Charging by the track... always?

[The Beatsmith]

Hi

I see that people charge by the track usually. That's fine, however i'm creating my own personal project/album, separate to the mixing work i do. The album is going to be an instrumental album, and i wanted it to be quite long with a load of shorter tracks (as well as some 'traditional' length songs too). I'm talking that the shortest tracks will be perhaps only 40 seconds long, 'musical idea's type thing. I don't have any 'skits' per se, but maybe i will by the end.

There are tracks that consist of 2 actual pieces of music that flow from one into another, and are actually going to be considered 'one track' as it flips from a more laid back piece of music to a loud/abrasive piece of music (or vice versa).

How does that figure into the idea of paying for mastering? Someone could get around the 'x per track' by making it 10 songs long when really there are 18 real 'tracks' on there.

If i had, say 18 tracks but really have them as 13 CD tracks (because they are joined together), would people do a deal (perhaps you would do one anyway for that many tracks?), charge for 18 tracks, etc?

The reason i ask is because the mastering costs are possibly prohibitive of the creative process and i need to know what kind of money we need to gather and work towards that, or if i need to scale things down, etc.

Thanks for any info you can give on the particular way you work. It's not a traditional album with 12 x 3-5 minute songs or whatever.

Sorry if my question isn't clear.

Eddie

P.S - I'm not shopping for work here or asking for a deal, the project isn't finished, i was just curious so that i know what i need to do.

[NorseHorse]

A. Find an engineer you like.
B. Ask them how much it will take to master "an album".

I'm sure no one would have a problem accomodating you. Remember, you're dealing with people - not mindless corporations!

The only tricky part would is if all your short tracks have completely different sonic material.

[Waltz Mastering]

If the project is not in the "conventional" song format, I will talk to the artist about the particular details and work out a album / project rate instead of a song rate.

On the opposite side, I've worked on albums that were "through composed" or one song for the length of the album, but adjusted the price accordingly.

I know some ME's may charge per minute of music to be mastered or an hourly rate, so there's also that possibility.

[jayfrigo]

I don't necessarily think that "most" people charge by the track, though it is becoming more common, especially with internet mastering. However, hourly plus parts is still the rule for many commercial mastering facilities, especially if it's an attended session.

I do offer a per-song estimate that works well for the typical job, but I let clients know that ultimately it's hourly plus parts. This way, if they need a bunch of extra discs, master versions, skits between the songs, experimentation with signal chains etc., they know the hourly billing is in effect. It can also work in the client's favor if things are quick and easy. Some jobs come in below the per-track estimate.

[jdg]

i only charge per track because when i did hourly, my clients often complained they needed to know exactly what it would cost exactly before they showed up.

that said, i do not charge for all the "little" segues or bits, im sure most ppl would do the same.

i'm not a supermarket, my rate isn't that fixed.

good luck :)

[Brad Blackwood]

Hourly plus parts here.

Can / will do flat-rates when necessary.

[William Bowden]

Hourly here too, if it's per track some clients want to spend all day!

Also if the tracks are very short (or very long) it can be hard to judge. I did an album the other month that was 59:59 exactly but was all one track!

The King

[Thor]

Almost never charge per song, here it's hourly rates plus parts.

We do give quotes which are pretty firm based on the number of tracks and total length of the album, as after a while you pretty much figure out about how much time you need per track to get things jumping. Rarely does that change, although we do include a disclaimer that prices are hourly and may vary depending on what needs to be done.

Those projects (that go over budget) represent only around 10% of all the stuff we do, almost everything stays within our quote. We generally do revisions for free (i.e. EQ, levels) as long as they're not remixed tracks that need to be approached from scratch (i.e. because the band/engineer screwed up).

Once in a blue moon we'll give a fixed rate offer on a project, in most cases we end up regretting it.

Cheers,
Thor

[inlinenl]

track price overhere, but will discuss any option or request from the client ...
sometimes switching to a hour rate for regular clients is cheaper.
when albums/tracks take a lot off care in de-click/fix I'll discuss a price for that before doing it ...
sometimes mastering 12 tracks takes 4 hours for soundbalancing , but the restoration work takes 8 or more .....

also I find myself doing a better job payed in advance ... no sub-process in my head while working like "will they ever pay me" it's more like, okay these guys trust me, let's give them max value ...
but that should count on every project.

[johnnyc]

I think most guys will do hourly if you ask, the per track thing is more catered to singles and itunes. The last album I had mastered was quoted as $150/hr and the total time would be about 6x the running time (meaning an hour of music would take about 6 hours to master). That's about the time it took and was pleased with the results. The experienced guys should be able to give you a pretty accurate quote if you explain what's needed.

[The Beatsmith]

Thanks guys! I'll make a few phone calls, and in the meantime get on with trying to work on my own project.

I really do not want to have the stress of mastering this project myself.

Great stuff

[aleatoric]

I charge per minute of music + parts. For me I find this to be the most accurate way to charge for the amount of time I put into a project.. Hourly is cool but I honestly like to take breaks and stuff and don't really feel like constantly watching the clock. Plus most of my sessions are unattended. The hourly thing can possibly draw questions from clients but per minute of music is represented right there on there production master. Plus clients can come up with a total cost estimate pretty easily before even contacting me.

Per song seems OK but has its faults if a song is really short or really long.

[Adam Dempsey]

Per project here, based on no. of tracks, total length, whether multiple versions, etc. Of course I'll re-quote ahead of the job if necessary (eg, client suddenly has B sides or a radio edit or high res vinyl master required). No hidden extras. Keeps everything relaxed.

[carlsaff]

I'm hourly for attended sessions now, but I've always been flat rate for unattended work. Exactly because of odd situations such as hour long records composed of thirty two-minute tracks or hour long single track albums, I charge unattended work based on the number of minutes of material rather than the number of tracks.

[Alécio Costa]

I charge for song and deliver two versions: nice and ****ing loud.

[t_d]

i master a lot of experimental and ambient music where the songs can be very very short or very very long... so i've felt the per-minute-of-audio rate works best for my customers. it ensures i'm not overcharging for really short pieces or undercharging for very long ones. evens things out.

[brethes@mac.com]

For online album mastering, I offer a package price based on the number of tracks and/or length of the album. For unusual length or number of tracks, I adjust the price according to the actual time required to do the job once I know the exact requirements.

For attended sessions, I charge strictly by the hour.

[Riccardo]

Hourly rate plus parts for attended sessions. Per track charge for on-line mastering (plus parts if needed).