So the CD is ready for commercial release... then what?
JP Gerard
Mike Rivers
JP Gerard wrote:
> The common problem: once the product is ready (well, once the CD has been duplicated), keeping it "off the web" is a big, big deal.
> A friend told me a bout a band's new realease that was easier to download (unauthorised odwnload of course!) then to BUY in a CD shop.
Yes, this is a problem, for majors as well as independents. But it's a
good measure of how popular your music is. Remember that in order for
the music to get on the new, somebody has to buy a copy. And the more
people steal it, the more your name will get out, if that's what you
need to happen. While there's definitely a loss of profit, one way of
looking at it is cheap advertising.
> Do the big guys still make good money selling CDs?
Not really. They make good money with a complete artist package, of
which a CD is just a small part. They make more money selling T-shirts
and sourvenier books at concerts.
> For the small guys, releasing a product means that you accept the fact that the material will appear on the net within days, in free "sharing databases".
It depends. If nobody's ever heard of you, probably nobody will put it
on the net. Usually independent new artists put a few songs from their
CD on a web site where they offer the whole CD for sale. If those
giveaway songs get put up for download other places, well, you're
losing a certain amount of web site traffic, but now and then someone
who likes your music enough to want to hear more will search out and
find your web site. And if they don't like your music enough to buy it,
they're not going to buy it anyway. So what's the problem?
It IS a problem for someone with a million dollar budget for an artist,
if they lose $100,000 in CD sales. When you get that big, it's time to
hire a good lawyer and get some congressmen in your pocket.
> I mention this because even though I opened my studio only 5 years ago, I already notice that the budgets keep shrinking.
This is true in the major label world, too.
> This is obviously due to the fact that nobody's making decent money producing music except the Big Guys.
They spend as much or more money than ever, but they don't spend it
recording music, they spend it in publicizing the music and the artist.
You could probalby produce 100 CDs of local independent artists in your
studio for what the majors spend on a three minute video of their
latest hit-in-the-making.
> The situation is weird, I get bands financing their own project, with MORE money than band who are signed to a small label!!!
There are more mouths to feed when you deal with a label than when you
do everything yourself. So while the total sales may be greater with
the backing of a label, the money gets split more ways. And while you
may dig deep into your pocket and come up with a promo budget of $500
for 100 giveaway CDs and a CD release party, that's just a drop in the
bucket for even a small label, if they're legitimate and know the
business.
> And back to the problem above, since - as far as distribution/promo is concerned - labels don't seem to be able to offer a real improvement over what the band members could do on their own, what's the point?
If they can't, then there's no point. You need to find the right label.
> I'm trying to figure out if I should focus on working with LABELS or directly with ARTISTS, because they're very different breeds with different needs.
Why not do both? Of course it depends a lot on where you are. If you're
in the boondocks, the local bands aren't going to attract labels,
unless there's a local (and almost certanly artist-owned) label. But
you usually don't have a choice of where your customers come from. Take
the money.
I know of a few small studios that have done pre-production work for
major labels. Once a band has a contract with a label, they'll send
them to your studio (with the typical modest budgets you're accustomed
to) to write their songs, work out their arrangements, try out
producers, and in general get ready for the $4,000/day studio that the
label wants them to be in when they make the record that's going to be
the next hit. That's the kind of work that you might be able to solicit
directly from a label. Otherwise, stick with the artists. They're the
ones who have the music to record.
JP Gerard
> good measure of how popular your music is. Remember that in order for
> the music to get on the new, somebody has to buy a copy. And the more
> people steal it, the more your name will get out, if that's what you
> need to happen. While there's definitely a loss of profit, one way of
> looking at it is cheap advertising.
You're very optimistic. Good.
> Not really. They make good money with a complete artist package, of
> which a CD is just a small part. They make more money selling T-shirts
> and sourvenier books at concerts.
Hmm, I suspected that was the case, especially from big tours...
> It depends. If nobody's ever heard of you, probably nobody will put it
> on the net.
You'd be surprised. The band I mentionned earlier were just releasing their
first CD, tehy're a young band, unknown outside of Belgium - yest the music
was on the net after just a few days.
> Usually independent new artists put a few songs from their
> CD on a web site where they offer the whole CD for sale. If those
> giveaway songs get put up for download other places, well, you're
> losing a certain amount of web site traffic, but now and then someone
> who likes your music enough to want to hear more will search out and
> find your web site. And if they don't like your music enough to buy it,
> they're not going to buy it anyway. So what's the problem?
Well, as far as I, ME, am concerned, if the artist doesn't make money, the
artist is not going to come to me to record music.
The artists will record at home, and why bother making it sound nice if it's
not going to bring anything in...
Since here in Europe, you won't be booked for gigs unless you have a good,
popular "commercial" release out... if the artists can't make a good D and
promote it, there will be no or few concerts, which means no money AT ALL,
which means no future for the band.
