I heard something missing in the low mids, a lack of "beefiness", and something a bit strident in the upper mids just below the vocal definition range. Looking at the spectrum analysis I see a low spot centered at about 400Hz and a peak centered at about 2.3kHz. The balance of the instruments and vocals in each frequency range seems about right so I would consider simply applying corrective eq to the whole mix.

Most likely it's caused by something in your monitoring setup, like a resonance in your room at 400 and a softness in your monitors at 2.3k. Regarding the 2.3k, I wonder if you have your speakers angled in a way that degrades the alignment of the tweeter and woofer at the crossover frequency or if the speakers just have a problem in the crossover range. You don't have them positioned horizontally, do you? Are they placed with the midpoint between the drivers at ear level?

Artistically speaking, the mix is pretty much there. I might adjust the reverb to bring the vocal forward and set the band just behind it. As it is now it sounds like the band is right in your face and the singer is 20 feet back.

I think that's something I said about your other mix, I just feel it sound thin. Kind of low-fi. Like if it was a recorded with the same cheap mic.. No insult intented.. I just have this feeling..
I just don't quite know how to put it.. I feel like I was listening from the other side of a bar and not close to the stage.. Frequencies are missing dynamics and dimensions are gone.. Over mixed maybe ?
Another analogy; it sounds like the mic was in a box to record the band..

Ok, I'd like to help here.. Would you accept to poste a few raw tracks to try to identify if it's the mix or the recording that gives that result. Or maybe a clean mix (just the raw tracks, volumes and pan but nothing else)

I've been listening to your song. is it possible that you are mixing at very loud volume ? I also think that you may overuse EQ and HiPass filters..
Oh and that hi-hat is too loud.. ;)

I fooled around with some eq and it turns out that the high strident stuff is around 4.2kHz. The curve below made the whole thing sound better to me. I could stand to hear more definition to the kick.

I like your song.cool stuff. The main thing that makes me want to turn it down immediately is the density in the mids its really fatiguing. It's not like instruments are fighting for the same spot and it's clouded there.... good clarity overall but it's too built up in the mids to hi mids.

Thank you so much for all of your responses guys. Unfortunately I can't post raw tracks. They're under some copyright nonsense. PCrecord. No insult taken sir. That's fine. It's not like I'm going to learn anything without having my ass kicked from time to time. Boulder I couldn't agree with you more and I'm glad you've said that. The whole thing with the singer is something they specifically requested which I wasn't happy about. Apparently it's a preference of theirs... I really don't like it. They kept referring to this band called 'Shoegaze'. Turns out they drench just about everything in reverb. It's really not my thing. Ok. This information is all fantastic. If you spot anything else then keep going! Hi-hat is too loud! Yes! I knew there was something blaringly obviously I was missing hahaha. It's funny how sometimes someone can say something and you want to kick yourself for not realising. Brilliant! Ok cool. So we're thinking a little bit harsh and boxy and perhaps the vocal is a little too ... far set ? Oh and boulder.. believe me when I say my setup is not ideal. If you saw it you'd definitely go 'ah... i see the problem' hahahaha! Unfortunately I'm not really in any position to fix it at present. They're not horizontal though. They're at recommended spacing and recommended angle. It's the room that's the issue. The treatment is lacking and the shape of it is less than ideal. It's wider than it is long for a start!

Just as a note for PC record specifically -

I've high passed the guitars at around 120. Low passed at 10k ish.
Bass is high passed a touch at 30. Low passed around 5k (I used a really angry bass tone).
Vocals are high passed around 100.

Hope that gives more indication.

Mixing with specifications that are far from our taste is hard.. But if YOU don't like the vocal reverb, a thing that you can do is parallele processing, double the track, make one very wet in reverb/delay and keep the other one dry. Then blend both to taste.

You know the things I said were only to help.. Maybe the mix technic is fine but the lake of fullness I hear goes from the instruments them self. We all know we can't mix what isn't there in the tracks.

