How much would YOU pay to get your album mixed and mastered?

[updog]

i voted in the middle range, but in reality that's probably stretching the truth, potentially a lot. i know that, and you guys know that, but try telling my bandmates for example, who've never had to pay jack shit for recording or getting the stuff mixed and mastered.

that goes for most inexperienced bands. they just don't realize what it takes anymore, and these days a few grand might sound way too much especially for a band who simply can't find any other way to try and move on towards renown. now that the mystique of audio work has faded and everyone thinks anyone can do it, they're also made to believe so by professional audio gear companies, that in turn market their lower level products by advertising them as 'professional quality', creating further confusion.

 

[Empathy]

I initially find it somewhat difficult to pick an option in this poll, for similar reasons outlined by other users. I wouldn't expect to pay any less than $5000 to get a 12 track album mixed and mastered to my definition of high quality. Honestly speaking, I wouldn't want to pay any less for a number of reasons.

1) I wouldn't employ the services of an engineer I wasn't confident could get the results I expected from them, so I would be comfortable paying the money necessary to work with them.
2) I do not believe in under-valuing our work as audio engineers; neither as an engineer or a customer - I would pay in excess of $5000 because that is what I believe an engineer SHOULD be paid. Expanding on that, I would choose the engineer that charges $5000 to mix an album over an engineer that charges $500 for the exact same result, because I consider the work to be worth $5000, not $500.

As sopulurn said above, it's hard when you're in a band that doesn't consider the work to be of any serious value. They would rather spend thousands of dollars on promotional work and costumes instead of the actual product, even when promotion these days is effectively free to those that know how to do it themselves.

 

[MarcusGHedwig]

Sorry, voted $1000-$1500, and that's for the whole project (budget for my personal contribution topping out at $300-$400) - bear in mind though, that's primarily determined by the fact that I make ~$19k/year gross (and am not in a profitable band...yet), and yes, the fact that I feel I could do it myself at have it be at least 75% as good as an intermediate pro AE

 

[Ermz]

Looks like the $500-1500 crew has taken a massive lead. Can't say I'm surprised, though, but I'm still glad the $2000-3000 is a close second!

Thanks for everyone who voted so far, keep 'em coming!

I'm still holding onto the faint hope that the $500-1500 crew are talking about their individual contribution to the band's total.

 

[drew_drummer]

I'm still holding onto the faint hope that the $500-1500 crew are talking about their individual contribution to the band's total.

Sorry. Nope.

I think you're potentially asking in the wrong place Jarkko, as this place still has some amount of respect for the job.

It's tricky for bands though. For my band, who have a certain amount of fans, but still cannot guarantee to sell every copy we make, we have to be really fucking thrifty.

No. I mean REALLYfucking thrifty.

Kind of sad really. I guess we're all lucky that we just love doing it. Because we're fucked if any of us expect it to work for us financially.

 

[Ermz]

Just a hard thing to reconcile with reality. The middle of that budget bracket, over here, would pay for ~1/4th of a single amp head. For 2 to 3 weeks of work? Not including bills accrued during that time. Actually it would barely cover fortnightly rent, so in reality it may take about half a year's worth of working, assuming no luxuries whatsoever to buy that amp.

If anything it may explain why I've been turning away (both advertently and inadvertently) 80 to 90% of prospective clientele for the last several years.

Next time I go see the otolaryngologist I'll ask whether instead of the $150 I pay him for a 15 minute consultation, he'll take 5 bucks instead. I'm sure he'll understand once I explain how I don't expect to recoup on the visit!

 

[professorlamp]

@Ermz
if it makes you feel better, my vote for $500 -1000 was as an individual in a band hoping that others would contribute the same. $500 total for an album is a joke.

 

[JeffTD]

Just a hard thing to reconcile with reality. The middle of that budget bracket, over here, would pay for ~1/4th of a single amp head. For 2 to 3 weeks of work? Not including bills accrued during that time. Actually it would barely cover fortnightly rent, so in reality it may take about half a year's worth of working, assuming no luxuries whatsoever to buy that amp.

One thing I didn't realize until talking to an Aussie I met in a hostel recently that speaks to this point (IMO) is how fucking high your guys' minimum wage is - you can make $18/hour working at McDonalds, right?

