Intersting article....even the classical guys are feeling it!

[BlueStrat]

November 07, 2009 Whither Music?

By Mark Butterworth

There are many amazing things that a fellow in pajamas in the comfort of his home and in front of a computer can do to communicate his ideas, his feelings, his peeves, analysis, faith, loves, and hatreds; but some of the things he cannot do is make anyone read his blog, his book, listen to his music, or watch his movie.

Furthermore, unless he is very wealthy or famous, his music or his movie will be made for a pittance and show it, which will make its appeal quite narrow and small.

I'm a musician and composer. Over the course of the last year I set about a recording project that was as simple as I could make it. I composed a group of songs for alto and soprano voices accompanied either by me on guitar, or very simply on piano to be done by a studio musician/engineer or with MIDI, a computerized way of playing a sampled piano.

Studio costs ran $68/hr at the best studio in my town (Sacramento), and I expected the cost for the singers to be at least $100 per song or session (two to three hours).

I never completed that project because I had more difficulties than expected, and after spending over $1,000, I had little to show for the effort. Even so, I completed two other pieces with an opera singer/student for around $700.

That's pretty good. Most times to do a quality, professional job, it will cost at least $500 for a simple bit of work. A single song can easily take five hours of studio time ($340), not counting anything else.

While I was in the studio doing some preliminary work, I was telling Craig, the engineer, that the night before I had been listening to Paul McCartney's last album, Memory Almost Full, and was impressed with the studio production, the rich layering of sounds, the use of different tonal textures and instruments, and how well put together it all was, like a true Beatles production. I told Craig that listening to it inspired me to want to do something similar and create some pieces with that depth of sonic fields, and while I was thinking to myself how lovely that would be, the realization occurred, "Yeah, I could do something like that if I had half a million dollars to spend in the studio!"

While I'd been listening, I'd forgotten about the cost of what it takes to work out crafty arrangements in the studio, the additional musicians needed, the numerous trials and errors in getting things just right, and the time spent searching for the best idea, a particular sound, the right production technique or style.

I couldn't possibly hope to come close to that level of production as McCartney's, which brings me to my point.

Recorded music costs a lot of money, but recorded music isn't making any money.

Here are a few facts:

... U.S. album sales in 2008: More than 115,000 albums were released, but only 110 sold more than 250,000 copies, a mere 1,500 topped 10,000 sales, and fewer than 6,000 cracked the 1,000 barrier -- further evidence that sales of recorded music are not the way of the future for artists.

Barbra Streisand just hit the top of the charts a while ago with 180,000 in sales. The company earnings is somewhere between five and six dollars per album. At best, Sony made about $1mm for a record that cost at least $500K, so that doesn't even begin to cover overhead.

I don't see how it's possible for record companies to pay for high-production-cost products except as a loss leader of some kind.

For example, in 2008, Guns N' Roses finally released a long-awaited album -- thirteen years in the making, estimated to have cost between $13 and $30mm -- and promptly sold a mere 2.6 million worldwide. Where did those production costs come from? Did Geffen records pay them or did Axl Rose? Would either of them be so stupid as to bear that ridiculous cost for such a mediocre album?

I'm certain no record company today would front that kind of money.

As quoted above in the Chicago Tribune, here's where the situation leads:

Instead, it increasingly appears that recordings will be more like advertisements for opportunities that actually do make money: live performances, merchandise, licensing to movies, commercials and video games, ring tones, etc.

So, if I wanted to do a simple rock-and-roll album of ten songs, it would probably cost me at least $10,000 for three or four instruments and a singer. The music would tend to sound similar from one song to the next due to the similarity of instrumentation and soundscape. I could use MIDI and samplers to bring more variety and texture to the tunes, but we're talking about more studio time and, of course, more money.

Yes, I know people have home studios and are cranking out tunes by the millions and putting them on their Facebook or MySpace pages, but nearly 100% of them are crap.

Crap, you say? Why? Talent often requires a good deal of instruction, competition, and criticism to develop to the point where it becomes good enough to interest others. Hobbyists don't get that. Hollywood does a good deal of development, and yet 95% of their movies are nearly unwatchable now, and never has so much money been spent on film except for one thing -- the writing. Old Hollywood often spent 25% of a film budget on writing alone. Even the best-paid writers now get nothing like that much.

