Home Recording vs. Real Studio - Credibility vs Quality

[go2go]

I find the following a very interesting topic, which I discussed with one of my friends last night who works in the A&R Department of a very big label. Before reading, understand that this is not another home recording vs. real studios discussion. This is rather a quality vs credibility and "best way to get signed" discussion. So please dont let this turn into a flame war between home recording dudes and professional engineers/producers! Thanks...


So here's the deal. Talented solo-artist (lets call him JAKE) knows how to write, arrange and produce songs. He has a nice setup in his bedroom and figured out recording techniques through various educational material (DVDs, books, etc). In fact, he only needs to record guitars and vocals. Everything else will be ITB. Therefore no amazing mic techniques are required anyway. So.... Jake's plan is it to record his demo in his home studio and then let an experienced engineer mix and master the songs.

Why should Jake decide to spend a lot of cash on a real studio, and NOT record in his bedroom? The money is there, Jake could easily afford to rent out a huge studio, etc.. but he also understands that image is important these days, probably more important than the quality of the recording production, at least when it comes to getting signed... and the story of the kid who recorded his songs all alone by himself in his bedroom will most likely sell better than the one of the kid who hired a professional producer, engineer, studio musicians, etc.

A major label will pick up anything that has a story, a buzz and marketability... keeping that in mind, isnt Jake better off deciding against a real studio? (Given that he'll be able to attract the attention of every major label anyway!)


Post your thoughts fellas. Curious what you think!

[go2go]

PS: I will share my personal view on this after a few replies. Dont want to influence the direction this discussion may go in

[Sid Menon]

I would disagree in terms of the marketability factor. Granted, he could probably create a great record, but no one would want to listen to it, unless someone great mixed it somewhere great then sent it to be mastered by someone just as great. Send a demo to a major and mention it was made in your bedroom and the disc will become the greatest record to ever become a coaster. Send them garbage produced by Ken Andrews, mixed by a Lord-Alge, and mastered by George Marino and they'll listen. And love it.


Based on real world experience, but still only my opinion.

[PoorGlory]

a) A good producer will be able to take his material to the next level... maybe in ways the artist hadn't thought of.

b) Better tracking=Better end product.

c) He has the money.

I think he needs to find a producer that he trusts and has the skills and experience to take him to that next level. Working with a producer of a certain caliber will certainly lend more credibility to his music.

And if recording a demo in your bedroom was any help at getting signed, we'd all be signed. Besides, labels want to hear material that is ready to go out the door.

[cajonezzz]

Well- the way things are going " jake " may be better off with out a major label deal.

No one gives a rats ass where it was recorded.

Proof is in the pudding.

maybe some weight to who's guested on it, or mixed it, but there are all kinds of records - good and bad, being made in bedrooms.

same goes for huge studios.

[not_so_new]

My take.... who cares about getting "signed" anymore.

I have watched the labels screw artist after artist. Good bands fight their way through the crap to "make it" only to find that they are stuck with a record deal that is going to cost them money in the end because the label puts their product on the shelf or releases it with zero tour support.

It reminds me of The Shawshank Redemption where Tim Robbins is crawling through the sewer pipe to break out only the bands find out that what is really waiting for them at the end of the pipe is a whole pool of sh*t and a bunch of other guys who thought they made it.

With the majors floundering like beached whales on the rocks of their own stupidity artist development has become non existent and little bands get little to no support... which is exactly where "JAKE" would be if he got signed to an independent label or tried to go it alone. If he does it on his own he has a much better shot of recouping a portion of his money.

Recording at home or in a project studio makes much more sense in today's climate unless you have really made it.

[code green]

i think the days when jake's situation was unique are long gone. jake with his bedroom setup is just one of the masses.

[and if jake discounts the importance of mic technique and a lot of other things while "just" recording guitar and vox in his studio, there's an even chance he'll sound like one of the masses too.]

also, i'm with the poster above regarding attaching a "name" to your project.

it's a little like getting an mfa...part of it is meeting the people who can get their calls returned by the people you need to hook up with.

