Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Bogdan Radovic Jul 24 2014, 12:45 AM

I have noticed that nowadays, a guitarist/musician needs a lot more skills than before in order to make it. Somehow, some of these skills which are not strictly guitar related have become "must have" and "standard" over time and with the technology advances. I'll try to go through some of them and add my impressions about them and why they are relevant to modern guitarists.

* Home recording skills

OK, this one is probably the most "standard" one and we usually assume a guitarist has these skills, especially if he has been around for some times and is not a complete beginner. The truth is, not so many guitarists have this add-on skill as its assumed. Even if they have been playing for years. I have met so many of them. I must confess that it often surprised me, I somehow thought this one is always on the top of the add-on skills you must have in order to be successful in playing in bands, making music, sessions playing etc - being a musician. Essentially, home recording is not really a guitar related skill except that you'd be playing guitar in the process. Why do we need it?

Here are some benefits of guitarist knowing how to record music/guitar tracks at his home :

- Sharing ideas : it is so convenient to be able to lay down some tracks and share them with your band mates over internet when working on the new songs. It makes the process so much more efficient in comparison to going to the rehearsal just to find out if the part you came up with works well with the song. Also, you get so much more composing freedom, for example you can do layers and immediately hear how they sound together. This is something which is often hard to do on band rehearsals and you only get to hear/try it out when you get to the studio which can be expensive to have your experiments on the spot there.

- Collaboration possibilities : if you can record at home it means that you can take part in projects which are not strictly local, rather you can get involved with musicians from all over the world and make music together. This is very powerful. Such workflow using a traditional studio would probably be impossible as lots of changes/composing is involved in the process of musicians collaborating strictly online. This is a very exciting prospect one should not miss.

- Increasing recording experience : truth is that we all get nervous when recording. Some more than others of course but it is essentially a skill which is trained the same way you practice your alternate picking runs. With time and practice you do get better at it with manifests itself in being more comfortable when recording in the studio, being more creative on the spot and generally used to playing against a click track for example or other specific things you only get to experience when recording.

* Video recording/editing skills

Youtube is no doubt a extremely powerful tool every musician has access to. The problem is - it is video based. You need a video in order to take part. In order to get it, not only you need to know how to shoot it, you also need to know how to edit it and get it uploaded online. It is really annoying in essence, after so much guitar practicing we need to essentially be computer wizards and practice video recording techniques as well? What is the alternative, get professionals to shoot it? It is always an option but it is not very efficient one because : not all professionals have necessary equipment or know how to shoot the guitar videos (they'd be extremely good at shooting weddings though for example ) ; sometimes you need to wait much more than you'd like, for example to schedule the shooting session, for materials to be edited and delivered etc etc. Of course, with the right professionals this job can be done really fast as well so probably the biggest downside is that there is less flexibility in this solution. If you hire a professional, you only get one chance to do it right and that is it. No changes afterwards, unless you are prepared to book multiple sessions for the same project.

This brings us back to the benefits of video recording/editing skills :

- You can expose yourself and your music via Youtube and other video services. Good video and audio will make you stand out of the crowd and if you are creative, unique and have that x-factor, you might just strike it big and get a popular video. Once it becomes popular, it is like playing hundreds of regular bar gigs where 100 people see you - but globally. Thinking more about it - it is so powerful isn't it?

- Collaboration projects : again, in order to collaborate with other musicians online in most cases you'll need to be able to provide a video. If you can do it, it means more opportunities for you (and fun! ).

- Band benefits : being able to shoot video will mean a lot to the band you are playing in. You could shoot promos, short interviews, shows, tour diary or any other videos. It can help the bend reach more people tremendously with those materials. After all, you need a lot of fresh "materials" to keep it interesting.

* Promotion/marketing skills

This one probably completes the circle of add-on skills you need to have in order to stand a chance of being noticed. If we are good in the promotion and marketing department, that can really change the level and help us reach more listeners and ultimately expose our music to more people. I once read about a young band which made a simple agreement : they will consider playing in a band like a job and they'll work X number of hours on it every day. They will have different assignments/tasks and they will try hard every day. For example, one member would work on social networks presence, other will contact offline media like radio/tv etc, the other one would book/promote local concerts etc you get the picture. When I read it I was like : but of course! That is a brilliant idea. How many young bands do such a thing? What is stopping them from doing it?

Here are some benefits of honing those skills :

- You are able to meet new people and expand your network - possibly the most valuable thing for the working musician btw.

- You can market your music and things you do more effectively, ultimately exposing your music as it deserves it.

- Be able to get and play more gigs. In the end, it is all about the gigs and you need to be able to play live as much as possible.

- Get experience (and exposure) from attending radio interviews and TV shows.

- Getting the feedback from the people who listen to your music. As you promote your music, you'll get all sorts of comments on your music which only means one thing : someone has been listening to it! Its so cool to get that feedback, even if it is negative I don't know about you, but my fear has always been that I'll make music which no one would hear in the end for this or that reason.

_________________________________________________

Now on the other hand, this is as much frightening prospect as it sounds exciting. IF you MUST have all those skills we talked about above, when do you get a chance to do actual music and practicing? I guess those who can do such multitasking have much better chances than others at "making it". I'd agree that the best approach is the one of the past where you get others to do all those distracting things and you focusing on the music, but those times are behind us now? Are they?

