Fair in terms of storage. Unless you die, emigrate, or have a bad memory.

Also destroys trust with client. Personal relationships are as big a part of this job as ears are. This is not how you want to treat a personal relationship - it's bad business sense in any line of work.

No paranoia at all, just an opinion. Personally, I have received mix sessions that other engineers started, only to strike the faders, remove all the plugs and start from scratch. I would have much preferred a clean session file. Most guys I know would do the same. If a client wants to take a mix session to another engineer, a raw session makes more sense. If they come back to me, I already have my copy, and rig, which the session was created for.

At the end of the day, if a client hires an engineer to mix a song, that's what they get. They get a final mix that they are happy with, and sign off on. And any other variations they require. End of story, job done. They walk with the master tracks. I see nothing wrong with that senecio, if that's your policy. I'm not saying that is my policy, just that I don't have a problem with it. To each, his own.

Why do you give them the session Hyder boy?

Because if a client asks for the session, that's what I'd like to give them. I've NEVER been asked for a session, only for the person to fiddle with my work and either call it their own, or worse, still call it mine! If someone wants to know what I've done...I'm happy to tell them. Just like I do here! Engineering skill is far more than copying a few processes or workflow. I frequently take people through what I'm doing to their tracks, and how I'm doing it. Amazingly, I still get repeat work! Or if I don't, it's not because they're now confidently mixing their own records the way I taught them

Most of the time, clients who want a copy of their sessions can't even open them. They just want to know they have it safe.

Things still get changed after approval. Sometimes songs get mixes tweaked for single releases. They might want slightly different stems. It's just good practice. If your clients are happy with what you're offering, great. I just know that many wouldn't be.

I think you're far more likely to lose clients by being precious over sharing things like session files, than you are because someone gets said session files and thinks they can do it themselves. I suppose it depends on your clients - most signed bands want to write, perform and tour, not learn to be mix engineers.

But it all comes down to a question of housekeeping and responsibility. Even if something's signed off on, if you don't handover session files and someone wants to work on them in the future, you're responsible for that. Be unable to produce them, and you could be open to legal action. In theory. What's so hard about THAT?


I'm not talking about sending files on to mix, of course I agree with you there. I'm talking about archiving at the end of a session.

People will do what they want. I don't see why someone wouldn't hand over a session though, unless it's paranoia that they'll get stiffed somehow. As you say, to each their own.

Archiving is THE proper reason

Good question. I'm curious...

The odds of any client successfully loading one of my archived mix sessions from his hard drive and having it play back 100% are about as good as finding blue cheese and triscuits on Pluto. There is no reason to give the mix sessions unless my entire studio, minus the monitors and treatment, with all the routing/converters/summing as well as a clone of my current computer boot/OS/DAW and all plugins and hardware used are archived as well.

Agreed (of course). If other posters don't agree why this is important, well we have to agree to disagree

With just the session plus recall notes on lineup and outboard (plus desk recall if otb) you should be able to get close enough to do things like alteration for sync use or whatever.

But everyone seems to be focussing on someone taking the work away from them - I'm talking about a safety copy so you're not responsible for said session!

I still think there's a touch of insecurity/paranoia going on here. I'm not going to spend time leveling and consolidating audio (as referenced earlier - I'm often cleaning up audio during the mix process, so IMO there's more to archive than the raw mix files) if I can just archive the complete session. I'm really not fussed if someone wants to look at what I've done- I'd be flattered! I'll gladly talk people through it anyway if asked.

It's just not long term backup either - what about short term? It's not unheard of for a band to release a single, and tweak mixes on further (already completed) mixes based on feedback there. What happens if you've had a drive failure in the meantime?

As I stated in another comment, when asked for, I give them the session. Though it amounts to nothing more than a raw session essentially.

I agree about the importance of maintaining archives, but half of my clients can't even download an email attachment let alone be trusted to keep an archive. I insist on keeping all my clients' stuff archived, including the mix session(s). I do give them everything I have as an offsite archive just in case, minus the mix session(s) since some of them can be 75GB or more. Printing stems is such an ordeal due to mix bus processing and side-chaining/keying, that I don't do it any more. It never recreates the approved mixes anyway.

