TuneCorner

Wanna break through? Write a breakthrough song, Part II

Wayne Cohen, veteran multi-platinum selling ASCAP hit songwriter, producer and educator, owner of publishing/production company Stand Up Songs, also teaches individual and group songwriting tutoring sessions at his NYC Stand Up Studio and via Skype.

Part II: Tools of the trade

When I write, it can take 6 hours or it can take a year to complete a song.  To me the key to a great song is all about capturing a universal emotional truth and a momentary spirit and then crafting it until you as the writer can justify the existence of every melodic and lyrical phrase in the song.  Any of those elements can come and go in a heartbeat, so you better be ready for it when it does. Oh and fyi, let it flow, don’t be too hard on yourself if you don’t write it all in 6 hours.  I find that after 30 minutes I usually know if I’ve got something worth pursuing. If you feel you don’t have that in 30 minutes, it’s probably time to call that complete and move on to greener pastures.

Here are some of my capture and craft tools of the trade that you may find useful if you want to write a breakout song.

1) Go on input – absorb the world in and outside of you.  It’s in the blog you’re reading, the conversation you’re eavesdropping on, the incorrectly heard snippet of someone else’s lyrics you just heard, it’s in how you feel about that person you can’t stop thinking about.

2) Listen to ten of your favorite #1 charting records 100 times, dissect what makes the melody and lyric special to you. I find it’s good to start by analyzing the structure of the overall song.  Is the song a verse/pre chorus/chorus, or chorus/bridge/chorus kind of thing, or some other structure? Then I like to look at the chorus melodies, usually to see what makes the melody so hooky, and then do the same for the verses, bridge, etc. Then look at the rhyme scheme of the chorus lyric. Are they AB or AA rhymes, or some other rhyme pattern?  Make a summary of the overall arc of the lyric story. What makes the lyric/story urgent, what makes it universal? What grabs the listener at the start of the song - is it a lyric, is it a melody, is it a beat?  Which of those is most effective? Once you’ve done that, you should be pumped up enough to get in touch with your inner warrior so you can say to yourself  “gee I can write something as good as that..”.

3) Get a lyric writing book and write down every idea you have that you think is a universal emotional truth, the first building block you need for a breakthrough song. If you’re passionate about it write it down, don’t judge it. You never know how a lyric idea can develop into a full-blown song.

4) Get a digital voice recorder.  There are a lot of them out there, I happen to prefer the Olympus WC-331M. Same idea here as with the lyric writing.  It’s all about capturing those moments you sing that melody idea, or play something you didn’t even remember playing, that can get your breakthrough song started.

The story goes that it worked for Keith Richards, who back in the day had a cassette recorder by his bed, woke up in the middle of the night recorded the intro riff for ‘Satisfaction’, fell back to sleep and when he woke up had no memory of it.  Good thing he recorded it huh?

5) Have something you can build a simple beat with. GarageBand, any of the Apple loops jam packs are great, Pro Tools, Logic, Abelton Live, Digital Performer all now have software loops players, any kind of drum machine (Akai MPC is my old skool fave), are all options.  I find I end up programming most beats as opposed to using an existing loop because I want a very elemental beat so as not to distract from the writing process. I find the more lo-tech the better, just make sure it is something that programs or loops easily. To make that breakthrough song come to life it’s not just about the beat. It’s about what the melody and lyric are doing in conjunction with the beat. You can always spruce up the beat if necessary, when you produce the song..    

6) And remember, there is a songwriter inside of you.

This Tangled Web Is Yours To Weave

Thembisa S. Mshaka is a 17-year veteran of the entertainment business. She is also the author of the comprehensive career guide Put Your Dreams First: Handle Your [entertainment] Business, available at www.putyourdreamsfirst.com.

There are few things I love more than a great question. Questions that are new to my ears and give me pause; taking my brain beyond thoughts provoked to truth spoken to power. Questions like these are right up there with Haagen Dazs on a perfect summer day.

Jake, the editor of this newsletter graciously invited me to contribute to this week’s issue. He posed a very thought-provoking question to me.

‘Have women been able to use these tools [including MySpace and YouTube] to their advantage or have they simply increased the pressure to fit a particular mold?

I had to read this repeatedly and turn it over in my head for over a week. Initially, it led to more questions: had self-doubt and second-guessing many women experience borne of institutional sexism found its way to the internet too? Or can women be who they want to be in cyberspace instead of embodying a patriarchal stereotype?

