Post by: Arf! Mastering on March 12, 2006, 11:38:14 AM
Songwriter Chan Marshall (aka Cat Power) about the mastering of her latest album:
Quote:
"Well, that's the true sadness - the musical depression," she says, her diffidence falling suddenly away, as real anger starts to spark. "I'm sure even back when James Brown was cutting singles, they'd be saying, 'We've gotta get played on the radio'. But now, it's like the people are secondary to the sound. When this record was mastered, the guy said, 'This won't go on the radio because it's not going to be loud enough for the signal on the compact disc'. So I had to get it remastered. It still won't be played on the radio, but now it sounds like it's supposed to - because I pushed everything up, made everything loud, made it sound like - an advertisement, or something? That's the energy, the noise that the music industry's created, like we're all pushing towards the future. It has to fit in with the programme, you know?"
see full article here: http://enjoyment.independent.co.uk/music/features/article350 266.ece
Post by: carlsaff on March 12, 2006, 11:46:50 AM
Post by: Pingu on March 12, 2006, 11:50:07 AM
My own music will remain as far as possible from sounding like ADVERTISEMENT.
Its a good way to put it.
How damn annoying is advertising.
Thats what new music reminds us of and if the song goes over 5 minutes it becomes an infomercial.
As i said before.
I have not come accross a song that has been crushed that was worthy to listen to more than a few times, and i doubt it would have been worthy if it wasnt smashed.
Post by: chrisj on March 12, 2006, 12:21:45 PM
| AlanS wrote on Sun, 12 March 2006 11:38 |
...the guy said, 'This won't go on the radio because it's not going to be loud enough for the signal on the compact disc'. |
Ooo, technical
An awful lot of mixes work and move and hit better when you bring the loudness up some, but there's still a limit. I just love the 'loud enough for the signal'. Yeah, it's not loud enough for the signal, if you don't burn the bits onto the disk really hard with a LOUD MASTERING you do run the very real risk of all the bits tending to puddle over to the side of the CD or even spill off onto the floor... I mean, WHY TAKE THAT CHANCE?
Post by: Pingu on March 12, 2006, 12:24:06 PM
| Quote: |
An awful lot of mixes work and move and hit better when you bring the loudness up some, but there's still a limit. |
Exactly.
Thats where i like to stop.
Post by: Thomas W. Bethel on March 12, 2006, 02:17:32 PM
Food for thought!
Post by: Pingu on March 12, 2006, 02:19:19 PM
loudness wars.
Post by: Thomas W. Bethel on March 12, 2006, 02:43:45 PM
and here
http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_big_squeeze/
and here
http://www.barrydiamentaudio.com/loudness.htm
and here
http://www.broadcastpapers.com/radio/OmniaHDRadio10.htm
and here
http://etvcookbook.org/audio/ntsc.html
and this from http://www.soundmirror.com/articles.html
Current Trends in Mastering: The Loudness War
June 2003 Performer Magazine
One of the recent trends in the world of mastering is what we mastering engineers call "The Loudness War." In the past couple of years there has been a steady increase in the "loudness" of commercial releases from virtually all the major labels and in almost all styles of music. We are going to take a look at the history, the listener's perception, and the pitfalls associated with this trend, as well as investigate how the marketplace pressures artists to turn their great record into merely the next loudest record.
History
As with most things in the recording world, we need to take a quick look back to get some perspective on current mastering practices. The term "mastering" comes from the earliest days of recording. It was the process of cutting a groove into a lacquer coated disk that was the "master" from which all the replicated records were made. Due to the technical limitations of the LP record (remember those shiny black things that spun and you actually put a needle in the groove?), the mastering engineer had to alter the signal from the tape to get the most out of the format. The tools that early mastering engineers used are the same as the tools we use today, namely, frequency equalization (EQ) and dynamic range compression/limiting. While mastering was originally a simple transfer of tape onto disk, over the years it developed into the creative process we know today. The mastering engineer is now the final person making creative or artistic decisions on the CD before it becomes the finished consumer product. (That's another whole topic, but we'll leave that one alone for now.) He or she must make all necessary changes that mold a diverse group of tracks into a single cohesive entity. The mastering engineer must also transform the raw mixes into a commercially viable product capable of attracting the attention of radio program directors and record company A&R managers. This brings us to the topic of the moment: The Loudness Race.
How do we perceive loudness?
Psychoacoustics is an entire field of research that deals with how humans perceive sound. Although these scientists spend their careers studying how we react to sound, we are only going to look at how we react to and perceive loudness.
There are two different ways to measure the loudness of a sound. The first is to find the peak level that a sound reaches; the other is to average the sound level over a period of time. The ratio of peak to average level is called the crest factor. In general our ears respond to the average levels, not the peak levels when judging loudness. An example of this is found in listening to different kinds of music. When you compare the peak levels of classical music with commercial rock, they both peak at the same level, but perceived loudness of the rock music will be much greater because the average level is much higher. One generally accepted rule is that the louder sound will always grab our attention and, for short periods of time, sound better to us. This is why when the record company A&R guy is listening to twenty CDs of new bands, the loudest one will grab his attention. This is great for a single, but as we have found in many of the current crop of hypercompressed CDs, this "full on all the time" approach ultimately fatigues the listener. A variety of dynamics will keep listeners on their toes and make them continue listening. The film community has used this dramatic dynamic for years to keep viewers on the edge of their seats. Five large explosions in a row do not have the same impact as four little ones and one huge one.
The origins of the loudness race
Everyone thinks that this loudness race is a recent phenomenon. However, its roots go back many decades. From the earliest 45 rpm singles, people have been trying to have their product be the loudest record in the stack on the record changer. Going back 20 or 30 years, many record companies would send out compilations of new singles to radio stations on a single LP. When producers and artists listened to these, if their song wasn't the loudest one on the record, they would call the mastering engineer and have them raise the level so as to be competitive. We can all see where this is going: the race to be the loudest record was on!