> It IS a problem for someone with a million dollar budget for an artist,
> if they lose $100,000 in CD sales. When you get that big, it's time to
> hire a good lawyer and get some congressmen in your pocket.
Sure!
> This is true in the major label world, too.
Ahhhh I expected that too... damn...
> They spend as much or more money than ever, but they don't spend it
> recording music, they spend it in publicizing the music and the artist.
> You could probalby produce 100 CDs of local independent artists in your
> studio for what the majors spend on a three minute video of their
> latest hit-in-the-making.
Yes, I've heard about that and from what I know, that seems to be the case
indeed over here as well.
> There are more mouths to feed when you deal with a label than when you
> do everything yourself. So while the total sales may be greater with
> the backing of a label, the money gets split more ways. And while you
> may dig deep into your pocket and come up with a promo budget of $500
> for 100 giveaway CDs and a CD release party, that's just a drop in the
> bucket for even a small label, if they're legitimate and know the
> business.
Right. Although I see many "labels" that really don't look like they know
what they're doing. Again, over here anyway...
> If they can't, then there's no point. You need to find the right label.
Of course... so simple I didn't even think of it that way.
> Why not do both? Of course it depends a lot on where you are. If you're
> in the boondocks, the local bands aren't going to attract labels,
> unless there's a local (and almost certanly artist-owned) label. But
> you usually don't have a choice of where your customers come from. Take
> the money.
Well, I sort of enjoy spending time doing preprod with the artist, which is
a lot more enjoyable (fun) than dealing with a label's guy who thinks he/she
knows better. Right now I do work with both. But I have to be careful with
how I use my time now... money's becoming a very real issue.
> I know of a few small studios that have done pre-production work for
> major labels. Once a band has a contract with a label, they'll send
> them to your studio (with the typical modest budgets you're accustomed
> to) to write their songs, work out their arrangements, try out
> producers, and in general get ready for the $4,000/day studio that the
> label wants them to be in when they make the record that's going to be
> the next hit. That's the kind of work that you might be able to solicit
> directly from a label. Otherwise, stick with the artists. They're the
> ones who have the music to record.
I started doing pre-prod stuff this year. It really works for me, and the
artist too - I guess the label as well, financially speaking.
I think there's just no fixed line to follow here, everything changes all
the time...
Sigh...
JP
Scott Dorsey
>JP Gerard wrote:
>
>> The common problem: once the product is ready (well, once the CD has been duplicated), keeping it "off the web" is a big, big deal.
>> A friend told me a bout a band's new realease that was easier to download (unauthorised odwnload of course!) then to BUY in a CD shop.
>
>Yes, this is a problem, for majors as well as independents. But it's a
>good measure of how popular your music is. Remember that in order for
>the music to get on the new, somebody has to buy a copy. And the more
>people steal it, the more your name will get out, if that's what you
>need to happen. While there's definitely a loss of profit, one way of
>looking at it is cheap advertising.
1. Have really cool artwork, and liner notes that are worth reading. This
makes people more apt to buy the record, even if they already have bootleg
copies.
2. Put a plea of poverty in the liner notes, saying that the artists are
actually making money off the record, not some big label, and that if
you absolutely HAVE to bootleg it, please send some cash to this address.
I've actually been surprised at the number of people who told me they
decided not to bootleg an album because of this.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
JP Gerard
JP
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:di35dq$1vo$1...@panix2.panix.com...
SSJVCmag
Gerard" <jpge...@skynet.be> wrote:
You need to get a real estate license.
Say hello to "stealing shit is hip" cultural paradigm.
JP Gerard
>
> Say hello to "stealing shit is hip" cultural paradigm.
You think...?
Maybe - I have no idea what the kids think or do these days. I know for a
fact that they used to have buying power and probably had impact on CD sales
+/- 15 years ago and now they just sit at the computer and dowload...
stuff... maybe it's become hip to steal intellectual property.
I wouldn't be surprised.
JP
pupp...@gmail.com
pupp...@gmail.com
a month ago. We got 1,000 printed, with simple but nice artwork, set up
with CDbaby to handle online sales. We knew going in that a certain
number would be give-aways and part of press kits for booking, so the
idea of making a profit was not the goal. However, we posted 2 songs
online at our website and a couple of music blogs picked us up;
Dreamsofhorses and chewinggumvolley. We got added to a couple podcasts
and one of those playlists that people add to their own sites. After a
month goes by we have had over 26,000 downloads of our songs! We have
had hits from 27 different countries.
But from all that, we have only sold 2 cds online. We sell some at
shows but from all those downloads, we sold 2 cds. One ended up being
from a friend who was showing support. The initial reaction is WOW free
downloads have killed the music industry, and it may be true, BUT the
second cd we sold was to a manager at a major label who had heard our
music on a podcast, googled us and bought our cd.
I have no idea how this will turn out, obviously I have my hopes and
dreams, but seriously it is a weird world we live in.