One hundred thousand or so books a year are published in the USA now, yet millions more are written...and of those 100K, few make money.

Eric Whitacre is an acclaimed modern composer, but he's known only to choral groups. Because of his fame in that niche, he recently did an amazing thing through the internet. He conducted dozens of singers around the world through their computers so that they recorded their vocals as solos and e-mailed them to him. Then he put them all together as an international choir.

Observe the stunning result.

Yes, this shows the power of the internet and what can be accomplished, but it was accomplished only because Whitacre was already famous and his music loved.

The home recorder has no such fame or resource to induce so many others to volunteer for him.

One of the things some companies are doing is buying groups for a lump sum. A company will pay someone like Prince oh, say, $200mm and thus own all the revenue that Prince generates through records, concerts, and ancillary sales of any kind.

It's sort of like the old movie studio system, but I find it hard to see the incentive for a Sting or a Prince to work very hard after he's been paid.

New musicians and groups will want to get signed and bought, but how long will they go to work knowing that nothing they do henceforth will earn them a future dime?

That business model strikes me as odd and relying on people who are stars, but fading in value.

It looks like the future belongs to live performance or to selling goods that have a limited audience, like special fan clubs that come with perks for members.

Music will be almost free, but personal appearances and concerts are a limited supply.

But what will happen to the records with high production values and expensive personnel costs? Is everything going to sound like a garage band, a techno computer band, a drum machine rap group, or a hip-hop, R&B mix-and-match, sample-patch thing?

I can compose music for concert pianists and symphony orchestras, but I can't pay the cost of such musicians to reproduce my work, and so I try to keep things simple and within my budget.

Barring from a freak event, my simple compositions will never generate the kind of money to step up into a bigger league, and the same is going to be true for many more.

Even a hit record today is unlikely to create the kind of money that will lead to more extensive work.

There will the occasional viral video or music piece that suddenly springs up to amaze a great many, but the creation of carefully, expensively crafted works of art requires much more than access to an ISP.

It's a strange time for musicians, like it is for so many writers, as the traditional organs and commercial streams dry up in the midst of an abundance of talent and ambition like never before.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...her_music.html at November 07, 2009 - 11:42:07 AM EST




*(emphases mine)*

[flatfinger]

I ran across a group of veteran Audio Engineers conversing in a thread on another forum .They were lamenting about all the folks knocking on there door looking for a job , looking to get a foot in the door and work in a recording studio .
The link to that article at American thinker Brings up the article page that Ironically has an advertisment for one of the trade schools that are cranking up and pushing out thousands of Rookie A.E.'s a month now .
Where are they all going to work ???
Any one who's paying attention better notice how the outsourcing and offshoring is effecting the job market . People don't have the same buying power as in the past so when the ways and means came to pilfer free music , moral realivatism won the day , and recorded music is worth less than a f'ing candy bar now.
Live shows will fair no better if no one has any spare income ( and that's not counting the new prohabition on smoking at clubs and the new crushing DUI laws that force prudent folks to think better of it and simply stay home .)
We have a problem with the shrinking middle class , and one of the middle classes favorite things , music , is suffering without a middle class.



Don't you think it is a bigger issue than just music industry woes ??


.

[BlueStrat]

Don't you think it is a bigger issue than just music industry woes ??

Most definitely.

[MartinC]

"Furthermore, unless he is very wealthy or famous, his music or his movie will be made for a pittance and show it, which will make its appeal quite narrow and small."


This is the part I disagree with. Today a pittance buys a lot of recording power. You take a great musician who has the desire to learn about using recording gear, or maybe partners with an engineer or producer, and great recordings can be made for little money. Granted, that takes a pretty rare person(s) to execute that, but I suspect there are quite a few cd's being made that are really great, and cost little. Problem of course is that you have to find them assuming you are even interested. That's the catch-musicians finally get the tech to record well for little, but so does everybody else.

As far as the author, I can see how the cost of hiring all the players his particular music might require, prices him out.

[BlueStrat]

Originally Posted by MartinC

"Furthermore, unless he is very wealthy or famous, his music or his movie will be made for a pittance and show it, which will make its appeal quite narrow and small."


