A successful studio must combine good service and good management. This month we take a look behind the scenes at Tony Visconti's Good Earth studio in Soho.

Good Earth is a highly successful and fashionable West End studio which has been established for the best part of a decade. It's prestige is based not simply on Tony Visconti's fame as a producer but also on the reputation that the studio has built up over the years.

Six months ago, Steve Bentinck Budd was brought in as studio manager. Considering the studio's successful history, we asked Steve about the reasoning behind this move.

It was a question of sharp commercial realities; the situation was reached where there were so many SSL studios in the country that people really had to offer more than that in order to compete. An SSL studio is no longer a speciality and so the studio has to be marketed in such a way as we have to emphasise the service element, in addition to all the technical aspects.

I presume that this increased competition is due to a decreasing number of clients. Do you think that the reason for this is the general decline in the music business, or is it because a lot of people are now recording in lower budget studios and only mixing in an SSL studio?

I think it's a bit of both, though a lot of other studios in a similar situation to us seemed to be concerned about the lower budget studio problem.

But I do think that, in general, the record companies have matured in their attitude towards the spending of money and they're being a great deal more circumspect before they say something like 'Right. We're going to spend £80,000, recording an album with a band who have never released a single before.' As a result, people are going in and doing short, three or four day sessions and that means that both the amount and level of work has reduced drastically. We really have to keep on our toes to get the work that is available.

You have recently upgraded and redecorated the studio. What instigated the change from 24- to 48-track?

We were lucky. We had an album project requiring 48-track, and the band were going to be in here for four months. Either we would have to hire a machine for that period, or buy another which would cost roughly the same. In addition to this, demand for 48-track work was increasing. Recently, we have even received an enquiry from someone requiring 96-track: quite frightening really!

But surely the ability to sync MIDI sequencers and drum machines to tape has actually reduced the track requirements in many cases?

Funnily enough I don't think it has. We have a lot of requests for 48-track, and simply because we have the extra 24-track machine in the studio, a lot of people want to take advantage of it.

Big Business?

A studio like this must have tremendous overheads; you're situated in an expensive part of London and you've got a lot of money tied up in equipment. How do you manage to make the studio economically viable on an hour-to-hour basis?

Although we have the capability to run for 24 hours a day, we rarely do because it's not necessary; we've managed to look at our overheads and really plan out for a year's expenditure very carefully. We find that a lot of other studios just work on a day by day basis. A new bit of equipment comes out, so they buy it, but they don't think of the overall, long-term effect on their profitability. I think you really do have to take that into account. Now we've managed to sit down and calculate the profit levels necessary to maintain the studio. We know the bottom level we can sell it at, and we know how many days a week we need to sell it in order to maintain the break-even point that we need as one of the top class studios. That means we need to work virtually every day, it's as simple as that... but only for 12 hours of it!

So far, and especially over the last six months, we've managed to achieve that. The only problem that remains is that of maintenance, because every once in a while you're going to have to take a day off to do a complete maintenance check. But at the moment we're working 29 or 30 days out of every month and that's how we intend to keep going for as long as possible.

Is there a lot of pressure on you to go into digital multitrack at the moment?

No, although I think it's inevitable that we will. I hope that doesn't sound like a contradiction, but there isn't much pressure yet. The record companies are against it because of the extra money they'd have to spend on the recording. It isn't cost-effective unless it's for a big budget album.

Do you think it's a field to be wary of for a year or two until the prices and format settle down a little bit?

At the APRS show I had the feeling that the formats were starting [to] stabilise themselves; I can see certain key manufacturers deciding which way they're going to go. But it is something to be wary about and I'd like to see a definite standard format before too many people get their fingers burned. That's crucial, especially for studios who have not got vast amounts of money to spend. No-one can afford to make a mistake which could put them out of business in a year's time if they choose the wrong format.

Future Times

How do you see the studio in two years time? Will you be interested purely in remixes? And will you be working with the elite bands or maintaining a broad spectrum of clients?

I think we'll still get a wide selection. There's been a dramatic change in the last two years, especially in the last year, and I think the kind of clients we are getting now are probably the kind of clients we are going to get in a couple of years time. There will still be the big bands; U2, the Moody Blues and so forth, but I think we're going to get some bands doing just one or two tracks and coming back later to do an album once they've had a hit. The record companies are generally only going to stick a band in to do an album once they've had a hit single. I expect we'll be having two or three months of five day bookings with different bands who've had one hit, or who are working on their first project, followed maybe by a three month booking to do an album with an established band.

