Articles

Almost 21, going into my junior year, I’ve started to see some patterns clearly. I’ve committed to a career in music, but the more I work on that commitment, the more I have to ask: at what capacity, and at what cost?

I’ve surrounded myself with gear, theory, and a deep knowledge of composition and arrangement. I love all of it. But I’ve noticed something uncomfortable: I haven’t been putting in the work to master my craft. I default, almost automatically, to learning about new tech and building systems around creativity. I’m obsessed with organization, yet captivated by the art and the process, but inconsistent when it comes to starting a new song from scratch.

I used to say I wanted to be a producer or an engineer. Not an artist with my own vision, but someone who works with artists who don’t yet have one, helping refine their sound and image, championing their music as a realized product. But that’s not quite right either. What truly drives me isn’t executing someone else’s idea, it’s curiosity. It’s applying a wide range of skills toward building something people genuinely want, something that advances music as a culture, not just as a product.

Thankfully, I grew up in a fortunate situation. My father is a doctor, and that comfort meant that when I wanted to learn music, I got the real version of it: good teachers, real instruments, the kind of training that costs real money. My parents never told me no. They believed I could build a life around art, not because they thought it was financially safe, but because they knew I had a net under me if it wasn’t. That net is the actual gift. Not the lessons, not the equipment. The permission to fail.

I’ve come to think that’s most of the story behind “nepo babies,” and behind every era of art patronized by the wealthy. People with surplus resources turn toward culture and self-expression because that’s what’s left once survival stops being the question. Mid-century elites filled their lives with art and theater for the same reason rich people today buy art, architecture, and design that signals individuality, even at ridiculous prices. The object is never just the object. Good designers and architects understand this, that half their value is the narrative of self-worth their work hands the buyer, not the craft itself. Most people forget that second half.

I’ve decided I’m not built to define that narrative. I’m fine with that. What I have instead is a clearer view of what’s underneath it, and that’s its own kind of usefulness.

As I see it: art gets more valuable as it gets scarcer, and less valuable as it gets easier to access. Streaming did to music what abundance always does — it made something we used to pay for into something we now barely notice. I don’t think that’s entirely bad. Accessibility means more people get to feel what music does for them, and that’s good. But it also means more people can make it, which increases supply, which keeps pushing the price of a single song or performance toward zero. Because artists frame what they do as something they love, society is permitted to treat it as something that should cost less – precisely because they’d do it anyway.

Complaining about it doesn’t change it. What actually works is finding the thing that can’t be supplied at scale: your specific circumstances, your specific network, the systems only you know how to build. Every musician is already a small business whether they admit it or not. The ones who last are the ones who start acquiring assets instead of waiting to be discovered.

That shift changed my fundamentals. I used to think the goal was making something good enough that people would pay to have it. Now I think the goal is making something people can’t live without, because it gives them more joy per minute than the alternatives. If I can build enough of that into the things I own, the money follows the joy instead of the other way around.

Which is why I’ve stopped thinking of myself as a musician trying to make it, and started thinking of myself as someone building the systems around music, production, organization, the infrastructure side of an industry I happen to love. I can still make music, and I intend to, but I can’t be creative the way I want to without financial stability and the bandwidth that comes with that. So I’m putting myself at the intersection of what I’m good at and what I’m curious about, and trying to capture enough of the value I create there to fund the part of me that just wants to play.

I’m keeping those two things separate for now. If I built a business purely around my passion, I think it would hollow it out. Dependence kills desire. Your proficiencies will take you further than your passions. Not because the passion stopped mattering, but because protecting it means not asking it to pay my rent.

Don’t follow your dreams,

Follow your fascination.

Introduction

Absolute Pitch (AP), more commonly known as “Perfect Pitch,” is an individual’s ability to identify or sing pitches without an external reference. Relative Pitch (RP), on the other hand, is an individual’s ability to identify or sing pitches with an external reference. Most working musicians have Relative Pitch. While it’s commonly assumed that AP is an innate gift, most musicians understand this is not entirely true. And as envious of our AP colleagues as many musicians are, it does not make you better or worse at music or one’s creative disposition. It is simply a fascinating tool; it’s extremely helpful in quick musical processing and application, and yet it can be an irritation to many who experience hyperfixation on pitch content. In this article, we delve into the heavily and acutely researched topics surrounding AP. How is it developed? Is it instinctual? Can it be learned? And, why do people with AP lose it later in life?

