Mastering recommendations?

[Prometheus]

While, to use your phrase, I don't vociferously disagree with what you're saying Rob, my post was reactive and written in a moment of consternation.

 

All I really intended to say was that there's a counterpoint (no pun intended) to the view that the only metric of success in musical composition is how much cash you make out of it.

 

William Blake, for example, died in poverty and earned the fear and contempt of the establishment of his day.  It would be an utter philistine who claimed his songs were unsuccessful.

[Rudi]

90% of the most creative and able musicians I have heard in the last 20 years are all unknown.

95% of the internationally known and most celebrated musicians I have heard over the last 20 years are crap.

 

They say there’s no accounting for taste, but commercial success comes pretty close by my reckoning.

 

Or is it down to mastering?

[Rudi]

Hi Rob,

 

Sounds like you had at least the potential to get signed, which is closer than I ever got in any band.

 

 

 

A chance in commercial music? I might have taken it on. I would have treated it like a job though. My heart would not be in it. Its hard for me to even imagine. You need to be a brass neck even to get a chance though.

 

I have often wanted to try my hand at a film score. I could be myself then. The music in a film works subliminally. I would love to do that.

 

 

There are certainly many more folk who think differently to me, than any that share my taste. They vote with their wallets after all. THAT IS QUITE AN ENDORSEMENT.

 

My band is about giving people what they want. We are strictly a covers band. It gets me out of the house and allows me to play. I get a few short solos out of it. I couldnt deal with more than one gig per month. Its the secret of our 14 year longevity.

Everybody in the band likes a different kind of music. So in a way we are all sell-outs to a degree. The band is a compromise that allows us to gather on a fragile common ground. Most of the time I enjoy it, but its certainly no big deal.

 

My own music is of course dear to me, and I used to think I was something special and that people were missing out. I still feel special but no longer feel 'misunderstood', 'better' or 'deserving'. There's old age for ya.

 

I make no claim to being right about anything here. There is no right with the arts.

[Rudi]

Likewise Rob,

 

I had food for thought from your #46 also. Never stop learning eh?

 

[Thrashimation]

Wow, this thread was started in 2005... I had no idea how old this forum was! Any new tips on mastering, Songstuff forum goers?

[studiobee]

A few random thoughts of my own opinion...  take from it what you like, and ignore what you don't.

 

I think it depends on how wide you expect your distribution to be.  Things can always go viral, but if that happens and you weren't expecting it, your audience will think its extra cool that your first release was low budget.

 

If I were releasing something right now, I, as an individual, with no touring schedule (or any intention of having one), would self-master using my DAW and Izotope Ozone.  I would arrange distribution through CD Baby.  If I were uncomfortable mastering myself, I would have no hesitation in hiring someone else to do it.  I'd look for someone with a proven record of success - either locally with good released products, or over the internet, with a good demo of successful projects.  

 

Understand that mastering is just the sheen and that a good mix is vital to a successful master...  

 

I've been disappointed with several masters in the past, and they were from reputable mastering engineers, not just local hacks.  

 

There are disadvantages to mastering yourself, but if you can remove yourself enough from the composing, performing, recording and mixing processes, there are also advantages - you can re-visit your mix if things don't work out to plan first time around.  You also have more control over the final product.

 

If you are doing it yourself, make sure you have plenty of high quality reference material that you know well, in a similar genre, to compare results.

[Prometheus]

So, I'm not a fan of labels. I said what I said because it gets a little old, having to listen every musician who thinks of themselves as some kind of "uber artiste"... working at a level too lofty to ever consider anything so crass as a label contract.

 

I don't think I've ever considered myself above a label contract as an "uber artiste", nor have I ever considered the idea of mass distribution of my work "crass" but I have worked with a few label insiders in my time and I wouldn't let most of them near me with a rolled up news paper, let alone a legally binding contract.

 

I'm not being egotistical in pointing out that dealing with record labels can be a dodgy game.  I'm being pragmatic.

 

 

Do YOU think the poor bastard actually preferred to be malnourished and under-appreciated his whole life? ...Or, even; do you honestly think HE thought that being destitute and dying miserable was a requisite for his being able to make songs that could positively affect social conditions in his country?