This is the part I disagree with. Today a pittance buys a lot of recording power. You take a great musician who has the desire to learn about using recording gear, or maybe partners with an engineer or producer, and great recordings can be made for little money. Granted, that takes a pretty rare person(s) to execute that, but I suspect there are quite a few cd's being made that are really great, and cost little. Problem of course is that you have to find them assuming you are even interested. That's the catch-musicians finally get the tech to record well for little, but so does everybody else.

As far as the author, I can see how the cost of hiring all the players his particular music might require, prices him out.

Getting the equipment is the easy part. Learning to use it is a huge and lengthy learning curve for most guys, and even if they do master it, most musicians are awful producers. The huge increase in self produced music and the glut of poorly produced crap is not coincidental, IMO.

[drewl]

You're forgetting one important thing.
The money record labels charge artists is like the army paying $1000 for a hammer.
They charge the artist very highly for every single thing, that way they can get the bulk of the an albums revenue and why so many "artists" are broke despite having platinum albums.
You'll get no sympathy from me.

It's been said numerous times, but a group like the Beatles could never exist in todays world.
EMI owned Abbey Road, so they were able to spend alot of time in the studio tinkering around, spending hours or days fiddling with some idea only to scrap it anyway.
Record companies would never allow that today, they would have charged them a fortune for every minute they were in the studio.

[richardmac]

You know, I certainly agree with a lot of this, but... Man, part of me thinks it sounds like "Oh boo hoo, I can't spend half a million bucks in the studio, my art will suffer, oh woe is me." How about STFU and get on your instrument and write a great song? Yes we ALL have smaller budgets. I can't afford to hire a band so I play with backing tracks. I'd love it if there were tons of clubs paying big bucks for original bands, but there ain't. Either work with what you've got or quit. That's pretty much the two choices.

Yes, I AM one of the biggest complainers around here. So now I'm complaining about complaining. It sorta fits, if you think about it.

[BlueStrat]

Originally Posted by drewl

You're forgetting one important thing.
The money record labels charge artists is like the army paying $1000 for a hammer.
They charge the artist very highly for every single thing, that way they can get the bulk of the an albums revenue and why so many "artists" are broke despite having platinum albums.
You'll get no sympathy from me.

It's been said numerous times, but a group like the Beatles could never exist in todays world.
EMI owned Abbey Road, so they were able to spend alot of time in the studio tinkering around, spending hours or days fiddling with some idea only to scrap it anyway.
Record companies would never allow that today, they would have charged them a fortune for every minute they were in the studio.

Back in the 80s, I made a vinyl record with a record label. They didn't own the studio, they contracted with it, and we were assigned a producer whose job it was to make a decent sounding record as inexpensively as possible. The label didn't charge us anything, they paid for what we did and we paid them back. We had to justify every expense. I knew what the hourly studio rate was, I knew how much the manufacturing was, and so on. We got detailed ledgers to show what we owed the company. Some huge bands back in the day had enormous budgets, but they were selling millions of records. Bands who hadn't proven they could sell weren't working with those kinds of budgets. None of the bands I knew making records there were.

You know, I certainly agree with a lot of this, but... Man, part of me thinks it sounds like "Oh boo hoo, I can't spend half a million bucks in the studio, my art will suffer, oh woe is me."

I took his point to be that the great sounding music and records we grew up with cost a lot to produce. Yes, there were record company excesses, but people ae mistaken to think that the excesses were the biggest cost of a record. They weren't. And the new 'music should be free' paradigm is going to result in the end of epic recordings. I think he's right. No DIY band is going to be able to produce another 'Bohemain Rhapsody' or 'Sergeant Pepper's'.

[flatfinger]

Well part of the problem is the Idividualistic endeavour it can become .Wearing too many sombreos on one cabeza. The average person has no Idea what George Martin did for the beatles.
The fact is that the division of labor would have let people specialize and concentrate on what they do best or at least afford them the ability to concentrate on one thing in order to get better at it .
I've just spent a very long period getting my recording process down and have lots of templated and custom presets that work for me ( my voice , ect )

Now I finally get to get back to songwriting , and then it will be off to trying to market and promote .

Imagine how much better I could be at songwriting if thats all I have been or had too do .

[richardmac]

Originally Posted by BlueStrat

No DIY band is going to be able to produce another 'Bohemain Rhapsody' or 'Sergeant Pepper's'.

Until someone does.

