# Not happy with production results



## otisvillain (Jun 8, 2017)

Hey all-

What ever happened to the principle of less is more? Keep it simple? The last two engineers I brought tracks to (they had good reviews), have not done a good job at all. I wanted clean, balanced, tight sounding tracks. The results were over-processed, all-vocal tracks.

Do engineers not listen to requests of their clients? I've came to the conclusion that I know exactly how I want my song to sound, and that I am much better served patiently mixing it down and handing off to be mastered. "RANT OVER!!"

Does anyone else have these problems?


----------



## musophrenic (Jun 8, 2017)

Hey Otis (if that's your real name, lol) ... you present an interesting situation, because that flips the tables a little bit. Usually as composers/songwriters/producers, we're the ones asked to bend to our clients' will. When someone else needs to bend to ours, we get to feel what our clients feel, lol.

Reason I say this, is perhaps a good way to look at this objectively might be to think about what our clients do with us, and apply it to this situation.

I haven't worked with a ton of engineers, and more recently, I've become more of the engineer myself, so I've seen it from both sides, even if in a limited capacity. I think I can offer a couple of key observations that could help.

An important element of all this might be reference tracks. While I don't doubt your originality, I'm guessing there are certain artists or certain pieces that define "clean, balanced, tight sounding tracks" to you, and those tracks are what you want your tracks to sound like. I don't mean they would sound the same in terms of content or arrangement or anything, but rather there are particular elements that you pick up on and want in your tracks. And hey, maybe your frustration is actually because the engineers ignored your reference tracks entirely!

The other thing is whether the elements of the track you provided lend themselves to the exact sound you're thinking of. Again, not doubting your ability, but sometimes we'll work with a certain sound, and try to hammer it into submission during the mix, where it's much easier to either choose a different sample/synth/drum sound, or re-record the thing you're recording differently, with a different mic, or using a different angle/distance, etc. And perhaps that's not possible by the mixing stage, which might mean that the mixing engineer needs to get a bit creative, perhaps double up that kick sound with a sample of their own to get the exact sound you need, or add/subtract elements in a way that doesn't ruin your musical vision.

I don't know, you might consider this extremely pedestrian from me, but that's just what comes to mind in response to your frustration. What do you think?


----------



## otisvillain (Jun 8, 2017)

musophrenic said:


> Hey Otis (if that's your real name, lol) ... you present an interesting situation, because that flips the tables a little bit. Usually as composers/songwriters/producers, we're the ones asked to bend to our clients' will. When someone else needs to bend to ours, we get to feel what our clients feel, lol.
> 
> Reason I say this, is perhaps a good way to look at this objectively might be to think about what our clients do with us, and apply it to this situation.
> 
> ...



Thank you for the reply. I see the main problem as the last two engineers are mixing my tracks to sound like everything else you hear on the radio. Now, I'm shooting for radio quality material, but all uniqueness/originality is lost through the over-processing, synthetic-ness they put into the song! I believe that if the instrument sounds good, why add a lot of processing to it? Maybe some panning, EQ, and a touch of reverb is all that is needed. I also favor a strong main lead vocal, without a lot of processing or excessive harmonies, which seems to be contrary to their vision.

I always send the mixed version of the song that I do myself (instrumental only, I'm still hesitant mixing vocals), which is clean and balanced. I figured that another set of ears, and a well treated room, and someone experienced mixing vocals would take the song to the next level, but that is not what happened. Indeed, a learning experience (expensive!).

I have a few revisions that the engineer allows, so tonight I'm going to spell out in greater detail what my vision is. I think moving forward, right from the start I will hammer home what my vision is


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 8, 2017)

I think you are getting two things confused; engineers and producers. Engineers don't really care (in my experience) what you are wanting...and unless you can instruct them precisely during the mixing process, you are going to typically be very unsatisfied. The key is to hire a good producer; who will be able to achieve the end result since they are versed in the whole process. But the key is finding a producer that will achieve what you need.


----------



## otisvillain (Jun 8, 2017)

Wolfie2112 said:


> I think you are getting two things confused; engineers and producers. Engineers don't really care (in my experience) what you are wanting...and unless you can instruct them precisely during the mixing process, you are going to typically be very unsatisfied. The key is to hire a good producer; who will be able to achieve the end result since they are versed in the whole process. But the key is finding a producer that will achieve what you need.



