Master by Mail?

  • Thread starter Thread starter russtafari
  • Start date Start date
Blue Bear Sound said:
On a tangent..........

...I'm still a strong advocate for the licensing of audio engineers. Why isn't this already happening? Accountants are self-governed by a chartering body, why can't we initiate something similar for AEs/MEs?

Bruce, as an accountant, I absolutely agree. You're not going to get the extra layer of protection that you have with the official "professions"--law, accountancy, nursing, medicine, education, etc.--that is, the mandate of a government license--but voluntary chartering can be equally effective.

Professions usually have the following characteristics:

- Minimum educational requirements
- Minimum supervised work experience (apprenticeship)
- A licensing examination
- A code of ethics
- Continuing professional education

So, all you real pros, organize! Once the quality of the "Certified Professional Sound Engineer" becomes known, first labels, then artists will demand it.

:)
 
mshilarious said:
Bruce, as an accountant, I absolutely agree. You're not going to get the extra layer of protection that you have with the official "professions"--law, accountancy, nursing, medicine, education, etc.--that is, the mandate of a government license--but voluntary chartering can be equally effective.

Professions usually have the following characteristics:

- Minimum educational requirements
- Minimum supervised work experience (apprenticeship)
- A licensing examination
- A code of ethics
- Continuing professional education

So, all you real pros, organize! Once the quality of the "Certified Professional Sound Engineer" becomes known, first labels, then artists will demand it.

I'll never demand it. It would be completely meaningless to me.

None of this takes into account that what we are talking about here is an "art". The five criteria mentioned are kind of a joke when it comes to the music and audio business. It looks good on paper but it's like applying accountant thinking to the music/audio arts. It just doesn't fit.

A "licensing exam"? Seriously, this business just doesn't work that way. You are good or you aren't. If you are good you get hired hired, if you aren't you don't.

I've been a working professional in music since I graduated from college, and not once and I mean *never*, has any employer asked me where I went to school or expressed any interest in my training at all. It's all about what you can do, your talent and skills.

"Continuing professional education"? Where? Studying what? And if you are good at your job and have clients, where do you find the time? Further, your continuing education comes from your clients, the music you are working with, and your colleagues, not a deadhead teacher lecturing in a classroom. Where do you find an educational institution where the teachers have more experience and knowledge than you at that point?

I could go on and on. Once again, my point is simple: you are attempting to apply accountant business practices to an art, and it just doesn't fit on any level. I know that I can't make this clear just by writing about it. The only way you can really understand what I'm saying is if you change careers and work in music/audio full time for a period of decades. You've got to get to know the people, the interactions, how the flow of things goes. The way these businesses work, i.e. "law, accountancy, nursing, medicine, education, etc.", is VERY different than the way things work with music.

And I should add that the way things work in "law, accountancy, nursing, medicine, education, etc." is not necessarily better, either.

I can appreciate the intent of what you are saying, which is certainly noble. But the actual reality is that what you are proposing does not really fit how things work in the music/pro audio business.
 
SonicAlbert said:
None of this takes into account that what we are talking about here is an "art". The five criteria mentioned are kind of a joke when it comes to the music and audio business. It looks good on paper but it's like applying accountant thinking to the music/audio arts. It just doesn't fit.

Let's take a step back. I've been a musician longer than I've been an accountant. Believe it or not, some accountants view their work as "creative". They are wrong.

But audio engineers are also somewhat wrong with we view our work strictly as an art. Medicine has also been described as an art, far longer than audio engineering. But it isn't an art either, it's a science, nuanced by years of professional experience that yields an extremely complex set of decision criteria--which when viewed by a layperson, could resemble an art.

Guys and gals, if we lose sight of the fact that we work for artists, but are mainly technicians, we do ourselves a disservice. Many (most) of us are also musicians, and that artistic knowledge informs engineering. However, I maintain that it's possible to describe a series of decision rules that would describe any audio engineering process. They would be extensive; it would be tedious, but it could be done.

This is what Bruce is recognizing: the software tools will eventually advance to the point that a near-professional result can be obtained with little knowledge. It won't be a true professional job, because it will lack professional judgment. But the layperson will not be able to tell the difference.

It's already happened in accounting. The questionnaires in Turbotax are pretty damn good (although taxation is a subset of accountancy, and strictly speaking, not what licensure is about). In law, you've got all the home legal software. And it's happening in medicine too.

Of course, you scoff, you can tell the difference between a true pro mix and an artificial one. Yes you can--and that is why you should have certification.

