What follows covers some general areas of communication in regard to mixing, but first I need to make note of the increasingly common practice of using writ- ten communication (email or text messaging) to discuss the mixes a person is working on remotely, including sending files over the Internet. Written com- munication has advantages; for instance, simply having to put your mix notes into writing can make those revisions easier and clearer for the recordist to understand. However, doing so can also delay the process as you try to clarify what is needed and desired.
WHAT NOT TO DO
Don’t send a mix without notes.
Although it may be tempting to send the artist a mix (either a first mix or a revision) without any notes, you’re just avoiding matters that should be on the table at this point. For example, when I send the first pass of a mix, I always mention the things I anticipate might be issues: “I set the background vocals pretty high, but I’m not sure how you want them,” or “I wasn’t sure if the lead guitar should take over from the background vocals in the end vamp—it’s doing that in this mix but easy to change.”
You’re making hundreds of decisions on a mix, and there are always some things that you are not going to be sure about. You want the artist to know that you’re flexible and that you want their participation. On revisions, I always comment on what’s been done and how it reflects the ongoing collaboration. I might say something like “The backgrounds are a little quieter now as requested—more so in the chorus than the end vamp, just because that sounded right to me—easy to adjust more.” I also might mention actions I took that weren’t anticipated earlier: “I also panned the rhythm guitar farther to the right—you didn’t ask for this but it sounded better to me as I was working on the other revisions.” Dialog is essential to the creative process; initiate it, don’t wait for it.
CREATIVE TIP
How to collaborate when you’re mixing your own music
You may find yourself mixing material that you wrote, played, and re- corded. So, where’s the opportunity for collaboration? This can be tricky, as you don’t have anyone you need to consult. If other musicians played on the project, you can go to them for feedback, but musicians don’t neces- sarily have an ear for mixing (and they might get distracted listening to their own parts). And, of course, you might have played or programmed all the instruments yourself.
176
There’s no right answer here; some people are capable of mixing on their own, without a desire for collaboration. If you want feedback, though, you can play your mixes for a friend, family member, or someone else to obtain feedback. Usually the best you can hope for is something very general, like “I can’t hear your voice well enough”; that is a common reaction that I addressed in chapter 6. If you crave feedback from pros, seek out local engineers and producers, but don’t be surprised if they say they’re too busy or ask to get paid; some of us get a lot of these requests. Or, take a class (many community colleges have programs that are reasonably priced) and ask your teacher for feedback (and give you some valuable training in other recording and mixing skills as well). In any event, be aware that you can find opposing views on virtually any mix issue (one person says the vocal is too loud and another says it isn’t loud enough), so in the end you have to trust yourself (and develop your ear and your skills).
Acquiring the vocabulary for communicating about mixing is largely a matter of building up your familiarity with mix and sound issues. Some things are easy and straightforward: “I think the vocal needs to be louder,” though this leaves unanswered the question of how much louder. “I think the vocal needs to be a lot louder” or “a little louder” helps clarify matters, but the exact degree of change that is going to satisfy that request is still a matter of trial and error. Col- laboration with others is another reason I like off-line automation. I can adjust the vocal up 2 dB, and if my collaborator says that’s too much I can say that I’ll split the difference (up 1 dB), and we can work from there. That is, expressing these changes in numbers and definable degrees makes everything clearer.
Mix issues other than volume call for a vocabulary that can be readily un- derstood by others. For instance, questions regarding frequencies, as controlled by EQ, have given rise to a huge number of descriptive words, some more easily understood than others. Words that rely on the scale from low to high frequen- cies are generally clear. These include:
Lows bass bottom
Mids midrange middle
Highs treble top
These might become more precise by adding subdivisions, such as: Lows
Low-mids Mids High-mids Highs
Mix Collaboration
177
Other words that are used fairly frequently are suggestive but less precise, and therefore open to interpretation. Some useful words and their probable mean- ing or means of responding to them include:
Boom (may be either a desirable or an undesirable quality of the low frequencies)
Rumble (generally refers to a low-frequency problem)
Thump (usually a quality of the kick drum lows, which may be good or bad)
Fatter (generally satisfied with a boost in the lows and/or low-mids) Warmer (most frequently requires low-mid boosting)
Honk (probably a quality of the mids and/or high-mids that needs dipping)
Thinner (again, usually achieved through dipping of mids and/or high-mids)
Whack (probably refers to the high-mid content of the snare drum) Presence (the presence boost is generally found in the high-mids) Crunch (usually referring to the high-mids, though crunchy usually
means distorted)
Brighter (generally the high-mids and/or highs) Edge (generally the high-mids and/or highs)
Sibilance (the “s” sound can become overloaded from high-mid and/or highs)
Brilliance (probably satisfied by boosting the high frequencies) Air (probably referencing the top of the audible highs)
These words might be pretty easy to understand, especially if they become used often among frequent collaborators, but they can also mean very different things to different people. And even if the general understanding is the same, the exact frequencies, the amount of boost and dip, and the best bandwidth settings still require considerable clarification. For example, the low-mid frequencies in a female vocal are at a very different part of the frequency range from the low- mids of the bass guitar.
