Why 'Industry Standard' is one of the most irrelevant terms in music...

The term 'industry standard' when applied to recorded music is a total bugbear of mine - here I'm going to explain why I care and why you as a musician/engineer/listener should too.

Let's first look at the meaning of the term and how it's applied. The 'industry' referred to is... shall we say "a little all encompassing". It's a convolution of radio, record companies, television and the mass media. It never had anything to do with music or musicians.

Here I should clarify about the use of the term that makes me foam at the gills. 'Industry Standard' is just another in a long line of recitations that are regularly wheeled out to tell musicians that they aren't good enough - and it works! Even now, when DIY releasing is easier than ever, I see so many bands who never put out any of their music. Sure, some of them get it recorded and maybe one or two tracks will see their way to a Myspace page or onto Soundcloud but there are still a hell of a lot of artists waiting for permission to release music. By permission I really mean validation - a record label to decide if it will sell and therefore if it's any good. Since when did one company (or indeed individual A&R at said bastion of taste) decide what universally makes music likeable? More to the point, why do the rest of us describe recordings on their terms?

Don't get me wrong, musicians need criticism and feedback but the only sources you need it from are yourself and your fans. The industry standard is something that doesn't concern you unless you're dealing with the kind of industry that uses the term - i.e. people that like selling music more than they like listening to it. You want your recordings to sound great? Fine, but make sure it's by your standards (more on their standards later in this post).

Unfortunately though, this term isn't used exclusively by Artie Fufkin of Polymer records or the legion of coke-addled, slick-haired yuppies that are the cheap target of every independent music nut (like me) when we want to complain about 'the majors'. It's used by people like me.

Studios, mastering engineers, producers, battle of the bands promoters, etc, etc... we're guilty in worse ways than 'the industry'. Just google "industry standard recording", it's all studios advertising and people asking about what equipment they need to attain this mystical standard. At this point I must hold my hands up and say I'm almost sure I've used this term before, trying to 'play the professional' in my early years as an engineer. This post isn't intended to be a dig at those who do use this turn of phrase, just a plea to consider the ramifications of the language and terminology we as professionals use to speak to our clients. We've been mis-selling a term that shouldn't apply to them in my opinion. At least it's in the traditional industry's interests to maintain the impression that there is a standard that all others can only aspire to without their resources (read money), but I would have hoped that we - the people who make the lions share of the real and democratic music scene actually happen - could rise above perpetuating a term that reinforces the idea that unless you sound a certain way, you're not a real musician. If you are a musician and someone uses that term then I believe you have every right to take offense. You know what good recordings sound like, all you need is someone with the right equipment and knowledge to achieve the sound you want.

How does it make sense for any studio/individual/microphone/hair product to claim that they can help an artist achieve an 'industry standard'? It's meaningless in the first place. What does an industry standard recording sound like?

If we're being technical, here's what industry standard recordings tend to sound like. Below is a video comparing the difference between the commercial, 'industry standard' CD release of a track from the latest Metallica album with the same track from Guitar Hero. You can hear how much more dynamic it sounds when the industry doesn't get a say in how a record is made. Try and listen to the high quality version if possible and here's a clue, listen for drums that actually punch out through the mix, doesn't that sound better?

More info on 'The Loudness War' is available via the Wikipedia Entry

My rounding off for this rant is just to ask that we all stop aspiring to this fictional world of 'playing with the big boys' and just let the industry standard disappear from our biographies, our sales patter and our aspirations as artists. It's vulgar, it patronises musicians, effects their output and we all deserve better than that, especially our fans.

I'd love to hear other opinions on this so feel free to add some thoughts in the comments.

Rob

The debate that goes nowhere

Recently I commented on this article that a friend of mine posted on Facebook:

Is YouTube destroying or saving music?

The discussion in her comments section (on Facebook, not the original article) between her and a friend seemed to come to the concensus that YouTube was a useful tool to find new music and listen before deciding whether to buy. I added that I found Spotify to be a similar concept, albeit one with a much higher sound quality and the option to subscribe to remove ads and listen on mobile devices. It's a great service, I can highly recommend it.