I think your last comment is needlessly provocative. I didn't say anything of the sort; I said that you can't learn that special something from looking at a session (and as I said, most clients won't be interested anyway).

Of course it's agreeing to disagree - many of us think it's important that the final process is archived; some don't. I've already listed reasons why a song might need to be recalled after job completion - if that's necessary then the onus is on you to store the sessions, Nd if you can't produce them you could well lose an additional session AND leave yourself open to legal action.

But it's getting repetitive - you don't have to agree to disagree with me, but I'm certainly uninterested in trying to convince you otherwise! And when a label asks me for sessions for archiving, I'll still gladly hand them over.

I do see why if you're working with the kind of amateur bands who might be penny pinchers and think themselves capable of mixing their own records, you might have cause to rethink this approach - fortunately I'm rarely in that position. If you suspect this to be the case, of course I'd be reluctant to hand stuff over. I'm talking about professional situations where hopefully everyone is treating each other with respect.

Totally get what you're saying, and I have zero qualms about letting my 'secrets' get away. I am humble without ego and paranoia. It's not professional to behave on the contrary and agree some are being paranoid.

In practicality, more than likely some of my clients might be peeved if their mix sessions didn't open up flawlessly somewhere else because they just didn't understand why. They would think I botched it all up.

If a client, after explaining the sheer complexities of recreating the mixes elsewhere, insisted on getting a copy of the mix session(s), I would just simply keep all the edits, mutes and comps in place, 'zero out' everything else and remove all plugins, and print only client-approved destructive processing (auto-tune, etc.); and explain to them that the only practical use they would have for this is so another mixer could have a sane starting point on doing a remix in the future.

To be clear, there are a lot of different scenarios to be considered. I produce, and track a lot of the sessions that I work on. In that situation, they get everything, continuously.

Sometimes I, or the artist, will have other engineers that I/they work with, mix sessions that I produce and or track. In those cases, they are getting consolidated tracks, as that is the preferred method by most engineers, myself included.

If I'm hired to MIX a track, that's exactly what I do. I mix the song, until the client is happy. Once they sign off on a given mix, and any other variations of said mix, mission accomplished! At that point, I have fulfilled my contractual obligations. I make it a point to archive my work, on more than one medium as a safety net, but it is not my legal, or moral responsibility to do so. I am not required by law, or any other force to do so. Nor am I required to give them a session file of my work, that is up to me. Unless it was negotiated and put into the contract, prior to commencement, as all details of the agreement should be.

With that said, if asked, I generally wouldn't have issue with giving a mix session file. Though, as I stated, in my particular case, amounts to nothing more than a raw session file anyway.

The amount of folks who care about protecting their process in such a manner is minimal to say the least.

I've said its paranoia twice, and made far more than 2 posts - that's not saying anything "continuously"!

I'm also not calling anyone paranoid - I'm just saying its a fear most shouldn't have.

I don't get your comment about Apple and piracy (as far as I'm aware apple didn't invent the MP3 player or the internet, and iTunes makes you pay for music). At any rate it's off topic.

If you resent sharing your experience, why are you even posting here? That's what GS is all about!

Of course you're entitled to your OPINION - that's why I said we can agree to disagree. Because my OPINION is different, as is my experience. But you weren't happy with that.

And with that - I think I've made my point!

This is kind of hilarious. How is anybody going to figure out your process? I watched some of the best engineers in Boston for years and can honestly say I cant emulate their work. While I did learn a lot I didnt have a direct link to their brain. Each mix requires a different approach and there are numerous solutions to all problems.

Everyrhing the Monkey Man says is spot on. Cheers!

I'm gonna jump in here. I dont know PM but i'm sure he'd be happy to share his "secrets" with any of us. As am I.

