What Am I Worth?

[tc_live]

Originally Posted by The Roy Factor

Not sure if I'm in the right spot to post this.

I've been recording for about 2 years now, and I feel like I'm making a lot of progress. In that time I am now a vertified engineer

What is a 'verified engineer'?

The only verification I can think of is chartering but that doesn't relate to sound engineers. Unless you are a chartered engineer I'd be careful how you use that term.

but I know experience is everything, so that's why I just record ALL the time hoping to get better. I just never have anyone tell me that I suck or that I'm average or anything. I usually just get "it's good, Kurt" and that's it.

Who do you ask though? Bands will always say stuff is good because they don't know any better. The phrase that's probably most appropriate here is "you don't know what you don't know" - in the sense that you are unaware of what knowledge you are missing.

The only way you can get that is to work with people who are much better than you. Working at home and recording stuff is great but you're only learning by trial and error. Working with pros will help you put some methodology into your work.

I've started charging people that come in to my humble studio, and I think it's going pretty well. People like the mixes. But I feel like compared to other studios around me, I'm not on the same level. I don't know. I charge $80 PER SONG. Does anyone think I could be charging more or less?

$80 per song is an odd way of working to me. You should be on an hourly rate, if you've got clients in the studio. (If you work alone it's different, as you set the pace). If they want to spend 3 days doing guitar overdubs it's not fair that they pay $80 for a session spanning 5 days whilst some guy who wants to do a 3 track acoustic demo pays $240 for a single day, is it?

It's also a bit sort of cheap. I've always said that people in skilled trades should not get less than $15 an hour and professionals not less than $30 an hour. Which bracket you put yourself in is up to you, I'd probably say the former. Are you spending more than 5 hours on each song?

It's ultimately up to you what you charge. Personally I'd remove your rates from your website and do it on a "POA" basis. Chat to people, find out what their project involves and where it's going and then come up with a rate. If it's 4 weeks in your studio doing 3 tracks then $240 is not good money. But you can charge a lower daily rate than if you were doing a 2 day session because it's guaranteeing you work for a month. Also means that you can offer a better deal to the stuff you really want to work on, or charge a bit extra to bands who are clearly loaded. You will find you're able to take on more projects if you do POA rates.

[The Roy Factor]

Thanks TC

Thanks for the advice. I probably should've proof read my post last night before posting, so let me clear up a few things. I went to an established recording studio here in Michigan that offered a state licensed intensive program that gave me a certificate in recording engineering. I also intern there and another studio, so I am learning that way. Before that I also attended my community college's engineering program for a year and a half. It's scary thinking about charging per hour, but it makes a lot of sense. I feel like it forces people to be more prepared for recording.

[LoFi_By_Choice]

Originally Posted by The Roy Factor

Thanks TC

Thanks for the advice. I probably should've proof read my post last night before posting, so let me clear up a few things. I went to an established recording studio here in Michigan that offered a state licensed intensive program that gave me a certificate in recording engineering. I also intern there and another studio, so I am learning that way. Before that I also attended my community college's engineering program for a year and a half. It's scary thinking about charging per hour, but it makes a lot of sense. I feel like it forces people to be more prepared for recording.

Hourly rates are surely good for 'encouraging' people to be prepared, and (arguably) more serious about booking time. Kind of a bullshit-filter.

[mfedderman]

People SHOULD be prepared before they go into a studio. I've actually sent unprepared clients home.

[Kell Sound]

The per song isn't always a bad way of going. I have used it from time to time, granted only with live recording. Hourly works if you know what your doing and not stumbling around your studio. I have seen engineers get dropped over technical problems in the studio. So make sure your are not going to be fighting with your computer the whole time.

[tc_live]

Originally Posted by Kell Sound

The per song isn't always a bad way of going. I have used it from time to time, granted only with live recording. Hourly works if you know what your doing and not stumbling around your studio. I have seen engineers get dropped over technical problems in the studio. So make sure your are not going to be fighting with your computer the whole time.

The way I see it:

- If the working tempo is set by the client, the client should be charged by the hour.
- If the working tempo is set by the seller, the client should be charged by the unit.

