How protective are you guys about who masters your stuff?
I've been burned a bunch and I have a short-list of mastering engineers with whom I have terrific relationships. I'm generally of the mindset that a band gets what they want, but in a situation were a mastering engineer can easily ruin any of the hard work I've done to ensure the band gets what they want on a project, I find myself being a little more protective. Anyone else deal with this sort of thing frequently? Ever? Any amusing anecdotes?
Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC
How Proctective Are You Guys...
-
yardleyone
- steve albini likes it
- Posts: 314
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 8:26 am
- Location: louisville ky
Well I was the band in this situation, but I swear I have purchased the worst mastering job ever. It should go in a textbook or something. The thing littlre fuzzed out my speakers. My guess is that the guy didn't even listen to the songs the whole way through. So I called him up and he took another stab at it, with the samehorrible results. At that point I thanksed him for his time and had the guy that engineered the thing do some mastering on the PC. It was alright. When those songs come on the radio they are a little more quiet than the stuff they are butted up against, but I'm kinda proud of that.
all the bad leaves fall on cake for heaven's sake
I've never had anybody else master anything I mixed. I don't really have a problem with a client picking somebody else to do so, after all it's their product.
But so far all my clients have preferred I both mix and master their work. I have an extremely well treated room, and the result always seems to translate well to other systems.
________
Threesome Sex
But so far all my clients have preferred I both mix and master their work. I have an extremely well treated room, and the result always seems to translate well to other systems.
________
Threesome Sex
Last edited by philbo on Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
soundguy
- ghost haunting audio students
- Posts: 3182
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
protrective enough to try to address it one way or another in the deal memo.
I think as an engineer the best you can probably do is make some suggestions and hope for the best, however as a producer, it is my personal opinion that the producer should have the final decision.
To make this less of an esoteric idea for some folks, take a listen to your favorite old classic rock record that has now been remastered in computerworld. High Voltage pretty much sounds like a totally and completely different record if you compare the vinyl with the new CD's. I have a CD of T-Rex Slider that is just flat out, completely and totally distorted. The record just doesnt sound like that.
If you are the type of a producer who works hard to get a specific sound in mastering, its a big 'ol bummer when that specific sound is transformed into something you never, ever, under any circumstances imagined. When I know Im in control of a project, I typically mix anticipating mastering as the final stage of my mix, not just something that just gets applied like the silkscreen on the CD's. This scenario is a very different type of mix compared to what I'll do if I have no idea where its going.
Whatever debate ensues over who should carry the responsibility of selecting the ME or how appropriate it may be to expect to have input on the decision one way or another, there are definitely occasions in making records where decisions are made based upon who will be handling the master. Those decisions cant be made until a ME has been selected. If a producer or mix engineer isnt mandating that selection in their contract, ME decisions are typically made after the record has been mixed which IMO is just the wrong time to be thinking about mastering. Perhaps not all, but certainly there are jobs out there which would definitely benefit from either giving that decision over to the producer or mixer or at the very least deciding at the beginning of the record so the mixer can open some communication while things can be tweaked.
If you have a good relationship with a mastering house you can do ground breaking things like mix one song, send it to them, get a rough tweak back from them and then have half a clue as to what the record is gonna sound like while you are mixing. Groudbreaking...
Maybe I spun this one out a little, Im right smack in the middle of mastering something this week.
dave
I think as an engineer the best you can probably do is make some suggestions and hope for the best, however as a producer, it is my personal opinion that the producer should have the final decision.
To make this less of an esoteric idea for some folks, take a listen to your favorite old classic rock record that has now been remastered in computerworld. High Voltage pretty much sounds like a totally and completely different record if you compare the vinyl with the new CD's. I have a CD of T-Rex Slider that is just flat out, completely and totally distorted. The record just doesnt sound like that.
If you are the type of a producer who works hard to get a specific sound in mastering, its a big 'ol bummer when that specific sound is transformed into something you never, ever, under any circumstances imagined. When I know Im in control of a project, I typically mix anticipating mastering as the final stage of my mix, not just something that just gets applied like the silkscreen on the CD's. This scenario is a very different type of mix compared to what I'll do if I have no idea where its going.
Whatever debate ensues over who should carry the responsibility of selecting the ME or how appropriate it may be to expect to have input on the decision one way or another, there are definitely occasions in making records where decisions are made based upon who will be handling the master. Those decisions cant be made until a ME has been selected. If a producer or mix engineer isnt mandating that selection in their contract, ME decisions are typically made after the record has been mixed which IMO is just the wrong time to be thinking about mastering. Perhaps not all, but certainly there are jobs out there which would definitely benefit from either giving that decision over to the producer or mixer or at the very least deciding at the beginning of the record so the mixer can open some communication while things can be tweaked.
