Dealing with record lables and you recordings...

Brett Siler · Post by **Brett Siler** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 1:47 pm

So I have been recording this hardcore/punk band that is going to have an upcoming release for a bigger record lable called Facedown records. ?Before we started tracking the band said they wanted a more open sound than most hardcore albums (that mostly use just close mikes almost no room mics), and they wanted it to just stand out and sound different. ?So we recorded the drums in this big church. ?Mic'd the drums with overheads a room mic out front and ambient mics, then we did
all the guitars and vocals at my house. ?Everything went smoothly, we mixed it, everyone in the band was really happy with how it sounded and I was happy with it so we sent it off. ?The lable gets and calls the band tells them they don't
like the mixes. ?The lables says they want a "tighter" sound, where everything is "in your face." ?Basically they said it wasn't "commercial" enough sounding. ?The band and I am not happy to hear this because we both worked long hours on it and were both very happy with how it sounded. ?It is aggressive but still has depth and diminsion to it. ?The band told me they want to to call the lable and talk to them.

So what do I do? ?Both the band and I don't want to change the sound. ?Should I call the lable and try to explain the reasoning behind the bands' and my deciesions with the mixes, or should I just listen to the lable and cut out the depth and make the mixes sound like a beer commercial? ?

I will post a link soon so you can hear how a mix sounds....

GrimmBrotherScott · Post by **GrimmBrotherScott** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:38 pm

Who paid to have the album made? Did the band sign anything?

If the label paid, they own that recording. They can shelve it if they want to. Does the band have a manager? It is really the manager's job to deal with this and give you guidance.

To actually add some advice instead of just ask questions, don't burn any bridges with the label if they actually are paying to have albums made. The band could break up tomorrow but if the label thinks you are an upstanding guy and a good engineer/producer, you could get a lot more work from them.

digital eagle audio · Post by **digital eagle audio** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 4:07 pm

that shit sucks. a lot. but i'm pretty sure you aren't in a position to do much. it really does depend on the band. if they aren't contractually obligated, maybe they should shop it around.
definitely post the mixes - i'm pretty curious. and pictures if you've got em!

Brett Siler · Post by **Brett Siler** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 6:40 pm

GrimmBrotherScott wrote:Who paid to have the album made? Did the band sign anything?

If the label paid, they own that recording. They can shelve it if they want to. Does the band have a manager? It is really the manager's job to deal with this and give you guidance.

The lable paid to have the album recorded. The band does not have a manager, so they kinda stuck this on me and I have to call the lable owner and talk to him. I am really not looking forward to it.

As for the band shopping the album around i don't think that is an option for them. The lable is a bigger name and they want to put it out with them.

Sound clips:
Here is one that gives a good example of the room mic useage on the drums. At the very beginning we are just using the overheads, room, and ambient mics, then when everyone comes in together the close mics come into play on the drums.

http://media.putfile.com/The-Hits-Keep-Coming

This track is a slower (for punk) piece and it just calls for room sound.

http://media.putfile.com/these-days48

Bedfordstop · Post by **Bedfordstop** » Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:15 pm

If the label paid to have it recorded, its their record, and so unfortunately they do have a say in how it comes out.

I have no great respect for the musical opinions of 'industry' types, but in this instance, i actually think they have a point. in the first Clip you posted, the room / ambient mics don't have quite the impact that maybe they should, and for this kind of music it wouldn't hurt to remix it to make the drums sound more immediate. You are right, it works better for the second clip, but the first one could use a little tweaking. Just my humble opinion. Overall i like the recording (the band themselves aren't really my cup of tea, but your engineering is good)

Just a word of warning - if you draw a line in the sand, and turn in a record the label doesn't like, you could be in trouble. Because as previous posters mentioned, it likely won't get the big push you need, the label may see the band as "difficult" and not a good group to partner up with. As a case in point, i have a friend who released an amazing album on a fairly reputable NY indie label. But they got in big arguments about the production and the vocals and mixes and stuff in the months before the release date - the label decided he was a pain in the ass (which is true) and they ended up releasing it but barely promoted it. It faded into obscurity, and he never released another album with them (or with anyone else) - that was 1998. I bet if you asked him today he would have done things a wee bit differently.

Now, this is not to say that you should ever, EVER let a label turn your records into shitty records. If they had suggested something extreme - like getting a new band member or going in a different musical direction, naturally you have to stand your ground. But ultimately, doing some remixes to get a tighter drum sound is not going to fundamentally alter the quality of the material. The same hardcore kids who like the band are still going to like the band with a tighter drum sound.

I understand that you and your band are pissed off, because you turned in a record you were happy with. But bands and labels NEED to be partners. If the band didn't want to work with anyone else, they should put out the record themselves, and not take anyone else's money. OR they should have put a "full artistic control" clause in the contract.

But maybe you could work out a compromise. If the label wants a more commercial sound, maybe they could pick a few tracks that have potential as "singles" or licensing, and remix those but leave the rest of the album untouched. See if the album makes musical sense with tight drums then ambient drums. If not, then i would advise compromising with the label. Maybe you can use it as some sort of leverage and say "if we remix this for you in good faith, you give us something in return" - But declaring war with a label especially when you are small and not yet established is a bad, BAD idea.

InvalidInk wrote:
GrimmBrotherScott wrote:Who paid to have the album made? Did the band sign anything?

If the label paid, they own that recording. They can shelve it if they want to. Does the band have a manager? It is really the manager's job to deal with this and give you guidance.
The lable paid to have the album recorded. The band does not have a manager, so they kinda stuck this on me and I have to call the lable owner and talk to him. I am really not looking forward to it.

As for the band shopping the album around i don't think that is an option for them. The lable is a bigger name and they want to put it out with them.