I think the balance in our mix is excellent, a part from the HH maybe, everything was well leveled. The only thing that is missing is a way to make the song sound BIG and multidimentionnal...
Sounds abstract doesn't it..

What reverb do you use ?
To make the listener believe that it's a band playing in front of him/her, I sometime use 1 single reverb on the whole session, it helps to glue tracks together and add some dimentions.. what I do is blend it from zero db and when I hear the reverb tail, I back down a bit.

A lot of customers ask for more reverb on the vocals while what they need is actually delays.. A timed quater note delay well blended can sound great.
And sometime, they ask for reverb because they are insecure about the vocal quality and your job is to reassure them ;)

Yeah I agree with what you've said. I hate the vocal verb. They wanted a really wet sounding one. I did try to parallel process it but they were like 'Oh no it sounds too dry.. I want the whole thing to sound like it's in a cave like the pixies and shoegaze'. My response to that was that the pixies and shoegaze are far less energetic in mood but they gave me the whole oh it'll be unique thing. Really hard to get around. I'll sort that high hat out when I go back to it. As for the verb its just a studio one stock plate. There is an Ozone 5 master verb on at 14% mix too. I might have a play with some delays. Maybe to get the sound to be wider i could bus the mono shit to a stereo aux and return it with a stereo verb on and a high pass at 150 or something then blend. I donno. I'll have a play with a few things. I am concerned about the boxy sound that's being mentioned. I hate boxy but I must admit I'm not hearing much box sound on my monitors except the snare sounding kinda crap. I think I might need to sort my control room out and invest in something other than KRK 8s. They're the speakers of lies by all accounts. That and... I guess I need more practice!

You could have them if the signer needs a suit to dress up like a cave man as well.. ;)

Voiceofallanger, post: 433647, member: 41142 wrote: I think I might need to sort my control room out and invest in something other than KRK 8s. They're the speakers of lies by all accounts. That and... I guess I need more practice!

Before you change for better, take the time to listen to commercial CDs before you mix and A/B your mix with CDs often. You'll get a sens how it should sound on your speakers.. ;)

Yeah that is something I do a lot and to anyone who doesn't I can't stress the importance of referencing enough. I didn't used to do it and it was such a huge mistake. Even spectrum analyzing them is hugely helpful on top of just plain listening!

The thing about more modern reverbs on vocals isn't necessarily the types that have changed, it just that the amount of it has been lessened gradually over time.

I'll still put a hall verb on a lead vocal, but I'll separate it by using timed pre-delays, and pulling it waaaay back into the mix... the trick for me, is that I'm tucking it in not so much that I can hear it, but that I can hear a difference without it.

Unless it's for really something "artsy" in particular, or retro, like if you were doing something 80's sounding intentionally, back in the days when guys wore mullets and the Lexicon PCM's ruled the mixes; the days of the 3 second in-your-face ballad reverb a'la Barry Manilow, Celine Dion and Michael Bolton are no more - thankfully.

But who knows... ? ...what comes around goes around. Lots of guys sold off plenty of analog gear when digital hit, thinking that they wouldn't need those Pultecs, LA2's and 76's anymore...now they're priced at up to 10 times their original cost when they were new.

So I suppose it's possible that heavy reverb on vocals could make a comeback... but at least for right now, it's really not the thing, and it has a tendency to immediately date the sound of a song more than it helps it.

The guys you are recording need to trust you, as long as you're hip to the style of music they're recording. Reverb is one of those "wow factor" things, ( like stereo enhancers) especially for newbies... at first it sounds great to them because they're not used to hearing it, except that it also wipes out definition, punch and clarity. Plus, it's forgiving with vocals that aren't so great, and that's another thing that guys who aren't secure in their talent like it for, because it can cover up the warts.

As Marco mentioned - take a listen to modern mixes; break them down, find out what makes those mixes tick. Listen in the style of what the band plays, then let them hear examples of those current styles, professionally mixed, so that they can hear that what they are asking you to do is maybe ( probably) not the best thing for their sound. ;)

FWIW

That's what I did Donny. In fact that's exactly what I did. Problem is. They just plain don't care about the modern market. I suppose that could be a gift or a curse. I think it makes things sound dated too. I mean if I think reverb I immediately think Phil Collins etc. Doh. Musicians eh ?