After meeting many uniquely different people with the condition and developing a sense of relative pitch (RP) myself, I became interested in the factors of absolute pitch (AP). Only about 1 in 10,000 individuals develop AP, yet I’ve encountered numerous individuals who use their unique ability in musical applications throughout my time studying music. My fascination stems from a sense of jealousy, as someone who is still developing their practice of RP. However, this raises important questions: should I be jealous? Is there something potentially detrimental about having this ability? This curiosity leads me to wonder whether I should try to instill this ability in my future children, and if so, how this might impact their musical journey and personal development.

The Physical Development of AP

Both AP and RP are neurological adaptations commonly used by musicians in their everyday lives and expertise, yet AP is a rare condition and can generally only develop between the period of time when an infant’s auditory cortex is developing. While some individuals have reportedly developed AP after this period, the viability of these learning methods remains unproven. Chin (2003) suggests that younger children may be more likely to develop AP because their developmental stage predisposes them to focus on absolute features of melodies, similar to how they process information in other domains like numbers and spatial reasoning.

Furthermore, in a series of three large surveys and three smaller experimental studies, the combined results conclude that individuals who began their musical studies earlier in their childhood are significantly more likely to develop AP, specifically before the age of seven and generally starting as early as three to four years old. Interestingly, they found that musical individuals with Williams Syndrome overwhelmingly developed precise AP, and that they had done so by starting music training as late as seven to eleven years old — much later than any individual without the condition (Chin, 2003). This additional evidence suggests that the development of AP is primarily based upon developmental and cognitive age, rather than chronological age, pinpointing brain structure and development as a key role in the development of AP.

But, cognitive age is only one end of the equation for AP. Research suggests that an infant’s cognitive style, or their preferred way of processing information, thinking, and problem-solving, is extremely important in an individual’s tendency to develop AP. Cognitive style may even serve as a prerequisite in determining whether someone can develop AP or not. Researchers believe individual differences in breadth of attention, focusing on a “field independent or dependent” cognitive style, determine this likelihood. Field independent individuals can be characterized by their ability to focus more narrowly on a piece of information, taking in bits of information one at a time. Field dependent individuals tend to look more at the context of a situation (Chin, 2003). Within these learning styles, it is the hypothesis of many authors that a narrower breadth of attention in learning can ultimately lead to the development of AP, as depicted by the preponderance of the results in individuals who took the Embedded Figures Test (EFT). Individuals with field independence scored significantly higher on the EFT, of which individuals with AP also scored higher than those without AP (Chin, 2003).

In a study conducted by researchers at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, infants as young as 8-months old and adults were tested for their sequence memory, linking tone sequences to absolute and relative pitch ability and inclination. The study found that 8-month-old infants successfully segmented tone sequences based on absolute pitch patterns, even when relative pitch cues were present. However, when the task relied solely on relative pitch cues, infants were not able to distinguish between the tone sequences (Saffran & Griepentrog, 2001). In contrast, adults, especially those without musical training, relied almost solely on relative pitch cues, suggesting a developmental shift from a more AP approach to learning and memorization to a more RP approach as we age.

In the same study, the researchers propose from their findings that, “the perceptual abilities tested here may be more adequately characterized by an unlearning view of absolute pitch” (Saffran & Griepentrog, 2001, p. 83). The “unlearning” hypothesis advocates that a learner’s experiences ultimately determine whether they maintain AP abilities, in lieu of more complex RP abilities. This “unlearning” could be influenced by factors such as exposure to tonal languages or sensory experiences related to blindness or autism, since those conditions allow individuals to focus more intuitively on different aspects of the environment from others. Researchers from the University of California, San Diego, additionally were able to conclude from a study on a speech-related critical period for AP that early exposure to tonal languages during a critical period of language development may further contribute to the development of AP. In this study, the prevalence of AP was significantly higher among the Chinese students compared to the U.S. students for each age group, indicating a developmental boost in relation to AP for infants exposed to tonal languages (Deutsch et al., 2006). These additional findings suggest a similar connection between cognitive age and AP, though a difference in factors that affect the retention of AP — cognitive style versus environmental factors and experience.