Do you find that record companies put a relatively new act in to do their first single at Good Earth, or do they try and push them into a low budget studio?

It really depends on the commitment of the A&R man and what kind of influence he has within his own company. I think most A&R men will try to get the best top quality studio for their band, but it's got a lot to do with internal politics in record companies.

How do you go about marketing a studio?

Certainly the most crucial factor in the survival of studios with a high capital outlay is the marketing. Now that the competition is increasing, people have to think of new ways of selling themselves and establishing serious relationships with the record companies, not just the 'friendly' ones, which is the way it's gone on for so many years, but serious business-like relationships.

I think that a potential client can often ring up a studio, wanting to book some time, and then someone might give him a quote, but won't really find out exactly what his needs are, who he is and where he's calling from. Gathering and making available as much information as possible and making sure that you've got a database that really works for you is the key to marketing a studio.

It struck me that something studios such as Good Earth could do as a combined side-line and service is to sell things like drumsticks, plectra and guitar strings because musicians invariably turn up for sessions in need of them when the shops are closed. Has this ever caused you a problem?

Er... no, but it's a very good idea and we'll start it on Monday!

Accolade

The Accolade agency seems to have undergone a few changes since I last enquired about it. What is its present situation?

It's very active. We're managing, looking after producers, looking after engineers, and even looking after film directors. We're lucky because we're centrally located in Dean Street which means we're in the heart of what's going on. My function in Accolade, is to promote the careers of the engineers and producers that I have on my books and get them new projects; get them on the ladder to earning greater incomes and more prominent projects. I also look after business matters such as accounting.

So it's really a super-agency with all the peripheral services thrown in?

That's correct. There are advantages to being in a situation where we have our ears to the ground in terms of record companies and what's happening. We know what bands are going where, who's been signed to who, and so on. We know where there's an opportunity to really strike to see if we can score that opportunity for our clients. It ties in neatly with the studio.

It was at this point that Steve was snatched from my grasp by the pressures of work, but Tony Visconti was at hand to take up the story.

The Visconti Perspective

Can we talk about the rather controversial subject of digital recording?

My view is that the outputs of most instruments used in popular music are still pretty noisy, especially those of guitar amps, so you get no real benefit out of digitally recording the signal from an amp that's driven hard and that's going through pedals. The amplifier noise actually contributes constructively to the overall effect in some cases. The only sonic advantage of digital is to record something like a solo violin; there are no barriers between you and the instrument.

Would people tend to record classical music straight onto 2-track or is the trend to use a multitrack these days?

From what I hear most classical music is recorded on multitrack.

But isn't that getting away from the purist approach?

Yes, but nowadays everyone's given such a mire of different options, and there's hardly a balance engineer, including myself, who will commit themselves directly to 2-track. Having the tools and facilities there, you can record a Beethoven symphony and then set it up so the first violin's a little lower than the cello section; you can do that in the mix. Besides, I should think in a symphony recording there'd be a lot of leakage. You can control the spectrum with multitrack recording; you can even control where you're sitting (so to speak), at the back of the hall, or right upon the conductor's podium; it all depends on how you mix it.

I suppose one problem with close miking an orchestra is that the sounds are represented wrongly because they actually mature with distance in real life. Air has the effect of absorbing the high frequencies.

That's quite true. The one thing I like about CDs is not the digital recording as such, it's the format itself. I've heard some of my old Bowie albums on CD, and I know what it sounded like because I mixed it, and it's a great relief to hear it without crackles and noise. I could actually hear some subtle reverb treatments I was going for in those days which I'd since forgotten about. On the consumer level digital is a boon, but in the studio, you have always been able to improve on analogue with things like Dolby SR, whereas digital is already saddled with the limitations of it's filter and sampling systems; the only way you can improve digital is to make this present system completely obsolete and start from scratch, which I believe they'll do eventually.