With the advent of the compact disc in the 80's, a whole new trend was started. The CD's increased dynamic range and absence of rumble, ticks, and pops caused the artistic community to embrace dynamic range. Many extremely dynamic titles were produced in this period. Several record companies even went so far as to put disclaimers on a CD saying they were not responsible for speaker damage caused by the extreme dynamic range of the particular disc! With the release of the first 5-disc CD carousels with shuffle play in the late 80's, the race started all over again.
Many mastering engineers consider the early 90's the golden age of mastering, because decisions made about the loudness of a disc were made for aesthetic reasons and not by marketing people. Many of these records are still alive and kicking today, but if you compare the level of some of the loudest records of the day, like Nirvana's Nevermind or the Smashing Pumpkins' Siamese Dream, these records are 6 to 8 dB quieter than virtually all the commercial rock today. (Just as a note, 6 dB is perceived half as loud). This trend is not limited to the rock world. Virtually all genres have fallen victim to the loudness war. Hip Hop, R&B, AAA, AC and even folk/Americana are making records that have all the music squashed into the top 5 dB of a medium that has more than 90 dB of dynamic range.
Moreover, the formats and the locations that we listen to music have changed. This has fueled the loudness war. Many people today listen to their music via mp3 and AAC on their computer, in the car, and on the Walkman/iPod. Because of the limited dynamic range and frequency response inherent in these systems, the data compressed versions of the music sound better. Also, compressed music sounds better in the car, because it gets the sound up over the ambient motor and road noise. Whereas in the early 90's we were mastering records with the assumption that they would be listened to on a consumer playback system in the living room, today we need to take into account the other locations people listen to music.
How did you make it that loud?
As with most things that have to do with music these days, much of the loudness revolution has been brought about by new technology in the studio. High quality digital limiters and compressors have completely changed the way we think about compression and loudness. In days before these devices, we were limited by the maximum amount of compression, slow attack/release times and distortion for which analog compressors are famous. There was no such thing as a brick wall limiter. Current digital compressors and limiters have none of these limitations. They can look ahead at the music and compensate for any transients that are on the way. As with all powerful tools, it has become incredibly easy to do more harm than good.
I am frequently asked, "How do I get my record to sound like the latest and greatest record on the radio?" Unfortunately, there is no easy answer to this question. Most of the records on the radio are productions that cost $100,000 and up. Also, they are done by people with the experience of many records under their belt. But there are several things to think about when you want to make your record loud. I always tell people, "It
Post by: bblackwood on March 12, 2006, 04:51:39 PM
Post by: dcollins on March 12, 2006, 10:58:28 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Sun, 12 March 2006 13:51 |
I'm certainly giving my clients what they want. |
Wadda ya guess it costs to keep a place like Sterling open for a month? Just for salaries, power, brioche etc? Probably more than you would think.
Yet they seem to be able to stay in business, year after year! If AS and BK don't want to cut a loud record and actually turn away or lecture clients that ask for it -- fine. It doesn't make any sense to me, but I respect their right to run their studio however they see fit.
I find it all a bit naive, as my local restaurant will make a Masala that actually makes your eyes bug out cartoon-style -- but only if I ask for it.....
DC
Post by: Arf! Mastering on March 12, 2006, 11:47:12 PM
Post by: dcollins on March 13, 2006, 12:17:15 AM
| AlanS wrote on Sun, 12 March 2006 20:47 |
Please don't make attributions to me that have no basis in fact. Cutting records loud AND clean is not in the least bit difficult. We all cut loud records today because there is no way out of it in most cases. With the right tools and steps any track can be made way louder than it ever needs to be. There's really not much to it. What is more difficult is knowing how to balance level against the natural feel of the track. My point in posting the Cat Power statement is that blaring mastering is a lot less of what the artist wants than conventional wisdom would make it seem. |
I'm not trying to wind you up, but didn't chan also say that now it sounds "like it's supposed to?"
Don't have the CD yet, but "Living Proof" does sound a bit ess-y on the radio. What is up with the video for that song?
I would argue that getting it loud and clean is somewhat difficult, and requires a "multi-disciplinary" approach.
DC
Post by: Arf! Mastering on March 13, 2006, 12:48:53 AM
| dcollins wrote on Mon, 13 March 2006 00:17 |
but didn't Cat also say that now it sounds "like it's supposed to?" |
You of all people are not detecting a little sarcastic irony there?
| Quote: |
I would argue that getting it loud and clean is somewhat difficult, and requires a "multi-disciplinary" approach. DC |
OK, "somewhat difficult," but far from the most difficult aspect of mastering.
Post by: dcollins on March 13, 2006, 02:47:07 AM
| AlanS wrote on Sun, 12 March 2006 21:48 |
You of all people are not detecting a little sarcastic irony there? |
Hello?
Show me the irony?
Tell us about the VOC....
| Quote: |
OK, "somewhat difficult," but far from the most difficult aspect of mastering. |
What is the most difficult part?
DC
Post by: Patrik T on March 13, 2006, 03:59:56 AM
I cry a bit. How sad isn't this?
I have Chan's early CD's. Like "Myra Lee" and "What would the community think" and so on. Those recordings really have great qualities to them. They are lo-fi. Kind of porta. None of todays high end frequency lamabada madness. But a LOT of nerve.
Might have to do with the lo-fi. Yeah, those early works are really fine recordings. They are low in level, they are foggy but they are great. The mid 90's was really good in the indie scene area.
I don't know if anyone else have noticed that a lot of the Drag City (USA)/Domino (UK) releases were/are NEVER squashed. A few examples: Jim O' Rourke - "Eureka" (this one must be one of the most beuatiful pop recordings in modern time), Everything by Will Oldham/Palace/Bonnie prince Billy..., the albums by SMOG. All these recordings are quite low and far away from any limits and most of them sound extremely great eventhough the label is kind of indie and I guess, on small budgets.