In the US, it'd be $8. Not saying that justifies your higher prices or paying less for engineering/mixing work, but it does make sense that if a band in the US is working for $8/hr, they won't be able to pay as much for production as an Australian band all making $18/hr. Granted they'll have to pay more in gear and whatnot, but just from the perspective of the guy getting paid by the band, have you ever taken that into account?

 

[Line666]

Money doesn't covert superbly in real terms, whilst a $1 is worth about 0.6 of a £ I will still pay the same price in pounds as someone will pay in dollars for the same product. I think thats why it's so hard to get the real picture when throwing budgets about; currency just doesn't line up that well.

Realistically speaking I'd be willing to invest £1000+ for something that I felt was fairly accomplished as an individual contribution (if it was CLA or Wallace et al I'd expect to pay a lot more). That doesn't mean that I expect the US guys to offer 2k+ to be equivalent to what I would pay because everything is cheaper over there so in relative terms I'd expect them to pay close to $1k individual contribution instead.

 

[Ermz]

Granted they'll have to pay more in gear and whatnot, but just from the perspective of the guy getting paid by the band, have you ever taken that into account?

Sure. For the longest time our currencies had different worth on the global market, so that ultimately evened out. A band from the US could have offered to, for instance, pay $2k USD for a mix, and the OZ engineer would have received close to $3k in AUD. In many ways that disparity could have made the arrangement sustainable for both parties. It's originally what made working with US bands so lucrative for some of us.

The US economy going down the shitter threw that whole thing out of whack though. While disproportionate wages and currency values might explain some of what's happening in the thread, it doesn't change the fact that in some parts of the world what's considered a liveable wage, wouldn't even keep a roof over your head in others. If you earn less than $20k a year here, you might as well be homeless.

 

[Lasse Lammert]

wow, I might be too expensive, lol

 

[Jarkko Mattheiszen]

I think you're potentially asking in the wrong place Jarkko, as this place still has some amount of respect for the job.

That's actually true, I hadn't even considered that. With so much talk about the rates being too low here, it probably affects the views of the musicians in the forum. Which is a good thing, obviously!

It's tricky for bands though. For my band, who have a certain amount of fans, but still cannot guarantee to sell every copy we make, we have to be really fucking thrifty.

In this particular case I wouldn't worry about it - I'm going through a QC listen on cans as I'm typing this and you've done a heck of a job

@Ermz
if it makes you feel better, my vote for $500 -1000 was as an individual in a band hoping that others would contribute the same. $500 total for an album is a joke.

Argh, I might have fucked up the vote by not specifying I meant the total sum the band or artist was willing to pay instead of individual members. I'll have to add that to the first post.

 

[JeffTD]

Money doesn't covert superbly in real terms, whilst a $1 is worth about 0.6 of a £ I will still pay the same price in pounds as someone will pay in dollars for the same product. I think thats why it's so hard to get the real picture when throwing budgets about; currency just doesn't line up that well.

Right, but if the minimum wages are about equal (they're just a bit off, national wage in the US is $7 and in the UK is £6 from what I understand), then the products cost the same as far as labor goes, unless I'm doing a terrible job of explaining this.

Sure. For the longest time our currencies had different worth on the global market, so that ultimately evened out. A band from the US could have offered to, for instance, pay $2k USD for a mix, and the OZ engineer would have received close to $3k in AUD. In many ways that disparity could have made the arrangement sustainable for both parties. It's originally what made working with US bands so lucrative for some of us.

The US economy going down the shitter threw that whole thing out of whack though. While disproportionate wages and currency values might explain some of what's happening in the thread, it doesn't change the fact that in some parts of the world what's considered a liveable wage, wouldn't even keep a roof over your head in others. If you earn less than $20k a year here, you might as well be homeless.

Yeah, the AUD being equal now throws things off but it still does explain a lot to me that the same number of hours at work would result in hugely different budgets for bands in the US vs Australia.