[T_R_S]

Originally Posted by cajonezzz

No one gives a rats ass where it was recorded.
.

I do there is nothing like having the air flow system kick in a wreck a good take.
Great isolation a room with a well desigened listening room with acurate monitoring go a long way to making a great recording easy to do.

[Mydog_Nixon]

I think he should just hire a producer, room etc and get the best product possible and then tell the Label that he recorded it in his bedroom. It is not like the Labels are that honest anyway. I worked in a Major LA studio for 3 years as an assistant 10 years ago, and you would be suprised at how many artist spent weeks in overdubs only to claim that they did it in one take. The whole industry is smoke and mirrors so just do whatever it takes to get the best product to the label if that is the way you want to go. Like another poster suggested, it might be wise just to go it alone.

[NathanEldred]

I have a hard time believing Jake can be a great songwriter, performer, engineer (recording, mix, and mastering!!!), and producer. It just doesn't happen very often, if at all. There are not enough hours in a day and years in a young artist's life to learn all of these things properly. That's why some of the best pieces of art in music have been done by a team of usually 3 or 4 important figures who contribute to make the production what it is. This is, IMHO, one of the big things that is wrong with the industry today, not just the failure of the labels. On that thought, I suggest at a minimum Jake should consider hiring a engineer/producer to help him at his home studio. At a maximum get a real group of players together that have a vision and talent along with the producer and possible seperate engineer. Do the drums and guitars in a larger acoustically balanced room, do the overdubbs in the home studio with a professional signal path, and after it's mixed by a professional have it mastered by a professional also.

[AlexLakis]

There are a lot more people much more qualified than me to comment on your post, but here's what I've found out about the industry both at ground zero (L.A.) with the big labels, and locally with independant labels...

Originally Posted by go2go

the story of the kid who recorded his songs all alone by himself in his bedroom will most likely sell better than the one of the kid who hired a professional producer, engineer, studio musicians, etc.

False.

Originally Posted by go2go

A major label will pick up anything that has a story, a buzz and marketability...

False.

Originally Posted by go2go

(Given that he'll be able to attract the attention of every major label anyway!)

And how does he plan to do that again?

I have two points:

1. You're not gonna get signed to a major label, or even attract the flies buzzing around their giant turballs just because your music is good. Just look at 90% of what's there all ready. Pure crap. If what you're saying is true, then we'd all have major record deals by now.

2. Your object is to get signed here, right? By a major? Well, which story do you think is gonna sell better to them? A kid who recorded the album in his bedroom, or the kid who hired a professional producer, engineer, studio musicians/etc., all of which have produced, engineered, played on that major labels hit singles in the past? The help that hiring a well-known and connected producer/engineer doesn't necessarily stop at the record button...

That's my two cents, and that's all they're worth.

[code green]

Originally Posted by T_R_S

I do there is nothing like having the air flow system kick in a wreck a good take.
Great isolation a room with a well desigened listening room with acurate monitoring go a long way to making a great recording easy to do.

i think the poster meant that, no one gives a rats ass about "the story" of where it was recorded, per the original post.

[uncle duncan]

Didn't Christine Aquilara record the vocal to 'Beautiful' in the writers home studio? I think whatever works best for the artist is the best choice. Some artists work better in a no pressure situation, some need discipline. I think bringing tracks (from wherever) to a producer to get overdubbed and mixed by a mix engineer is difinitely a good way to spend money. Everything else is of secondary importance. (Assuming the tracks from wherever are well-recorded.) The trick is whether or not the artist realizes they need production help in the early stages. If they do need help but don't realize it, the project is doomed.

[FFTT]

The harsh reality with most major labels is that unless they know the studio or producer where your work was mastered, they will generally insist that everything gets done all over again on their terms so they own your masters.

I sent a highly talented songstress by appointment to a major publisher who happens to live nearby.

He loved everything about her, then offered to front her $25,000 to re-do her entire
CD. He also wanted 70% publishing rights to the songs she owned outright.

