how do you know when you're finished?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sucram
  • Start date Start date
S

sucram

New member
To all the musician/engineers who do their own music from start to finish by themselves with no other input, how do you know when a track is really done? I've been tweaking my first demo for longer than i care to admit, but I'm still hearing things in it that I'd like to change; things that aren't *just perfect* compared to my vision.
I guess I'm wondering if everyone has the same difficulty (pathology?) that I do. I dilligently audition the tracks on all the stereos we have in the house and car, and sometimes I'm actually proud of the sound. Sometimes when it's late and I'm on the edge of sleep, I'll hear something and think, "Hey, that was pretty cool. What is this anyway?" only to realize it's me. But then there's the computer speakers at work and the car stereo (I convert the line out of a CD player to a cassette input) that make me wonder if it's really finished. It's not that it sounds bad, it's just that i hear things in it that *could* be improved artistically or sonically. I'm comparing it to pro stuff of course, and i don't really expect it to be just as good sonically, but i'll admit that i expect it to be really close, and yes, done on the cheap, in a home studio, with inexpensive software.

Before you ask, I've decided not to spend a dime on mastering unless it's guaranteed that it will take me somewhere. I understand that getting someone else's take on it would _really_ help, and of course the acoustics of my studio (~8' x 11' with hardwood floors and no treatment!) are crap and need desperate attention, but my mind is made up about the money. Maybe someone will give me 20 one-minute trials of free mastering :D

So how on earth do you other people decide when to put a project behind you? Can anything really be absolutely perfect when it's your own? How good is "good enough" and how on earth do you know when you've gotten there?

All thoughts are appreciated and open to discussion,
marcus
 
It is a pathology of sorts. Having a deadline helps. At a certain point you just have to figure it's as good as you can make it and move on. Chalk it up to experience and then do some different things on the next session. But yeah, go ahead and have it mastered. Don't expect a miracle but if it comes back a bit louder, punchier and with the same tonal balance as what you sent in then consider it good.
 
Sucram, when you're recording your own music ... you're never really ever done with anything. Ever.

The only way to truyly ensure that you're done is to delete / erase all of your original tracks. But even then, you still run the danger of just going back and re-tracking everything from scratch a couple hundred times.

Otherwise, it doesn't matter. You'll listen to it again 10 years from now, and you'll say to yourself "Man, I could have mixed this part better," or "I just thought of a good backing vocal for that," and you'll probably go back and change something.

That's why I gave up recording my own stuff. :D Now I just record other people, and I'm not nearly as obsessive compulsive about it. Now I just have to put up with other people calling me at 4 in the morning asking if they can re-track their guitar solo. :D

I think the best way to approach your music -- if this is possible -- would be to picture it as a photograph, or a (historical) record. It's a "snapshot" of yourself at a particular point in time. A historical record of what you sounded like in 2005, given what you had to work with at the time and given the talent you had to do something in a reasonable amount of time. If you change something, then you've lost that snapshot forever.
 
chessrock said:
Sucram, when you're recording your own music ... you're never really ever done with anything. Ever.


You are so right!! Hard to stop, as you think you can "tweak it" just a bit more. :eek:
Ed
Click to expand...
 
sucram said:
So how on earth do you other people decide when to put a project behind you? Can anything really be absolutely perfect when it's your own? How good is "good enough" and how on earth do you know when you've gotten there?
Click to expand...

1. Walk away... for at least four weeks, six if possible.
2. Walk back in and spend one week listening in different environments. Note anything you hear, and do nightly fixes of everything you heard wrong. Burn a new CD. Repeat until you have spent a week or seven mix-downs (this may take more than a week if it takes more than an evening to do the fixes the first day).
3. Walk away for two weeks.
4. Listen to it again on decent speakers. If it sounds good to you, ship it. If not, go to step 2.

How do I know when I'm done? When nothing pisses me off about it while listening on a pair of Pioneer rock speakers, a pair of Spin-60 computer speakers, a pair of crappy car speakers, and my monitors.

By biggest problem is that I end up spending too long in step 1 or step 3, and end up hating the vocals, retracking them all for certain songs, and having to go through the whole process again. *sigh*
 
I know when I'm finished when my wife wakes up and tells me to get off of her.
 
Obsessive compulsiveness is a healthy disease known to recording engineers and musicians alike, honest.
 
I aim at good enough so that I can move on to another song. When I have 20 or so I might start going back. I play the music for my friends and family and they're not critical anyway. They got a much bigger kick out of 5 so-so recordings than one really good one.
 
chessrock said:
I think the best way to approach your music -- if this is possible -- would be to picture it as a photograph, or a (historical) record. It's a "snapshot" of yourself at a particular point in time. A historical record of what you sounded like in 2005, given what you had to work with at the time and given the talent you had to do something in a reasonable amount of time. If you change something, then you've lost that snapshot forever.
Click to expand...

Good call, chess. This is how I try to approach my own recordings. It's a documentation of where I was at that moment in time with regard to musical ability, equipment, and recording/mixing skill. There will be limitations present in virtually every situation, moreso in home recording. However, capturing the music is the key. Sure, I'm tempted to go retrack a part when I get some cool new stuff or think of a way I can improve it, but I do my best to resist those temptations. Once I've decided it's done, it's done. Save the improvements for the next recording and impress yourself and others with the progress you've made. It's a never-ending learning experience. Once you realize that, it gets easier to let go.
 
I know I'm done when I ask myself your question.