 

 

To be fair, that is not the point I made.  What I said was that fiscal remuneration isn't the only metric for success, not that penury was beneficial to success or in any way, shape or form desirable.  Obviously if someone offers one a lucrative contract without any dodgy clauses in it, one would be a fool not to pursue it.  That said, if one is not offered a contract that they feel they wish sign up to, that does not necessarily reflect on the quality of their work or achievements.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

Just to clarify, Blake was not a down and out, he was a successful calligrapher.  I'd imagine like many old men his eyesight probably went downhill, his general health and energy levels probably dropped off and his hands may have become less dexterous.  I'm all for having an understanding state pension system that stops retired rock stars, painters, poets and anyone else for that matter, from ending up destitute when they become too aged to work.

 

 

It amazes me that some people seem to actually believe, and I am NOT referring directly to Prometheus in rendering this opinion... I do not KNOW him... anyways, it just blows me away how many people seem to think that it is actually possible to sit in a poorly equipped digital studio in their mom and dad's basement, or in a rented apartment, in a three day old pair of capri's, picking their nose, and make a solid living selling songs on a "free to sign up" website on the net. To even badly imitate the abilities of a high end professional music production facility, say, like that used by EPIC RECORDS for example, will cost you tens of thousands of dollars in equipment. This without mentioning the need for the proper facility, all professional grade instruments, etc.

 

I'm not saying this to be a braggart, but because I want my position to be clearly understood.

 

Back in the day I spent the thousands and thousands of dollars on my studio.  It took me two years to build it.  I also spent the two decades learning to play musical instruments, studying musicology, psycho-acoustics and acoustic engineering at University, serving my time as a live sound engineer and serving my time as a studio engineer doing recording, mixing and mastering.  I'm good at what I do and by f*ck I take pride in what I do.

 

I have industry experience, I've seen it from the inside.  I've worked with promoters, label owners, one or two fairly well known personalities whom certainly most of the people on the forum from the UK would have heard of.

 

I'm not saying this stuff because I'm some silly kid who thinks he's going to be the next Andrew Eldritch.  I had the chance to get in and I didn't want it.  Every time I dealt with an industry insider, I felt a little piece of my soul turn black, so after ten years doing work in the industry I walked away from it.  Now, I'm happy driving a forklift and flying a PAT Tester for money, and saving the music and other artistic endeavours as something I love.  Maybe one day I'll strike it rich, maybe I never will.  As long as I get to keep producing what I want to produce, I'm fine with that.

[Prometheus]

After reading your retort, I feel we share more in common than we have differences, my friend... I hope you feel the same.

 

Indeed, and I appreciate you taking the time to clear that up.  It's good to actually hear someone putting the counter point to my views in a lucid and intelligent way.

 

 

 

Which still doesn't change the fact that the type of young musician (which I initially, mistakenly took you for) that I ranted DOES exist, and represents a far greater portion of the field of young aspiring musicians than such a mind set has any right to. With your experience, you must, I have to believe, be aware that the type I am referring to is out there.

 

I have a feeling I could have been rightly accused of being one of those types in my youth, but sadly, to call myself a youth now would be a bit of stretch...  

 

I have met the type you are referring to here.  I've gotten to the point now where I just say "Yeah, go for it." and look forward to hearing what they think of how the music business will never dent their artistic integrity after they've been in it for a couple of years.

 

 

My ire at such attitudes is fueled, in no small part, by a belief that most, if not damn near all of these bleating, self absorbed, supposedly "pure... creative spirits" would jump lickety split if a real contract from EMI, or whomever, was actually laid before them.

 

I can't disagree with you there at all.  As a matter of fact, twenty years ago I'd probably have signed a contract before I even read it.  Nowadays I'd be far more careful.

[MikeRobinson]

I'm a musician by pleasure, and a software guy by profession.  (Hey, I like to say, still, that I make my living by doing what has always been my hobby, and that I've been able to do that for over 30 years now.)  But a very interesting thing – a completely unplanned-for and unexpected thing – happened to me "on the way to the Forum."  I conceived the need for a niche software product to do a particular thing, and wrote it (if only because I needed to have it, and was very surprised to find that it didn't already exist).  Then, I just let the word get out on various internet discussion-groups of the day ... and, well, "it did very good things for me."  Not a Porsche or anything like that, but nevertheless, "very good things." 