I just uploaded some of my old stuff to soundclick and coudn't help but notice the active artist count for their site.
On this one site alone, there are roughly 250,000 artists submitting their work.

Even if you're the most talented SOB on the planet, getting through that kind of competition takes an inside edge.

[opium89]

Jake would most certainly be better off recording his own stuff.

First and foremost, a quality A&R rep would not care about the recording and would be far more interested in his talent as a singer and/or songwriter. Of course, this logic is really dated as A&R reps are not really interested in finding true talent anymore unless it can sell a can of soda, car insurance, or a Ford. I'm speaking generally of course. There are always exceptions but this is certainly the rule.

As already mentioned, if Jake has done his homework, he would know that he is never going to make one nickel from a Major Label deal unless of course he can sell about 1 million CD's. Pretty tall order these days when over 91% of all signed artists out there are selling less than 5000 total.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issue...ic.labels.html

This is ultimately proceeded by the artist getting dropped. He'd be much better off spending that money on recording and producing his own release and marketing himself.

Yes, a producer does have the ability to bring his material to the next level, but who benefits and who pays for that luxury? The label is the only one who benefts and Jake will ultimately pay for it.

If Jake really is a glutton for punishment and wants to be signed, tell him to use that money for an entertainment attorney with a few connections.

I say leave the major labels and big dollar studios to do what they do best: force contrived b/s down the throats of our mindless, lethargic population who have been left no choice but to listen to the same twenty songs over and over again on radio stations owned by Clear Channel.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by PoorGlory

a) A good producer will be able to take his material to the next level... maybe in ways the artist hadn't thought of.

b) Better tracking=Better end product.

c) He has the money.

I think he needs to find a producer that he trusts and has the skills and experience to take him to that next level. Working with a producer of a certain caliber will certainly lend more credibility to his music.

And if recording a demo in your bedroom was any help at getting signed, we'd all be signed. Besides, labels want to hear material that is ready to go out the door.

He said "take it to the next level"!!!

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by Sid Menon

I would disagree in terms of the marketability factor. Granted, he could probably create a great record, but no one would want to listen to it, unless someone great mixed it somewhere great then sent it to be mastered by someone just as great. Send a demo to a major and mention it was made in your bedroom and the disc will become the greatest record to ever become a coaster. Send them garbage produced by Ken Andrews, mixed by a Lord-Alge, and mastered by George Marino and they'll listen. And love it.


Based on real world experience, but still only my opinion.

They'll listen and love it? I think you are missing the mark here. The music is what matters, the rest falls somewhere WAY down the line, as long as the artist's performance is captured to any extent.

I was thinking of this earlier tonight as I was listening to 'All I Want To Be (Is By Your Side)' off of Peter Frampton's live album. It is just Peter singing and strumming an acoustic guitar, in an auditorium with sucky acoustics. It wouldn't sound all that much different if someone had just stuck a walkman with a built in microphone up there. And it would still rock!

Then again, this is a gear forum...

[theblue1]

I think there's some truth in what everyone has said.

And I think there's a lot of truth in what a number of people who don't agree at all say.


Here are my thoughts:

Jake better be young and good looking.

Jake's producer is important in gaining an in at a major.

Jake's lawyer and his reputation in the music business is likely a lot MORE important to getting signed than who the producer is. The REAL people don't much care who produces anything. ("Oh, just get someone who's hot right now.")


Now -- completely unrelated -- the quality of music and sound:

A WHOLE lot of crap comes out of home studios. Enormous rivers of it.

Not unexpectedly.

But... guess what?

A WHOLE lot of crap comes out of commercial studios, too. Enormous rivers of it.

That's just the nature of artistry, seems to me.


In one case, the practitioners spent some money but ended up with a means of production and started out on the long road to learning their tech chops. In the other, the enterprise churned the industry a little: took a chunk of money out of the artist, band, or backer's bank account, threw a little work (featherbedded or otherwise) to some cronies, allowed any youngsters or first timers to feel glamorous for a few hours...