Meanwhile, all this R&D costs us money. A lot of the cost in recording and buying records is taken up with failures. Less than 5% of all records released are hits. Now if every record you released was a hit, you'd be paying a lot less; what you're paying for is that 95% of failures. It's the same with digital recording. You have a system that's taken so long to develop that it's very expensive, and is it really necessary? You can go out and buy a recorder like a Studer to record hits; and you don't have to pay for all that R&D. The sound quality achieved by using digital multitrack is simply not that much better; it's certainly not that audible on the finished product.

Digital in its Place

So you think that the advantages of digital multitrack really are confined to recording classical music and special projects, not 'Rock and Roll?'

Well, I could say folk music too, but you have to go and look at who buys the majority of folk records: college kids with hardly enough money to eat. That's one market that could benefit in sound quality from digital recording but it's not economically viable.

I suppose it's important to consider too just how many record buyers are really hi-fi enthusiasts in the accepted sense. Most people are plugging their CD systems into ordinary stereo tower systems and getting on with it.

A valid point but, I think they made a winner there in terms of what the consumer does get if they do want good hi-fi, and CDs don't deteriorate. But analogue multitrack, is good too. I sit back with great satisfaction at the end of the day and hear what I've put on tape with analogue. I've heard digital multitrack and I feel that there's a coldness to it and it isn't 100% hi-fidelity. There's colouration in any process but analogue has had many more years to work that out.

Would you be tempted to change over if the format settled down and the prices became comparable with analogue?

Sure, of course I would. But I'm not going to go out now and spend tens of thousands of pounds on a Sony digital. The most deplorable thing that has happened in the digital field is the Sony versus Mitsubishi format battle; it's absolutely disgusting. When it becomes affordable and there's an established standard, then of course I'll get one, but until then, I'll wait.

Surely most of the people who do their recording elsewhere and come here to mix, at least for the foreseeable future, would only be able to afford analogue machines, so isn't that another stumbling block for digital multitrack? It's not a great advantage to a client if they're starting off with analogue to have to copy it onto digital.

That's true, but I think digital is still only for the playboy record producers and the playboy pop stars who have got nothing better to spend their money on. If you want to buy a £25,000 Rolex watch, then I'm sure there's a model available and that's useful if you've got a tax problem. But if you just want to tell the time, a £20 Timex will do. Digital is for millionaires; it's like owning a yacht. You can go from A to B in a yacht or you can take the train, and you'll still get there. In other words you can still make a hit record in any analogue studio — even a home studio.

Remix

Doesn't the trend for starting projects off at home mean that studios like yours are eventually going to be more like remix suites than recording studios?

Yes, I've forseen this. People come here to mix; it's a great mixing studio. People tend to actually spend more time mixing these days than recording, and naturally that doesn't worry me at all.

I think the way forward is to concentrate on remix suites, and if you're going to plan a studio, make sure you spend whatever it takes to make the studio as 'flat' as possible. Ultimately people will pay you for a reliable sound. It must however be said that not a lot of acoustic recording is going on in the actual studio area these days, it's largely DId or running directly off a sequencer and the ambience is always artificial. Still, you never know, trends do change, people still practise, and take music lessons, and we might have a renaissance of good players. There are a lot of them about. Sade is one of those who didn't succumb to the sequencer game and she uses some great pop/jazz musicians. People also want to go 48-track and I don't know anyone, not even McCartney, who has 48-track in their home at this moment in time. And, as you were saying before, even with MIDI syncing and sequencing, and programmable drum machines working off a sync code on tape, the trend is still for more tracks because people still want the option to play around with a mix.

If you've got enough keyboards there to actually get them playing 'live' from MIDI during the mix, surely that's one extra generation of tape degradation that you're avoiding, especially now that there are things like low-cost FM sound modules on the market?

Agreed, but who's really got ears sensitive enough to notice that extra generation? To be honest, I haven't really got into working that way yet, except when I did some 8-track recordings at home and then I used my Linn Drum to do a live mix straight on to the stereo mixdown. But I've not done that since I've gone 48-track because every time I put my tape on, I like to hear the sounds I recorded. You can always have a rough mix of the sounds on tape as a reference and then bring your synthesisers in for the mix using a MIDI sequencer which gives you the best of both worlds. Maybe that's what I'll do next time.

The only trouble I have is with my keyboard sounds. I don't always keep a record of my programs, so when I alter a sound, I lose it after a day's recording; I just switch it off and there it goes.

If there are any you do want to keep at least you get the facility to dump them now.