__________________________________________________

What do you think about all this? Have you ever thought in that direction and what where your conclusions?
Some of those "extra skills" can be as hard or harder than playing the guitar itself. Are they worth putting the time in?
Which skills do you think will become "a must" in the coming times?

Posted by: Mertay Jul 24 2014, 01:16 AM

+1

Today I was in a guitar shop chatting with the owner and there were a bunch of people there too.

Someone opened a video he recorded on youtube, it was a pretty basic pop song (vocal, drum, bass and acoustic guitar sort of stuff, the drums were plug-ins and mix quality was very average...nothing special at all) that didn't even had a guitar solo at all and immediately noticed the attention he got! as if even the better guitar players who didn't have video's got jealous for a moment!

Posted by: klasaine Jul 24 2014, 01:58 AM

When you say 'make it' do mean make a living?

Posted by: Bogdan Radovic Jul 24 2014, 02:07 AM

Good question

I guess I was mostly referring to making the next step as a guitarist.
We all start at the same place starting to learn the guitar and practicing. Some make more or less out of the whole playing/music thing depending on their goals. For example, getting into bands, making a living out of music, composing and getting songs out there, teaching, getting recognition as a guitarists, collaborating with other musicians, session work etc etc.

Posted by: Jim S. Jul 24 2014, 02:14 AM

I do agree that with whatever instrument you play, you have to be able to record it and share. I have a drummer friend, he and I could collaborate very well except he will not give computers and recording a fair try. This has been going on for 10 yrs. I remember having a huge windows computer with a 50 foot RCA cable running from a mixer in the other room when I was 21 or so.......

Thank you for making me realize that I have learned basically nothing new in 10 yrs. lol

That's not really true but I haven't learned nearly as much as I should for the exposure.

Guitar is fairly easy to record but drums or a real piano or sax ect.. Would be a lot harder because you would need a dedicated space which is available anytime you have the time to play. Setting up mics on drums and mixing it And having an environment suitable is harder to find than someone like me who headphone records/plays.

Needless to say I know deep down in my heart that if another instrument should suit me well, I'd find time and resources to do it.

Nowadays you need to know your instrument, learn how to use a computer to record/share with whomever you want.

Posted by: Bogdan Radovic Jul 24 2014, 02:22 AM

Thanks for sharing this story. Now that you mention drummer vs recording, there is always a solution but we need to keep adapting (or do we?) For example, depending on the project demands etc - drummers nowadays can use electronic drums for recording/sharing. Some electronic sets out there are killer and you can barely notice the difference between a live set or electronic one. Actually, quality electronic drums in 90% of cases should actually sound better out of the box than home recorded real set.

The question and doubt I'm still having is : is it worth it? Is "evolution" a necessity in music? Do we need to learn skills which are not guitar ones to make more of the instrument in the end?

Posted by: Jim S. Jul 24 2014, 02:54 AM

It's is a good question and the answer is specific to ones own goals. Do you want to jam at a coffee shop and share an intimate setting or plan on writing and getting people to notice you? Keeping up on equipment and learning how to do computer things has always given me motivation to play and learn more. I've always been into these sorts of things.

It's worth it if you want to and if you can use it effectively. Having no direction or encouragement toward computers will make you stray. I like figuring out glitches or searching for answers but it really does not make me a better player.

If you took one person and cloned them. Person 1 had Internet and person 2 had a record player with their favorite songs. I'd have to believe player 2 would be much more genuine and comfortable player

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jul 24 2014, 04:19 AM

DUDE!!! PLEASE ask FRAN to put your original post in our WIKI!!! Maybe make a new section about "Which skills a Guitarist Needs To Make It" and we can use this as the introductory post and have sub posts related to each topic?

Posted by: klasaine Jul 24 2014, 06:44 AM

Each one of those requires a different skill set. There is of course overlap.
* If you want to be a solo artist you gotta develop your own thing.
* If you want to be the touring guitarist for for say Joss Stone (or whomever) then you need to be able to cop tones from records, be a quick study, don't have any attitude problems and be cool to hang out with ... and can you sing!?
* Maybe you want to be a 'pit' guitarist on Broadway? Heavy reading, lots of styles, banjo and mandolin skills ...

But if you ask 50 different guitarists how they 'made it'? - you'll get 50 different answers.
Some get a gig just by meeting the right person at the right party. Happens everyday.

So really, for any actual individual ... ? I have no idea what you need to make it.

Posted by: Mith Jul 24 2014, 10:01 AM

Totally a good idea. Alot of people don't think about this kinda of stuff. You don't have to be the best at any of these things "even at playing guitar" but if you do a decent job out of all of those it will be amazing how far it will get you.

Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Jul 25 2014, 02:52 PM

Great answer from a pro I'd say make a list with what you want from your guitar playing and be honest about it:

- what you wish for
- where you are now
- what would you need to do to get there - basically we all know pretty much what we have to do, but the biggest problem is keeping the course steady

You know, when I asked Drew Goddard - I told this story at least once more - from Karnivool, what his advice toward aspiring musicians would be... he said 'NEVER give up! Stick to what you are doing and work on doing it the best you can!'

This is a very honest thing to say It encompasses a lot in it and it may seem like a very ambiguous thing, blurry even, but for each one of us, it's actually the choice we make towards music and not something else That's how I see it.

