It depends from studio to the producer doing the track.

the high end studios charge about R300 an hour.
There are alot of cheaper options. the best would be is to find a producer with his own studio that you can trust, and you have done your homework to go and listen to similar stuff he has done.

and then there is good mastering at the end, anything between R200-R400, depending on the studio and if they use analog gear to master, so it could be alot more.

you can also just track at good studio, and you would be able to get good results at a smaller studio (which wont take long, cause its just guitars and vocals) and send the tracks overseas to be mixed and mastered.

also try and record it roughly at home and put it on a cd to give the studio an idea of what you want.

Pro studios, with good mastering, you can expect R1500 to about R2000. You can go cheaper or more expensive, but in my experience there's a lot of bad studios in this country.. :-\

That depends entirely on you. Pro studios can cost a couple of thousand an hour (you'll have to phone a few and get prices), so it's down to how quickly you can work. Don't make the usual first time mistake of thinking a 5 minute song can be recorded in an hour - not if you want to do it properly (and I'm presuming you do if you're talking pro studio). There is time setting up amps and trying different microphones, plus time to relax into the studio and get used to playing in a studio environment. Personally I'd budget a whole eight hour day for tracking and another for mixing and mastering.

To be honest, if it's your first time recording, I'd rather go for a small project studio - especially if you don't need to record live drums. Recording efficiently in a studio is a skill you learn, pretty much like learning to play or learning stagecraft. So it pays to cut your teeth in the smaller studios, where you can afford to spend more time learning the ropes and work your way up to the point you are ready to record in a pro studio without wasting time/money.

Getting to the point where you can hire a producer is key too, as they can streamline the whole process, help choose the studio that's right for your needs and get special rates with studios they do regular business with - in the long run a good producer can save you money.

Also "radio-ready" is one thing, but the likelihood of getting airplay on a guitar only or guitar and vocal track is slight. You might get a play or two on a local music show - especially on a regional station - but the chances of being playlisted are slim to non-existent.

Alan hit everything right on the dot.

Although, I would like to elaborate more on the topic of "radio ready" as I hear this often from first timers.

This concept still alludes me after my 12 years in this business because for a song to be acceptable for radio lies in many factors, the least being the "loudness" of the track. I realise loudness was not cited by the OP but it is a usual request from people when they compare their track to others commercially produced and being played on the radio. The bare fact of the matter is that when a song is selected for radio play it is done in a room by a radio station's playlisting department by a bunch of employees whose job it is to listen to all the submissions they receive from labels and independents. At least, this is the way it's done at 5FM. So, basically a song will be played and they'll take a consensus and do a simple vote. But it doesn't end there. They also spend a large portion of their budget on market research and focus groups as to what the public is liking and what they aren't liking. There just aren't any sure bets to get your stuff on there, no matter how "radio ready" it sounds. Everything factors down to money so if a song will potentially affect their bottom line in a negative way, it will not get on.

In my personal experience, my band got our first single on 5FM and made it to number 5 on their Top 40 list. However, despite that they did not pick up our 2nd or 3rd single because they claimed they sounded too "adult contemporary". Go figure. They sounded quite similar in tone and vibe as the first one. Maybe that was the problem. Who knows? So, not only does your song have to be well produced and performed, it also has to be hip enough to the point that it does something for their listenership. That's the bottom line. If they don't think people are going to switch over to their station when they hear your song, you haven't got a hope. They'll just reject it.

Now, as Alan pointed out, this does not mean that a community, campus, or lower-order station won't play your material with a little networking. It's actually quite easy to get your stuff on Tuks or SAFM. Even Highveld is easier to get on than 5FM. With a little persistence it usually happens, provided your material is sufficiently good enough.

On to the topic of your material, there are several things to consider when having the goal of pushing to radio. Firstly, your song almost definitely needs to be 3 to 3:30 minutes long. The vocals generally need to come in quite quickly to facilitate this. If it's longer than that, it better be a CRACKER of a song! Also, the arrangement is important because you need to keep people's attention. In radio land people get bored and jaded quickly. These things are paramount. In terms of producing your single, there is also the fact that the performance has to be to a high standard because without that, the mix will definitely suffer and will lack professional luster. It's not all in the hands of the engineer or producer, you know! You can talk about it all you want but when it comes to crunch, you gotta deliver the goods in the studio to achieve better-than-usual results and that in itself is not easy. If your goal is 5FM you gotta be as good as the artists currently being played, if not better! It's a very tough market.

