The Scenario: you've got a CD's worth of songs you've produced yourself using professional recording/mixing software (Cubase). You've placed your songs on the internet for digital download only trhough MySpace and set up a website through HostBaby. You're getting great reviews about your music and have a small core fanbase. Is it necessary for you to work with a professional recording studio to redo your songs for highest quality mixing/mastering before you go much further in your promotional marketing? Is it necessary at all for successful self-promotion?

Well if i had written an album worth of songs, and had done a demo quality recording of all those songs and i thourght the songs were marketable i would probably be willing to play a good $10,000+ to get them recorded professionally. I guess if you have a good enough product its worth investing in, to enhance the sound of the music therefore giving the listener the best recorded version possible and making the chances of the listener buying it as high as possible.

Then again to answer the question "Are professionally mastered/mixed songs essential to successful exposure?" id have to say no, i mean think of Youtube and Myspace and all that.. Ive seen people become extremely sucessfull using those networks.

If something is great in every way it has a better chance of being noticed. What I've learned from having tracks on Slice The Pie is that every reviewer has a different angle, a different way they approach music.

Some go for the overall sound, some the song, some the voice, some the mix, some the instrumentation, some 'production' techniques, some the market, some the feel, some the vibe. Some just hate the genre blindly, or love the genre blindly too. It's a great leveller having your stuff reviewed cold.

If your whole house is in order then you have more chance of picking up fans who come at music from different angles. For instance, if you have 'amazing' production, many record producers and engineers could notice. If you have amazing lyrics, other songwriters could notice.

I find that the music I tend to listen to the most has all the boxes ticked. In a world of playlists, you don't want your track feeling like a dip in a list of remarkable recordings. I'm not saying compress it to hell or mangle it in mastering. I'm just saying there is a minimum requirement set by your peers.

Once again it's a case of different stuff for different formats. Of course a young talented singer songwriter is compelling on YouTube. But when I buy the original track it better be as good as I was expecting, and not 'as bad' as it sounded on YouTube. And if it's in the folksy rock genre, it better not sound rubbish after I put it on after Sherly Crow, or no matter how great the songs, the lack of production value itself could be a distraction.

Right now, nothing sounds as good as Earth Wind And Fire or New York New York (having one of those weeks). So as a fan of great sounding recordings, you can already guarantee a look in with me as a potential fan if your production is stellar, simply because I have a certain way I approach music.

Some people just like a good beat. Others go for the hellish rock guitars, and have no idea what the lead singer is on about. Some songs are almost ONLY production. Vive la competetive difference.

I think one thing to bear in mind is that whatever you put out there lives forever... you cat get it back: as such it makes sense for it to be as good a quality as possible. It goes back to the idea that you dont need to do everything yourself: if youre no good at mixing, get someone who is. Another thought is that with sync being so important for exposure and income you need good quality (technically) material that will sound good on tvs as well as blasting out of rubbish pc speakers.

@ john

I've done mixes which were ONLY for tv and ONLY for film - specifically tweaked for where they are ending up. All good TV mini series are in 5.1 - with the license being so important I'm thinking of doing more than one mix of each of my tracks so I can accomodate and even OFFER these other mixes/formats. If you do it yourself, there is less chance of a hack messing it up later down the line.

Bounce stems, loop choruses, create instrumentals, take all the drums out, find the hookiest bit and rotate it - for each song you should create a whole other bunch of stuff for a license payer to play with - not only is it convenient, it could mean you get more screen minutes which is more money.

As a band you (almost) always focus and measure your worth on which media cnannels that features your songs.

My band had a song played a couple of times on national radio, even though it was a demo recording. The program that featured us, is the most listened to program in the country.

To be honest, if I knew before how it would sound in the big league of comercial artist-recordings - I would gladly have payed 1000 bucks to get a proper mix. - However I can surely say it wasn't picked because of sound-quality!

That song has also been on a lot of compilations throughout Europe - but I only heard of it being played on national radio in that one program - one explanation/parameter could be the lack of proper mix (sound-quality)!

So my experience is that for your own sake you wanna have a (quality-wise)good sounding record - also Im sure it would add to your chances of having it featured in the big league media industry - If that's what you're aiming for!

Besides of that, I work at a music-company and if we get a recording with a soundquality that isn't up there - we can't take it seriously, because it's so easy to do nowadays (but again this is only from a comercial standpoint)!

My bands next record will properly be recorded in our rehearsing-room and mixed in a home studio as well. It'll properly never receive airplay on any comercial stations - but it'll be sold DIY at websites and at our many shows, just like our last record did - and honestly to hear people sing along to your songs because they "discovered" you through Myspace or whatever, feels so much better than having your song picked and played by one radiohost that likes it. Yes Im a romantic, and by the way: Power to the people ;-)

This is a really valid discussion. I'm a promotions guy with a long history of disappointing attempts to master DIY engineering.

There is software. There is ALWAYS software.

There's definitely a ceiling for ratty recordings - ESPECIALLY depending on your genre.

BUT I don't know if unknowns and newcomers can prioritise that expense unless they've got major label money behind them.

Maybe it's a case of looking at Bruce's latest post: Don't build a business for a non existant market.

I make dance music. I wouldn't bother releasing seriously without putting up an engineering budget. I also make gratuitous electropunk. Good engineering is not really the point.

Does your 1000 want professional engineering and mastering? Don't have a 1000? Better put that at the top of the list.

Man has anyone done a parody of Kevin Kelly's "1000" as Frank Miller's "300"?

I feel some linkbait coming on.

"Tonight we monetize . . . . IN HELL!!!!"

I don't think artists should obsess over un-professional mixes or mastering to the point of not ever releasing the music. There's no such thing as perfect. You can always fix it later.

"You can always fix it later."

I just want to make a note about that:

I'm not sure that's a realistic scenario for a lot of artists. Once a recording is out, you quickly move on. It's never the right time to go over old material and fix it, because you're always already emotionally invested in new material, and you'll be hard to get excited enough about the old material to support re-released/fixed songs.

Besides, fixing songs you've already released makes no sense under the current paradigm of one-off music sales. Asking your fans to buy the same songs again because you did a crap job the first time? I wouln't want to put my fans to the test on that one, frankly. Maybe if you had your entire catalog for sale as a subscription service, you could offer fans continuously updated music, but I actually think that's a hideous proposition, as it's hard enough and expensive enough to generate new material. To perpetually updated old material _and_ find the time to work on new songs? I'm sorry, but I don't have the time and energy for that.

Once something's out it's out. It's old news both for the artist and your audience. Move on.

My point? Everything you release is like a testament to your life, your passion, your existence. Get it right. It will outlast you. Better release less music, and stretch your budget as far as it can go without putting you out on the street. Make it the best you possibly can, because for most musicians I know there will not be time to "fix it later".

-Mark (www.theenrighthouse.com)

Has anyone here heard "The Bees" (or "A Band of Bees" in America) LP 'Octopus'?

If you have I would love to hear opinions concerning its sound quality.

I own it and I really like it...however there is a certain 'low-grade' quality to their mix...I believe it is intentional (seeing as they record in their own home grown studio) but I was just hoping to get a few opinions from the engineer savvy types who frequent this site.

Thanks in advance to anyone who chimes in on this.

Milton