https://www.nbcnews.com/p...s-n1025556

.

Article on the fire that demolished the master recordings of numerous legendary recordings. Susan Rogers explains what a master is and talks about Prince's vault.

BartVanHemelen said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/p...s-n1025556

.

Article on the fire that demolished the master recordings of numerous legendary recordings. Susan Rogers explains what a master is and talks about Prince's vault.

Is the master the "multi-track" which then can be mixed with different levels for each track etc.?

.

.

Or is the master what they make after they sit at the board with the multi-track, pick all the levels, and then "print it" to tape, the that result being "the master?"

GaryMF said:

BartVanHemelen said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/p...s-n1025556

.

Article on the fire that demolished the master recordings of numerous legendary recordings. Susan Rogers explains what a master is and talks about Prince's vault.

Is the master the "multi-track" which then can be mixed with different levels for each track etc.?

.

.

Or is the master what they make after they sit at the board with the multi-track, pick all the levels, and then "print it" to tape, the that result being "the master?"

Exactly. The term "master" is used under many different circumstances, whether it be the multi-tracks, the stereo or mono mix down, or what a mastering engineering makes to produce the consumer product. What was lost in the fire isn't exactly clear. In my opinion losing the multi tracks is the most detrimental, because any potential unused material is generally on the multis.

KlyphIsBackAgain said:

GaryMF said:

Is the master the "multi-track" which then can be mixed with different levels for each track etc.?

.

.

Or is the master what they make after they sit at the board with the multi-track, pick all the levels, and then "print it" to tape, the that result being "the master?"

Exactly. The term "master" is used under many different circumstances, whether it be the multi-tracks, the stereo or mono mix down, or what a mastering engineering makes to produce the consumer product. What was lost in the fire isn't exactly clear. In my opinion losing the multi tracks is the most detrimental, because any potential unused material is generally on the multis.

What do artists mean when they say they "don't own their masters?" any of the above?

..

.

and why don't they, espeically if they wrote the songs (Prince, Taylor Swift **supposedly**)?

.

They own the publishing rights and get royalties but they don't own the copyright to the actual sound recording that was released (or is on the "master?") ?

.

.

And why... because the label made them sign that away in order to get signed?

TheTruth123 said:

I like her information albeit some of it i believe is her perspective, but her voice grates on me worse than almost anybody’s. I guess I have an issue tolerating super-intellectual types. Don’t get me wrong, I am highly intelligent to be sure... There is a difference.

So what you're saying is you want to have your cake and to eat it as well?

TheTruth123 said:

Don’t get me wrong, I am highly intelligent to be sure...

And modest too!

TheTruth123 said:

I like her information albeit some of it i believe is her perspective, but her voice grates on me worse than almost anybody’s. I guess I have an issue tolerating super-intellectual types. Don’t get me wrong, I am highly intelligent to be sure... There is a difference.

Fix your punctuation and we'll revisit your brag.

GaryMF said:

BartVanHemelen said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/p...s-n1025556

.

Article on the fire that demolished the master recordings of numerous legendary recordings. Susan Rogers explains what a master is and talks about Prince's vault.

Is the master the "multi-track" which then can be mixed with different levels for each track etc.?

.

.

Or is the master what they make after they sit at the board with the multi-track, pick all the levels, and then "print it" to tape, the that result being "the master?"

NO NO NO NEITHER NEITHER NEITHER. The multitrack is the multitrack. Nothing more. The second thing you described is the final mix. Mastering happens after that. You take the final mix, for example, and you master it for iTunes. This means that each thing you want to make (CD, vinyl, streaming, downloads), all have their own particular sound. You adjust mastering depending on the media. Vinyl has certain limitations, so you EQ and compress the final mix differently than you would for CD. There will be multiple masters for an album depending on how it's listened to.

[Edited 7/9/19 10:05am]

steakfinger said:

[Spambot - luv4u]

steakfinger said:

GaryMF said:

Is the master the "multi-track" which then can be mixed with different levels for each track etc.?

.

.

Or is the master what they make after they sit at the board with the multi-track, pick all the levels, and then "print it" to tape, the that result being "the master?"

NO NO NO NEITHER NEITHER NEITHER. The multitrack is the multitrack. Nothing more. The second thing you described is the final mix. Mastering happens after that. You take the final mix, for example, and you master it for iTunes. This means that each thing you want to make (CD, vinyl, streaming, downloads), all have their own particular sound. You adjust mastering depending on the media. Vinyl has certain limitations, so you EQ and compress the final mix differently than you would for CD. There will be multiple masters for an album depending on how it's listened to.

[Edited 7/9/19 10:05am]

Thanks. Very informative!

.

.

