Music Thoughts, Rants, Randomness Archives

Cull the Herd

May 10, 2022 by Aaron

Flypaper by Soundfly, Instructional Stuff, Music Business, Music Thoughts, Rants, Randomness, Published Work

aaron j. trumm, aaron trumm, flypaper, home recording, music business, music submissions, nquit music, professional audio, professional music, recording, soundfly

The Definitive Guide to Deciding Where to Submit Your Music

This article first appeared in FlyPaper by Soundfly. I reprint it here with permission, and I encourage you to check out their courses. You can get a 15% discount code on a subscription using the promo code AJTRUMM15.

You can’t be everywhere all the time. Still, it’s hard not to fall into the trap of trying to do just that. In the music business, there are thousands upon thousands of gatekeepers, promotional outlets, and other “opportunities” where you can submit your tracks. Since promoting music is largely about submitting and submitting and submitting again, you can’t simply ignore this aspect of the business.

That said, there is no way you can realistically submit to everything, so you need to pick and choose. How to decide who should get your music can be a bit tricky to figure out. Plenty of people will advise you, and everyone accepting music will recommend you submit to them, but the truth is the right plan is different for everyone.

Knowing that your time is precious, here are some things to consider when evaluating whether to submit to a particular opportunity or company.

General considerations

Every category of submission opportunity has its own unique considerations, but to start with there are a few things to think about, no matter who or what you’re pitching to.

First off, think about your goals. Do you want to find new fans to go to your shows? Are you trying to make money as quickly as possible? Are you building a brand around a musical act, or are you a producer trying to produce instrumentals and make a living?

It may seem obvious, but you don’t need to submit to every category for every goal. For example, if your only goal is to place instrumental cues in video productions, you don’t need any press or radio connections. In fact in that case the only category you need to worry about is licensing.

Next, there are a few universal considerations to think over in every case.

Genre

Make sure the people you’re submitting to work with your genre. It may go without saying, but lots of musicians don’t bother to research this crucial aspect, and waste a lot of time in the process, not to mention annoying the people on the other end and damaging their own reputation.

Reputation

How reputable is the company or person you’re submitting to? Is there any risk to making a deal with them? We’ll talk about submission fees in a moment, but also consider whether the company will be hard to deal with, or whether the time you put in to deal with it will really be worth the effort.

Potential return

This consideration is closely tied to reputation. If the entity is a major player with a great reputation, you may stand to gain a lot more than with other companies. If the potential reward is big, you may be willing to go to more trouble.

Submission difficulty

Speaking of effort, some submission processes are easier than others. Sometimes it’s as simple as sending an email with a streaming link to your music, and sometimes you can find yourself spending an hour or more per song filling out forms and checking boxes just to be considered. When it comes to business efficiency, this can be a make or break consideration.

Submission cost

This is probably the stickiest and most contentious consideration. Quite often, pay-to-play is a red flag, but there are situations where it’s ok. If there is a fee, you should be sure that the company has a great reputation, and that your music is really on the mark for their needs. You also need to consider the potential return more seriously. It may only cost five bucks to submit a song to a brief, but if you’re playing a numbers game and submitting song after song, it can add up.

Also, submission fees could indicate something very important that you should consider seriously. They could mean that the company’s revenue model is based on your submissions. Companies like this will often encourage you to submit too often, overstate the potential of your return, or do any number of other shady things to keep you paying in. It also means that this company doesn’t really need to believe in you or your music to accept your music.

If you think a company might be worth it even though they charge submission or membership fees, check with peers and try to find out if anyone is actually making money. If your friends like the company, but can’t point to any revenue generated from them, that’s a big red flag.

When it comes to venues, you shouldn’t pay to play. If you’re renting a space, that’s a bit different, but don’t pay regular venues a fee to submit or play.

Specific considerations

Once you’ve gone through the major considerations above, there are some category-specific things to consider.

Reach

Applicable to press, radio and somewhat to label submissions, the question of reach is simply how many potential fans can this outlet reach? For press type outlets, check into their readership, website traffic or subscription numbers. For radio, what’s their listenership? For labels, look at how big their other artists are, what their overall budget is, and how many connections to press, radio and other outlets they have.

In the licensing realm, you’ll want to consider how many placements they have under their belt, and how widely exposed those placements are. A company that has thousands of placements in small YouTube videos spots may the biggest overall reach, but one that has dozens of national ad placements may also be a powerful ally.

Focus

Who you’re able to reach is as important as how many people you can get to. If your submission is genre-appropriate, you’re already in a good place here, but it’s worth it to further consider a company’s focus. If you’re looking at a label for example, they may have a very wide reach but be spread too thin. A magazine may claim to be national but only have a few readers in each city. Especially if your goal involves getting people to your shows, you’re better off submitting to press, radio and labels who are strong in the areas you want to play. Genre-specific blogs and playlists may be better for finding fans than generalized publications and shows.

When it comes to licensing companies, consider your own goals. Your basic genre may be on point, but if your goal is to produce songs and sing them, you may not want to spend much time with libraries that focus on instrumental cues. Some licensing firms are all around companies, and some specialize in very specific areas like advertising or film and TV. Consider where your music has the best chance of being used and go for the companies in that area.

Relationships

When you’re considering an agent or a manager, their biggest asset is industry relationships. Don’t just consider how many people they know, though. Consider how deep and lasting their relationships are, and how trusted they are.

Payment

Payment isn’t something you need to consider for promotional opportunities like press and radio. But if you’re submitting to labels, licensing companies or venues, you need to know not only WHAT they will pay, but HOW.

Consider the percentages they offer and what the terms are. This is especially important in licensing. Many licensing agreements are super unfavorable, with really long payment terms, clauses that allow non-payment for certain usages, or any number of odd chicanery that might not suit you. If you can, read their terms before you submit. If you can’t live with their terms, there’s no reason to submit.

Similarly if you’re submitting to a venue for performance, find out ahead of time how they deal with money. Do they pay a guaranteed amount? Do you share the door? Are you allowed to sell merch? Again, try to get some idea what you’re likely to make before you submit.

Exclusivity

Exclusivity is a consideration mainly for licensing submissions. Label deals are always exclusive, agent/manager relationships are generally exclusive, and exclusivity isn’t a question in promotional settings.

However, in licensing, exclusivity (or the lack of it) is a major consideration. There are a lot of opinions on what’s better – an exclusive deal or a non-exclusive – but when it comes down to it, your needs will determine what works best.

For the most part, artists are not asked to sign licensing or publishing deals that tie up everything they do. Usually, exclusive deals in this realm apply to individual songs or groups of songs.

Generally, if you place songs with licensing agents or libraries non-exclusively, it means that you’re free to place the same song with other companies, or shop it directly to productions yourself. The one main drawback is the risk of having multiple companies pitch your song to the same production. This can get awkward, so many licensing-focused musicians try to pick only one company in each niche (advertising, film, etc).

