Hi Ton,
I was so allergic to copy loss I cut the original masters and put ‘whites” between the tracks and they were brought (in person of course) to the pressing plant. A spare tape-copy wasn’t available so I took a risk in favor of quality.
That’s an interesting story. That situation must have been very stressful! I once met an older recording engineer who told me a rather nightmarish master tape story: He had put the master tape (of the mixes he had just done for a pretty important album project) in his car trunk. While he was driving to the mastering/pressing plant (just a five minute drive away), a car smashed into his trunk. Fortunately, he wasn’t hurt…but the master tapes were destroyed. Of course, there was no backup copy!
What kind of mastering “adjustments” can benefit your product ?
I like to know.
For me, one of the main advantages of having the mastering made by a professional is simply bringing the objective point of view of another knowledgeable person in the process. The mastering engineer spends his life listening to recordings in an acoustically optimized room and is thus supposed to have a certain experience when it comes to knowing how speakers and sound systems (and sometimes vinyl) will react to different recorded audio frequencies at different levels. He hears my music with a perspective that is completely different from mine. This is very important to me since I’ve been working on composing/recording/mixing my music from the start and thus have a very subjective and emotional relation to it.
Also, I wouldn’t choose *any* mastering engineer. The mastering business has been booming since the last 15 years and now you can see ads for “quick online mastering services” (...these guys probably just smash your songs with a loudness maximizer plug-in and charge money for it)...and I wouldn’t trust any of that. I generally go to the same mastering studio with the same engineer for most projects because I appreciate his way of working. It’s interesting that you mentioned the “Loudness Wars”, because this situation has been annoying me for years…During the mastering session for Automelodi’s EP, we were very careful about keeping a decent level of dynamics and transients and not over-compressing.
To answer your question more directly, the kind of mastering adjustments that can be useful can be: carefully EQ-ing problematic frequencies, detecting and possibly correcting stereo panning/phase problems (this can be very important, especially if you want the music to be released on vinyl), extra De-Essing (once again, vinyl will not tolerate the same level of mid-hi and hi-frequency content)... multi-band compression can sometimes be useful when dealing with problematic sounds that were not taken care of while mixing (for ex: a wobbly/unstable multi-oscillator detuned synth bass that sounded nice in the big studio monitors but that would probably end up blowing up more modest speakers) ...and general compression/saturation/maximizing/peak limiting...(depending on how loud you want your record to be, or mow much dynamics you are willing to sacrifice)...
Of course, I am not saying that professional mastering is absolutely essential…So many computer-based tools are available nowadays for this purpose and if used carefully, these tools can provide amazing results at home or in a small project studio. I simply feel that it’s sometimes important for me, in my own creative/production process, to put this job into someone else’s trustworthy hands. It definitely takes a lot of weight from my shoulders.
Another thing wanted to point out is the fact I got intrigued by the fact you wrote about multiple tracks being recorded for an accompanying guitar track.The fact you had the luxury of being able to record a large number of variations doesn’t specifically mean it is an advantage to the end result I think.
The fact that I did record a large number of variations for that rhythm track is related to two different reasons:
1) My intention: I *wanted* the sound of a multi-tracked (or at least doubled) rhythm guitar for that song. I wanted to get a very animated, sparkly sound and I thought that using multiple takes panned differently in the stereo field was a great way of trying to get that effect. Another option would have been to use panning delays but I wanted something a little less predictable, and I also love the natural chorusing that happens when you double take instruments. For rhythm guitars, multi-tracking creates a certain “swinging” animation between the concurrent tracks that can bring a whole different feel to the song. I think these rhythm guitars are actually very important in the overall feel of “Buanderie Jazz”. Now, that one person or another may or may not appreciate the role of these guitars is also a question of objective perception and personal taste, but I honestly think that “Buanderie Jazz” would not have the same “feel” if the rhythm guitar was done in a single take…I’m listening to it again while I am typing this and I can clearly hear the guitar strumming “bouncing” around the stereo field. Also, you can notice that the hi-hats are inaudible in most parts of the song: I deliberately kept them low because of the rhythm guitars were actually more important in the sonic structure of the song.
2)The context: These recordings were made in a small rehearsal space so there was no soundproofed control-room. In this context, it was not possible for me to instantly hear very precisely what was captured by the different microphones. Since microphones, especially dynamics, don’t necessarily capture (depending on their position, etc.) the sound exactly as it can be heard live in the room, I thought it would be useful to experiment with many different tracks/microphone positions in order to be able to chose those that sounded the best later, in a more adequate listening environment and with rested ears. Of course, fifteen tracks were too much…I totally agree with that…but I listened carefully, made choices and ended up using just the two or three that were necessary for the above mentioned effect I was looking for. A photographer sometimes has to take 100 images of a live band playing in order to be able to choose just one good pose.
Another thing to consider in my case is the fact that I also do production work for other bands/artists and I see all these productions as a long learning process. Aside from general acoustic guidelines, you can’t really anticipate how a certain microphone/position/instrument relation will sound unless you’ve tried it by yourself. I don’t think I could allow myself to spend a lot of time on such experimentation when working with another band (unless they ask me to do so), so when it comes to my own recording sessions I like to experiment as much as possible.
Furthermore, when I hear a sound in my head for a certain song, I often want to try to get as close to it as possible, even if it requires some
trial and error…and I’m sure you’ll agree that sometimes accidents happen during experimentation and lead you in another interesting direction.
For example: We got this nice lead sound for Buanderie Jazz…and these tracks were recorded under time constraints and we were also getting a bit tired…but ironically, we also might have never recorded it this way if we hadn’t spent the whole afternoon moving microphones around the room, recording rhythm tracks and tweaking FX pedals. Spontaneity can be beautiful, but, strangely, it can sometimes happen as a result of exhaustion.
If studio or production techniques are so important as they sound, why would a badly recorded live track of a band be so cherished by the fans? I fear only the idea and the music survives, not the production.
I generally agree with you on that…the artistic ideas and the quality of the music are the only “immortal” aspects of it…and some of my favorite songs were recorded poorly on minimal equipment.
On the other hand, I still think that interesting production (whether lo-fi or hi-fi), while not necessarily “immortal”, can sometimes age very well (otherwise why would people mention Martin Hannett so much these days, even in this thread). The average listener might not be able to name all the instruments, FX, etc…but the same average listener might still be able to “feel” the production since it is part of the whole “medium is the message” context.
It is true that over-complicating studio production techniques and equipment can sometimes hinder the creative process but I still think that interesting production can add a lot to a good piece of music, just like a good film director can turn a good scenario into an even better film.
OK, so that was another novel. Thanks for reading, if you managed to read until here. The whole “artistic spontaneity VS sophisticated production”, or “lo-fi VS hi-fi” debate is indeed a very deep one. Interestingly, many electronic musicians that we appreciate and now label as “minimal” were considered somewhat “sophisticated” 25 years ago… This could even be the subject of a whole new thread.