Finally, remember that getting on national radio is not a gift. It's a trade. They will only put your material on if it does something positive for the radio station's listenership. Bottom line. This means it has to be hip and easy to listen to and has a healthy dose of the X factor.

Hope that helps.

Cheers ?

Gee guys. A lot of very useful info there. Some things you mentioned would honestly never have crossed my mind. However, I think I might have spoken incorrectly when I said "Pro Studio" or "Radio Ready".

Manfred Klose wrote: the high end studios charge about R300 an hour.
There are alot of cheaper options. the best would be is to find a producer with his own studio that you can trust, and you have done your homework to go and listen to similar stuff he has done.

and then there is good mastering at the end, anything between R200-R400, depending on the studio and if they use analog gear to master, so it could be alot more.

Honestly, I'm loving these figures. They're more or less what I would aim for. Are these genuinely plausible prices?


I Also really appreciate all the info on being "radio ready" I'll keep that in mind when my tiny project has grown a bit more. But when I said "radio Ready" I was referring mainly to quality. What I'm looking for is for the track to sound like something you might hear on the radio (quality wise). I want to be able to put the song in a playlist with all my Avenged Sevenfold, Creed, Incubus and then not have people saying that this track sounds like something a bunch of kids recorded compared to the others.

We recently tried to record guitar covers on my PC of the songs Smooth by Santana and Blackbird by Alter Bridge. In my honest opinion, I won't be spending time and money recording these songs in a studio because A) They're other people's songs and B) We can't play them perfectly... Yet. But despite our technical faults, these recordings have elements that reveal the fact that they were recorded on a standard home PC. I'll post them in the clips for review section a bit later so that you guys could maybe tell me where I need a software or hardware upgrade to achieve what I'm looking for.

D-Man wrote: But when I said "radio Ready" I was referring mainly to quality. What I'm looking for is for the track to sound like something you might hear on the radio (quality wise). I want to be able to put the song in a playlist with all my Avenged Sevenfold, Creed, Incubus and then not have people saying that this track sounds like something a bunch of kids recorded compared to the others.

I'm afraid this is easier said than done and is not just related to the studio you record in and the engineer/producer you work with. It's related first and foremost to you, the performer. Think of it this way. If you play badly through terrible gear and it's captured in the best studio with the best gear, it's still going to sound, well, terrible, no matter what studio trickery is employed. Chances are if you put Santana, or Slash, or whoever through the same chain, the sound is going to improve for the simple fact that tone is mostly in their hands. This is a constant no matter HOW or WHERE you record. That being said, it leads to the notion that this certainly affects the mix and therefore the overall sound of the recording. It's unavoidable.

Sadly, loudness plays a part here because most of the bands you just mentioned have ridiculously loud masters for the sake of competing from a marketing standpoint in our current world and this is the first perceivable factor when people compare their recordings to modern commercial recordings. However, this is not just the result of a clever mastering engineer, nor is it the result of merely slapping a brickwall limiter on the mix and a little EQ. It starts at the beginning. It starts with a great performance combined with a proper recording with a proper frequency balance that fits the material, which is the decision of the engineer and/or producer. It's also a result of a clever arrangement that breathes with the song, the result of a cleverly crafted mix, and lastly a professional mastering engineer who knows how to achieve loudness without sacrificing clarity. There are a number of other factors including whether a song was recorded with live instruments or programmed. It is a LOT easier to get a song crafted from pre-cooked samples and synths to sound loud and present than it is with a rock song recorded acoustically. Do yourself a favor and compare a Keisha or Lady Gaga song with Avenged Sevenfold. Chances are that even thought the RMS meter might read similar levels, the pop songs will sound much clearer and louder. This is just the physics of the game.

D-Man wrote: We recently tried to record guitar covers on my PC of the songs Smooth by Santana and Blackbird by Alter Bridge. In my honest opinion, I won't be spending time and money recording these songs in a studio because A) They're other people's songs and B) We can't play them perfectly... Yet. But despite our technical faults, these recordings have elements that reveal the fact that they were recorded on a standard home PC. I'll post them in the clips for review section a bit later so that you guys could maybe tell me where I need a software or hardware upgrade to achieve what I'm looking for.