Posted by: tonymiro Jul 25 2014, 03:46 PM

Here's a brutal truth for you and one that I doubt many will like, accept or agree with.

Many musicians do not have the skilll set of a sound engineer. They do not have the time or focus to really gain the skills as they have to focus most of their attention on learning and practicing their instrument, networking as a musician and working as one. Worst still many don't even know or even understand that they don't know that which they don't know but so many record, mix, master and produce not only their own material but charge others to do so.

If you're doing home recording just to get your ideas down then fine but don't fool yourself that it's much more than that.

Oh and +1 with what Ken says.

Posted by: klasaine Jul 25 2014, 05:41 PM

You may have noticed I didn't mention one word about 'recording' in my post.

Posted by: tonymiro Jul 25 2014, 05:45 PM

I did Ken and thought that it was a deliberate omission .

Posted by: Bogdan Radovic Jul 25 2014, 10:31 PM

Very insightful reply and it really is that individual. There are some overlaps there though that got me thinking about this in the first place. Somehow, more and more the need to become "multi-skilled" is surfacing this way or another. Which surely drags away the focus from the main thing - playing the instrument. Is this skills balance shifting over times?



Good point - I'd also agree that you do not need to be the best out there (is that even possible?) but with a twist : you need to give your best and believe in what you are doing in order to achieve your goals/dreams. When it comes to music, what I found that works for me in order to keep pushing and be inspired is to set reachable, short term goals (I can easily call them dreams). That feeling of being "almost there" really helps me focus. One of the first ones that got me into playing was "just" performing live in a high school gig or similar stage. Nothing fancy but it was a long way to get there and it kept me motivated.



Absolutely - many musicians don't have those skills unless they want to develop them and put their time into study.

The home recording skill I have mentioned is how it can affect a guitar player or any other musician. I can't imagine not being able to record at home. How would I "document" my composing/ideas when working on the songs? It is not possible to go to the professional studio or keep it all in the head. Also there is little point in going to the pro studio to record tracks for an online collaboration project where other participants will record at home in varying quality.

On the other hand, home recording specific to the instrument we play can surely be achieved? (not by any musician of course). For example, recording guitar tracks via Kemper amp unit makes things a lot easier than the "traditional way" (mic+preamp+amp+treated room+mixing console etc etc). With the right gear and knowledge (study) one should be able to learn how to record usable guitar tracks on his own. This is what recent technology brings to musicians and it is powerful. When my band was recording an album, we basically composed on the go (for example fill lines etc which can't be done live) in the professional studio and experimented there on the spot (and time was ticking away). We surely could have used more preparation if we had better home recording possibilities and skills. Some ideas that sounded cool on rehearsals didn't turn out well when recorded. Also, the minimum quality of the guitar tracks/recording really depends on the intended use. You would not aim for recording a full band album at home rather in a professional studio for the best impact and presentation of your music.

But this is a very wide subject - there are more details

Young bands usually can't afford big studios, also we are seeing (at least in my country) decline of big studios as the big record labels are more and more hesitant at signing new bands (and big record publishers pay for the big studios/pro sound engineers which they usually also own). These bends in this case are forced to do their recording themselves or hire low end "studios", they just have no other options. They record a demo, put it up on soundcloud etc and they pave their way forward. Ultimately, pushing through the obstacles course and getting better gigs, fans base, making some money of it and usually investing it all and more back into music (pro studio time, pro video recording etc).

Let me share a specific story somewhat relevant to this : when my band was applying for a big guitar contest, the rules stated that we need to submit 3 demo songs. The term was short and we only had 2 songs that were recorded in somewhat pro studio. Extremely conveniently - we had another song recorded completely by ourselves at home. We quickly mixed it the best way we knew and bang, we had 3 songs to submit in order to apply for the contest (done by playing live in front of the audience and jury). Consequently, it turned out that we won the contest and it meant a huge music break for us. If we didn't have any home recording skills (any of us in the band), we would surely not be able to apply and therefore miss a huge opportunity for us.

Posted by: Bossie Jul 25 2014, 11:07 PM

Not to forget....grow those skills and keep your ego down...seems to be rare these days

Posted by: klasaine Jul 25 2014, 11:51 PM

I don't think so.
The guys and gals that make it/made it all have more 'skills' than what they show or what they become known for.
Whether that's doubling on different instruments, being a decent engineer, a good arranger, can write out string and horn parts, write lyrics, sing well, is an expert at a particular type of ethnic music, is a great business person, knows everybody, etc.

You'd probably be surprised at the 'other' thing(s) your favorite guitar player knows how to do well.

*Quick example: Steve Cropper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Cropper and http://www.allmusic.com/artist/steve-cropper-mn0000751738/credits was also one of the guys doing the 'books' (an accountant) at STAX records (and studio) at the same time as he was doing proably three sessions a day as a guitarist, songwriter and arranger.
If you don't know who he is check the links I posted.

Posted by: tonymiro Jul 26 2014, 11:46 AM

When a pro studio shuts down you lose that facility as well as the engineers and their skill set. I personally know an awful lot of very skilled engineers who have lost jobs because a lot of pro studios that have closed their doors in the last 15 years or so. A lot of those engineers were and are friends of mine. What have they been replaced by? Very little if any thing.