This is the fairest way of doing it. Where your work speed affects them, you should give them benefit of the doubt and only charge them for the actual work done, not how long it's taken you to do it. Where their week speed affects you, you shouldn't let them dictate what you get paid. So hourly it must be.

As a complete off-topic aside, on your website I saw your thing about weighted mic stands for your reflexion filter. Just thought I'd say if it still gives you any hassle, there is a better option. Forget mic stands, they are small and flimsy. Put it on a drum cymbal stand. They're much bigger, heavier and sturdier and not actually all that expensive. Often the cheaper stuff is heavier too. For a mix of quality and price I like Big Dog drum hardware

Originally Posted by OP

I feel like it forces people to be more prepared for recording.

I'd be interested to hear as to why you think that's a bad thing. Are you saying artists should come into the studio not being ready to record? What's the point in that?

The problem with charging by the song is bands want revision after revision. In 90% of cases where I've had this, the first or second mix has nailed it. Everything thereafter has just gone round in circles with Mix 3 sounding like Mix 1 and Mix 4 sounding like Mix 2 and so on. Some bands are just never happy. They think they can turn up with cheap starter pack guitars and amps and absolutely no musical talent, but when they leave, the fact that it doesn't sound like Muse is your fault. And you need to do revision after revision because eventually it will sound like Muse. If you charge by the hour, after 2 mixes they will just shut up and let it go because they can't afford 25 revisions of each song. This will actually be in their interests as seldom do remix after remix actually improve the sound. They usually make it worse.

If they decide to take it personally and say "this sounds dump, you suck" don't worry about it too much. Let somebody else deal with them, you don't want clients like those anyway.

[waveheavy]

Originally Posted by The Roy Factor

I've been recording for about 2 years now, and I feel like I'm making a lot of progress. In that time I am now a vertified engineer, but I know experience is everything, so that's why I just record ALL the time hoping to get better. I just never have anyone tell me that I suck or that I'm average or anything. I usually just get "it's good, Kurt" and that's it. Nothing ever gets said that makes be break my stupid habits or makes me change the way I look at things. I've started charging people that come in to my humble studio, and I think it's going pretty well. People like the mixes. But I feel like compared to other studios around me, I'm not on the same level. I don't know. I charge $80 PER SONG. Does anyone think I could be charging more or less?

I'm going to make your day Kurtis.

SYSTEMATIC PRODUCTIONS - Official Website - Mixing Guide

Ermin Hamodovic who wrote that appears to do mostly Rock and Metal mixing, but don't let that fool ya. What he covers in that guide is solid technique for most all styles. It is well worth the 20 odd bucks or so. I never started controlling the low end well until I tried Ermin's tips.

Your tracks: sounds like you're got a handle with EQ, not fearful of cutting out a lot of the instrument frequencies that don't support the mix. But the gel isn't really there yet. With songs like Long Run the vocals are a bit buried for that style and kind of thin. Lot of those tunes have the vocal a bit buried and thin. Some fattening might bring them out more.

Could be that all you really need is a good mastering house too.

[gruenburger]

well i am a fan of your mixes. $80+ per song seems fair for mixes.

[tc_live]

Originally Posted by gruenburger

$80+ per song seems fair for mixes.

Are you serious? Is that how low you value this work?

It's an atrociously low amount if you are churning out professional results. For somebody working at this guy's level I'd expect to pay that for mastering.

If you are mixing properly you should be putting a lot of hours into it. Professionals should expect $25-30 an hour for their work... although if their work involves use of their own facilities the rate should reflect that. So unless you're only spending 3 hours per mix, that is not 'fair'.

I'm not saying he can expect to get any more money, with the amount of competition who are prepared to work for that money, and also in light of the fact that the bands he is working with are 'hobby' bands not 'professional' bands (purely in the sense that they make music because it's fun not because it pays their salary) who have to save every penny they can. I'm just saying, the word 'fair' is not the one I would choose.

