I have no experience with producing music. I attended music school and have a fair knowledge of music theory and experience with performing music, but when it comes to production, especially the mastering step, I am utterly ignorant. Here are some questions to the more knowledgeable.
- Do the musicians have the final word on what the final product should sound like or do those that master the audio have a say in the matter? Do you ever disagree with the musicians and if so, to what extent and how persistently do you voice your disagreement/concern?
- Imagine that you ignored the demands of the musicians: how do you decide what the final product should sound like? Is it the genre? The target equipment on which it will be played (PA, studio monitors, headphones, over-ear, in-ear, radio, bluetooth, wired, etc)? What you subjectively like?
- Has there been a change in how the same genre of music has been mastered during the ages? If so, why is that? For instance, would you have mastered, say, Disturbed’s Prayer the same way today as it was mastered at the time of its release?
Bonus audiophiliac comment (TW! Last chance to elect not to continue!): After years of experimentation, I have settled on listening to music with studio monitors at home and Sennheiser’s IE900 when on the move. The reason for this is that they give me a flat and detailed soundscape, which enables me to pick apart and enjoy both intentional and unintentional sounds. “Consumer grade” soundbars and speakers sound ridiculous to me, because the bass deletes almost everything else.
All answers?
Ok. Here goes. The short answer is it depends on the arrangement. Big stars have more clout with publishers/producers, many artists self publish and maintain control themselves, other work with artist centric studios who respect artists wishes. Otherwise, it’s usually the studio who have a say, and they rely on their mastering engineer’s opinion.
The trend for the last long while was the “wall of sound” pionered by Phil Specter who developed a compression technique so it would sound good on cheap systems and especially cars and radio as that was the main means to introduce music to potential buyers. It has persisted into the age of streaming. Hi-fi friendly masterings are usually done because the buyers are into that kind of music and seek it, conversely, most pop is mediocre. The short of it is the loud and quiet parts are evened out so you can hear more over road noise.
I recall one example, Mary Star of the Sea by Zwan (Billy Corgan from smashing Pumpkins) who made a fantastic record, but wanted, as an artistic choice, for the album to sound like it was being played on a boombox. Great music, sounds like shit. I consider it one of the greatest mastering crimes of all time.
A lot of it is also in the recordings in isolation booths so you get a perfect individual performance, but you lose the stereo imaging and staging audiophiles love. Really depends on who is doing it and why. A lot of artists don’t know anything about this stuff and count on the pros to take care of it for them. Its pretty diverse overall.
Thanks! How interesting that production (inevitably? necessarily?) considers maximum exposure, which, as you said, is radio and cars, and perhaps smartphone speakers and Bluetooth headsets nowadays?
I remember seeing one of Billy Eilish’ albums on vinyl and I was this close to buying it but then I didn’t because it hit me: has it been remastered to actually sound good on vinyl or did they just slap the Spotify version or the radio version onto it? I still haven’t bought it and never looked it up. 😅
Eilish’s albums are very well recorded and mastered. Go get it. You’ll most likely be pleased.
Sweet! I’ll go grab one tomorrow! 🥳📀