#audio pros

[rbbaileyjr]

Optimizing Audacity: Best Settings and Techniques for Voiceovers

Audacity rocks as a popular, free, open-source audio editing software that tons of voice actors, podcasters, and audio pros swear by. It’s super easy to use and packed with powerful features, making it perfect for creating top-notch voice-over recordings. But with so many settings and options, it can be a bit overwhelming to figure out which ones work best for voice-over projects. In this guide,…

View On WordPress

[stjamesblog]

The Oscars™ Snub the Music Industry

    Some of us who deal in the Music industry are really multi-industry players. You see, if you make, or license, music for a living, you most likely are dealing with Advertising, Motion Pictures, Sports Arenas, Television, Web, Gaming and on and on. None of those are in the Music industry, so you have to be a semi-pro in all of these fields. Meeting with Creative Directors, dealing with temps and post-production, understanding a blanket license for a buyout on a video game, separating stems for ads, and so on. 

Yet, one area where the relationship has been most strong traditionally has been the Motion Picture industry. Films are remembered just as often for their music as their visuals. What would Casablanca be without "As Time Goes By?" What would Star Wars be without its score? Would Titanic be the worldwide phenomenon it was without Celine Dion belting "My Heart Will Go On?" And let us not even get started with the whole Whitney- Bodyguard thing (that movie existed BECAUSE of that song).

And yet the 2012 Oscars, or 84th Annual Academy Awards, decided to give the shaft to the Music Industry- in fact music itself. Much like most of Media and some fans too, it seems that original songs are irrelevant. Covers are fine, witness Billy Crystal's opener- and the no less than 5 network shows driven by them. I get it, you like familiarity, fine. And that is why we nominate songs that should be heard, to get you familiar with them. But this year, the Oscars said "Fuck You" to music in a big way. Let me give you a shortlist:

Only two songs were even nominated for Best Original Song: TWO!

This was only the third time that Best Original Song nominees were not performed (the others: 1989 and 2009)

Billions are spent on movies, and billions watch the Oscars. Yet, the audio was horrible. Feedback, Pops and hisses, low hums, and even outright blank spots. This constantly shocks me and no one else seems to care. Imagine if the curtains never opened right. Imagine if the camera shots were often blurry or discolored, heads would roll. But not audio, no. It is just part of the gig man. We're better than that. 

Half of the band was relegated to the Balcony. I love me some Sheena E and Pharrell, but the rest of the Jazz combo sounded like a Casio from '89. (Where the hell was @Questlove ? Probably sleeping, thanks Toure. 

The "Big" number was actually a dance number... sort of. Cirque du Used-to-be-Kodak. 

  I was offended that Mary J. Blige's terrific song from The Help was not nominated (she was robbed). In fact, a total of 39 songs were in consideration according to LA Times. The Academy says it was a procedural thing. Bullshit. 

This has nothing to do with the "Muppet or Man" song, even the offensive "Rio" (although I am glad the former won). This is pure and simple lack of respect for an industry, without which, the movies would die. Even in the silent film days, a pianist would provide music, because everyone understood that music was that important. Even on this night, think about how music was used everywhere. The opening title theme, the opener, bumpers, introducing the presenters, background for the nominations, swelling for the winner announcement, music for walking off stage, bumper to commercial, songs on all commercials, bumper back, -- and of course the "In memoriam" section. Hell, even the fucking Cirque show HAS to have music. 

This industry is not well. The perception of it is worse. The fact is, too many sweat and bleed for music to be treated in this off-handed way. It's an insult. So, let's all endeavor to not use any music in award shows, or movies, or commercials, or TV, or any broadcast for that matter. Then we'll see who has the power. Of course, that won't happen, because we do music because we have to. It's a tribal thing, in our blood. 

Still, it would be nice if the Motion Picture industry (of all industries) would at least act as if we're friends. It's sad. I'm sad.

[stjamesblog]

"Pull My Band's Song From Rush Limbaugh" Um, No.