But there's no question that there are simply things that are much easier to do in a well-appointed commercial facility -- and quite likely more pleasant to do there.

And while I'm a lo fi kinda guy from way back, if you're NOT and you're trying to do certain kinds of projects, you're going to have to all but duplicate certain aspects of a commercial studio to get what you want.

[smtb987]

A small band from New Jersey made up of members from ages 15-19 spent 1000 dollars on a recording in 2002. All guitars and bass were done with amp farm. The only thing recorded with mics were drums and vocals. They got signed 6 months later and this recording went on to sell more than 250,000 copies. Their name is Senses Fail. This kind of thing does happen but is VERY rare. (the numbers come from their guitarist).

[rufus13]

Let's for a minute ass-u-me that JAKE is a prodigy and that he really can do it all in his bedroom studio. He should do it. It'll let him play out lots of musical ideas for little cost (his time and a cheap DAW). After he has gotten finished with that, and can bring his mixes and multi-track to a studio with an experienced staff engineer, then he can hear what is missing from a big room and better gear. He needs to be able to pay cash for this.

Self-publishing is the first step to making an artist desirable for a major distributor to work with. If an artist can come to the table with 2 releases that have sold 5000+ (really sold, not promo-demo-returns) and an active fan base, he has leverage (distributor greed) to get a good deal that leaves publishing alone and leases the masters to the distributor for a fixed/limited period of time. The artist needs a media-specialty lawyer to consult on the contract details.

No one can tell (or cares) how it was made, if it sells.

kk.

[TyRip]

Originally Posted by NathanEldred

I have a hard time believing Jake can be a great songwriter, performer, engineer (recording, mix, and mastering!!!), and producer. It just doesn't happen very often, if at all. There are not enough hours in a day and years in a young artist's life to learn all of these things properly. That's why some of the best pieces of art in music have been done by a team of usually 3 or 4 important figures who contribute to make the production what it is. This is, IMHO, one of the big things that is wrong with the industry today, not just the failure of the labels. On that thought, I suggest at a minimum Jake should consider hiring a engineer/producer to help him at his home studio. At a maximum get a real group of players together that have a vision and talent along with the producer and possible seperate engineer. Do the drums and guitars in a larger acoustically balanced room, do the overdubbs in the home studio with a professional signal path, and after it's mixed by a professional have it mastered by a professional also.

I understand what you are saying, but if you guys read the post, the original poster did say write, record, and produce, then get the stuff mixed and mastered by experienced engineers.

I don't really know if I have enough experience to make a difference, but I get sick of everyone jumping on people for the same old crap when it isn't even the same old crap, and he tried to be clear about that in the original post.

[JohnnyHo]

IMHO, I think he would do best to hire a competent engineer to help him in his home studio. For the same cost as a few days in a big studio he could rent or buy a few quality mics, mic pre(s), eq, and compressor and some room treatment. If he's a talented writer, he can always use he quality gear for a long time to come. If need be, for more complex recordings (drums,choirs, etc) rent a studio for the day. Spend the money on the mixing and mastering portion of it. A well known mix engineers name will go alot further in the eyes on the record company. Now don't get me wrong, I am no where trying to diss the bigger studios and try to take work from them (I have spent my professional career working in one every day for the last 10yrs), but I see a lot of money wasted in them and the inherent clock watching stifles creativity fast.
I have also seen some of the biggest labels and A&R people screw up a good song too many times to remember. They're going to do that regardless where it was recorded, bedroom or not. Unfortunately, my experience has shown me that most major labels nowadays sign artists that have "finished" sounding demo's, but there area few A&R people who have vision as well as an ear and can hear a good song/hit song regardless of the production. Once signed, a major label is probably going to send the artist to the studio to work with a producer anyway. I have worked on some of the biggest radio songs in recent years and worked with every major label but this is just the rambings of a lowly engineer, I don't know squat.

