Change the name of OUR Title?

[Richard Ragon]

I know I'm pretty new here. In fact, most of you guys (and girls) have more then double my experience. But there's something that has been bothering me for a few years now.

As weird as this seems.. the name.. "Production Sound Mixer" or "Sound Mixer". I know this is the official title of our job, but I've been thinking lately.. Perhaps we should make a US wide effort to change it. I'm thinking "production sound recordists" or "sound recordists" is more of a correct title.

I know I'm asking an entire industry to switch something that's been well entrenched.. But there's so many reasons why WE should perhaps think about a change.

When I looked at the average IMDB list, I see a list of sound mixers, and I can't tell who actually did the sound recording on production.. using an official name like 'sound mixer' is somewhat cryptic and even misleading, given today's job..

Don't we as recordists actually do more engineering or recording, then mixing these days? From Reality TV to Film.. many of us don't even use mixers anymore..

Just a thought.. Anyone

-Richard

[Mark Andrews]

Would it fair to suggest there is an the implication that a sound recordist is a more junior role compared to a sound mixer? Is it possible for multiple sound recordists to be involved in a project, but only one sound mixer? I may be completely mistaken, but that was the assumption I always had.

[Jan McL]

I. Am. A. Production Sound Mixer. Make no mistake. And when IMDB (or whoever types up the freaking credits) gets it right, I think the title very clear.

[Jeff Wexler]

This is a very good point and has been discussed in many ways over the years. I have heard people say things like "how can you call yourself a mixer when your using 1 microphone and 1 track?" I know this 1 mic 1 track thing doesn't happen much anymore, but the other side of this in today's world is "how can you call yourself a mixer when you're just recording isos to their own track" and someone else later is going to do all the "mixing." If the term "recordist" were it to be employed today, I think, would be a throw back to a lesser position in the history of sound crews where there was a person who was just "recording" and not doing anything else. Would you want the job that you do today, making the primary and fundamentally most important recordings on a project from its very start, be categorized as just "recording"? The fact of the matter is the post-production mixers (what we still call re-recording mixers even though RE-recording is not really a part of the whole process anymore) are still considered the TOP of the chain, the REAL mixers who have to do all the mixing. They often refer to us as "recordists" and I think it is a little demeaning and marginalizing, but that's just my opinion.

[Arnold F.]

Worse even, is "audio tech," which I also see a lot. It sounds like a repairman.

I honestly believe that there is an effort, albeit unconscious, to lower the status of the production mixer. I've been thinking about this for a while. I think, and I'm only a little joking, that the title should be Director of Sound. I see no reason why it shouldn't be. Does anyone ever call the DP a "video tech" or "video recordist?"

[old school]

Since there are no credits in/on commercials, I don't care what they call me as long as they call me... but when I did films I had strong opinions about credits. I always thought the credit should read Production Sound followed by the names like Jeff Wexler, Don Coufal, Crew Chamberlain for example as a nod to the whole team. If not a version of that then Sound Mixer, Boom Operator, Sound Utility is as good as it gets. My 2 cents.

CrewC

[RPSharman]

I, too, like Jan, consider myself a sound mixer. I am proud of the fact that my mix track is used primarily on the shows I mix. We often mix several microphones on set, while hoping we just use one most of the time. And while it isn't "mixing" with one microphone, I consider every scene as to how it will blend into the entire project. That is mixing, I think.

It might be fair to call some people recordists, as they might do just that, on a reality show for example.

But I mix, and prefer to continue being called a production sound mixer.

Robert

[Jeff Wexler]

Worse even, is "audio tech," which I also see a lot. It sounds like a repairman.

I honestly believe that there is an effort, albeit unconscious, to lower the status of the production mixer. I've been thinking about this for a while. I think, and I'm only a little joking, that the title should be Director of Sound. I see no reason why it shouldn't be. Does anyone ever call the DP a "video tech" or "video recordist?"