The Neurological Development of AP

The development of AP is linked to structural changes in the brain, specifically in the planum temporale (PT), a region in the brain associated with higher-order auditory processing. Studies show that musicians with AP have larger and more asymmetrical PTs compared to those with RP and non-musicians, suggesting that early musical training, an essential factor in developing AP as noted before, might drive these structural changes in the PT, ultimately leading to enhanced pitch processing abilities. In a study conducted by researchers in the Department of Neuropsychology at the University of Zurich in Switzerland, “By systematically varying the lexical and/or prosodic information of speech stimuli,” they found “consistent activation differences in AP musicians compared with RP musicians and nonmusicians” (Oechslin et al., 2010, p. 447). Their findings pinpoint the PT as a computational hub involved in processing various complex sounds, including music and speech. This overlap in hemispheric dominance for both speech and AP suggests a shared neural substrate and a potential link between language acquisition, retention, and the development of AP.

Additional studies on blind musicians have shown that an early onset of musical training is not a prerequisite for AP development in this unique population. This proposes that the absence of visual input might alter the typical developmental trajectory of AP, potentially leading to the development of AP without the early musical training. A case study by Hänggi et al. (2008) examined ES, a professional musician with AP, musical interval-taste synaesthesia, and tone-color synaesthesia. The study found significant structural differences in ES’s brain compared to controls, particularly in auditory, gustatory, and visual areas. While some differences supported the hypothesis of increased gray matter in certain areas, there was also a surprising reduction in gray matter volume in ES’s auditory cortex. This reduction challenges previous assumptions about brain structure in musicians with AP and suggests that ES’s use of tone-color synaesthesia in conjunction with AP may have led to a reorganization of her auditory cortex, rendering some processes unnecessary.

Factors Leading to the Loss of AP

The loss of AP, often occurring later in life, can be deeply unsettling, especially for musicians who rely on it professionally. Despite being perceived as a lifelong skill, AP is not immune to decline, and its deterioration is linked to a combination of neurological, auditory, and psychological factors. Age-related hearing loss (presbycusis) is a significant factor in AP decline. The degeneration of inner ear structures leads to frequency distortion, disrupting the precise pitch perception crucial for AP (Bianco, 2015).

In addition to auditory decline, neurological factors play a significant role in the erosion of AP. The brain regions responsible for auditory processing, the planum temporale (PT), as discussed, often show signs of reduced activity and connectivity as individuals age. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies of aging musicians reveal significant changes in these areas, impairing the brain’s ability to associate absolute frequencies with corresponding pitches accurately. Memory consolidation and retrieval, critical for maintaining AP, also decline with age, further weakening an individual’s ability to recall precise pitch information. This deterioration is compounded by a reduction in cognitive flexibility, which weakens an individual’s ability to adapt to new auditory inputs or interpret inaccuracies in pitch perception. These neurological changes create challenges for individuals with AP, disrupting the mechanisms that support their unique ability (Deutsch et al., 2006).

The psychological impact of losing AP can be equally profound and depressing, particularly for musicians who consider it an integral part of their identity and creative process. Many describe the experience as frustrating, disorienting, and anxiety-inducing. AP is often seen as a defining feature of a musician’s skill set, and its loss can lead to feelings of diminished confidence and competence. Dr. Bashour, in an email to Mary Bianco on the loss of AP, states, “while I used to be absolutely positive about pitches, etc., now I am never sure any more” (Bianco, 2015, p. 21). For some, this sense of loss is reinforced by the lack of understanding and support from peers who do not share or fully grasp the experience of AP. Stress and negative emotions are known to impact cognitive and sensory functions too, creating an ongoing cycle of frustration. For musicians and researchers alike, the study of AP loss highlights not only the fragility of this extraordinary ability but also the broader and personal relationship between aging, cognition, and sensory perception.

Conclusion

The phenomenon of AP remains a fascinating area of study, particularly regarding its development, retention, and eventual decline. While research in the field has uncovered its early neurological and environmental foundations, significant gaps remain in understanding the factors contributing to its potential loss with age. Bianco’s (2015) intriguing article pinpoints theorized causes of this loss, with talk about presbycusis, cognitive aging, and the structural role of the PT. However, broader studies are needed to confirm and expand these findings.

Future research should focus on how auditory deterioration and neurological changes, particularly in the PT, may contribute to the loss of AP. Additionally, exploring how or whether continued musical engagement throughout one’s life might mitigate these effects could help researchers and neurologists understand more about the auditory cortex and how it interacts with other parts of the body. Studies examining cross-cultural differences, especially among tonal language speakers, may further reveal how language shapes instances of AP. Understanding the psychological impact of AP loss is equally important, as its decline often affects identity and emotional well-being in musicians. Through addressing these gaps, we can deepen our knowledge of AP as a dynamic ability shaped by age, environment, and neurological change, enhancing our understanding between music, cognition, and aging.

