Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Over a decade has passed since Eliot Bates examined ‘what studios do’. In the meantime, discussions surrounding decline and transformation in music production often depict a grim outlook for the future of large-format recording studios confluent with a burgeoning lower-cost, DAW-based DIY recording sector. This paper conducts a census of commercial recording studios along the east coast of Australia by gathering data from their websites. This approach offers a methodology to study recording studio cultures and explore what studios think they do. It offers insights into how studios present, communicate and promote themselves to prospective clients. The language used, promoted equipment and services offered all convey a particular position in the recording domain, with the goal of future business and stability for the studio. Beyond functional goals a recording studio purports to achieve, this article contends that studios don’t share a standard format of practice, they rely equally on the personnel that own and operate the facility and the technology within, they do not adequately acknowledge structural diversity issues in the sector, they assume that potential clients understand the value of specific technology, and they are diversifying beyond standard modes of practice to remain a viable business.

Keywords

music production cultural industries Australian music recording sector media technology recording studios

Introduction

In 2012, Eliot Bates proposed the recording studio as a site that facilitates human and non-human interactions while managing and organizing power relationships. Beyond functional descriptions of recording studios, they can be classified ‘as acoustic environments, as meeting places, as container technologies, as a system of constraints on vision, sound and mobility’ (p. 1). Other scholars have described the studio as a laboratory (Hennion, 1989), a non-place or a temple of sound (Théberge, 2012), and a factory assembly line or ‘an artist’s workshop’ (Kealy, 1982). More recently, Bates (2020) described the studio as a social space with ‘uneven entanglement between four domains: the material, the spatial, the positional and the occupational’ (p. 126). In other words, the social constraints of the studio are a synthesis of

the physical matter of the studios, the organization of objects and people in the space, the positionality of the studio in relation to the outside world, and the way in which occupations contribute to production labour (p. 126).

Bates views the recording studio as ‘container technologies’ (emphasis in original, 2012 p. (2) with a womblike quality ‘designed to be unobtrusive and, like the environment mother, “make their presence felt, but not noticed”’ (Sofia as cited in Bates, 2012). However, despite any gendered interpretation of Bates’ claims ‘recording studios are not always in the background nor environmental in character, as they call attention to themselves throughout the recording process, during musical and non-musical forms of work’ (p. 2). In Bates’ paper, they explored the studio through six lenses. However, due to the changing conditions of the commercial recording studio, these areas of inquiry need to be reassessed. Bates claimed:

1. They affect/effect sound during both tracking and mixing and may become the focus of audition or the subject of critical listening.

2. They isolate studio workers from the outside world, and the world from studio work, while possessing a visual and audible difference from other work environments.

3. They constrain lines of sight and focus visual attention on key places or objects within the studio.

4. They constrain paths of audibility and precipitate the need for monitoring, talkback and other technologies of audition.

5. They cultivate new practices and shape social interactions.

6. They may become pilgrimage sites or even become synonymous with an entire local musical scene (p. 2).

Points two, three and four are now subject to the style of recording studio, with more commercial recordings taking place in a domestic space that is potentially less isolated from private life, with no isolation spaces and limited modes of audition. While point six remains true, amongst the delocalization of recording practice, it’s difficult to envision that recording sites will continue to be canonized. Additionally, the recording studio’s ability to contribute to local music scenes is also under contention due to ongoing gentrification reducing access to low-cost industrial properties (see Shaw, 2017). Bates’ detailed account of the role of the recording studio continues to describe the actions that take place in many recording environments, reasoning that ‘the more we wish to understand the vibe and sound of the studios, the more we may wish to consider the studio as an active agent in the process of recording production, an actor in the social worlds that inhabit its very wombs and bunkers’ (2012, p. 20).

It is not our intention to rewrite or update what studios do. Rather than asking what studios do, we think it is useful to ask ‘what studios think they do’. This article proposes a methodological approach to studying recording studio cultures amidst challenges and transformation in the sector. Due to the unstructured nature of recording studio business operations, data is difficult to access (Théberge, 2012). In this study, we have used recording studio websites as a publicly available data source. The way these recording studios position themselves in their field, through websites that include text and images about the studio and its services, offers some insights into this question. Bates’ distillation of the recording studio as a social space brings attention to how recording studios choose to market themselves to potential clients, and the language used to depict specific elements of their practice, the recording space, their utilization of technology and other practices of the recording studio. We propose that website data offers valuable insights into what studios believe they do, highlighting which aspects of their facilities and services they wish to emphasize and the type of client they envision.

The vicissitudes of the recording studio

At the time of writing, the recording studio is represented in three distinct types: large-format, desktop and hybrid. We will describe how we delineate these studio types in this research. In defining ‘large-format’, we adopt a similar description by Goold and Graham (2019): ‘A large-format recording studio as consisting of a console of 24 channels or more; the ability to record 24 or more inputs at the same time; an acoustically treated, isolated control room and multiple acoustically isolated recording spaces of varying sizes. A notable trait is that the console is usually centrally located within the studio’. Desktop studios are defined as one-room environments where the technologies are mostly computer-based – or supported by software. This might mean that physical preamps or signal processors we might encounter in large-format studios are often exclusively found in software form. Mainstream music is influencing popular music production and changing the logic of recording to ‘in the box’ processes of manipulating samples, synthesis and loops (Reuter, 2022). While the studios examined are commercial because they have established websites to entice clients to use them, these studios are not too dissimilar to private studios one might have in their home. Hybrid studios have isolated recording spaces similar to a large-format studio, but not to the same scale. Similar to desktop studios, they rely on a computer for a lot of the studio’s workflow. But crucially, they feature analogue outboard gear and as such have all of the processing flavours in analogue form one might expect from a large-format studio. Hybrid format studios seem to be a popular workflow setup for modern production.