There really arent any secrets.. just solutions. Mixing is an artform and if you have the time to pick apart one of my mixes you still wont be able to mix like me. Most of what we do comes from experience, not tricky bussing or signal chains. Some of you guys just arent making sense. It points to a lack of experience. I'm not trying to insult you but it does seem paranoid.

I used to take recall sheets. They took like an hour. I had to write down all fader positions, line trims, channel eqs, patches and all outboard settings. I said it in my previous post and i'll say it again. I could not emulate their styles. I didnt try. Any good mix engineer is going to develop his/her own style.

I would enjoy watching somebody try to emulate my style. I get better every day so I would always be ahead of them anyway.

Does that make sense?

The masters and multi-tracks are the artists. That answers the original question.

Cheers!

I recently tracked and mixed a hip hop album ITB for an artist who was fairly savvy with Protools. I intentionally used only processing that he had access to, so he could completely open my files. Not only did I have no fear, (he did return to me throughout the entire album) but he also did a lot of his own editing on the side which made my life quite easy.

Though he has full access to all my "tricks" that I employed on his project, he will doubtlessly be returning to work with me again.

Why?

Paranoia: ...a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others.


By that definition I say you guys who think someone's going to steal your process are paranoid.

There I said it.

Nobody can steal your process by looking at your sessions because the sessions are not the process. Sessions are only the leftovers from the process. The process unfolds in real time and it requires your mind. No one can steal it by learning your settings or routing. Nobody is even trying to steal it. You are being paranoid.

In the long run, treating your clients with suspicion and mistrust will bring you more negative consequences than sharing some bit of knowledge ever will. Guaranteed. I've seen it.

Trust is the #1 reason a client works with an AE. Distrustful behavior only undercuts the kind of ongoing relationships that we thrive on. You distrust them but they're supposed to trust you? I don't think so. You'll be better off operating in a spirit of cooperation and sharing. We're music people not lawyers. Get over it. Be positive. You'll have a happier life.

Cheers,

New here aren't you.

You dont understand what I said at all.

I dont mind because I use studio one and 95% of the studios here only know pro tools

Nice looking room.

And to be crystal clear BB. We are not trying to humiliate or tar and feather you. That is not what we do here.

Thanks!

Likewise

Well It is a tough thing to do , A couple of times , friends of the bands I recorded wanted the session files - so they could "remix it" then use it to promote their recording career . I think this is really bad form from other engineers to immediately want to take another producers sessions files , then mix the session and claim as credit on their website .This has happened 3 times in the past , not so much anymore . I did not hand the session files over at that time . But if I have to to , then I just give the raw files . Imagine if green Day took the session files that Chris Lord Alge just mixed - handed it over to some engineer friend to then mix ? I can understand if the band is not happy with the mix and wants someone else to mix it . But to blatantly say we want to give it to our buddies so he can increase his mixing resume ....Which was the case all 3 times for me .

Again. And no offense intended at all but you dont understand what I am saying...

Join the fun here in the community. I see you joined up last week. Thats what I mean.

A lot of us post our credits here too...

Good Luck BB. I mean that.

I'm a horrible cynic.. but I agree.

A good engineer isn't some guy with 5 MixMag tricks they apply to every project in the same damn fashion every time. If someone things they can see my EQ settings and thus learn my ways, they're deluded or an idiot or both.

Even if I did some cool trick they pick up and run with for the rest of their life, who cares? If I'm worth anything as an engineer I'll have more on my backlog and I'll come up with more as I move forward.

I've met EDM guys with this lunatic mentality that they can't tell people they doubled a synth line with 2 different envelope/filter settings or automated the VCO with the mod wheel or something equally banal. It stinks of uncreativity, insecurity and a massive inferiority complex. Personally, I live to knock those petty, secretive types on their ass.

I mix each chanel on a mono audio file with 2 muted bars before the song intro; I place it in a folder with the name of the song with a txt file explaining bpm, sample rate, and any extra info some other engeneer will need to open it in whatever daw and mix it again if the client wants, This is the way i like when they bring me projects from other studios.