If you have a good relationship with a mastering house you can do ground breaking things like mix one song, send it to them, get a rough tweak back from them and then have half a clue as to what the record is gonna sound like while you are mixing. Groudbreaking...
Maybe I spun this one out a little, Im right smack in the middle of mastering something this week.
dave
http://www.glideonfade.com
one hundred percent discrete transistor recording with style and care.
one hundred percent discrete transistor recording with style and care.
an abbreviated version of what dave said, yet perhaps less formal cuz of the smaller scale things i work on (i've never done any deal memos or any formal agreements prior to recording), BUT i make it a point to bring up mastering at some point in the tracking session to see what they are thinking, and then recommend someone else from there if i'm not excited about the answer i get. this is usually a good time to interject any "loudness war" info if the band isn;t already familiar with the issue, and gives them enough time to think about what you have to say before it coming up the day of the mastering session. in the end it's in thier court, but at the same time you're in a position at that point to make a good case for something that'll be flattering for all parties. i'll also then make it a point to initiate contact w/that ME to get a dialogue going about what i was going for in the production and try to get them in on the thing before just blindly throwing up the reels.
again like dave said, having a good relationship w/the ME is fantastic for this because you'll already have a bit of a dialogue going and they'll know your quirks ahead of time. and even though there are ME's i've used that i wasnt happy w/the results looking back (back when i didn't know as much about stuff - or couldn't articulate what i did and didn't want) - if need be, i'd be ok with that person again so long as i was able to talk to them ahead of time and get them on the same consistent production page i started with the session. i don't really trust bands or most labels to make that decision themselves cuz i've seen a lot of really good master tapes come out on the other end kinda crappy - something i think coulda been resolved with better communication.
again like dave said, having a good relationship w/the ME is fantastic for this because you'll already have a bit of a dialogue going and they'll know your quirks ahead of time. and even though there are ME's i've used that i wasnt happy w/the results looking back (back when i didn't know as much about stuff - or couldn't articulate what i did and didn't want) - if need be, i'd be ok with that person again so long as i was able to talk to them ahead of time and get them on the same consistent production page i started with the session. i don't really trust bands or most labels to make that decision themselves cuz i've seen a lot of really good master tapes come out on the other end kinda crappy - something i think coulda been resolved with better communication.
-
cgarges
- zen recordist
- Posts: 10890
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 1:26 am
- Location: Charlotte, NC
- Contact:
I guess I should have specified a little more.
What about when the band finds some guy they want to try? What if the band is a on a super-tight budget and may not be able to afford to have the thing re-mastered by the right person if their guy screws it up? What if they can't hear a difference? You know...those kinds of things.
Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC
What about when the band finds some guy they want to try? What if the band is a on a super-tight budget and may not be able to afford to have the thing re-mastered by the right person if their guy screws it up? What if they can't hear a difference? You know...those kinds of things.
Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC
Just tell them to send it to John Golden.
It's cheap and always great and you don't even have to be there, and it's always right. It will sound exactly like your production only louder and more translatable unless you specify otherwise. It's so cheap there's no reason not to. Anybody you pay to master who charges less than that is going to be a waste of your money anyhow.
Problem solved!
It's cheap and always great and you don't even have to be there, and it's always right. It will sound exactly like your production only louder and more translatable unless you specify otherwise. It's so cheap there's no reason not to. Anybody you pay to master who charges less than that is going to be a waste of your money anyhow.
Problem solved!
A band I know had their album mastered by a guy who does the fugazi records. It first came back with a nice pause in the song(s) and it took quite a long time to get it back. So he fixed it, and it took even longer. Still didn't sound that great.
-Chris
http://www.ctmsound.com
http://www.ctmsound.com
-
i am monster face
- buyin' gear
- Posts: 524
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: Omaha
- Contact:
I know this sounds weird, but after a band got a terrible mastering job for real cheap, I offered to cut my last payment in half if they got it remastered by a professional. The first press was released locally and didn't really generate much discussion anywhere outside of town. The second pressing was remastered by Doug Van Sloun at Studio B in Omaha and sounded incredible. Now that band is on Koncurrent and touring Europe as we speak.
The weird thing, was that the band had no problem with the original master. I hated it.
The original mastering job made me look terrible and I couldn't deal with that.
My thought was that I could deal with losing a few hundred on their final payment if it meant that other musicians in town would be more interested in me.
Eh, maybe I was just paranoid.
Ian
The weird thing, was that the band had no problem with the original master. I hated it.
The original mastering job made me look terrible and I couldn't deal with that.