Music scholars have charted the closure of large-format recording studios in the 21st century (Théberge, 2012; Watson, 2013) and the consequential changing practices of recording for popular music producers (Goold and Graham, 2019). Théberge (2012) contends that the status of the large-format studio is precarious and yet the overall number of studios is increasing. Goold and Graham (2019) argue that large-format recording processes are increasingly unviable, and financial necessity is driving the proliferation of do it yourself (DIY) or domestic based recording scenarios. While both of these positions may remain relevant, one might assume that Théberge’s studio increase may be accounted for in less industrialized environments focused on smaller footprints and digital audio workstation-based (DAW) technology. This paper hopes to move beyond these assumptions using data gathered from recording studio websites to ascertain a clearer picture of the nature of the ‘changed’ recording sector using the major capital cities of Australia as a case study.

Scholars have claimed that the musical economy has grown with advancing technology from Edison until well into the 70s (Leyshon, 2009; Pras et al., 2013). Bennett (2019) describes the profound way music technology changed the way music is performed, produced and consumed between the late 70s and 2000s. What is clear from the literature is that large studios exist within a changing technological context that has accelerated with software-based recording approaches over the past 25 years. So too, the work done in smaller, DIY or domestic studios can be sonically indistinguishable from the established large-format studio (Goold and Graham, 2019). Pras et al. (2013) claim that the transforming nature of recording technology has affected performance and composition. From an economic perspective, recording budgets have shrunk resulting in less large capital investment from major stakeholders, being the record labels (Leyshon, 2009). As a result of the changing music business, ‘the required skill sets, work environments, sources and types of work, and the ways and means of remuneration are all in a state of flux’ (2008 p.1). Goold and Graham (2019) epitomize this progression.

The recording studio has had a history that is akin to the industrial zeitgeist at any given time. At some stages, it was like a laboratory. At others, it became like a production line factory…. At others, it became the creative equivalent of a project office. (122)

The increasing expense of commercial space confluent with the reduction in cost of previously expensive equipment has allowed producers at all levels to operate private studios and gain more control over the recording budget, thereby challenging the viability of large commercial facilities (Watson 2013). Watson acknowledges the large-format studio decline but optimistically observes ‘increased opportunities for individual producers to run their own smaller project studios’ (p. 331) with Goold (2022) declaring ‘[c]onditions have led to large-format recording studio practices dwindling in favour of lower-cost ‘do it yourself’ (DIY) production processes in the UK, US and Australia’ (p. 238). While scholars have documented DIY production processes resulting from digital recording approaches, our research indicates that large-format studios persist, albeit operating under more dynamic economic conditions, offering a wider range of services, with a higher turnover of clientele.

The demanding economic conditions of the recording studio have drawn academic attention in recent years. Current production contexts occur against the backdrop of less economic investment in recording projects. Pras et al. (2013) posit that musicians have more freedom and are self-financing and controlling larger portions of the recording process (including management and promotion) without enlisting the services of studio professionals from the outset, thereby altering the collaborative process in the studio. Recording budget reductions and dynamic economic conditions have resulted in less capital flowing through the recording sector (Leyshon, 2009). Recording companies have exerted a hegemonic control over large recording studios that used to rely on significant recording projects bankrolled by these corporations (Watson, 2013). Marshall (2020) points to shrinking recording budgets being responsible for the consolidation of production and engineering into one role. Additionally, the closed nature of large-format commercial recording processes gate kept prized recording secrets and expertise (Leyshon 2009) that has since been diffused by online YouTube channels dedicated to recording studio processes and approaches (McNally and Seay, 2020). Greater access to recording studio knowledge and recruiting professional expertise for limited tasks online (such as pre-production, mixing and mastering) has empowered songwriters and musicians to record themselves (Pras and Guastavino, 2011) with production becoming a core skill for the modern musician (Knowles and Hewitt, 2012).

While many scholars have stated that the quality and sophistication of the recording studio have advanced with technology through the 19^th and 20^th centuries (Leyshon, 2009; Pras et al., 2013) with some disagreement related to digital technologies (Burkeman, 2006; Williams, 2015), the one aspect that is clear is that the advancements in technology have reduced the economic barriers to the technology. This analysis attempts to ascertain who is currently the customer and how is technology valued in the Australian recording sector.

Understanding recording studios through website data

This paper seeks to analyse what studios think they do by examining their website positioning strategies, including what they emphasize and what they downplay. Recording studio websites serve as a valuable resource for observation. Consequently, the primary research materials for this project consist of website data from these studios. Music scholars have commented on promotion strategies used by recording studios that extend beyond a website. In some cases, famous recording studios sought to remind potential clients of the famous artists they have worked with. As Bennett argues, Abbey Road ‘exploits its past to secure its future’ (Bennett, 2016). This indicates that even the most famous studios of the world can’t rely on a lingering and self-sustaining cultural capital; they must intervene to ensure that potential clients and music production cultures more broadly are consistently reminded of its important history and, in turn, its suitability for recording music now.

There is a strong incentive for studios to maintain websites, as they act as promotional tools for the business. Websites provide essential information about products and services, aiding customers in making informed purchasing choices (Griffiths, 2012). They also assist companies in building their brand (Müller and Chandon, 2003; Barreda et al., 2016), enhance customer engagement (Bravo et al., 2020; Demangeot and Broderick, 2016) and allow brands to collect analytics to refine their marketing strategies (Gaur et al., 2016).

The internet is fundamentally intertwined with the current operations of global music industries. Therefore, our emphasis on websites is part of a larger practice. The web uniquely impacts the music industry, with recording studio websites representing a broader narrative about how the World Wide Web has significantly transformed music. A full discussion on how the internet and the digitization of music has affected the recording studio industry is not our focus here. However, it is also important to recognize that the presence of websites for recording studios has become ubiquitous over the past 20 years or so. Before this time, there were other media through which recording studios could be promoted, and consequently, where information about them could be found. For example, the Australasian music industry directory (https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/2607702), published by Immedia between 1990 and 2017, was a key resource for this. If someone wanted to learn about recording studios in Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne, they could purchase this directory to find listings.