That is what I'm learning now, that unless I can instruct them precisely, I'm going to be unhappy. What I don't understand is this: if I give them a mixed version of the song, that I did, how they are so far off the mark from what my vision was? If I say clean, balanced, tight, with a strong lead vocal, and a big sound, that is what I should get!

But I guess those specs are open for expansive interpretation, smh


----------



## musophrenic (Jun 8, 2017)

otisvillain said:


> Thank you for the reply. I see the main problem as the last two engineers are mixing my tracks to sound like everything else you hear on the radio. Now, I'm shooting for radio quality material, but all uniqueness/originality is lost through the over-processing, synthetic-ness they put into the song! I believe that if the instrument sounds good, why add a lot of processing to it? Maybe some panning, EQ, and a touch of reverb is all that is needed. I also favor a strong main lead vocal, without a lot of processing or excessive harmonies, which seems to be contrary to their vision.
> 
> I always send the mixed version of the song that I do myself (instrumental only, I'm still hesitant mixing vocals), which is clean and balanced. I figured that another set of ears, and a well treated room, and someone experienced mixing vocals would take the song to the next level, but that is not what happened. Indeed, a learning experience (expensive!).
> 
> I have a few revisions that the engineer allows, so tonight I'm going to spell out in greater detail what my vision is. I think moving forward, right from the start I will hammer home what my vision is



Gotcha.

So the reference you provide is your own mix, if I understand this correctly. And given that you're handing it over to an engineer, it seems they're not necessarily treating your reference as a "leave this as it is, just make the vocals excellent" kind of thing. Perhaps that's the misunderstanding in this case.

My question then is this: is there any artist or collection of tracks that captures the vibe you're after? i.e. something that's radio-quality yet not over-processed? Because if there is, perhaps that gives your engineers the idea that "guys, seriously don't overdo this". 

As an analogy, it sounds like you were hoping for an Aloe Blacc kind of mix, and the engineers thought you wanted a John Legend mix. If that makes sense, lol.


----------



## otisvillain (Jun 8, 2017)

musophrenic said:


> Gotcha.
> 
> So the reference you provide is your own mix, if I understand this correctly. And given that you're handing it over to an engineer, it seems they're not necessarily treating your reference as a "leave this as it is, just make the vocals excellent" kind of thing. Perhaps that's the misunderstanding in this case.
> 
> ...



That is a great point. I think I need to make it very clear what my vision is, and that my mixed reference track, minus vocals, is how I want it to sound. That is exactly what I'm going to tell him before he starts the first revision. Additionally, I'll find a real reference track for him. Some of the blame is on me also.

Make sure we are all on the same page


----------



## musophrenic (Jun 8, 2017)

Good luck with it! Sometimes the hardest learning curves on some things end up being the most important lessons.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 8, 2017)

Sometimes it's also hard to mix to a reference track if the recording itself wasn't done properly. That's why is always ideal to record and mix at the same studio.


----------



## Scoremixer (Jun 8, 2017)

Wolfie2112 said:


> I think you are getting two things confused; engineers and producers. Engineers don't really care (in my experience) what you are wanting...and unless you can instruct them precisely during the mixing process, you are going to typically be very unsatisfied. The key is to hire a good producer; who will be able to achieve the end result since they are versed in the whole process. But the key is finding a producer that will achieve what you need.



I have never come across a (good) engineer who didn't care what the client wanted. In this instance, it sounds like the producer role is shared between client and engineer- the client has the creative vision, and the engineer has the technical know-how and experience to realise that. If Otis isn't getting that, then there's either a problem in communication of expectations, or it might just be that the engineer isn't suited to a particular project. 