No, actually, you're probably right. So many bands and artists that I know still go into "the studio" to make recordings, not because they want superior sound, but because they have no clue whatsoever how to do it on their own. None. Computers have made it easier than hell to record, but people still don't do it. They're afraid of technology. And the kids (20-somethings) who aren't afraid, they buy the gear and put it together and start recording and they don't know sh*t. They've got this great gear and they don't have a clue. They didn't learn on 4 track cassette, then move up the chain. They just started out with unlimited outboard effects and tracks and the results are crap. Yes, there ARE exceptions... there always are.

Someone who knows what they're doing with gear can come out with a much better product than the average local studio, simply because they can spend months on the thing, whereas in the studio they're very very limited because of the money. So on one hand, heck, I've got the technology to make Bohemian Rhapsody myself. What I don't have is the songwriting talent, imagination, or the vocal chops to pull something like that off. And let's be totally honest about this - if that song had never come out, and it came out today, it's not like it would be a hit. It might attain a cult following, but it wouldn't be on every radio station.

So here's the thing - we tend to think of artists from the 60's and 70's as being so much more talented that today's musicians... but was it easier to "push the boundaries" back then? I think you could argue that it was. I am not saying "everything has been done," but... well, it's hard to imagine the next style of music that will be "invented" that will capture people's attention. The last style of music I can think of that was "invented" was rap, and...

You said in another post that all of this breakdown might lead to some new styles of music - I wonder. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we're so stuck in our drums/bass/guitar ways that we can't even begin to imagine something totally different. But... I wonder if anyone can, or will, at this point. Will there BE some new, great style of music that will come along and surprise everyone? Or... are we stuck at the end? Look at painting. There may be some "new" styles of painting, but hardly anyone gives a crap. How about new styles of photography? Same. Maybe music itself is played out. God I hope not. I hope some new style comes along and makes me look like an outdated relic. I really do.

[richardmac]

Originally Posted by flatfinger

Well part of the problem is the Idividualistic endeavour it can become .Wearing too many sombreos on one cabeza. The average person has no Idea what George Martin did for the beatles.
The fact is that the division of labor would have let people specialize and concentrate on what they do best or at least afford them the ability to concentrate on one thing in order to get better at it .
I've just spent a very long period getting my recording process down and have lots of templated and custom presets that work for me ( my voice , ect )

Now I finally get to get back to songwriting , and then it will be off to trying to market and promote .

Imagine how much better I could be at songwriting if thats all I have been or had too do .

I totally agree with this. I would LOVE to be in a band again and bring in a song and let the guys who are better than me on their instruments come up with their own superior parts. But it's insanely hard. Everyone wants to be their own artist. You want to put together a band, and they're gonna do YOUR music, then you seem to have two options - get guys who suck and are grateful to play, for free, with anyone, OR get good guys and pay them. You might be able to find a few guys who are good AND willing to play, but the commitment will shortly wear off unless there's money involved. I'm talking about being an older guy with songwriting chops and doing this, mind you... not being a college kid who gets his buddies together to make a band, man. Older guys know better. Been there done that. So it's "what's in it for me." And I am the same way. I've got three CD's out and I play solo. You want me to join a band and JUST play guitar? Sure. If there's MONEY in it. Actually no, even then I wouldn't.

The only answer I can see is to succeed. John Mayer started out playing acoustic solo. Once he got big, then he could hire real good band members. And I'm sure he brings guys into the studio and says "make up a bass line for this," and the hired top notch bass player comes up with something. Same with drums. John isn't sitting around playing with Drums on Demand, unless he's slapping together a quick demo.

[Giorgi]

Originally Posted by richardmac

Until someone does.

No, actually, you're probably right. So many bands and artists that I know still go into "the studio" to make recordings, not because they want superior sound, but because they have no clue whatsoever how to do it on their own. None. Computers have made it easier than hell to record, but people still don't do it. They're afraid of technology. And the kids (20-somethings) who aren't afraid, they buy the gear and put it together and start recording and they don't know sh*t. They've got this great gear and they don't have a clue. They didn't learn on 4 track cassette, then move up the chain. They just started out with unlimited outboard effects and tracks and the results are crap. Yes, there ARE exceptions... there always are.

Someone who knows what they're doing with gear can come out with a much better product than the average local studio, simply because they can spend months on the thing, whereas in the studio they're very very limited because of the money. So on one hand, heck, I've got the technology to make Bohemian Rhapsody myself. What I don't have is the songwriting talent, imagination, or the vocal chops to pull something like that off. And let's be totally honest about this - if that song had never come out, and it came out today, it's not like it would be a hit. It might attain a cult following, but it wouldn't be on every radio station.