Can you tell the difference between a Turbotax job and a real pro tax return? I can--but if you just have a W-2, there is no difference. But I mean a fat meaty return, with lots of schedules and attachments.

A "licensing exam"? Are you kidding me? Seriously, this business just doesn't work that way. You are good or you aren't. If you are good you get hired hired, if you aren't you don't.

Yes, an exam. How hard is it to write 100 multiple choice questions that any pro engineer could ace? Tack on a PMC as an essay question.


I've been a working professional in music since I graduated from college, and not once and I mean *never*, has any employer asked me where I went to school or expressed any interest in my training at all. It's all about what you can do, your talent and skills.

What I am contemplating is a future where no one is hired, because the cost of entry is so low (as it is in accountancy). You're an independent contractor now, word of mouth means relatively little over the internet.

"Continuing professional education"? Where? Studying what? And if you are good at your job and have clients, where do you find the time? Further, your continuing education comes from your clients and the music you are working with, not a deadhead teacher at the head of a class. Where do you find an educational institution where the teachers have more experience and knowledge than you at that point?

How is your question any different for law or accounting or medicine? I've got partners at the firm I work (consult) for billing 3,500 hours this year -- at over $500/hour. Seriously, if they can afford the time for CPE (they have to), you can too.

CPE classes aren't taught by colleges, they are taught by working pros, and they are some of the more valuable classes one can take. Your clients are a subset of the whole industry, and CPE gives you access to the best in the business bringing you a perspective you wouldn't otherwise have.

Yeah, it's a pain, yeah, it's expensive. Some professionals treat it as such and that's unfortunate.

Heck, I dabbled in the wine industry for a while. Lots of CPE there, even though there is no certification. Winemakers and grapegrowers believe they are artists too--they aren't, but they are much like audio engineers, and that's a who-you-know business too--with lots of drinking ;)

They get together multiple times a year (except during crush) and constantly discuss their business practices down to minutiae--everything from pruning techniques to presentations that seem like final exams in organic chemistry. But they learn from each other. I'm a nobody, but I took classes from absolute legends in that industry--equivalent to Katz, Massenburg, etc. Those guys took the time to teach because they cared about the future of their industry, and they realized that a bunch of low-quality, uneducated start-ups could hurt the reputation of their industry.

I could go on and on. Once again, my point is simple: you are attempting to apply accountant business practices to an art, and it just doesn't fit on any level. I know that I can't make this clear just by writing about it. The only way you can really understnad what I'm saying is if you change careers and work in music/audio full time for a period of decades. You've got to get to know the people, the interactions, how the flow of things goes. The way these businesses work, i.e. "law, accountancy, nursing, medicine, education, etc.", is VERY different than the way things work with music.

I believe your experience is limited. I know you have an incorrect view of CPE. Law and accounting work almost entirely on personal relationships. There is less drug use, but I'll bet lots of money the rest is much the same.

But that doesn't particularly matter in considering certification, because it doesn't have to work exactly the same way as other professions. In fact, no two professions work the same way--in law you don't have to go to law school in all states, in accountancy you don't have to be certified to prepare tax returns (just audit financial statements), etc.

Economically, certification or licensure serves as a barrier to entry. What Bruce is arguing for is a way to keep low-quality service providers out. That's what we are really talking about. Ultimately, whether it's an art or a science, it is a business, or at least trying to stay that way :confused:
 
mshilarious said:
What Bruce is arguing for is a way to keep low-quality service providers out. That's what we are really talking about.

So you're proposing an exam as a means of doing this? :D

I don't care what you say ... the field we are talking about is basically no different than, say, photography or film directing or editing. You have a reel or a portfolio of your work that you can shop around and people judge you by. If it sucks, and people don't want to use your services because of that, then there's your "barrier."

I do believe that some sort of "verification" entity would be very, very useful ... so that someone like me can't go around with a copy of "Okay Computer" or something and say: "I recorded that." :D Then again, allmusic.com is already a great resource for checking and verifying people's credits.
 
chessrock said:
So you're proposing an exam as a means of doing this? :D

Technically, Bruce proposed licensing, I was just describing elements of a profession--I didn't make them up either:

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/277772/fromItemId/6193


I don't care what you say ... the field we are talking about is basically no different than, say, photography or film directing or editing.

That could be. Inherent in a profession is the need to protect the public. That is of concern to people here (in terms of low-budget mastering), but probably not in general society. Thus, anything that did change would have be to voluntary.
 
chessrock said:
So you're proposing an exam as a means of doing this? :D

I don't care what you say ... the field we are talking about is basically no different than, say, photography or film directing or editing. You have a reel or a portfolio of your work that you can shop around and people judge you by. If it sucks, and people don't want to use your services because of that, then there's your "barrier."

