Finally did it. Switched to block/hourly from per song.

[StewartFang]

Good for the OP!

I do hourly for tracking and per song for mixing...cause I'll lose the mixes if I dont...I want that to change as my per hour (mixing) ends up being something like $15 by the time all is said and done...

But you know, if you are getting $1500 plus per mix...a per mix rate can make sense...anything under that..probably wont get you points with the wife....cause really doing all the work these days that goes with a mix...editing...more editing...tuning...triggereing...editing...recalls...the stuff that is expected...can easily eat up 24 hours pers song....easily...and if you aren't doing it...you are paying an assistant to do it....or it is something that should have been done.

good mixes should start @ $2500 per song...done.

[Darth Preamp]

I am dealing with this very issue right now.
What I came up with is an hourly block rate for a day as defined by 8 working hours. Any additional hours on the mix are also at the block rate for the first 2 days after the initial day of mixing. After that, it goes back to my regular hourly rate.
So far it is working, but we'll see.

DP

[parloursound]

It's good to see the engineers are finally starting to realise that trying to get work purely on price will harm both them and the rest of the industry. Recording and mixing for less than minimum wage or even free is never sustainable long term. The sooner we all get together and stop under valuing ourselves the better.

[alcoyot]

A couple questions on this.
1. If you're charging mixing by the hour, is it just an honor system that you will record exactly how many hours it took clocked in at the computer or console?

2. Is it really that bad that EVERYONE needs a lot of editing? Like even when you work with seasoned professional studio drummers who can play perfectly on the beat to a click, do you still have to spend time editing and all that? Sometimes from what I read I get the sense that no matter how good the drummer is, the mixer still needs to spend eternity adjusting drum hits and stuff like that. I don't really understand this. Did they have to do a lot of drum editing like this in the 70s and earlier as well? How did they get good drum sounds without drum replacement software back then? Because now one would think its essential.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by alcoyot

A couple questions on this.
1. If you're charging mixing by the hour, is it just an honor system that you will record exactly how many hours it took clocked in at the computer or console?

2. Is it really that bad that EVERYONE needs a lot of editing? Like even when you work with seasoned professional studio drummers who can play perfectly on the beat to a click, do you still have to spend time editing and all that? Sometimes from what I read I get the sense that no matter how good the drummer is, the mixer still needs to spend eternity adjusting drum hits and stuff like that. I don't really understand this. Did they have to do a lot of drum editing like this in the 70s and earlier as well? How did they get good drum sounds without drum replacement software back then? Because now one would think its essential.

Can't answer 1) because I do it per song - and I price expecting a song to take 12hrs start to finish.

2) lots of factors at play here.

- No, most session guys you don't need to edit. Unless they're playing to loops, or going for a dance-rock sound, where you've either got to tighten them to the loops, or tighten the loops to them.

- in the 60s/70s things weren't that tight - listen objectively to anything from that sort of era (good examples - the middle of "all right now" by Free, The Band, Led Zep, Beatles of course). It was par for the course then - now we have microscopes that don't let these things slide.

- some musicians in bands aren't as good as they used to be. Because you couldn't fix things in the past, you had to be good enough to record (otherwise you got replaced by a session guy - eg the Jackson 5 didn't play on their records, they just sang and a session band did the playing), or your band didn't get signed. Now we have a digital safety net.

- Budgets were bigger - because you could only make a pro record at a pro studio, and you could spend months doing one track (this is heading into the 80s now, when a lot of "live" drum parts were recorded one drum at a time, or sampled and programmed).

- some engineers aren't very good at recording drums, and the recorded sound needs a lot of help to get a good result.

I could go on.

Of course, none of this is to do with mixing - as a mixer, yes sometimes I'd replace drum sounds with either a new sample or a "clean" hit of the recorded sound; sometimes I'll tune the odd word or sometimes the whole track. Generally these things should be done before the mix engineer, unless the mixer is also the producer. you should NOT be relying on the mix engineer to tighten your drums or tune your vocals!

[Darth Preamp]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Can't answer 1) because I do it per song - and I price expecting a song to take 12hrs start to finish.

2) lots of factors at play here.

- No, most session guys you don't need to edit. Unless they're playing to loops, or going for a dance-rock sound, where you've either got to tighten them to the loops, or tighten the loops to them.

- in the 60s/70s things weren't that tight - listen objectively to anything from that sort of era (good examples - the middle of "all right now" by Free, The Band, Led Zep, Beatles of course). It was par for the course then - now we have microscopes that don't let these things slide.