"I see a darkness" by BPB was released 1999 and is an amazing album in order to show how far away from the zero dBFS things can actually stay without loosing things. There are songs on that album that peaks waaaaay below the ceiling. The album is so low and still Johnny Cash (RIP) actually managed to substract enough information to record a cover of one track. How's that for "too low for radio/CD"?
Since I feel that Cat Power and all these Drag City artists had very much in common during the early and mid 90's (eventhough Chan did not release on Drag City), I also think it is sad that Chan Mashall feel this "pressure" on her while the Drag City artists still can release music that is really great sounding and far from being squashed and commercialized. Maybe it has to do with Matador. Who knows.
Anyway, I understand Chan's statement "sounds like it's supposed to". She's most likely bitter about it because obvioulsy SOMEONE said that something was too silent. Something that obvisously had gone through a mastering process was found to be too silent. We'll never know what the original master sounded like, but I guess it had huge great balls of fire and beauty.
At Matadors website you can listen to the new recording. Put this against the "Nude as the news" video on the same site and note how much more cat power there is in the latter one. I must say that I prefer the 1996 edition of dynamic vocals before the flat Chan voice anno 2006 in this case.
Post by: Arf! Mastering on March 13, 2006, 10:23:38 AM
| dcollins wrote on Mon, 13 March 2006 02:47 |
Hello? Show me the irony? Tell us about the VOC.... |
See Patrik's post above.
| Quote: |
What is the most difficult part? DC |
Working a track so that it sounds and feels great on any system you can throw at it. Earning the confidence and gratitude of your clients. Knowing when to leave it alone. Having empathy and understanding of a very broad range of musical styles and approaches. These and many other values are all much more difficult than cutting hot.
Post by: Samc on March 13, 2006, 11:50:37 AM
Post by: Arf! Mastering on March 13, 2006, 12:08:40 PM
Post by: Jerry Tubb on March 13, 2006, 12:57:06 PM
On a recent rock project the client requested hot and loud similar to xxxx band.
I worked for a few minutes on EQ and Level and printed the song.
But before we moved on, I said "let's try this for grins".
I pulled the level of the original "pre" file down 1dB and reprinted.
The client said "yeah that's much better, breathes more, and more bounce in the drums."
So we BOTH won! ... a fine threshold between "squashed" and "nice and hot".
MTCW
Post by: Samc on March 14, 2006, 05:59:02 AM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Mon, 13 March 2006 17:57 |
I don't think it's a black or white issue... what the client wants -vs- what the ME wants... how about a middle ground... for example: |
What the ME wants?!? So mastering is really about the ME?.......
Post by: Jerry Tubb on March 14, 2006, 12:11:44 PM
| Samc wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 04:59 |
What the ME wants?!? So mastering is really about the ME?....... |
Didn't you realize that Mastering is at the core of the very center of the Universe?
...and entire Worlds and Civilizations flourish and perish with our mere whims!
Post by: Samc on March 14, 2006, 02:18:30 PM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 17:11 | ||
Didn't you realize that Mastering is at the core of the very center of the Universe? ...and entire Worlds and Civilizations flourish and perish with our mere whims! |
Yes master
Post by: bblackwood on March 14, 2006, 02:28:00 PM
| Samc wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 04:59 | ||
What the ME wants?!? So mastering is really about the ME?....... |
That's the vibe I'm getting from this thread.
Kinda disturbing.
Euphonic clients get what they ask for, even if we have to sort out what they mean...
Post by: minister on March 14, 2006, 02:35:37 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 13:28 |
Euphonic clients get what they ask for, even if we have to sort out what they mean... |
my clients do the same with me. if they ask me for somthing, i give it to them. it is their job, their production, their dollars. hoever, they come to me as an expert in my field; they want to know what i recommend. also, it is my job to tell them when i think they are going too far with something. and i may demonstrate it. most clients like that, and, in fact, expect it.
Post by: bblackwood on March 14, 2006, 02:38:05 PM
| minister wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 13:35 | ||
|
So in that specific case, it works both ways.
Is that true for all scenarios?
Post by: minister on March 14, 2006, 02:46:49 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 13:38 |
Is that true for all scenarios? |
sometimes i say something when my opinion was not specifically solicited. yet, i would not argue with a client over what they want...unless it is illegal or unpermitted -- like a film trailer or TV mix that is beyond the standard level.
it can be difficult to discern what a client is asking for. do you give them what they ask for? what you think they need? what you think they are really asking for? the lines blur.
i totally get your stance, brad. it is the right thing. if a client wants his guitar too loud, i will give it to him too loud. but i may dipplomatically bring up my opinion about that. i do everything i can to get things where i think they should be and when the client comes in, i will give myself over to pursuing what they want and trying to make that work. (and i have thought a client's idea was stupid until i tried it...and then they were right) in the end, i want them leaving here happy they came and not feeling like i imposed myself on their job.
but, really, brad, if i came to you, i would want you to tell, "i think it will translate better THIS way.". also, you will do things to a mix that i or another client will never know, but you did make it better.
P.S. i was slow in the uptake: i get your point if i ASK for your recommendations, then you are giving me what i WANT.
Post by: bblackwood on March 14, 2006, 03:14:24 PM
Post by: minister on March 14, 2006, 03:27:14 PM
and the hired talent are the meat puppets.
Post by: bobkatz on March 14, 2006, 04:12:54 PM
| dcollins wrote on Sun, 12 March 2006 22:58 |
I find it all a bit naive, as my local restaurant will make a Masala that actually makes your eyes bug out cartoon-style -- but only if I ask for it..... DC |
I wish that mastering were as simple as going to a restaurant, ordering food and tasting it. In reality, it is more like having everyone eat their food through a set of filters that change the taste and who evaluate the taste on a whole set of different noses. There's the "car nose", there's the "radio nose" and there's the guy who always pinches his nose almost closed so even if he burns his tongue on the spice he hardly notices how hot it is. And then there's the guy who's entirely immune to the spice and thinks that if you don't spice it up then no one will like it at all by the time it gets out to the street vendor.
