do you care?

How much money do you make from your music?
If the answer is "not enough to survive on", then no.
I create my music for myself. Half my soundcloud plays are me listening to my own music.

If you were truly intent on making your entire living off of your music, it would be a competition. It's a buyer's market and your product is by default almost worthless. You're going to have to impress really, really hard to sell.

You responded to my question, but I don't think you answered it. You answered it like a politician answers questions. I'm not asking if you're pro or amateur. I'm wondering if you try to live up to your hero's mixes when you mix and make your mixes sound like that. (Your hero has to be a modern hero in this example.)
 
I thought I gave a decent explanation and you ignored it.

I am all for any person to have their opinions, but I find it odd that you ask for others opinions and then debate them.

What are you actually asking? It comes off as 'if I sound like shit to match a certain style-do I suck'?

No it doesn't. It is just what you wish to sound like. Fucking done...
 
I've been thinking about this bit that you said:

"I would maybe say "You wanna make sure your clients' music is comparable and of similar quality to that which potential listeners of any particular genre expect to hear"."
 
I've been thinking about this bit that you said:

"I would maybe say "You wanna make sure your clients' music is comparable and of similar quality to that which potential listeners of any particular genre expect to hear"."

Well, that is how I feel about it.

I don't try to 'compete' with anyone. In fact I recommend other studios to people that have intentions of recording at a level my studio can't produce. And we are still friends and work together on other projects.

I suppose my point is that any given artist makes the decision as to what is right for them. Asking another what their opinion is and then debating why they made that decision is just poking at them.

I am on your side as far as doing what you feel is best for you. Fuck, I would give free time or buy you shit to get there.
 
You see my behavior as debating, but my intention is to explore what people think about this. Either way, both are allowed here.

But to return to the topic, here's where I'm at with it. I've been thinking about mastering. I've been thinking about what you get for what you pay. And when that guy in that video I referenced said "You wanna make sure your clients' music is competitive and contemporary," I thought no, that's not necessarily what I want to pay for when I pay for mastering. I also thought something along these lines: "I bet a lot of ME's think like that because that's what their clients want, but I bet a lot of amateurs on HR don't mix like that." So I came here and asked the question to find out exactly what people here think about it. I got some ideas from John and you and RAMI and Greg and especially Gecko. Now I'm clearer about it. At this point, I'm going to start using reference mixes big time when I mix. But I am not going to use only contemporary mixes - I'll be listening to all sorts of stuff from all sorts of eras.

Sorry to bore the shit out of you, but you seemed to want a response from me.

And FWIW, here's a link to the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1J26ul5Kkc#t=128

Just past the 2.00 mark.
 
But I don't try to sound like Paul Simon's last record when I do that.

I don't try to sound like Paul Simon either . . . at least not specifically. But when I do listen to Paul Simon or anyone else's music, I am always comparing the quality of their results to the quality I can get. I do this in particular with mixes in the MP3 clinic here.

Each time I listen to a song I ask myself, "are my mixes better than that, or is that mix better than mine? If so, what it makes it better?"

I can't necessarily tell from the song I listen to how much its mastering has an impact on the overall sound. To do that I would need a before and after. All I've got to go on is what's there.
 
You responded to my question, but I don't think you answered it. You answered it like a politician answers questions. I'm not asking if you're pro or amateur. I'm wondering if you try to live up to your hero's mixes when you mix and make your mixes sound like that. (Your hero has to be a modern hero in this example.)

I don't know any engineers.
I don't reference my mixes to songs I like.

So no.
 
Why else would I pester the MP3 Mixing Clinic with my tracks?
I want them to be as good as they can be.
NOT as loud as they can be or as loud as the latest release or mixed for mp3 players - as stand alone songs & in groups of songs I want them to sound as good as they can be that's why I send them to an ME when the mix is as good as it can get between my ears and the suggestions of those I trust.
 
I don't think I care dobro. Competitive and contemporary are not what comes to mind at all when I'm mixing or "mastering" my songs.

I mean in terms of the music itself, I don't want it to sound specifically dated or anything, but beyond that...?

I would go further to say that I specifically do not want to sound like anything else, even other people's mixes I admire and/or enjoy.

Not that there's anything inherently good about sounding different, but for me a lot of the fun comes from doing things differently every time. My desire is to have each song, track and mix sound different from the last. I suppose if I ever struck upon something that seemed perfect I might repeat it, but that hasn't happened yet.

I do compete with you however. I have a scorecard here where I rank our mixes and I am currently in the lead 161 - 147. So there!