 

You can still buy a copy of it today, and some people still do, although most of the money came from OEM licensing to products that I'd never even heard of.  It still solves the problem that it was built to solve, as well as ever it did, and it costs over $100 USD a copy.  (In some Editions, several times that...)

 

Cost of goods sold?  Basically, zero.  (I needed the product, so I was doing it anyway.)  Cost of distribution?  Zero, except for postage in the days when I was still shipping out floppy-disks.  Market penetration?  Most of the countries on the planet, I think.

 

I could never have made that money if I'd been putting the products on disks, putting them in cardboard boxes, and shipping them to retail stores, every one of which had the contractual right to send unsold copies back at my cost.  So, I never tried that.  People who needed the product found a way to find it.  I made a profit because all of the revenue essentially was profit.  Even though I never particularly set out to "write a commercially successful product," and I never borrowed a dime of investment money.  (This during the heyday of the "dot-bomb bubble," when people who should have known better were telling me to "go for the First Round."  Well, I did send one letter to the holy grounds in Palo Alto, but they never wrote back and I never wrote again.)

 

Today, I think that we tend to overlook the power, and the opportunity, of "Cost of Goods Sold = Zero."  But that is the commercial environment that we live in today.  I-F you have a product to sell that is "up to snuff," in the eyes and ears of the person who is inclined to buy it, then you can sell a copy of it for "jukebox prices," even 25¢ a copy, and still make money because you get to keep nearly all of that quarter.

 

The difference between the two scenarios, of course, is that in music there is no "perceived barrier to entry."  Anyone can produce drivel and shove it out there – SoundCloud doesn't care, for example.  But that's just to be expected.  You can't "open the doorway to everyone" and then try to post a bouncer at the door.

 

Still ... there are companies out there who have set themselves up in the role of gatekeeper:  taxi.com, for example, and they do charge admission to keep the riff-raff out.  But it's nothing like the barriers-to-entry that used to be erected by the record labels who did, to their credit, have to deal with "speculatively printing product and shipping it to stores who had the right to send it back."

 

Those barriers-to-entry existed for a reason, but that reason was established by the then-realities of a production and distribution system that was, then, "the only way to do it."  That's not the case anymore, and I think that we all have to keep this foremost in our minds.

 

For many platinum-album decades, the "Sound City Studios" was a hit-maker ... with legendary rooms, over a thousand pieces of off-board audio gear, many millions of dollars in investment that earned many millions more.  All gone!!  (And the subject of a very interesting documentary.)  They simply weren't competitive anymore (although they still do lease out "that legendary Room").  You don't need "all that gear" to do it anymore.  If you know how to do it, you can do it with your Macintosh ... and your competition is out there, doing just that.

 

But ... they might not be trying to "put a hit song on the radio."  They might be doing tracks for radio and television.  They might be spreading the word by word-of-mouth.  They might be making very good money because there simply is no overhead, no fixed costs, to what they are doing.  You can "buy it now."  They're lean-and-mean, and profitable.  They're selling stuff for a quarter and keeping most of the quarter.  They're selling and licensing their product directly to the consumer, and they're not waiting around for "a deal."  The barriers are gone-for-good now, and both producer and consumer are "acting accordingly."  For better and for worse.

 

Today's gatekeepers will participate in bringing a commercial product the rest of the way to market, but they've found a way to do that without putting a lot of their money at speculative risk.  You have to find them, have to have a solid thing to offer them, and you have to pay a nominal sum to get in.  They serve the purpose of "a really great spam filter," and if you've ever tried to get e-mail without one, you know how necessary that has become.  There are no "margins" to fall back on now.  Nothing between you and the jukebox.

Edited January 21, 2014 by MikeRobinson

[TapperMike]

Wow, Mike great read. Your post belongs in a blog somewhere.

[BurningDownTheVillager]

As a recording engineer, I always tell my client the importance of having a professional master their project when I finish mixing. I think having another set of ears on a recording project never hurts. It allows someone to hear something you may have missed. 