There may be an advantage to accepting an exclusive deal, though. Usually, an exclusive deal with a licensing company or publisher means that company will work harder to place the song. If the company is a good one with a lot of clout, it may be a no brainer to accept an exclusive deal. Just remember to vet the company first. There are a few bad companies out there offering exclusive deals, and you don’t want to be locked into one of those.

Competition

Finally, consider your competition. A healthy amount of competition isn’t bad, but too much could be. Anyone worth submitting to is getting hundreds of submissions, so you’ll have to deal with that no matter what, but there are a couple of scenarios where it’s a bigger concern.

Those situations involve licensing and labels. Specifically, consider how much other music is rostered on a label or licensing company. Are you one of a few powerful, handpicked greats that the company really believes in, or are you one of thousands? Being a face in the crowd isn’t always bad, but especially when it comes to any kind of exclusive deal like a label deal, you need to be aware of how much this company will really be putting into you.

If you’re offered a deal with a failing label owned by a struggling major superstar, for example, there probably won’t be many resources left over for you. Similarly if a licensing company is offering thousands of artists exclusive deals, that’s not likely to go well for you.

None of this is to say you should shy away from competition. If you have a chance to submit to an advertising brief worth $200,000, by all means do it! Sure there will be more competition, but you could win! Just be judicious about putting yourself in positions where you don’t have that chance.

Go forth and submit

It doesn’t take much time to consider these factors before making submissions, and when you do, you’ll save yourself a lot more by doing so. You’ll also find your success rate is better, and you’ll have more time to do what you really love, and that’s making music. So go forth, and efficiently submit your music!

Wanna talk about it all? Hit me up on Facebook or Instagram or aaron at aarontrumm dot com and we can vibe about music biz, making stuff, whatever man.

Chasing the Timeless Sound

This article first appeared in Recording Magazine. I reprint it here with permission, and I encourage you to subscribe to that publication, as they are a stand up bunch of folk!

There’s one term that’s a death nell when its associated with a record. It strikes fear in the hearts of producers, partly because nobody wants this brand, and partly because it’s incredibly difficult to define. As soon as you think you understand it, it’s gone in a puff of smoke. And as soon as you start thinking about it, everything sounds…

…dated.

Shudder.

So, what does it mean? What is it when a song sounds “dated”? Let’s start with a dictionary definition.

Dated: Old-fashioned.

That was easy! Dated means old. That means old stuff is dated, right? But old music doesn’t necessarily sound dated. New stuff that sounds old might sound dated, and it might sound “vintage”. So, using old techniques doesn’t always mean a track will sound dated.

If it did, that would mean that recording a live band in a studio would sound dated, because that’s been done to death – but it doesn’t work that way.

The fact is, “dated” is a lot like other subjective terms like “current”, “rockin”, “good”, or “bad”. What sounds dated to one person might sound fresh to someone else.

Maybe a better word for “dated” would be “unoriginal”.

One thing’s for sure. “Dated” is a real thing, just like “good” or “bad”, and you’ll know it when you hear it.

Does It Matter?

Leaving off trying to define it, does it matter if your song sounds dated? Not really. In the end if you love it, you made something worthwhile. End of story.

From a professional standpoint it can definitely matter, especially in pop.

The music business fraught with requests for tracks that “sound like” some famous artist. “In the vein of Drake”, “with an Ed Sheeran vibe”, etc. Many requests even include the term “current”.

Ironically, the more you chase trends, the more dated you’re likely to sound. Even if you manage to hit the mark now, an overly trendy production may not stand the test of time.

Timelessness

Mysterious as the notion of datedness may be, we have established a few things. First, it’s at least partially subjective. Next, it has something to do with being unoriginal (another nebulous term). Third, you’ll know it when you hear it. And finally, chasing trends can lead to future datedness.

Other things seem clear. The latest cool computer trick – dubstep wobble base, for example – may not stand up long. On the other hand, staying stuck in an old way of thinking could make you sound stale. And copying a famous artist may sound unoriginal.

So, timelessness, which opposes datedness better than “current”ness, seems to be a delicate balance of subtle originality and bold creativity.

The truth is, timelessness is as subjective as datedness, so we could never definitively tell you how to find a timeless sound, but there are a few things that seem to help.

Vintage sounds can anchor a song while simultaneously bringing a fresh perspective to a current style.
Some things stand up over time, like spaciousness, great songwriting, or undeniable virtuosity.
Songs seem more timeless when they don’t rely on gimmicks, or when those gimmicks are so original as to be unrepeatable.
One element of a song may be timeless while others may be dating. Perhaps a lyric is timeless, but it’s sung over a cheesy 80s synth track. Maybe a super original track which will stand up forever is superimposed with slangy lyrics mentioning the year.
Certain styles come and go in repeating patterns. Big reverb, for example.

Just Keep Making

Styles go with time periods, and that’s ok. Does that mean that as we age we become irrelevant? Of course not. As we evolve as individuals, our music evolves, and so does music in general. Half of the reason genres change over time is because the same people make them, and those people have grown. The other half, of course, is new blood.

Outside that reality, the notion of a timeless sound is as nebulous as datedness. Given this subjectivity, it would stand to reason that in order to achieve a timeless production, you’ll need to a) trust your gut, b) don’t chase trends and c) don’t worry about it too much.

The main thing we can say is stay true to yourself but let yourself change. Your songs will follow suit.

I make songs that sound dated, cheesy, and unoriginal. 😉 I try hard never to release those. Find out if I’m succeeding at aarontrumm.com/audio or ask me on Facebook or Instagram

Recording Piano Wrong

September 14, 2021 by Aaron

Audio Instruction, Instructional Stuff, Music Thoughts, Rants, Randomness, Published Work, Recording Magazine

aaron j. trumm, aaron trumm, do it yourself recording, home recording, nquit music, piano, piano mics, piano recording, professional audio, professional music, recording, recording magazine

How breaking the rules can transform your piano recordings

This article first appeared in Recording Magazine. I reprint it here with permission, and I encourage you to subscribe to that publication, as they are a stand up bunch of folk!

The piano is an amazing creature. It’s ubiquitous in all kinds of music and its frequency range means it can play any role. It’s also so crazy to record that there are volumes written on how to record it right, including my piece “Caging the Beast” from May 2016’s Recording. Since that’s been done, let’s talk about the “wrong” way; nutso things you can do with piano recording that may yield something new.

Oddball Placements

A piano is huge, and there are a million “good” ways to mic it, including close miking, room miking, spaced pairs, mid-side pairs and so on. There are, however, several places considered not great, at least for capturing a traditional piano sound.