This is a common problem many home recordists experience. The answer as to why this happens is quite simply that it takes more than just a computer, a soundcard, and a few mics to achieve a professional recording. I'm not saying it can't be done but it's going to require keen engineering skills and the ability to compartmentalize the process because many hats are being worn by one person, namely, you.

Let's take the band Pendulum as an example because they produced their own material in their apartment project studio and it is now a huge success. As you would probably guess, they used a regular old DAW (Cubase SX 3) to sequence and record most of their album. However, they almost certainly employed the services of multiple professional studios to record the live elements they needed. They then mixed and sequenced the rest of it at their home studio. However, if you take a look at their home studio you'll see that even though they were using older DAW software, they still had top notch AD/DA converters (Lynx), monitors (Mitchell and Todd), a rack of top notch outboard processors, and a host of other great gear to add to their creative process, not to mention great ears and excellent production chops. If you would like to read the article and check out their studio setup, go here:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun08/articles/pendulum.htm

Hope that helps.

Cheers ?

I think the best of artists will always see their music as inferior to there idols/ influences... I think that makes them so much better as well, that they will always feel they have never really reached that potential...
And the day you sit back and say thats up to standard is probably the day you stop making good music....

Also yes as mentioned above, it comes down to the performer more so to be "radio quality" Also consider a studio is not the be all and end all of good quality..... There are thousands of well known artists who avoid big studios (quality) as the music is more important... ?

Mo Facta wrote:

D-Man wrote: But when I said "radio Ready" I was referring mainly to quality. What I'm looking for is for the track to sound like something you might hear on the radio (quality wise). I want to be able to put the song in a playlist with all my Avenged Sevenfold, Creed, Incubus and then not have people saying that this track sounds like something a bunch of kids recorded compared to the others.

I'm afraid this is easier said than done and is not just related to the studio you record in and the engineer/producer you work with. It's related first and foremost to you, the performer. Think of it this way. If you play badly through terrible gear and it's captured in the best studio with the best gear, it's still going to sound, well, terrible, no matter what studio trickery is employed. Chances are if you put Santana, or Slash, or whoever through the same chain, the sound is going to improve for the simple fact that tone is mostly in their hands. This is a constant no matter HOW or WHERE you record. That being said, it leads to the notion that this certainly affects the mix and therefore the overall sound of the recording. It's unavoidable.

There was in 60s and 70s London a very good but notoriously brusque engineer by the name of John Wood (he's now out of the music business and runs a hotel in Scotland).

In 1969 Fairport Convention went into the studio with Wood manning the controls and Joe Boyd producing. They were about to record their most famous album, Liege and Lief. They had a new drummer on board, Dave Mattacks (now a vastly experienced session drummer). Mattacks told Wood that he on the recordings he wanted to sound like Levon Helm. Wood replied "well you'd better play like Levon Helm then."

'Twas ever thus

Thanks for the post. Good reading and good information.

I was just listening to your clip you posted on the forum (the youtube video)...

I have no idea how you recorded that - but, there are some simple things you can do, using a proper DAW, and simulated amp VST's such as guitar rig, to get your recording sounding a LOT better (no offence) than your clip.

A good example of what can be done by someone with limited resources (and time!) is the competition entries on GFSA... all of them are recorded in home setups and for some entries the production values are really high. I'm going to single out Squonk and Warren's entries for this month...

http://www.box.net/shared/6ss9jb032j

http://www.box.net/shared/n55kzmx6g2

So, if you just want to record a track for yourself, or friends, or even a demo, there is a lot you can do nowadays by yourself... Also, it has the extra benefit of being A LOT OF FUN ? and lets say 2 days in the studio will work you out +- R3000 - for that money you can get a good basic audio interface and even a good mic if you shop around...

It depends of course on what you want to do with the single...

edit: I think I should maybe write a mini-tutorial on recording... not that I know that much but it seems like there are a few people on GFSA that could use some hints on getting reaper, guitar rig, drums etc going...

raithza wrote: I was just listening to your clip you posted on the forum (the youtube video)...

I have no idea how you recorded that - but, there are some simple things you can do, using a proper DAW, and simulated amp VST's such as guitar rig, to get your recording sounding a LOT better (no offence) than your clip.