My thought was that I could deal with losing a few hundred on their final payment if it meant that other musicians in town would be more interested in me.
Eh, maybe I was just paranoid.
Ian
It amazes me how little people seem to understand that mastering is among the most important, if not THE most important step in the recording/reproducing process outside of the actual performances.
I think with the ability of most bands being able to release things independently (compared to 20 years ago) a general misunderstanding about what makes a good master has surfaced, and that ignorance has made it onto many a record. Say what you want about being on a label, but at least they will try and get a good product, and they realize that when you get to the mastering stage, it's time to SPEND your money rather than cut corners. I'd record in a cheaper studio with less gear and maybe even a slightly less experienced engineer if it was the only way I could afford a great mastering job. But that's just me.
I think with the ability of most bands being able to release things independently (compared to 20 years ago) a general misunderstanding about what makes a good master has surfaced, and that ignorance has made it onto many a record. Say what you want about being on a label, but at least they will try and get a good product, and they realize that when you get to the mastering stage, it's time to SPEND your money rather than cut corners. I'd record in a cheaper studio with less gear and maybe even a slightly less experienced engineer if it was the only way I could afford a great mastering job. But that's just me.
-
MoreSpaceEcho
- zen recordist
- Posts: 6677
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am
well i disagree with that, i think the tracking and mix is way more important than mastering will ever be. yeah in mastering you can completely ruin everything that was done in tracking and mix, but without those things you'd have nothing to master in the first place, so....brad347 wrote:It amazes me how little people seem to understand that mastering is among the most important, if not THE most important step in the recording/reproducing process outside of the actual performances.
anyway, as i mentioned in the bad master philosophy thread, i had stuff i mixed mastered by a pro down in NYC and i didn't really like what he did at all. as the guy who mixed it, i was bummed out and kind of offended, honestly, cause i didn't think he did my mix any favors. but whatever. its not my record, and i wasn't present at the mastering session, so i've no idea what kinda conversation happened between the artist and ME.
unfortunately, if bands are gonna continue to insist that their records be stupidly loud and distorted, and ME's are gonna comply, then as the guys mixing the record we are kinda fucked. even if the band goes to a good ME who can make it retarded loud in the most agreeable fashion, it's still gonna change your mix a bunch, and i doubt anyone is gonna really like the master better than the mix.
one record i'm really curious about is the new mission of burma. recorded and mixed by bob weston, naturally. completely fucking totally hammered. i have a hard time believing that bob mixed it like that. also hard to believe that the band was insisting their record be the loudest thing ever, but fuck me, someone decided this thing sounds good....yeeeesh.
-
cgarges
- zen recordist
- Posts: 10890
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 1:26 am
- Location: Charlotte, NC
- Contact:
Well, suppose you tell them to send it to John Golden or Greg Calbi or Skippy LaRue or whoever your favorite mastering engineer is and they decide to go with the cheapest guy they can find anyway. Then, the master comes back screwed-up and because they can't hear it, they want you to deal with the guy you didn't want them to send it to in the first place. How do you handle that situation?brad347 wrote:Just tell them to send it to John Golden.
I'm sort of throwing together a bunch of my personal experiences and just wondering how some of you would handle it. I'm not talking about finding a good mastering engineer, I'm talking about ensuring that your work isn't butchered by someone else.
Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC
-
MoreSpaceEcho
- zen recordist
- Posts: 6677
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am
well you gotta define 'butchered'.
if it's a case of way too loud and clipped/distorted and the band said they wanted their record slammed, you can't really blame the mastering guy. i think at current levels of loud its gonna sound like shit no matter who masters.
OTOH, a friend had an experience with a name ME recently where he got the ref cd back and everything sounded good (processing/levels-wise) but the guy completely screwed up all the transitions between the songs....screwed up to the point where there'd be 20 seconds of tape hiss from the first song trailing off under the start of the second.
stuff like that is obviously wrong and should be fixed by the ME for free. likewise in that other thread where there were typos and such in the cd text. obviously the ME is at fault and should fix it.
if it's a case of way too loud and clipped/distorted and the band said they wanted their record slammed, you can't really blame the mastering guy. i think at current levels of loud its gonna sound like shit no matter who masters.
OTOH, a friend had an experience with a name ME recently where he got the ref cd back and everything sounded good (processing/levels-wise) but the guy completely screwed up all the transitions between the songs....screwed up to the point where there'd be 20 seconds of tape hiss from the first song trailing off under the start of the second.
stuff like that is obviously wrong and should be fixed by the ME for free. likewise in that other thread where there were typos and such in the cd text. obviously the ME is at fault and should fix it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 134 guests