References

Bianco, M. L. (2015). Understanding and dealing with the loss of absolute pitch as one ages (Master’s thesis). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Chin, C. S. (2003). The development of absolute pitch: A theory concerning the roles of music training at an early developmental age and individual cognitive style. Psychology of Music, 31(2), 155–171.

Deutsch, D., Henthorn, T., Marvin, E., & Xu, H. (2006). Absolute pitch among American and Chinese conservatory students: Prevalence differences, and evidence for a speech-related critical period. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(2), 719–722.

Glasser, S. (2021). Perceiving music through the lens of synaesthesia and absolute pitch. Perception, 50(8), 668–690.

Hänggi, J., Beeli, G., Oechslin, M. S., & Jäncke, L. (2008). The multiple synaesthete E.S. – Neuroanatomical basis of interval-taste and tone-colour synaesthesia. NeuroImage, 43(2), 192–203.

Katsuki, M., Higo, Y., Nishizawa, S., Yoshida, M., Kasahara, U., Sakamaki, K., Kashiwagi, K., Kawamura, S., & Koh, A. (2022). Musician developed left putaminal hemorrhage and lost absolute pitch ability: Case report. Acta Neurochirurgica, 164(1), 185–190.

Oechslin, M. S., Meyer, M., & Jäncke, L. (2010). Absolute pitch: Functional evidence of speech-relevant auditory acuity. Cerebral Cortex, 20(2), 447–455.

Saffran, J. R., & Griepentrog, G. J. (2001). Absolute pitch in infant auditory learning: Evidence for developmental reorganization. Developmental Psychology, 37(1), 74–85.

Recorded music is everywhere: streaming platforms, TV, radio, elevators, commercials, and local grocery stores. These recordings all move through a similar stage of production, the mastering stage. After the composition is written, after the tracks are laid out for a production, after those tracks are mixed by a mixing engineer, the mastering engineer — whether it be the same person who wrote the song or a prestigious engineer named Bob Ludwig based in Maine — will take the last steps to finish a song before putting it out for the world to hear. The mastering engineer enhances a song’s balance, ensuring it resonates with clarity and depth, resulting in an exceptional listening experience whether it’s played through the speakers of a Honda Civic or streamed on a ten-thousand-dollar pair of audiophile headphones. However, the industry is constantly changing, and that means the way mastering engineers carry out their job is changing as well.

The Loudness Wars refers to a trend in increasing audio levels in recorded music that started around the 1990s. At this time, practices of squeezing every bit of loud audio into a CD’s audio capacity became increasingly normal, sacrificing audio fidelity, and, in some cases, enjoyment. Recently, streaming services have taken over the music industry and begun regulating the loudness of songs that appear on their sites; consequently, the Loudness Wars have been quietly washing away.

A Loud History

Back in the 1960s, and through the 80s, the majority of songs sounded dynamic and pleasantly quiet. Eventually, during the mid-80s, artists began competing with increasing loudness of popular recordings. All media was once recorded and produced with a plethora of analog equipment without using computerized electronic equipment. But as soon as digital audio technologies came into the picture, mastering engineers’ utilized these new abilities to push mixes louder along with competing artists. Though, pushing these songs to the limit wasn’t quite enough for some people. Trying to push audio even louder than its peak involves clipping of the signal and inevitable distortion. When the tops of waveforms become sliced off, a displeasurable and fatiguing sound is created. Imagine a range of mountaintops; the mountains are the waveforms creating peaks and valleys. Cutting the peaks off the mountain tops results in a completely flat surface — awkward plateaus. That is exactly what is happening to the waveform and that is what it would look like: inserting a blip of white noise into the signal, which could go unnoticed by many if it is no more than a couple milliseconds, creates this awkwardness in music, which musicians can hear very well. Along those lines, pushing the signal into a limiter creating consistent clipping of the signal will eventually result in music that deletes the actual music and replaces it with plain white noise. Many mastering engineers, such as Casey Emmerling, say that listening to clipped audio will create evident physical fatigue for your ears, and in turn it could make someone less likely to listen to music for long periods of time (qtd. in Taylor). If compressed enough, the waveform of a song will look like a flat block with no peaks, dips, or valleys, hence the name “brick wall” mastering.

