On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 10:24:15PM -0400, Andrew Duke Cognition Audioworks wrote:
quoted 8 lines If you can, I would always recommend mastering by someone else rather>
> If you can, I would always recommend mastering by someone else rather
> than yourself. Sure, make what you submit for mastering sound as good
> as you possibly can, but don't think that someone else's fresh ears can't
> make your work sound even better. Your job as a producer is to produce
> the best music you can. A masterer's job is to objectively take what you've
> produced and make it sound as good as it possibly can.
>
Agreed that in an ideal world, you'd have someone else who is not the
producer of a release.. master the release.
However, I usually deal with small labels who are themselves on a tight
budget. I can't tell you how many times I've been burnt buy letting
someone else master tracks. I spend days mixing a track and am told by a
label that is it will be "professionally mastered" before release.
Then I get the final cd and it sounds like shit and I feel like all that
time i spent tweaking, mixing, eqing tracks was just completely wasted.
I also feel that there is a new reality where no matter how much
production and mastering you do, 90% of people will end up hearing your
music via 128k mp3's they get off P2P on their computer speakers anyway.
So at this point, I master everything myself rather than hear my stuff
on a comp again and it sounds like shit. We all may be savy enough to
realize "oh, whomever mastered this really did a bad job but the song is
cool" but I think the vast majority of people wont do that and will just
intuitivly know "this sucks" vs the next song which "kicks ass". They
dont' know why, they just know somethings not good about you track.
hell = other people.
:-D
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org