Hey guys,
I have been considered to master a hip-hop album and I am about to get the first track as a sample before the artist and I reach a final agreement. I am only a beginner at mastering.
The artist requests that the track is sped up 2 bpm. My initial reaction is that this will lead to noticeable digital artefacts and I am inclined to strongly discourage this, but it might be a common practice that I am not aware of? I am not familiar with producing hip hop music.
Any opinion on this?
Iâve never had access to time stretching algos that sound good enough to use on a master.
But, I read that on David Gilmourâs âOn an Islandâ solo album, when the final mixes were delivered they decided the album was a little too laid back so they sped tracks up marginally, trying several different algorithms to find the one that was most transparent.
I know itâs a very different kind of music but the principleâs the sameâŚ
Hereâs the SOS article; https://www.soundonsound.com/people/recording-david-gilmours-island
Hereâs the relevant part;
"One of the things Chris felt is that a lot of the tempos were too slow. Itâs a fairly laid-back album anyway, completely overtly so, and Davidâs never been apologetic about that. He said âThatâs where my headâs at, thatâs what I want to do.â But Chris still felt some of the tracks were too slow so we ended up, after a lot of experimentation, time-compressing some things using Serato Pitch 'n Time in Pro Tools, which is generally regarded as being the best-sounding time-manipulation plug-in out there. The time-compression was a very laborious process, but fortunately somebody else did it â listening to each part, deciding which algorithm worked best for which type of material! This was all done on a second Pro Tools rig in another room.
"There were a few things Serato didnât do so well, but we got round it. For example, it really messed up the kick drum â it added some kind of backwards echo â so we just took some of the uncompressed ones and replaced them manually, lining them up in the waveform display. That didnât take as long as you might think â maybe half an hour to an hour per song. It also enabled us to find a good loud one, a good quiet one, which suited Chris as he likes the kicks to be consistent and well behaved. It worked fine and it didnât end up sounding like a drum kit made of bits.
Iâd simply do it and bill them for it of course. I wouldnât fight them on this. If it damages the track, its their own damn fault. They may not notice the difference in the artifacts. I donât know shit about mastering, but I have a real hard time seeing a client that would make a noob request like that nit picking at the artifacts it creates. Especially a hip-hopper.
If they are asking for it, just explain what some of the downsides might be if you do it. Then do it and show it to them. If it sounds terrible, then explain it and see if they agree. I suspect it actually wonât sound that bad. Just make sure you use a good pitch shifting algorithm, because they vary in quality a lot, and different algorithms sound better on some sources than others.
I donât suppose you can tell them they might be better off having it done to the mix before you master it? (master of the obvious)
Boz, these guys are rappers. I wouldnât bother attempting to explain this.
Iâd do it, get paid, then show it to them.
I donât think itâll sound terrible unless @Lophophora majorly screws up the settings time stretching in the DAWâŚI wouldnât explain this, Iâd strait up tell them âYeah! Good callâŚI think this sounds great. You feeling it?â
Iâve never met a rapper who could tell his head from is ass on something like this.
Miked, I think the simpler solution would be to speed up in the masteringâŚseems it would be a lot easier than trying to speed up every single vocal clip in the session in order to remix 2 bpm faster. All the non-midi stuff would get nudged out of time.
I thought you could just select all the tracks and time stretch them⌠Done. I guess not. (?)
Ha. Good point.
Yeah, just do it because itâs what he asked. Make it sound as good as you can because thatâs your job. And move on. Trying to attach ideologies of what mastering should or shouldnât be is counter-productive.
Ah. I see what youâre saying.
Yeah, theoretically that might work better. Because time stretching algorithms (like Abletons for example) tend to act different based on if your source is percussive, monophonic, polyphonic etcâŚ
I guess you could bill for more time if you did thatâŚgood idea.
2 BPM shouldnât be that significant (depending on the tempo of the song). It is worth a shot. Depending on if you hear artifacts you can treat each one as a repair. You may be surprised. Most DAWS are steadily improving their time stretching algorithms. Logics has improved quite a bit in the last couple years. It is almost getting useable for drum edits:)
Thanks for your input guys. I told him that I could do it for an additional price but that it might result in some digital artefacts. He decided not to go with it.