[Kell Sound]

Originally Posted by tc_live

The way I see it:

- If the working tempo is set by the client, the client should be charged by the hour.
- If the working tempo is set by the seller, the client should be charged by the unit.

This is the fairest way of doing it. Where your work speed affects them, you should give them benefit of the doubt and only charge them for the actual work done, not how long it's taken you to do it. Where their week speed affects you, you shouldn't let them dictate what you get paid. So hourly it must be.

As a complete off-topic aside, on your website I saw your thing about weighted mic stands for your reflexion filter. Just thought I'd say if it still gives you any hassle, there is a better option. Forget mic stands, they are small and flimsy. Put it on a drum cymbal stand. They're much bigger, heavier and sturdier and not actually all that expensive. Often the cheaper stuff is heavier too. For a mix of quality and price I like Big Dog drum hardware



I'd be interested to hear as to why you think that's a bad thing. Are you saying artists should come into the studio not being ready to record? What's the point in that?

The problem with charging by the song is bands want revision after revision. In 90% of cases where I've had this, the first or second mix has nailed it. Everything thereafter has just gone round in circles with Mix 3 sounding like Mix 1 and Mix 4 sounding like Mix 2 and so on. Some bands are just never happy. They think they can turn up with cheap starter pack guitars and amps and absolutely no musical talent, but when they leave, the fact that it doesn't sound like Muse is your fault. And you need to do revision after revision because eventually it will sound like Muse. If you charge by the hour, after 2 mixes they will just shut up and let it go because they can't afford 25 revisions of each song. This will actually be in their interests as seldom do remix after remix actually improve the sound. They usually make it worse.

If they decide to take it personally and say "this sounds dump, you suck" don't worry about it too much. Let somebody else deal with them, you don't want clients like those anyway.

Thanks for checking out my site. That's a great option I had not thought of. I had a conversation recently about how drummers have far better designed hardware and I agree. Maybe we should see an increase of drum hardware adapters for studio use.

[LoFi_By_Choice]

Originally Posted by tc_live

Are you serious? Is that how low you value this work?

If you are mixing properly you should be putting a lot of hours into it. Professionals should expect $25-30 an hour for their work... although if their work involves use of their own facilities the rate should reflect that. So unless you're only spending 3 hours per mix, that is not 'fair'.

Mixing on a per-song rate is nuts to me. The mixing process is what takes the most amount of time. I'd think it would make more sense to charge $X per song recording and then hourly on mixing, if you wanted to stick with this per song charging (which I'd never heard of before joining GS. I always thought hourly was standard).

At $80 a song mixing, I've done plenty of mixes that I'd make less than minimum wage on! Sweatshop labor rates, really.

[gruenburger]

Originally Posted by tc_live

Are you serious? Is that how low you value this work?

It's an atrociously low amount if you are churning out professional results. For somebody working at this guy's level I'd expect to pay that for mastering.

If you are mixing properly you should be putting a lot of hours into it. Professionals should expect $25-30 an hour for their work... although if their work involves use of their own facilities the rate should reflect that. So unless you're only spending 3 hours per mix, that is not 'fair'.

I'm not saying he can expect to get any more money, with the amount of competition who are prepared to work for that money, and also in light of the fact that the bands he is working with are 'hobby' bands not 'professional' bands (purely in the sense that they make music because it's fun not because it pays their salary) who have to save every penny they can. I'm just saying, the word 'fair' is not the one I would choose.

You're right, he is worth more than that amount. I enjoyed his mixes very much.

[tc_live]

Originally Posted by LoFi_By_Choice

Mixing on a per-song rate is nuts to me. The mixing process is what takes the most amount of time. I'd think it would make more sense to charge $X per song recording and then hourly on mixing, if you wanted to stick with this per song charging (which I'd never heard of before joining GS. I always thought hourly was standard).

If you're mixing by yourself without the band in the studio, I see no wrong in per-song pricing. Otherwise, for all they know, you could be sat on the studio computer watching porn and playing computer games and putting it on the bill. I would be sceptical about paying hourly rates if I couldn't see exactly how that time was being used.

That's why I said above, to me you should charge per project when you set the pace and charge per hour when the client does.