The more I thought about it, the more I arrived at  certain answers. Two challenges that all sites face are those of being personal and connected: to establish a bond that sticks, and lasts, with whoever logs on. Be grateful for the progressive men in your virtual world and social networks; they are making the Internet a better place one guy at a time (hats off, gents!). The bad news is, until sexism is wiped from the planet, it will continue to be practiced on the Internet. Cyberspace contact remains the ultimate cold call. At times,  virtual and impersonal nature of the medium even lends itself to furthering the objectification of women.

The more I thought about it, the more I arrived at certain answers. Two challenges that all sites face are those of being personal and connected: to establish a bond that sticks, and lasts, with whoever logs on. Be grateful for the progressive men in your virtual world and social networks; they are making the Internet a better place one guy at a time (hats off, gents!). The bad news is, until sexism is wiped from the planet, it will continue to be practiced on the Internet. Cyberspace contact At times, virtual and impersonal nature of the medium even lends itself to furthering the objectification of women.

The good news is women artists and entrepreneurs now have Web 2.0 on their side: With social networking and  user generated content, the Berlin Wall that stood between artists and consumers has in many ways fallen. Distribution, sales, professional development, instant marketing, instant feedback - All available to you. All digital.

So even though there are misogynist morons are still logging on, you can be whoever you want so long as you’re not infringing on the identity of another of course…and yes, you can be yourself. You can tailor and target your message (most likely your music or your business proposition) with laser-like efficiency. Don’t wear makeup? No problem. Is your monster budget more like the size of a mighty (albeit diminutive) action figure? In the land of homemade tracks and videos, your campaign can stand out because of the substance of your product—and how you roll it out instead of how much you spend. The constraints of connecting directly with your audience have been removed, but the work is now up to you build and sustain the fans that labels used to bring to you. Pop sensation Colbie Caillat is a bona fide MySpace discovery. She didn’t have to glam up or strip down to appeal to her audience. Colbie had this to say in her bio about the leverage the Internet afforded her in her negotiations with labels:

"Nothing much happened for a few months," she remembers. "Then I wrote this song called ‘Bubbly’ and put it up there and it got this huge reaction. I mean thousands and thousands of hits every day." In the end, she became the number one unsigned artist on MySpace for four successive months, garnering an almost unbelievable 10 million plays. Record labels started courting her and she signed with Universal Republic because, she says, they offered her total creative freedom. "The great thing about MySpace is that you can build up an army of fans and then when you go to a record company, there's no point in them trying to change what you do because it's already been tried and tested," she points out.

Not that a major label deal has to be the objective; R&B vocalist Mykah Montgomery is also building her story from the virtual ground up, with her single “I Just Wanna Go Outside” from her debut album Me & U on iTunes and a self-produced music video streaming online all as an independent (ME Records) without traditional, terrestrial distribution. Les Nubians have a comprehensive site for their creative endeavors, Nubiatik.com, and sell their catalog and merchandise there while they keep their global fanbase up to date on new music and performances.

But know this: direct access is no substitute for a solid product. In fact, it’s easier to spot a fraud online. Don’t let limited resources handcuff your presentation. Bad music or shoddy production is painfully obvious in the virtual space. MySpace and YouTube are the tip of the iceberg. As an artist, a presence on MySpace is vital until your following grows large and loyal enough to migrate them to your own social network, for example. As for YouTube, I even have a channel there, and I’m an author.

YouTube.com/ThembisaMshakaTV houses my original content, from press clips to my self-produced commercial—plus content from other sources related to my book.

On this new web, niche is queen, and it’s all in how you spin your silk. Oh yeah, Jake also asked me to offer up advice for new artists, managers and producers. Next issue, I’ll share some direct insight from women in my book that will give you the affirmation you need to make like a Black Widow and kill ‘em out there.

A DIY Acoustic Guitar Recording Primer (Part I)

For Part II of this article, please click here.

Cliff Goldmacher is a songwriter, producer, engineer and the owner of recording studios in both Nashville and New York City.  Cliff is also a regular contributor to EQ Magazine and Pro Sound News.  He can be reached at cliff@cliffgoldmacher.com.

Let’s assume that along with releasing your music online, you’re also a budding recording engineer and would like to record your music with you as the acoustic guitarist.  Here are a few tips that I’ve gathered in my years of doing exactly that.  Like a lot of musicians, I tend to wear several hats in the recording studio.  Along with engineering and production, I do a lot of my own acoustic guitar work.  The issue here is that in order to effectively engineer and play acoustic guitar at the same time, I’m forced to record in the control room so that I can run my Pro Tools rig.  Over time I’ve cobbled together an approach to help me get a clean, full and detailed acoustic guitar sound without using an isolation booth or bringing in another engineer. 

As there are a lot of details to cover, I think it might be best to split this article up into two parts with the more technical information coming in part two.