Looks like @Jonathan loves hip-hoppers! 
In principle I agree, however, the overriding principle must be your reputation, and that is built on any and every recording that has been through your hands. âCrikey this sounds shit, who mastered it?â âJonathanâ âWell, I know who wonât be mastering MY album, then.â
My initial reaction is donât touch it with a barge pole. If they wanted it 2 bpm faster they should have recorded it 2bpm faster. Itâs like opening a massive can of worms that could come back to bite you on the arse at any point in the future. I would be extremely reluctant to even discuss it, let alone attempt it.
I agree and that was my initial reaction. However, this would be one of my very first mastering client, I am willing to pay out some slack so I can build a portfolio 
Good point.
I wonder if this conversation actually ever comes up. If it sounds so bad that people are going to recognize the poor quality, then itâs also probably bad enough that nobody is every going to listen to it. Bad music has this really great feature built into it that nobody hears it.
So unless you are advertising it on your site, and it sounds bad, nobody is ever going to attach your name to it. Itâs fine to not do things because you donât think it sounds good, but donât pretend that itâs because it will do anything to your reputation, because it wonât unless you are advertising with it.
Umm⌠Iâm not pretending. Itâs a principle: make sure that your work is shit hot if you want repeat business and recommendations. If your principle is: donât worry if your work is shit because no-one listens to shit stuff anyway, thatâs cool, but I prefer my own, because it actually works for me.
These are both good points, and I donât think thereâs a correct and incorrect hereâŚmainly because business ideology is as subjective a mix itself. AJ, I would say the in a market youâre trying to break into and make impressions in, CLA would say âmake sure nothing leaves unless it sounds radio ready, even the rough mixesâ. He would argue that âyou never know whoâs gonna hear itâ.
On the flip side, Iâd say remember that these are rappers. Amateur rappers. Thereâs also the question of weather a 2bpm time stretch is gonna mean a hill of beans when it comes to impact of the finished thing. If its an imperfect mix, but the client is happy and the consumer base by large canât identify the flaws, I donât know if you can really say it hurts anything. I donât know how it works in the UK where you are or (in Singapore?) where Lophophore is, but in the Southeast US, rappers have the lowest standards of any style I can think of.
I think the principle AJ alludes to here is valid. That the client, even of the lowest standard, still impacts your reputation at first. Iâm having to cater to the lowest denominator in the film world because Iâm trying to get established. And like running a restaurant, consistency of services and consistency of product is quite important.
May I point out that without hearing that master, we may all be speculating way beyond whatâs practical and overthinking this a bit?
As I said, the question is now irrelevant because the guy has decided not to go with the time stretching.
In Singapore the music industry is seriously under-developed (considering the high reputation the country has in other areas like finance, hi-tech etc). There few recording studios and producing businesses, and even the most established donât seem to be able to meet the quality standards we know in Europe and North America. I wouldnât even try selling mastering services in my home country (France), where I know I wouldnât be able to reach the professional standards there. Iâm saying this so you might better understand the context in which Iâm working in.
Iâm currently finishing this master, taking my time with long breaks between sessions so I can assess the tonal balance with fresh ears and play it in a variety of environments. Iâll upload it here so you can give me your feedback (which will be greatly appreciated) if youâre curious.
Oops! I didnât see this. I didnât backtrack far enough in the thread before responding lol.
India is the same way. And I couldnât even begin to hypothesize why. I realize that India is huge and immensely diverse, but from what Iâve heard of and heard about the pop music over there, its quiet behind the times as far as pushing the envelope with production technique. Its crazy how avidâs primary tech support call center is in SingaporeâŚand until you get into their high-end commercial product line, you almost deal exclusively with Singapore locals for licensing and software activation issues. Even basic PT and Sibelius and Media Composer issues are handled in Singapore. I wouldnât say its bad, but youâd think theyâd find the best support teams in the areas which are most music technology sophisticated. But that doesnât seem to matter. Crazy stuff!
It doesnât take musical technology sophistication to tell people they canât uncheck the âinstall pluginsâ box if they want the plugins installed. 90% of support can be taken care of by someone who doesnât know what a guitar is.