We are, in fact, the first and ONLY director of sound on most productions, but it is highly unlikely that the title "Director" will ever be used in connection with what we do. As far as "lowering the status" or marginalizing the sound crew in production, this has been happening for a long time. The origins of this relate to the fact that the entire soundtrack CAN be done later --- if the production sound crew screws everything up, you haven't lost your movie. It also USED to be that there had to be more respect for the camera part of the daily production because if they screwed up, even just a little, you had to RE-shoot that shot or that day. Now, with all the computer/digital tools we have, the Camera production crew is also being marginalized, in much the same manner as the sound department. Have a conversation with a Camera Operator these days and they can give you an earful about their lack of status on the set on current productions.

[John Blankenship]

We are sound mixers!

Even when only a single microphone is deployed, we are doing our best to control the mix of dialog and all the noises of the world in such a manner as to maximize the quality of the dialog recording while still maintaining the mix of direct and reflected sound in a way that preserves the proper perspective.

Just recordists, my eye!

[Richard Ragon]

Understood everyone.. All points taken.

-Richard

[Richard Thomas]

From my limited experience- I thought Sound Recordist was more of a UK term, primarily used in more doco type roles (overseen by a Sound Supervisor if there are multiple recordists) and you'd have a Mixer and Boom Op in features.

[johnpaul215]

Correct me if I am wrong, but some older films also had a credit for "Nagra operator", which could be seen as the recordist (when there is also a mixer present).

Reality TV with a ton of wires might be different, but on films we are absolutely mixers. There were projects where I maxed out my PD-6 and the only recording of my mix track was a single XLR feed to the camera. Most of the production sound used in the film was taken from that mix. You're not just mixing for Comteks!

[taylormadeaudio]

Worse even, is "audio tech," which I also see a lot. It sounds like a repairman.

I honestly believe that there is an effort, albeit unconscious, to lower the status of the production mixer. I've been thinking about this for a while. I think, and I'm only a little joking, that the title should be Director of Sound. I see no reason why it shouldn't be. Does anyone ever call the DP a "video tech" or "video recordist?"

The problem with that is there is already the "Sound Design" title, which, while it applies to what goes on in post-production, is still considered to be a substantially more important role than that of the PSM. Like someone so callously stated on this forum a while back:

"The only thing that you can completely change after the movie been shot is your work, it could be thrown away, replaced and remixed .

so let say , you are not so important , is just the money matters :-)

MS "

Obviously, we all know how completely OFF this way of thinking is, but it permeates the entire industry to a degree. I've said it before, and I think it's one of our biggest hurdles (ironically)... we're often too good at what we do -- too efficient... and a lot of what we do is either such a mystery to other departments, and/or we so rarely operate on our own time (while others wait for us) that when we do actually need :30 to address an issue, everyone gets all panicky, like a bunch of monkeys on crack... hence the annoying jab we get to hear on rare occasions: "Waiting on Sound".

We may never get the respect we deserve, but I suspect that's not why we do what we do to begin with -- otherwise many of us would have quit long before generating some of the insanely impressive credit lists that exist. I suspect it has more to do with finding (one of) the most challenging positions imaginable, and doing our best with it -- because everything else is boring as hell.

I don't mind being under-appreciated -- I get it. What I do mind is being underpaid. My time is valuable -- not just to me, but to my family as well. I may take a low-paying job on occasion -- simply because I have to make ends meet somehow... I just try not to let define who I am. Hell, I'll go and dig holes in the frozen ground with my Brother-in-Law if I have to... but I'm still a Production Sound Mixer

~tt

[Wandering Ear]

Recordist makes me feel my job is about operating a sound recorder, which in my view is only a small part of my actuall job. Operating my recorder is not what gets me good sound. It's all the other things I do that get good sound.

I'd take the title Production Sound Supervisor as an alternate to Mixer if I'm on a job where I'm not creating a mix track, but why bother? The sound mixer in general is the person you look to to be responsible for the quality of sound, so it seems fitting to me.