The other thing I'd say is that mixing to try and match an incomplete ref is difficult because it involves a lot of second guessing- try and supply your engineer with a mix that's representative of where the vocals should sit, even if the sonic quality leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## LondonMike (Jun 8, 2017)

I wear two hats (at least). If I'm not writing, mainly instrumental stuff, I arrange, produce, track and mix (or any combination of those) songs for various singers/songwriters. In my experience, the clearer a client's vision the easier it is to realise it for them.
A lot of the time a songwriter doesn't really know what they want until they hear it but they very quickly know when something isn't working for them.
The more reference tracks the client can supply, the better. It might even be a combination such as the drum sound on track X, the guitar sound on track Y and the piano sound from track Z. Even if it's not possible to do it exactly at least I know the 'feel' they're after.
There's always a lot of give and take. And there are many ways to skin a cat. A particular mix engineer may specialise in a particular genre and will usually be aiming for a fairly current 'flavour of the moment' sound. It's really in the clients interest (financially and artistically) to be as specific as possible, especially if they're after something different.
Same as if a composer is given a brief for a film cue. The more info the better unless you want the composer or mix engineer to 'do their thang'!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jun 8, 2017)

Scoremixer said:


> I have never come across a (good) engineer who didn't care what the client wanted.



Yes, I used a bad choice of words. I meant more along the lines of what you and London Mike described. Unless they have precise guidance, they are basically going by their own interpretation.


----------



## erica-grace (Jun 8, 2017)

First off, you get what you pay for. If you aren't paying an engineer a good amount of money - regardless if they had good reviews - the chances are slim that you are going to get a top quality product.

Secondly, you say this:
_
I see the main problem as the last two engineers are mixing my tracks to sound like everything else you hear on the radio. _

Well, then, they are doing their job, unless you specifically tell them that you are shooting for radio quality material, but do not want to lose all uniqueness/originality through over-processing, synthetic-ness being put into the song.

Your job is not only to write and arrange the song well, but to also properly communicate to your engineer what you are looking for. If you fail to do that, then your dislike of the production results is on you.

Hope that didn't sound harsh, but that's the way it is. Better luck to you in the future!


----------



## ryst (Jun 9, 2017)

otisvillain said:


> Do engineers not listen to requests of their clients? I've came to the conclusion that I know exactly how I want my song to sound, and that I am much better served patiently mixing it down and handing off to be mastered. "RANT OVER!!"
> 
> Does anyone else have these problems?



I started mixing my own stuff for the reasons above. But that was back in the 90's when I started writing music. I've been a professional mix engineer for the last 15 years as well and the first thing I do is listen to clients requests! I'm hired to do the best job I can and make my clients happy with the end result. I'd say, if you want to patiently mix yourself, go for it. And get a mastering engineer who can give you feedback to improve your mixes. Otherwise, keep looking for a good mixing engineer that fits your mold and vision. They are out there. Good luck.


----------



## Joram (Jun 10, 2017)

otisvillain said:


> Hey all-
> 
> What ever happened to the principle of less is more? Keep it simple? The last two engineers I brought tracks to (they had good reviews), have not done a good job at all. I wanted clean, balanced, tight sounding tracks. The results were over-processed, all-vocal tracks.


That sucks! Are you sure it were proessional engineers or people who pretend they are professional engineers?



otisvillain said:


> Do engineers not listen to requests of their clients? I've came to the conclusion that I know exactly how I want my song to sound, and that I am much better served patiently mixing it down and handing off to be mastered. "RANT OVER!!"
> 
> Does anyone else have these problems?


No, but I am an engineer. I am afraid there are some engineers who think they are producers. As an engineer you are in the service business and good engineers deliver the service the client ask for and give something extra that makes the work of the client better. In your case the engineers did the opposite. I would not hire them again.


----------



## Joram (Jun 10, 2017)

erica-grace said:


> First off, you get what you pay for. If you aren't paying an engineer a good amount of money - regardless if they had good reviews - the chances are slim that you are going to get a top quality product.


Very true!



erica-grace said:


> Your job is not only to write and arrange the song well, but to also properly communicate to your engineer what you are looking for. If you fail to do that, then your dislike of the production results is on you.


I ask my clients what they want and discuss with them examples they send me. Imo It is part of the job of an engineer to find out what a client has in mind. Not always easy, but you cannot start a recording or mixing session when there is understanding about the project between the people involved.


----------



## Joram (Jun 10, 2017)

ryst said:


> And get a mastering engineer who can give you feedback to improve your mixes.