How many of those guys ("customers", A&R) are totally educated as to what they want and to the real reasons why they are doing it? Some are. Many of them aren't. Many of them have ideas which when examined would be a disservice to their product. They all have a right to their choices as they are the customer, however:
"If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem".
There is a furniture store in New York whose motto is "An educated consumer is our best customer." How many of your customers walk in the door totally educated as to what they want?
The standard "lecture" over here is 5 to 10 minutes, during which we find out what the client wants and if what they want does not seem to suit the material in my opinion, then we spend a little time listening to various options, and sometimes they even change their mind because they had not considered those options.
The number of people who truly understand the relationship between the amoutn of program compression, "normalizing to the peak", and the position of the monitor level control are very few. Does this mean we should plea to the ignorant and just go their way without explaining this?
I have a client with a 1500-title legacy classic catalog of, shall we say, "very important music". When the pressure came from A&R to make the entire reissue set 6 dB "louder" than what it should be for optimum sound, and potentially destroy that legacy for all future generations---do you think I kept my mouth shut and just said, "yes sir" without discussing the issue?
No, instead I invited the A&R person here to listen to what he was asking for under objective conditions.... it was an ear-opener for him and he changed his mind entirely. He thought that what you're supposed to do is ask the mastering engineer to make it as hot as you can.... And he's been in A&R/production for 20 years.... Perhaps he's never heard a mastering-grade monitor system.
When he did hear his previous work objectively, he was totally embarrassed to find out how squashed and unclear and overcompressed were the products that he had been ordering his previous mastering engineer for his previous record companies to make.
We need a common language, and we need more mastering engineers to stand up and explain, otherwise sound will continue to get objectively worse and worse.
Either that, or do your really enjoy making stuffed sausages all day long?
Examining Doug Sax's work or any of our work of 10-15 years ago, do you think it was just the case of Doug doing other clients' bidding? Or didn't they just trust him to do a good job? Clients do go to certain mastering engineers not just because they'll do it like they tell them to, but also because they trust the M.E. to tell them what he thinks as well. This is a creative field, and claiming that the M.E. is just a hired hack is far from the truth. Here, you turn my knobs...
BK
Post by: dcollins on March 15, 2006, 12:30:39 AM
| bobkatz wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 13:12 |
I wish that mastering were as simple as going to a restaurant, ordering food and tasting it. In reality, it is more like having everyone eat their food through a set of filters that change the taste and who evaluate the taste on a whole set of different noses. |
That's why it's such a good analogy.
The same food tastes different depending on your mood at the time, who is tasting it, where you are, who you are, etc.
Same with sound.
I've had a hotdog on a camping trip or even off a cart that was positively transcendent, but at home it's just a hotdog.
How do you explain that?
| Quote: |
"If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem". |
Can I just say how much I hate this phrase? Overly simplistic, and in most cases, just useless finger-pointing with no constructive outcome. But it sounds so impressive.
What is the solution?
| Quote: |
There is a furniture store in New York whose motto is "An educated consumer is our best customer." |
What about "Our Prices are Sofa King Low?" I think they made them take that one down.
| Quote: |
How many of your customers walk in the door totally educated as to what they want? |
In a sense, all of them. I could write a book!
| Quote: |
The standard "lecture" over here is 5 to 10 minutes, |
Now, I've only been doing this for about 20 years, so maybe I haven't really hit my stride in terms of client communication, but my standard lecture takes.........................
wait for it...
Zero minutes.
Zilch, zip, nada, nil, the "empty set" minutes.
It's the furthest thing from my mind.
| Quote: |
during which we find out what the client wants and if what they want does not seem to suit the material in my opinion, then we spend a little time listening to various options, and sometimes they even change their mind because they had not considered those options. |
My advice would be to give them a ref, live with it for a couple days, we'll take it from there.....
| Quote: |
The number of people who truly understand the relationship between the amoutn of program compression, "normalizing to the peak", and the position of the monitor level control are very few. Does this mean we should plea to the ignorant and just go their way without explaining this? |
I wouldn't start by assuming the client is ignorant!
| Quote: |
I have a client with a 1500-title legacy classic catalog of, shall we say, "very important music". When the pressure came from A&R to make the entire reissue set 6 dB "louder" than what it should be for optimum sound, and potentially destroy that legacy for all future generations---do you think I kept my mouth shut and just said, "yes sir" without discussing the issue? |
Fine. I'm not saying we can't discuss these things, but it's important to frame it properly.
If you want cheese on your linguini and clams the waiter may advise against it, but if you insist, out comes the Parmesan.
| Quote: |
We need a common language, and we need more mastering engineers to stand up and explain, otherwise sound will continue to get objectively worse and worse. |
The eternal optimist.
| Quote: |
Either that, or do your really enjoy making stuffed sausages all day long? |
One day I'm stuffing the sausage, and the next the waveform looks like the rockies. Isn't that how it works?
DC
Post by: Samc on March 15, 2006, 06:00:24 AM
If I walk into a mastering studio, and the engineer treats me this way, and decides to give me his "standard lecture"......see how fast I grab my master and slam his door!
In my opinion, a part of this attitude comes from the misguided idea (of some) that mastering is some kind of Creative endeavor or a "creative field", that the mastering engineer is an artist. Therefore when they are not being allowed to impose their ideas on your record, they are not being allowed to be artistic. More than ever these days engineers seem to be totally hung up on their titles and letting the world know how indispensable they are to the production process. Could be they're just trying to secure their place?
Mastering is a technical field, the musicians already created the art, the artistic production should be done by the time it gets to you. Unless you are also the producer and/or artist, your sole job is to manage some of the technical aspects of the production. This is not meant to belittle, or diminish the importance of the mastering engineer or his work in the production process, it is just supposed to give perspective.
Post by: Patrik T on March 15, 2006, 07:22:54 AM
So, to how many percent does this steer a mastering engineer. Do you ever let things pass like this - "well, it surely won't translate in a club, but on a normal comsumer HIFI it will sound awesome".