All I meant was, even on a by-project basis, $80 is stupidly low. You can't get a decent meal out for that much money. As I've said in another thread, you may think it makes sense to be cheap, but it doesn't. You might get a couple of extra gigs by setting your prices low but you're costing the whole industry money.

[LoFi_By_Choice]

Originally Posted by tc_live

If you're mixing by yourself without the band in the studio, I see no wrong in per-song pricing. Otherwise, for all they know, you could be sat on the studio computer watching porn and playing computer games and putting it on the bill. I would be sceptical about paying hourly rates if I couldn't see exactly how that time was being used.

Well, that's true. It does take a level of integrity to truly separate billable time and non-billable time. I wasn't taking into account that the band would not have at least one representative present while mixing. Any time I've been paying for studio time I've been present for the mix, even if the other guys I recorded with couldn't be there. The engineer wouldn't mix it at all unless at least one of us were present. He had a pretty good system going, in that he would 'round-off' the time, to take into account the non-billable stuff. He may shave the first 20 minutes off and the last 15, for example.

I would just be concerned with a client "maxing out" their mix time if you charged them by the song, meaning you charged $100 per song so the client has the option of working you 14 hours on ONE song. That translates to $7.14 an hour. Baggers at WalMart make better money than that, and I just think it is loco to put yourself in the situation where you are ripping yourself off.

[beautyfish]

I've been at this in one form or another for a very long time, and I think one of the most difficult skills to acquire is learning where to set the bar for yourself as regards rate structure. Being a freelancer means that you will be fighting a constant battle with clients who will seek to use your services for the least amount possible. You, on the other hand, should be looking to charge the most possible for your services while still being fair to the client. You are also looking to stay busy while slowly inching your rate upward over the course of your career.

If you set your rate too low (say $80 per song) and wow the client, you may win a loyal client, but you will now be perceived as THE $80 GUY. When they rave about you to their friends, it won't just be that you are great. It will be that you are great and CHEAP! Every referred client will come to you expecting this rate. This tends to work exponentially, and makes growing your career extremely difficult. After six months of working like a dog for that loyal client, don't be surprised when they drop you like a hot potato when you try to bump your rate by ten bucks. It's hard to develop any vibe or mystique when your reputation has been made on being cheap.

If you think that your work stands up favorably to others at a certain level, try to figure out what the going rate is for work at that level and charge that rate. If you can do something else to attract clients BESIDES undercutting the going rate, do that. Put together a rack of obscure and cool gear that you bring to gigs and include at no charge. Be super cool and charming. Do amazing work and work like a dog. Make your place a super cool and vibey hang.

Good luck with all of this. Getting the rate thing right is one of the key criteria to being a successful freelancer.

[tc_live]

Originally Posted by LoFi_By_Choice

I would just be concerned with a client "maxing out" their mix time if you charged them by the song, meaning you charged $100 per song so the client has the option of working you 14 hours on ONE song. That translates to $7.14 an hour. Baggers at WalMart make better money than that, and I just think it is loco to put yourself in the situation where you are ripping yourself off.

That is indeed, the flip side of the coin. I have had projects like that and one of them got so bad I gave them their money back. (For this reason, when I send client mixes to approve, I always include a couple of half second bursts of white noise in the track. It doesn't upset the mix at all it just makes it unusable commercially).

What most 'unattended' mix engineers do to counter this problem is like, a free first revision (so, you send them a mix, do you like this, and they come back with a listo f changes) and so long as they like that they only pay the agreed rate. But changes after that are charged. This stops people extracting the urine.

Like I said before though, as long as you have somebody in the studio, it's hourly rate, no problem.

[The Roy Factor]

Awesome. Thanks to everyone who has posted in this thread. You are helping me out a TON.

I'm thinking about starting to do by hour. It just makes sense, and I won't feel like I'm jipping myself too much at this point.

I get people all the time that come in to record and expect me to bend over backwards for $80 a song. Like Beautyfish said, I really don't want to be the $80 guy anymore. That makes so much sense. Thanks!

