What's your biggest producing frustration?

[feaker]

smiddyMine is knowing I am only using about 5 % of the total possibilities of the software program I am using. Tough when you get older. For example, I just learned what the fade function did. Up to this point I have chopped the track and kept reducing the levels by hand.Paul

[BraveNote]

MIDI latency. Biggest frustration I have in production. Especially performance. It comes and goes. It hangs up on you at the most critical times. I end up having to reboot Cubase to default all the connections. Some days there's none at all. Other days, it's all I spend my time trying to fix. Sometimes I even want to go back to my old hardware boxes and MIDI modules just so I can work without interruption.

[joneshouse]

This is why I'm swamped with writers & solo artists. I'm a multi-instrumentalist/producer in LA and do all the dirty work so writers can write. http://www.joneshousemusic.com

[hummingbird]

Frankly, if I had to pay a producer to complete the 50 to 100 instrumental tracks I aim to write every year, I'd have to live in a shoe box. That's why I decided to - labouriously over time - figure out how to do it myself. When someone tells me today 'this track is mixed well'... that means a lot to me.What I appreciate is forums like this, where we can post our mixes or ask questions about technology or DAWs or specific problems with recording software... and get great advice that helps us resolve issues and move forward.

[joneshouse]

Point taken. Quite a few of the writers I work with do write many pieces per year but come to me with the 5-10 best ones. Subsequently, these chosen ones usually get cut, placed in film or tv, exploited by music libraries, etc... A select few songs that actually work for a writer is a fine tact to take.

[Casey H]

Oct 29, 2009, 9:00am, joneshouse wrote:Point taken. Quite a few of the writers I work with do write many pieces per year but come to me with the 5-10 best ones. Subsequently, these chosen ones usually get cut, placed in film or tv, exploited by music libraries, etc... A select few songs that actually work for a writer is a fine tact to take.Just a note that Joneshouse does great work and did many demos for me over the years. Most are in music libraries and some have had actual TV placements. People who are instrumental composers for film/TV and want or need to crank out tracks by the dozens are different than non-performing songwriters. Most non-performing songwriters demo a relatively small number songs a year, a lot because of the cost. We have to chose our situations carefully or at least we should. Composing instrumentals with virtual instruments requires tremendous skill-- Vikki you've done a great job of mastering the skills. But there are differences. Some folks will never be good at performing and/or singing no matter how hard they work-- at least not to BQ level. (Not saying it's impossible!) Some are writing at home with a guitar and/or keyboard and would never be able to produce, for example, a good country demo... or a kick ass rock track.I think we as non-performers are at a slight disadvantage, however, because volume is partly a key to success and few of us could afford to demo 30 or 40 songs a year (if we wrote that many)... One could argue that with enough time, investment, and hard work, a non-performer could learn to do their own songs at home. Not sure that's realistic for most. And some enjoy writing and wouldn't even enjoy production & are better off spending their time writing. Casey

[hummingbird]

Oct 29, 2009, 9:00am, joneshouse wrote:Point taken. Quite a few of the writers I work with do write many pieces per year but come to me with the 5-10 best ones. Subsequently, these chosen ones usually get cut, placed in film or tv, exploited by music libraries, etc... A select few songs that actually work for a writer is a fine tact to take.the difficulty with that approach is, in order to make money at film/tv placements you need to have a large amount of tracks signed. 5-10 a year isn't enough. My first goal (as part of Matto's 5-year plan) is to get 200 signed. I figure it will take me about 1.5 years more to achieve that. that's not to say that getting 5 or 10 tracks signed isn't a good thing, but if each track cost $500 to be produced, you could potentially spend $5,000 a year and make 0 if you have no placements.So the formula for film/tv success is quality + quantity [x number of tracks signed] = more chance of actually getting placements... which brings in revenueand that's why I had to learn how to cut out 'the middle man' and do it myself.however Casey's business model is different from mine, and he's had great success placing a fewer number of tracks all produced by other folks.

[Casey H]

Oct 29, 2009, 11:34am, hummingbird wrote:Oct 29, 2009, 9:00am, joneshouse wrote:Point taken. Quite a few of the writers I work with do write many pieces per year but come to me with the 5-10 best ones. Subsequently, these chosen ones usually get cut, placed in film or tv, exploited by music libraries, etc... A select few songs that actually work for a writer is a fine tact to take.the difficulty with that approach is, in order to make money at film/tv placements you need to have a large amount of tracks signed. 5-10 a year isn't enough. My first goal (as part of Matto's 5-year plan) is to get 200 signed. I figure it will take me about 1.5 years more to achieve that. that's not to say that getting 5 or 10 tracks signed isn't a good thing, but if each track cost $500 to be produced, you could potentially spend $5,000 a year and make 0 if you have no placements.So the formula for film/tv success is quality + quantity [x number of tracks signed] = more chance of actually getting placements... which brings in revenueand that's why I had to learn how to cut out 'the middle man' and do it myself.however Casey's business model is different from mine, and he's had great success placing a fewer number of tracks all produced by other folks.Hey VikkiFirst I wouldn't all call my success "great" success, at least not in dollars and cents. My balance sheet looks like that of a 90's, venture capital funded Internet company... My goal is not to be financially successful but the enjoyment of seeing something I created get placed. That probably makes me different than most. But there is a huge difference between writing and recording SONGS for film/TV and writing instrumentals. The requirements are vastly different. That does not mean writing instrumentals is easy or easier than songs. Not saying anything of the kind. But the skill sets have differences.

[hummingbird]

but I think the principle is the same, whether you are producing songs for film/tv or instrumentals for film/tv (we know that songs pay more but get placed much less)... the fact is, to make significant money from film/tv placements you need to have a large cataloque of music signed so that your chances of getting placements (and credits, licencing fees and royalties) increases.I think we're saying the same thing in our own way

[hummingbird]

Oct 29, 2009, 11:52am, hurowitz wrote:But there is a huge difference between writing and recording SONGS for film/TV and writing instrumentals. The requirements are vastly different. That does not mean writing instrumentals is easy or easier than songs. Not saying anything of the kind. But the skill sets have differences. A song would have lyrics, which is definitely a skill that isn't required for instrumentals. Beyond that, the voice itself is just another instrument that needs to be 'well played' and 'well recorded' in order to make the grade. However, there are instrumentals that are signed which do not have a prominent melody, but they create a mood or atmosphere or highten tension, etc. Drones, drum & bass, techno, etc.[I guess we're hijacking this thread with our meandering thoughts... sorry]my biggest producing frustration is.....