I've been in this industry long enough to have seen my income/turnover drop by 2/3rds despite doing the same volume of work. None of my costs have gone down in that time. I make less per hour than any other professional that I know. I make less per hour than any skilled tradesman that I know. I make less per hour than a lot of unskilled workers. I paid my last trainee more than I paid myself. If I achieve 75% booking I make a little over minimum wage once I've paid all my costs. I actually set my rate card as low as I possibly can so that independent musicians can have access to a cost effective mastering solution. Regardless of that I'm continually told by musicians and bands to charge them less or they will do the work at home in their daw. Those same people still ask me for free help and advice when they decide to 'master' their own work to save themselves a few $s.

The industry is at a point now where I don't know any professional engineer who will advise a young person to go in to the industry. In the same way studios are not regarded as a good investment at all so it is extremely difficult to get banks to provide a line of credit. I'm continually told by my accountant that I should consider selling up and closing.

Technology doesn't necessarily replace a skill set by the way. Proper gainstaging remains an issue whether you do analogue or digital. What we do see is that very few people nowadays have a clue how important digital gainstaging is becuase they lack the training - at best all they have done is read their daws manual, watched some youtube vids and so on. Take a listen to the majority of home/project studio releases n Soundcloud - very few are properly gainstaged. A lot of them are so poor that you can hear distortion, ISOs, clipping, high noise levels etc even on a poor quality audio stream.

As for guitar modellers like a Kemper - whilst they certainly may have a place and can save time and space the sad fact is that modelling technology still isn't 100%. If you listen to a reamp recording made with a Kemper or similar A/B'ed in a studio with good 3 way mid or far fields you start to hear the differences. If you pile on lots of instances of the same modeller in to a single recording you will again start to hear issues. It's much the same reason why a recording engineer wil use 20 KM184s to close mic a full orchestra rather than 20 Rode NTs. The difference between a single Rode and a single 184 may be magrginal but if you use a lot all at once it aggregates. If you learn how to mic your cab properly you will also learn a lot about the sonics and positioning of your set up, which is a skill that you can then translate to live work. Reamping doesn't teach you to focus on that.

Home/project and even small professional recording studios do not possess the equipment or space to be able to hold and use a wide range of mics. Home/project and small pro mixing engineers do not have the room to house a full size console and outboard hardware. Yet again whilst modelling has come on there are still differences between say a real Manley passive and a vst emulation, which become all too noticeable if you use the latter in multiple instances.

The same is true at mastering - sure you can 'master' in the box but don't fool yourself that it will achieve the same quality as using mastering hardware - you will lose quality in terms of, for instance, width and depth. Mastering isn't a case of slapping any old thing on the 2 bus just to push level. it's much more about a final, critical and objective check of a recording and if you don't have big 3 way mid/far fields and a studio set up to house them then you can not do that properly. I have way over £100,000 invested in the room and sound tratment before even trying to cost in equipent and the build cost of the building generally - the investment is so that the monitoring eniironment is appropriate for mastering. All those 'home mastering' and worse, all those small mixing studio who 'master' don't understand that and really are fooling themselves and their clients.

A large part of why the recorded quality of a lot of recent music is so poor is that people do not have the skill set and can not or do not put the time in. To be a mastering engineer takes 1000s of hours of training and practice AFTER you have worked as a mixing or recording engineer or similar. To be a good mastering engineer requires 10,000s of hours. Each time that I buy a new item for my studio I literally work with it off line for over 1000 hours to really get to know it sonically.

The majority of recent musicians and producers seem to think that recording a couple of their own releases qualifies them as an engineer. Sorry but it doesn't and it's not even close. The continuous erosion of the skill base will result in there being very few engineers left who actually do have the skill set and so recordings will suffer. Sadly there are far too many small studios and young professional engineers who don't have the skill set but who think that they do. Sadly there are far too many whose entire knowledge and experience is based on incomplete and often inaccurate autodidactic experience of using a daw at home.

What you are losing is both the skill set and the facility to do a high quality recording.

It really is a case of people not knowing what they don't even know and probably not even caring.

Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Jul 26 2014, 01:15 PM

Tony, you are very correct in your statement and I think I said it before - in here, we lack people with actual knowledge and true experienced based on using the knowledge during the years. Sound engineers are trying to learn nowadays, with the aid of online courses or the SAE University, which is THE ONLY one place in Romania where you can learn sound engineering.

On the other hand, people are looking for the following combo:

Less costs with good quality

When they have no idea about what quality is, they can become amazed about something which doesn't come even close. And costs, let's face it, everyone tries to cut some and usually, people, even if they know it's hard work and it can mean the rise or fall of their music, will still want to cut some costs.

It's sad, but unfortunately this is the trend. How do you see it? I mean, the future? Is there any solution for this?

Posted by: tonymiro Jul 26 2014, 02:32 PM

Cosmin - rightly or not the course offered by SAE and their like aren't particularly respected by pro studios. The students just don't get anything like enough hands on studio time and far too often lack basic skills. At best I'd see someone who had been to SAE or a similar institution as just starting a proper studio apprenticeship. I know manypro engineers however who wouldn't even give them the time of day.