I do have a library of sounds for my DX and my Jupiter 8 and then we have a library of sample sounds for our Publison and things like that, but again, when you're in the middle of the creative process, you don't want to spend time dumping onto tape. For instance, for my Publison I don't have the hard disc drive option which is available now. So if you remember to do it, you put it on an F1... if you remember, and bother.

Market Research

How do you go about attracting musicians to Good Earth?

We found out recently that we're one of the more advanced studios when it comes to marketing ourselves. We've had a full time marketing and public relations department for a year now. A lot of studios pay for their SSL desk and buy equipment that a producer might use only five times on the whole album. That hardly justifies going out and buying it, but you can't get the clients in unless you advertise that you've got a certain amount of hardware. I own almost everything in my studio now, although I'm still paying off the SSL desk. I'm in a business and I would like to make both good music and a profit at the end of the day. That's also the art of living!

Nowadays we have something like 45 SSL studios in Great Britain, mostly in London, and at the moment there are only 20 to 25 album projects on offer. So there are a lot of empty SSL studios. Within a year some of them will be going into liquidation. We're keeping our heads well above water because we efficiently market our studio; we make people aware that we exist and we make sure we cater to our clients' needs. If we have any unbooked time, we mailshot our regular clients to let them know at very short notice. Naturally we offer them a high class service. I'm sure we're not alone in that, but some studio managers just wait till the phone rings and they don't have any kind of planned marketing strategies. That's where Steve comes in. During the nine months the Moody Blues were here, people forgot our existence. The Moody Blues told us, 'Look, we're warning you, we close studios. You'll have us here for nine, maybe 18 months to do an album.' People just write those studios off after a while. New studios open up and clients try out the flavour of the month, but what we've done here is to establish our credentials, we've been on this spot for nearly ten years and we still provide a great service.

My philosophy was to put everything I could into building the studio. I made it very individual and stamped my mark all over it. When you walk in, instead of being greeted with slatted pine, as found in most studios, it appears a bit like a ghetto-blaster. Because the studio is individual, I think we have more dedicated clients: people who cannot record anywhere else.

But, considering the comprehensive services you offer, that can't be cheap. So isn't that another reason for people to do as much recording as possible at home or in a cheaper studio, only coming here to mix? After all, once you've bought your own studio, you've got unlimited studio time to get the thing right. At £100 per hour, the pressure is on to make the first take the best, and the strain is bound to tell, especially if the clients have any involvement in financing the project.

There are some people who thrive on the excitement of being in a studio. They actually get a kick out of spending £100 an hour! It creates similar conditions to the fear and nervousness they experience on stage. I've always improved on any home demo in this respect. The fact is that when you've got to that big moment, you've got to sing it now. It's a question of psychology. I find people at home are too laid back; the disadvantage of having too much time is that you often don't do your best.

If on the other hand you want to do something really personal, say if it's a little, gentle love song, when no one's around you might feel better about saying 'I love you, baby, darling etc.' in your own home. In this studio we have the technicians, and a few musicians, and you think 'Oh God, I can't say that and mean it!' At home I manage to just get the basic rhythm patterns down and do my basic sequencing, but I like to come in here to finish off recording. Personally I also believe that vocals have to have the right kind of suspense, and I find you can only do that in the studio.

Just Too Perfect

Talking of the emotional element, do you think that with all the MIDI sequencers in use, people are now tending to try and produce perfect music which is low in emotional content and rather bland, whereas in fact it might be better if they were to just get in there and play something?

I agree with that. Even in my own work recently, I'm finding that even as a master programmer I'm fed up because there're no quirks. I find myself programming little mistakes in here and there. But in the end why don't I get up there and play it rather than programming it? Even the quirky programming gets predictable now; I've got a technique where I speed up the choruses and slow down the verses. With the Moody Blues I got them to play live drums over a programmed bass drum, so at least the top kit was played live, and thank God, you still have to play the guitar. I've never heard a convincing programmed or sampled guitar, but the trend is heading that way. I think we've gone through the period of the last five years of having it perfect and now we're finding that perfect just isn't perfect anymore!

Tony Visconti puts the musician firmly before technology and when the next music revolution comes along to hit back at automation and clinical production, you can bet that he'll be in there somewhere encouraging it.

For more information, please contact: Omer-li Cohen, Good Earth Productions Ltd, (Contact Details).