ve

There are generally THREE things that a producer will consider when deciding whether he wants to work with an artist:

Music – Are your songs interesting to the producer?  It’s not a question of whether your music is “good,” because that’s so subjective.  What one guy loves, another might hate.  So it’s really a matter of whether or not a producer happens to personally like your music.

Activity – Are you touring?  Posting videos on YouTube?  Interacting with fans on social media?  Do you have a cool website?  Do you have a manager?  An agent?  A record deal?  All of this is important to a producer.  Why?  Because it shows that the artist has initiative, drive, and ambition.  It suggests that, if the producer spends time making a great record, the artist is likely going to work really hard to make sure the world hears that recording.

Money – How much will it cost?  Unfortunately there’s no easy answer to this, because there are so many variables.  (Check this for a little more info:  http://tinyurl.com/pz5kotj )  But for the sake of this conversation, let’s say that a successful producer would expect a budget of $10,000 per song, and a mixer might expect a budget of $3500 per song.

Generally you need to have at least TWO of these things before a producer or a mixer will get involved.  Some examples:

- Great music / lots of activity / not much money – A lot of producers or mixers would still be willing to get involved.   Even if he doesn’t get paid much, the producer will still get a chance to work on some great music, and with all the activity you’ve got going on, there’s a good chance a lot of other people will hear it.   Maybe you’ll get lucky and your record will explode.

- Great music / little activity / plenty of money – So, you’re just getting the ball rolling, and you don’t have a lot of activity yet.  But you’ve got a decent budget, and some great songs.  You’ll probably find a producer or mixer willing to take a shot with you.   It’s a big leap of faith that you’ll start cranking on the websites and videos and tours and everything else after recording is done.  But if you’re willing to spend a lot of money hiring a producer, then some guys will likely be willing to take that risk.

- Not so great music / lots of activity / plenty of money – Most professional producers or mixers will say no to this… they’d love to be involved, but if they’re not feeling the music, they shouldn’t do it.

A lot of times producer or mixers are asked to deliver stems.  Sometimes what people mean is the multi-tracks – the kind you’d get if you were using 24-track tape.  These days, the “multi-tracks” are usually recorded in ProTools.  But often, when people request stems, what they want are effectively sub-mixes:  the drums mixed down to stereo, the guitars mixed down to stereo, etc.   That presents a variety of problems:

1.  For starters, there’s no standard for what “stems” are. Some people just want stereo drums, stereo guitars, bass, stereo BGVs, and lead vocal. Other people want cymbals separate from the drums. Some people want one pass of the kick drum, one pass of the snare, one of the cymbals, etc. Some people want a pass with just Bob’s guitars, and then another pass with just Jim’s guitars. Oh yeah, there’s an accordion on one song, that needs to be separate, too. And by the way, if you need the stems for Guitar Hero, they want completely different stems than Rock Band. One label sent a list of 18 different stems they wanted. They offered to pay, but money alone doesn’t address all the issues (see below).

2.  Making stems is very time consuming. Running all these passes (once you figure out what the heck people want) can take hours. It seems like it should be a simple no‐brainer, but it’s not. It takes time to figure out what needs to be included in any given pass. (Should I include the tambourine in with the drums? Or should that be separate?) It takes time to find and isolate all the things that need to be included and excluded. If it was just a matter of the amount of time spent, we’d ask for an additional fee (though the work is drudgery for mixers and the money is small solace). But that’s not the only issue… read on.

3.  So, you want to send for a remix? You’ve got the multi‐tracks… why can’t you send the re‐mixer the same files you sent the mixer? You might say it’s because there are elements of the mixers mix that you really love… the vocal sound, the drums, etc. So you want to give that to the re‐mixer so he can incorporate that into his remix? So his remix sounds great? And he gets credit for that? Doesn’t that seem like cheating? It certainly seems unfair to the mixers I know. If you need a re‐mixer who can do a great job without being spoon‐fed, I can recommend some people.

It’s pretty common for people to ask me if one of my clients will do a test mix. Generally this means that several mixers will be mixing the same song, and the artist will pick the one they like best.  I suppose there’s a certain logic to doing this.  After all, most people wouldn’t dream of buying a car without test driving it, right?  And mixing a record is a big investment, so isn’t it sensible to do test mixes?  