I do not agree. Mastering engineers can give important tips about the sound in general, but they are not specialists on mixing. If you want to mix your own work it would be a better idea to invite a good and experienced mix engineer to your studio for a few hours to help you out.


----------



## ryst (Jun 12, 2017)

Joram said:


> I do not agree. Mastering engineers can give important tips about the sound in general, but they are not specialists on mixing. If you want to mix your own work it would be a better idea to invite a good and experienced mix engineer to your studio for a few hours to help you out.



That certainly hasn't been my experience. I've gotten great advice from top level mastering engineers that have helped a lot in improving my mixes. I do agree that getting mix help from other mixing engineers is great too.


----------



## ctsai89 (Jun 12, 2017)

otisvillain said:


> Hey all-
> 
> What ever happened to the principle of less is more? Keep it simple? The last two engineers I brought tracks to (they had good reviews), have not done a good job at all. I wanted clean, balanced, tight sounding tracks. The results were over-processed, all-vocal tracks.
> 
> ...



yep I wouldn't trust them. From what review have they got good reviews from? What kind of engineers are they? 

If anything, you can just do your own engineering since you know your song the best. There are a few mastering/mixing companies that do it really well but they mainly do EDM and trance. However I could put my trust in them because EDM/trance are actually really hard to mix/master compared to other stuff.


----------



## Joram (Jun 14, 2017)

ryst said:


> I've gotten great advice from top level mastering engineers that have helped a lot in improving my mixes.


Of course, a good reason to work with experienced pro's and if the budget allows it the best experienced pro's.


----------



## Living Fossil (Jul 11, 2017)

Mix 2 is ([very] much) better than mix 1....
Maybe you're listening to the music in a room which adds some strange coloration?


----------



## otisvillain (Jul 11, 2017)

There's definitely going to be a difference of opinion on this one! Music is probably the most subjective thing on earth. I disagree with mix 2 being better. You can't hear all of the elements clearly, lacks the punch of mix 1, and has key elements panning left to right, back and forth, which makes little sense. Mix 2 is brighter for sure, and the brightness issue for mix 1 was taken care of in the mastering stage. Overall, I do not like music that sounds sorta fake due to processing, and mix 2 sounds semi phony to me.

If someone is looking for an organic, clean mix where all of the elements are heard, I would say mix 1 takes the cake. Thanks all!


----------



## Living Fossil (Jul 11, 2017)

If you want to be proud of yourself, of course feel free to pretend that your mix is better.
Vanity is a human right.
However, i can't see a single objective argument which supports your view.
Maybe you should try to trust a littel bit people who are more experienced??
Said that, it's none of my business. Do what you think is right.


----------



## LondonMike (Jul 11, 2017)

I too prefer mix 2 because it seems to do more justice to the material. It's an atmospheric track and mix 1 is a bit dry and not as big. If I was mixing the track I'd probably want to be even more radical with FX etc. But then, you'd probably give me the sack!


----------



## rvb (Jul 11, 2017)

The overall balance frequency wise, the 'glue' togetherness of all instruments, stereo imaging and eq-wise; everything sounds better to me in mix 2.. (also the kick in mix 1 is having some issues in the low mid frequencies) Sorry to be so blunt, but I just wanted to let you know you didn't lose any money on this!


----------



## otisvillain (Jul 11, 2017)

Londonmike- I do agree with you, if you are looking for more of an atmospheric feeling and a bigger, wider sound, then yes, mix 2 would be the choice. 

living fossil- With all due respect, you come off as an arrogant musical snob, of which there are many in this world. It's people like yourself that others should avoid!


----------



## Living Fossil (Jul 11, 2017)

otisvillain said:


> living fossil- With all due respect, you come off as an arrogant musical snob, of which there are many in this world. It's people like yourself that others should avoid!



Ok. So you're posting two different versions of a track.
One is your version, the other not.
You prefer your version.
If people disagree with you, they are "arrogant musical snobs" "which there are many in this world" and which "others should avoid". 
If insulting people who try to help you works for you, that's fine. Go for it!


----------



## R. Soul (Jul 11, 2017)

Have the mixes been removed? 
Cause I can't seem to find them in the thread.


