Equal Value
My resolution to these conundrums has been to settle on the theory that both musical ears and musical education have relatively equal value, and therefore, for better mixes, the focus should be on both. My theory guidelines track along these lines:
– If considering attending an audio school, see if the curriculum includes courses in musical training (ear training, theory, etc.). Purely technical audio training can result in a set of skills, but musical training allows you to “speak the language” with musicians and within your own mind.
– Spend a lot of time listening to a wide variety of music, and try to determine the common elements between them as well as those things that distinguish between different styles. It’s also vital to listen to acoustic music as much as possible – if you don’t know what instruments sound like un-amplified, where is your frame of reference?
– Come to terms with your own mix style and types of music. There are even differences between punk music from New York and L.A., right? (I suppose I’m showing my age with that one.)
– If the music you’re mixing was developed before amplification (classical, big band jazz, etc.), understand the context, both musically and in terms of acoustics. For example, what types of rooms originally hosted these types of performances? In other words, why put major amounts of reverb on a baritone sax solo in a big band performance? It just doesn’t fit. Not only that, but the players and the audience will expect to hear it as it is supposed to sound.
The track record of many successful folks working as mixers in pro audio without a formal musical education makes a persuasive argument that such an education may be largely irrelevant towards enhancing mix skills. Perhaps their abilities and success are a matter of an innate, natural musical sense, along with great ears and a lot of real-world experience.
Yet it also begs the question: would they be even better at what they do with further learning? Aren’t we all usually better for having learned more?