MIXING ENGINEER "THE ITALIAN WAY"

Between 2000 and 2010, while living in London, I worked intensely as a mixing engineer for various record labels as well as independent artists. At the same time, I had the opportunity to learn the art of mixing from professionals of various caliber. I mixed in a wide variety of settings, sometimes on analog consoles like the SSLs at Metropolis and Sphere Studio, sometimes completely "in the box," a practice I had already extensively developed on the Logic Audio platform when I produced my former band's last album and which I later transferred to Pro Tools when I began working at Sphere Studios in 2004.

In those environments, I learned everything there was to know from a technical standpoint, but above all, I understood who a mixing engineer is and what their precise role is within music production. There's always been an air of mystery surrounding the art of mixing, almost as if it were the prerogative of a select few who jealously guard magical formulas passed down orally, with which they create the "perfect" mixes that are then heard on more or less successful records. None of this is true, of course.

My Italian experience in this field is still relatively limited, given that almost all my work for Italian clients was done in London. However, I have noticed a certain difference between the Anglo-Saxon and Italian industries, primarily in the technical approach to mixing itself and then in the relationship with the client. The first issue is solely the responsibility of the mixing engineer, while the second is the client's. In the Anglo-Saxon industry, in any professional situation, the client (usually the producer) is never present during the mixing phase unless they have been commissioned to mix the album, which is extremely rare. The mixing engineer works alone and completes the mixes for the client, who accepts them with (almost) no alternatives. If the mixes aren't liked, they're usually commissioned to another engineer, but this happens very rarely.

What non-professionals often fail to understand is that the role of the mixing engineer is comparable to that of a portrait painter: they can't (and aren't even asked to!) paint an exact copy of the subject they're portraying, but rather produce their own personal interpretation using the techniques and colors they like best. The result will be what it is, but it will be accepted by the client (and paid). The same thing happens in mixing, which is why the professional producer relies on the chosen mixing engineer, knowing that the final mix can NEVER match their mental image, and that precisely for this reason, the mixing engineer is a huge added value in the music production process: often, in fact, the mixing engineer can "create" mixes that give a new and unexpected color to the songs, and this is highly appreciated. Unfortunately, there are also amateur situations (the most common, especially but not exclusively in our area) in which the client wants to be present throughout the entire mixing phase, dictating directions to the engineer who simply "executes" rather than creates it.

This is a widespread situation in the non-professional world, undermining the work of the mixing engineer and highlighting the clients' lack of preparation. It's as if the portrait artist were being dictated to by which colors and techniques he or she uses while painting and creating the portrait itself. One might say, "Then you paint the portrait!", just as with a mix, one might say the same thing to the client, which indeed sometimes happens. It's also true, however, that the client must know the mixing engineer well and appreciate his or her work; otherwise, a relationship of trust is impossible. Above all, the producer must be culturally prepared to be amazed by the results of the mixes: otherwise, we would be reduced to listening to music with limited variety (which unfortunately already happens), erasing the artistic and unpredictable aspects of this fascinating art form.

Finally, there's also the other aspect of the technical approach to the mix itself, which has been influenced by the digital revolution of the late 1980s. The current situation is quite disturbing because the usual scenario in unprofessional situations (and especially "In The Box") is one in which the mixing engineer (though in this case, this title hardly fits him) begins the mix without even listening to the entire track, rushing to apply an infinite number of plug-ins to each channel as if he were in an ideal (and therefore nonexistent) studio with a monstrous amount of outboard equipment. I notice, listening to a lot of contemporary music, that unfortunately this is the tendency even in professional situations, making the music "flat" to listen to and therefore boring. Fortunately, then you can listen to an album by Tool (their recent "Fear Inoculum" is probably one of the least compressed hard/metal albums of the last three decades) or Bill Frisell and breathe fresh air because they're produced and mixed by people who are very clear about the concept of art in their work.

I believe there are no magic formulas in the art of mixing. There are a few technical rules to know (very few!), and the rest is pure taste, formed by listening to tons of music of all genres. The act of listening involves a whole series of actions, of which simply listening is only the starting point. Through listening and experience, taste is built, which is the most sought-after commodity in the professional mixing field. I was extremely happy to be able to freely mix the latest album by the Marco Boccia Trio, produced by Kekko Fornarelli. He was with me only on the last day of the mix, giving me only the bare minimum of guidance to complete the work without compromising my creative side. His presence was due to the fact that we don't yet know each other professionally, so it was perfectly legitimate. I'm sure I'll be able to surprise him with complete freedom in the future.

@kekkofornarelli

@marcoboccia

@internationalsound

@marcurselli

@paolofirulli