I agree about low cost with good quality - that's what i set my stall at - offering an effectiv and efficient mastering solution. There's always however a minimum charge below which one can not go or you just don't break even. My breakeven is based on things like facility and service costs - things like electricity, internet, business rates, accountant fees, social security and taxes. I charge very marginally above that so that I can have a wage and also so that I can reinvest in and maintain equipment etc.

Where do I see things going?

Sadly I think we're going to lose an awful lot of studio facilities, experience and knowledge in the industry. What we'll end up with is a small number of large multi-room studios owned by major labels and/or digital aggregators. The latter will get a lot of digital mixing/mastering business from indie groups and charge what they want for so-so quality work simply as there will be a lack of competition. You can already see this happening with the 'in-house' mastering offered by digital (re)sellers/aggregators the mastering is really so-so These 'in-house' studios often treat non major names as over night cookie cutter work - so all the music is processed the same way via templates. Worst still they very often aren't even checked or verified before it goes to the pressing plant/put up on-line - I know of instances where work has been screwed by incorrect SRs because of this. One big 'in-house' spent months/years embedding incorrect and useless ISRCs in to a huge number of indie releases. Iif a band/label isn't happy though they have little, if any, redress as they are not the studio's client - the (re)seller is.

If you use an independent studio however your contract is direct with the studio. I provide revisions so that the client gets a product that they are happy with. I never cookie cut/use templates and I always listen, verify and check audio etc before I do anything. I very often let a band send remixes but don't charge any extra even though I should as a remix is usually regarded as additional/new work. I provide free help, advice, mix feedback whether or not a band uses my studio. If I screw up an ISRC etc I correct at my cost. All of that helps provide an effective service and is value added. More often than not though all that bands want is the cheapest solution and you get what you pay for.

You could say that major labels have always funnelled new talent towards their pet studios ona 360 contract. That's true in part but in the past the band still had some say and some redress about the quality of what came out of the studio. Now however...

So for all of you indie musicians, producers and labels your future will be a couple of large multis who will charge for indifferent work or DIY at home without the facilities and with limited skills. Most people won't care as they won't ever realise what's gone.

Is there a solution?
Yes.

Accept and budget for proper, professional recording/mixing and mastering. Bands seem happy to pay a graphic artist to do their cover art/tshirts and a video crew and post to film their music vid etc but then don't want to pay for professional recording/mixing/mastering. To me that is asinine as they are actually paying out on secondary things whilst skimping on what should be seen as important. Which is more important in the medium/long term - having a great looking album cover but a record that sounds crap or an ok one but with good/high quality audio? It's your choice. Use the independent pro studios or you will lose us.

Posted by: klasaine Jul 26 2014, 05:09 PM

Great points on the 'aggregation' of cheap mics and VSTs.
One of the things I learned real quick (1999) was that a dig emulation/modeling is cool for one or maybe two tracks but you gotta use a real amp and recording space (even it's just a tiny iso room with one mid-quality microphone) along with the models and VSTs if you want to get any real emotional content (movement, funk, grease, R&R weirdness - whatever you want to call it) into the track.

You want to make it as a guitar player? Understand that ^^^. Figure out how to 'sell' that to an artist or producer by showing them how good it sounds and you'll get some work. Why do you think guys like Pete Thorn, Carl Verheyen and Tim Pierce, etc. (guys that get paid everyday to play and record guitar) have an actual 'rig' and microphone and hardware pre-amp set up in their home studios?
One of the reasons I have 23 guitars and probably 60 pedals is so that when I am relegated to only 'in the box' recording, I really take control of at least the sound at the source - me. I never go a session w/o one really funky axe (that's why I have those Teisco Del Reys and the Jazzmaster). Nothing says 'real' better than a freaky Japanese guitar from the 60s! *All this is assuming you know how to play.

* I'll add that I feel that one of the MAIN reasons why the average dude and dudette on the street doesn't really give a crap about music anymore is because most of it available sounds like shite. *Not the writing or the playing ... the SOUND. It's just generally not that compelling now. Both the overall production as well as the delivery.

Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Jul 27 2014, 05:25 PM

True words from a true pro Well, when you are in the field so far as you have been, all this insight is clearly valuable and you prove as an example for our members who wonder what being a pro really means

You have always provided an honest and no BS opinion on things - respect! I appreciate that very much

I think we can count the folks who think and act like you do in the field in our country on the fingers of ONE of my hands..



We might be an isolated case, but we are usually looking forward to have the whole package and we have spent A LOT of money out of our pockets just to know that we have done whatever needed to be done, in order to:

- sound good
- look good
- gig comfortably
- be efficient in our logistics
- have the merch at the highest available quality

Of course, everything changes from one album to another, but we aim for the same things in the future

Regarding the labels ... we were offered a contract with Universal, but guess what, we had to pay for the production of the album - they only pay for multiplying it in physical copies and that ties us up for a 3 year contract. Very bad - I said no almost immediately

They basically give you nothing and want pretty much everything

Unfortunately, I don't see a way out, by the looks of things...

Posted by: klasaine Jul 27 2014, 06:20 PM

The 'distribution' deal.

That's always been an option with labels (especially indie labels). In fact, a lot of bands did and do seek that type of deal because they want complete control over the recording process (studio, producer, concept, etc.). Though that can go horribly wrong if the rec co (and they do - a lot) reject the master (the finished product) and now you're locked into your 2 or 3 year contract. *There are lots of ways around this during the contract negotiating period (write a 'sunset clause' for unreleased/undistributed product - totally normal though the rec co won't tell you that).