Sound clips:
Here is one that gives a good example of the room mic useage on the drums. At the very beginning we are just using the overheads, room, and ambient mics, then when everyone comes in together the close mics come into play on the drums.

http://media.putfile.com/The-Hits-Keep-Coming

This track is a slower (for punk) piece and it just calls for room sound.

http://media.putfile.com/these-days48

cgarges · Post by **cgarges** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 7:05 am

I think it's the band that needs to take a stand. If you feel it necessary to talk to the label and the band really likes the way the album sounds, that's all you should have to say to the label. Anything else is between them and the band. If the label wants to pay to spend more time on it, that's fine, but the contract is between the band and the label and not you and the label. The band has to be okay with what the label wants or convince them otherwise. That shouldn't be your responsibility.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

rocky · Post by **rocky** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:45 pm

I'm in the position right now where I've had to tweak a few mixes on the advice of the label that's putting out our album, to be honest I'm happy to do it.
I take on board, and value their opinion, because they've put out a bunch of stuff that I love, and i trust them.

It sounds like you are in a different position though!
I do think the band should be fighting their own case,
I think it's worrying that the band & label aren't on the same page at this stage.
But there's always room for compromise, it depends how much the band trusts the label, and how well the label understands the band.

Good luck!

rocky · Post by **rocky** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 4:50 pm

I'm in the position right now where I've had to tweak a few mixes on the advice of the label that's putting out our album, to be honest I'm happy to do it.
I take on board, and value their opinion, because they've put out a bunch of stuff that I love, and i trust them.

It sounds like you are in a different position though!
I do think the band should be fighting their own case,
I think it's worrying that the band & label aren't on the same page at this stage.
But there's always room for compromise, it depends how much the band trusts the label, and how well the label understands the band.

Good luck!

Brett Siler · Post by **Brett Siler** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 5:41 pm

Thanks for your input guys. I was kinda frustrated yesterday but I got to sleep on and feel a little better. I just think that it is shitty that I have to be the one calling the lable and explaining the motives of the bands decision of the recording sound. I am willing to make comprimises, after all it is their album, not mine. This will also give me more time to tweak somethings in the mix that both me because we did have much time to mix it.

Any suggestions or constructive criticism on the mixing would be much appreciated.

Ethan Holdtrue · Post by **Ethan Holdtrue** » Tue Jan 03, 2006 8:30 pm

I know what your talking about as far as hardcore labels refer to as 'comercial' (cause I run one) and it is pretty retarted. I think you have a realy good sounding recording, and it's to bad that they want you to turn it into what I'm guessing is your typical triggery-sounding mosh-core crap.

you know what... try this:

cut the room mics by about 25%

re-gate>compress>EQ your bass drum

re-gate>compress>boost mids and highs in the snare

I think most of what they are probably upset about is in the drums, so if you can tighten up the drums a little they will probably be happy.

iamredarrow · Post by **iamredarrow** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:51 am

Jason's label hasn't put out a good, new record since ever. Facedown is synonymous with tired old crap.

Too bad, because Jason himself is the nicest guy I've ever talked to in real life. If the guys feel like they're trying to break from the mold, encourage that- the Facedown discography is so once-sided there's no reason to buy new records from them. You know what they're going to sound like.

I mean, we do have to do what they want- they pay us. But try to persuade him a bit. He needs it.

Brett Siler · Post by **Brett Siler** » Wed Jan 04, 2006 11:14 am

Ethan Holdtrue wrote:I know what your talking about as far as hardcore labels refer to as 'comercial' (cause I run one) and it is pretty retarted. I think you have a realy good sounding recording, and it's to bad that they want you to turn it into what I'm guessing is your typical triggery-sounding mosh-core crap.

you know what... try this:

cut the room mics by about 25%

re-gate>compress>EQ your bass drum

re-gate>compress>boost mids and highs in the snare

I think most of what they are probably upset about is in the drums, so if you can tighten up the drums a little they will probably be happy.

Thanks for the suggestion. Yeah you guessed it, the drums are the main problem. Isn't it sick how formulated hardcore is getting.... I guess it was pretty niave of me to think that a harcore lable would want to try something different.

iamredarrow, I talked to Jason yesterday and he was nice. I tried to explain to him the sound but he wasn't really having it. It is true about what you say about their bands albums and that is how the band I am recording felt. Now they are worried that they aren't going get the album out so they are just doing whatever the lable tells them. lame.... I guess it was pretty niave of me to think that a harcore lable would want to try something different.

I'll post some of the remixes up to show the changes. They are wanting me to make a few different mixes but I know how they want it to sound. Close mics and compression....

iamredarrow · Post by **iamredarrow** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:14 pm

Bummer, man. Wish things could've worked out different.

GrimmBrotherScott · Post by **GrimmBrotherScott** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:59 pm

Just posting to say good job at handling the situation. The band put you in a lousy position and you did well. Dealing with things in a professional way will always make people remember you and will bring more work.

Brett Siler · Post by **Brett Siler** » Fri Jan 06, 2006 4:27 pm

Well thanks guys. After sleeping on it I kinda chilled out. It is just kind frustrating... I am remixing one of the songs and its not to hard to change it. Turn down room mics, turn up close mics, gate, compress, repeat.... ha I have been putting the Vintage Warmer of the stereo mix and the lable and the band likes it, I just hope the mastering place will.....

The lable and the band likes it and that is all that matters. I don't think the new versions sound "bad" just different.

Here is a new mix
http://media.putfile.com/Blood-On-The-Tracks-2

Heres another:
http://media.putfile.com/heaven-knows-2

Message Board

Dealing with record lables and you recordings...

Dealing with record lables and you recordings...

Who is online