Some advice about audio/music production

[David W. Pontius]

Hello,

(Brief legal disclaimer, this is my personal opinion, not a guidebook on how to make a zillion dollars in the music industry.)

I am somebody that has spent Way too much time on the internet learning about things in the most inefficient manner possible (by being a jerk who tries to do it all on their own and is "surprised" when they don't succeed), and am here to give you some Genuine Advice:

Short version:

1. Figure out what One, or maybe two, steps you want to do in the audio/music production process by exploring the different roles (musicianship, recording/mixing, mastering).
2. Develop a reputation for keeping your word (Very important for doing business with others) and get good at doing those One or two things.
3. ???
4. Try to make money. (Not necessarily enough to live or retire off of, just enough to help cover bills.)

Long version:

1. I tried to learn how to do Everything from music theory/composition to playing piano to recording to mixing to mastering [and even some about computer programming], while being a complete jerk who kept on breaking their word; this is highly Not recommended.
2. It is by FAR easier to figure out the One or two steps you want to do by trying new things a handful of times
   • For me, that would be First mixing and second music theory.
3. Then, find people and resources that tell you What those things are, Describe the methods and tools which can be used to get the tasks accomplished, And lets you practice getting the work in.
   • For example, the part of YouTube that DOES know what it is talking about (some people on there are complete idiots, no offense), Wikipedia, Home Recording, SoundGym.co, etc.
4. Get your practice in.
5. Then try trading your skills for some money (not a ludicrous sum, just something).
6. If things work out, learn about the Laws pertaining to the industry.
   • Otherwise, know that you didn't do what I did and tried to learn about Everything from how the 1's and 0s work on a computer to freaking Pythagorean tuning on your own.

Closing Remarks

• Success is never guaranteed in life, so, instead of choosing to think of everything in terms of absolutes (to succeed is to win vs to fail is to lose), think of it more like I gained knowledge and experience that is either Accurate vs Inaccurate.
• The more you know how to do correctly, the less you cannot do for yourself, and, even if things Don't work out in the long run, the real value in doing anything Difficult is not the Destination, it's the Journey.

You may have all of that Advice for free; some people would not even put out a Fire in their own house if They were paid to do so and had the fire extinguisher in their hand.

P.S. - The reason I say all this is because all I ever Really wanted to do in Life was make my own "perfect" audio/music production software and hardware, from the ground up; even the human-readable language used to create the manual would be proprietary, if I had my way.

P.P.S. - Not to sound sappy, but this is basically my letter to my past self.

 

[Old Music Guy]

You may have all of that Advice for free.

"When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear." ~ Thomas Sowell

Well, thank you for your sage advice. Since your advice is "Free", I am "Free" to ignore it.
Which I shall.

 

[TalismanRich]

At this stage in life, trying to make money with music is the furthest thing from my mind. For the past dozen years, I have taken a 700 mile round trip, paid for 2 or 3 nights in a hotel, while hauling guitars, amps, a recorder, mics and camera JUST to attend a jam session with friends and meet up with people I know who actually make guitars for a living. I'll spend somewhere around $500 just for a few days of fun. I'll work my tail off the night we get together and play music. Then I'll come home and spend a few weeks culling through footage and audio to put together a few memories. It's a vacation for me, and a LOT cheaper than going to Disneyland or Las Vegas!

For many of us, it's a hobby. The fact that we can do it at home (this is Home Recording after all) for a reasonable cost and get damn good results is actually pretty remarkable to many of us. Who remembers when it would cost you $1000 for a 4 track tape deck, another $800 for a mixer, $600 for a pair of monitors plus an amp to drive them for a couple hundred more. Add in 4 or 5 mics for another $500 and you had a bare bones recording setup for a mere $3000. Oh yeah, you were making about $5-6000 at your 8-5 job! Now you can make $25K working at McD's and put together a rig for $1000.

But you're right about the last two points. If you learn some skills, gain experience and have fun doing it, you're ahead in the game. None of us knew what we were doing the first time we picked up an instrument, plugged in a mic, or hit a record button. But if you do it 100 or 1000 times, you eventually get better. Learn from mistakes and NEVER say "I don't know how to do that".

 

[David W. Pontius]

"When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear." ~ Thomas Sowell

Well, thank you for your sage advice. Since your advice is "Free", I am "Free" to ignore it.
Which I shall.

Gasp, I am offended! I shall, do... nothing!

I have better things to do than Value what some old guy who is probably so antiquated their hardware belongs in the dump.

