Re: Why is mixing considered...
Bennett,
A agree that having, basically what you describe as a "troubleshooter extraordinaire" is essential. If the rule is "the show must go on" then you need people that can figure out the root cause of a problem and fix it, or put in a safe, reliable workaround. Like any job, working with people you can stand for an entire shift or week of shifts is very important too. Throw in good work ethic and unfortunately, you have limited your prospective employment pool by a good margin. True of any profession really.
But I will say this: there is something nearly magical about listening to a well mixed live show. Maybe it is something you can learn (quickly or over time) and I don't claim to be a star at this by any means, but there are some that just have "it." What "it" is - pure talent, perseverance to learn what it should sound like, or perhaps just lucky enough to work with astounding musicians, good equipment, and good deployment - I don't know, but you know it when you hear it.
Maybe those times when the mix is damn near perfect, it's the later case (great musos, equipment, and deployment) and a tiny fraction of it is the mixer-person talent. Maybe it is all relative. I think more ratings than good or excellent are in order however, because I can definitely say I've heard a so called "good system tech" consistently butcher a mix on more than one occasion.
The good mixes are what have inspired me to apply continuous improvement to my work, though I constantly play system tech and band engineer hats. If what you and Jay say is true, then maybe since I play both roles I should focus more of my efforts on the system deployment and less effort on mixing. Interesting.