To Plug In or Not to Plug In?

While it may seem like the obvious way to go, I’m not a fan of using on-board pickups in acoustic guitars when I record.  While it’s true that plugging in a 1/4” cable to your guitar and plugging the other end straight into your DAW will effectively remove all room noise from the recording, the sacrifice you make in tone is too great to justify.  There are quite a few great-sounding piezo electric pickups on the market these days and when run through a live PA, they can sound full, clear and even woody.  However, a large part of the sonic beauty of the acoustic guitar lies in the way the instrument pushes air out of the sound hole.  A plugged-in guitar is only translating the vibration of the strings and loses the essential “acoustic” nature of the sound.  On top of that, because acoustic guitar pickups are often designed with stage performance in mind there’s the likelihood of a slight hum or buzz which while unnoticeable on stage in a live venue can be extremely distracting when scrutinized in a studio recording.  All this to say, unless you’re consciously going for the particular sound that a plugged-in acoustic guitar gives, avoid the easy way out and try a few of the tips I’m suggesting below.

The Room

Let’s face it; there is no trick or secret that can take the place of a quiet room for recording. So let’s start with the obvious.  Do everything within your power to control the environment in the control room before you even get started.  You might want to put up some sound absorbing panels on the walls nearest your set up.  You can even go as far as to put sound diffuser panels on the ceiling above you.  Essentially, you’re trying to deaden the environment closest to you so you won’t be recording a lot of room sound with your acoustic.  While it’s fairly easy to add reverb to simulate different spaces once the guitar is recorded, it’s practically impossible to remove the sound of the room you’ve recorded in if it’s too present in the recorded sound.  The one place I like a hard surface is the floor.  There’s something bright and clear about the tone of the acoustic when the mic is picking up some of the reflections of the sound coming up off of the floor.   Also, distance yourself as much as possible from your computer to minimize the volume of the fan noise.  Of course, since you’ll be recording yourself, you’ll need to keep your computer within reach but you can always improve the odds by facing the microphone towards your acoustic and away from the computer.  And speaking of microphones…

Mic Choice/Placement

There are many, many microphone choices you can make when recording an acoustic guitar and each has its own merits.  For my ear, a large diaphragm condenser mic set in a cardioid pattern and pointed at an angle where the guitar neck meets the body at a distance of about six inches works best.  There are several reasons for this.  First of all, I like the broader spectrum of tone I get when I use a large diaphragm mic as opposed to a pencil mic. Secondly, the cardioid pattern focuses the recording field which helps remove the questionable environment of the control room. Finally, by not pointing the mic directly at the guitar’s sound hole, you get the fullness of the tone without all the low mid “woof.”  The proximity of the mic to the guitar also enables you to get a much higher direct sound to reflected sound ratio. As I mentioned above, make sure to angle the mic so that its back is toward your computer in order to minimize what is probably the loudest piece of gear in your control room.  If you’ve got a bit more budget than most when you put together your studio, you can also consider some sort of isolation cabinet for your computer but it’s not essential.

Check back for part II next week!

Scalping Tickets in the Digital Age

Jake Smith is a TuneCore Customer Support Representative and editor of the weekly newsletter

I am a big fan of the T.V. show, "Flight of the Conchords, so after hearing rumors that this season would be the show's last, I was more eager than ever to catch them live.  Unfortunately I couldn't get online until late in the evening, and by the time I got to Ticketmaster the seats were sold out.  Ticketmaster informed me tickets were still available through "Ticketnow," a resale company owned by Ticketmaster.  Here, the cheapest tickets I could find were being sold for three times the original price.  You snooze you lose, right?

Now, I've been going to concerts for a long time and I am no stranger to the scalping process.  If you want good seats (or any seats at all) and hope to pay anything close to face value, you might end up finding yourself sleeping in a tent on the sidewalk by the local box office in the pouring rain.  However for those of us who need to keep our jobs, that may not be an option. I am aware of sites like StubHub where people make their living buying and immediately reselling tickets for hot shows.  But for a company that already makes money from 11 types of "convenience" charges to also own an additional store where you are encouraged to scalp the tickets you just bought from them is just wrong.

Many of you have probably already heard the populist anger over this, with many big-name musicians getting behind the bullhorn.  Bruce Springsteen, The Smashing Pumpkins, and David Byrne are among the artists who have spoken out against Ticketmaster's latest antics, demanding their fans be reimbursed in full or part of the drastically increased prices.  Ticketmaster is facing a U.S. Senate judiciary committee investigation and $500 million in class action lawsuits in Canada (in Ontario it is illegal to resell tickets for higher than their original value).  Will anything come of the angry threats and pleas for justice?  It depends on whether or not scalping is illegal, which can vary from state to state and gets complicated when transactions take place online.