You can get to a point where you start chasing your tail and making things worse. Usually it's the first or second take on a track that has the most immediacy even if it isn't "perfect". "Perfect" can be boring.

Likewise when mixing you can over-think a mix to the point where it sounds sterile.

The real question to ask is "How many more CDs can I sell by continuing to mix or track this further?".
 
dude.

the same thing happened to me mixing my first demo. actually i decided to do a full length cd for my first "real" project, and it was a band I was playing in. I had home-recorded for years but this would be the first time I would actually try to publish something.

no lie -

I mixed that album every day for 6 months.

my girlfriend wanted to leave me a few times.

so did the dog.


it came out sounding like horseshit.


i probably ruined my hearing.


it is a serious problem.


and I actually switched to analog after that experience.


But looking back; I think what the answer is is to either take the prior advice of not listening for 4-6 weeks, or to have someone else mix it. give them something with the right takes and everything, and let them do the eq and levels and panning and all of the stuff that could go on forever.


Also,

do you ever notice that sometimes your first mix is the best?

After waiting a month, I would do one mix, and live with it.
 
FALKEN said:
...and I actually switched to analog after that experience.
Click to expand...

That's worse than your dog leaving!

Seriously, though, why did you switch? And what have you gained?
 
chessrock said:
I think the best way to approach your music -- if this is possible -- would be to picture it as a photograph, or a (historical) record. It's a "snapshot" of yourself at a particular point in time. A historical record of what you sounded like in 2005, given what you had to work with at the time and given the talent you had to do something in a reasonable amount of time. If you change something, then you've lost that snapshot forever.
Click to expand...


Excellent! I think we all have cassettes from when we first started. And a stack of CD's of musical thoughts.. Well, not all of us just the old ones like me.


I consider my song done when I can't stand to hear it one more time.
 
this is all good to hear

Man, I thought I was losing my grip.
Falken, your situation sounds pretty similar to mine, right down to the months of remixing. I actually pared the demo down from a full 11 tracks to 4 earlier this year, and that's where it still stands. In fact, while I'm a digital devotee because of the affordability and the convenience, I was having some serious issues wondering if maybe I had too much faith in the "sound" of digital gear. And once you start doubting your gear (not to mention the absolutely horrid acoustics of my "studio" room), it's all over. Maybe my Delta66 won't cut it. The only plugins I've got that aren't shareware or freeware (no cracked stuff for me) are the ones that came with Sound Forge and Acid, and I'm now doubting the quality of them, whether they deserve it or not. And since I'm mastering (or pre-mastering, whichever you prefer), I'm wondering just how hot I should be making the mix, and how much bass should really be there. argh.

Chess, as far as a snapshot mentality goes, that seems fair. But come on, don't you want to look back at your history and say, "Damn that's hot!" instead of "Damn, that's amateur!" :) I don't think I'm alone when I say I want my work to be perfect. I don't know if I'd be able to listen to something that I wanted to correct. The problem comes when "perfect" is not necessarily the same from day to day.

What I really want is to send it off to get it mastered (at zero cost to me of course ;)) and have the ME say, "Man, this is a really good mix. All I need to take care of is the low end and balance the upper mids across the tracks with my billion dollar processors and monitors." Then that would be cool, assuming I'd like the tracks more in the end.

I don't *totally* expect my mix to sound like a pro CD. I want to believe that it theoretically could, and I'd rather hear that it's the mixing, not the gear because the gear will impose a ceiling on the fidelity of my tracks. But I know in my heart that my expectations are higher than they probably should be. I can't let that go though, and thus, I'm in that limbo between "needs more" and "mail it out".

Thanks for listening to me whine,
marcus
 
scottboyher said:
I consider my song done when I can't stand to hear it one more time.
Click to expand...


Yup. :D That's probably a sign that it's been done, and it's time now to move on to bigger and better things.

For the sake of your own health and sanity.
 
sucram said:
What I really want is to send it off to get it mastered (at zero cost to me of course ;)) and have the ME say, "Man, this is a really good mix.
Click to expand...

you could always send stems.

at this point there is no point in doubting your gear.

I would just give it a rest for at least 2 weeks.

make 1 good mix.

if you still doubt it, send the stems with it.

and let it be.
 
sucram said:
What I really want is to send it off to get it mastered (at zero cost to me of course ;))
Click to expand...

Good luck on that one. :D


come on, don't you want to look back at your history and say, "Damn that's hot!" instead of "Damn, that's amateur!"
Click to expand...

Yes and no. I'd like to think it at least showed some potential. But I'd be really depressed to think that I hadn't made any progress from my earlier recordings to what I'm doing now. I mean unless you're some sort of recording prodigy, your earliest stuff is always going to sound like crap to you when you listen back years later -- assuming you've worked at it and improved. That's pretty much a given.
 
Scott B: How serious are you with that comment? I sometimes get a kick out of my tracks still, but really, the love is gone, and that's kind of sad. Now when I hear them, it feels like it's mostly just technical listening. There's no real magic. Is it time to quit? Is 4 years long enough to work on a track? :D

Masteringhouse: Is it really that simple? Cause I've been asking these questions for a while! On another note, when you're mastering any given album, how much do you try to tame things into being "polished" versus allowing "character" to poke through? I know it's not an easy question, and probably answered by, "depends", but speaking as an ME, do you play it safe and control everything all the time, or do you not mind it if some things (volume spikes, tinniness, muddiness, etc.) get through and are noticed. Of course, I'm speaking about your personal thoughts regarding the work, and not the desires of your clients.

-marcus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top