The primary data collected in this research arises from the results of the search terms ‘recording studio [capital city]’. On April 19 2024, we conducted a Google search for three terms, ‘recording studios Sydney’, ‘recording studio Brisbane’ and ‘recording studio Melbourne’. Some results were from companies that provide services to recording studios (such as maintenance), and some results were from directories of recording studios. We collected results that were websites that represented a specific recording studio. Search engines, such as Google, are accused of reducing the visibility of non-sponsored or organic links in favour of sponsored content (Maillé et al., 2022). In order to obviate this bias as much as possible, the search was conducted over 10 pages of results – until the search results only included specific pages from websites already listed on previous pages.

One key limitation of this approach is that rather than capturing all of the recording studios in these areas, we have captured those with websites. We acknowledge that the presence or absence of an active website is not necessarily indicative of a recording studio’s operational status – an open studio may have a dormant site, and vice versa. This analysis, therefore, treats the websites as representations captured at a particular moment rather than as verified accounts of ongoing practice. Additionally, there are ways of promoting recording studios that fall outside of a standalone website, including social media platforms such as Instagram or Facebook. The lower financial barrier to creating a dedicated Instagram or Facebook page may suit a particular ‘type’ of studio – newly established studios or those with less professional aspirations – but is also used by more established studios for targeted paid promotions. Further, many self-recording artists have owner-operated studios solely to record their own work – this type of studio is not under analysis here. While further exploration of studio businesses on social media would be valuable, it falls outside the scope of this research.

In addition to the data collected from websites, this research is informed by the positionality of the authors as Australian-based music producers. Here we deploy a practice-led approach where we are not creating an artefact, but our analysis is ‘founded in practice’ (Candy and Edmonds, 2018). Both authors have professional experience in music production on the Australian East Coast. This meant we expected to find specific recording studios in the Google results. It also meant that we could interpret the images and the text presented to identify the names and brands of specific gear and software. Thus, we approach this research with an emic knowledge of recording studios and an etic viewpoint of the recording studio website. Here we are extending the common application of practice-based research in popular music of ‘audiences, commerce, stylistic norms and gatekeepers’ and beyond the common popular music foci of style, form, cultural considerations, equity and inclusion, to view a studio website as an artefact for practice-based analysis (Zagorski-Thomas et al., 2023. p. 3).

It is important to note that the data we collected is localized to websites and not the studios themselves. We apply a Netnographic approach to analyse the text on the websites, but also the images, video, sound files and other additional digital artefacts (Kozinets, 2015). A studio’s website provides insight into how those associated with the studio wish to be depicted. The positioning of the text, images and videos, the elements of the studios that are highlighted, and the elements that are obscured are all decisions that are made, mostly to improve the chances of attracting clients to record there. Website access and design are not freely or evenly available to all, meaning that efforts to position the studio in a particular way might reflect constraints on the amount of resources that could be applied. There are limitations on the degree to which some aspects of the studio can be misrepresented, such as the size of a live room or the presence of a large-format recording console.

The East Coast of Australia includes the three most populous cities and thereby the most cultural activity (Cunningham S & McCutcheon, 2016). While other areas of Australia have vibrant cultural hubs and areas of increased recording studio density, such as Byron Bay (Gibson and Connell, 2003) and the Sunshine Coast (Goold, 2023), their activity does not match the number of studios in capital cities. We chose three sites as cultural geographers often compare three sites to draw cohesive generalizations (see Behr et al., 2020; Ross, 2007; Schwanen et al., 2012). When using the search terms in this research, some results fell outside of the prescribed Local Government Area (LGA), with the ‘Brisbane’ search term giving results for the neighbouring Moreton Bay and Redlands regional council, and ‘Sydney’ giving results for the Sutherland Shire Council and Queanbeyan in Canberra. While these are rare exceptions to the bulk of the results returned, the assumption can be made that their peri-urban locations are attempting to lure potential urban clients to their businesses.

Insights from recording studio websites

We present our findings in a series of tables followed by an interpretation of those findings (Table 1).

Table 1.

Studio categorization data.

Studio trait	Sydney	Melbourne	Brisbane	Total	Comment
Geographic location	24 (33.8%)	27 (38%)	19 (26.8%)	71	One website was inactive in both Sydney and Brisbane
Large-format studios	8 (28.6%)	13 (46.4%)	7 (25%)	28 (39.4%)
Hybrid	11 (34.4%)	13 (40.6%)	8 (25%)	32 (45%)
Desktop	4 (36.4%)	4 (36.4%)	3 (27.3%)	11 (15.5%)
Multi-room/short-term hire	2	1	2	5	Without recording equipment
Unclear	3	0	1	4
Community/school	2	1	1	4

Geographic positioning and studio categorization

Our survey revealed the ratio of the number of recording studios more or less reflect the population sizes of these areas which in 2024 was Sydney 5,450,496 (40.8% of the analysed population), Melbourne 5,207,145 (39%) and Brisbane 2,706,996 (20.3%) (Table 1). One of the key elements of studios that we identified by looking at their websites was that there were different kinds of studios, including large-format, desktop and hybrid. Multi-room for short-term hire, community studios and studios where the type was unclear. The large-format studios we surveyed include long-standing Sydney studios: Studios 301, Trackdown and A Sharp in Sydney; Sing Sing and Woodstock studios in Melbourne and Airlock studios in Brisbane, which conform to our definition. These studios have been trading for more than 20 years (sometimes under different owners) and are what general audiences would most likely be familiar with, as this style of studio frequently appears in biopics and other media documentaries.