Okay... so, honestly, is this your mix? Or is this the band's mix? Meaning that you're doing what they tell you to do...

I'd like to hear the vocal dried up and brought forward, bringing the band more forward, too; right now it sounds kinda like the singer is in another room away from the band - which is too far back (and muddy and thin); and the amount of reverb on the vocal isn't adding beneficial depth or space, it's just separating the vocal from the music even more, but not in a way that makes the mix work cohesively... it's just washing things out.

The mix also sounds a bit "peaky" to me at around 2k -3k, it's an edgy frequency but not really a pleasing edge... and it's a little "whoompy", which might suggest too much energy around 300-400Hz (?) or so, but at the same time lacking in the bottom end where the "solid foundation" lives... best guess without running it through an analyzer would be between 100-200, somewhere in there.

I'd like to hear more definition on the kick... the toms bother me as well, they sound very "dead"; as if the heads were old, or maybe had some kind of deadening material on them?
If it were me, I'd be looking at sample replacement on the toms, maybe the kick, too.

The mix isn't terrible, it just needs some tweaking, but if the band is controlling what you do to the extent that your hands are tied, then what can you do?

If you want, you could mix a version without the band being there, and then play your mix next to theirs, and let them A/B the two. If they still choose their own, then there's nothing you can do, you're not gonna win this one...

And, if they are so bound and determined to have it their way, then all you can do is to mix it the way they want, get paid, and if it bothers you to the extent that you aren't proud of being associated with it, you could always use a pseudonym on the album/single as the listed engineer, or, you can refuse to be listed at all, and the album credits the band as being responsible for mixing the song(s).

You wouldn't be the first engineer to use a fake name or ask to be not credited on something you're not happy in being associated with. Trust me. ;)

Why not present the band with an alternate mix based on the feedback above, If it sounds better, and they are ignorant of that, well your not losing out on anything.
You never know, it may actually change their perception of their sound ;)

Edit - Sorry @Donny Thompson, I should have fully read your post above, But I empahsise what Donny has basically said before me (y)

Not bad suggestions Donny/Sean. I may well go ahead and do both of those things... It is annoying when a band don't trust you to mix it a certain way but I guess I don't want them to hate the record. Their reverb tweaks were based on a much drier mix I did but that was in fact, unfinished and a test ballpark mix. I doubt they will budge on this. I can try your suggestions though. For sure!

Truthfully, after listening to this mix, I can say that yeah, I've heard far better ... but I've also heard worse - a lot worse.

Sean G, post: 433657, member: 49362 wrote: You never know, it may actually change their perception of their sound

It's been in my personal experience that changing the minds of those who are firmly entrenched in what they want, or what they believe, will rarely happen.

If the band has it planted firmly in their heads that what they want is what they want, you're probably not going to change their minds. If they have their own artistic vision for their project, then all you can do as an engineer is to make suggestions, and present some alternatives to their approach, but past that, there's little you can do. You're not the producer of this project - you're the engineer, and there's a big difference. If you are the producer, then you have the final say in... well, in pretty much everything, really, which most certainly includes having final control of how the mixes sound. But, if you are acting as an engineer only, then the band is the producer, and you pretty much have to do what they say... that's the way it works, and what you're being paid for.

There are options other than just letting all this slide and doing the gig; you could always bow out of the project - and being honest as to why; or, you can do the gig, get paid, and request that you not be credited - also being honest as to why.

All of us here can differentiate between a good mix of a bad band and a bad mix of a good band, but, we're not like other people... we have the ability to hear thru those things, and to make the distinction(s) between them.
But most of your average listeners cannot. If they hear something bad, they're gonna blame somebody; and it's either going to be the band, or it's going to be the studio/engineer/producer.

