Are Mastering Engineers Responsible For Bad Mastering Demands?

I was reading some comments on a review of one of recent Queen remasters. This gentleman didn't like the remaster, someone commented and I paraphrase "You just like to sound smart by criticizing Bob Ludwig". The reviewer responded with (again paraphrased) "Ludwig can make suggestions but ultimately isn't in charge".

This brings up an interesting point. I believe mastering engineers usually freelance work for artists and / or record labels. Our host is fortunate in that he licenses titles and has autonomy to do what he wishes (I imagine there are limits).

If a label or artist hires an engineer and they want a certain sound isn't the engineer obliged to give it to them (or quit)? They are hired to do a job. I imagine some of you are business owners. Would you be OK with an employee saying "I'll do it my way"? Hopefully you are willing to take suggestions from people who know their jobs but its your business. But ultimately its your business and employees / free lancers are there to do what you are paying them to do.

Note: While I think people are in general supposed to do what they are hired to do of course this doesn't extend to anything immoral or criminal. IMO brickwalling a CD is neither.

Besides if a good mastering engineer won't do it they'll just get someone who won't be as good or willing to follow directions without question (louder and more compressed, you got it boss). At least good mastering engineers will try to produce as good a sound as possible while trying to make the artist or label happy.

Now there are some mastering engineers who just aren't very good. I'm talking about the good ones who put out bad product because of artist and label demands. I've read some people who think this is a sell out. I think its just doing your job.

What do you think?

 

Mastering engineers do that for a living, if they want to work and get paid the have to do what the record label or the artist ask them to do, even if the mastering engineer doesn't agree and think this or that is not gonna make the master tape sound right at home. Sad to say, but they're hired hands.
Steve is different, he works for a label that makes specialty items, that is, CDs and LPs that offer the best possible sound and are faithful to the master. Also keep in mind that Bob Ludwig or George Marino from Sterling may be wealthier than Steve. I don't mind or care how much money does Steve gets with his job, all I know is that when I listenning to an Steve Hoffman mastering I'm getting top quality.

 

Exactly right. In the case of Queen, we can get the old EMI UK CDs or gold discs uses depending on budget and get much better sound than a lot of the remasters.

 

Record labels and artists are morons!

 

I'm sure many of them are only doing what their told to do...

 

Even Doug Sax has brickwalled CDs for the majors and the artists.

 

Yes they are. The LCD factor at work. BTW, there are people who have asked Steve, Barry Diament, etc. to brickwall CDs but they always tell them no and the artist or label moves on to another engineer such as Bob Ludwig, Ted Jensen, George Marino, etc. who are willing to do so if the client demands them to do so. No matter how much negative press hits, if an engineer doesn't do what they are told, they will not be hired again by a major.

 

Most of them are really just following orders. Their clients want the CDs loud, mastering engineers and their companies will lose their customers if they don't give them what they want.

 

I understand the "just following orders, someone else will do it if I don't" arguments and it's a shame that it is pretty much the truth. Too bad they can't agree to do it but request/demand no credit be listed, or have an "Alan Smithee" type thing that film directors have.

But, it's business and people got to get paid. It's just a shame that mastering engineers that had stellar reputations for years for great sounding jobs, are now avoided on principle by many music buyers.

 

That's correct. There aren't a lot of mastering engineers who have the ability to say, "you know, I don't like this approach -- I think you need to hire a different guy," and then they get up and leave.

I can tell you as a video mastering guy, I've had clients who've forced me to create looks that I thought were very ugly and detracted from the films. I can make gentle suggestions and comments up to a point, but the reality is: it's their project, not mine. I think the same is true of music. And if I don't do it, they'll find somebody else to do it for them.

 

NO...of course not...they have a boss who pays them...wow! that was hard.

 

I agree but I've seen several comments that disparage them (though usually not directly) for doing what the label or artist wants them to, hence the thread. .

Kind of an example (though I understand the poster isn't saying this is a good thing). Maybe in this case those people assume the mastering engineer makes the decisions.

But for the respondents here it seems to be unanimous. So maybe the comments I sometimes see represent a minority viewpoint. Which is a good thing. Thanks for the responses.

 

In fact, if you want to hear a good and a bad mastering job from the same engineer: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=252228

 

What do I think?

When you go to work and your boss tells you to do something what do you do? Exactly.

Unless someone is self employed and free to do as they please you ultimately answer to your boss. Mastering engineers are no different to anyone else collecting a cheque from someone else.

Anyone who disparages people like Ludwig do not live in reality or they refuse to accept how things work because it suits them to do so.

 

Exactly right. I understand that this is a business and although Bob owns his studio (Gateway Mastering) he has clients that he has to answer to.

 

Exactly right.

 

I understand peoples point about these mastering guys buckling under and brickwalling because the artist/company want it that way.

However, it is a cop-out for these offenders to say they are just doing a job the way a client wants it done.

I worked over the last 10 years with a buddy of mine that runs a Commercial Audio Visual installation business. I'm talking auditorium systems not domestic stuff.
He has high standards and ethics and if a client wants us to do an installation in a way that will be bad for the resulting sound he will refuse to do it that way and do his best to convince them otherwise.

He is a professional in this field and to allow a client to make a decision that reduces the sound quality is not ethical (within budget requirements).
Sure is is EASIER to go along with what the client wants but it takes guts to stick by your standards and I admire him for that.

He has lost the odd contract to other companies because the other companies are willing to compromise and do it the way the client wants it.
However, this has paid off because we have heard later that the clients that have done this ultimately realize their mistake and on some occasions we have been called in to rectify things later.

So I think these mastering guys that brickwall remasters have poor ethics and should man-up and refuse to brickwall.
If they don't then they are morally corrupt because they know what they are doing is WRONG!
If they do not know what they are doing is wrong then they should not be mastering anything.

 

Freeking hilarious!

 

SURGE!!!

 

Maybe there are three types of mastering engineers when it comes to brickwalling, etc.

Type 1: Those that aspire to high audio standards and can afford to maintain them by either favorable circumstance or bank account.

Type2: Those that aspire to high audio standards, try to promote them at all opportunities but, in the end, still have to pay for the kids' college tuition.

Type 3: Those that embrace the financial/social beneifits of being a "brickwall house" and either do not understand the benefits of high audio standards (unlikely) or simply don't care (more likely).

To me, only Type 3 is reproachable (and you know who you are) and putting every masterning engineer in the pillory for a less than optimal audio result is unnecesssarily harsh.

 

Very good post and probably applies to other areas of life where quality and profit (or perceived profit) clash.

I would only add that type 1 often obtains their favorable circumstance by a reputation for good work. I imagine you had that in mind but I thought it was worth pointing out. Especially since our host (who was good enough to post in this thread) is one such example of that.

 

Why pay big bucks for a renowned professional, then fumble away the potential benefit of their expertise by overriding it and dictating their every move? I'll never get it.