- some musicians in bands aren't as good as they used to be. Because you couldn't fix things in the past, you had to be good enough to record (otherwise you got replaced by a session guy - eg the Jackson 5 didn't play on their records, they just sang and a session band did the playing), or your band didn't get signed. Now we have a digital safety net.

- Budgets were bigger - because you could only make a pro record at a pro studio, and you could spend months doing one track (this is heading into the 80s now, when a lot of "live" drum parts were recorded one drum at a time, or sampled and programmed).

- some engineers aren't very good at recording drums, and the recorded sound needs a lot of help to get a good result.

I could go on.

Of course, none of this is to do with mixing - as a mixer, yes sometimes I'd replace drum sounds with either a new sample or a "clean" hit of the recorded sound; sometimes I'll tune the odd word or sometimes the whole track. Generally these things should be done before the mix engineer, unless the mixer is also the producer. you should NOT be relying on the mix engineer to tighten your drums or tune your vocals!

Good answer!

DP

[RARStudios]

What monkey said is spot on.

I understand you are just curious. Possibly trolling or playing devils advocate, who knows.

I am in college. I own a small studio to make money and have fun while I'm doing it, as well as aspire to be a great indie/rock producer ( I have an 18x14 live room, 13x9 mixing room. Acoustically treated of course!). I don't make THAT much doing this, and for every cost I have, it lowers my revenue. Now, we can hire session drummer, sure, but I can also use my computer wiz skills to chop and edit the drums to my liking. I don't have session artists to pay for because I play everything but drums. I can program, quantize and replace drums, so if a band can't play something, I take charge and can do it perfect.

If a label was involved, that would be different, but from the looks of it, labels are STOPPING recording budgets for small acts because it's too much of a liability.

I think it depends on the studio. For me, I can't afford any of that stuff. Instead, time helps me fix the issues you mentioned. And yes, it's true, sadly 99% of bands can't play to a click track, most have zero theory knowledge, and some of them have members who cant even play their own instruments.

This is just my business model, I don't know how others work. In the past I've tried "helping bands out" by charging less. I was walked on. They felt jipped. They ended up unhappy and I ended up unhappy. It just didn't work. It's not that the product they PAID for was bad, it was a false expectation of how they wanted it to sound. As mentioned a few times on here, if a band can't pay hourly ( or a reasonable sum of money for recording/producing, they probably aren't too serious about it anyways, or are uninformed on how the "biz" works. Do you want to work with jokers? I sure don't. I learned quickly about working with people who wanted a million dollar studio sound for pocket change.

I sound bitter and possibly hateful.

I am neither. I love my job that doesn't seem like a job. I have worked with some fantastic local artists and helped them learn a few things, for a very small price tag. I changed though because a static business will go no where, fast. Since I ramped up my understanding of recording and production, upgraded the size of my studio, and want to bring a more polished and quality product to my clientele base, hourly/block scheduling was the best I could think of.



Evan

[drBill]

I want to be valued for what I bring to the table.

The reality is, when someone hires me to engineer on an hourly rate - if they want it - they also get an excellent keyboard player, accomplished arranger, seasoned award-winning ENGINEER, a great studio with a BOATLOAD of gear and instruments, an excellent credited producer, and an amateur armchair psychologist.

If that's not worth a paltry hourly rate that's equivalent or less than what I pay my plumber to send out his assistant, then I really can't afford to work with them - all that stuff and expertise cost me a LOT of money to accumulate and learn. It's all about "value added" these days. Those are the things I bring with me. Hourly. People with vision "get it". Those who don't don't. And I'm AOK with that.

If people are not paying your hourly, and you have to strike block deals that are dragging you towards or below minimum wage levels, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! Find new clients or develop alternate income streams that flow from your studio instead of continuing to book projects that will ultimately loose you money and force you out of biz. To me, it sounds like Evan is a guy that's got it sussed out and is on his way to great things. Best of luck Evan!

bp

[Darth Preamp]

I think it really depends who you are working with. A block rate for a certain number of hours, at a reduced hourly rate, can work very well with clients who are responsible people. With clients who aren't responsible with money, why waste your time anyway by working with them, however you charge them, they will always F$%^ up in paying you one way or another. So I think it comes down to using your brain in terms of who you will work with, to begin with, and not the pay structure that you use. Of course it is easy to misjudge and end up losing money, but that is fairly rare if you keep you eyes open.