The desktop studios surveyed include Safe House Studios (Sydney), Turnstyle (Melbourne) and Resonate Music (Brisbane). Other larger studio complexes advertise a desktop studio to augment a multi-studio facility, such as Trackdown and Kiln Studios (Sydney) and the Base (Melbourne). Three of the four community-based studios were desktop in nature. Desktop studios generally feature services offered and producer bios over extensive equipment lists, and if available for dry-hire, they focus on mixing and the monitoring environment.

Hybrid format studios were identified as the largest sector in our analysis. Some of the hybrid studios we surveyed included Church Street Studios and Defwolf (Sydney), Pughouse Studios and Incubator Studios (Melbourne) and Little Street Studio and Gasworks Recording Studio (Brisbane). The popularity of this style of studio demonstrates a smaller capital outlay and a shift away from a ‘known’ large-format console in favour of an outboard-only setup.

A new style of hiring studio space emerged in our data. Multi-room for short-term hire facilities feature acoustically treated and isolated control rooms suitable for short to long-term hire. These spaces range from fully operational hybrid studios, to basic equipment for monitoring with a studio table for the prospective tenant, to empty rooms including room treatment. Most are bring-your-own (BYO) device-styled facilities. These spaces cater to bedroom producers looking to mix a project in an acoustically treated space, or for short-term songwriting and production sabbaticals. Five of these multi-room facilities appeared in the results accounting for 38 dry-hire spaces (Trackdown and Brightside in Sydney, Fallback in Melbourne and 4000 Studios and Hunting Grounds in Brisbane). An additional 5 studios offered their space for dry-hire.

While the websites we surveyed produced a lot of data, there were four occasions where a studio type could not be identified from the information available. This was largely due to the way the images and texts were presented, making it difficult to work out if there was a console or multi-room arrangement present in the studio. This feeds back into the limitations of websites.

Technological transformation has created these different types of studios. Given the amount of literature that points to the ubiquity of recording outside of large-format recording studio contexts, it can be easy to draw a comparison between commercial spaces and private spaces along a technological divide. However, we found that a number of commercial studios are desktop and hybrid. This emphasizes that studios located in the capital cities on the East Coast of Australia vary in their characteristics. Instead of a uniform design, they take on fundamentally different forms, which influence their workflow. Further, these fundamental differences are evident in how they are presented on their websites. The studios we surveyed suggest that commercial studios are diverse and reflect the technological transformations of the past 30 years. Changes have fundamentally altered the form and function of commercial studios, although older approaches endure.

Studio environment types illustrate what studios think they do. It suggests that the fundamental elements of how music is recorded and produced can vary from studio to studio and can be categorized into approximately four types. Only four out of 71 did not provide enough information for us to place them into a specific category. This implies that, collectively, studios don’t share a standard format as a baseline for professional music production. However, many of the studios claim to be professional. Fifteen studios from our analysis use the word ‘professional’ in the text displayed on the website; 9 of those studios were hybrid, 2 were desktop, 2 were large-format and 3 of the unclear studios. Additional words such as ‘high quality’, ‘premier’ and ‘best/finest’ appeared 8, 8 and 5 times, respectively, across all studio types, except multi-room hire and desktop studios. Clearly, the type of studio offering does not dictate the quality or professionalism that the studio thinks it can provide.

Table 2.

Hiring scenarios and rates.

Studio trait	Number of studios	Comment
Advertise rates	30
Dry-hire (not short-term hire spaces)	29	The hire arrangements for 4 studios was unclear
In-house only	33 (46.4%)	The hire arrangements for 4 studios was unclear

Pricing structures: How recording studio frame affordability and value

The rates advertised indicate the fees charged for services, which can be hourly, daily, weekly or project-based or a flat rate on the completion of a song, album or EP. Rates may cover just the dry-hire of the studio space, or they could include hiring an engineer or working with the producer who owns the studio. This indicates that approximately half of the studios in the capital cities of the East Coast of Australia display their rates. In a world where recording studios are pervasive, a healthy market exists primarily focused on charging clients for services, although the costs of these services may not always be immediately clear.

In our analysis, we found that the recording studios had different hiring arrangements (Table 2). An in-house-only arrangement means that the studio could not be booked without an engineer, who in many cases would also be the owner. Dry-hire studios represent an emerging trend between a lockout hire of a fully equipped studio and a domestic space. Often, an in-house producer works at the studio, but it could also be hired without them. It was unclear what the hiring arrangements were for 4 studios. This indicates that around half of the studios depend entirely on the people who work there, meaning they cannot operate without these individuals. The other half of studios represent hiring a purpose-built space without the personnel to operate the technology. This recognizes the shift towards DIY-based practice while attempting to capitalize on providing a suitable environment to record. Here we observe that half the studios think their space and personnel provide perceived value, while the other half see value only in the provision of a purpose-built space.

Table 3.

Biographies and previous studio client lists.

Studio trait	Number of studios	Comment
Displayed bio	34
No bio	23	Excluding dry-hire only
Client list	38

Biographies and previous studio client lists

Bios allow studios to showcase the previous work of the producers and engineers associated with them. Bios had a text passage detailing professional achievements, educational background, skills and areas of expertise of the producers and engineers who worked in the studio. This suggests that although discussions about studios often emphasize space and technology, the individuals working in these studios are central to their overall functionality and appeal. It also highlights that the people within a studio contribute to defining its various specializations and interests (Table 3).

The lack of gender equity in the recording studio is an ongoing concern (Wolfe, 2021). A limitation of this methodology is that we are unable to determine the gender of the studio practitioners without making assumptions. However, five studios promoted an inclusive and accessible space directly in the language used on their website. While this is only a small percentage of our data (7%), this represents that a minority of studios recognize the structural equity imbalances of the recording studio. While we find this encouraging, there is a long way to go before the recording studio thinks that diversity, equity and inclusion are worthwhile causes to promote.