People are talking about cars. That recordings should also sound acceptable in cars. As an independent musician working with independent labels we never consider the car-thing because neither do the label or I represent that way of enjoying music. Still our music gets adjusted by great ME's to fit into a cars 70 dB (?) of background noise. And in the end we have a good sounding recording that somewhat has lost the initial moods, just because it now can be played on any system. I never attended the mastering sessions, only people from the label did.
But, if I was sitting in a mastering room and the ME described that "it's sounding great but we have to compress the bass", just because it will be too boomy in a car, yet still the ME and I felt that the sound we had in that specific moment was superior to what came to daylight after the adjustment...well then what?
I know it is a hell to put some 10-14 tracks into a union whole, but how much of the "fit all systems"-philosophy is the main guiding light there? I've talked with other musicians about this and they also feel that "yes, my mastered tracks sound good but they all lost their initial moods I thought were crucial for the track when the ME said that it would not translate too good there and there".
And this is probably what Chan Marshall felt. I think it is important to not being overly wise about the translation in exceptionally noisy environments and lock tight to that philosophy. There are many CD's that sound good in the room next to a room with a stereo, but not good in the room with the stereo. I think that is strange but I understand why.
Post by: bblackwood on March 15, 2006, 07:26:20 AM
| dcollins wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 23:30 |
Now, I've only been doing this for about 20 years, so maybe I haven't really hit my stride in terms of client communication, but my standard lecture takes......................... wait for it... Zero minutes. Zilch, zip, nada, nil, the "empty set" minutes. It's the furthest thing from my mind. |
Sounds like we have the same standard lecture...
Post by: Thomas W. Bethel on March 15, 2006, 09:02:30 AM
Late in my career at the Conservatory things began to change and we got in some young faculty members who thought they knew more about recording and audio than I did and who convinced the dean that they could produce their own CDs. They started making decision on the miking of the instruments on balances on ambient enhancement (adding reverb) and generally making my job much more difficult. They would not listen to my expertise and if something did not sound correct they would go to the dean and tell him it was my fault, even though I was following their directions to the letter. These people THOUGHT they knew everything and as one faculty member told me in no uncertain terms. "hey I read MIX magazine same as you so I know all you know"
When I left the Conservatory and started my own business I found that many of the same kinds of people came to my studio, At first there were the people that knew that they knew nothing and would ask me to help them master their CDs. Then with the proliferation of home based studios I got more and more people who "know what the fu<k I am doing" and started telling me how to master their CDs. They would tell me that the guy standing behind the counter at GC (who was a shoe salesmen two weeks earlier) had told them that they needed to boost the bass and treble 10 dB to make their stuff sound GREAT! I tried to do what they wanted but it never sounded the way they thought it should sound.
This was not working. So then I started having very open and honest dialogs with my clients and would sit and listen to their material, listen to the reference material and tell them what I was hearing and what it would take to make their stuff sound like the refs.
This new approach of having an open and honest dialog is working well for most clients. They can tell me what they want and I can be honest with them about what I can do for them. I have had a couple of clients who still wanted to be boss and if that is what they want then I do what they want, make sure I am paid before the leave and that they sign off on the mastering and when they find that it is not working then they can come back and I will help them make the material sound good.
My Mother told me "you can't please everyone all the time" and, like most things she told me. is true. So this is the way I work and if clients want to be the boss I let them. If they want my help, I help them to the best of my ability, if they want a shoulder to cry on about all the problems they had doing the recording I listen to their stories and offer suggestions for the next go around.
I have found that honesty is the best policy and if I treat people with respect and with an open mind they respond in kind.
So I do not preach, teach or ignore. I just am honest with them and tell it like it is. If people are not comfortable with honesty then they have the option of going somewhere else to have their material mastered. Most of my clients are long time clients and then know when they come to me I will do what is best for them and will tell them the strait scoop. This is the way I run my business and this is what I believe in. So far it is working well.
MTCW
Post by: bobkatz on March 18, 2006, 10:55:27 AM
| Samc wrote on Wed, 15 March 2006 06:00 |
Bob, on face value, most of what you do seem reasonable, these are the things that any good engineer would do for his/her client. However, the attitude behind it is what disturbs me, you seem to think that most, or all of your clients are dummies who don't know what's good for their own music, and you need to protect them from themselves...or at least protect their music from them. If I walk into a mastering studio, and the engineer treats me this way, and decides to give me his "standard lecture"......see how fast I grab my master and slam his door! |
I'm sure you guys (especially DC, who likes to attack) are having a field day with my phrase "standard lecture". Of course I do not have a "standard lecture"... I would have closed up shop years ago with no clients at all if they did not keep on coming back. So the correct phrase would be "empathic sharing of feelings about your music and where it is going and where it is coming from."
There is only so much one can say in writing before someone misunderstands you out of context. If some people can get away with being sarcastic or even abrasive with their clients and have repeat business, well god bless them.
My comments (as anyone's) should be taken within context of the message and point of view. It does not give full recognition to our role as engineers to claim that a mastering engineer is simply a hired hand or the equivalent of a short-order cook. Besides having the technical knowledge, we also have a sensitivity to the music. It's a science and an art.
Warm regards,
Bob
Post by: Samc on March 18, 2006, 02:03:37 PM
Maybe it's just semantic, but my literal, and technical understanding of the mastering engineer's job does not lead me to believe that it's an artistic endeavor, and/or that they (the engineers) are artists.
Post by: Jerry Tubb on March 18, 2006, 02:35:47 PM
| Samc wrote on Sat, 18 March 2006 13:03 |
Maybe it's just semantic, but my literal, and technical understanding of the mastering engineer's job does not lead me to believe that it's an artistic endeavor, and/or that they (the engineers) are artists. |
Hello Sam,
The above statement would be true if it were only a straight transfer job, then it would mostly be Science, and one ME would be about the same as the next, assuming the equipment was up to par.
