The future of studios.

[dayjob]

My point was to MAKE A STUDIO AT HOME ...
For me this set up is more then enough to make music ...
Like me are many , instead to go to a studio , pay for recording there , I stay at home and make things the way I want ...
Easy and fast ...

well, yes.. that's what we most of us do.. we make our studios in our homes.. but that is not the same as a traditional _professional_ studio or even project studio that can handle lot's of varied projects not just one specific task which is making music the way you (we) do in our homes, basements, spare bedrooms.

there are many other things to consider than a bunch of soft synths reasonably sized LCD for looking at them. that's all i was getting at.

[Doug1978]

^^ well said dayjob.

But I do have monitors . I just didn't to write about them ( JBL LSR 305) . I have other staff too ( Yamaha pss 790 , two displays , an Evolution MK 125, headphones Pioneer HDJ-500K ) .
Big studios will never disappear , just small ones . If something is worth going forward , it will go ( Moog are still making unbeatable , pricey , analog keyboards ) .
For me, like many others maybe, music is more than just a hobby . But I'm not that rich so , I prefer to buy all this staff to experiment and create music , create nice songs , and sell it online . In this way I don't have to go to a big/small studio and pay £1,200/£450 a day . Get it ?

Why not mention the monitors in your original post and include them in your price list then? (And you still haven't mentioned the need for a reliable monitoring environment).

To claim, as you did in your OP, that people just need some softsynths and a couple of midi controllers to operate as a studio is nonsense (and shows a lack of experience).
Which is why most of us here chimed in.

As for studios, as other people have said: engineers of many years' experience are the key asset.
Personally, I always ask a mastering engineer to sort out the final issues in my music. If nothing else, it gives a second pair of ears to the project.
Get it?

[hibidy]

And cell phones replaced pay phones



This is how it goes. I like looking at nice studio gear and appreciate people who took the time to get good at what they do, but you can make a record that sounds fine on a laptop. (well, not most of it, but someone that is good...)

[johnwoo]

I prefer to spend my savings on things that help me create and improve my music !!! , instead to give this savings to an studio to improve my sound !!! . In a studio the same engineer produce 10 bands , all 10 will sound the same . The artist , is the person who know best how his music must sound . Remember back in the days , all great musicians have their personal studio . Music today , because of studios and theirs engineer , is become too commercial (everybody have in their song that avicii wooble bass , " i need that bass , my song is not the same without it " ) just to give an example .Today music , is just copy paste , and studios impose this " the sound must be this way , otherwise we don't sell " . Remember way , way , way , back in the days , music was made by cello's , piano , viola's , tuba's etc , and was made by only one man and a piano . He doesn't go to a studio for sound check .
This is not a debate , is just my opinion .

[Doug1978]

^^ John - there are two issues at play in this thread, and they need separating.


1) whether or not a musician should use a commercial studio;
2) how to make your own recording/mixing space as reliable as possible.


With reference to (1) It is entirely possible, and clearly cheaper, to not hire a commercial studio engineer. There are advantages and disadvantages to doing so.


But in order to make your mixes translate nicely across not only your system but hopefully that of your many listeners' systems as well (2), you need to be sure that what you are hearing is not being detracted by your room modes, reflections,vibrations and bad reverb information etc.
As such, with regard to your original post, it would be advisable to state that monitors, monitor placement and acoustic treatment are probably more important than the vast array of musical items/software that are on your list.

I agree with your overall premise, (and that in other previous threads too), that it is entirely possible to make (hit) songs with very little financial outlay nowadays.
But the reliability and stability of your own mixing environment is what will count for or against you ultimately.

[Hink]

^^ John - there are two issues at play in this thread, and they need separating.


1) whether or not a musician should use a commercial studio;
2) how to make your own recording/mixing space as reliable as possible.


With reference to (1) It is entirely possible, and clearly cheaper, to not hire a commercial studio engineer. There are advantages and disadvantages to doing so.


But in order to make your mixes translate nicely across not only your system but hopefully that of your many listeners' systems as well (2), you need to be sure that what you are hearing is not being detracted by your room modes, reflections,vibrations and bad reverb information etc.
As such, with regard to your original post, it would be advisable to state that monitors, monitor placement and acoustic treatment are probably more important than the vast array of musical items/software that are on your list.