[soupking]

Recording at home or in a project studio makes much more sense in today's climate unless you have really made it.

I just want to say that this thread rocks. This (in no real offense) has more passion, inspiration, and information to me than the "$25,000 Pyramid" threads.

I'm busy trying to finish a control wall in my rehearsal studio because I figure the studios, even though will give me an amazing sound at the cost of of colon cancer, will not find me special. They won't give a rats ass about me or my ideas, only the names that could possibly plop out of my mouth to possibly tack a name somewhere after getting paid.

I want something special, so I'm with Frank, baby. I'm doing my way.

Get in where you fit in, I figure. You can always hire somebody at some point if you've got a solid environment.

Peace,
-soupking

[wwittman]

Originally Posted by go2go

...So here's the deal. Talented solo-artist (lets call him JAKE) knows how to write, arrange and produce songs...

that's the crux of it for me.

DOES he "know how to" arrange and produce?"
How did he learn?
What's he done to demonstrate that?

The question is: will the end result be as good?

if it will, then sure, do it yourself.

But how many artistes really CAN sing a vocal and then know whether it's the right one, the best one, without any outside input?
Would outside input SAVE him time, or keep him from spinning his wheels?
Would outside input perhaps have a good idea that helps him take it FURTHER than he would on his own?

Of course you can take a purist/Albini-type argument and say that no matter what he does on his own it's "better" because it's all "his"

Personally, I think The Beatles were made BETTER with George Martin (not to mention in Abbey Road #2)

or Queen was better with Roy Baker

or AC/DC better with Mutt Lange

I think MOST artistes benefit from the RIGHT producer input.


and second, I think the idea that doing it all himself gives him some sort of story to tell is unlikely to be of any real interest to anyone.
No one really CARES how a record was made... it's: is it, and the artiste himself, marketable or not?

note that in all this I'm NOT talking about engineers or studios themselves... but what you said was he KNOWS HOW to arrange and produce himself.
I understand that's the hypothetical... but it's what rang the bell with me.
I don't think very many people SHOULD produce themselves.
It's rarely their best potential.

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by opium89

Jake would most certainly be better off recording his own stuff.

First and foremost, a quality A&R rep would not care about the recording and would be far more interested in his talent as a singer and/or songwriter. Of course, this logic is really dated as A&R reps are not really interested in finding true talent anymore unless it can sell a can of soda, car insurance, or a Ford. I'm speaking generally of course. There are always exceptions but this is certainly the rule.

As already mentioned, if Jake has done his homework, he would know that he is never going to make one nickel from a Major Label deal unless of course he can sell about 1 million CD's. Pretty tall order these days when over 91% of all signed artists out there are selling less than 5000 total.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issue...ic.labels.html

This is ultimately proceeded by the artist getting dropped. He'd be much better off spending that money on recording and producing his own release and marketing himself.

Yes, a producer does have the ability to bring his material to the next level, but who benefits and who pays for that luxury? The label is the only one who benefts and Jake will ultimately pay for it.

If Jake really is a glutton for punishment and wants to be signed, tell him to use that money for an entertainment attorney with a few connections.

I say leave the major labels and big dollar studios to do what they do best: force contrived b/s down the throats of our mindless, lethargic population who have been left no choice but to listen to the same twenty songs over and over again on radio stations owned by Clear Channel.

LOL, true dat!

[vernier]

I'd take a studio anyday if it had Analog recorders, Fairchild 670, Elam251s, RCA ribbons, U47s, UA 175's, Pultec EQP1's and MEQ-5's, large rooms, and great live chamber.

[themaidsroom]

Originally Posted by vernier

I'd take a studio anyday if it had Analog recorders, Fairchild 670, Elam251s, RCA ribbons, U47s, UA 175's, Pultec EQP1's and MEQ-5's, large rooms, and great live chamber.

me too


be well


- jack

[wwittman]

by the way if "Jake" as a SOLO artiste makes a "major label deal", would we expect him to get an advance?