 

[Old Music Guy]

In retrospect, my first reply really seemed a little terse, and did not fully address your post in depth. After further thought, I shall reply thusly (notwithstanding ad hominums):
Ah, you speak with the wisdom of experience, and yet, I must question your premise.
You suggest that one should specialize, to find merely "one or two" steps in the vast process of music production and focus there. But tell me—how does one know which step truly calls to them without first wandering the whole terrain? Is it not by trying to do everything, even inefficiently, that one gains the wisdom to choose wisely? You caution against the folly of trying to do it all, yet was it not your very attempt to do so that led you to the insights you now share?
Furthermore, you emphasize reputation—keeping one’s word, being reliable. Admirable, yes. But does true growth not sometimes require breaking old promises, shedding past identities, and venturing into the unknown? Is the musician bound by their first commitment, or do they evolve, their artistry reshaped by curiosity and necessity alike?
And finally, you dismiss failure as a mere gathering of inaccurate knowledge—but is inaccuracy not the foundation of discovery? If all one seeks is accuracy, do they not risk limiting themselves to what is already known, rather than forging new paths?
So I ask you—should one truly narrow their focus so soon? Or should they embrace the inefficiency, the chaos, the full breadth of learning, and let the right path emerge in time?

 

[David W. Pontius]

In retrospect, my first reply really seemed a little terse, and did not fully address your post in depth. After further thought, I shall reply thusly (notwithstanding ad hominums):
Ah, you speak with the wisdom of experience, and yet, I must question your premise.
You suggest that one should specialize, to find merely "one or two" steps in the vast process of music production and focus there. But tell me—how does one know which step truly calls to them without first wandering the whole terrain? Is it not by trying to do everything, even inefficiently, that one gains the wisdom to choose wisely? You caution against the folly of trying to do it all, yet was it not your very attempt to do so that led you to the insights you now share?
Furthermore, you emphasize reputation—keeping one’s word, being reliable. Admirable, yes. But does true growth not sometimes require breaking old promises, shedding past identities, and venturing into the unknown? Is the musician bound by their first commitment, or do they evolve, their artistry reshaped by curiosity and necessity alike?
And finally, you dismiss failure as a mere gathering of inaccurate knowledge—but is inaccuracy not the foundation of discovery? If all one seeks is accuracy, do they not risk limiting themselves to what is already known, rather than forging new paths?
So I ask you—should one truly narrow their focus so soon? Or should they embrace the inefficiency, the chaos, the full breadth of learning, and let the right path emerge in time?

Now that is a good response.

I don't know; I think it depends if you are more of the Artist persona or of the Scientist persona, where the first has an innate desire to Create while the second wants to Understand.

Some people don't mind the risk of the Public Eye, the attention that being on a Stage can get, the fame and respect of people they have never even met before; other people, like me, simply prefer to obtain as much knowledge as they can, and believe that any public space is a vulnerability, where something they do not know can occur.

Which one is better, I genuinely do not know. There are good things about each sort of persona. I think whichever one the reader honestly wants to do is the correct choice for them; just be aware that, with the tech that exists now, people can use Publicly Available Digital Resources to get music from one culture, process it, and then distribute it, in a manner where neither the creator nor the audience can figure out where the original content came from... at least not without some serious Digital Rights Management capabilities.

 

[David W. Pontius]

At this stage in life, trying to make money with music is the furthest thing from my mind. For the past dozen years, I have taken a 700 mile round trip, paid for 2 or 3 nights in a hotel, while hauling guitars, amps, a recorder, mics and camera JUST to attend a jam session with friends and meet up with people I know who actually make guitars for a living. I'll spend somewhere around $500 just for a few days of fun. I'll work my tail off the night we get together and play music. Then I'll come home and spend a few weeks culling through footage and audio to put together a few memories. It's a vacation for me, and a LOT cheaper than going to Disneyland or Las Vegas!

For many of us, it's a hobby. The fact that we can do it at home (this is Home Recording after all) for a reasonable cost and get damn good results is actually pretty remarkable to many of us. Who remembers when it would cost you $1000 for a 4 track tape deck, another $800 for a mixer, $600 for a pair of monitors plus an amp to drive them for a couple hundred more. Add in 4 or 5 mics for another $500 and you had a bare bones recording setup for a mere $3000. Oh yeah, you were making about $5-6000 at your 8-5 job! Now you can make $25K working at McD's and put together a rig for $1000.

