Thursday, April 28, 2011

REALITY CHECK #7: You Can't Do it Alone, Unless...

ATTENTION: Read these first:

For the last seven posts I have dished out a healthy dose of reality about why most of us will never be able to create a radio-quality recording. Here's a brief summary of the topics I covered:
1) You don't have enough knowledge and/or experience
2) Your tracking/listening environment is problematic
3) Your monitors aren't that great and you haven't yet learned how to listen like the pros
4) You don't have a wide variety of quality gear that will allow you to capture signals appropriately
5) You aren't an expert songwriter/composer, performer, arranger, lyricist, and producer
6) You don't have a wide variety of quality gear that will allow you to process signals appropriately

Setting aside the gear issue, the bad news is that you can't do it alone. You're probably fantastic at several of those areas, but not an expert in them all. You're going to need help, and you know what? That's okay. Only the most superhuman creative ninjas can do it all well enough to produce radio-ready hits all by their lonesome. But the truth is, it's extremely rare that the hitmakers work alone. Artists need songwriters, artists and songwriters need producers, producers need great recording engineers, great recordists need kick ass performers, and everybody needs top-notch mixing/mastering engineers. You may be able to master your craft in a few of those areas all by your lonesome, but if you want to bring your genius out of the basement, it's going to require help from competent folks who can confidently do what you lack. Pay for it, barter, bargain, exchange services...whatever you need to do to get help.This is not new information. It's always been the case. To accomplish great things, people need other people. It's only been in the last 10-15 years that home recordists somehow came to believe the fallacy that they could write, perform, produce, mix, and master a radio-quality project in their bedrooms...in total isolation. I'm not sure who to blame, but I think it has to do with creative hope infused by the recent explosion of affordable quality gear.

Despite the insulting titles of the Reality Check posts, and contrary to the feedback I've received, my desire is not to squish your dreams into the slimy pulp of realism or demotivate you into a Ben & Jerry's assisted depression. All along my hope has been that simply letting go of an unrealistic expectation will allow you to once again enjoy your creative pursuits. Why not pat yourself on the back for what you are now able to accomplish without beating yourself up because you can't make your 808 as phat as "A Milli." Get some perspective and review how you've improved. (Make sure to check out Dan Comerchero's counterpoint to this series: Reality Check: You're Always Improving.)

The Good News
There is good news and here it is: creating a radio-quality track is no longer the end goal for a successful career in music production. In fact, I think many people who make music in their home studios just want to share something cool that has a little more class and quality than a youtube webcam performance. Of course there are those who desperately hope their mixtapes launch them into superstardom, but most of us just want a file that we can confidently post on Soundcloud.

Although we would all love to hear our tracks on the radio, competing with the hits doesn't have to be your Holy Grail. For those who actually want to generate an income with their musical creations, there are several opportunities for what is known as "broadcast quality" tracks. To me, I reserve the phrase "radio-quality" for songs that play on the radio or that possess the same quality and/or production value as a tracks that get mainstream airtime. "Broadcast quality," on the other hand, refers to songs that have an industry-expected amount of polish in both songwriting, performance, and recording, but that can't necessarily compete with the hits (oftentimes because of industry politics rather than musical quality). Let's be honest, the radio plays only about 10% of all the great music currently available. It's a very small niche. What about all the other music that has been well-written, well-performed, well-produced, well-recorded, and competently mixed/mastered? Those are "broadcast quality" tracks. The greatest difference is that radio-quality tracks have a very narrow standard for what is acceptable in songwriting, performance, production, and recording quality. For broadcast quality tracks, the standard by which each of those categories is deemed "acceptable" is much more broad, being entirely relative to the usage needs of the song. A slow, depressing guitar-vocal track might not get airplay, but would work perfectly in a poignant movie scene.

The Recording Revolution recently featured a video of a gal who makes money off "simple" tracks made with a basic home studio setup: From the Home Studio to Television. They're cool songs, she has a unique voice, and the recording quality is decent, but they would never get radio airplay. Yet her tracks have been featured on several huge TV shows. She's making cash and she's doing it all by herself with a very modest setup (and did she say "no mixing or mastering"?).

My point is that even if you are lacking in all six of my Reality Check categories, you still can generate an income making broadcast quality tracks. Broadcast quality music (full songs or instrumentals) are always needed for:

- podcasts
- rappers who need beats
- multi-media presentations
- Satellite and/or internet radio
- music libraries
- television
- film
- etc.

And believe it or not, artists are still making money on album sales, digital downloads, and viral videos...without ever getting one second of mainstream radio time. It's an ever-evolving industry where the "out-of-the-box" approach is often rewarded unexpectedly.

The Point
Why am I going on and on about broadcast quality? Because I think setting your sights on creating broadcast quality tracks is a much more realistic goal for the "Renaissance Man" type home studio owner. It's not an easy thing to achieve, but at least it's realistic. I believe that a talented, hardworking, patient, determined, and studious home studio owner with modest gear and lots of time to practice their craft could achieve the broadcast quality goal in less than five years. And if you don't plan on tracking drums or your music is not too complex, then I bet it's do-able in just a few years.

A CMP follower, Mr. Kenner (@2ndLevelPro), is a great example of this. He recently landed placements in promotional videos for The Sacramento Kings as well as AVID. Check out his basketball song (at 2:15) and his baseball beat (at 1:30). People, it's possible!

In goal setting circles, goals must be a) specific, b) measurable, c) attainable, d) realistic, and e) timley (See http://www.topachievement.com/smart.html for an explanation of S.M.A.R.T. goals). Achieving broadcast quality in songwriting, production, and recording, and then landing one of your tracks in an industry project is way more S.M.A.R.T. than "I want my ballad to be on the next Beyonce album" (that is, unless you have the skills, connections, and financially-backed assistance from industry insiders). Goals are stars to steer by, not sticks to beat yourself with. Stop the self-flagellation and celebrate where you're at. Drop the stress and return to the days when making music was fun and unburdened with the futile attempt to find the "perfect" compressor setting for the lead vocal.

In short, ENJOY THE RIDE!


For daily tips/links on music production, recording, songwriting, and ProTools, follow Create Music Productions on Twitter: @CreateMusicPro