More than half the studios in our data set use client links to showcase the musicians who have recorded in their studio. If one navigates the Abbey Road website, they are quickly reminded that it has a long and significant clientele list consisting of ‘The Beatles, Fela Kuti, Pink Floyd, Kate Bush, Yehudi Menuhin, Massive Attack, Amy Winehouse, Oasis, Nick Cave, Stevie Wonder and Shirley Bassey, to the legends of today – Lady Gaga, Little Simz, The Smile, Florence, Dave, Sheku Kanneh-Mason, Frank Ocean, Ezra Collective, Sam Smith, Morgan Wallen and Stormzy’ (Abbey Road). In these cases, the names themselves, and the mere mention of these names confers a sense that this is a space where renowned recording artists have worked. This approach is used in some studios in our survey, such as Studios 301, which have a long history of internationally recognized artists to showcase. Despite this, those studios with a client list add previous clients in the hopes that a prospective client will recognize one of the recordings. However, it’s not feasible for all studios, especially newer ones. In several surveyed studios, more than just a client list exists; artists provide testimonials sharing their positive experiences with the environment and team. A common word used in the website text was ‘experienced’, appearing 17 times, with 5 of these studios not including either a client list or bio. While there are no metrics as to what constitutes an experienced engineer or producer, all but 18 qualifying studios (i.e. excluding dry-hire) present a client list, bio or claim to be experienced.

This indicates that studios think that artists often choose where to record based on either the name recognition of those who have worked there previously, the experience of the in-house recordist or the positive feedback from past users. Client feedback is crucial for businesses. It aids in identifying and promoting their strengths (Shin et al., 2023). This feedback can influence the various factors customers assess when engaging with a business (Wang, 2002).

The representation of bios and client lists reveal much about what studios think they do. The information indicates that many studios think they are closely tied to the individuals who work there. Both the studio staff and the artists who record there contribute to this image.

Table 4.

Equipment lists.

Studio trait	Number of studios	Comment
Display a gear list	48 (67.6%)
List plugin collection	20 (28.2%)
Large-format console (LFC)	30 (42%)	35 LFC’s in total
Studio that list or display a DAW	48 (67.6%)	17 studios offered more than one DAW
List a tape machine	16 (22.5%)
Services beyond music production	45 (63.3%)

Representations of technology in recording studio websites

A common element seen on recording studio websites is a list of studio equipment. ‘Gear’ generally refers to the recording equipment available in a specific studio – the console (if the studio has one), pre-amplifiers, the recorder (software or hardware), microphones, instruments and signal processors. These lists often highlight brands like SSL and Neve, which are frequently found in such environments. The conversation surrounding music production, shaped by blogs, press and forums, has cultivated particular preferences for certain gear types. By showcasing these lists, studios signal their possession of desirable technologies. Despite their diverse designs, studio websites tend to align with a recognized set of gear, suggesting a shared standard within the industry. Gear lists serve as a means to enhance a studio’s status, fulfilling the expectations of potential clients regarding necessary, or even required equipment. Nevertheless, this situation prompts inquiries about the general awareness of these renowned brands and technologies among individuals looking to hire studios for recording. Nonetheless, documentaries like ‘Sound City’ and plugins such as UAD indicate that these brands may be recognized well beyond those directly involved in recording studio operations and workflows. This points out that studios on the East Coast of Australia primarily showcase the equipment available within them. They tend to use a ‘gear language’ that aligns with a broader understanding of what types of equipment are valued. This suggests that recording studios think that prospective clients will have a good understanding of gear, illustrating how home studio setups foster knowledge of the types of equipment used in professional environments and the associated costs. Additionally, studios are referencing mythologies associated with equipment in an effort to evaluate their status. Further research could be conducted to explore how recording studios utilize these mythologies to legitimize their operations and ongoing viability.

Software and digital tools: How studios communicate technological capabilities

Software details are an occurring feature of studio websites. Plugins are a fascinating aspect of studio websites and plugin brands were included 20 (28%) times (Table 4). Regardless of whether they are mentioned, plugins play a vital role in every studio’s workflow, and their importance has grown significantly in recent years. The range of plugins has evolved beyond traditional signal processors like compressors and equalizers to encompass microphones and space emulation, digital spatial effect emulations, software synths, pitch correction, noise reduction and many more. This trend highlights the increasing ability of software to emulate physical studio hardware. Consequently, plugins have likely become a common component of music production, prevalent in both small and large production settings. Returning to what studios think they do, we might say that they offer a technological environment unattainable at home. However, mentions of plugins, despite their significance in production workflows, do not reinforce this argument. Moreover, this inclusion may empower the client to consider the potential to hire the studio to augment the artist’s own recording scenario.

Table 5.

Brands of DAWs in our data set.

DAW	Number of studios
Pro Tools	44
Logic	15
Ableton	12
Reaper	3
FL Studio	2
Reason, Performer and Cubase	1
Unclear	21

Digital audio workstations

So too, the brand of DAW can become a symbol of status, or may define the type of work that may take place in a studio. Pro Tools’ frequent mention both reflects and reinforces its status as the industry standard. This designation contributes to a discourse that often links Pro Tools with industry norms and professionalism (Keith et al., 2022). It’s noteworthy that 48 studios identified a DAW, considering its importance in nearly all studio operations, as it epitomizes the concept of ubiquity in music production, starting with a smartphone (Table 5). DAWs may also serve as a point of familiarity, potentially indicating compatibility for those looking to start at home before transitioning to a commercial setting. This indicates that while studios make considerable effort to highlight features that may not be achievable in home recording setups, they frequently reference elements familiar to home recordists preparing for their next project in a commercial or professional setting. Recording studios think that the client has knowledge of the different DAW types and operation.

Table 6.

Console brands in our data set.