“Death Magnetic” by Metallica has become one of the poster children for the Loudness Wars, because this album caught public attention for its dramatic loudness — a direct consequence of the Loudness Wars. This first came about when a fan emailed the mastering engineer of the album complaining about the sound of the CD. The mastering engineer replied privately and his genuine response wrote:

I’m certainly sympathetic to your reaction, I get to slam my head against that brick wall every day. In this case, the mixes were already brickwalled before they arrived at my place. Suffice it to say, I would never be pushed to overdrive things as far as they are here. Believe me, I’m not proud to be associated with this one, and we can only hope that some good will come from this in some form of backlash against volume above all else. (Twenty Thousand Hertz Podcast)

The published comment appeared in a forum that received some public attention and remained in the news briefly. Over 20,000 fans signed a petition demanding remixing and remastering of the album. Such an uproar is rare. Guitar Hero 3 for the PlayStation received an earlier version in the mixing and mastering process of that album, which proved much more dynamic and fans much preferred it over the CD (retail) version. The comparison between the CD version and the one sent to Guitar Hero 3 are astounding. The CD version sounds distorted and dull, whereas the version sent to Guitar Hero 3 sounds clear and clean. The general public seldom gains the opportunity to compare two differently mixed and mastered versions of the same song. Such a possibility opened many people’s eyes to what the public ear is deaf to. The “unfortunate truth is that the vast majority of mainstream music from the last few decades has had some version of this hyper compression treatment. This means that for most of the music that’s come out in the last 30 years, there’s a better sounding version that we’ll probably never get to hear” (Taylor). Rush suffered a similar stage of backlash for their seventeenth studio album released in 2002, “Vapor Trails,” due to a loudness issue. Thankfully, a remixed and remastered version in 2013 gave their fans a chance to hear it again in a different light. As the music industry innovates and expands, the emergence of online streaming begs the question, how are streaming sites impacting mastering techniques and the Loudness Wars of today?

A Muted Result

Research confirms that the phrase “louder is better” is a modern myth, and fatally flawed, permanently damaging the music consumers listen to as a result. Every artist and label fears they need to crush all loudness possible into a mix because, otherwise, their songs might not be competitive against other records. Minimizing the gap between peak and average levels, thereby diminishing the dynamic range, involves audio that’s “squashed up against the digital maximum level ‘ceiling’” (Shephard). To visualize this concept, picture a room, filled with people, five feet apart in a scattered manner. The front wall represents the digital maximum level or “ceiling” and the back wall of the room represents the noise floor; all the people move toward the front wall, cramming into each other, representing the compression of audio against the maximum level, which is very uncomfortable. Conversely, the people’s original scattered positions allows for a more natural and genuine arrangement, increasing the difference between the peak and average level range. Squashing the audio removes all contrast and depth from the sound.

Competing in the Loudness Wars has no bearing on market performance. Research conducted by the Audio Engineering Society (AES) proves there is no correlation between loudness and sales. The average person cannot reliably compare loudness between songs. Additionally, dynamic music plays easier on radio stations due to the vigorous processing they use. Not to mention, most listeners just turn loud music down! The integration of loudness normalization into streaming services means that processing tracks for improved dynamics can actually give musicians an advantage. Nowadays, modern music playback methods conclude that loudness has become irrelevant. Adam “Yukon” Harr, a professional mastering engineer from Blue Oak Mastering, agrees: “the Loudness Wars are irrelevant at this point. An audience member won’t know what LUFS the song is mastered at and they honestly won’t care.” Sonically squashed songs lose life and punchiness at normal levels, while dynamic songs sound great at any volume. In reality, with all songs, “It doesn’t need to hit a certain loudness, it just needs to sound good” (Harr). Streaming services that adopt loudness normalization from the AES’s prerequisites will bring “choice” back to the listener, eliminating the need to change the volume from song to song. Plus, audio engineers can choose how they compress and limit for the preferred sound, and not the loudness.