But I think what Bruce is trying to point out is the difference between the 'legit' reel or portfolio and the ones that are made up by surfing the web, finding the pics, gear list's, etc., creating a web site using the stuff gathered and calling yourself a 'professional.'

It would be like me going to Speilberg's website, scamming all his info and plugging my name into it and calling myself a super producer/director.
 
mshilarious said:
Yes, an exam. How hard is it to write 100 multiple choice questions that any pro engineer could ace? Tack on a PMC as an essay question.

This is a perfect example of why it wouldn't work. Good engineering, like anything in music, relies on ears, taste and judgement. There aren't 100 questions in the world that can determine that. It's not about learning the right answers to questions. It's not about intellectually putting answers to paper.

The turbotax analogy is a good one. I don't use turbo-tax, never have and never will. I hire an accountant each year, someone I pay a lot of money to do my taxes right. And yes, I learned my lesson early on, trying to save money by going to a "taxes r us" type outfit. Anyone paying $5 for mastering will learn that lesson quickly as well.

That's what I'm saying. No amount of tests or so called "certification" process will ever do as well something that happens naturally: burnt once, shame on them, burnt twice, shame on me. If the product comes back bad from a $5 mastering house, well then you've spent $5 on a great lesson in life. And that's a pretty cheap lesson too.

Where do you draw the line at what's too cheap to account for a great mastering job? $5, $15, $30, $100 a track? $100 an album, $300, $1,000, or $2,500 an album. Where do those lines get crossed? Personally, I think of Massive Master as a budget mastering house, based on his rates. I have no doubt his work would absolutely kill anything a $15 a track place could do, but they are both budget houses. I wouldn't consider giving my tracks to master by mail, but I would at least consider giving them to Massive Master based on the clear professionalism of his site, gear, and attitude. That's just one example.

I think if anybody puts even the slightest amount of thought or research into who will master their album, they can easily figure out who the real players are. No "certification" is required, no governing body. Just listen to their work and do some research.

The other factor is personal reccomendations. I go almost exclusively by personal reccomendations. Every accountant I've used has been from a reccomendation of someone who has hired them before and had a good experience. Same with doctors, lawyers, salespeople, pretty much any time I need to rely on good people. I try to get a reccomendation from my friends or trusted associates. Even if there were a certification process for ME's, I would not even look at it or consider it a factor. I'd go totally on my own judgement and the suggestions of my friends and associates.
 
7string said:
It would be like me going to Speilberg's website, scamming all his info and plugging my name into it and calling myself a super producer/director.


If you're the type that will go to those lengths, then what's to stop you from posting that you're "certified" by whatever governing body it is we're discussing? :D I'm guessing that would probably be the first thing someone would list in their scam. "Heck yea, I'm certified. Look at me. I'm CERTIFIED. It even says so right here on my web site."
 
Getting back to cheap mastering, doing a bit more research I noted that paying for placement on Google Adwords is pretty cheap for the term "mastering". In fact the guy that comes out on top is a $99/CD shop, and is paying about $0.50 for a click-through, of which he's probably getting about 60 a day. Wonder how many customers that is? 3? 6?
 
SonicAlbert said:
I think if anybody puts even the slightest amount of thought or research into who will master their album, they can easily figure out who the real players are. No "certification" is required, no governing body. Just listen to their work and do some research.
But THAT'S the problem - in the case of Master By Mail -- they've faked the legitimacy of the before/after mastering samples. Any pro engineer would recognize the fallacy, but a lay-person wouldn't... a certain level of technological advance has made it very easy to screw over well-meaning clients!
 
Please tell me that it has occurred to somebody else that russtafari and Master By Mail are one and the same...
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
But THAT'S the problem - in the case of Master By Mail -- they've faked the legitimacy of the before/after mastering samples. Any pro engineer would recognize the fallacy, but a lay-person wouldn't... a certain level of technological advance has made it very easy to screw over well-meaning clients!

Right, that covers the "listen to their work" aspect. But then there's the "do your research" aspect. If you do that then even the lay person should be able to sort out who is for real and who is a pretender.

I mean it's like what they say about those internet scams: No one is going to send you $15,000,000 dollars because an uncle you didn't know about died, the bank doesn't need all your personal information to confirm your account, you didn't win a car from a contest you never entered, you didn't win millions in the lottery you never bought a ticket to, etc. If it seems to good to be true, then isn't true.