I thought this was great, I'm sick of reactionary condemnation of these areas of new technology. The major label system has suffered slightly from people being able to stream music for free (although much more from torrenting or Usenet which has been around for years) but as this graph shows - not by as much as they would claim when filing lawsuits against teenagers and dead people.

taken from Gizmodo

The part of this I want to talk about comes next - when another contributor put forward the following opinion:

Well I would say replace the words 'spotify' and 'youtube' with the word INTERNET!, no one goes out looking for new music any more which is killing the live music circuit and stopping new artists from being discovered. Another word you could use is THEFT, people are happy to download poor quality versions of the music they like because they get it for free. There's another word too FASHION, people are too afraid of being mocked for liking something different so they all buy the same crap even if they don't like it because they want to be part of the crowd. Finally there's the worst word of all ADVERTISING,every TV show, ad break, radio show, magazine, newspaper, bus stop Etc etc TELLS us the new album from' joe no one' is the best thing since sliced bread and way too many people fall for it. We all know there's a lot of talentless shites out there doing really well and we all know that there are a lot of very talented people being ignored but writing articles and having debates about it is never going to change the situation, I mean Pixie Lott?, what the f**k is that all about(I rest my case).

The above viewpoint seemed to me to be a bit narrow-minded. Firstly, as my friend later pointed out; who are we to decide that someone elses connection to Pixie Lott's music is any less real or valid than than this idea of 'authentic' music made by real men... with beards? None of the points of complaint have anything to do with The Internetz, they were all the case during the 'heyday' of the music industry.

For instance, since when has the internet changed the fact that only major labels have the money to advertise on radio and tv? The ads for music on Spotify are all major label pop records, this is nothing new. The whole point of the internet is that it frees you from that. Anyone (ordinary music lovers as well as journalists) can write about music all over the Internet and I have access to those opinions and recommendations as an alternative to blindly following the agenda of an IPC sub-editor. For starting points, take a look at Pitchfork or The Hype Machine. This ties in with the claim that fashions in music are bad too. On the contrary, buying music that your mates like and can talk about is great! You can all go to gigs and clubnights together, recommend new stuff to each other, etc. It's the same for pop music - at least all the Jedward fans have something in common, they've connected over something. Just because it's not to your taste doesn't mean that it's wrong. Fashion is basically another word for 'Scene' - nothing wrong with a music scene.

These sweeping statements that no-one goes out finding new music anymore and that because I can download an album for free, I won't go and see that band live are simply unfounded. There's no evidence for this. I hear more music now than I ever have (because it's cheaper, I can buy more) and as a result I have a much wider range of bands I like. I go to see these bands when they tour, I go to festivals like All Tomorrow's Parties because I've been able to hear the line-up of bands. These bands would not be playing festivals of this size without the exposure they gain from people being able to hear them on the internet. That's because they're WEIRD sounding. They don't sound top 40. They're a niche market and unless you can globalise that niche via the internet, these bands don't stand a chance of making any money and being able to take time out from 'normal' jobs to tour.

The next point made drew the following comparison:

if you make cakes for a living you expect to be paid for it...even if you do it in your spare time and someone wants one you should still be rewarded in some way so if anyone takes something you created without your permission and without paying for it that's theft. The internet is the perfect place for this because it's possible to 'record' anything that you can listen to on the internet.

But music isn't tangible in the same way, which makes it all rather murky. If you sold CDs and people stole those physical items then it would be the same but as soon as you remove either the physical product or the physical performance then surely you can't expect to have control over that 'stock'. It becomes more like stealing a photograph of a cake. Which then brings you to the point that people connect with and value recorded music whereas photos of cakes tend not to sell - the end result is that there isn't a fair comparison either way.

When I started making music when I was 14 or so, I dreamed that one day I would have my music on a CD. The advent of home cd burning made that a reality. I had a high quality, undegrading format that I could put my music on and sell to people at gigs. That was HUGE. The next dream was "I'd just like my music to be in a proper record store". Now it's in the biggest music store in the world - iTunes. It cost me around $30 to get it logged and distributed online and I make about the same amount of money for approximately 3 songs as a major recording artist would have made for selling a whole album after the label recouped it's cut. Most importantly, I have control over my music and everything I do. I could market the music how I like, do the artwork, choose the gigs and keep all the money from merchandise.

I personally think that right now is the best time to be a musician and music fan that I've ever known. I can back that up with the fact that our studio is busier than I can remember it ever being.