It's up to you to determine if any of this matters, and to what degree. If you don't think it will matter, then no big deal, do what they want, get paid.
But, if you think there's a chance that having your name connected to this project could possibly hurt you - in terms of getting future business from other clients - then you have to do what you feel is necessary to protect yourself.

I've backed out of a few projects over the years, when I thought that having my name connected to something could hurt my reputation, or cause me to not get future gigs, or employment at other studios.
And, a few times along the way, I've used an alias as well.
I've also resigned from projects - on those occasions when working with a particular client or band becomes more of a headache than what it's worth.

I use what I call "The Donny BSF "... which is my "B*ll Sh*t Factor". This is a complex, scientifically based scale, from 1-10, developed for me by a team of crack mathematicians at MIT... ( ;) ) which in its most basic terms, weighs out the money you make vs the amount of crap you have to take to make that amount, and which also determines the risk of having your name and reputation connected to something that you'd just as soon rather not.

If the sessions are laid back, smooth, and the guys are easy to work with, then it's really just a matter of artistic differences, and you default to what the client wants, at which point you're simply acting as a button-pusher for the band. No biggie.. lots of engineers do this. I've done it more times than I can even count. This is around #4 on the scale.
( Number One on the scale is that fantasy session where you get to record A-List musicians, who provide great performances for you to capture. The sonic visions of the band is the same as your own. Sessions are fun, but often challenging, but things are really cooking, attitudes are great, and positive energy is high... And it rarely happens. ).

Numbers 8-10 on the scale ( which are unfortunately, far more common than #1 ) would be if the money is low, sessions are tense, and they are making you do things that no engineer would ever do even on their worst day; and just before every session, you get the inescapable urge to hang yourself - and consider doing so as a pleasing alternative to doing the session - at which point you need to determine if making that " X amount" of money is worth the cost of losing your sanity, or perhaps even harming your reputation and future income.

You are the only one who can determine if all the hassles and headaches and risks - a #10 on the BSF - will be worth it. ;)

FWIW

One easy trick to do; do 2 mixes theirs and yours and make the band compare them. if you play yours louder, they may prefer it !
Just kidding :ROFLMAO:

All good info. And again I agree. I tell you what. If there's one thing I can say that I've learnt in my time engineering so far it's this. Shitty drums ruin everything. Hahaha! I hate samples so so much though... What would you say is the most troublesome thing to address first.

1) The harshness at the top.
2) The boxy sound.
3) The width and dimensions of the mix.

What do you think is the biggest problem currently of those ? I know this question is a touch ambiguous in context.

Here's a ballpark reference track for you guys too if that helps.

The biggest issue for me was the strident top. The eq curve I posted above shows that.

Honestly, any one of those things can negatively effect a mix. I think that all three are going on with the current mix ... so I wouldn't necessarily put them in any order.
I really don't like the toms, I think the kick needs more definition, I think there's too much mud around 300 or so in the entire mix, and the width and depth of the mix is undefinable right now, partly because of the way the vocals are sitting in relation to the band.

To my ears, it sounds like the vocals were performed in a separate room ( which I'm sure they were for tracking, but you want the sound to be cohesive in the mix so you can't hear that separation in that way), and adding the reverb to the vocal that the band is insisting upon isn't helping that any. The harshness in the upper ranges can be fixed fairly easy by simply attenuating 2-3k by a db or so, a bit more if needed. I'm also not sure that this isn't due to the reverb... are you using an insert or an aux return? What's your high frequency damping look like on the reverb you are using? At what corner frequency are you rolling off the highs, and by how much?

What type of compression are you using for the overall 2 mix? If you are using compression for individual tracks or instrument buses, are you inserting it into the track or bus, or using parallel gain reduction?