But you're right about the last two points. If you learn some skills, gain experience and have fun doing it, you're ahead in the game. None of us knew what we were doing the first time we picked up an instrument, plugged in a mic, or hit a record button. But if you do it 100 or 1000 times, you eventually get better. Learn from mistakes and NEVER say "I don't know how to do that".

You got my message then; my Argument wasn't to get the reader to try and plan their whole life out, it was to basically tell them "figure out what it is you want to do, by doing different sorts of things, but, once you Do know what you want, focus on that."

 

[Old Music Guy]

Would you say that your answer leans towards a dichotomous perspective? When considering artistic and scientific personas, must one truly choose between them, or is there room for integration? Take, for instance, Tom Scholz—does he not exemplify a fusion of both worlds? With a BS and an MS from MIT, along with his tenure as a senior product design engineer at Polaroid, is he any less an artist for his scientific achievements? Similarly, does Brian May’s PhD in astrophysics diminish his artistry, or does Jeff "Skunk" Baxter's role as a consultant to the DOD negate his musical contributions? Could it be that these individuals serve as evidence that such distinctions need not be rigid?

When you respond with "I don't know," does this answer serve the discussion effectively in the context of your original post? While admitting uncertainty is often valuable, what follows that admission? If "I don't know" is the best answer at present, should it not also be an impetus for seeking knowledge, ensuring that next time, an answer will be found?

And when engaging with others, particularly those whose wisdom may match or surpass your own, is it more beneficial to impart knowledge or to cultivate dialogue that fosters deeper understanding? Do we not see a parallel in the contrast between Prometheus and Epimetheus—foresight and hindsight? Which perspective better serves meaningful discourse? Might it be that looking ahead, rather than merely reflecting after the fact, strengthens both knowledge and wisdom?

 

[David W. Pontius]

Would you say that your answer leans towards a dichotomous perspective? When considering artistic and scientific personas, must one truly choose between them, or is there room for integration? Take, for instance, Tom Scholz—does he not exemplify a fusion of both worlds? With a BS and an MS from MIT, along with his tenure as a senior product design engineer at Polaroid, is he any less an artist for his scientific achievements? Similarly, does Brian May’s PhD in astrophysics diminish his artistry, or does Jeff "Skunk" Baxter's role as a consultant to the DOD negate his musical contributions? Could it be that these individuals serve as evidence that such distinctions need not be rigid?

I think if people have the Intellectual Capability to do so, they can be both; my opinion is that most people do not, and have to pick. Do they want the attention and the risks that comes with publicity, where they do not know what other people will think or do in response to what They think or do, or, do they want security and the hardships that comes with privacy, where they would rather (at least attempt to) predict what other people choose, but lose their capacity to create and act as they would Like to.

When you respond with "I don't know," does this answer serve the discussion effectively in the context of your original post? While admitting uncertainty is often valuable, what follows that admission? If "I don't know" is the best answer at present, should it not also be an impetus for seeking knowledge, ensuring that next time, an answer will be found?

If that was your attempt at being clever, then, behold, I'm still not upset.

And when engaging with others, particularly those whose wisdom may match or surpass your own, is it more beneficial to impart knowledge or to cultivate dialogue that fosters deeper understanding? Do we not see a parallel in the contrast between Prometheus and Epimetheus—foresight and hindsight? Which perspective better serves meaningful discourse? Might it be that looking ahead, rather than merely reflecting after the fact, strengthens both knowledge and wisdom?

Why do you think I made the original post, just to prompt you into responding? No offense, but I, having never come across your posts before, did not know you exist.

I think discourse cannot exist without some of both, and whichever one is better is really a question of what it is that Actually occurs instead of what Could occur.

And, I'm only saying this once: Absolute Meaning Comes From The Past; the meaning of words, great works of art, ideas of government and law, all these come from the past, not the future - even if only by definition of the "past-future" having already occurred.

(In other words, Dichotomy is my middle name).