Well, in my experience, there are several inherent problems with test mixes:

1.      For starters, evaluating mixes is so subjective that picking a mixer is often a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If you LOVE a bunch of records mixed by a particular mixer, and you’re EXCITED about working with that mixer, then odds are pretty good that you’ll be happy working with that mixer.  If you’re ambivalent about a mixer, and you’re not sure if he’s the right guy, then odds are you’ll be unsure about his mixes no matter how they sound.  You’ll always wonder what the songs would have sounded like if you had been able to hire your dream mixer.

2.      If you do test mixes with several different people, odds are you’ll love the way the guitars sound in one mix, and the way the drums sound in another mix.  At the end of the day, you’ll find yourself chasing elements of different mixes which may be impossible to have in one mix.

3.      Mixing should be a collaborative effort.  This point (and others) are made eloquently in this note from one of my clients to an A&R guy:   “Regarding the test mix, I really do thank you for considering me, but I have issues doing these kind of shootouts for many reasons:

“First—no great records were ever made like this. I always cite Led Zeppelin and Jimmy Page as an influence in my thinking.  Jimmy used different guys on every record—sometimes just the house guys at certain studios and sometimes the old trusted dudes – but in the end it still sounded the way he wanted.  As producer, he worked with the engineers and mixers to help them achieve that Zep sound that we all love and that was in his head.  At the same time left behind a body of work that doesn’t sound redundant from record to record.  The band grew with each outing and I firmly believe it’s because great records are made with communication and people working together.

“It takes a little time to get into the swing of a record, and I welcome the communication between myself and a band…getting to learn what they like and dislike.  A shootout is so impersonal – it’s just guessing what people may like and being afraid to steer too far off the path since they may not like it.  

“Second—no matter how many times someone says they won’t just like the loudest mix, they always pick the loudest one.  Its human nature—louder is better.  I don’t like blasting things into oblivion so it immediately impresses the band, but instead I try to mix with music decisions in mind. I let the mastering guy make the volume competitive and not just more blown up and distorted.

“Anyway, I do thank you for the opportunity to be involved.  But I like to work WITH a band to make great records…not just be forced into going for flash and volume off the bat to hopefully get the gig.”

Our recommendation is this:  

1.      Do your homework and pick a mixer who has done work that you truly admire.

2.      Talk to that mixer about how you want your record to sound, and get the mixer’s input.

3.      Trust your gut… if it feels like the right decision, commit yourself to making it work with that mixer.

4.      Believe in yourself and your music.  As important as it is to get a great mix, it is still a tiny fraction of what makes your music connect with an audience – words, melody, performance – all of these things carry much more weight. Don’t lose sight of the big picture!

To revisit the analogy about test driving a car, here’s a final point: we don’t want to sell you a car you don’t like!   We only want to work with you if you really want to work with the mixer, and are committed to making it work.  At the end of the day, any reputable mixer wants the same thing as the artist:  he wants you to be wildly happy with the mixes, to be incredibly successful in your career, and to work with you again on your future recordings.

My only experience with actives was having the EMG 81/85 set in my old ‘87 Les Paul from 2001-2006. I basically used them because the output was so high and the noise was so low, and not for their ‘tone’ (such as it was). It’s important to remember that actives are basically very weak passives with a preamp attached, and that preamp can be voiced or EQed in whatever way a designer wants. So there’s not much point generalizing about the sound of actives as a category, except to the extent that they all seek to maximize signal-to-noise ratio.

I think most people hate on actives based on the EMG 81/85, which are a very old design. They’re pretty neutral sounding, and probably have a reputation for ‘compression’ because the output is high enough that they’re getting a wall of fuzz out of amps that are dialed in for lower-output passives. EMG’s original design goals weren’t to create a ‘toneful’ pickup; rather, they wanted to create a more IDEAL pickup. So they addressed the intrinsic tradeoffs of a passive design – loss of highs with increasing output, magnetic string pull, noise, and microphonics. They built a passive pickup with reasonably neutral characteristics and excellent noise rejection, then stuck an opamp inside it and potted the whole thing in epoxy – bam, huge reduction in microphonics and noise, with an output level as high as they felt like. So the original selling point was simply: more distortion, more articulation, less noise. This was way before the craze for vintage instruments. Because the fundamental strengths of active design are most necessary and useful for high-gain players, active pickups have become associated with metal. Which in turn reduces interest in them from other kinds of players, and reduces the incentive to design an active geared for other playing styles. Thus the prevailing notion that actives are one-trick ponies.

(As a side note: reducing microphonics DOES reduce the guitar body’s contribution to the sound. Why? Because only the strings are picked up electromagnetically, the pickup ‘hears’ the body when it acts like a microphone… and ALL pickups, even potted ones, are microphonic to some extent.)