographer who will do your wedding and give you everything for $50 bucks? Sure you can find someone like that.


OK. It should be pretty easy now to understand when we are discussing an Audio studio.

You discuss what you want and what you expect before any work is ever started and a contract drawn up otherwise you can already see how this will play out.

The studio owns the tracks, the project and all they are required to give you is a 2 track mix in most cases.  They can destroy all tracks after this if they wish.

If you want the raw tracks (which many studios will allow)  the studio owns those tracks, so they can say yes/no/ let's work something out. 

If the studio allows you to have the raw tracks, you will be required to provide the storage medium, and pay studio time for the process. 

You cannot just assume.  It is cheap to talk. It is expensinve to not talk and enter into a contract beforehand.

Anyway... like it... lump it.... this is what the copyright laws state from my understanding of them.  Take this info to an attorney and I'm pretty sure it will hold up.