 

[Old Music Guy]

"I am the sort of person who would rather be Told they are wrong and Informed what is True then waste their time Thinking about something Stupid." - Me

I see that you amended your signature mid-conversation. Notwithstanding grammatical errors, and random capitalization, I say, "You are wrong". The reason you are wrong is that people are not binary. There is no absolute right, there is no absolute wrong. Unless and until you realize this truth, you have a long road to travel. I hope you get there someday.
Just remember, "If you come to a fork in the road, take it." -- Yogi Berra

 

[David W. Pontius]

"I am the sort of person who would rather be Told they are wrong and Informed what is True then waste their time Thinking about something Stupid." - Me

I see that you amended your signature mid-conversation. Notwithstanding grammatical errors, and random capitalization, I say, "You are wrong". The reason you are wrong is that people are not binary. There is no absolute right, there is no absolute wrong. Unless and until you realize this truth, you have a long road to travel. I hope you get there someday.
Just remember, "If you come to a fork in the road, take it." -- Yogi Berra

There is absolute right, and there is absolute wrong; if that weren't true, why can't I post an image of

Spoiler: do not click this

snuff gore pronography

on here without getting the Feds on my doorstep? Because some things are inherently evil, some things are inherently good, and the shades of gray in the middle are best left up to those that know this to be true.

Not trying to offend you, most people couldn't even spell dichotomy without a dictionary (and some people, even with one).

 

[Old Music Guy]

I put this to you. re: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. ... Or the one" - Spock Star Trek: "The Wrath of Kahn" (1982)

I will also point you to "R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273, DC"

R v. Dudley and Stephens

Ponder this, and I will entertain a discussion on ethics.
And, I'm not offended in the least. I love a good joust!

 

[David W. Pontius]

I put this to you. re: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. ... Or the one" - Spock Star Trek: "The Wrath of Kahn" (1982)

I will also point you to "R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273, DC"

R v. Dudley and Stephens

Ponder this, and I will entertain a discussion on ethics.
And, I'm not offended in the least. I love a good joust!

Do you have access to the first text? I would enjoy reading it but don't really have the income for a subscription right now. I'm going to read the second link and try to get back to you within a day or two.

For now, my Argument is that while basically everything that exists (words, concepts, people, events, etc.) is subject to context for its meaning, there is at least one thing in reality inherently good, and one thing inherently evil; regardless of if these things are concrete or abstract, past or present, that is my stance right now.

 

[David W. Pontius]

This is what I have so far.

The first link is to a British court, not an American court. The second link has a passage that reads, in regards to a completely different case, "The judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania instructed the jury that necessity might be a complete defence but that "before the protection of the law of necessity can be invoked, a case of necessity must exist, the slayer must be faultless, he must owe no duty to the victim."" In other words, the relationship between the slain and the slayer matters; why could not the fact that the captain, who was said to have suggested the act, as well as took the cabin boys life, be used to say that he violated decency?

As for why they should have been executed, Wikipedia reads "Dudley and Stephens were sentenced to the statutory death penalty with a recommendation for mercy." Which I suppose was the second Courts way of saying 'you really ought to die, but because the victim was inevitably going to die, a lighter sentence can be dispensed'.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that the attitudes towards different events have changed over time; slavery in antiquity was about as normal as walking and talking, a few hundred years ago was one of those things everybody knew was going on but would keep on doing because it made them money, and now, it is seen as an embarrassment that Western nations have to apologize for... even though it still goes on in the world.

While I have yet to read what the first document says, I have read about 80% of the Wikipedia page, and found this to be very interesting.

 

[Slouching Raymond]

Would you say that your answer leans towards a dichotomous perspective? When considering artistic and scientific personas, must one truly choose between them, or is there room for integration? Take, for instance, Tom Scholz—does he not exemplify a fusion of both worlds? With a BS and an MS from MIT, along with his tenure as a senior product design engineer at Polaroid, is he any less an artist for his scientific achievements? Similarly, does Brian May’s PhD in astrophysics diminish his artistry, or does Jeff "Skunk" Baxter's role as a consultant to the DOD negate his musical contributions? Could it be that these individuals serve as evidence that such distinctions need not be rigid?

Leonardo Da Vinci - great artist, great engineer.

 

[rob aylestone]

I thought this might go somewhere, but sadly not. Willy waving, as we tend to call it in the UK. It isn't progressing and seems to have run it's course.

EDIT
I have opened it again in the hope it progresses

 

[Old Music Guy]

Probably better left for dead.

 

[Papanate]

(Brief legal disclaimer, this is my personal opinion, not a guidebook on how to make a zillion dollars in the music industry.)

P.P.S. - Not to sound sappy, but this is basically my letter to my past self.

Basically it boils down to you don’t know what to do - I’m a Pro - have been making a good living at/in music for 30 years -
I’ve never had to think about it.

 

[Old Music Guy]

 

[David W. Pontius]

Basically it boils down to you don’t know what to do - I’m a Pro - have been making a good living at/in music for 30 years -
I’ve never had to think about it.

What?

No, it boils down to, I said what I said and if you read it incorrectly, that's not my fault.