The Hole

Try a large diaphragm condenser like an AKG 414 placed right above one of rear holes. It turns out this might sound nice and can help isolate the piano in an ensemble. A dynamic like an SM57 pointed straight into the hole is a recipe for weird and muddy, but that may be perfect in the right context.

Under The Piano

There’s a whole world of tone under the piano that may not be considered normal, including a wealth of low frequencies that might even help a traditional mix. Try an omni-directional under the middle of the case and see what happens. Or try a ribbon mic to capture the movement of the pedal. Often that movement coincides with the rhythm of the tune, so there may be a rhythm track there.

The Foot

Nathan Rosenberg reminds us in his November 2004 Recording piece that “there is a wonderful place at the tail, just about where the back leg is, or often just outside the case. Here, the various registers tend to project in a surprisingly uniform manner.” This is a great place to place a stereo pair or even a single mic for mono capture. This isn’t particularly crazy, but it’s worth trying.

Wrong Mics

Tradition holds that the best microphone for piano is a condenser or ribbon. There’s good reason for this, as condensers and ribbons are good at capturing high-end detail. Mics like the AKG 414, the Neumann U87 and even the Rode NT1-A are common.

That leaves out dynamics, which are generally too sluggish to capture the detail a ribbon or condenser could. But that shouldn’t stop us from trying! As mentioned, an SM57 in a sound hole can result in something weird, especially if you were to, say, amp that signal?

Also mentioned before, the underside of a grand piano can be a treasure-trove of low frequencies. Maybe try something like an AKG D112 underneath and see what happens.

For that matter, what would happen if you placed that D112 above the low strings? As a matter of fact, that’s exactly what Recording contributor Jon Bare did on one location recording, and it made a baby grand sound like a 9-foot concert grand (see his article “Miking The Not So Great Piano” on Recording’s website).

Perhaps you could try that crappy vocal mic from your dad’s 1970’s live rig placed smack dab on top of the keys, or 17 omni-directional condensers under a closed lid, specifically placed to create phase problems. What if you taped a lavalier to the inside of the shell? The possibilities are endless.

Mess With the Piano

Next let’s try the instrument itself. There are tons of ways you can cause a piano to sound abnormal. Recently I put a sweatshirt on the strings to create a muted sound that proved useful for rhythms. Some avant-garde pianists spend hours before a gig preparing the piano contraptions placed on the strings, hammers and soundboards.

“Tack” pianos are made by sticking thumbtacks in the hammers so they make a tacky sound when striking the strings. (Beware: this is permanent, as it damages the felt.) Or what if the hammers were softer than normal?

You could prepare the innards of the piano, or you could mess with the outside. Try closing the lid, draping a storage blanket over it, and miking from above. You’ll probably get a dull sound, but what if you were to hold down the sustain pedal and let a ton of notes build up on top of each other?

For that matter, you could remove the lid entirely. In fact, that technique, which Elton John producer Gus Dudgeon was fond of, isn’t even rare.

Let’s not forget we’ve been talking about grand pianos this whole time. Uprights and spinets are a whole different world, and while there are “right” ways to capture them, there are also crazy ways. Most importantly, consider a bad upright. Perhaps you have an antique which can’t be tuned and has strings missing. Maybe there’s an opportunity for some interesting stuff by finding the worst sound it can make and recording that. This kind of buzzy, crackling thing can be great for creating interesting rhythm tracks, for example.

Play With the Playing

By now we’re placing wrong mics in wrong holes on wrong instruments. Awesome!

Now let’s play with the playing. There’s an incredible variety of playing styles available to the piano. Super staccato, flowing legato, damper pedals, low registers, glissandos and tigers and bears, oh my! Even staying at the keyboard, you can probably think of a hundred ways to break out of the box. How about using the lowest two octaves to create a bassline, replacing a bassist? What about recording the same riff 7 separate times in all the octaves?

Beyond the keyboard itself, a piano can make a lot of sounds we don’t normally think of. Check out The Piano Guys for a litany of examples, from plucking and poking strings to hand drumming on the soundboard to threading a frayed violin bow through the strings.

The cool thing here is breaking these rules doesn’t lead to any particular genre. You could end up doing pop covers like The Piano Guys, avant-garde craziness ala The Mars Volta, or even create hip-hop track.

There Are No Rules

Just like music in general, there are no rules with the piano (as long as you don’t destroy a piano that’s not yours!) You can stick with the tried and true and there’s a world of creativity to be had with such a versatile instrument, but if you get bored, run out of ideas or have a sticky problem you can’t solve, it may be time to do things a little wrong. You never know what might come of it!

—–

I‘m a singer, rapper and writer who uses the piano in a fashion that’s not always right. You can talk to me on social media @AaronJTrumm

Art vs. Science in Mixing – and Life?

This article first appeared in Recording Magazine. I reprint it here with permission, and I encourage you to subscribe to that publication, as they are a stand up bunch of folk!

If you haven’t read a book called “Zen and the Art of Mixing”, stop now, order it, and then continue reading this.

Now that you’ve done that, I’ll tell you a story. One day not long ago I was sitting in a plush lecture hall in the Westin hotel in Los Angeles, listening to a workshop on mixing by Rob Chiarelli. If you don’t already know, Rob is a Grammy winning producer and mixer, known for working with such acts as Will Smith, Christina Aguilera, Pink, LeAnn Rimes, Janet Jackson, Stevie Wonder…and on and on and on.

Needless to say, we were all excited to hear what Rob had to say, and there were many enthusiastic mixers ready with a host of questions. As you might imagine, some of those questions were quite technical, and I remember early on somebody in the back asked something I thought of as – well – a little nit-picky. LUFS on pre-master mix buss, or something along those lines. Something that although I have the capacity to understand, would never have crossed my mind to ask, in 25 years of making records. Naturally I felt stupid.

I was prepared for embarrassment, feeling sure that Rob would pontificate in great detail on the proper way to handle whatever it was, but was pleasantly surprised when Rob scoffed. I don’t want to say he called it a stupid question (he was very magnanimous) – but kinda.

Rob’s answer was basically this: does it sound good? Does it feel good? He did talk for some time in response to that question, but the lecture was about what matters in a mix, and that’s the song. If the thing feels great, it feels great. If it sounds great, it sounds great, and if you get so caught up in the technical mumbo-jumbo and fail to pay attention to the feel of the mix, you’ll probably mess it up.

That was a great relief, but in the next few minutes, Rob did talk about some very technical points, and he did end up addressing the question in some detail. What struck me was the deep understanding he had about the science of audio, as well as the overall goal. Here was a guy who has a grasp of the balance between art and science. He hadn’t scoffed at this question because he was stumped. Not at all.