Have you tried using a GR processor on the 2-bus that supports M-S?
Something like maybe an SSL Bus Compressor, or Magix Am-munition.... any limiter with a Middle/Side feature will do. This could go a long way towards providing depth and space as well... as opposed to using just L-R.
Try setting your GR for your middle channel at 2:1, medium fast attack, moderate release, ( if you find that you're losing the "smack" on things like snare and kick, slow up your attack time) and don't engage an HPF.
For the Sides, set the ratio for 2:1, use a quicker attack, a quicker release, but set an HPF at 150Hz, and then do a slight boost on the MU gain (by 2db or so), meaning 2 db hotter output than the middle channel section, and you should start to hear things open up a bit.

Also, have you tried importing a quality recording of a song that you like, something you feel is similar in style and sound, that you could use as a reference for tone and levels? Lots of cats do it, I do it all the time.
It allows you to A/B back and forth simply by solo'ing / muting the reference track. This method can very helpful when you're trying to capture a certain sonic vibe or mix style.

IMHO of course.

The toms outright need replacing Donny. They sound like crap and didn't have bottom heads on. To me... Toms with bottom heads are not toms. It's always been a pet hate of mine. They sound like crap and the batter heads he chose are cheap junk. He's actually got a tama superstar hyperdrive which on paper is a GREAT kit. But it's skinned so badly that it may as well be a sonar starter set ! I think you're right about 300hz too. It just seems a little bit too muddy like you say. I might try a multiband to tame it. Boulders EQ curve is a little dramatic on my EQ but I totally see why he's used that curve. It does make it a lot less fatiguing.

As for overall mix compression I've got a waves hybrid compression parallel on the drums to give it a bit more energy or it sounds so lifeless. I had to do a lot of messing around with the drums to stop them from sounding awful, even after I'd spend 2 hours tuning them in a bunch of different ways. That is honestly the best I could get out of them. I had to try a variety of different dampening techniques on the kick head too. I wish he'd rocked up with an emad or something but it was a piece of garbage.

You know.. I've never really dealt with mid/side stuff. I should probably do some research on it and see how it's meant to be applied. I could do with a masterclass in that. I know how it should work in theory but thats only out of common sense. I think I'd need it properly explaining before I trusted myself wit hit but I may well have to do so. It's a gap in my experience for sure. Umm what else now.. oh yeah reverb. It's currently got the cut off at 5kish.

As for referencing I used a bunch of arctic monkeys stuff for reference. It honestly felt like my mix SHOULD sound closer to the Artic Monkeys for the techniques I've used but the drums have let me down immensely. I'm not blaming my tools here and I know that it's my job to do my best with anything but you know when you just have a kit that sucks. That's definitely the situation here. It was such a struggle to get it to sound like a kit. Cheap cymbals too. Really annoying. Still though. I know it's me that the rest of the mix issues lie with. I just wish I could get it to sound big without the drums sounding so terrible. The more I widen it the more tubby and horrid they sound. That's probably why my brain made the guitars so in your face and borderline harsh. I don't know. I haven't actually used much compression on the mix. I tend to be quite light with my application and I'm very source tone and phase focused. I'll give your suggestions a whirl. Thank you for giving me so many ideas. It's really appreciated.

Hi Dan. Long time etc...Good work considering....You are in need of Steven Slate Trigger. And a good library. It will get you what you need and in less time. I listened to the original track and the hihat sounded like tincancrap. Peace brother..

Hey Dave. Yeah long time man. So you reckon triggering is definitely the way forward on this one ? Dammit. I hate them :( Stephen Slate stuff is great though I have to say. Really awesome software.

So what it really does is keep the performance while giving you the option of great sounding drums. There's a lot of drummers who "get it" when it comes to the groove.....VERY FEW get the sound of it.......

I think maybe some clarification is in order here, Dan...

What Dave and I are taking about, in terms of a sample library, is drum sound replacement... we're not talking about programming a drum part, which, if you aren't really good at capturing the essence of a real drummer, can often sound stiff and generic.

As Dave mentioned, something like the Slate Trigger, ( or SSD4, if your DAW has the ability to convert audio transients to midi data that you can assign to trigger samples) allows you to keep the original performance, same groove, same nuances, etc, but to replace the sounds of the drums for that performance.