I agree with your overall premise, (and that in other previous threads too), that it is entirely possible to make (hit) songs with very little financial outlay nowadays.
But the reliability and stability of your own mixing environment is what will count for or against you ultimately.

that's fine if making hit songs is your goal, of course that requires outside validation and tbh is a bit superficial to me. If that is what one seeks that's fine, but there is no reason imo to undermine the home recording artist with even the hint of a suggestion their craft is somehow inferior. My bad mixes are not the fault of my room even though my room is not a great room. I should be able express myself artistically with just an acoustic guitar, I enjoy having much more gear so there are more doors open to me and I love learning. I certainly learn more by overcoming obstacles than I do just throwing money at the problem...sure a better room would be nice but this too will come, I never thought I would have 10% of the capabilities I have now...and yes thankfully I didn't have all this from the start...that's part of the challenge and the fun for me (YMMV).

However if your goal is to make a hit, that's commercial so yeah go to a commercial studio but not everyone cares about writing a hit song

[Doug1978]

Hink - you're way off on your own tangent in your post (which quotes me directly).
Certainly you're the only one going on about ''undermining the home recording artist with even the hint of a suggestion their craft is somehow inferior...''
I never said, implied or hinted at such a jibe.

I honestly don't care if a producer has hit records or not.
I haven't had one, and I suspect 95% of us at KVR are neither producers or performing musicians on hit records.
(Though there's a fair few developers at KVR, eg Urs, who have contributed a great deal to hit records by way of making such tremendous products to be used later by musicians etc).

The reason for my including (hit) in brackets was only to show that it is entirely possible to make any song - hit or not - with very little financial outlay. There was no particular emphasis on that word in my quote.
You have chosen to highlight that word for your own reasons.


Naturally, musicians don't need anything more than an acoustic guitar (or a melodica, or a triangle and a pair of maracas, say...), to enjoy making their music.

But this thread starts with direct reference to a link about commerical studios and the future of such studios.
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/j ... in-the-mix

The OP suggests (correctly) that one hardly needs to spend any money nowadays to have the potential to make great music in a home studio.
My bone of contention with the OP's post (as you can see ad nasueum) was that some money should at least be spent on some monitors. And a reliable monitoring / mixing enviornment should be created (whether by using cheap or homemade materials such as drapes or rockwool, or purchasing bass traps and speaker stands etc).


A studio doesn't need to have perfect acoustics, and most of them don't.
But it is surely advisable - and common sense - if a person wishes to release music on the internet at some point, to have monitors and a mixing/monitoring space that translates fairly reliably to other people's systems??

And yes, we can all merrily make music in untreated spaces, or on headphones, or in ''musical man dens'' etc without ever wishing anyone to hear it.
But this thread is about creating a ''studio'' which at least has some comparative relevance to those studios quoted in the linked article.

(And the reason I'm blathering on about this so much is because currently, in a temporarily rented flat in Japan, I can't put up a reliable acoustic mixing / monitoring space to any great degree, which is why I ask a couple of friends to check my mixes etc for now).

I don't care about writing a hit song.
And ''there is no reason imo to undermine the home recording artist with even the hint of a suggestion their craft is somehow inferior'' make absolutely no sense to me, nor has any connection with what I wrote.

[Hink]

Doug I think you over reacted to my post so I will leave at this...I never said you wanted to write hit music I clearly said the word if and I said a hing of a suggestion their craft was inferior which is not saying you are[/b[] saying their craft is inferior...not to mention my saying YMMV...just my opinion on the subject...sorry to have to disturbed you with it.

[Doug1978]

No worries Hink - genuinely, I wasn't disturbed or upset by what you wrote.
Having been quoted directly, I just wanted to make it firmly and unequivocally clear what my actual views were.

(There's always a risk when directly quoting someone, and particularly only one person, and then going off on an entirely new point within the first couple of sentence: it feels like that person is being addressed for stating something that they never said.
And given how easy it is to misinterpret words on the internet, or to assume emotions / moods when none actually existed, such practice can easily lead to confusion).

Anyway, it's neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things.

Cheers

[whyterabbyt]

In a studio the same engineer produce 10 bands , all 10 will sound the same .

That sounds like the uninformed opinion of someone who doesnt actually know what a sound engineer does.

Music today , because of studios and theirs engineer , is become too commercial (everybody have in their song that avicii wooble bass , " i need that bass , my song is not the same without it " ) just to give an example .Today music , is just copy paste , and studios impose this " the sound must be this way , otherwise we don't sell " .

For seem reason you seem to be confusing recording studio staff with record label management. Which is a bit like claiming that BBC cameramen are responsible for the plot of Eastenders.

Remember way , way , way , back in the days , music was made by cello's , piano , viola's , tuba's etc , and was made by only one man and a piano . He doesn't go to a studio for sound check

Yeah, but when that man wanted to record it, he went to a studio, where someone as professional at the task of recording as he was at playing, made that recording sound its best.