 

[Mago]

"Not too bad if you can split the costs "

"what you have worked on so hard isn't that bad"

"cost really doesnt look too bad"

"for that kind of expensive stuff doesnt look too bad"

"a lot of "not too bad"s in there"

Yup

I just realized that I fucked up with writing $ and thinking in €.
So I should have marked the 3000-4000$ poll instead of 2000-3000$ *doh*

That would be tho that I can track guitars and bass myself, and finding a cost effective solution for drums and vocals. Wouldnt be a lot of money left for recording studio time in that case.
Which is kinda contra-productive thinking that the source has to be as great as possible, but it's manageable

 

[drew_drummer]

In this particular case I wouldn't worry about it - I'm going through a QC listen on cans as I'm typing this and you've done a heck of a job

Thanks dude!

The whole situation is fucked. I just think your average music listener doesn't really give two shits about the kind of music they "consume" - they just want some noise. They'd be happy with the sound of two dogs shagging, constantly piped in.

And that leaves us all in a shitty situation.

 

[drew_drummer]

Just a hard thing to reconcile with reality. The middle of that budget bracket, over here, would pay for ~1/4th of a single amp head. For 2 to 3 weeks of work? Not including bills accrued during that time. Actually it would barely cover fortnightly rent, so in reality it may take about half a year's worth of working, assuming no luxuries whatsoever to buy that amp.

If anything it may explain why I've been turning away (both advertently and inadvertently) 80 to 90% of prospective clientele for the last several years.

Next time I go see the otolaryngologist I'll ask whether instead of the $150 I pay him for a 15 minute consultation, he'll take 5 bucks instead. I'm sure he'll understand once I explain how I don't expect to recoup on the visit!

Well Ermz, the reality is, the majority of bands (even bands who are good and have some fans and can afford a certain amount) cannot afford the prices that a lot of mid-range guys are asking.

Add that to the wide prevalence of recording technology, you end up with a lot of people just doing it themselves. And maybe they get some decent results, maybe they don't....

 

[Jevil]

This can't be answered that easy.

It depends on so many factors like, who is going to do the work, how many sales do you expect, where country are you from....

Nowadays most of the albums are selfproduced and sales are terrible... so spending too much money for a 'hobby' is a suicide. I know bands that broke up after spending too much money and getting nothing in return.

Years ago if you wanted to release an album you needed a LABEL, and that label paid everything. We even spent thousand of euros mastering at Finnvox and having a cover artwork by Derek Riggs (Iron Maiden)... our albums were shit but one spaninsh big label trusted in us, We had great budget for the albums... The problem is that we fucked everything in the recordings... and the final resulta was shit, so we spent too much money for an low-average quality.

So if I had a professional band I'll contact a professional AE and pay some thousands dollars

If not, I would do it myself as hobby.

 

[Jarkko Mattheiszen]

This can't be answered that easy.

It depends on so many factors like, who is going to do the work, how many sales do you expect, where country are you from....

...and that's exactly why I wanted to asked the bands how much THEY would be willing to spend in a realistic scenario, not "how much do you think some band might pay in general."

Nowadays most of the albums are selfproduced and sales are terrible... so spending too much money for a 'hobby' is a suicide. I know bands that broke up after spending too much money and getting nothing in return.

I know tons of people who spend way more on their hobbies than the average sum in the poll, and that's money they will never get back. A lot of them are musicians who just enjoy playing at home or with friends without pursuing any sort of success or financial profit, but they don't mind spending 1500€ on a new guitar, drumkit etc. Then again, I also know of several cases where someone spends large sums of money to get their hobby project's album done without even intending to sell a single copy of it.

I can't really see what's so suicidal about it - spending money doesn't always have to mean investing it so that it will make financial profit.

Years ago if you wanted to release an album you needed a LABEL, and that label paid everything.

True that, but things are constantly changing and the people who are working in the field have to adapt, one way or another. It seems quite often that bands get signed after an impressive self released album now.

 

[Jevil]

I can't really see what's so suicidal about it - spending money doesn't always have to mean investing it so that it will make financial profit.

Spending too much money on an album and not getting what you expected usually leads to the end of the band. I see it everytime.

 

[Jarkko Mattheiszen]

Spending too much money on an album and not getting what you expected usually leads to the end of the band. I see it everytime.

I'd suppose that's more because of false expectations of the album's success and/or lack of common goals in the band.