I really didn’t know what to expect when I approached Broadjam about doing mastering for their clients. I hoped I’d get lots of music, make it sound great, and have people be thrilled with the results. After mastering dozens and dozens of tracks, thankfully, that’s exactly what’s happened.

But just in case, I also included a clause in my agreement with Broadjam that if I felt something was unmasterable, I’d have the right to reject it, and the person would get their money back – no harm, no foul. That way if the music really sucked, I’d be off the hook.

Well, I almost had to invoke that clause today, but not because the music sucked.

I start off all my mastering jobs by just listening to a song to get the “vibe.” But after about a minute, I had to stop: The subject matter was domestic violence, and it was so powerful I had to pause. We’re not talking cheap shots; the lyrics weren’t about graphic violence, and the music wasn’t abrasive. In fact, if you didn’t know English, you’d figure based on the music is was about some guy who was unhappy with his girlfriend or something.

However, I do know English – and the song’s emotional impact was undeniable, partially because it did avoid melodrama. I took a break, cleared my head, then went back to it. It was extremely difficult to keep listening to the song over and over again, as I made the various subtle adjustments that go into mastering. Eventually, I did finish the song, and I think I did a really good job – but I was an emotional basket case for hours afterward.

This isn’t the first time by any means I’ve felt a strong emotional connection to the music I’m being sent. Two songwriters submitted songs about losing their fathers, and I’m not ashamed to admit they both brought tears to my eyes (and they both managed to be poignant without wallowing in sentimentality, which is very hard to pull off). Another song was so exuberant that, despite a questionable mix, it put me in a great mood for the rest of the day. And I got one “breakup song” from a lady where by the end, I was really, really hoping she’d taken all the guy’s stuff out of her house, and dumped it on the curb. You go, girl!

So what’s the point of all this? In all my years of writing about music and technology, I’ve emphasized over and over again that technology doesn’t really mean that much: All that matters is the music’s emotional impact. When I listen to a lot of music these days, the technology is fabulous, but the emotional impact just isn’t there.

Well, you guys haven’t forgotten what music is all about. It’s an honor to work with your music, and while we all know that the odds of success is this business are about the same as getting struck by lightning, based on what I’m hearing I can only urge you all to keep following your muse. What you’re doing turns mastering from a job to a joy. Thank you!

One of the common questions I get is “If a mix is really good, then why would mastering be necessary?” And that’s a valid question, because if the mix sounds good, then that’s all you should need…right?

In theory, doing a great mix would eliminate the need for mastering. But this is rarely the case; the analogy I’d use is putting dressing on a salad. You could put a certain amount of dressing on each piece of lettuce, tomato, etc.; when combined, you should have the same results as putting dressing on the entire salad. This would be like optimizing every track, and assuming that when put together, something would sound “mastered.” But in my experience, salads are best when tossed, and I’ve never heard a mix—no matter how good—that couldn’t benefit in some way from quality mastering.

The main reason for this is that when you mix, you’re working on individual tracks to create the best possible blend of all the sounds. But when you master, you’re listening to that blend, and determining what needs to be done to make the composite sound better—not just the sounds of the individual tracks.

For example, suppose the overall sound is just a tiny bit dull. When mixing, you’d have to listen to each track and increase the brightness a little bit on each one to produce the desired result—and even then, you might make one track too bright or one not bright enough. When mastering, you can add a little brightness to the overall stereo (or surround) mix, thus influencing all instruments. If you add a slight high-frequency boost, you’re doing the equivalent of adding that boost to all tracks in the music.

Then again, it’s also true that the better the mix, the more likely it is that the mastering will turn out better as well. It won’t be necessary to add as much processing or do “salvage job” mastering, where the task of compensating for problems in the mix fall on the mastering engineer. In one tune I mastered, the guitar was slightly out of tune, and I was asked if that’s something I could fix in mastering. Sorry! I can’t just magically extract a single instrument from a stereo mix and then fix the tuning. Well, at least not with today’s technology.

No matter how good your mix is, there’s always room for improvement. Many years ago, before I started doing my own mastering, I had a CD mastered by ace Nashville mastering engineer Randy Kling. He said the CD hardly needed anything, but he was able to pull back the highs in a few places to reduce some hiss, and added a bit of limiting to make the tracks jump out a little bit more. Were the results radically different? No. Was it worth it? Absolutely—those subtle touches added just the right amount of “seasoning.””

However, do remember that mastering is not intended to salvage a recording, but enhance an already solid mix. If there’s a problem with the mix, remix the tune—don’t count on mastering to solve the problem (although I’ll certainly give it my best shot!).