This is another thing that IMO is a casualty of the modern 'home recording' Renaissance (read; dark ages).
Band says, "oh yeah, we can make records at home for $1000 - so F off big labels".
The big labels say, "Awesome!, ya'll can make your records at home. Make us a record and we'll just distribute it ... *if we think it's good enough(?). If not - no dice. Less cash outlay for us. Oh and hey, that [i]master we just turned down - well it's actually ours for a few years"[/i]. Unless you wrote that 'sunset clause'(?).
BOTH sides of this attitude are ignorant and very short sighted, resulting in a lot of really mediocre sounding music.

Ultimately the band/artist ALWAYS pays for all the production costs of it's record, videos, etc. You either pay up front or you pay later out of your royalties. And now with the popularity of the 360 deal - concert tour money and even merchandise.

Posted by: Mith Jul 28 2014, 06:32 AM

Some really good information. Tho I agree with 99% of it. The amp moddling thing is a bit of a sore spot for me. cheap amp moddling is the same as a cheap amp but great high end moddling is a whole diffrent beast. But hey diffrent strokes for diffrent folks.

I think the major label got to big for itself and asking for too much money and exspecting too much from artists and thats where the home recording became a huge market. I think the market for pro studios will come back one day but I think that day is long on the horizon and I think it might end up being alot more digital and the real money being spent on room treatment and speakers.

Studios will end up more like botuique guitars. Might take a while to find a good one but when you find one that works well for you as an artist its amazing.

I just think there are alot of people behind the scenes in the music idustry making too much money for doing very little. I find it very hard to belive that there isn't someone making a discusting amount of money for selling a $30k compressor no matter how good it is. Is it the best one. It just might well be but for parts, labour and reserch some price tags are just stupid.

Posted by: tonymiro Jul 28 2014, 11:17 AM

Very true Ken.

Labels prefer in-house as it provides them complete control over cashflow and profit via internal cost transfer pricing.
A lot of recent poor commercial releases sound quality wise have been recorded/mxed and mastered in-house. It's almost as if they apply a lower quality standard when they do it themselves - ooo there's a surprise!

In 20-30 years ago when we come full circle and bands want to have their stuff recorded/mixed/mastered professionally I wonder where they will find the experienced engineers. Way things are I'd say in 5 years I wonder where...

-------------

Mastering hardware tends to be the most expensive hardware to buy new. The vast majoirty of pro end mastering grade comps are @£3000-5000 new. There are a couple from, for instance, Elysia that cost nearly £9000 but I'm not aware of any that are in the £30k band.

The vast majority of pro end mastering hardware is handmade and/or very short production runs by small engineering companies. They use high end components where a single indented rotary knob will cost them significantly more than the non-indented flimsy crap on prosumer gear. They also use a much higher level QA procedure than the mass market companies, which again costs considerably more. I'm not aware of any of them making vast amounts of money - just the opposite.

The market for mastering hardware is actually incredibly small and the profits slim. I know the sole owner at Gyraf and quite a few others and their annual production runs for a piece often barely exceed single figures. I know a few who only make to order and never make more than 10 untis a year. Sontec who are considered by a lot of mastering engineers as having produced one of the best mastering EQs nearly went bankrupt. It's a two person operation and just survived because of remortgaging. Nowadays they only produce individual units to order and the lead times are often around 6-18 months.. If you ring up Great River you can talk to the owner becuase it's not some big multinational. The same is true of pretty much all of these engineering companies.

The same can be said to a lesser extent for mixing, at least with regards to a pro end desk/console. It takes a lot of time and expertise and high end components to build a Neve 8080 or an SSL 9000. The vast majority are built to order and customised. The manufacturer nearly always does installation, set up and testing. The cost and risks involved in designing and bringing to market a new console is huge and can easily break a company. If you ever go on a factory visit to Prism, ATC, AMS Neve, SSL etc you'll find that the people who work there and own the companies aren't rich.

Posted by: tonymiro Jul 28 2014, 12:01 PM

And on the subject of how much money we make...

I've mastered records that have gone gold, platinum etc. My daughter told me earlier today that a recent one of mine was in the top 5 of the download charts for over 4 weeks. I charged the same set price as I do for all the others. In the case of the download single that was 40 Euros plus IVA.

I 've been in sound for over 30 years and know how difficult it can be to make a living in this business, whether you're a musician or an engineer. I don't question or begrudge how much musicians earn or how succesful they are. Sadly the same professional courtesy isn't always shown to us engineers.

Posted by: Mith Jul 28 2014, 03:18 PM

oh I don't think you get paid enough, its alot of others that make you have to charge more and have higher overheads.

and my bad, it was just under 20k

http://ronansrecordingshow.com/2010/06/analogue-tube-at-101-the-fairchild-670-recreation/

Just a idea for you tho. Maybe the avenue of making recordings isn't the most profitable for you. Maybe teaching people to record better might be a via path and not only do you preserve the knowledge you gained over the years your income might get better too?

Just a idea for you. As you said earlier losing that valuable information is the worst part.