You'll be hard pressed to find much online defending these resale companies, but at the very least it is interesting to hear them try to justify themselves.  In an article from Canadian Business Magazine, a StubHub official makes this argument:

"Do you call the beer vendor at the ball game a beer scalper or the restaurant that sells you lobster at the 'market price' a shellfish scalper?  Of course you don't, though those entities are selling a consumer good for a markup over what they paid for it.  What makes tickets any different?"

Author Andy Holloway gives his own reasons for why he finds this statement bogus, but I would like to add that once Ticketnow and StubHub start including butter sauce, Old Bay and cartoon lobster bibs with every order they can charge me whatever they want.

Bob Lefsetz wrote an article about something we're likely to see a lot more of in the future - artists teaming up with retail giants and selling tickets exclusively in store.  Bon Jovi and Wal-Mart have recently struck up such a deal.  That's awesome for them, but won't that make it even harder for people who actually want those tickets to get them before they're gobbled up and regurgitated on StubHub?

Trying to think of solutions to this problem gives me a headache.  How can you tell what a person's intentions are when they buy tickets?  Do more safeguards to protect against scalping just mean more fees from services like Ticketmaster?  Are there any specific theories you have or examples you see as signs of hope for the future?  Share your thoughts here.

iTunes Going DRM Free: What does it mean for you?

Jake Smith is a TuneCore customer support representative and editor of the TuneCore Newsletter

After 6 years, iTunes has announced that they will begin selling their entire catalog without DRM protection.  This raises a number of questions, and it is important to start discussing now what these changes could mean for all of us in the music industry.

DRM, or "Digital Rights Management", is proprietary code encoded in certain types of files to control where and how they can be used.  If you've ever purchased a song on iTunes before and tried to play it on a different computer, a message will come up saying that the computer is not authorized to play the file.  iTunes currently allows 5 computers to be authorized for any one iTunes account.  DRM protection reaches much further than just iTunes and digital music.  Movies, computer software, and video games often incorporate some types of digital rights protection.  For example, DRM stops (or attempts to stop) you from ripping DVD movies to you computer or by requiring you to enter a serial number before using a new program you've installed.

From the stand point of the music consumer, there is really no downside to iTunes removing DRM protection.  In addition to being able to move music more freely from computer to computer, music purchased in the iTunes store will no longer be limited to the iTunes library or iPods.  Files will be compatible with Windows Media Player, non-Apple based MP3 players, video game consoles and more.  From the label/artist stand point, the loss of DRM may seem good or bad depending on your personal philosophy.  Does it help your career in the long run by making it easier for fans to share, or is it simply less money coming to you for your hard work?

Realizing that the decision to drop DRM protection would be a controversial decision, and in an effort keep ahead of the rapidly growing Amazon store, iTunes announced they would sweeten the deal for labels by finally allowing labels to set price tiers for individual tracks.  We are waiting on iTunes to give us more specific information about this and we will make the details known as we receive them.

If you're looking for a more in depth look at these changes, I'd recommend this article from the staff of Macworld (http://www.macworld.com/article/138000/2009/01/drm_faq.html).  Some highlights include:

• iTunes DRM free files vs. Amazon MP3, which has always been DRM Free
• What happens to music purchased before the DRM change?
• Will the change affect TV Shows and Movies?

Reports say that this change will be taking place by June.  What do you think about this?  Was the DRM drop inevitable or is iTunes biting the hand that feeds it?  Let us know your thoughts.

The Relevance Of Compact Discs in a Digital Age

Cedar Apfel is the Director of TuneCore Manufacturing.

In recent years we have witnessed the closing of record store giants -Tower Records, the Virgin Mega Store locations, Sam Goodie, Warehouse, Circuit City, and more - punctuating the fact that online music stores are the future of the industry.

I work in the manufacturing department at TuneCore, a company whose primary function is online distribution of digital music.  Though, as an industry, we have reached a largely digital age of music, part of my job is assisting musicians with the manufacturing of a physical product. In a world of MP3s and iPods, what is the relevance of the once standard compact disc and its packaging?

There are pros and cons to having a collection of CDs. Living in a small apartment in New York City, owning even 1,000 CDs would considerably limit my shelf space. I have a few CDs that I like to hold onto but, like many people, when I get a new CD I usually end up ripping it and tossing it.

Despite this shift in consumer habits, CDs retain a certain functionality that is missed when music downloaded or streamed.