Likewise: you aren't going to get good mastering for $5 a track, no ME is interested in your input for $5 a track, you get what you pay for. If it seems too cheap to be true, then it isn't true.

:D
 
SonicAlbert said:
I think of Massive Master as a budget mastering house, based on his rates. I have no doubt his work would absolutely kill anything a $15 a track place could do, but they are both budget houses. I wouldn't consider giving my tracks to master by mail, but I would at least consider giving them to Massive Master based on the clear professionalism of his site, gear, and attitude. That's just one example.
So what you're saying is that I should raise my rates again... :eek:

Hmmm... Raise the rates again... :D

Maybe in November...
 
SonicAlbert said:
Right, that covers the "listen to their work" aspect. But then there's the "do your research" aspect. If you do that then even the lay person should be able to sort out who is for real and who is a pretender.

I mean it's like what they say about those internet scams: No one is going to send you $15,000,000 dollars because an uncle you didn't know about died, the bank doesn't need all your personal information to confirm your account, you didn't win a car from a contest you never entered, you didn't win millions in the lottery you never bought a ticket to, etc. If it seems to good to be true, then isn't true.

Likewise: you aren't going to get good mastering for $5 a track, no ME is interested in your input for $5 a track, you get what you pay for. If it seems too cheap to be true, then it isn't true.

:D
True, but the scary thing is - as shown by the original question in the thread, people AREN'T doing their due diligence. Well - they sorta are, by asking about it here, but if one person was considering using them and asked about it here first, you can bet there many who are considering their services and NOT asking about them in forums!
 
Massive Master said:
So what you're saying is that I should raise my rates again... :eek:

Hmmm... Raise the rates again... :D

Maybe in November...
There ya go, John - $150/hour for ya!!! :D
 
Massive Master said:
So what you're saying is that I should raise my rates again... :eek:

Hmmm... Raise the rates again... :D

Maybe in November...

Your rates are great, affordable and probably a good value (I say probably only because I personally haven't worked with you). And maybe that's the service you are offering independent artists and labels: good work for affordable prices. There's nothing wrong with good quality work for an affordable rate.

Maybe find some way to offer a "premium" service rate? Some extra stuff beyond what you offer now, to justify an extra tier of higher pricing.

I personally would expect to pay at least $2,000 for a mastering job on an album I would send out to a mastering house. Your rates alone would basically eliminate you from my consideration. Harsh to say that perhaps, but I just want to be honest.
 
chessrock said:
If you're the type that will go to those lengths, then what's to stop you from posting that you're "certified" by whatever governing body it is we're discussing? :D I'm guessing that would probably be the first thing someone would list in their scam. "Heck yea, I'm certified. Look at me. I'm CERTIFIED. It even says so right here on my web site."

Exactly. And that's why I continue to follow this thread. I want to see if anybody comes up with a foolproof way to accomplish this. So far, we've come up with a way around every suggestion. So should we stop when we get to one that hasn't been gotten around?

Good thread though!

;)
 
SonicAlbert said:
That's what I'm saying. No amount of tests or so called "certification" process will ever do as well something that happens naturally: burnt once, shame on them, burnt twice, shame on me.

I disagree - anyone who knows enough to want to get their project mastered, and is willing to lay out a significant amount of money has probably put a lot of time and effort into the project already. If they have that kind of dedication, they'll ALSO dedicate the time learn what mastering costs, and who the reputable mastering studios are.

Anyone unwilling to do enough research to get a pulse on mastering would probably have a project that no mastering in the world could save, and probably wouldn't have the ears to hear the difference between a $100 and $1000 mastering job.

There's precious little excuse to get burnt at all.
 
7string said:
So far, we've come up with a way around every suggestion. So should we stop when we get to one that hasn't been gotten around?


That's a good way to ensure the thread goes well in to the next century. :D

There are no fool-proof methods ... for anything in life. As long as businesses exist and our economy works by way of commerce (money exchanging hands for goods and services), there will be unethical business practices and even all-out scam artists.
 
As long as greed exists, theives will exist. That kind of behavior cannot be stopped altogether and will not sop of its own volition until many generations after we are all dead and forgotten.

All we can do is put the fires out one at a time when we spot obvious and major frauds. For the rest who aren't necessarily fradulent but are just shoddy, we need to just continue to provide positive examples in our own work efforts so as a definition between good and bad can be made. We need to provide the example for which the shoddy enterprises are the exception, and to which our clients can come to for trustworthy and quality service.

G.
 
Back
Top