Console brand	Total number of consoles
Solid state logic	8
Neve	5
AMEK	4
AP1, Auditronics, Cadac, Yamaha, MCI, Midas, Harrison, Soundcraft, Tonelux, Soundworkshop, Neotek, Trident, Toft, Euphonix and Fix Audio	1

Mixing consoles in recording studio: Emphasizing analogue vs. digital technologies

Unlike DAWs, large studios tend to feature expansive setups due to their significant physical dimensions as well as the high costs associated with their purchase and maintenance. It’s intriguing that the most commonly mentioned brands, SSL and Neve, also hold a prominent place in music discussions, such as the emphasis on the Neve console’s importance presented in the Sound City documentary (O’Grady, 2021). Furthermore, these brands frequently appear in software emulations, where their hardware counterparts are symbolically represented in digital form (O’Grady, 2021). However, the survey indicates that large recording consoles are a perceived standard in commercial studios, and websites highlight their prominent presence (Table 6).

The aesthetic and functional appeal of tape and vintage equipment

Tape is a recurring feature in the studios we examined. In our analysis, no studio was devoid of digital recording software in some capacity; while some of the larger studios would be capable of a 100% analogue recording, a DAW was still offered. In a tape-based situation, most likely, tape works alongside a DAW and computer system. Tape is renowned for its contribution to classic recordings, along with the coloured and harmonically rich sound it produces. Tape is also expensive, onerous to maintain (both the tape and the machine), and an inaccurate recording medium with a laborious workflow (real-time access, limited editing and expensive medium). When tape is used in conjunction with a DAW, a client can attempt to utilize the nostalgia and cultural capital of tape alongside the workflow and editing capacity of the DAW. The presence of tape clearly distinguishes studio types. Operating and maintaining tape necessitates considerable specialized knowledge, potentially distinguishing those who market services from private DIY operations arising from digital technologies. This is a prominent feature of their website where tape machines are available as a workflow within a studio. It can be contextualized with a decade-long obsession with vintage gear as described by Bennett (2012).

The presentation of recording technologies on the websites of recording studios reveals a great deal about what they think they do. The repeated references to the technologies used in their studios suggest that they believe this is both a central aspect of their work and an essential factor for people when deciding where to produce music. While this aligns with a broader fixation on recording technology in music production, the repeated appearances on the websites of recording studios indicate that these studios have a diverse array of gear, and the websites are used to communicate the details of these technologies on an item-by-item basis.

Diversification of studio offerings: Mastering, production and rehearsal services

Our analysis of studio websites revealed that studios offer a range of services beyond music recording. This reflects a broader set of changes in the cultural industries described by Jenkins (2006) as Convergence. But it also reveals the continuation of a practice within recording studios over the past 20 years. Gibson (2005) notes that studios are shifting their focus to non-music sectors. The services beyond music production encompass film/foley, rehearsal space, tuition, podcasts, voiceovers and audiobooks. Notably, some of these services tap into emerging media production markets, such as podcasts and audiobooks. One location categorizes one space under two different brands and websites. King Sound and Brightside in Sydney refer to the same space but are marketed separately to emphasize their additional services aside from music production. These alternative activities highlight the significance of any audio-related work in recording studios over the recording studio space. While the emphasis on equipment is often linked to music recording, these studios present themselves in a broader context of sound. Here, the studio is an example of industrial convergence. This reveals that music recording studios offer more than just recording services. While they may focus on musical elements such as production and equipment, they provide a variety of services across other media to remain viable. Additionally, studios believe they can attract clients in these areas. Interestingly, while everything else centres on music recording and promoting a quality experience and output, these additional services lack the same enthusiasm in their presentation.

The non-music-related activities promoted by the music recording studio are perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the data collected in the survey. The significant number of studios currently advertising their additional services suggests they believe, perhaps reluctantly, that their focus extends beyond music. This is evident in the often separated segmentation of these services across different areas of the website, implying that music is a passion for the studio, but other activities must be provided for it to function as a professional business.

Analysing what studios think they do

This analysis of the surveyed studios presents complicating dimensions to the decline narrative. We identified 71 studios in three major Australian cities that operate as businesses and offer commercial recording services, indicating a relatively robust professional recording studio scene. However, there are signs of strain; during the 2 months of data collection and analysis, we noted that two studio websites became inactive. While our data cannot assess the long-term viability of these studios, several have maintained decade-long operations within the Australian music industry. It’s possible that many of these studios may not survive in the years ahead, but a similar statement could have been made based on a survey conducted 10 years ago. Studios resemble shops in a shopping mall; many come and go, with only a handful of leading brands enduring.

A contributing factor to a thriving studio scene is that the definition of a professional commercial operation is flexible. It can range from a large commercial facility to a residential space. While some may feature large consoles and dedicated live rooms, many commercial studios do not meet these criteria. Additionally, some large-format, multi-room studios are situated on domestic property. Therefore, addressing whether we are witnessing a decline in recording studios necessitates a discussion about what we define a recording studio to be, echoing Theberge’s argument from 2012. In many ways, the recording studio websites create a flat ontology where it is harder for a potential client to discern differences between a prestigious multimillion-dollar facility and a domestic DIY studio, with only a clientele list delineating the two. Recording studios are now more in direct competition with one another than ever before, with only technologically educated clientele able to determine a discernible difference.

Our analysis suggests that offering only music recording services is possibly financially unviable for many studios. We draw this conclusion from the numerous studios that are now expanding their offerings to include services beyond music, reaching into other media areas. This adaptation illustrates how recording studios have reinvented their service offerings in response to various technological and cultural challenges in the music industry. The websites indicate that music remains the primary focus and passion of the employees, but the additional services imply a pursuit of sustainability through diversified means. This is particularly evident when considering the number of music-specific elements embedded into the recording studio websites, ranging from the consoles that are distinctly different from other routing options in film and audio production, to the repeated references to the musicians who have worked, and music that has been made, in these spaces.