A good example of what can be done by someone with limited resources (and time!) is the competition entries on GFSA... all of them are recorded in home setups and for some entries the production values are really high. I'm going to single out Squonk and Warren's entries for this month...

http://www.box.net/shared/6ss9jb032j

http://www.box.net/shared/n55kzmx6g2

I listened to those clips and they are not bad at all. The mp3 and my home headphones don't give me a critical view of it, but for what it's worth, they sound pretty good.

It's certainly feasible to achieve good results in a home setup. It's a tipping scale and a vastly subjective road to follow which brings it's own set of challenges. However, as always, it's not the tools that are available to you, it's how you use them. It's most likely a 1 in a million chance that a novice will instantly be able to produce results comparable to his favorite commercial recordings, i.e. professional results without first honing his craft. No one to my knowledge has ever been able to separate experience from the process of achieving excellence. Although, I'm sure there are prodigies in all fields.

raithza wrote:So, if you just want to record a track for yourself, or friends, or even a demo, there is a lot you can do nowadays by yourself... Also, it has the extra benefit of being A LOT OF FUN ? and lets say 2 days in the studio will work you out +- R3000 - for that money you can get a good basic audio interface and even a good mic if you shop around...

Yes, but it does not buy him the experience to know what to do with it. In my book if the end goal is a production of high quality, your money is always better spent with a professional. Especially if you are still a novice. Not to say you can't learn along the way, so please don't get me wrong. I just think that if you are still learning the amount of experience you will gain from someone who knows what he/she is doing will go a long way in your progression.

Early on in my career I got to sit in on some major label studio sessions in Los Angeles and got to watch and learn the process. This was after I had already had a couple of years mentorship at a studio in the town that I was going to University. I would just sit there and soak in what the engineer was doing and make mental notes. It was the best experience for me because it cleared away a lot of the obscurity and hearsay about this mystical and arcane craft of audio. The point is that almost everything I learned about real-world recording and production was first hand from professionals that passed on their knowledge to me. It is, I firmly believe, the absolute best way to further your knowledge in any field.

Cheers ?

raithza wrote: I was just listening to your clip you posted on the forum (the youtube video)...

I have no idea how you recorded that - but, there are some simple things you can do, using a proper DAW, and simulated amp VST's such as guitar rig, to get your recording sounding a LOT better (no offence) than your clip.

The Clips you posted were brilliant... They obviously took a bit of time but who doesn't have time for the art of music? What I did was recorded my guitar through my amp (straight into the line in of my PC). I used Kristal and ASIO4ALL. I honestly think that I would, without a doubt, go to a professional if the song was meant for radio or official releases. And I also agree that experience won't come easily, however, I'm sure if i had the right tools, I'd be able to vaguely apply the knowledge that I gain from others. I definitely don't want to spend tons of money though.

The drums in those tracks, were they recorded or were they digitally programmed samples. I'd love to record drums with my song ideas but they're all either stupidly impractical or they make my song sound like a rave track (which isn't always bad)

D-Man wrote:

raithza wrote: I was just listening to your clip you posted on the forum (the youtube video)...

I have no idea how you recorded that - but, there are some simple things you can do, using a proper DAW, and simulated amp VST's such as guitar rig, to get your recording sounding a LOT better (no offence) than your clip.

The Clips you posted were brilliant... They obviously took a bit of time but who doesn't have time for the art of music? What I did was recorded my guitar through my amp (straight into the line in of my PC). I used Kristal and ASIO4ALL. I honestly think that I would, without a doubt, go to a professional if the song was meant for radio or official releases. And I also agree that experience won't come easily, however, I'm sure if i had the right tools, I'd be able to vaguely apply the knowledge that I gain from others. I definitely don't want to spend tons of money though.

The drums in those tracks, were they recorded or were they digitally programmed samples. I'd love to record drums with my song ideas but they're all either stupidly impractical or they make my song sound like a rave track (which isn't always bad)

I'm 99.9% sure both of the tracks used digital drums. I can't speak for how long they took,but being competition entries, probably not as long as you'd think. Experience & skill helps there.

Do you want your track to go out and radio and be a hit? then yes, go to a studio. For home/friends etc, I'd say try doing it yourself...

raithza wrote:
edit: I think I should maybe write a mini-tutorial on recording... not that I know that much but it seems like there are a few people on GFSA that could use some hints on getting reaper, guitar rig, drums etc going...

I think i should do this :/ will try remember tonight