Posted by: klasaine Jul 28 2014, 04:16 PM

A little bit of a reality check on the 'money' being paid to record company (and music biz) execs.

Irving Azoff - a guy that's been in the business for over 40 years and still considered to be the most powerful person in the music industry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Azoff and responsible for acts from Christina Agiulera to the Eagles to Van Halen and is now the CEO of 'Live Nation' made $34 million dollars last year. Which is a lot of money to me - but put into perspective ...

The CEO of McKesson Pharmaceuticals (John Hammergren) made $131,000,000.00


The record business (and certainly the music production business i.e., the making of the actual music) does not garner the same level of cash as other 'big' business does. Record execs never made the huge money say a CEO or VP on Wall Street made/makes.

* If the music business ever had a financial 'hey day' ... and that's a big 'if' (relatively speaking) - it lasted maybe 20 years from the early 70s to the early 90s.

Posted by: Bogdan Radovic Jul 29 2014, 11:17 AM

Thinking more about all this, maybe one of the most essential skills a guitarist needs to have is mixed knowledge of lots of stuff. Same as airline pilots which don't necessarily know by heart what to do in details for every possible scenario when something goes out of the routine with the aircraft, but what they know extremely well is where to find the necessary information - fast. I have met some musicians/guitarists who do not have much knowledge of what is involved in music production/recording, marketing, gear etc etc. In example - in most cases they do not know what mastering does exactly. This can be the root problem as if they don't, they might settle for less (for example: small recording/mixing studio doing mastering they are not equipped to do). The one doesn't necessarily need to know how to do something by himself, but it surely helps a lot to know what is involved in the task and who should know how to do it and what is the best/most efficient way to get it done. Also, having this background can also help assess if one can handle the task by himself or not (not referring to mastering here).

Young bands and musicians usually don't have those skills built in as they come from the experience and I did see lots of them waiting for stuff to fall out of the sky for them (gigs, promos, online presence etc etc) - starting with me and my band doing the same thing, waiting to get asked (discovered?) to play on a huge stage What I find as the best resource to get those "street skills" is to just hang out with as many musicians as possible and also to join online guitar/musician forums. The information you absorb this way can make a big difference in comparison to being isolated.

Being "informed" can make a huge difference and getting that information as its obtained through socializing is fun

Posted by: tonymiro Jul 29 2014, 12:37 PM

Professional mastering doesn't easily lend it self to teaching people and particularly not quickly via 10 week courses and the like. Professional mastering means that you treat every project as individual and make no decisions at all until you have critically listened to it. After that there are 'no rules' regarding how you process it sonically - you do whatever you do to get a result. Sometimes you place an eq before a comp, sometimes after, sometimes side chain and so on provided you get what you wanted. You can really only demonstrate all of the different things you do as the work comes in and when it's required. That's one reason why I put the trainnees that I take on through an 18 month, or more, training period. They don't even get to touch the hardware until they've spent way more than 6 months just listening to music, thinking and watching.

In common with a lot of other pro mastering studios I do supplement the work but by doing post. I'm even talking to my business partner and accountant at the moment about whether we should invest heavily in a new room and a 7.2 monitoring system to do surround post. That would be a big investment though as the monitoring alone would be over £250k.


====================================================



Very, very true Ken. The majority of us who work in the industry professionally could probably earn as much if not more doing a very similar role in a different industry. Whilst most of us make a reasonable living very few of us are what you would call rich or are ever likely to be.

Just with regards to the economics of an idependent studio and why banks don't see us as a good investment:

A professional mastering studio, including land costs, is more than £400k to build. You can then add at least another £100k for facilities, acoustic treatment consultant fees, and the treatment. A minimum of equipment - mastering console, 2 eqs, 2 comps, limiter, AD/DA. 3 way mid/far field monitoring will add another £100k. So call it a nice round £600k invest to set up a mastering studio (many cost more). I charge about £400 including taxes to master a 10 track album. You need to do a lot of work to even break even. Banks see that and the music industry in general as a bad investment and high risk.

Posted by: Cosmin Lupu Jul 29 2014, 05:49 PM

Staying informed and learning is pretty much the way to survive in any field, but some people don't really care THAT much - as long as they see it as a hobby, they want the instant gratification and not too much effort to go along with it... and then they get bummed, because... 'Hey, it didn't work out!!' Some get back to the drawing board and are patient, some float around waiting for the Golden Goose's eggs and a lot just quit.

The questions is simple - How much does it matter and how much are you willing to invest in time spent researching, learning, practicing and making connections?

I think it all relates to that and in the end, regardless of how much everyone says - I WANT TO LEARN/ I WANT TO SOUND GOOD/ I WANT TO GIG BIG/ I WANT TO BE EXPOSED! - only those that take the time, seize the opportunity and truthfully, have some luck to be at the right place at the right time, get to reap the fruits

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jul 30 2014, 07:13 AM

Just a thought One trend I've read about, happening in the L.A. post scene, is that the bigger shops that have bought in to 7.x systems can't book them solid and have empty space that they sell at a discount to outsiders. I don't know if there are any such operations where you are located TONYMIRO, but if such facilities exist, it may be worth at least looking at subletting until you get enough steady clientele to justify the expenditure of that magnitude. Or if it's more profitable to sublet, maybe never build at all.