Spotify

Spotify has become the perfect example to use when debating song manipulation within streaming sites since it is the most popular streaming service statistically. Many different distributors from all over the world upload songs to Spotify, which are mixed and mastered at varied audio levels. To create a balance between songs, Loudness Normalization helps Spotify ensure “the best listening experience for users” (Spotify). That means through streaming platforms like Spotify, a listener cannot truly listen to the raw audio that comes from the mastering engineer. Loudness Normalization also helps level the playing field between loud and soft masters which removes any volume disparities from one track to another. To the average listener, a louder perceived volume is presumed as preferable, yet in reality, at similar volume levels, dynamic beats squashed every time. Spotify receives and transcodes audio files into delivery formats of Ogg/Vorbis and AAC, which are proprietary formats for streaming sites used to efficiently understand information about audio files. A streaming service will also calculate the loudness of an audio file and store that information into a file’s metadata. Instead of adjusting the levels of the track during transcoding, Loudness Normalization is incorporated during playback, providing users with the flexibility to tune their loudness normalization settings within a limited set of parameters. Per Spotify’s official artists FAQ, “Negative gain is applied to louder masters so the loudness level is at ca - 14 dB LUFS,” which only decreases volume compared to the original master, but still “no additional distortion occurs.” Inversely, “Positive gain is applied to softer masters so that the loudness level is at ca - 14 dB LUFS. A limiter is also applied, set to engage at -1 dB (sample values), with a 5 ms attack time and a 100 ms decay time” (Spotify). The limiter applied, in very standard and conservative parameters, ensures that clipping and distortion will not occur when loudness normalization is applied. Loudness Units Full Scale (LUFS) differs from dB in that it replicates or gives a unit to the perceived loudness of something to the human ear. Through loudness normalization, Spotify provides its vast audience with a smooth and standardized listening experience, eliminating volume inconsistencies inherent in diverse mastering techniques.

iTunes

iTunes, an equally prominent streaming service, developed its own tool called Sound Check for iOS devices. Sound Check is Apple’s version of Loudness Normalization within their music apps, which analyzes libraries, assigning metadata values of the apparent volume in comparison to a standard. Sound Check also analyzes by album, preserving inherent variations between tracks when playing a full album. When applied, level control would kick-in during playback to maintain consistent loudness levels for the listener. Like adjusting the volume knob between each song, Sound Check does that automatically. If Apple turns Sound Check on by default, Bob Ludwig, a well known engineer, believes that “it will make the disparity between the softest and loudest records not be so wide and it will end the loudness war” (qtd. in Wells). During the 135th AES Convention in New York, Bob Katz, another famous mastering engineer and audio quality advocate, issued a press release boldly titled “The Last Battle Of The Loudness War Has Been Won,” in which he declares victory against the ongoing Loudness Wars. That statement came just after iTunes version 11.1.1 finally incorporated audio levels as fully-regulated within the Sound Check algorithm, which Katz clearly identified as a “very important development” (qtd. in Wells). Katz based his theory on hours of testing, monitoring the output of several iTunes stations. He eventually found each song’s loudness averages, concluding that they reside close to -16.5 LUFS, usually within +/-1.5 dB of each other. Now, Katz joyously explains that “there is so much available peak headroom now in iTunes Radio that anyone who wants to master their songs with more conservative levels and prefers higher peak-to-loudness ratios will produce music with immediate loudness and sound quality advantages” (qtd. in Wells). Not squashing masters will result in louder, clearer sounding songs and will attract more listeners. Unfortunately, Sound Check is not on by default in iOS devices, but thankfully, it is permanently turned on in iTunes radio.

When Apple first leapt into the CD-dominated music industry, “Mastered for iTunes” was a marketing scheme to attract people to iTunes. Apple tried to make it seem as though their iPod, with your music library, paid for through iTunes, was far superior than CD quality. Apple’s assertions rang true to an extent. Harr pointed out that Apple “wanted to do something better than the mp3 which is what all the Napsters and Shazams — common digital audio sharing mediums around 2000 — were using, so they came up with the commonly known mp4 which is an AAC codec. That basically takes the wav file artists submit and changes it, but it is lossy, or you lose quality, which ends up adding about a half a dB of volume. As a result, part of the idea of Mastered for iTunes is that that version has been pre-checked extensively by the mastering engineer” (Harr). Thus, the term “Mastered for iTunes” is just a fancy and seemingly more premium way of saying that a mastering engineer double checked that an artist’s master will sound good on iTunes and Apple Music; something many people feel is needed when submitting for distribution. Harr offers this service along with most mastering engineers, but he warned, “If I start handing out Spotify masters, and YouTube masters, you know, your audience is getting different versions of the same song, and I don’t wanna open that can” (Harr).