It will be hard to replace CD sales at the merch table at your live shows, or giving them out as Promos (you can't hand some one an iTunes download).

As an alternative, I do personally believe in the future of download cards,  they are not yet as widely accepted as promo CDs. It's a card. It has the band's cover art and name and the title of the record. A website, and a code. You go to the website on the card, enter the code, and down load the record. This way you have something physical to sell, or hand-out. They are not yet as widely accepted as promo CDs but, download cards could help bands acclimate to the new online era.

For some things there is no substitute to getting CDs pressed.  There’s a sense of presence when you hold cover art in your hand or when you see your your collection displayed on a shelf. There is something meaningful in holding a CD case, complete with the images and words that the artist intended you to have, that makes you want to pop the disc in and have a listen - like a present that wants to be unwrapped. It's one of the most modern and popular forms of art, and to me the "complete package" of a record, the object, is extremely cool.

There is also an idea of permanence attached to the physical album. There is the appeal of archiving  “this record will be here long after I'm gone."  A well-cared for CD should last over 100 years.

Downloads and streams are how I get allot of my music. Their convenance seems incredible if you think back to what one had to do to get music 10 years ago, but they have a disposable feeling - like their cousins, streams - you can't hold them.

Help! I Have 24 Hours to Save a Horrible Mix

Cliff Goldmacher is a songwriter, producer, engineer and the owner of recording studios in both Nashville and New York City. Cliff is also a regular contributor to EQ Magazine and Pro Sound News. He can be reached at cliff@cliffgoldmacher.com.

Part I

Well, I suppose I’ve got your attention now at any rate. Given what an emotional medium music is to begin with, it’s not surprising to me that songwriters and artists (myself included at some point in the murky days of my early career) find themselves panicking when they’ve committed to something that requires a finished product before they have it. In the old days, this used to be situations like planning a CD release party/show before you had the finished, shrink-wrapped CD in your physical possession. These days, it’s more likely that you’ve committed to getting a finished mix to a film/TV music supervisor or radio station by a specific date and after playing your mix for a few trusted friends or fellow musicians, your worst fears are confirmed. The mix is horrible. As this article will come in two parts, I’m going to spend the part one of this article giving you ways to completely avoid this situation to begin with. Then, in part two, I’m going to give you ways to salvage a desperate situation based on three different budget scenarios.

How To Avoid the Above Situation in the First Place

I understand how exciting it can be when you’re nearing the end of a recording project. You can almost count the money you’re going to make from sales or royalties. Stop! You’ve spent years perfecting your craft. You’ve taken your time and learned to sing, write songs, play instruments and, in some cases, even to engineer your own material in your home studio. Why would you try and rush one of the most critical stages of the game? A mix is the culmination of all your effort and should be handled precisely and patiently. My sincere recommendation is that you never promise a song to anyone in the industry for any reason until you’re dead certain you have a finished mix you can submit with confidence. By avoiding situations where you’ve promised something you don’t have, you won’t run the risk of not delivering and appearing undependable or, worse yet, turning in something that’s sub par. Set yourself apart from the stereotype of the flaky musician by delivering what you say you’re going to when you say you will. It might help to remember that at a certain level in the music world talent is a given. You have a better chance of differentiating yourself by being a professional in all senses of the word.

The Mix Process

Whether you’re mixing the song yourself in your home studio or working with a professional mix engineer, take your time. Listen to the mix on the speakers in the studio, in your car, on a boom box and, Steve Jobs help us all, on those crappy $30 ear buds that come with every iPod. Of course your mix won’t sound as good on a boom box or through ear buds, but it should still sound clear. You should be able to hear the vocal and distinguish the individual instruments without, for example, the bass making the speakers rattle so much that nothing else is audible. Also, it’s been my experience that singers tend to want their own vocals too low in the mix because they’re either self-conscious or they think because they already know the words that the lyric is clear enough…or both. My recommendation is to bring in one or two friends (ideally not musicians) to listen to your mix and give you their honest opinion. Musicians, as a rule, tend to listen to the wrong things in a mix. The average listener will give you valuable feedback like “I can’t hear the guitar because the drums are too loud” or “I can’t hear what you’re singing.” Musicians tend to get into the nitty gritty and often can’t keep the big picture in perspective. The one exception would be if you’re a relatively new engineer and you’re uncertain about how your mix sounds. In this case it might be worth your while to talk to an experienced mix engineer and even hire them to give you detailed criticism about things you can do to improve your mix.