If pressed to make a guess, I'd say it's probably safe to say that at least 50% of what you hear in today's commercially released music uses some form of drum sample replacement, and it's not limited to just one style, either; T40, Rock, Country, Metal...

I guess I'm suggesting that replacement is not at all uncommon in today's recording studios...

Certainly, there are still live drum tracks being used; when you have a great sounding kit, in a great sounding room, with a pro drummer who knows how to tune the drums, using really good mics and pre's... if you have those elements, then of course you would opt for the real thing. But those things aren't common to the average home studio.

Slate, BFD, Superior, Addictive... There are quite a few to choose from; it just depends what you like. I use Slate SSD4 and Superior when replacing drum sounds; mostly when clients are bringing me live drum tracks that were recorded poorly, or were recorded on a kit that sounded bad, much like what you are dealing with. ;)

FWIW
-d.

The Trigger is an amazing piece of kit. Its what I use. As Donny said, you retain all the nuances of the original performance and that part is ALSO adjustable if theres a bit too much drift and slop going on. A better estimate of drum replacement on hit songs is closer to 75%. Not always "replacement" but certainly "enhancement". I generally use a sample or two to bolster the drum sound. The degree to which I use it is totally dependent on what's needed. The great thing about the Trigger software is you can use it with any library. And for the value its damn cheap.

Sorry it's taken me a decade to get back to this guys. I have a lot on my plate right now as I'm setting up a record label (pyar records) which is due to evolve into something much bigger. Still managing to just about be a young performer I've chosen to take some matters on the other side of UK music into my own hands.

I've decided after your advice (I do genuinely trust you) that my next purchase will be Stephen Slate trigger. I have heard nothing but good things about it anyway. The band went with a mix that I absolutely hated in the end but hey ho, their choice. I did give them options but musicians will be musicians.

Thank you for all of your help everyone, it's always great to chat to you all and I do really appreciate your time and effort.

Voiceofallanger, post: 435367, member: 41142 wrote: ... The band went with a mix that I absolutely hated in the end but hey ho, their choice. I did give them options but musicians will be musicians.

If this band is signed to your label, then you absolutely have the right to tell them if a song's mix isn't up to par.

There are countless stories of labels rejecting songs ( and even entire albums) from artists (some big-name artists, too) that didn't measure up to their standards of sonic quality.

If they are signed with you.... it's your label, and you absolutely have the right to determine that which it represents in terms of fidelity*.

As a matter of fact, you're doing yourself a serious disservice if you don't set a bar for quality, because your label could develop a reputation for putting out substandard sonics.

*This is different than a song not being "marketable"... which is also your right, but I'm not referring to that here... I'm referring to fidelity.

FWIW

-d.

As a side note, I will mention this just once, and then I'll shut up...

It's going to be pretty difficult for you to continue building your career as a musician, and trying to run the business of a record label at the same time.

Running a business - any business - and even one with only a moderate amount of success, is a very hard thing to do.

If you want to be successful at either path, then you should focus on one path, and put your time and energy into traveling just that one road.

Generally, and based on past scenarios, the success rate of artist-developed labels is pretty low.

Apple Records ( Beatles), Grunt Records ( Jefferson Airplane), Reprise( Sinatra), Rocket Records ( Elton John), Swan Song ( Led Zeppelin) .... are but a few examples of musicians who have attempted to form and run labels at the same time that they were also focusing on their careers as artists. Some of the labels made it, and there have been a few to survive and flourish, but it's rare, and for those labels that celebrated true success, this usually came only after the artists who started the labels backed out of the picture and turned the reigns over to people who were much more business-minded than themselves... and in all cases, none of those labels did their own distribution.

Apple used E.M.I./Capitol, Island Records used MCA, Reprise used Capitol, Swan Song used Atlantic...

History shows that generally, people in this industry usually don't become successful at either venture by trying to do both at the same time.

Okay. That's all I wanted to mention, I'm done now.

IMHO.