So when artists say they want to own their "masters" do they also really mean the Multi-tracks as well as the final mixes?

.

.

Because if htey want o do something with them (e.g. repackage them, remix the songs etc.) don't they need the multi-tracks more than the masetres which are reallky just "final prints" which are just good for making new copies.?

GaryMF said:

steakfinger said:

NO NO NO NEITHER NEITHER NEITHER. The multitrack is the multitrack. Nothing more. The second thing you described is the final mix. Mastering happens after that. You take the final mix, for example, and you master it for iTunes. This means that each thing you want to make (CD, vinyl, streaming, downloads), all have their own particular sound. You adjust mastering depending on the media. Vinyl has certain limitations, so you EQ and compress the final mix differently than you would for CD. There will be multiple masters for an album depending on how it's listened to.

[Edited 7/9/19 10:05am]

Thanks. Very informative!

.

.

So when artists say they want to own their "masters" do they also really mean the Multi-tracks as well as the final mixes?

.

.

Because if htey want o do something with them (e.g. repackage them, remix the songs etc.) don't they need the multi-tracks more than the masetres which are reallky just "final prints" which are just good for making new copies.?

You're kind of talking about a different thing. 'Owning the Master' just really means owning the recording of the song.

'Mastering' is the final process of production. Enhancing the overall frequency to a specific format (CD, Vinyl, itunes, etc.)

Exoticfunk said:

GaryMF said:

Thanks. Very informative!

.

.

So when artists say they want to own their "masters" do they also really mean the Multi-tracks as well as the final mixes?

.

.

Because if htey want o do something with them (e.g. repackage them, remix the songs etc.) don't they need the multi-tracks more than the masetres which are reallky just "final prints" which are just good for making new copies.?

You're kind of talking about a different thing. 'Owning the Master' just really means owning the recording of the song.

'Mastering' is the final process of production. Enhancing the overall frequency to a specific format (CD, Vinyl, itunes, etc.)

But why do the artists care if theyu own the "orginal" rcording i they don't have the multi-tracks to re-do them how they want?

There are many masters... the final mix is often called the master (this has reverb, echos, most special effects, etc), although per media there will be a specific master (which is a slightly more technical process, but takes into account the specific characteristics of the end medium (for instance, if you have too many minutes of music on one side of an LP and you have a lot of bass, the needle will skip because of it in a normally balanced record player)

.

So as a minimum, you will have all different media + 1 masters. However, "owning your masters" has nothing necessarily to do with the actual music, but with the copyrights. If I own the masters of a track, I have the right to release it. Of course, it helps if I have some or all of the previously mentioned masters, but if I bought a cd of the track I "own" the master of, I can just copy that cd and use that as a master. (much like it is believed regular cassettes were the source of some of the tracks on Purple Rain Deluxe, Moonbeam Levels and, of course, P&M'83)

.

"Owning" a master does often mean having the rights to release a particular mix of a track. (Hence the new master for 1999, which used part of the original multitrack recording) This also explains why Warner Brothers could not release a "remastered" version of Prince albums, as Prince would have had to approve the new master and Warner Bros only owned the original master. (confusingly, even though in principle you would have to remaster for Spotify/Tidal/iTunes and the like, that seems to be accepted as being covered by the rights to the original master ((and media specific masters of that) that was only released on LP/cassette/CD/8-Track/DAT/minidisc originally)

.

So... if somebody talks about a "master", you don't really know what they are talking about, unless they specify or it is very clear from context.

.

To further confuse things, some people do mean the multitrack when they talk about masters. The 2 track mixdown is often called the master (the final mix), and that is then send to a mastering place like Bernie Grundman, where media specific masters are made. If a copy of a multitrack or 2 track tape is made, that is mostly not referred to as master, but I think a lot of those 2 track copies in Warners vault will be the "master" source for quite some releases coming. (I simply think they'll be in a better state than the tapes that were neglected in Paisley Park for years)

.

If I had my way though, I'd have them release the multitracks as stems, so we can all mix our favourite mixes of Prince's songs. Imagine being able to, well.. you know what you want to do.

.

This is sacrilige to people like Databank, who makes a very good case for only releasing stuff from 2 track masters, or from new mixes from multitrack approximating as closely as possible a 2 track mix from a degraded source. (unlike what seems to have been done to multiple songs on Originals)

.

Anyway, for a thoroughly (and enjoyably) confusing discussion, talk about masters without specifying (or giving enough context) about what type you mean.

mediumdry said:

.

So... if somebody talks about a "master", you don't really know what they are talking about, unless they specify or it is very clear from context.

.

Thank you! This all makes sense.... i.e. it's more confusing that it seems when artists say "I want to own my masters".