This survey reveals an assumption that the target market for these studios possesses a high level of technological literacy. It appears that recording studios believe potential clients are more educated in recording practices and have access to a home studio. Much of the website material, especially regarding equipment, mirrors discussions found in university-level music production courses. The mentions of software indicate that clients are well-versed in music production processes. Furthermore, the references to large studios in software emulations may convey knowledge and appreciation for specific technologies and brands, influencing studio selection. As a result, while studios may struggle to attract music clients, as they present their equipment and expertise in ways that emphasize both familiar and specialized technologies, potentially drawing clients to collaborate with them.

The separation of roles between an engineer and producer seems to be redundant, so in terms of what they think they do, studios don’t present these are different people. Our analysis reveals that 6 studios (8.4%) offered engineering only as a provided service with the studio. Eight studios (11.2%) did not offer any services at all, but most of these studios were dry-hire only, or community-focused spaces. of all, 48 studios (67.6%) offered engineering and production services, with an additional four studios (5.6%) offering additional services to engineering (such as mixing) but not mentioning production.

Advancing software technology has allowed more studio practitioners access to mastering tools evidenced by 26 studios (36.6%) in our analysis offering mastering on top of additional studio services. 14 (19.7%) studios include songwriting as an additional service alongside engineering, production and mixing. To corroborate these findings, a survey of the members of the Music Producers and Engineers Guild (MPEG) of Australia indicated that studio owners are offering multiple services included in their fees (Goold et al., 2023). From a survey group of 106 respondents, 50% reported six or more different services in their fee with tasks such as engineering, mixing, mix revisions, production, pre-production, stems for various purposes and mastering (2023).

Conclusions

Our analysis suggests that studios see themselves as technologically and spatially diverse environments with varying configurations, capable of existing in both commercial and residential settings. They envision themselves as composed of individuals who contribute vital expertise and creativity to the process, and increasingly, these people are inextricable from the studio itself. Studio owners believe they are more than mere places for music recording; they consider themselves as hubs for various media work. Moreover, they think they offer services to individuals who possess surprisingly high levels of technological literacy in music production. All of these elements are surprisingly aligned with a model that could maximize survival chances.

In the years since Bates asked what studios do, much has changed, affecting what studios actually do, and what they think they do. Defining a recording studio has become challenging, as the interplay of space, technology and human factors resists easy classification into distinct studio types. However, a unifying aspect of all studios captured in this survey is their desire to sell studio time and access to bespoke space. This is why they maintain a website. Furthermore, in the past decade, the role of digital audio workstations (DAWs) has evolved, leading some to suggest they should be termed digital music workstations (Reuter 2022). This change reflects the increasing number of individuals engaging in home music production, influencing how studios present themselves to these producers. The future of commercial recording studios depends on persuading those who produce music at home that they can benefit from working in a larger, professional setting with the expertise available. Our survey also indicates that various media activities are often offered by music recording studios. However, rather than illustrating an industrial convergence, as Jenkins noted in the cultural industries of the 2000s, we observe that media activities like podcasting and audiobook recording often remain isolated from broader activities and frequently operate in their own niche. It is possible that the technologies glorified in music production, such as the large Neve console and plush studio layouts, are impediments to future convergence and greater sustainability.

This article illustrates that website data can form part of an effective methodology to analyse a recording studio in a cultural space. Despite the limitations regarding individuals who may lack a website or have only a social media presence, we still uncovered a vibrant scene. We emphasize that the importance of the data is tied to our perspective during our interactions with it. As residents of two of these three areas and with decades of experience in music production, we believe that practice-based research is valuable for a critical analysis of recording studio discourse. In particular, our experience in music production has been beneficial in pinpointing areas for further exploration during this study. For instance, while some elements of websites yielded quantitative responses, at other times, we examined new data sets to uncover different nuances within that information. We recognize that urban centres provide limited insights, and future research could focus more on website data from nearby regional areas in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.

The data from the survey also suggests that further analysis could explore the discursive aspects of what studios think they do. For example, questions about whether a studio has a recording console, what brand it is and how prominently it is featured on their website may not always provide a complete picture. The way the console is represented prompts questions about how it is described and visually positioned, how these choices reflect certain values and how those values fit within the broader cultural context of music production. Furthermore, this analysis highlights the lack of awareness around structural issues of diversity and access in the recording sector. While more exploration in the academic sphere is warranted, it seems that recognition of these disparities is not acknowledged in the recording industry. More research is needed around devising pathways for the recording sector to provide more equitable and welcoming spaces for all people in their communities.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Pat O’Grady

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

References

Barreda

Bilgihan

Nusair

, et al. (2016) Online branding: development of hotel branding through interactivity theory. Tourism Management 57: 180–192.

Bates

(2012) What studios do. Journal on the Art of Record Production, Available at. https://www.arpjournal.com/asarpwp/what-studios-do/

Bates

(2020) Recording studios since 1970 The Bloomsbury Handbook of Music Production, 125 S Zagorski-Thomas, A Bourbon.

Behr

Brennan

Cloonan

(2020) The UK live music census: the value of researching live music in Glasgow, Newcastle, Oxford, and beyond. In: Music Cities: Evaluating a Global Cultural Policy Concept, 167–188.

Bennett

(2012) Endless analogue: situating vintage technologies in the contemporary recording and production workplace. Journal on the Art of Record Production 7, Available at. https://arpjournal.com/endless-analogue-situating-vintage-technologies-in-the-contemporary-recording-production-workplace/ (Accessed 4 May 2015).

Bennett

(2016) Behind the magical mystery door: history, mythology and the aura of abbey road studios. Popular Music 35(3): 396–417, Available at. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261143016000556

Bennett

(2019) Modern Records, Maverick Methods. London: Bloomsbury.

Bravo

Catalán

Pina

(2020) Intergenerational differences in customer engagement behaviours: an analysis of social tourism websites. International Journal of Tourism Research 22(2): 182–191.

Burkeman

(2006) Acoustics, they are a-changin', complains unhappy dylan. The Guardian, Available at. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/aug/24/topstories3.arts (Accessed 5 November 2006).