It seems this is a pretty fitting analogy for life in general. We need to understand the details, and science has the been the way we’ve achieved most of what we take for granted now. It was a physicist (Loud Tommy Dowd) who gave us multi-track recording and the fader. An electrical engineer (Max Mathews) brought us digital audio. But when we get caught in the details and forget the reason for them, we risk losing the art entirely.

We’re seeing that battle a lot lately, not just in music. Science is being thrown away when it shouldn’t be, but so is its counterpart, faith. This is a dilemma as old as history. In college lectures on medieval history, we called it the battle of faith vs. reason. In every era one trumps the other and there are always consequences.

Perhaps this is what’s so magical about music and mixing. You really can’t get it right without both. Fail to understand the science and you’re left guessing, bumbling, and making mixes that sound like cats fighting or elephants dying. Skip the crucial details and you could find yourself overloading a speaker, losing a job, or recording silence at a once in lifetime performance.

Still, if you can’t step back and feel the music, let it tell you what it needs, and worry less about technical terms, peak meters and the next fancy plugin, you could end up making cold, dreary mixes that move no one. In fact, too much emphasis on the technical and you could end up with the same muddy, screechy mix as your head-in-the-clouds counterpart.

There are two abilities that set great mixers apart from mediocre ones. One is the ability to hear details – pick out the high-hat and hear that slight 3k resonance or hear the kick phasing just slightly with the bass. The other is to turn that type of listening off and hear the big picture. Listen to the way the mix grooves as a whole unit. Turn off the brain, notice the goosebumps, and feel your head nodding. The ability to be both analytical and emotional – sometimes simultaneously – is what makes a mixer truly amazing. It may even be what music is for.

It’s hard to be two opposite things at once, or at least we’re led to believe that. But I think in mixing, as in life, the great goal is balance. I think and I feel, therefore I am a musician.

So, if you ask me whether art or science is king in mixing, I’d say they share the throne. Whichever side you tend to lean toward, I encourage you to lean the other way sometimes. See what you can find by valuing both. Maybe you’ll be able to mix art and science a little better (pun fully intended). Either way, keep doing what you do.

—–

I’m always trying to learn more about balance, art, science and sound. If you want talk about it with me, find me on Facebook @AaronJTrumm

Favorite DAW? PShaw!

Why choose only one?

This article first appeared in Recording Magazine. I reprint it here with permission, and I encourage you to subscribe to that publication, as they are a stand up bunch of folk!

A long time ago, in a studio far far away, there were many people involved in a song production, and the process included separate, distinct parts, each role played by a professional specialist. There was tracking, done in a tracking studio by tracking engineers. There was mixing, done in a mix studio by a mix engineer. And there was the dark and mysterious process of mastering, done in a mastering studio by a golden eared audio god immersed in single-minded technicality.

Now? Not so much. Yes, the traditional process still happens, but more and more it’s all one big jumble, especially for those of us producing track after track on tight budgets.

Of course, what has made this possible is computing. Gone (mostly) are megalith tape machines, and in their place the all-powerful DAW – digital audio workstation. Everyone has their favorite. Some people hate all the others. Debates are waged. Articles are written. “How To Choose The Right DAW For You”. “Which DAW is best?” If it weren’t for the loudness wars, the sample rate wars, and the regular ol’ guns and ammo wars, the DAW wars might rage uncontrollably.

But what would it be like if the world of the DAW was all kumbaya and lovey-dovey? What if you didn’t have to choose just one? What if all DAWs had their place in a wonderful world of DAW inclusion?

Or at least what if you, as an all-in-one production team, realized there may be a reason to use more than one. If you think of audio as audio, and not as DAW projects stuck inside a particular format, there’s a whole world of possibility for improving workflow, sound, and creativity.

There are a few reasons for this. One may be obvious – certain DAWs are better suited to certain tasks than others. More than that, certain software may be better suited to your way of doing that task than others. Some DAWs have certain built-in functionality, or a unique sound, and yet don’t work well in other ways (for you). Certain DAWs may not run a favorite plugin or two, or embed video the way you like, or warp audio in a way that makes sense to you.

An argument can be made for warping yourself instead, learning how to most powerfully use your DAW’s features, and that’s definitely a good idea. Still, it’s nice to know there may be other options.

Another fabulous reason to use different software for different parts of the project goes back to the traditional way of doing things. If you’re a one-person production crew, it’s very helpful if you can get yourself in a different mindset for each part of the process. Exporting audio and changing software can go a long way toward that goal.

Indeed, that can be inefficient, but it can be super helpful.

That’s not all though. You may find yourself collaborating with people outside of your studio, and those people may not be using the same software. Wouldn’t it be nice if you were the genius who could handle multiple formats, change back and forth, work within someone else’s flow, and make everything come together?

And of course, having a working knowledge of multiple DAWs is quite helpful when you travel to a session at another studio and your preferred software isn’t available. Perhaps you’re a Cubase lover, but you don’t have a grand piano, and you’ve been granted access to a ProTools studio with a beautimous grand. You’re given the run of the place – as long as you can pilot the ship yourself. It might be nice to be competent with ProTools – and know how to bring the project back into Cubase.

It can be costly to run multiple platforms, admittedly. Although some very good software is free, and other packages are affordable enough that you could replace one you can’t afford with three you can. So multiple packages may be the way to go if your budget is extra tight. Or it may simply be the cost of doing business to maintain a wide array of options. It all depends on your situation.

Speaking of which, everyone’s flow is different, so we all have our quirky little setups. I’ll leave you with mine, just to give you an idea how things might come together.

Tracking: Cakewalk by BandLab. Or ProTools if piloting the aforementioned piano studio.
Editing: Cakewalk. I can’t wrap my head around ProTools editing, even after 25 years.
Voiceover editing: Audacity.
Loop based composition, warping, and live triggering: Ableton.
Mixing: Cakewalk, and then MixBus for final tweaks and that special MixBus sound.
Mastering: Reaper, because it seems to deal with my preferred plugins best.
MP3 Conversion: Sox, a command line tool. I wrote a script which uses Sox to make every deliverable I need in one fell swoop.

Yes, everything I do can be done in any one of the packages I use. But I find it freeing to move smoothly from one to another. Maybe you could too!

I work with Cakewalk, Ableton, Reaper, MixBus – and ok sometimes ProTools. We can argue about it on social media @AaronJTrumm.

It’s All About The Room

Why acoustic treatment should be your first expense

This article first appeared in Recording Magazine. I reprint it here with permission, and I encourage you to subscribe to that publication, as they are a stand up bunch of folk!

Being the adventurous, un-monied, and fairly non-famous soul that I am, I’ve been in a ton of low-end recording studios. Project studios, home studios, studios in strip malls, studios in cottages behind houses. I’ve visited rehearsal studios in Houston suburbs, band garages in Austin slums, electronica dens in Albuquerque, and video production suites in Oakland. I’ve also been in my fair share of commercial studios. And of course, I’ve built out countless bedroom studios of my own over the course of a 26-year career. Some were pretty bad, I admit.