Other words, such as the inevitable color references (“more purple”) or highly subjective terms such as “magical,” really give the recordist almost noth- ing to go on. (I did work with one artist for whom, after some trial and error, I discovered that the request for “more magical” was satisfied with more reverb.)
The most precise language for EQ is actual frequency references, and with the proliferation of engineering skills among musicians and other contributors to the mixing process, the use of these is becoming more frequent. Suggestions such as “I think it needs a little boost around 8K” (“K” being short for kHz) or “Perhaps we could thin this sound a bit around 300” (meaning dipping at 300 Hz) are increasingly common in mix collaborations. The recordist may still
178
need to adjust somewhat from the suggested frequency—it’s impossible to know exactly what the effects of any given frequency adjustment are going to be with- out listening—but this vocabulary is certainly the most precise.
Communications concerning ambience and effects can be more obscure. A request for a sound that is “bigger” probably refers to a desire for increased ambience, but not necessarily. Suggestions that a more “mysterious” or “un- usual” mix is desired leave the recordist without a good idea of how to proceed. With wider use of recording gear, however, specific suggestions and references will be more common. A guitarist may well suggest: “How about some long delay on the lead guitar?” The performer may even be more specific: “Can we try a quarter-note delay on the guitar?” The more exact nature of the delay (overall level, amount of feedback, etc.) may be left to the recordist or may be part of an ongoing discussion of details.
Some terms can clearly suggest changes in mix ambience. Certainly “wet- ter” and “dryer” are accepted ways of describing the relative amounts of reverb and/or delay, though how to implement a request for a wetter vocal or a wetter mix still leaves a lot open to the recordists—more reverb, an additional type of reverb, a different reverb, or perhaps more or additional medium or long delay. Similarly, requests such as “closer sounding” or “more spacious” generally can be interpreted as references to types or degrees of ambience. Less reverb and less delay definitely make things sound closer, while more ambience increases the sense of spaciousness—though again, the specific ways to accomplish such changes can vary widely.
It is very helpful for a recordist to master these terms to use in helping collaborators clarify what it is wanted. Sometimes, when a vocalist is strug- gling to describe what she wants for the sound of her song, for example, you can help define that by asking if the sound should be more “present” or “closer” or perhaps “bigger” or “richer.” This can give the vocalist a term that you might be able to interpret technically. This is preferable to hearing her request “Could you change the way the vocal sounds?” Of course, you can, but how? In short, don’t rely on your collaborators to clearly express their desires; develop the vocabulary to be able to discuss with them how to create the mixes that you all will love.
Finally, when you’re working remotely, make sure you are listening to and collaborating on the same mix! I have experienced confusions with artists over the elements in a mix, only to discover that we were not referencing the same mix. This is why I number and/or date the files or CDs that I provide for artists. I can then refer to that information so that changes are agreed to, based on the correct starting point.
Mix Collaboration
179
WHAT NOT TO DO
Don’t play a mix for anyone without proper permission.
It is important to respect boundaries in regard to music productions that are not yet finished. This means that you should not play material for other people (friends, other clients, etc.) that isn’t finished without the permission of the artist. It may be that someone other than the artist is paying for the recording—and that gives the individual certain rights, of course. But try to respect the artist’s wishes in regard to when the music is really done and ready to be released to the world.
For example, I prefer not to play unfinished work for the record company or others who may have a vested interest but who are not a part of the creative process. I also reinforce this notion with the artist: outside of the people who they are working with and trust, I urge them not to play unfinished mixes for others. This is because of two common outcomes: either the listeners don’t like the (unfinished) work, or they fall in love with the unfinished version. In either case, you have undermined the process and may even jeopardize the project, depending on who is involved.