Working With A Mix Engineer

For non-engineers, the main thing to remember when giving your mix to a professional mix engineer is to let them mix. My recommendation would be for you to explain to the engineer that you’re going to leave the mix to them and you’d like them to let you know when your mix is ready to review. Then take the mix home, listen to it on various sound systems (as I mentioned above) and take detailed notes about what you’d like to go over with them when you see them again. For example, instead of saying that there are some words in the song that aren’t loud enough, you’d do better to say “in the second chorus, the word “aardvark” is a little too low.” It is infinitely easier for an engineer to go over a checklist of things to review in a mix than it is for you to have them stop playback every time you think you hear something. In other words, do your homework and use your studio time with the mix engineer to methodically tweak whatever needs tweaking.

When It’s Done, It’s Done

By following the approach I’ve mentioned above, you’ll avoid the gut-wrenching feeling that you’ve got an opportunity you’re going to miss or screw up if your mix isn’t ready in twenty-four hours. My final piece of advice for this section of the article is to remember that once you’ve signed off on a mix, it’s in your best interest to let it go. Like songs, mixes can be tweaked and tweaked ad infinitum but my hope for you is that you’ve got enough else on your plate to know when to say when. Do your best and move on. The more you go through the process, the easier the “letting go” will become.

Stay tuned for Part II of this article, coming soon.

The Value of a Good Mix, Part II

The Instruments

Getting great instrument sounds in a mix is a combination of many factors. Finding space in the mix for each individual instrument is essential. This is often achieved through judicious use of EQ, compression, volume and panning. For example, the skill it takes to get great drum sounds, marry the kick drum to the bass while also giving the electric guitars rooms to breathe and sparkle is developed over time and repetition…a lot of repetition. When this is done properly, the instruments are exciting to listen to. Each has its place and role to play and when they come together, the song takes on a life of its own.

Vocals

A great mix engineer always makes the treatment and placement of the vocal a priority. Once the instrumental mix is generally where it needs to be, it’s time to make certain that the vocalist is running the show. A combination of EQ, compression, tuning (if necessary), effects and volume fader automation should all serve the ultimate goal of making it sound like the singer is in charge. There are several risks associated with improper vocal placement. If the final mix has too much vocal, then the instruments end up sounding small and weak. However, if the vocal is too soft in the mix, it loses its ability to communicate the emotion of the song. Every genre has its preferred vocal level. In general, pop music has the vocal more integrated into the instruments whereas country music (with its emphasis on the lyric) generally puts the vocal higher in the mix. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule but a good mix engineer will know the genre he or she is mixing in and do the right thing for the song.

On a related note, one of the best reasons to bring in an experienced mix engineer even if you’ve recorded the song yourself is a fresh, objective set of ears. It’s been my experience that if the singer mixes their own project, they tend to keep the vocals too low for a couple of reasons. One is that most singers tend to get uncomfortable with their vocals up in a mix. There are precious few singers I’ve ever worked with who genuinely love the sound of their own voices. By keeping the vocal low in the mix, the vocalist/engineer won’t have to their comfort zone but the mix suffers. The second reason has to do with the fact that the singer already knows the words and assumes that they’re hearing the words when, in fact, they may be too low for someone who doesn’t know the song to understand.

Mastering a Good Mix

Mastering a mixed recording is a separate skill altogether. While this isn’t an article about mastering, I’d recommend using a dedicated mastering engineer (not your mix engineer) when it comes time for this step. More to the point, the value of a good mix is that the mastering engineer will spend much less time (their hourly rates are generally higher than mix engineer rates) getting the finished master together. In other words, money you spend on a good mix will end up saving you money on a final mastered recording.

Doing It Yourself

If you’re still intent on doing your own mixing, consider hiring an expert to mix a song or two for you and then ask them for the session files back. Assuming you’re using the same recording software (i.e. ProTools, Nuendo, Logic), you’ll be able to examine every detail of how the mix was done and use the finished mix files as a kind of tutorial so you can ultimately learn to do them yourself.

Cliff Goldmacher is a songwriter, producer, engineer and the owner of recording studios in both Nashville and New York City. Cliff is also a regular contributor to EQ Magazine and Pro Sound News. He can be reached at cliff@cliffgoldmacher.com.

The Value of a Good Mix, Part I

Cliff Goldmacher is a songwriter, producer, engineer and the owner of recording studios in both Nashville and New York City. Cliff is also a regular contributor to EQ Magazine and Pro Sound News. He can be reached at cliff@cliffgoldmacher.com.