Would it be a better idea to start doing $15 an hour for tracking? I don't feel comfortable charging per hour for mixing because I like to spend a lot of time on tracks obviously to get them to sound the best, and because I'm not a professional yet.

[tc_live]

You need to grow the confidence to say "this is what I charge, and if you don't like it, find somebody else".

You WILL lose some jobs for it, but the people who want YOU will pay for YOU. And with stricter rates, you won't get messed around half as much. When you work for whatever and do whatever, people see you as an easy target. When you're prepared to put your neck on the line and risk losing the gig, people will see that you're serious. You need them to realise that they need you more than you need them. Whilst they think that their custom is more important to you than your skills are to them, they will kick you all over the park.

Years ago when I was first starting I used to work for this guy. He had serious connections so I was a bit of an ass-kisser and I'd do hours of work, on quite often completely unworkable tracks (mainly girls he wanted to sleep with) - not his proper stuff - just things he wanted doing but couldn't afford to pay his serious studio guys for. I just went with it because I did need the credits more than he needed my skills, because fact is he could have found some other mug fairly easily if I'd told him where to go. I used to be up all hours, spending money on gear... once he even asked me to chip in on duplication costs because having it pressed would help my portfolio (I didn't pay). For this, I charged him about $50 to mix and about $25 to master. (So, similar to you).

I told myself all the excuses... if I sent me 3 tracks I could usually do them all in a day (like - 12-15 hour day albeit) and master them the next. And I'd get $225 for 1 1/2 days work - which is like $150 a day, which is alright. Better than I'd get doing a bar job or something. But then I started being invited to the launch parties and stuff and realised he was paying me $50 a mix and then spending $5000 on a VIP area and bottles of champagne. He did have the money, he just chose not to spend it. But because I was living my dream as a recording engineer, I turned a blind eye.

Then he started referring people. I was flattered at first, thinking he must like my work so much that he was prepared to recommend me. They'd ring up and say "Joe Bloggs says you're a good mixer, can you mix my album". I'd be like "yeah". And they'd say "how much?" and I, thinking "hmm well since I'm getting my name up now..." would be like "$100". And they'd be like "Oh. Joe said you'd do it for $50. We can't stretch to $100".

This is when it dawned on me that I wasn't the guy's favourite engineer. I was just the guy's cheap engineer. When people wanted cheap stuff he said me, because I was cheap. I stuck with it for a bit. But then I started to realise all this time, all I wanted to do was establish my name. And had I? Yes. And how? I had established it as TC the cheap guy. Which was me screwed then. Eventually what really kicked it all over was me finding out that some of the stuff he was sending me, he was charging the clients $200-300 a mix, and then paying me $50. Making $150-250 for himself by exploiting me. At that point I stopped taking his calls.

It's fairly true to say that if from the start I'd just said "I appreciate you have a budget to work to, but I know I'm good, and I charge $200 a mix - we can budge a bit if you want a whole album, but that's my rate" one of 2 things would happen. He'd either say "no, I can't afford that" and that'd be a whole load of hassle saved. Or, he'd have paid, and known that I wasn't somebody to have the urine extracted from them.

Look at prostitutes. Plenty of people use the dirty, drug addict cheap slags who patrol the pavements of the red light district and will give you a ride for a line of cocaine. But nobody wants them. Everybody, given the choice, would rather go for the expensive high class escort, who selects her clients, wears the finest lingerie and expensive perfume, looks after her body. But those girls, they only work if you pay them lots of money, invite them to your 5 star hotel, and buy them dinner in a nice restaurant. What would you prefer? A cheap drug addict who'll sleep with anyone, or a high class escort who only works for those who pay the full amount? There is no reason why mix engineers should be different. Being cheap might keep you busy with the kind of bands you don't want, but it won't get you a single gig with the bands you do want.

[The Roy Factor]

Wow, thanks for the great responce TK live. That makes SO much more sense. I think $15 an hour is a good way to start off. You guys have been so helpful and I really appreciate everyone who posted. I'm starting this year doing $15hr, so let's hope that works out well! I also might be moving in my own house this year and moving the studio with it.