Of course, assuming that there are such facilities close buy where you are. Which I have no idea if such exist or not

Todd

[quote name='tonymiro' date='Jul 29 2014, 07:37 AM' post='692911']
Professional mastering doesn't easily lend it self to teaching people and particularly not quickly via 10 week courses and the like. Professional mastering means that you treat every project as individual and make no decisions at all until you have critically listened to it. After that there are 'no rules' regarding how you process it sonically - you do whatever you do to get a result. Sometimes you place an eq before a comp, sometimes after, sometimes side chain and so on provided you get what you wanted. You can really only demonstrate all of the different things you do as the work comes in and when it's required. That's one reason why I put the trainnees that I take on through an 18 month, or more, training period. They don't even get to touch the hardware until they've spent way more than 6 months just listening to music, thinking and watching.

In common with a lot of other pro mastering studios I do supplement the work but by doing post. I'm even talking to my business partner and accountant at the moment about whether we should invest heavily in a new room and a 7.2 monitoring system to do surround post. That would be a big investment though as the monitoring alone would be over £250k.


====================================================

Posted by: tonymiro Jul 30 2014, 03:28 PM

I take your point and I think you're right that the market is pretty saturated where you are Todd. It's a bit different here though and the market research that we've done, although basic as we're still just at the initial phase, has the nearest 7.2s in Madrid and Barcelona - there's some studios doing post here but none are 7.2 and to be honest some of them are pretty basic. In the last 18 months we've turned down about 30ks worth of work as we're not set up for it and whilst that's not a lot we haven't looked for any. If we go ahead we'd run the 2 studios at least initially as a sinlge operation albeit dual premises and so one of our big issues is finding something local that meets our needs regarding size of room and facilities. But it's early days and we're still number crunching.

Posted by: klasaine Jul 30 2014, 04:30 PM

Definitely, though it's always been common here for studios - any type of studio including motion picture sound stages - to 'rent' their down time. Usually considerably cheaper than their prime time for the major and mid-level labels/clients. Tons of great 'first' records (by now famous bands) were recorded on down time for cheap at great studios *(with really good engineers and producers who believed in the band and got the down-time deal).

This is how you can read on the credits of a tiny independent release - 'recorded at Capitol A in Hollywood' or 'mixed at Sunset Sound'.

*Slightly OT for these last couple of posts but related to the topic in general ...
Just because an album is physically recorded and mixed at one of the 'Temples of Sound' doesn't mean it was recorded or mixed by a guy or gal that has any idea what they're doing or knows how to use the board.
I've done many sessions at many of the legendary rooms here for projects that would have been equally or even better served at smaller (read: way cheaper) facilities or even in a tiny bedroom studio.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Jul 31 2014, 12:25 AM

So running down to Madrid for a down time session probably not gonna work. Sounds like you'd be the only facility in your area with 7.2? That's pretty spiff Would give you an edge over all the other post houses doing sound in your neck of the woods.

Have you considered just adding speakers and processors to your current facility to test market the demand for 7.2 before risking the outlay for expansion? I know it would be far from perfect, but you could at least test the idea and get some surround mixes out the door to get the word out and keep your current facility commute

Just a thought.

Todd

Posted by: tonymiro Jul 31 2014, 10:18 AM

Very true Ken. Out of hours/over nights is done by most of the mastering multirooms and if you look at the contract they state that you have no say over who the mastering engineer is. You may get a name engineer but it is much more likely that you will get someone who is part way through their training. A potentially bigger issue is that some tend to batch process.




Our mastering room is big enough for 2.1 with our mid fields but is too small for 7.2 with far fields. It's an on-going debate between me and my business partner as to whether or not we do some surround work now before we're properly set up to test the water or wait until we have a facility that is equipped or at least very nearly equipped.* You can probably guess which side I'm arguing

Processing is pretty much all in hand by the way. The main thing that we'd have to do there is just do a minor change to our Cranesong monitor controller and add an additional switiching unit to change it from 2.1 to full 7.2. That's easy enogh and is only about $2000 plus a bit for the cabling. Our mastering daw is already fully spec'ed for post and surround so all the control switching to fully sync AV at frame rate is already there. Has to be really as we do 2.1 post anyway.


* there are some studios who do do 7.2 surround but really do not have the room and monitoring set up to be able to do it properly. That's understandable as you do need a very large room and that with the far field mastering grade monitors is a big investment.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Aug 1 2014, 02:07 AM

You and your biz partner are BOTH right of course But maybe you can both be right and just take turns being right? If you let him be right for a little while at first, before making the BIG investment, you can start gauging the demand, dipping in to surround work, developing the process, making contacts etc. without the big capital risk.

If it goes well, and you guys make some extra scratch, then it's your turn to be "right" and invest in what is clearly a new revenue stream for the business See what I mean? Basically, make do with the minimum, spending as little as you can, dig in to the surround market, then expand once you have the revenue to support it

I can't tell you how many times in the past I have spent money on gear/software in expectation of work/gigs and then said work/gigs fell apart, never happened, etc. These days, I work on "float". I buy some new gear, immediately put it up for sale, and try to improve it a bit and make a little money on it. When it sells, I've already picked out what I wanna try next. That way I don't get stuck holding gear that can't be justified on the balance sheet. IT's just a temporary asset soon to generate revenue

Todd