Once you’ve decided to up the ante and put your music online for the world to hear, it’s in your best interest to pay close attention to every step in the recording process. One of the most vital of these steps is the mix of your song. It’s not enough to have a great song. You need a great recording and a strong mix is an essential part of any great recording. The art of mixing (and make no mistake, it is an art) is not a skill everyone possesses. It’s well worth your while, even if you’ve recorded your tracks yourself in your home studio, to seek out an experienced mixing engineer. While there is no substitute for a dynamic, exciting musical performance, a good mix can enhance every aspect of that performance so that the final sonic result truly makes your song stand out. On the other hand, a poor mix can severely compromise even the best song and performance. Only you can write and sing your songs. That makes you an expert in those areas. However, unless you’re also an expert mix engineer, I’d highly recommend going to someone who is.

Budget

I get it. Everyone wants to save money. I do, too, but there are places to save and places to invest. In an effort to keep recording costs down, many musicians have purchased their own recording equipment. This is terrific and there’s never been a better time to buy affordable, high-quality gear. As long as you’re as passionate about learning the engineering process as you are about your music, you’ll do great. Owning your own recording equipment also takes a lot of the pressure off when it comes to experimenting in the studio. Finally, it allows you to record as many takes as necessary to get the performances you want without worrying about the clock. However, one way to make the absolute most of your recorded performance is to let an expert mix them. It’s amazing what a talented, experienced mix engineer can bring out of a mix that might otherwise get lost or obscured at the hands of a less able mixer.

Before You Mix

Before I cover in greater depth what makes up a good mix, let’s go back to performance for a moment. No matter how great the mix engineer may be there are some things you simply cannot fix in the mix. To be more specific, there is no way to “mix in” a great vocal or instrumental performance. What makes a performance great might surprise you. For example, sometimes it’s what you don’t play that counts the most. In my experience, the best studio musicians are the best listeners. What I mean by this is that great players base their instrumental performance on whatever else is going to be played in the song so that all the instruments work together as a whole to serve the song and NOT their individual egos. Playing too much is the hallmark of an amateur studio musician. Secondly, the timely use of dynamics (where to play louder/softer or with greater/less intensity) is essential to a mix that breathes and has shape to it. Simply moving up and down a volume fader won’t do the same thing. When it comes to singing, all the Auto-Tune and reverb in the world won’t give a vocal performance real sincerity and emotion. All this to say, make absolutely certain that the performances are exactly how you want them before you start the mix process.

Stay tuned for Part II, coming up next week!

Jeff Price's Article in the Huffington Post

Here is the full text of TuneCore President Jeff Price's article that appeared in the first week of January, 2009's Huffington Post. Read it and reap. --Peter

From MTV to YouTube: When the Net Pays Everyone But the Musician

In 1996, taped to the wall of my now defunct record label spinART Records’ 800 square-foot, four-ikea-desk-loaded-with-unsold-CD-and-vinyl office was a $1 check from MTV. I fought hard for that stupid check. MTV wanted to use a song called “Supermerica” by a band called Poole that I released. Usually TV shows pay good money for the use of a song, but not MTV-- they required labels to allow them to use the music for free in their TV shows when you submitted a music video to be considered for programming on their network. I still don’t know why they even bothered saying they would pay a dollar. It really pissed me off. I had fronted money and worked my heart out along with the band to promote, market, manufacture and release their album and along comes a multi-national billion dollar media corporation and demands to be able to use the music for a stinking dollar. I refused to do it. The music had value to me, it was the thing we sold and the thing the band made the majority of their money off of. I could not just give it up for free. But, Harry (lead singer of Poole) convinced me to let MTV have it in anticipation of the promotional value they might get out of it. The show aired, the song appeared in the background for about 30 seconds, the show ended, MTV made money from the advertisers and the song was not mentioned anywhere. This was the way it worked. The labels fed MTV free music and videos and in return hoped to get their videos aired which in turn would drive huge music sales. And MTV made a fortune off the advertising.

And this is more or less why Warner Music recently demanded that all its videos and music be removed from YouTube. Warner previously granted YouTube the legal rights to use its content and YouTube generated a lot of money from it via advertising. Now Warner wants to be paid more by YouTube. If the Google-owned YouTube does not comply, it opens itself up to potentially tens of millions of dollars in copyright infringement fines. Universal did this same thing successfully some time ago.

When media giants fight over music, you know it has to be valuable. Looking, listening and occasionally buying a “good” song drives revenue, tremendous web traffic and generates big advertising dollars. I can kind of understand Warner’s point, but as music sales drop and the multi-national, billion dollar media giants wrestle, lobby congress and sue each other for new income streams the musician seems to be getting lost in the shuffle, and that’s a huge mistake. Creating a new revenue sharing model that focuses on allowing artists to generate enough money to continue creating music would be a win for everyone. After all, it is the music that is fueling the entire machine.