(in addition to the recording budget or reimubursement of his recording costs incurred already)


Yes, he's going to run up an 'account' that includes video and tour support and band member salaries and attorney fees and maybe a producer advance and all that stuff.
And all that will be recoupable against his FUTURE royalties.
But he's STILL going to get an advance (he's an image driven artiste in your description, right? not some indie rock band) and he's going to have a SHOT at selling those million CD's and being on the actual radar.

I'm not defending major labels, god knows... but the received internet wisdom that it's always bad to sign a record deal is just SILLY.

lots of people make money.
Often MORE money than they would on indies or on their own.

it's just made at different points or from different things.

[go2go]

Originally Posted by pegleg

Very few, in my experience. And, yes, just because he 'knows how to arrange and produce' doesn't make him the BEST choice to arrange and produce his own songs.

In reply to the original post;

"ONLY need to record guitar and vocals ... no amazing mic techniques are required"

I disagree vehemently. First of all, if you're selling a song, the vocals are the most important part. Vocal mic technique is critical, since it's the focal point of the mix, and should be the best sounding thing in it. To downplay the importance of that is a mistake... Often it's the weakest part of home recordings I hear.

Case in point - I just mixed a record for a group, which I didn't track. (I rarely do more than one or two of those a year). They recorded the whole thing at home, it's VERY vocal dependent music, and the vocals were very poorly recorded. I did extensive work on them in mixdown, but they're still not what they should be; there just isn't enough there for me to work with. Had I tracked those vocals myself, they would sound ... professional, the way they should, big, full, etc...

Just a few things to fuel this discussion...

1. Lets say Jake does decide to record with a producer and engineer. Who are these guys to say that vocal take A sounds better than B? Jake is an unsigned artist, he hasnt the money and contacts to hire a George Martin or Rick Rubin. So how is some producer or engineer to say what sounds better (what vocal take, what song structure, etc) if he hasnt had a hit himself... EVER?

2. What amazingly secret vocal techniques are required to record a good and usable vocal take these days? We live in an era where information is available EVERYWHERE. I doubt such a thing as "advanced" vocal recording techniques exist anymore. Am I wrong? And maybe I am wrong here again.. but when I watch a DVD of Metallica or Jay-Z recording, I dont see any secret mic techniques. In fact I see James Hetfield running around and screaming into a SM7, and Jay-Z standing in Rick Rubin's huge living room, singing into a good condenser mic, with moving blankets behind him to get a more try sound. Are these what we consider the "secrets"? Isnt the superb performance of these artists in the end what lets us believe they used some "secret techniques"?

Again. I am not saying I am right, or somebody else is wrong. This is just to fuel the discussion and figure out the "real truth" behind all of this...

[go2go]

Originally Posted by wwittman

(he's an image driven artiste in your description, right? not some indie rock band) and he's going to have a SHOT at selling those million CD's and being on the actual radar.

Yes.. thats what more people in this thread should focus on. Jake is an image driven artist, just like you said. But then again every big artist is somewhat "image driven". But Jake's career will be based on being a credible artist. Thats what labels did with somebody like Avril Lavigne, but she's not real.. she's not credible. And people could tell, couldnt they? Why else was there so much controversy around Avril? And why do so many people still not take her serious? Especially on her first record she was just another manufactured pop artist. Thats even what her producers, The Matrix, said. "She just came in and changed a few words, but WE wrote the song".

But with Jake there'll be no faking. He'll make similar music as Avril.. but people will be able to tell from day1, from when he enters the "scene", that he's a REAL ARTIST, who can not only sing, but also produce and write. And YES.. he's a good looking kid who's marketable.

So.. again.. whats best for JAKE? Wouldnt his "story" and "image" be somewhat refreshing for the pop scene? Do you really think that people dont give a shit about the HOW WHERE WHEN? Isnt the story ultimately what makes people and especially the media interested in an artist in the 1st place? Especially, since like you all said, theres simply too much good music out there to pay attention to everyone and for everyone to "make it". Dont you NEEEEED a story?