But the moment you reach for an EQ knob, mastering becomes a creative endeavor, the "how and why" does become an Art.
I tend to see it as a 50/50 combination of Art and Science.
p.s. have you ever mastered a record yourself?
Cheers
Post by: Arf! Mastering on March 18, 2006, 02:51:40 PM
Post by: Jerry Tubb on March 18, 2006, 03:26:47 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 14:14 |
...that sounds an awful lot like a frustrated musician became a mastering engineer for all the wrong reasons... |
Touche' Brad ! Upon re-reading this thread, that statement certainly caught my attention! | Quote: |
...that sounds an awful lot like a frustrated musician... |
If I start naming frustrated musicians it would certainly bog down the website, but here's a short list:
Jimi Hendrix, Jaco Pastorius, Charlie Parker, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, Billie Holiday, etc...
| Quote: |
...musician became a mastering engineer... |
iirc, both Doug Sax and Bob Ludwig were musicians before becoming mastering engineers, probably a few Forum members as well.
| Quote: |
...became a mastering engineer for all the wrong reasons... |
Who can know the mind of another man... his reasons, motivations, and goals?
A lifelong love of music and audio, working with people to help them achieve their goals, dedication to continued refinement of one's mastering skills... needless to mention accumulating experience and credits... and the ability to make a decent living at one's chosen profession... all sound like the Right Reasons to me.
Hope you're having a good week Brad, best wishes on your continued success.
Post by: Samc on March 19, 2006, 11:33:15 AM
| AlanS wrote on Sat, 18 March 2006 19:51 |
.................bringing a mix to its fullest potential at the mastering stage. |
Could you please explain what this means and how it is achieved.
| Quote: |
Mastering at its best is inspired and inspiring. |
This too please.
Post by: Samc on March 19, 2006, 11:37:33 AM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Sat, 18 March 2006 19:35 |
But the moment you reach for an EQ knob, mastering becomes a creative endeavor, the "how and why" does become an Art. |
I take it that everyone who has ever used an EQ is an artist?
| Quote: |
have you ever mastered a record yourself? |
Yes.....But what this has to do with the discussion is lost on me.
Post by: Jerry Tubb on March 19, 2006, 01:12:42 PM
| Samc wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 10:37 | ||
I take it that everyone who has ever used an EQ is an artist? |
No more than everyone that's painted a wall is a Rembrandt.
| Samc wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 10:37 | ||
Yes.....But what this has to do with the discussion is lost on me. |
Exactly!
I think we are simply differing in our definition of the term "Art".
Of course, the performer on any CD is the real Artist... no argument there.
Mastering varies in range, from a basic straight transfer job, to taking an unlistenable project and making it enjoyable, and beyond.
If mastering were just "punching out widgets" it wouldn't be an art.
I think what you're posting here, to a large degree, is to provoke a reaction, stir up trouble.
After all it IS a mastering forum, and by nature, we're going to consider it an Art.
Beauty is in the ear of the listener.
Post by: Arf! Mastering on March 19, 2006, 01:36:26 PM
| Samc wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 11:33 | ||||
Could you please explain what this means and how it is achieved.
This too please. |
Sam, I doubt that your question is sincere. It's either a challenge based on your underlying definition of art, or it comes from never having been involved with mastrering that rose to that level. If the latter, then I'm sorry, if the former, then let's put the ball in your court - why can't it be art?
Post by: bblackwood on March 19, 2006, 01:38:19 PM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 12:12 |
I think what you're posting here, to a large degree, is to provoke a reaction, stir up trouble. |
I don't agree - I think Samc's questions and comments are spot on.
| Quote: |
After all it IS a mastering forum, and by nature, we're going to consider it an Art. |
I suppose some do, I consider it a skill...
Post by: Jerry Tubb on March 19, 2006, 01:45:34 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 12:38 | ||
I suppose some do, I consider it a skill... |
So then, Art Demystified = Skill ?
...the Skill of Mastering + a Sense of Aesthetics = Art !
I think we're mainly debating semantics here, and perhaps a bit of philosophy.
Post by: dcollins on March 19, 2006, 03:40:16 PM
| bobkatz wrote on Sat, 18 March 2006 07:55 |
I'm sure you guys (especially DC, who likes to attack) are having a field day with my phrase "standard lecture". |
Bob, you have got to stop thinking all disagreement with you is an "attack." It's becoming a theme.
| Quote: |
Of course I do not have a "standard lecture"... I would have closed up shop years ago with no clients at all if they did not keep on coming back. So the correct phrase would be "empathic sharing of feelings about your music and where it is going and where it is coming from." |
See, the word "lecture" has a particular connotation -- and not a positive one -- most wouldn't think about empathy in that context!
But you said lecture, and spit-takes ensued.
DC
Post by: Arf! Mastering on March 19, 2006, 04:18:01 PM
We're all in the same boat of trying to do the best for clients, for music and sound, in a very rough and changing sea, so how about a little less acrimony and a more constructive dialogue? Show respect and get it in return. It's easy to take any statement out of context, so give it the benefit of the doubt. It's only about a little music after all.
Post by: Jerry Tubb on March 19, 2006, 05:09:28 PM
| AlanS wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 15:18 |
We're all in the same boat of trying to do the best for clients, for music and sound, in a very rough and changing sea, so how about a little less acrimony and a more constructive dialogue? Show respect and get it in return. It's easy to take any statement out of context, so give it the benefit of the doubt. It's only about a little music after all. |
Agreed Alan, I think we all have a lot more in common than we do in difference.
And the position that "I'm Right and You're Wrong" pervades our society these days, even in audio forum circles.
Perhaps even the stance that "if I make the other guy look bad, I'll attract more business for myself".
Evidence... our most popular TV shows involve someone getting "fired" or "cut" on camera... all to the delight of the viewers.
The 1960s & 70s idealism of "we're all in this together" has all but vanished.
Maybe the only difference is that those of us who consider mastering an "art" hold our pinky finger out straight when we turn an EQ knob!