The union of music and advertising goes back decades, but it seemed to reach a new level with the launch of MTV. MTV broadcast free “TV shows” from the labels in the form of music videos. These videos brought viewers allowing MTV to charge money to advertise on its network. In return for the free videos, the labels and artists received promotion. Artists became more famous which in turn allowed labels to make more money from music sales (there were other income streams as well like money from gigs, but the labels only participated in revenue that came from the sale or license of the music). This symbiotic relationship worked very well as long as all involved made their fair share of money.

However, after over two decades of a steady annual increase in music sales generating enough revenue to feed the record industry, music sales plummeted. At about the same time, advertising revenue from music went through the roof. Internet companies made money off music via venture capital investments, going public and getting acquired for a billion dollars. And this is the crux of the problem, music is being used for profit but not everyone is getting a piece of the pie.

Music sales plummeted with broadband proliferation and the mass adoption of the Internet, MP3s, compression technology, peer to peer file sharing, instant messaging of files, email attachments, torrents and other on-line distribution vehicles. The labels found themselves wondering why they should continue to provide their music and videos for free if the channels/sites they gave them to were reaping a disproportionate financial benefit. Labels would not have given MTV free music videos in the 80’s if MTV made money off the videos but the labels did not. (Imagine ABC getting the TV show “Lost” for free, then broadcasting it and keeping all the advertising revenue.)

Move ahead in time to the launch of the original peer-to-peer music file sharing software Napster allowing anyone to get any song at any time for free. Tens of millions of users provided Napster a huge “viewing audience” that it could reach via its “channel.” Unlike MTV, most labels and artists did not give Napster permission to use their music. The one area where value could have been created – music sales from discovery – was made irrelevant by allowing users to get the songs for free. To add insult to injury, despite Napster raising almost 100 million dollars and then being bought for 8 million the artists and labels were not paid anything (some would even suggest they lost money due to pirating).

The money that labels did make came from suing Napster and getting paid settlements for copyright infringement; the artists got nothing.

Over time social networking sites began to pop up and MTV moved on to showing its own TV shows (why not, they now had their own built in audience). Bands began to use these sites to get heard, discovered and to collect fans. Music lovers flocked to the sites, web traffic went up and the social networking sites began to charge advertisers for banner ads based on the “eyeballs” they were getting (for a website, any friend of the band is a friend of theirs). Once again it was the bands’ and labels’ content driving the audience, and once again someone else was making money off the music without an equitable inclusion of the labels and bands in the equation.

Which brings us back to Warner demanding that YouTube take down its content until it receives what it perceives to be its fair share of revenue. Following Google’s one billion dollar acquisition, YouTube is not yet profitable and suggests it cannot give up even more of its advertising revenue. Labels contend that this is really not their problem and need to be paid more for the use of their “products.” Unfortunately, advertisers are not paying the same sort of rates for online exposure as for TV and radio airtime, and there is not enough money to go around. And the artists, the ones who create and make the music that fuels it all, have yet to be directly included in the conversation.

As the “golden era” of MTV morphs into the world of MySpace and YouTube, a new model of advertising around music – ads appearing on artist’s WebPages or popping up on a streaming internet radio player– is not creating enough money to share. And no one is seriously discussing sharing it with the artists anyway. How then in this shifting landscape can they survive?

One possible piece of the puzzle may be the democratization of corporate sponsorship; instead of companies deciding which bands they choose to endorse or random ads appearing when music is played, let bands decide which corporations they want to work with. Bands can then tells their fans to click a link to land at a sponsor’s webpage where the fan gets a “free” song. The advertiser gets the web traffic and the artist gets their proportionate share of the advertising money for each free download. Going a step further, the artist has the ability to collect information about the fan (i.e. email address, age, zip code) thereby providing the opportunity for a targeted ad buy , i.e. 18 – 25 year old woman in the 02134 zip code. Or, taken another step further, as opposed to a random ad appearing on a streaming Internet radio player as a Pixies’ song is played, assume an ad appears for a product that the Pixies selected, i.e. The Pixies use Gibson Guitars or they love the movie Fight Club. Targeted demographic marketing allows advertising fees to go way up.

TuneCore is launching this model in January 2009 (full disclosure, I am CEO). This connection allowing artists and corporations to work with one another directly may prove to be one of the better ways to generate revenue in the new model. New companies such as TuneCore can then become facilitators providing the tools and information to the artists to collect fans, create music and provide access to opportunities such as corporate sponsorships. I by no means believe this is the magic bullet to the problem, but I do think it has the potential to be part of the solution. In 1981, video killed the radio star, here’s to hoping the Internet does not inadvertently kill the musician.