A Resonant Change

So, what actually happens when prepping a song for the mastering stage? Do the Loudness Wars still have an effect on the modern music industry? Many mastering engineers will say they like to master with dynamic range and not push the limits. However, engineers become pressured by clients to push everything louder. The most common critique a client will give a mastering engineer is that “it’s great, but please can you make it louder?” Many more musicians, while aware of this issue, still request their tracks to sound louder because “there’s this idea that maybe they need it in order to compete, or to sell lots of copies, or to get the right sound for the style that they’re performing in” (Shepard). None of that, in Shepard’s experience, is true. In fact, research proves that perceived loudness has no effect on sales and listeners do not purchase songs based upon loudness. As a result, the loudness competition comes not from listener preference but from every person involved in making a song: the artists, producers, and the mastering engineers. According to Harr, artists and labels still crave a crushed and loud sound in general, because they cannot accept change: “it’s become the standard now to where if it’s not in your face, it’s not modern. I hope as time goes on good dynamics in the pro world are built from the ground up in a very natural way.” At the same time, Harr believes that the Loudness Wars are over, though “good sounding records will always be a battle. I hope people will be able to open themselves up sensory-wise to appreciate the subtlety of more dynamic music” (Harr). Great sounding recordings don’t just appear. Professionals perfect every step, not just mastering, and in turn produce great music. Harr reinforced this statement: “the best master is one where you don’t have to do anything to the mix,” clarifying that everyone who works on a project contributes to a song’s overall dynamic. He adds that “To truly convince someone that high-resolution dynamic recordings are better, you can’t really do that over time; you have to take someone’s whole entire collection and give them only high quality versions of that to listen to for a long time” (Harr). Only after individuals complete this process will people begin to see the true effects: when listening to old mp3s, people will be able to detect the subtle but important differences in dynamic audio. Now integrated into streaming sites, loudness normalization dilutes the need to compete. This suggests that the Loudness Wars are getting quieter, especially when “streaming services are trying to amp up the quality to the best of their abilities.” Harr concluded by calling a truce to the Wars. He mentions: “However, a few years ago I had a master at -14 LUFS sent back because it was too quiet, so are the Loudness Wars really dead? Like, no. (audibly laughs)” (Harr).

In this evolving industry, the role of a skilled mastering engineer remains pivotal. Exceptional mastering engineers will guarantee the audience can hear the detailed creative processes at every step in the mix of a song, while also accounting for how a song may translate to different audio mediums. Streaming giants like Spotify and Apple Music have taken significant steps to rectify the imbalances created by the Loudness Wars. Through the implementation of loudness normalization, they have prioritized audio quality over excessive volume. This shift not only benefits listeners but also empowers musicians and music engineers to focus on the artistry of sound rather than chasing a mythical loudness threshold. As the industry ages, it becomes clear that the battle for loudness is slowly subsiding. Musicians, engineers, and streaming platforms are collectively steering the industry to deliver music that captivates listeners with subtlety, dynamics, and depth. The Loudness Wars may have left their mark, but the promise of a more sonically diverse and engaging musical world lies ahead.

Works Cited

Harr, Adam “Yukon.” Personal interview with the author. 15 Feb. 2023.

“Metallica Death Magnetic — How to lose the Loudness War.” YouTube, uploaded by Florixg, 18 Sept. 2008, www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRyIACDCc1I. Accessed 27 Apr. 2023.

Shepard, Ian. “What Is the Loudness War?” Dynamic Range Day, edited by Allen Wagner, Mastering Media (Production Advice) Ltd, dynamicrangeday.co.uk/about/. Accessed 29 Mar. 2023.

Spotify. “What is Loudness Normalization and why is it used?” Spotify for Artists, artists.spotify.com/faq/mastering-and-loudness. Accessed 8 Mar. 2023.

Taylor, Dallas, host. “The Loudness Wars.” Twenty Thousand Hertz, produced by Casey Emmerling, episode 78. Twenty Thousand Hertz, www.20k.org/episodes/loudnesswars. Accessed 14 Apr. 2023.

Wells, Frank. “Is the end of the loudness wars in sight?” Pro Sound News, vol. 35, no. 11, Nov. 2013, p. 8. Gale OneFile: Business. Accessed 4 Apr. 2023.