|
Bad Label Management? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| spazztick |
| quote: | Originally posted by Number2
No, adding more production after I was asked to send "masters" IS a problem. If this was before, it might be a different story.
I think you took what i wrote the wrong way about "so many problems", yes I am new at this, but I know when I'm being pushed around, and this just isn't right.
Like other posters have said, if they wanted stuff changed, it should have been stated before mastering/signing the contract.
As far as the track being repetitive...you don't know that it is, or isn't so you cant make that judgement. The lead I have playing at that section only plays for 16 bars before they want me to add yet another lead ontop.
And as ive said already, i have ALOT going on at that point, and it does sound...way cluttered. |
No, it's not a problem at all compared to what everyone in the 'biz goes through every single day. You're not being pushed around at all, this is peanuts. Grow thicker skin or you're doomed.
If that's the change they want you to make, that's the call they've made. They think it needs a change-up in order to be as good as it can be.
Keep the first and last few notes of the lead and make a fluid, cool, portamento-based lead between the notes of the first lead. Your track is probably just too samey and needs a bit more space and articulation to pop.
As far as the business goes, given notice even after mastering is still alot better compared to most; At least the label gives a damn. |
|
|
| Rodri Santos |
if it sounds cluttered i think now 2 possible solutions:
-Special equialization, limiters,filters etc... which is a poor solution but getting rid of some "less-necesary" frequencies may help.
-Using a contrapoint melody, if they'vent specified you the change you've to do use your original melody and make a new lead that it's compatible with the original one and blend smoothly creating a "C melody" this can be a bit tricky but works fine, not many producers use this technique now but was very famous once upon a time.
WIth this last purpose you fill all the emptyness but sounds very harmonic if it's done properly, if you like this idea i think i can show you some tracks to get an idea of what to do. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
If I may offer my 2 cents from the fence that I'm squarely perched upon...
I can see both sides of both sides here. The OP certainly has a legitimate gripe that the song was already signed before the label asked for the revisions. Changing one of the key elements of the song is something that should be discussed and agreed upon prior to signing the contract. That's just bad business on the label's behalf IMO.
That said, I also sense a little unwillingness to compromise on the OP's behalf, simply because he/she is being too idealistic and stubborn to even try the label's suggestion. We make compromises every time we change a parameter - some of these changes are negligible in context of the entire track, and some have ripple effects that change the entire character of the track, but most are somewhere in between the two extremes. I guess my point is just that there is no harm in trying the label's suggested changes AND giving it a fair shot with an open mind and time to let it sink in. In the time he/she has spent reading and replying to this thread, the OP could have tried it and either: (1) reinforced his/her opinion on the existing lead, or (2) realized that maybe the label was right after all and the suggested change actually did improve the overall quality of the track.
As others have pointed out, there's no guarantee that the label will release you from the contract, so IMO your best bet is to try to find some middle ground and not let your pride get in the way (well, not too much, at least). |
|
|
|
|