That’s not to mention all the studio pictures I’ve seen and remote collaborations on Skype and Zoom. I’ve seen enough studio desks to last me a lifetime, and almost daily I see an image of some slick piece of gear I wish I had. Video monitors, big bad computers, control surfaces, pre-amps, mics, you name it.

It turns out that almost without fail, you can a tell a professional by the studio they keep – and it looks quite different than some might expect. You can also predict with reasonable accuracy how a recordist’s work will sound by looking around their room.

Given the topic of this issue, you may not be surprised to hear me say, it’s not the $50,000 Pro Tools rigs or high-end monitor switchers that make the difference. It’s not even the expensive preamps or vintage microphones (although those things don’t hurt).

What it comes down to is the room. Capturing audio is all about the space of course, but especially when it comes to mixing – we all know what a poorly responding room can do to a mix. So, it’s a harbinger of bad things to come when I walk into a studio that boasts $100,000 worth of shiny new equipment placed haphazardly in a hard square box.

Why does this happen? Who knows? Perhaps we gravitate toward the prestigious. Perhaps we need to be able to boast about our equipment to draw in clients. Perhaps we think acoustic treatment is only for top-tier, multi-million-dollar facilities. Maybe people just don’t know why or how to properly prepare a room for audio.

Whatever it is, that’s why we at Recording Magazine dedicate an entire month to monitoring and acoustics. And perhaps this issue should have come out in January, because your listening and recording environments should be the first thing you deal with.

Especially if you’re revamping or building a new studio, rather than spending as much money as possible on your recording computer, microphones, plugins, software, keyboards, and so on, start your spending (and your building) with the room.

Don’t be afraid of running out of money. With some ingenuity you can properly treat a standard bedroom for not much more than the cost of a Rode Condenser – if that. And you can make it look good too! Remember, you don’t need to build a million-dollar facility with 30-foot ceilings, non-parallel surfaces, and outer walls full of sand.

And here’s a tip: Although every room tests out a bit differently, the solutions are pretty much always the same. So, you can finish 90% of your treatment before you even pick out a pair of monitors. In fact, that’s what I’d recommend. Treat the room and make it sound great on its own before you even bring in the furniture. Then get some great monitors, bring them and the other gear in, and listen. Then, if you’re so inclined you can test the room and make tweaks.

It won’t take as much time as you may think, and it won’t cost as much as you may be afraid of. Make the quality of the space your first priority with monitors a close second and you’ll be working with a foundation that’s far better than most other studios.

It really is all about the room!

I work in a small, well treated room. I talk about acoustics quite a bit. I think about acoustics quite a bit. We can talk about acoustics a bit on Facebook if you want, @AaronJTrumm.

Gift Giving For People Who Love Recordists

June 29, 2021 by Aaron

Music Thoughts, Rants, Randomness, Published Work, Recording Magazine

aaron j. trumm, aaron trumm, do it yourself recording, gift giving, gifts for musicians, home recording, nquit music, presents for musicians, professional audio, professional music, recording, recording magazine

This article first appeared in Recording Magazine. I reprint it here with permission, and I encourage you to subscribe to that publication, as they are a stand up bunch of folk!

When I was 16 years old, my mother bought me a 4 Track Tascam Portastudio – the kind with the cassette tape (yes I’m that old). She did it so I would stop commandeering her dual well cassette deck to make pause loop tapes. Ignoring for a moment the slippery path she set me on, the plan didn’t even work. Quickly I learned, and she learned with me, that I would still need to “borrow” that stereo deck to mix down my creations. I used that Portastudio, and that “mixdown” deck, for a surprisingly short time before more “things” were “needed” and quickly things ballooned past anyone’s ability to surprise me with studio presents. I think that Portastudio may have been the last piece of studio gear my family attempted to buy.

The point is, it’s DIFFICULT to give gifts to a recording enthusiast and as recording enthusiasts we should pity our loved ones.

First of all, let’s not pretend what we do is even remotely accessible without money. Recording gear is expensive, and there’s no way around it. Sure, a person can cruise E-Bay and probably find an SM57 for around $60 but unless their recordist is new or relatively mic-snobby, there will already be a glut of 57’s in their possession. So the loved one is faced with “the person who has everything” syndrome for anything even remotely affordable. Guitar tuner? “I’ve got two.” Mic stands? “20.” Little adapter thingies? “Drawers full.” If the family knows about it, we’ve probably got it in spades.

Alas, the family’s gift giving woes don’t end there. If your doting loved one decides to spend a little more, they have to know what to get, where to get it, and which brand to go with. And do they? Of course not! You must understand, dear recording guru of the neighborhood, to normal folk, your little room looks like a lost Star Trek episode. Knobs, buttons, neon lights, wires, inexplicable wall coverings, floor gadgets, desk gadgets, lava lamps if you’re old enough, razor blades and reels if you’re awesome enough, and the darkness – oh the darkness! Even a seasoned veteran would have trouble navigating your highly customized studio scenario, admit it! How is Aunt Maggie supposed to know what’s missing in this quagmire, or what you have been hoping for?

Well, you could tell them. You could say “for Christmas, I would like a Manley Tube Pre”, and your Uncle Dave might ask why you want to be stuck in a tube and what it needs to be manly for anyway. Your spouse might Google it, but then you’d spend your evening in the ER treating sticker shock. You could be less specific, but then you’ve doomed your loved one to a year of research and looking lost in music stores. You might say, “I need a new set of monitors,” but that’s really just a mean thing to say to someone you like! Heck, even YOU don’t know which pair you want!

They could just take a risk, go to a store and pick something up they think matches the look and feel of your space, and that works just fine if the store has a great return policy.

But let’s face it, it’s kind of awkward when a bass player gets a guitar as a gift. “Yes…yes I see that it has even more strings…uhm…yes…that’s wonderful. Yeah, more…more notes. Thank you.” Ok, that scenario may be a bit hyperbolic, but you get the gist. It may be, even, that your family DOES know the difference between a Fender and a Martin, and in fact, you may even be shacked up with a fellow recordist. If so, your gift giving woes may be less severe, however there is another problem there. If you happen to live with a recordist, how do you know that the presents they give aren’t really for THEM? In this situation, I advise continual and open sharing!

If you’re like most of us, and the lone recording artist in the family, it’s clear you’re not likely to wake up on your birthday to a balanced patch bay with a bow, and you’re probably never going to find a power conditioner under the tree. But don’t be disappointed. Have compassion for the trouble you’ve caused your people by being a genius of sound and audio. Love them anyway, and ask for little. Try, if you can, to understand what they want for presents (even though wanting anything that doesn’t go in a studio does seem insane) and you be the giver. Remember also that you are probably no better at gift giving, seeing as how you tend to give earplugs as stocking stuffers and surround sound for your anniversary.