DP

[alcoyot]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Can't answer 1) because I do it per song - and I price expecting a song to take 12hrs start to finish.

2) lots of factors at play here.

- No, most session guys you don't need to edit. Unless they're playing to loops, or going for a dance-rock sound, where you've either got to tighten them to the loops, or tighten the loops to them.

- in the 60s/70s things weren't that tight - listen objectively to anything from that sort of era (good examples - the middle of "all right now" by Free, The Band, Led Zep, Beatles of course). It was par for the course then - now we have microscopes that don't let these things slide.

- some musicians in bands aren't as good as they used to be. Because you couldn't fix things in the past, you had to be good enough to record (otherwise you got replaced by a session guy - eg the Jackson 5 didn't play on their records, they just sang and a session band did the playing), or your band didn't get signed. Now we have a digital safety net.

- Budgets were bigger - because you could only make a pro record at a pro studio, and you could spend months doing one track (this is heading into the 80s now, when a lot of "live" drum parts were recorded one drum at a time, or sampled and programmed).

- some engineers aren't very good at recording drums, and the recorded sound needs a lot of help to get a good result.

I could go on.

Of course, none of this is to do with mixing - as a mixer, yes sometimes I'd replace drum sounds with either a new sample or a "clean" hit of the recorded sound; sometimes I'll tune the odd word or sometimes the whole track. Generally these things should be done before the mix engineer, unless the mixer is also the producer. you should NOT be relying on the mix engineer to tighten your drums or tune your vocals!

This is a great answer to my second question. Thanks! My second thought, or response to that answer, is why don't bands nowadays just let the timing be a little loose, and not nitpick over every hit, as long as its not glaringly bad. I love that song by Free, and perfect timing in it isn't really an issue for me. I still bought the album with that song on it.
I'm not trying to say that engineers shouldn't do this one way or the other. I have no opinion on that. My only concern is that if someone is going the route of however many hours it takes that's how long it takes, and then bills by the hour and NOT by the song, then I'd imagine you're bound to get some people who are less than honest about billing how many hours it took exactly. Or like the guy at an office job who spends half the day on facebook.

[StewartFang]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Can't answer 1) because I do it per song - and I price expecting a song to take 12hrs start to finish.

that's about what it takes to mix a song for me...and then sometimes even much longer...never much shorter...given the current expectations....I totally agree with your approach...but It can also take a while with great musician's...if you are going for something...I dont mind spending time...just as long as most of that time is spent making music and not waveforms.

[oldeanalogueguy]

Originally Posted by alcoyot

A couple questions on this.
1. If you're charging mixing by the hour, is it just an honor system that you will record exactly how many hours it took clocked in at the computer or console?

2. Is it really that bad that EVERYONE needs a lot of editing? Like even when you work with seasoned professional studio drummers who can play perfectly on the beat to a click, do you still have to spend time editing and all that? Sometimes from what I read I get the sense that no matter how good the drummer is, the mixer still needs to spend eternity adjusting drum hits and stuff like that. I don't really understand this. Did they have to do a lot of drum editing like this in the 70s and earlier as well? How did they get good drum sounds without drum replacement software back then? Because now one would think its essential.

mix by the hour and the client will want to watch you !!

most people cant play worth crapp and need lots of work.

in the 70s you had to be able to play right before they let you record. very little patching cause it was literally cut and paste back then.

they knew how to record back then without needing crutches to fix things.

[oldeanalogueguy]

Originally Posted by parloursound

It's good to see the engineers are finally starting to realise that trying to get work purely on price will harm both them and the rest of the industry. Recording and mixing for less than minimum wage or even free is never sustainable long term. The sooner we all get together and stop under valuing ourselves the better.

wont happen.
digital has lowered the cost of entry for photography as well as music. anyone with gear is trying to make money.

supply and demand.
there is no money on the low end anymore.
if you are not the big dog on the top end you are going to get squeezed hard. do it for fun or quit.

[RARStudios]

Here is my old product on limited time:

Scr-Emo track I did for a KC band. What are your thoughts on the mix/production?

Cost the band $65

[drBill]

Originally Posted by RARStudios

Cost the band $65

Are you serious? What is your hourly?

I wouldn't let them unload their gear and tune up for $65.

On the other hand, maybe they don't need to tune up.

[RARStudios]

My hourly now is $15 per hour.