Another thing that I have found, is a lot of artists think that mastering is a process that is included in mixing, and they don't budget for the extra service. In this case, I typically reach for a good parametric eq, a multiband compressor, and a limiter. With those three tools, you can normally achieve a decent "master" without breaking the bank going to a professional, but if you've got the funds... always go with the pros. 

[dnafe]

I realise I'm late to the game here but unless you're prepared to take the time to learn the craft don't bother. 

 

I have a couple of guys I work with who do good work for very reasonable rates (around a $100 an individual song - less for a full CD)

 

My first choice, Brad Blackwood out of Euphonics is excellent but a tad expensive now that he's become a go to ME

My second choice and lately my primary go to guy is Bob Ohllson - got a pedegree like you wouldn't believe (Motown) and does beautiful work

My third choice is a local guy and friend Jason Fee at Conduction Mastering does really nice work and is one of the designers behind Empress guitar pedals and soon to be released 500 series boxes

Edited January 23, 2014 by dnafe

[dnafe]

Hi Rob...are you saying it will cost you a total of $3 - $3.5K to get your CD Mixed Mastered and Pressed or just Pressed?

[dnafe]

I'm assuming you are tracking this at home as you didn't mention tracking in your reply. May I ask what you're recording on and with...mics, pres, converters etc.

 

Are you using live drums or a drum machine/plugin?

As for the mix / mastering question I'd leave that to someone other than the recording and.or mix engineer mainly because very few of them have a dedicated facility / room and gear to do the job and secondly, most don't have a clue what they're doing when it comes to mastering but there are exceptions.

You might want to contact Kenny Gioia - he's on facebook and in your neck of the planet and would be a wealth of info regarding both mixing and mastering. I can introduce you if and when you're ready.

 

If I can help in any way don't hesitate to ask

Edited January 24, 2014 by dnafe

[MikeRobinson]

As a recording engineer, I always tell my client the importance of having a professional master their project when I finish mixing. I think having another set of ears on a recording project never hurts. It allows someone to hear something you may have missed. 

Another thing that I have found, is a lot of artists think that mastering is a process that is included in mixing, and they don't budget for the extra service. In this case, I typically reach for a good parametric eq, a multiband compressor, and a limiter. With those three tools, you can normally achieve a decent "master" without breaking the bank going to a professional, but if you've got the funds... always go with the pros. 

 

And I will be very quick to agree with that.  I'm a professional, too, and I constantly deal both with amateurs and with the people who trusted them just as much as they (innocently, usually ...) trusted themselves.  You should engage "someone who knows."

 

Just as soon as you (or the company that's interested in commercially developing your seminal work ...) can afford to do so.

 

But you also have to start at a point where you just might not have much money to spend.  Just like Paul McCartney's early demo which has bathroom sounds (from the next flat?) in the background.  So, you might have to "prepare your 'pitch'" with what you have, and with whatever skill you can muster and/or barter for.

 

And it's probably not realistic to think in terms of "self-pub," because, gratuitous and warm-fuzzy though such a thing might be, it's going to be very difficult to achieve critical-mass.  (A day in the life of just another piece of junk e-mail that really wasn't junk at all but it was lost in the fog and nobody ever knew ... hey, there could be a song in that.)

 

I do think that there is, and that there always will be, professional recordists, arrangers, mixers, masterers, (mix-masters ...? ... hey, every well-appointed kitchen needs one ...) and so forth.  But they're not going to be staff-members of big "record label" conglomerates.  (Some of them, of course, used to be, but that's also the new economics at work.)  There is no more profit-margin out there in the record business to support any sort of speculation; not even the classic "record deal."  The product, itself, sells for far less money, and it sells against vastly increased competition.  It's one thing to sell "a gold record" when each copy sold for $16 and the company could honestly book a net-profit say of $6.  It's quite another to sell a million quarters, even if you get to keep 23¢ apiece.

[TapperMike]

A few friends of mine have had deals with major labels. Some still do the entire A&R for artists when they see a trend emerging. Sponge's situation was much like that.