There may even come a day when your stocking is full of XLR cables, or each day of Chanukah has a different color Y cable but be patient. Until that day, when holidays, birthdays or anniversaries roll around, smile, say thank you, give big hugs…

… and use E-Bay to sell your gifts and get more gear!

Happy shopping!

I mostly do my own studio purchasing and I’m trying to be a better gift giver. If you want to exchange gifts with me, reach out on my socials… @AaronJTrumm on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram.

The Evolution Of Evolutionary Mixing

June 22, 2021 by Aaron

Music Thoughts, Rants, Randomness, Published Work, Recording Magazine

aaron j. trumm, aaron trumm, audio mixing, do it yourself recording, home recording, mixing, music mixing, nquit music, professional audio, professional music, recording, recording magazine

This article first appeared in Recording Magazine. I reprint it here with permission, and I encourage you to subscribe to that publication, as they are a stand up bunch of folk!

The modern recording process has been set for quite a while. It goes:

Pre-Production (writing/rehearsing, etc.)
Tracking
Mixing
Mastering

Keeping these processes separate and distinct has its advantages. For example, a well written song composed, arranged and rehearsed is usually tracked smoothly, with fewer problems than ill-conceived ideas, even with non-traditional music like electronica. Well arranged songs also lend themselves to easier mixing. Mastering, meanwhile, needs to be its own process, with new ears and different gear, and of course getting a break from long tracking sessions and coming back fresh for mixdown can not only be more effective, but more fun and rewarding too.

The process has proven effective, but in the past 5-10 years, I’ve noticed a new paradigm developing for many musicians and producers, myself included.

In traditional mixdown, we bring recorded, edited final tracks to a mix studio, call up the tracks on tape, MDM or DAW and use a console and outboard processing to create the final mix. We move faders, dial knobs, make patches, and if our console isn’t automated (ie: the ubiquitous Mackie 8-Buss), rehearse and perform moves and changes in real time, sometimes working in teams (“move over, Bob! I have to twist the mid-range NOW to create that EQ wahwah! Make sure you fade channel 2 while I engage the delay…”)

These are often one shot sessions, with hours of listening on multiple monitors, boom boxes, computer speakers and car stereos to achieve translatable mixes. This works, but what if you make a mistake, or find out the mix is too boomy in Walmart? Can you recreate that session? Do you have the time and money to rebook? You can attempt to recreate an analog session, but it is painful and rarely works (remember the knob/fader sheets that came in 8-Buss manuals?).

Of course, DAWS and automated boards make it easier. A ProTools mix can be called up again and again, sounding exactly the same, especially if no outboard gear is involved, and an automated console can do the same. However even an inexpensive digital board sits in a single (expensive) room and so does a hefty ProTools rig, so there wasn’t necessarily a huge change to the process when digital boomed.

However, when laptops got powerful enough to handle multi-track audio, there was a bigger shift. In my own work, that shift was immediate and dramatic. Suddenly mixes could evolve over time. I could take the laptop everywhere, checking mixes and making small tweaks in video edit suites, project studios, theaters, houses or strange headphones. Add mp3s and stronger internet, and suddenly I was sharing evolving mixes with band members or label partners remotely, reading emailed feedback and correcting mixes while at coffee shops or on planes. Not only was there no longer a time crunch every session, I was listening in different ENVIRONMENTS, which is great for translatability. The result was lower cost and better mixes.

That change in process levels the playing field a bit, giving more artists another way to strive for world class material; but it can also change the fundamental recording process. With the ability to quickly tweak and change mix parameters (and save old versions), dialing in the sound can start earlier in the chain. Mixes can evolve with the writing, which is great for genres where the mix is a fundamental part of the composition itself, and while it can certainly be a double edged sword, if managed right, it can also lead to a more integrated and rewarding experience over all, and sometimes even to smooth as butter traditional mixdown and mastering sessions later in the process. Not to mention, there is a new sense of freedom there that wasn’t there before, and we artists do love our sense of freedom.

I like to call it “evolutionary mixing”. I wouldn’t call it a replacement for the traditional workflow. As I said, there are reasons that workflow developed, and some of the freedom afforded with a new outlook can be problematic. Mixing while writing and tracking can cause a loss of perspective, for example, and sometimes easier processes foster laziness. There’s also plenty of reason to hire and learn from masters of the trade. Having a laptop and an attitude is great, but taking that material back to an old master can really create that earth shaking sense of bridging past, present and future.

Personally, I still do my best to compose complete pieces first before doing much tracking, I’m adamant about hiring a world class mastering house, and on my next project, I’ll be combining the evolutionary mixing approach during tracking and editing to put my creative spin on things with a more traditional mixdown later in the process done by a whole different (better) engineer.

That all said, it is exciting to see technology changing the process in a way that increases access and creates new art and inspiration, not only for up and comers, but also for salty veterans who may need a kick in the pants. After all, new process: new result.

I’ve been searching for a good mix for 27 years. Most of the best ones have evolved over a little time. I’m currently outside…in fact I just took the picture at the top of this… talk to me about this and other music, creativity, and outside related things on my socials… @AaronJTrumm on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram.

The Importance of Going Outside

June 15, 2021 by Aaron

Music Thoughts, Rants, Randomness, Published Work, Recording Magazine

aaron j. trumm, aaron trumm, do it yourself recording, health, home recording, nquit music, professional audio, professional music, recording, recording magazine, work life balance, work/life balance

This article first appeared in Recording Magazine. I reprint it here with permission, and I encourage you to subscribe to that publication, as they are a stand up bunch of folk!

I was talking to a friend on Twitter (ironic start to this I know), and he sent me a picture of a beautiful lake. We got to talking about that lake, and how his habit was to take long walks around it. I said I thought it was important to go outside as much as possible, and he agreed. I told him there was a similar (former) lake outside my department in grad school, and that I’d head out there whenever I wasn’t in the studio, but back then, that wasn’t very often. He shared that a certain recent song production had been finished while walking around that lake with a friend, and it occurred to me that there’s more than one reason to get out of the chair and hit the fresh air.

As engineers, producers and musicians, most of us spend the majority of our time squirreled away in dark clubs and darker studios. Night is the preferred (or necessary) time of work for most musicians, and isolation from the world is necessary both acoustically and emotionally. This isn’t bad, but we spend our energy mercilessly in the studio – people who have never mixed a record have no idea how much physical energy it takes. That’s reason one to get outside. It can kill a person to sit in front of a mix desk or a computer all the time and never see the light. Sitting has even been called the new smoking. So, it’s important to get up, leave the room, leave the building, and go outside. Take a walk, get some more serious exercise, or just look at something natural.

