Rick's Articles

Audio Technology - Volume 2 : Issue 3
Wrong Greg, wrong. Greg, I'm sure you wrote 'Hearing It Like It Is' with the best 'hard love' intentions, but as far as I'm concerned it was a load of uninformed, out of touch, badly generalised crap. If you're going to generalise, get it right or leave it to that twit at the back of your mag.

I don't have a problem with you stating that most of the ARIA-nominated records sounded horrible, or even that their poor sound could be a budget or experience issue. But stating that in many cases we lose our top artists to the Americans because we can't meet the standard... well, you should know better. That is just misinformed drivel.

Let me qualify my opinion against yours. I deal with major labels on a daily basis and have done so since 1984. I have worked with many of the world's best overseas engineers, producers and artists - the really big ones like Madonna, Bryan Adams, Bob Dylan, Bob Clearmountain, Lord-Alge and O'Brien. I know as well as anyone the method in the madness of current Australian record label A&R. I'm a judge and adviser to the ARIA awards, and I feel that I've got more than enough credentials to fulfil that function. Equally, I can imagine that, with your attention to detail and your passion for audio, you are eminently suitable as an ARIA judge. But that position does not give you the freedom to voice your qualified opinion into a forum unchecked. It's not your findings I have a problem with, but your conclusion - which is wrong, very badly wrong.

Let me make my point very clear. You state that record companies aren't stupid, that they can hear and see the financial results of using overseas mixers, producers and mastering engineers, and that is why they do it with over 20% of the ARIA nominated records. But you miss the concept that the major labels nominate all of their acts for ARIA’s, as many as they can fit on the forms. Only a small percentage (less then 15%) of records will ever sell enough to recoup the cost of using a big name engineer/producer. If the 20% of records that use overseas personnel included the 15% that recoup the costs - then I could say your point was a valid one. But if you checked sales against costs, I am sure you would find that to make your money back selling records you don't actually need a world class sound. What you do need are some very popular songs.

When you look at the ARIA nominations, and even our successful artists that use overseas personnel, you are talking about the cream of our talent using the cream of the world's talent, all competing to make enough money to pay for all of the record companies' other flops (a massive 85% or more).

The world is a big place, Greg. There are billions of people, including lots and lots of Americans. So, in a 'town' like Australia, do 90% of our audio professionals do work as good as the 60 best audio professionals in the world? The answer, obviously, is no. Do the 15 or so A-list Australians do work that competes on an international level, day-in, day-out? Well, the answer is an unsung 'yes', or we would not get paid day-in day-out by those same labels that send 20% of their acts overseas. What about the other 80%? Do any of those acts sound good? Of course they do. But I agree that these are still the minority. Do I, or any of the true 'lifers' in this business, have a problem with being bypassed by artists, managers or labels looking to get the world's best results by using the absolute cream of the world's engineers/producers? I don't think so.

Look, it's not even cultural cringe; you have to get pretty damn famous, or lucky, for a label to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars with any studio, producer or engineer. The labels are just trying to get to the very best. It's not some imaginary standard you assume the rest of the world revolves around, we are just talking about chasing the finest available. When they know that 85% of their records just ain't ever going to recoup and it is anybody's guess which ones will actually do it, they chase the 'primo' professionals when the stakes get high. Those primos do damn fine work - and, yeah, those primos are very experienced at making huge records. It's a logical bet.

We're talking about the numbers game and we don't have enough audio contenders to win. There were around 850 jobs done at Masterdisk Mastering in New York last year and they tell me only around four where Australian. Multiply that by the five big US mastering studios (the only overseas ones you will see on any Australian record) and we're talking about 20 or so major Australian records mastered in the US per year. But by your editorial logic that is a lot of Australian talent going elsewhere for the goods they cannot get at home. There are over 350 major American mastering facilities and there are less then 10 here. So, are they going overseas for a world standard that guarantees economic reality, or are they going somewhere specific for an elite experience? Of course, it's the latter.

It's not just mastering - producers, mixers, and engineers - the numbers are very similar with all of them because they are the same 20 artists. Don't you think it's a tell-tale sign you are wrong about the sound being an economic decision-making reality when there where not even 10 Australian artists in our top 10 last year - let alone the number on the world stage. This world class sound you're talking about is real, it does exist, it's made all over the place but it is realised most often by the guys who do it most often, and guess where the numbers game stacks them up the highest... umm, the USA? Correct!

Would any Australian A&R guy know where the master two-track bus on a J-Series SSL is? I don't think so. Would any A&R guy know if Bob Ludwig, Ted Jenson or Don Bartley had mastered a given record without reading the credits? I don't think so. Are record companies really booking overseas talent because they hear the value in spending two or three times as much money? Come on, I don't think so - wrong Greg, wrong. It isn't because they hear it, it's a case of trying to get the very best, or at the least today's perception of the very best. Records need as much vibe as they can get, and using the world's best guys provides a huge vibe. It means everybody right down the line, from the artist to the consumer, is expecting that the record is designed to be a contender for worldwide domination. The whole process provides the artist with an awesome experience, and a confidence in the money-where-your-mouth-is record label. For all the crap that comes with being an international pop star, at least let the poor buggers experience an open door policy at some point in the process.

I figure it's okay to leave Australia's competing best to chase the world's best. Every other country in the world in every other field of endeavour does it... am I missing some important documentary on world politics? The Yanks run the show, the whole damn long player.

What has got me truly ruffled is that with your well-meaning editorial on the state of the Australian music industry, you will perpetuate the spreading of the 'our guys can't do it' myth, and that will have a profound financial effect on the very few who can.
What you could have said is: "Nearly all of our guys can't do it, and, nearly all of their guys can’t do it. In fact, most of the world's record button fraternity just can't do it. But, if you aspire to greatness, have a listen to those that lead the way and learn everything that you can."

You know what's lacking in the above statement? Generalisations. On the other hand your editorial, Greg, was wall-to-wall generalisations, and any valid point that you might have had, was lost.

Being smart is knowing what you are dumb at...

Back to article index