Post by: Samc on March 19, 2006, 07:42:05 PM
| AlanS wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 18:36 |
Sam, I doubt that your question is sincere. It's either a challenge based on your underlying definition of art, or it comes from never having been involved with mastrering that rose to that level. If the latter, then I'm sorry, if the former, then let's put the ball in your court - why can't it be art? |
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 18:12 |
I think what you're posting here, to a large degree, is to provoke a reaction, stir up trouble |
Alan, Jerry, do you feel this way simply because I disagree with your opinion? There is nothing veiled, no challenge, no provocation, nothing behind my posts.
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 18:12 |
After all it IS a mastering forum, and by nature, we're going to consider it an Art. |
Honestly, I'm scratching my head.....I'm lost.
Post by: bblackwood on March 19, 2006, 07:56:58 PM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 12:45 |
I think we're mainly debating semantics here, and perhaps a bit of philosophy. |
I agree, I imagine we're actually all very close in how we view what we do, but putting it to words can be difficult.
I just would rather people view what I do as a skill and what the artist does as art, if we have to define it at all. There are a number of mastering engineers around who seem to wish to make mastering more important, more of a black art than it already is, rather than trying to stay out of the way and let the artist's view get through.
And before anyone gets bent, please realize I am not talking about anyone specific here - this is my reaction to something I've witnessed over the years and is the reason I started this forum...
Post by: Arf! Mastering on March 19, 2006, 08:06:53 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 19:56 |
There are a number of mastering engineers around who seem to wish to make mastering more important, more of a black art than it already is, rather than trying to stay out of the way and let the artist's view get through. |
I don't see how you can believe that. Anyone guilty of that wouldn't last a New York minute. As to the importance of mastering, the top producers and labels think that mastering is very important which is why they all have an extremely short list of who they will allow master their projects.
Post by: bblackwood on March 19, 2006, 08:12:52 PM
| AlanS wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 19:06 | ||
I don't see how you can believe that. Anyone guilty of that wouldn't last a New York minute. As to the importance of mastering, the top producers and labels think that mastering is very important which is why they all have an extremely short list of who they will allow master their projects. |
You mean you don't have clients who relate stories of what other engineers have said? How they pointed to their 'black boxes' or made claims that would be called BS by anyone who knew better?
This isn't about people thinking mastering is important or not, but rather about some engineers who (likely) don't have the confidence in their abilities and are afraid that if people watch them/know what they are doing, they will lose work. Similar to the guys who won't let the clients have a copy of their notes...
Yes, I believe this - I've had too many clients that were amazed by my lack of a 'shroud of secrecy'. I always tell them "it's not what I do, but why".
Post by: Arf! Mastering on March 19, 2006, 08:27:06 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 20:12 |
You mean you don't have clients who relate stories of what other engineers have said? How they pointed to their 'black boxes' or made claims that would be called BS by anyone who knew better? This isn't about people thinking mastering is important or not, but rather about some engineers who (likely) don't have the confidence in their abilities and are afraid that if people watch them/know what they are doing, they will lose work. Similar to the guys who won't let the clients have a copy of their notes... Yes, I believe this - I've had too many clients that were amazed by my lack of a 'shroud of secrecy'. I always tell them "it's not what I do, but why". |
I don't think there are any MEs that fit that description who are doing real pro level work. You've got to be referring to a tiny minority and I'm surprised if that is what this thread was really about.
Post by: bblackwood on March 19, 2006, 08:38:41 PM
| AlanS wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 19:27 | ||
I don't think there are any MEs that fit that description who are doing real pro level work. You've got to be referring to a tiny minority and I'm surprised if that is what this thread was really about. |
I'm not going to name names, but you know some of the guys I am referring to.
And that's not what this thread is about, but it is an aspect of the way I read stuff. When I see people seeming to say that we should protect the client from themselves (to paraphrase) it reminds me of these guys...
Post by: Arf! Mastering on March 19, 2006, 08:49:28 PM
| bblackwood wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 20:38 |
When I see people seeming to say that we should protect the client from themselves (to paraphrase) it reminds me of these guys... |
For sure you must have eased a client out of making a bad decision for themselves at some time? Every engineer probably has. So is it just a matter of semantics or writing style, or the nature of the advice given where the disagreement lies?
Post by: bblackwood on March 19, 2006, 09:51:56 PM
| AlanS wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 19:49 |
For sure you must have eased a client out of making a bad decision for themselves at some time? Every engineer probably has. So is it just a matter of semantics or writing style, or the nature of the advice given where the disagreement lies? |
I can't recall having ever 'eased a client out of making a bad decision for themselves', though I guess it's possible. I view my gig much like I've defined it here over the years - help the client achieve their goals for their art. That does not include trying to keep them from making a 'bad decision' - I've cut lots of records that I felt were too bright, too dark, too limited, etc but the client loved it. Insert your favorite restaurant/dry cleaner/etc. analogy here.
It's simply not about me and/or what I like. I offer my perspective on their project, and while a vast majority of my clients simply send in the material with a note telling me what the sequence is and where to ship the ref, if they tell me to do something that I don't think makes it better, I still do it. If they ask my opinion on it, I give it freely, otherwise I push the buttons to make it sound like they want. I'm not an artist, but rather a guy that helps the artist achieve their goals.
So to answer your question, I don't know if it's a semantics issue or a more fundamental difference of opinion. I just don't want to be the guy that talks the client out of a louder/brighter/darker/whatever album because I think I know how to better achieve their goals than they do.
Post by: Pingu on March 19, 2006, 10:20:16 PM
I used to think that the ME should have all the say as they are the expert and know what the song needs, but how can they possibly know exactly what the artist is trying to achieve.
If i was going to give my music to an ME i would leave the ball totally in their court, but that's me and its not for everyone.