Rush Limbaugh is apparently a radio host who likes to bash young, female college students. Especially those who are not in office (or running for it), merely to ridicule and sell more ads, and make more money. Recently, one of his rants caught fire in the public square and was particularly aggregious. Since we now live in the YouTube age, people not only read what he said, but also could watch him say it - as it was recorded.

  This also meant that the video would show the bumper music (tunes played as a show comes back or throws to a commercial), and that music was "Sledgehammer" by Peter Gabriel.

Here's the video so you can hear the song:

    So, it started with Peter Gabriel. He demanded his song be pulled from Rush Limbaugh's show. 

And then Rush (the band) joined in just for irony's sake, and then Rage Against the Machine, and then The Fabulous Thunderbirds ? What, the Fabulous Thunderbirds? Really, Jimmy? Are you guys still a band? But I digress. 

All of these bands DEMANDED that their song be "pulled" from the Rush Limbaugh show, that they are in no way affiliated with him and their music should not be used to espouse a political belief.  Sounds good right? After all didn't so and so get that one candidate to stop using their song on the campaign trail? Yes, they did. 

Surely the producers of Rush's show must comply, especially if they get a cease and desist citing copyright degradation, right? Wrong. 

I get it if the public at large doesn't understand why this is a ludicrous though, I even can let a few journalists slide for not knowing about copyright (even though many of them have radio shows). But it saddens me that these musicians and their managers don't understand one of the simplest pieces of copyright that gets used every day, and how it works. All great bands to be sure, all with the right intention of separating themselves from the fracas, but perpetuating the "Stupid" stereotype of musicians and songwriters.

Stick with me, here comes the boring old music publisher- inside musicbiz bullshit I'm known for. But if you read nothing else.. read this next paragraph- at least to be able to argue with your co-workers intelligently. 

It's called a "blanket license." All radio stations have them. When a song gets played on a radio station, it's called a "public performance" and those are administered by Performing Rights Organizations (PRO). The U.S. has three PROs - SESAC, BMI and ASCAP. Songwriters and publishers join these organizations and place their music catalogs with them to administer the public performance right in their copyright. So, if you want to broadcast (radio especially) you must pay all three of these organizations a yearly fee (and do some other stuff) to cover all of the performance fees. These fees are for the number of plays, got a hit song crushing the airwaves, you're gonna make more.

But, let's be clear, no radio station is paying to license any particular song. They are paying to license the PRO's catalog. All of the songs, even the bad ones are included in that- hence the term "blanket license" as in covers it all.  As long as the stations pay their fees, they can play whatever they want. <Another Post.> 

These fees are then split up and distributed to songwriters and publishers by what can only be described as a convoluted, magical-fairy-dust mathematics that is unclear, and unfairly pays independent artists. <Another Post.>

So, why is this? Well, otherwise, you would have to have every songwriter and every publisher call thousands of radio stations, each with different accounting and monitoring methods and do direct licensing. What a mess. So, in short, this is the system we have. No one song gets paid for, all of them are paid for in one fee. 

To the question at hand- No, Rush doesn't have to take off Peter Gabriel or The Fabulous Thunderbirds, and Rush (the band) is lucky he doesn't sue them <he was born as Rush before them. HA! He doesn't have any legal obligation to do so, because he is not licensing their music, he is under a "blanket license: for the whole catalog of songs.

No, they can't legally remove their songs from his show. There is one way, I have not heard it talked about, but it is possible... if they quit their PRO. And as someone who quit ASCAP as a writer, it took me 3 years and it's actually still not finished, so fat chance. The only way this gets done is if one of the PROs decides to deny Rush a license. I doubt it. this is where you make you money as you can't tour. 

  But, good for them for speaking out. that was the right thing to do. I wonder if they ever hear the other ads around their songs on clear channel? Hmmmm, think about it. Really, the only thing they can do is try to shame the producers into not using those specific cuts on this specific show. And that's what this is really about.

  So the answer is Um, No.