My Twitter friend pointed out reason two with his story about the song. Inspiration comes from “refilling the well” (to paraphrase Julia Cameron), and if you sit too long in your own production, you can run out of perspective and ideas. Personally, I’ll probably never write a lyric about a pristine lake; that would be boring to me. But refilling the well is more about replenishing energy than direct and literal inspiration. Sometimes a walk around the lake just causes that last, elusive idea to come.

In this case, getting outside is both literal and metaphorical. We need to get outside of our heads, outside of the room, and outside of our own thinking. We need an outside perspective. That’s why there are mix notes. That’s why great mixers clear out the control room. There needs to be someone who wasn’t there the whole time to come in toward the end and give an outside perspective. Sometimes it may even behoove us to hire an outside mixer, producer or player, or take a project to an outside studio.

Reason three: Ears need breaks. Listening fatigue causes poor sonic judgement and especially if things are loud, ears can get damaged over time. Getting away from the sound at regular intervals is as important as keeping volumes reasonable and wearing ear protection. If you live in Manhattan, going outside may not help you here, but as I recall, it’s only about a 5 minute walk from Hell’s Kitchen to Central Park, so maybe all is not lost for you New Yorkers!

If health isn’t your bag, and inspiration is coming out your pores at all times no matter what, maybe reason four is enough to get you outside: You can’t get famous if you never meet anybody. One could argue that you can use the internet for that, but we all know that meeting people face to face is so much more powerful. Getting outside in this case just means out of your house, and you still may end up constantly in dark clubs, or once you achieve this fame, deep in penthouse suites drinking chardonnay and eating thousand dollar fish guts, but if you want that to last, I refer you to previous paragraphs regarding health.

I for one have changed the way I do business and make music. I get up in the morning now, I keep the windows and doors open 95% of the time, and I built my new office/studio in the sunniest room in the house. I never book a session longer than four hours (usually it’s two) and I stand up and walk out the front door repeatedly throughout the day. All-nighters are a thing of the past now, as is the romance of the dungeon studio.

For me, it’s more than just nature, sunshine and lakes, and it’s more than literally going outdoors. For me, it’s about work/life balance, something that people in other professions enjoy, but it seems that musicians usually don’t. For me, it’s about treating my dream job as WORK, and not a hobby, which means, I get to have a life outside of work/music. We don’t HAVE to be squirreled away all the time and miss the beautiful, varied, colorful things that live out THERE, not in HERE, just because we make music.

I may not ever meet my Twitter friend by the lake, but I’m glad he reminded me to take it outside. If you need me the rest of today, that’s where I’ll be.

I’m a vocalist, pianist, producer, engineer and – as you can see – writer. I’m currently outside, but when I come in, you can find me at @AaronJTrumm on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram.

Feeding Back

June 8, 2021 by Aaron

Audio Instruction, Instructional Stuff, Music Business, Music Thoughts, Rants, Randomness, Published Work, Recording Magazine

aaron j. trumm, aaron trumm, do it yourself recording, get better at making music, improve my music, music critique, nquit music, recording magazine

Improving your tracks by soliciting critique

This article first appeared in Recording Magazine. I reprint it here with permission, and I encourage you to subscribe to that publication, as they are a stand up bunch of folk!

Normally in the audio world we try to eliminate feedback. Nobody wants that high-pitched caterwauling ruining an otherwise perfect performance. That may also be how you feel about listening to someone’s opinion about your music, but the truth is outside opinions can be incredibly helpful.

Even if your goal isn’t a wildly successful professional career, getting an outside opinion or five can help you see what you’re missing in a way that time away from a track cannot. If you’re willing to take on the challenge, you can use these other opinions to dramatically improve your work. Just like a writer rarely submits a first draft to a publisher, a great song is hardly ever the first version. In fact, most great productions go through multiple iterations and some final versions are barely recognizable as the same song as version one.

That all said, there’s an art to soliciting feedback and using it wisely to improve a track. But done right, the circle of feedback, revision, feedback, revision is one of the most powerful tools at our disposal in the never-ending quest to sound better.

An Ever-Widening Circle

The first question that’ll come up when you’re ready to get critique is who to ask. Sure, you can ask just about anyone and if you know how to listen, every opinion will have value. But in practice you’ll probably want to strategize, both for time’s sake and for your own sanity. A good plan of action employed by many is the ever-widening circle approach.

The Inner Sanctum

Start with your closest and most trusted associates; the people who already believe in you, think you’re great, and you feel safe showing bad work to. This group may be the four or five members of your band, it may be the 2 collaborators on a long-distance project, or it may be your mother and your girlfriend.

This is the group you can show sketches to, to start to get an idea if a song is even worth your time to produce. This group is also well situated to feedback on multiple versions of a song and help as the song grows from an itty-bitty baby mp3 demo into a full-fledged mix. It’s helpful if one of this inner circle is an expert, but it’s equally helpful if at least one is not. Most important, they should understand you and your goals, and they should feel safe to be honest. This should not be a group that will say everything you do is great. That’s not helpful. They should, rather, know how great you CAN be, and hold you to that standard.

First Steps Into The World

Once your track starts to grow legs, you should start widening your circle. Seek out trusted industry contacts, other musicians and strangers who aren’t the general public. A good place to find new people at this stage are Facebook groups meant for production feedback. It’s helpful to be part of a few semi-private industry groups like MixMe where people bounce ideas and learn from each other.

The key at this stage is to present as finished a mix as you can, and then be willing to go back and change it. Luckily, these are not the days of 12-hour analog mix sessions that can never be recreated. Do a “save as” and create a new DAW file so you can implement changes without losing the older versions. If you ARE working in an all analog environment, you may consider having more people involved earlier in the process, and more people in the building when you mix.

It can be a hard pill to swallow to work hard on getting something to “finished” and then soliciting feedback, but once you start to involve strangers you want to put your best foot forward.

At this point, you’re still probably looking for general feedback, but you may start focusing down, maybe by seeking feedback from mix engineers on the mix, and songwriting experts on the song writing. Make sure to take notes on everything you hear good and bad, and don’t put your own filter on. If possible, try to implement every piece of feedback you get unless two people directly contradict each other. In that case, you’re the boss so use your veto power.

Going Semi-Public

Once you’ve solicited feedback from some fellow producers and extra friends and done a few more iterations, you’re probably feeling confident about the track. Now’s the time to get a little more public, and you can do this in a number of ways.

You could share the track on social media and wait for feedback. If you do it this way, it’s unlikely anyone will say anything bad to you, but you’ll be able to gauge how well the track is moving people by how extreme their responses are. If you get 3 comments on a Facebook post that say “neat. Great track, man,” that’s not a great response. It means people are being polite. If you get 43 comments that say “holy CRAP I love this SOOOOO much where can I download it PLEASE?” that’s a great response.

