- Joined
- Jul 21, 2009
- Location
- Boston, Massachusetts
Without having made the retail market with any of my recordings I've done over the years, the mix demos I put online are essentially the only way potential clients are gonna hear my work.
I'm planning on possibly re mixing some old stuff, and a couple new things, to make my demo reel for my upcoming launch (2019) of my music site and freelance business.
My mentor (longtime pro) has worked on some albums that have been released on real labels (albeit smaller ones) and even worked w some names anyone would know. On the studio site however, these recordings are absent. And I feel that these sorta average sounding tracks are selling the studio short, since he does commercial level work, when working with that level talent and budget.
So I got to thinking that in addition to the "as is" postings of each recording I've done, perhaps it's in my best interest to remix my demo reel, with my current level of tech and ability, as well as have them professionally mastered.
In Hollywood, and in Video Games, the trailers are often spruced up, highlights, and better graphical renders.
So is this cheating? I noticed some sample sets I bought have had the samples mastered at Sterling Sound. Which is my favorite place, since many records I own that sound noticeably better, happen to have been mastered there.
On one hand it's not me mastering it, but on the other it is showing the full potential of my mixes, and the band's performances.
I'd disclose where it was mastered.
So is this a bad idea, or unethical. ? I would budget roughly 1-1.5k for this, with the intent of having 5 min or less of material to use for promotial and demo purposes for about 3 years.
I would likely use either sterling, masterdisk, or peerless. Or something similar. And develop a working relationship with a more affordable mastering engineer(s) for general projects. I've not ever had any of my work mastered, and always finalized it myself with the usual stuff.
I'd likely have one or two versions/formats done, then use Sonnox frauhaufer to do further renders in any necessary format, on my own.
Any thoughts?
I'm planning on possibly re mixing some old stuff, and a couple new things, to make my demo reel for my upcoming launch (2019) of my music site and freelance business.
My mentor (longtime pro) has worked on some albums that have been released on real labels (albeit smaller ones) and even worked w some names anyone would know. On the studio site however, these recordings are absent. And I feel that these sorta average sounding tracks are selling the studio short, since he does commercial level work, when working with that level talent and budget.
So I got to thinking that in addition to the "as is" postings of each recording I've done, perhaps it's in my best interest to remix my demo reel, with my current level of tech and ability, as well as have them professionally mastered.
In Hollywood, and in Video Games, the trailers are often spruced up, highlights, and better graphical renders.
So is this cheating? I noticed some sample sets I bought have had the samples mastered at Sterling Sound. Which is my favorite place, since many records I own that sound noticeably better, happen to have been mastered there.
On one hand it's not me mastering it, but on the other it is showing the full potential of my mixes, and the band's performances.
I'd disclose where it was mastered.
So is this a bad idea, or unethical. ? I would budget roughly 1-1.5k for this, with the intent of having 5 min or less of material to use for promotial and demo purposes for about 3 years.
I would likely use either sterling, masterdisk, or peerless. Or something similar. And develop a working relationship with a more affordable mastering engineer(s) for general projects. I've not ever had any of my work mastered, and always finalized it myself with the usual stuff.
I'd likely have one or two versions/formats done, then use Sonnox frauhaufer to do further renders in any necessary format, on my own.
Any thoughts?