A fair and reasonable point Donny. Fortunately I've been there and I know what you're saying is very true. That's why as opposed to 'doing' it myself I've assembled a team of people in the same boat. It's a very new concept in terms of label management but the work is so split that it runs itself. Even the artists have set responsibility. It seems to be working so far. The only stressful bit is the legal structure. I don't think labels are a good way to make money these days and so I've set up a bunch of different revenue streams that don't rip anyone off and benefit those who use them greatly. It's taken me a while to concept but it's already being considered a total game-changer in North UK music. I think if I were to do this traditionally then I would absolutely fail and your advice would be nothing but golden. However, I am of the same opinion as you and so I have 'made my own version' and it genuinely seems to be working. The only reason it's a stress now is setting up a legal structure for something like this alongside a day job, a studio and two professional bands is a pain in the ass! But when I get to the point where I can ditch the dayjob I'll have far more time than I did :) S'all about teamwork! The thing that UK bands have apparently forgotten about lol. The situation here is so dire that there really is no point relying on other people to make a career for you. Whether that be a manager or a label. It's much better to do it yourself. Major labels are killing UK rock bands lately. Marmozets just put out an album that was 'hugely successful' then literally vanished. Kinda sad. Ain't gonna be one of those chumps ;P

Voiceofallanger, post: 435562, member: 41142 wrote: I don't think labels are a good way to make money these days and so I've set up a bunch of different revenue streams that don't rip anyone off and benefit those who use them greatly.

Maybe it's hidden from us but, I hear about studios closing down all the time. One of the biggest in montreal just died 'Studio Victor'. But Labels closing down ?? I'm sure it happens but I'm on the impression, it happen less with labels than in other area of the business.
Where labels are the most important these days is that they have their foot in the radio stations doors. If you can make an artist play on the radio, the revenu will come. You will sell bigger shows, have more hit on your site and webstore. And yes, CDs are still being sold along mp3 from various sources.

pcrecord, post: 435563, member: 46460 wrote: But Labels closing down ?? I'm sure it happens but I'm on the impression, it happen less with labels than in other area of the business.

Labels are hurting just as much; they just don't go out of business because most of the major labels belong to one of four HUGE labels, so both profit and losses gets folded in with all the other revenue sources.

If you're signed to Columbia, Epic or Arista - those are sub labels that are actually all owned by Sony.

If you buy a CD with a Motown, Def Jam, Island or Geffen label, then your money is actually going to Universal, the parent company to all of them.

Any one of those labels could show losses for several quarter-periods, and still remain afloat and functioning because the revenue stream from all the others is enough to keep it afloat; although of course, if it shows losses for a lengthy enough period of time on a regular basis, it can also be dumped too, and without it being a fatal hit the bigger corporation that owns it, because that one label isn't their only label, and hence, not their only revenue stream. They also have their hands in movies, merchandising, and even artist management... ( yeah, I know, that one puzzles me, too ... how can you be managed by your own label, right? But it happens).

History shows that the most popular reason that record labels fail, is not necessarily because of low sales, but because they are either mis-managed, or, because they break the law. MCA Records, a HUGE label back in the 70's, was eventually shut down because of its association to organized crime. It was eventually swallowed up by Universal, who phased the label out by 2003.

In 2005, Sony BMG was forced to pay over 10 Million in fines, after an investigation showed that they had been engaging in payola on a regular basis.

The other labels who are of "The Big Four" have had their troubles, too, and have had to deal with huge fines imposed ( and millions incurred in legal costs ) as a result of violating Federal Anti-Trust and Monopoly Laws.

And, on top of that, illegal downloads and distribution has also put a serious dent into the major label record business as well.

But I don't think they're going away anytime soon, because so many of them have their fingers in so many other forms of business; movies, cable channels, soft drink and beverage companies software companies, concert and festival promotion, even casinos.

Their sources of revenue are so vast - and so convoluted - that if one of their subsidiaries takes a loss, they don't feel the hit as much as back when all the labels were in and unto themselves.

Very wise as always Donny. Very wise. A switched on fellow you are sir :)