----------



## storyteller (Jul 11, 2017)

Otis, I definitely can understand why Mix 2 may not be what you are looking for, but speaking very objectively, Mix 2 is very much on another mixing level above Mix 1. However, what I think you are trying to express is something I learned the hard way early on (and even still confront from time to time on a mix). I hope this story helps a bit...

I once had a track that I thought was excellent. I thought, "_let's mix it and send it off to the radio and the world would return boatloads of money in kind for such a perfect contribution to the music world._" But the problem was, the mix engineer seemed to turn everything I thought made the track great into mush, and expose parts that I wanted more subtle. Even the vocals became a frustrating point for me. I liked my rough mix better. Period. It took me a while to realize that the problem was not the engineer. In fact, his mixes were fantastic and he had many radio successes! The problem was that my production ear was focused on the sounds I was using rather than how those sounds combined together. After I reluctantly acknowledged the problem was of my own making, I could substitute sounds and record new parts and harmonies that could fill the sonic and stereo spectrums like I was originally hoping for. It just took the self-realization that production is more than the initial vision of the raw tracks. It is finding the right sounds, rhythms, harmonies, melodies, etc to fill the sonic and stereo spectrums appropriately to bring that vision to life. Then engineers make _THAT_ sound great! It is so easy to hear the product envisioned in the mind but not have it fully supported in the content delivered to an engineer.... then it gets messy....

It is such an easy mistake to make! I still do it today!! The problem can be especially apparent with pop/rock/country music. When we hear the sounds raw, there are certain characteristics that we like (as producers). But, most of these sounds are thin (or too thick), not spread over the stereo spectrum properly with the other instruments, have strange reverb/delay lengths, and so on. So we add our own touches to clean it up. It's like putting a band-aid on something that requires surgery even when we think it is a slight scratch that just needs mended. Engineers who are good at their job know the difference and often have to make adjustments to a song that go against the original vision in order to make it sound polished. It is a math equation with few creative liberties once it has been submitted to an engineer. And that is why the mixes aren't what you are hoping for.

So, moral of the story.... chances are what you are hearing is not the engineer (if you paid for a quality mix). Chances are, there are areas that can be improved in production/recording to help the mix before it reaches the engineer. And, if you like a certain style of fx on the vocals, send some examples. Then the engineer can determine if there is enough stuff to work with to achieve that product! 

Anyway, hope that helps. I wish you the best with it.


----------



## otisvillain (Jul 11, 2017)

Living Fossil said:


> Ok. So you're posting two different versions of a track.
> One is your version, the other not.
> You prefer your version.
> If people disagree with you, they are "arrogant musical snobs" "which there are many in this world" and which "others should avoid".
> If insulting people who try to help you works for you, that's fine. Go for it!


Get off your high horse dude! Your one comment was snobbish, plain and simple. I forgot, you are the "professional" so you must be right!


----------



## otisvillain (Jul 11, 2017)

Storyteller- you make great points. I think my issue with the mix is that it was mixed to sound like everything else you hear on the radio, and the unique qualities of the song were lost. Uniqueness is important if you are not industry created. Also, I don't think bongos, violins, and percs bouncing around all over the stereo image makes for an ideal mix, but rather a busy & distracting mix, IMO. I never said mine was the greatest since sliced bread, but it was certainly cleaner and more balanced. 

In this small test I did, 4 regular listeners liked mine better (not my friends), and VI control liked his. Interesting indeed!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 12, 2017)

otisvillain said:


> Get off your high horse dude! Your one comment was snobbish, plain and simple. I forgot, you are the "professional" so you must be right!



I didn't read anything snobbish about Living Fossil's post, he took the time to provide an educated opinion on the mixes. In this industry, you need a THICK skin and must be open to constructive criticism.


----------



## Johann F. (Jul 12, 2017)

I've heard both mixes yesterday *blind*, trying to be as unbiased as possible, and thought mix 1 sounded dull, while mix 2 had more clarity, depth and overall creative value.