So here's the thing - we tend to think of artists from the 60's and 70's as being so much more talented that today's musicians... but was it easier to "push the boundaries" back then? I think you could argue that it was. I am not saying "everything has been done," but... well, it's hard to imagine the next style of music that will be "invented" that will capture people's attention. The last style of music I can think of that was "invented" was rap, and...

You said in another post that all of this breakdown might lead to some new styles of music - I wonder. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we're so stuck in our drums/bass/guitar ways that we can't even begin to imagine something totally different. But... I wonder if anyone can, or will, at this point. Will there BE some new, great style of music that will come along and surprise everyone? Or... are we stuck at the end? Look at painting. There may be some "new" styles of painting, but hardly anyone gives a crap. How about new styles of photography? Same. Maybe music itself is played out. God I hope not. I hope some new style comes along and makes me look like an outdated relic. I really do.

I really like your post except for the bold part Check Marshall Mathers LP by Eminem, that guy has a vocal "speed" as good as Steve Vai has guitar chops. My jaw hurts when I try to follow along and I know the text by heart. Of course most of the rap is crap , except Eminem's 2-3 albums

[richardmac]

I think comparing Steve Vai and Eminem is much like comparing a New York strip steak with a donut. Two totally different things. I can understand why some people like rap. But rap is very very young as a musical genre - what will it sound like in 100 years? The same, totally different, or small niche, much like "whistling" or "yodeling?" Hmm - I wouldn't begin to want to guess. I personally think it is pretty bad in general (with a few exceptions) and of course it's just an opinion.

[BlueStrat]

But rap is very very young as a musical genre - what will it sound like in 100 years?

It's speculation, of course, but I suspect it will be much like reggae-it's current format is what defines it, and it is what it is and always will be. I'm aware I could be wrong, though.

[Giorgi]

Another question:

Why don't they just enforce copyright laws? Just send out 100x more warnings to those who download and then actually sue people, massively.

[BlueStrat]

Originally Posted by Giorgi

Another question:

Why don't they just enforce copyright laws? Just send out 100x more warnings to those who download and then actually sue people, massively.

In a word, cost.

[richardmac]

Heh. I am sort of thinking that the spotify idea might actually be the way of the future, if they get what they want. What they want is to be tied into cable and tacked on. I mean, if for example someone said to you "We're going to increase your cable bill by $8 per month, but you're going to have access to almost every CD ever made and it won't be copy protected," I'd imagine almost everyone would say "yes" to that. As for the people who don't have cable, well, you can't please everyone. An imperfect solution with loads of problems but might be how things end up going. The key would be the price point as well as how much music. At 20 bucks a month it would fail. At 5 it would be wildly successful but they wouldn't make enoug money I bet. So I'm thinking 8. I dunno.

What would that do to the small time fish? Well, if it was like iTunes were anyone could get on board, then I'd say it would be a good thing, IF and this is big, IF artists were compensated per play. If they did it like current radio, we'd never see a penny. But I think they'd get that right.

[Pankot]

Now that spotify has added offline listening to its PC client, the Premium subscription makes a lot more sense. As it stood before, the subscription service was cannibalised by Spotify's own free service - the sound quality is good enough, and the ads not so frequent as to drive you mad.

That said, at the price it is in the UK (£10 a month, so about $16) I still hesitate because there are some gaping holes in the song roster - no King Crimson, for example. I know this isn't necessarily Spotify's fault - they can only play what a label will license to them - but for there to be a real transition to this model we have to get much closer to richardmac's "almost every CD ever made".

[Giorgi]

Originally Posted by BlueStrat

In a word, cost.

Suing people looks much easier in France?

You don't have to sue EVERYBODY who has ever downloaded anything, just wave a legal threat at everybody through an e-mail from the ISP and then through actual "real" mail service. Those who persist will have to go to court. With media putting the spotlight on the events downloads would reduce TREMENDOUSLY.

[slight-return]

Originally Posted by Giorgi

Suing people looks much easier in France?

Dunno enough about the civpro to really comment.
But being a civil (code as opposed to common) law country - I suppose (again, don't really know at all) it potentially could be for this kind of case