Woops... I think i just turned in a master with wrong lyrics

[FMiguelez]

.

Ahem!

Client wants a song for corporate use and website. It's one of those companies that do asset valuations for insurance companies.
He wanted a nice song with the slogan as lyrics. He wanted simple lyrics, in english, and the song just keeps repeating the same 2 slogans over and over.

I was so immersed in the music, mix and production aspects, that I never realized what I now think is a mistake on my part until now (a few weeks later)...

WHAT is the correct way to say this?
Asset valuation for you.
or
Asset valuations for you (with an s)

AND:
Asset appraisal for you.
or
Asset appraisals for you.

In order to make it sound not THAT monotonous, I used both phrases in different parts of the song, so I use the first one in the verses and the second in the choruses.

I'm almost positive I'm missing some "esses". WHERE am I missing them exactly? Would it be more correct to say assets valuations for you?

I should be able to copy/paste the missing esses where needed, but I'm not sure where?

The way they are now is:
Asset valuation for you...
Asset appraisal for you...

Besides, are either of those 2 slogans even correctly translated into english?
I mean, I seem to find both ways in the internet of saying that, but now I'm not sure anymore...

I named the tune "Valutaion", BTW. How creative is that

Great. Now I can't even speak english anymore

Note to myself: I really need to pay more attention to lyrics! I never seem to care about them!

Thanks!

[cuttime]

Wow. As a case of compound plural nouns, I would say that the correct form would be

assets valuation

and

assets appraisal

but the problem with English is not the rules, but rather the exceptions. Don't take my word for this. Word mavens, please chime in...

[NazRat]

I think any combination goes, but valuations as plural is more ambiguous.

asset valuation - single asset value
assets valuation - many assets value
asset valuations - single asset valued many ways, i.e. with different methods
assets valuations . . .

[mhschmieder]

This is not an uncommon problem. On our last album with my synth-pop project, the leader (they're just two of us, but he started the group so has final say), had to recover from a massive computer hard drive crash, and in the rush to the deadline, accidentally used the wrong pre-masters in two cases. One case ended up with the wrong bass line, and another with the wrong lyrics. Too late; we might correct this on a remaster later.

As for the specific case in the OP, that sounds more like a question than having sent the wrong master (which is what the title suggests), but at any rate, the English language has been evolving over the past thirty years in terms of what Chicago Manual of Style officially recognizes as the correct form of modifier pluralization and the use of possessive diacritical marks with or without esses. So I think there is enough variety of usage these days that nothing you did would be considered "wrong" or look/sound unprofessional to the critical ear.

[FMiguelez]

So I think there is enough variety of usage these days that nothing you did would be considered "wrong" or look/sound unprofessional to the critical ear.

And you have no idea how much BETTER that makes me feel

I told the client about this, and he didn't seem to mind. He told me to go ahead and fix it if I thought it would sound better...
In this new light, it's not that it would sound "better"... as you say, any combo of "esses" would be acceptable.

If so, I'd rather leave it as is, and move on. I spent toooooooooooo long on that darned mix. I can't stand it any longer!