OP, you came here, posted your music and asked for opinions. Living Fossil took the time to listen and give you valid feedback that you didn't agree because you already made your mind in the initial post. So why even bother asking if you can't take constructive criticism? If you are looking for a hug bubble or echo chamber to validate your work, public forums aren't the best place. But if you want to learn and improve, you came to the right place.


----------



## LondonMike (Jul 12, 2017)

I'd say the only kind of critique that is valuable is a negative one because it makes you rethink and reconsider. 
Once we get over the disappointment of others not loving our stuff as much as we do, we can hear it with their ears and then we improve.
Sometimes it's just a matter of different tastes but often it's more than that.


----------



## otisvillain (Jul 12, 2017)

Living Fossil said--"If you want to be proud of yourself, of course feel free to pretend that your mix is better.
Vanity is a human right."

That is a snobbish comment. I have no problem with criticism, and give it out all the time. But I don't do it in a condescending manner. I simply gave reasons why I thought mine was better.

The consensus here is that mix 2 was better and that is fine, I have no issues with that. I am simply saying that I found that mix sorta phony sounding. I didn't like the delay effect on the snare. I didn't like the concept of the violin, bongo, and the other perc panning from left to right, back and forth. All of this panning and such was occurring at the same time. To me, that is not appealing to the ear, but is rather confusing. You all might like the idea of a busy, panning all over the place type mix, with semi-weak transitions, but I don't. Difference of opinion.

His mix also had a quick master on it, which mine did not.

I'm officially leaving this thread for good, but will be active in the samples thread!

Happy Writing- Otisvillain


----------



## jononotbono (Jul 12, 2017)

otisvillain said:


> Living Fossil said--"If you want to be proud of yourself, of course feel free to pretend that your mix is better.
> Vanity is a human right."
> 
> That is a snobbish comment. I have no problem with criticism, and give it out all the time. But I don't do it in a condescending manner. I simply gave reasons why I thought mine was better.
> ...



Can you please put the links back in this thread so I and many others can listen to them and not feel like we have just wasted some of our precious time reading through all of this? 

I've spent my life writing music in various bands and even had some mild BBC Radio One airtime and I am very much aware of how I love my mixes and how different the final mixes become. I'm genuinely interested in hearing the two. VI-C is full of wonderful people giving their wisdom, experience and knowledge completely for free and the range of people here are from absolute beginners "should I buy Albion One? I'm a Guitarist but love realistic Orchestral music" to "My last film just grossed Billions of dollars". It's a humbling place.


----------



## otisvillain (Jul 13, 2017)

Hi all-

Check out the final master copy and download! Onto song #2!

https://www.cryptycmusic.com/

Cryptyc


----------



## Replicant (Jul 13, 2017)

I haven't heard the comparisons since they're gone, but I can tell from listening to your final version that problem stems from the fact that, and I await your ire, it's just not a very good composition and arrangement.

90% of "mix problems" stem from poor choice of timbre, bad writing leading to voices crossing over eachother a lot (fastest and best way to lose clarity), etc.

There is very little going on in this track aside from drums and vocals; your singer, btw, doesn't have great pitch in a lot of places. I definitely would have had her re-record those parts.

I think there is a bass synth, but it is very inactive and ultra low. Doubling it with a sound that has more mids and highs would make it more prominent on all speaker systems.

There is an ambient "pad" of sorts, but it doesn't fill out much of the spectrum and like that violin and other instruments that come in occasionally, steps on the vocals a bit in places and regarding the violin and co.: the melodies you've written for them often sound fairly random in phrasing and out of key.

All of this leads to there being no engineer who can give you what you want; they can't add what's not there and can't create any semblence of clarity with tracks that mask each other without removing one or mangling it horribly with an EQ.

If clarity, punch and depth are what you're after, that is all up to the tracks you've sent them to begin with — not what they do with it afterward. 

There was a time when recording and amplifying music wasn't even possible, but squeaky clean mixes were still achieved regardless.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 13, 2017)

I think the sound quality and overall mix is fairly decent (although it needs more tweaking and ultimately, mastering). And for the song itself, I'm not feeling it. There's no structure, and it lacks any type of melody. Honestly, it does not have any radio friendly qualities...especially for the mainstream commercial market. But perhaps that is not the intent?


----------