K

[taylormadeaudio]

I did an episodic where I took the title, "Supervising Production Sound Mixer"... there were many 2nd unit / splinter unit days, as well as double-up days where they'd be running 2 complete crews... it was really just a fancy way of saying I was the main PSM though.

I agree with Kelsey that "Recordist" seems to imply something less than what we do -- personally I like:

"Production Sound Mixer / Recordist"

It's what I put on my resumé -- not sure it's ever made a difference in whether I get a job or not though

~tt

[studiomprd]

" I don't care what they call me as long as they call me. "

...and pay me!

I'm with Crew !

" the title, "Supervising Production Sound Mixer". "

I've been offered "credit" vs. $$$, and took the $$$.

credit's are noticed mostly by people in the industry...

$$$ are the important credit, when I, and I alone, see it on my bank balance!

[Paul Graff]

I'm with Jeff on this one. While the term recordist might often be more technically accurate, it leaves an impression of a "mere" technician, pushing the record button. I notice the term mixer is puzzling to many producers, especially the younger ones, who connote the title with DJs mixing music in a nightclub. I think the best we can do is to make sure the word "production" always precedes the words "sound mixer". This distinguishes us from re-recording mixers and other post-production roles in our department.

I also think it's true that there is often (but not always) a correlation between the respect we receive and the degree to which what we do can be replaced in post. I mix a lot of documentaries and documentary style commercials in addition to scripted projects. Whenever looping is not an option there seems to be more support for me to have what I need make the production tracks as good as possible.

Paul

[Jay Rose]

As long as you've let those worms out of the can:

Re-recording Mixer

... in a digital world, are you really re-recording? On a dub stage?

Yes, you're doing some mixing. But you're also doing a lot of equalizing, reverberating, compressing, noise-hiding, etc...

...particularly on the pre-dub, which often isn't a dub at all but rather an automation pass, with a later render if needed.

And then there's a chance the whole thing will be mixed in the box, in which case there's absolutely no re-recording. Just math on a bunch of data that was recorded during production...

[studiomprd]

" a bunch of data that was recorded during production... "

a bunch of data that was collected during production...

[Jeff Wexler]

As long as you've let those worms out of the can:

Re-recording Mixer

... in a digital world, are you really re-recording? On a dub stage?

Thanks, Jay for re-stating this. I had mentioned previously that the title "RE-recording mixer" is also somewhat out of date and refers to the older process of re-recording on the dub stage, something which actually doesn't even happen with most modern post workflows. Even the term re-recording and re-recording mixer is being used less and less, by post-production sound mixers (who may well typically prefer to be just called Sound Mixers).

[Christian Spaeth]

I don't care what they call me as long as they call me...

I DIG!

[Rich Reilly]

Just for fun,

There is a poster here known as Audio Synthesist. Interesting spin on it, really.

In a smaller crew with a DP, a similar role could be DA or DS

[Richard Ragon]

Joe Foglia, refers to himself as, "Lead Volume Control".

-Richard

[Mark Orusa]

This is a off topic and belongs in the Post Place, but...

Thanks, Jay for re-stating this. I had mentioned previously that the title "RE-recording mixer" is also somewhat out of date and refers to the older process of re-recording on the dub stage, something which actually doesn't even happen with most modern post workflows. Even the term re-recording and re-recording mixer is being used less and less, by post-production sound mixers (who may well typically prefer to be just called Sound Mixers).

The feature film post process I'm familiar with does involve re-recording. After all editing and mixing is complete the entire mix is recorded to a new 5.1 track. So, technically and literally the mix is re-recorded. This is done, as opposed to "Bounce To Disk" so you don't have to re-bounce the entire timeline, in real time, when minor changes need to be made.

ON TOPIC:

I think Production Sound Mixer is still the best and most accurate job title.

Mark

[dfisk]

Having spent lots of time visiting many of you on set, doing a little production sound, and lots of post production sound, I think Production Sound Mixer is the appropriate title. Even if it is just one mic. Even if it's just a scratch track.