That’s a decent way to go about it, but in truth, it’s hard to get people to listen to songs on social media (a subject for a whole other article). If you’re really looking to test the track’s mettle, you may start reaching out to gatekeepers or professionals whose job is to critique songs. If you’re a Taxi member you can submit for feedback or find a listing to submit to and see what the screener says about the track. If the track gets accepted great, but you don’t really care yet, you’re just looking for feedback.

Another option is to submit your track to a service like Audiu, AudioKite (now a part of ReverbNation) or Fluence and read the reports. The feedback may or may not be specific enough for you, and your skin needs to be thick at this point, but the powerful part is these are not people that are trying to please you, and they’re anonymous.

At this point, it may be even harder than before to want to change things, because you’ll have worked hard, but if you’re willing, you can make your track just that much better. Just beware of one thing: context is decisive. That means that inside the context of you seeking “coaching”, you will probably never impress these people. Their job is to look for what’s wrong, so simply use what they say to polish up the track, and leave the accolades to your fans.

The Art Of Solicitation

Once you have an idea about who to ask, how do you ask? As is usual in any business interaction, the first rule is be civil, polite and humble. Be specific about what you need feedback on, and never ever answer back. When receiving feedback, especially face to face, it’s never helpful to defend a decision. This leaves people feeling unsafe to really open up, which will leave you in the dark about what they really think. Instead, simply nod, write down the note, and say thank you.

If you’re simply looking for people’s first responses, then you can simply ask “what do you think of this”, but as you move forward, you’ll probably have specific questions, like whether the mix is translating or if the lyrics seem trite. It’s good to let people know if the mix is just a rough and you’re looking for songwriting, or if the arrangement is set in stone, and you’re just looking for opinions on the bass. Whatever it is, being specific helps people narrow in on what you need and saves time and energy.

That said, it can be quite telling to NOT mention a particular problem you’re worried about. See if people notice it without you mentioning it. That’s a tell tale sign that your instinct was right and you need a change.

Of course, if you’re asking other musicians for feedback, be sure to be willing to help them on their tracks too! On most Facebook groups, the common etiquette is to feedback on other people’s work for a while before making your ask. People will be more familiar with you and feel more comfortable helping you.

Above all, be great with people, and receive all criticism with gratitude.

Giving Feedback

Since you’ll be reciprocating by helping people, you may want to think about how to give feedback in a way that creates a good relationship while still actually helping your fellow musicians grow.

The same basic rules apply. Be kind and courteous, and treat people with respect, even if they are brand new. Never pan work outright, and never criticize the person. A good rule of thumb when giving feedback is to assume everyone is a professional who knows what they’re doing. This means only providing feedback when asked, sticking to what’s asked for, and never talking down to people, even if they’re way newer than you.

You also don’t want to blow smoke. Just as with your work, it’s patronizing and unhelpful to simply say “yeah! Great stuff!” unless your mind is so blown that you can find nothing to improve. In that case, you will probably come up with something more anyway. By the same token, focusing entirely on a plethora of mistakes can be damaging and equally unhelpful.

So a good method to use is what management technique calls “the sandwich method”. This method is normally used to surreptitiously give negative feedback to employees, but when critiquing music can be the perfect approach. It goes like this: start with something positive, lead to something that could be improved, and end with something positive.

The key to the sandwich method NOT being disingenuous and manipulating is to really MEAN the positive parts. Find something that you truly like or love about the song, and lead with that. From there, move into the thing that you noticed that you think could be improved. Be specific, and offer an idea for something else to do. Then end with more positivity. That could be “great work!” or “can’t wait to hear the next version”, or even another specific thing.

For example, maybe your friend Joe asks you for general feedback on a song and the first thing you notice is a very muddy low end. Since that’s the first thing you noticed, you should listen again, and look for what you like. On second listen, you notice how great the songwriting is. So your feedback might go something like:

“Hey Joe! Wow this song is so well written. Amazing lyrics! I’m hearing some mud in the low end which obscures a couple lyrics, so I might try to carve out some 100hz in the bass and kick drum, and maybe look for other cuts in some of the ‘mud’ frequencies like 200 and 400-500hz. I’d love to hear it at that point. Really digging this one, can’t wait for the finished master!”

The best part about establishing this method of feedback is that if you boost people up while still actually helping them improve, they’ll do the same for you!

Go Around Again

Once you’ve got some good critique and a bunch of notes, obviously you’ll want to implement it. You’ll probably want to save a new DAW session file, and you may even want to make a couple of different versions at this point. Perhaps you’re not decided between one person’s idea that you make a song longer and another that you make it shorter. You can do a couple of versions and let them shoot it out. Or you may just make that executive decision. Either way, once you’ve implemented as much of the feedback as you can, go back around the ever-widening circle until you’re getting very little critique, and most importantly you feel satisfied and confident.

When you’re at that point, it’s time to put the song into the world, and after that don’t ask for feedback, because that sets up the context that the song is not finished. When you release to the general public simply project confidence and excitement. You’ll still get some unsolicited critique, and that’s ok. Carry that feedback forward and let it inform your next productions, and where and who you market the finished song to.

Wherever that leads you, you will find that vetting your work will give you confidence, better tracks and a lot more opportunity to interact with and work with people of like mind.

Here’s to feedback we want, and may you never hear the other kind of dreaded squeal again.

I’m a producer, singer and emcee who could have used some more vetting early on. Nevertheless, I’m now open to conversation on social media @AaronJTrumm.

Music Thoughts, Rants, Randomness

Cull the Herd

The Definitive Guide to Deciding Where to Submit Your Music

Categories

General considerations

Genre

Reputation

Potential return

Submission difficulty

Submission cost

Specific considerations

Reach

Focus

Relationships

Payment

Exclusivity

Competition

Go forth and submit

Chasing the Timeless Sound

Does It Matter?

Timelessness

Just Keep Making

Recording Piano Wrong

How breaking the rules can transform your piano recordings

Oddball Placements

The Hole

Under The Piano

The Foot

Wrong Mics

Mess With the Piano

Play With the Playing

There Are No Rules

Art vs. Science in Mixing – and Life?

Favorite DAW? PShaw!

Why choose only one?

It’s All About The Room

Why acoustic treatment should be your first expense

Gift Giving For People Who Love Recordists

The Evolution Of Evolutionary Mixing

The Importance of Going Outside

Feeding Back

Improving your tracks by soliciting critique

An Ever-Widening Circle

The Inner Sanctum

First Steps Into The World

Going Semi-Public

The Art Of Solicitation

Giving Feedback

Go Around Again