10.

Candy

Edmonds

(2018) Practice-based research in the creative arts: Foundations and futures from the front line. Leonardo 51(1): 63–69. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1162/LEON_a_01471

11.

Cunningham S & McCutcheon (2016) The Creative Economy in Australia. QUT. https://research.qut.edu.au/dmrc/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/03/Factsheet-1-Creative-Employment-overview-V5.pdf.

12.

Demangeot

Broderick

(2016) Engaging customers during a website visit: a model of website customer engagement. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 44(8): 814–839.

13.

Gaur

Singh

Jeyta

, et al. (2016) Google analytics: a tool to make websites more robust. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Competitive Strategies. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–7, 4–4 March.

14.

Gibson

(2005) Recording studios: relational spaces of creativity in the city. Built Environment 31(3): 192–207, Available at. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.2005.31.3.192

15.

Gibson

Connell

(2003) ‘Bongo Fury’: tourism, music and cultural economy at Byron Bay, Australia. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 94: 164–187. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00247

16.

Goold

(2022) The production of space and the changing character of the recording studio. Popular Music 41(2): 238–256, Available at. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261143022000150

17.

Goold

(2023) An ecological approach to distortion in mixing audio: is distortion an expected, rather than an unwanted artefact? In: Bromham

Moore

(eds) Distortion in Music Production. Focal Press, 109–127.

18.

Goold

(2023) The inaugural music producer and engineers' guild of Australia survey report.

19.

Goold

Graham

(2019) The uncertain future of the large-format recording studio. In: Gullö

Rambarran

Isakoff

(eds) Proceedings of the 12th Art of Record Production Conference Mono: Stereo: Multi. Stockholm: Royal College of Music (KMH) & Art of Record Production, 119–136. Available at. https://www.arpjournal.com/asarpwp/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Lachlan-Goold-Phil-

20.

Griffiths

, et al. (2012) Pharmaceutical Company Websites as Sources of Information for Consumers. Dis-Manage-Health-Outcomes. Disease Management and Health Outcomes 10: 205–2014. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2165/00115677-200210040-00001.

21.

Hennion

(1989) An intermediary between production and consumption - the producer of popular music. Science, Technology & Human Values 14(4): 400–424, Available at. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398901400405.

22.

Jenkins

(2006) Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. NYU Press.

23.

Kealy

(1982) Conventions and the production of the popular music aesthetic. Journal of Popular Culture 16(2): 100–115.

24.

Keith

Collins

Renzo

, et al. (2022) Industry standard? Technocapitalist depictions of music production. Creative Industries Journal, Available at. https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2021.1939540 (Accessed 2 September 2022).

25.

Knowles

Hewitt

(2012) Performance recordivity: studio music in a live context. Journal on the Art of Record Production(6), Available at. https://arpjournal.com/performance-recordivity-studio-music-in-a-live-context/

26.

Kozinets

(2015) Netnography: Redefined. Sage.

27.

Leyshon

(2009) The software slump? Digital music, the democratisation of technology, and the decline of the recording studio sector within the musical economy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 41: 1309–1331, Available at. https://doi.org/10.1068/a40352

28.

Maillé

Maudet

Simon

, et al. (2022) Are search engines biased? Detecting and reducing bias using Meta search engines. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Article 101132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2022.101132

29.

Marshall

(2020) Shibboleths in the studio: informal demarcation practices among audio engineers. Social Studies of Science 50: 881–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312720922314

30.

McNally

Seay

(2020) Studying recording techniques. The Bloomsbury Handbook of Music Production: 233–247.

31.

Müller

Chandon

(2003) The impact of visiting a brand website on brand personality. Electronic Markets 13(3): 210–221.

32.

O’Grady

(2021) Sound city and music from the outskirts: the de-democratisation of pop music production. Creative Industries Journal 14(3): 211–225, Available at. https://doi.org/10.1080/17510694.2020.1839281

33.

Pras

Guastavino

(2011) The role of music producers and sound engineers in the current recording context, as perceived by young professionals. Musicae Scientiae 15(1): 73–95.

34.

Pras

Guastavino

Lavoie

(2013) The impact of technological advances on recording studio practices. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 64: 612–626, Available at. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22840

35.

Reuter

(2022) Who let the DAWs out? The digital in a new generation of the digital audio workstation. Popular Music and Society 45(2): 113–128.

36.

Ross

(2007) Nice work if you can get it: the mercurial career of creative industries policy. Work organisation. Labour and Globalisation 1(1): 13–30.

37.

Schwanen

Van Aalst

Brands

, et al. (2012) Rhythms of the night: spatiotemporal inequalities in the nighttime economy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 44(9): 2064–2085.

38.

Shaw

(2017) Independent creative subcultures and why they matter Popular Music and Cultural Policy. Routledge, 59–78.

39.

Shin

Gim

(2023) How positive do testimonials on a restaurant website need to be? International Journal of Hospitality Management 108: 103382.

40.

Théberge

(2012) The end of the world as we know it: the changing role of the studio in the age of the internet. In: Frith

Zagorski-Thomas

(eds) The Art of Record Production: An Introductory Reader for a New Academic Field. Ashgate, Routledge.

41.

Wang

(2002) Customer testimonials and news clips as contextual cues in the consumer cognitive processing of online shopping. Journal of Promotion Management 9(1–2): 145–162.

42.

Watson

(2013) Running a studio's a silly business: work and employment in the contemporary recording studio sector. Area 45(3): 330–336, Available at. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24029905

43.

Williams

(2015) Technostalgia and the cry of the lonely recordist. Journal on the Art of Record Production(9), Available at. https://arpjournal.com/technostalgia-and-the-cry-of-the-lonely-recordist/

44.

Wolfe

(2021) Women in the Studio: Creativity, Control and Gender in Popular Music Sound Production. London: Routledge.