Post by: dcollins on March 20, 2006, 12:09:46 AM
| AlanS wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 13:18 |
It seems that Mastering Demystified has become a not very collegial place. There is so much picking apart of posts, sarcasm, veiled and not-so veiled attacks, nit-picking. |
Sorry you feel that way. I think there's been a tremendous amount of de-mystification on this board. Some, hopefully, in this very thread! It's not Mr. Rogers neighborhood, nor should it be, imo.
For every 10 informative posts, I try to insert a ball-buster, just to keep folks on their toes..... And I invite the same.
Considering a switch from sarcasm to irony though, as I swear some people take all my posts at face value. And that may be confusing.
| Quote: |
It's starting to make mastering engineers look like a sorry bunch. |
Well, there's always recording.org.
| Quote: |
We're all in the same boat of trying to do the best for clients, for music and sound, in a very rough and changing sea, so how about a little less acrimony and a more constructive dialogue? |
I think you're missing said boat. My opinion, hilarious as it may be, carries no more weight that yours or even Brads. I expect readers to take it all in, process, and hopefully learn something.
Stand-by for my next attack!
DC
Post by: Jerry Tubb on March 20, 2006, 12:59:16 AM
But in my case it wouldn't work... swishing a bald spot doesn't quite have the same effect... and the black leather pants don't fit anymore.
All in all... skill, art, science, whatever... I enjoy turning the knobs !
And just so you guys don't think I'm just an ultra-sensitive "jazz wussie"... here's a few tales to perk up your morning java.
A couple years ago I mastered a CD for "Black Mayonnaise". The low end was simply Giant... slooow grinding industrial grooves, garnished with tortured Elephant Man Screams for melody... when I tried rolling off the sub a touch, the music lost some of it's Apocalyptic Ominousity... so we left it GIANT, and I liked it... giving the producer exactly what he asked for!
Later that same day I did a CD for "Rusted Shut" ... noise rock. The 3k was so bright and harsh I had to turn the monitor down just to keep my ears from ringing... sounded like rusted iron beams being frantically twisted, bent, scraped, & mangled... it's what the producer wanted and what he got.
And I should mention that a year or so before, I did a CD for "stick men with ray guns" ...profane punk at it's best/worst depending on your perspective. The lyrical content was so offensive, that it would make even the most hardened crusty old sailor blush like a virgin bride. Despite my religious upbringing, I held fast, finished the gig, and gave the producer the loud ugly record he wanted. They even added a special section in the credits, thanking me for my tenacity to see it through.
So I too have been to the canvas for the full count, many times, to fulfill the wishes of our clients.
Skilfully & Artistically Yours...
Post by: Thomas W. Bethel on March 20, 2006, 10:03:20 AM
Post by: Jerry Tubb on March 20, 2006, 12:28:00 PM
| dcollins wrote on Sun, 19 March 2006 23:09 |
Considering a switch from sarcasm to irony though, as I swear some people take all my posts at face value. And that may be confusing. |
They can be a little confusing DC...
I would reply more often but don't know if you're being serious, sincere, supercilious, sarcastic, sardonic, or setting a snare for simple simons!
Of course if you used emoticons it might help to clarify !!!!!!
now... En Garde !
Post by: dcollins on March 20, 2006, 06:05:42 PM
| Thomas W. Bethel wrote on Mon, 20 March 2006 07:03 |
The whole track was all about pulling things out of your butt. |
I mastered "Primitive Emena" by Butt Trumpet.
So there.
DC
Post by: minister on March 20, 2006, 06:12:55 PM
| dcollins wrote on Mon, 20 March 2006 17:05 | ||
I mastered "Primitive Emena" by Butt Trumpet. |
Post by: Arf! Mastering on March 20, 2006, 07:37:14 PM
Post by: minister on March 21, 2006, 01:19:36 PM
| Jerry Tubb wrote on Mon, 20 March 2006 11:28 |
now... En Garde ! |
Post by: Patrik T on April 07, 2006, 10:11:51 AM
A sad thing to realize.
Post by: bblackwood on April 07, 2006, 10:46:05 AM
| Patrik T wrote on Fri, 07 April 2006 09:11 |
It seems to me that this topic might have made one very nice, open-minded and admirable ME leave these forums for good. |
Uhh, who's that?
Post by: Gold on April 07, 2006, 10:51:54 AM
| Thomas W. Bethel wrote on Mon, 20 March 2006 10:03 |
I did a mastering for a group known as the Hostile Omish. They are a PUNK group who when giving concert stand on stage and churn butter http://www.barncore.com/omishbios.htm. The CD I mastered had a track on it that was about 34 minutes long. The whole track was all about pulling things out of your butt. I finished it up did my best got paid for it and said NEVER AGAIN! |
Damn. That sounds like a choice gig. I like butter.
What was the matter? Do prefer putting things in your butt and leaving them there? I certainly hope they weren't pulling things out without putting them in first.
Post by: David Glasser on April 07, 2006, 10:56:02 AM
| Thomas W. Bethel wrote on Mon, 20 March 2006 10:03 |
I did a mastering for a group known as the Hostile Omish. ... The CD I mastered had a track on it that was about 34 minutes long. The whole track was all about pulling things out of your butt. |
Hey, South Park got a Peabody Award for that!
Post by: Thomas W. Bethel on April 07, 2006, 01:34:50 PM
| Patrik T wrote on Fri, 07 April 2006 10:11 |
It seems to me that this topic might have made one very nice, open-minded and admirable ME leave these forums for good. A sad thing to realize. |
???????????????
Post by: Patrik T on April 07, 2006, 02:23:47 PM
| Thomas W. Bethel wrote on Fri, 07 April 2006 18:34 |
??????????????? |
Just flip back and forth through these pages.
Post by: Jerry Tubb on April 08, 2006, 03:36:33 AM
| Patrik T wrote on Fri, 07 April 2006 13:23 | ||
Just flip back and forth through these pages. |
Oh you must be referring to Bob Katz ! ...last message: Sun, 19 March 2006 10:31
Bob's moved over to Gearslutz new mastering forum.
Probably good to take a vacation from one particular forum once in a while, clears the air.
Cheers & Props to BK