It used to be like 8 with per song bullshit.

[Darth Preamp]

At that rate, you must have a day job to cover bills?
Or maybe you are literally working 24/7 in the studio to make it all work. wow.

I hope when you are able, you raise your rates to something more . . . ?

I could never afford to offer such rates, my investment in gear alone, not to mention the cost of electricity for even an hour session to run all the gear.

Wishing you well, but glad you live in a different part of the world than me. (Those rates would ruin my business)


DP

[RARStudios]

I am in college, my studio was built in my basement, I work a day job all summer, work weekends at the studio, and work weekends during the school year in my studio. It gets me by and gives me a good pillow to lean back on.

My plan is to double my block rate every year and a half. I have to build a portfolio first though. I just opened. I am more of a producer than an engineer. I have never had formal training and taught myself everything I know, or learned it on here.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by RARStudios

My hourly now is $15 per hour.

Seriously, think about close to doubling that. Portfolio or no. Just having the GEAR (cheapo gear at that) gets you $20 an hour. Any degree of skill or expertise and it goes up dramatically. For a studio, you should be making double what any of your college friends/clients are making.

[RARStudios]

;/ I'll consider it. I am trying this for a few months. If I start getting overbooked, I'll up it to $20.

Does the song sound okay? I wish I had the raw version, there were so many edits and timing issues I "fixed"

[drBill]

Originally Posted by RARStudios

Does the song sound okay? I wish I had the raw version, there were so many edits and timing issues I "fixed"

I'm probably the wrong guy to ask. I don't record many college bands. IMO, not that great, but you probably worked miracles with it......

But I'll comment more on the studio. It looks GREAT! Unless you've got a lot of smoke and mirrors going in your photo presentation, I think you should be upping your rate to $40+ per hour. EASY. Seriously. when you said $8/15, I kind of figured you were pulling up the bedcovers and pushing your bed out of the way to make room for the drums.

The #1 thing everyone thinks is that they are going to loose business when they raise rates. In my experience, it's the opposite. People respect you more, and you become more in demand. With a room like that, you are SERIOUSLY cutting yourself short. Let them cut back on tatts - not paying fair for studio time.

[Matt Hepworth]

@OP - no way, your rate is $30 per hour, then go to $40 when you get over booked.


I do hourly with discounted hourly rates based on hours the client commits to for a project. I ask for half of that commitment due the first session.

Otherwise it's plain hourly for recording, editing, mixing, and mastering.

However, for bigger projects (albums with reasonable budgets) I offer a per song mix rate. After x number revisions the hourly rate kicks in too. It's honestly a safety net and almost never comes in to play.

[Musiclab]

Originally Posted by Bob Ross

Per Project or Per Song always works in the artist's favor. Per Hour works in the engineer's...unless your hourly rate is paltry. But that's a different sort of dumb.

that's not true, if you're an engineer who places value on his work, you would probably charge enough to cover any possibilities with a per song deal. At least I would, and then what if it was a quick and easy mix, with no revisions, then the artist loses. By the hour is fair

[oldeanalogueguy]

Originally Posted by RARStudios

My hourly now is $15 per hour.

It used to be like 8 with per song bullshit.

RAISE your rates WAY UP !!!!!!!

you can always have sales, specials, coupons, etc to lower it
but you can never raise them when people know that they were lower yesterday

you cant clear minimum wage after you pay taxes, insurance, keep records, repairs, etc. -- on that kind of rate.

[lord_bunny]

I charge by the hour, unattended sessions as well. I don't abuse it, clients are happy, i'm happy.

[Darth Preamp]

Originally Posted by RARStudios

I am in college, my studio was built in my basement, I work a day job all summer, work weekends at the studio, and work weekends during the school year in my studio. It gets me by and gives me a good pillow to lean back on.

My plan is to double my block rate every year and a half. I have to build a portfolio first though. I just opened. I am more of a producer than an engineer. I have never had formal training and taught myself everything I know, or learned it on here.

Nice looking room!

Definitely charge more.

DP

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by Musiclab

By the hour is fair

Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there was a massive imbalance in fairness...by "Per Hour works in the engineer's [favor]" I simply meant that that way the engineer wouldn't find themselves in a position where they could be taken advantage of or where their margins were being eaten into.

[RARStudios]

I agree. My margins were getting eating up. It made me cringe :(

The change is working out phenomenally! I would recommend it to anyone considering it.