Give ‘em what they want

Last night, I was sitting in bed reading the latest issue of TapeOp (music recording magazine). I used to be moderately involved in recording music, but these days I mostly just follow the trends and try to stay sharp. TapeOp has a lot of interviews with recording engineers and producers, and it’s great to hear what their thoughts were when they made some of their more famous recordings.

I feel sort of stupid that it took me until last night to notice (yet another)  interesting parallel with music and software. Recording is mostly a waterfall process. You record, then you mix, then you master. Some iteration is possible – you can record one song or a whole album before you mix – but most of the time, you finish recording, then you mix. When you’re dong mixing, you master. What’s interesting, is that there are a massive number of opinions on how to do each of these activities. Which mics are “best”? What rooms are best for recording a jazz combo? Do you record rock guitars with mics perpendicular, or at an offset? When should you use multiple mics? Where do you add eq? How loud do you make the vocals.

Then, there’s mastering – which in my opinion is awful on almost every pop or rock recording made in the last 10 years. Mastering (IMO) ruined the latest Metallica and Springsteen albums (and probably many others that I haven’t bothered listening to).

Whatever I think, the albums sold millions, and were (AFAIK, critically acclaimed). You know why – because despite the mastering – despite the fact they may have not used the best microphones or mic placements possible, it’s what the customer wanted. You can take the most well-rehearsed band in the world – use top notch equipment and fantastic production to recreate their sound exactly. You can add just the right punch and pop and remove any harshness and engineer the best recording ever.

But it doesn’t mean it will sell. Customers want something different, and if you don’t give them what you want, all you have is something that you are proud of, and not something that puts dinner on the table. Along the same lines, you can’t ignore the technical part of the process. Engineering quality still makes a difference, as long as you’re doing the right thing.

Same thing as my current day job.

Similar Posts

  • Five for Friday – January 11, 2019

    Here are five things I found interesting this week. Ministry of Test called out my talk at TestBash in their Top Ten list of TestBash talks 2018 But something even cooler from Ministry of Test is that they’ve crowdsourced their conference abstract reviews. I’ve already reviewed a few dozen, and think it’s a fantastic idea…

  • The New World

    I mentioned on twitter that Barack Obama and I both left our old jobs on the same day. The world has been a very different place for both of us since then. Twitter is full of politics – and I’m completely ok with that, and happy to join in with my own opinions and thoughts….

  • The Myth of the Degree

    There’s been s lot reported lately on the Equifax security breach. Equifax failed to apply a security patch for Apache Struts in a timely manner, and attackers took advantage of this to get at a whole lot of customer data. What we don’t know at this time is whether this was a fluke due to a…

  • The Perils of Parables

    I’m a fan of The Pragmatic Programmer, and often use the parable of boiled frogs (which I first read in that book) when talking about organizational change. The concept is simple enough – rather than put the frogs (people) in boiling water (changing everything at once), put the frogs (people) in cool water; then slowly…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.