Thanks everyone, you've been awesome!

[drumlooney]

Originally Posted by tc_live

You need to grow the confidence to say "this is what I charge, and if you don't like it, find somebody else".

You WILL lose some jobs for it, but the people who want YOU will pay for YOU. And with stricter rates, you won't get messed around half as much. When you work for whatever and do whatever, people see you as an easy target. When you're prepared to put your neck on the line and risk losing the gig, people will see that you're serious. You need them to realise that they need you more than you need them. Whilst they think that their custom is more important to you than your skills are to them, they will kick you all over the park.

Years ago when I was first starting I used to work for this guy. He had serious connections so I was a bit of an ass-kisser and I'd do hours of work, on quite often completely unworkable tracks (mainly girls he wanted to sleep with) - not his proper stuff - just things he wanted doing but couldn't afford to pay his serious studio guys for. I just went with it because I did need the credits more than he needed my skills, because fact is he could have found some other mug fairly easily if I'd told him where to go. I used to be up all hours, spending money on gear... once he even asked me to chip in on duplication costs because having it pressed would help my portfolio (I didn't pay). For this, I charged him about $50 to mix and about $25 to master. (So, similar to you).

I told myself all the excuses... if I sent me 3 tracks I could usually do them all in a day (like - 12-15 hour day albeit) and master them the next. And I'd get $225 for 1 1/2 days work - which is like $150 a day, which is alright. Better than I'd get doing a bar job or something. But then I started being invited to the launch parties and stuff and realised he was paying me $50 a mix and then spending $5000 on a VIP area and bottles of champagne. He did have the money, he just chose not to spend it. But because I was living my dream as a recording engineer, I turned a blind eye.

Then he started referring people. I was flattered at first, thinking he must like my work so much that he was prepared to recommend me. They'd ring up and say "Joe Bloggs says you're a good mixer, can you mix my album". I'd be like "yeah". And they'd say "how much?" and I, thinking "hmm well since I'm getting my name up now..." would be like "$100". And they'd be like "Oh. Joe said you'd do it for $50. We can't stretch to $100".

This is when it dawned on me that I wasn't the guy's favourite engineer. I was just the guy's cheap engineer. When people wanted cheap stuff he said me, because I was cheap. I stuck with it for a bit. But then I started to realise all this time, all I wanted to do was establish my name. And had I? Yes. And how? I had established it as TC the cheap guy. Which was me screwed then. Eventually what really kicked it all over was me finding out that some of the stuff he was sending me, he was charging the clients $200-300 a mix, and then paying me $50. Making $150-250 for himself by exploiting me. At that point I stopped taking his calls.

It's fairly true to say that if from the start I'd just said "I appreciate you have a budget to work to, but I know I'm good, and I charge $200 a mix - we can budge a bit if you want a whole album, but that's my rate" one of 2 things would happen. He'd either say "no, I can't afford that" and that'd be a whole load of hassle saved. Or, he'd have paid, and known that I wasn't somebody to have the urine extracted from them.

Look at prostitutes. Plenty of people use the dirty, drug addict cheap slags who patrol the pavements of the red light district and will give you a ride for a line of cocaine. But nobody wants them. Everybody, given the choice, would rather go for the expensive high class escort, who selects her clients, wears the finest lingerie and expensive perfume, looks after her body. But those girls, they only work if you pay them lots of money, invite them to your 5 star hotel, and buy them dinner in a nice restaurant. What would you prefer? A cheap drug addict who'll sleep with anyone, or a high class escort who only works for those who pay the full amount? There is no reason why mix engineers should be different. Being cheap might keep you busy with the kind of bands you don't want, but it won't get you a single gig with the bands you do want.

Great Post!

[cquinonez93]

Per song without band in studio.

Per hour WITH band in studio.

As far as if $80 is a reasonable rate, I haven't checked out your mixes. But I look forward to and will give some input!

[The Roy Factor]

Just coming back to this post. Thanks everyone for their input. I am now charging by the hour and I feel like I'm getting paid for what I'm doing : )