:)
 
It's not a matter of competition so much as context. People are used to hearing certain genres sound certain ways. I mix and master with that in mind. That is, I don't try to replicate a specific song, I try to make my work stand up in the context of that kind of music.

Of course if a client is asking me to match a specific song I'll do my best to match it. Other than that I make it sound good to me and not out of context for the genre.
 
I don't think I care dobro. Competitive and contemporary are not what comes to mind at all when I'm mixing or "mastering" my songs.

I mean in terms of the music itself, I don't want it to sound specifically dated or anything, but beyond that...?

I would go further to say that I specifically do not want to sound like anything else, even other people's mixes I admire and/or enjoy.

Well, okay at this point I'm thinking I put this thread in the wrong forum. I'm thinking it belongs in the mixing forum actually. (I put it in this forum without thinking just because the guys in that video are mastering engineers.) Pro mixers work for other people so of course they will be very sensitive to public taste in mixes because their clients will be very sensitive to public taste in mixes. And the reason you and I have got the luxury of not caring is cuz we don't have to worry about selling stuff. But you know, even if I *did* aspire to make my mixes 'competitive and contemporary' I don't have the chops to actually pull that off. :)

I do compete with you however. I have a scorecard here where I rank our mixes and I am currently in the lead 161 - 147. So there!

:)

That's about right. Your count's based on quantity, right? :D
 
I think that producers and songwriters worry more about being 'contemporary and competetive' - a hell of a lot of making a track sound like it fits in with a certain genre (be it Pop, Metal, Jazz or any other) is decided by the arrangement and songwriting. As an engineer I think it would be hubris to think that my input would make a track sound less/more contemporary - unless I was also producing the track and arranging it. Pop/chart music mixes are quite varied here in the UK from what I've heard recently., 'contemporary and competetive' sounds a lot to me like a convenient sound-bite that doesnt mean as much as it seems - both are subjective and contextual terms.

Might as well as say 'you want your music to sound not out of place with other releases'.
 
If I have a paying customer I do take extra steps to make the recording as comparable as possible to commercially successful artists in whatever genre the client has brought to me. I often ask the client to bring 1 or 2 reference cd's of artists they hope to "sound like" and I do my best to get "close"

I am not as anal with my own material - unless it is something I plan to market to publishers, etc. I do have a few reference cd's I refer to for 4 basic points of reference: 1) drum sounds 2 guitar sound 3) vocals and 4) overall mix/master - I can't claim that I can reproduce the sounds made in $250 per hour studios, that have $5,000 mics and $10,000 mic pres - engineered and produced by people with much more talent than I ........... but I do care enough to try.
 
A lot of my recordings end up with… ok, ALL of my recordings :) end up with certain characteristics that I've come to identify as my own “sound." I call it my audible signature. It is a somewhat subtle/nuanced thing and passive listeners probably wouldn’t even hear it, but I’m talking about all those little nitpicky things I notice that add up to the response I have every time I finish a project and listen back. Not saying it is negative or positive, for better or for worse… Hard to explain but I think you guys know what I am saying: recurring characteristics of any/one/all of my recordings that I can readily identify.

For a long time I tried to fight against these characteristics, for example a certain snare sound I cannot seem to escape no matter the room it is recorded, the drum itself, the mics I use, or the way it’s mixed! Or particular bass guitar frequencies I always seem to mix a certain way. Early on, I would compare my recordings to “real recordings,” and for a while I changed my process quite a bit to try to sound like stuff I listened to or heard in other people’s collections. However, as time went on, I started to realize that some of the steps I took to go against these sonic characteristics yielded less-preferred results than those very elements I was trying to erase from my audible signature. So while continuing to try to learn all I could about “why” these things were happening in my mix, and to still look at ways to counteract, I had to consider also looking at how to exploit these characteristics. Try to use these elements toward my advantage, develop my “sound” rather than try to change it to sound like someone else (what did Ozone call it, my contemporaries?).

It is one thing for me to want to continuously improve, but I also find (for me) there is some legitimacy in accepting, embracing actually, the idea that I sound like what I sound like. Hell, some folks are lucky enough to have made lucrative careers from delivering time-and-time-again on their individual sonic aesthetic. This is the long way of saying my answer to the original question is, yeah I am pretty sure back in the day I tried to sound like something else, but now I am pretty happy with how I sound so I don’t really get too excited about products that promise to make me sound like something else with the push of a button.

I think it has been covered already in this thread though; the idea is to sound the best I can. And there is a big difference between that concept and what I think Ozone is really selling if you read between the lines.
 
Back
Top