A Learning Experience

Mixing a CD remotely was a true learning experience. Usually, when tracking a CD, either I am producing the CD or I've been working with a producer since the outset, so I am either setting the artistic vision for the project, or I'm in constant contact with the person in charge of the vision. On this project, I simply took my best shot and won the gig. Now I've got 13 CDs of raw, unmixed tracks in my hand, and I'm really hoping that I'm not about to really piss someone off.

In the end, I had to assume that if I won the gig, then the producer and artist must be vibing with my work, and so I had to trust that my mixing decisions would be in line with their artistic vision. I had to go on faith that if I was their choice, then my gut would lead me in the right direction.

Turns out I was wrong.

When I heard the tracks for Everlasting, my mind said, "DISTORTION. LOTS OF DISTORTION. DISTORTION ON EVERYTHING. SPARE NO EARDRUM. MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE." And so I put together a rough mix that was really aggressive. A lot more aggressive than the production team had considered making it. In the end when they first heard it, it was a shock, like stepping out of bed onto cold broken glass.

Fortunately for me, the production team had a conversion to my hard rock vision of the song, and we all decided to keep it angry-sounding. We met in the middle by adding back in a few of their original production ideas but leaving the aggressive sound untouched.

What a learning experience it was! I had to reconsider a lot of variables that I usually take for granted.

Usually, you're never mixing in isolation. You've got the artist or producer with you as you work. So if you make the vocals too thin, or hard-pan that part that just HAS to be in stereo, the producer can guide you back as you work. But when you work remotely, you deliver what appears to be a final product as one big chunk of work, and it could contain lots of production "mistakes" all in one ugly package. We had to learn to treat the early rough mixes "as though we walked into the control room and listened to what's going on" rather than listening to the rough mixes "as though we're going to be nailed to this mix until the end of time."

And then there's terminology. What, exactly, are "balls" when we're referring to a clavichord? What does "warm" really mean? How bassy is "phat"? When is "too much reverb" the right amount exactly? Because it's all written on paper as notes, and as the remote mixing engineer, you get to interpret it. It is amazing how difficult it is to provide a concise written description of what the guitars are supposed to sound like. And how difficult it is to interpret someone else's description.

The Process

Working with Rob on this project was great, since we were both using the same software. Rob was able to send me the raw audio tracks along with the .veg song files on CD. All I had to do was copy the contents of the CDs onto my audio disks and open up the .veg files.

Rob provided me with pure raw tracks - volume at 0 dB, pan center, no effects, no automation, nothing. This way I could hear each track as it was recorded, and base my mixing judgements without any "prejudice." Rob also provided a rough mix of the song in the form of a .wav or .mp3 file, so I could get an idea of what kind of overall sound we needed to head for, and what each track was supposed to provide.

On many of the mixes that I did for this project, the approach was very straightforward: build up a drum submix, add in bass, guitars, and vocals, a little EQ and compression to taste, rinse, lather, repeat. On this mix, though, I threw everything I had at it. "Complete mixing overkill" was the ideal description, and it was completely intentional.

In the end, the mix was a sprawling mass of 48 tracks of audio on disk and 45 plugins. Managing all of that was a daunting task, and, as it turns out, a task that I was unable to perform without at least one glaring error. But more on that later. Let's start out with the drums.

Article Continues >>>