When they were Loudhouse. The label shipped the band to Electric Ladyland and forced them to redo an entire album at ultimately the bands expense. Even though the original recordings were. Due to jetlag, mental fatigue and having already recorded the material a year earlier as well as performing it live on a regular basis.... The newly re recorded material lacked the energy of the original and no "real" producer was around to pump them up and invigorate the band.

The label dropped the band because they weren't feeling the new takes. The band reformed into Sponge. The label set about casting a new image of sponge. It was like the Brady Bunch episode when Greg Brady becomes "Johnny Bravo" They still got to play thier own songs but the label handed them an arranger and they had to play exactly like the label said. For the band members (and I personally know a few) It was more about acting the part. While Sony did have some success by controlling everything about the band for the first two albums it fell apart on the third. As the band had more say in how and what they played. The band partially due to being ingrained into playing the role of "Sponge" they lost a lot of the original energy and identity. Even though they did gain control over the writing/arranging/recording process, Sony was dissatisfied with the end product and chose not to pursue a third album.

Record labels are loan sharks. They do a lot of smoke and mirror stuff with expenses that drain the artists. You have to not only survive three albums before you can think of breaking even you have to have huge returns. After everything was said and done and all the after expenses were paid the band members were netting 20k each!. Joey Mazolla was overjoyed to go back to teaching guitar for a living after barely starving by and wife/kids at home while he was on major tours and the band did the latenight TV curcuit (SNL, Letterman, Leno, etc)

Powerhouse producers are still around but,,, you aren't going to encounter them untill after you made major inroads of your own. A few well standing records with major labels. If anything the real movers and shakers are when you get aligned with a strong publishing house that will knock down doors for you. If you've signed your publishing righs away to the lable you're screwed. Publishers will seek out alternative venues (commercials, movies, tv shows) to bring your material to a wider audience and reap the profits from it. Granted they get the lions share and you get the table scraps but..... You are getting the table scraps. ASCAP won't do squat for you. Harry Fox might do a little to put your product out there. Publishing your own material and keeping it to yourself may seem like a great idea if you are an aggressive publisher and already work with established markets. Most of us wouldn't know where to start. Yes many publishers are unsavory but if they are willing to commit money to the publishing rights it means they expect a return on it. Money don't grow on trees. If someone is willing to make an investment then they are going to have to recoup that investment by working the portfolio, not letting it sit on a shelf. Edited January 26, 2014 by TapperMike

[TapperMike]

I realized I've strayed far from the original point of discussion. I was about to stray further into Lady Gaga zone.  But I think I'll drop it here.

[TapperMike]

Lady Gaga was great as Stephani what's her name

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM51qOpwcIM

 

She would have always been percieved as a Norah Jones wannabe. Had it not been for advertising. The Lady Gaga persona was mostly about creating an image that advertisers would have for young girls to identify with and grow with. They threw money at her which no label would even if the label thought they could drain it out of her over a short career. Labels like to turn and burn artists. They chase the new thing till the next thing comes along. She (or anyone) would never get that type of finanical backing from a label to do the things she's done.

 

Advertisers have an alternative means of financial reimbursement. They don't need to screw the artist if they've done their market research well.

Lady Gaga will be peddling (successfully) womens products for the rest of her life. Overpriced status products (perfume, attire, accesorries) will bare(sic) her name or be directly linked to her. Unlike her predecessors (Cher, Madonna, Jessica, Taylor) She's getting the demographic fan base and buying into the system at an earlier age. Like those same women she will be able to amass a small fortune being a product spokesperson. More so then songs and touring.

 

Big advertisers are used to working with big production studios (tv, music) They know how to put things together for maximum effect in minimal time because they do it everyday.

[symphonious7]

Does anyone know of a better free mastering software than Audacity?  

[dnafe]

Are you referencing mastering as - taking the stereo two track and tweaking it with EQ and compression?  Or are you looking for a multitrack DAW (digital audio workstation) like Audacity to address individual tracks and mix them into a 2 track stereo mix.

Sorry if this seems self evident but the term mastering has been misused a lot lately?

 

or are you looking for a plugin to use to do mastering (as in the first option)

Edited March 2, 2014 by dnafe