Let me know what you think, do we have a chance? www.thepuppetbox.com
Bill Van Dyk
only circumstance in which downloading might appear to be a problem is
if you are selling so many CD's that it actually has an impact on sales.
Even then, do some research. Some bands increased their sales by making
their music available freely for download.
Downloading is not really all that different from radio play, except,
perhaps, convenience and quality-- and quality obviously doesn't really
matter to a lot of people or MP3 players wouldn't be so popular. So who
doesn't want radio play?
I often think the government should just give the RIAA exactly what it
wants-- in spades. Let's make it illegal to listen to music on the radio.
And let's let them make their music available only on proprietary
formats that can't be copied. Which means unsigned bands can go ahead
and make their music available on regular CD's. See what happens.
And let's force divestiture of media outlets that are owned by the same
mother companies as the content providers.
The RIAA is not about music. It's about breast implants.
Scott Dorsey
It's hip to steal intellectual property, because kids think they are
stealing from big faceless labels run by nameless fat cats. Which in
some case might be the case.
That's why I think it's important to put information in the liner notes
saying who you are, where the money goes, and why they should think it
is worth their money to pay for the record. Let them know where their
money is going.
Oh yes, and issue an LP. It's cool, and it doesn't get bootlegged much.
It gives you some amount of credit for having the thing available on LP,
even if you don't sell many. Of course, I have an ulterior motive in
suggesting this, but even so it's a good idea.
Bill Van Dyk
that crowd is likely to download. You will sell at your gigs, if you're
good. And if you build a local following, you may sell some at local CD
shops. As with any artist, the more exposure you get, the more
well-known, the more you will sell, and the more you will also earn from
live performances.
If you become so well-known that people are really downloading and
listening to you 26,000 times, you will be selling CDs.
I'm sure you're aware that well-known bands signed to big well-known
labels often don't "make money" for several years. (In fact, they often
earn a lot for their music companies, but they won't see a cent.) Most
contracts are extremely one-sided, and music companies often bill
themselves (through controlled subsidiaries) for "services" rendered to
clients of the parent company.
All told, you might be better off, like Ani Difranco, to call your own
shots.
JP Gerard
If duplicating CDs in small runs is already a stretch, I don't think I could
talk many into releasing an LP.
But I DO know some people who are going to do it, mainly to avoid the
horrible CD mastering process.
JP
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:di3hm6$o59$1...@panix2.panix.com...
JP Gerard
news:V4idnSnrFvL...@golden.net...
> I strongly suspect-- and there is some research to support it-- that the
> only circumstance in which downloading might appear to be a problem is
> if you are selling so many CD's that it actually has an impact on sales.
> Even then, do some research. Some bands increased their sales by making
> their music available freely for download.
Exceptions, and always big guys.
> Downloading is not really all that different from radio play, except,
> perhaps, convenience and quality-- and quality obviously doesn't really
> matter to a lot of people or MP3 players wouldn't be so popular. So who
> doesn't want radio play?
No no no, even if I hear stuff on the radio, I want to be able to play the
music I chose when I want, where I want.
The problem with MP3 is that it's a (sort of) tangible media. You download
an MP3 and you can play it back at your leisure, or worse, exchange it for
other MP3s etc.
> I often think the government should just give the RIAA exactly what it
> wants-- in spades. Let's make it illegal to listen to music on the radio.
No, as long as the radio station send it's playlist reports, all is well.
That system actually works.
> And let's let them make their music available only on proprietary
> formats that can't be copied.
Like what???
> Which means unsigned bands can go ahead
> and make their music available on regular CD's. See what happens.
They already do!!!
> And let's force divestiture of media outlets that are owned by the same
> mother companies as the content providers.
>
> The RIAA is not about music. It's about breast implants.
I don't think the RIAA has any power here in Europe, but the problems are
basically the same...
JP
JP Gerard
But did you get royalties from those 26,000 downloads???
What happens if the same thing happens to your next album???
I sincerley hope that you'll get some kind of financial reward in the end,
because if you don't you'll get tired of it pretty quickly...
My point was and is that if the artist can't get some money in his pockets,
the whole industry will suffer, and I'm not talking about the Big Guys
either... although they would of course fall too.
JP
<pupp...@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1128614067....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Scott Dorsey
>OK, OK, but issuing an LP is not cheap!!!
>
>If duplicating CDs in small runs is already a stretch, I don't think I could
>talk many into releasing an LP.
Most of the LP cost is in the artwork these days. Call the folks at
Record Industries in Holland.
>But I DO know some people who are going to do it, mainly to avoid the
>horrible CD mastering process.
There is no reason the CD mastering process should be horrible, except
that people make it horrible. Find a mastering engineer who is actually
competent and not obsessed with loudness and you'll find it's not bad at
all.
Bill Van Dyk
>>And let's let them make their music available only on proprietary
>>formats that can't be copied.
>
>
> Like what???
Just to play with a scenario. Sony develops a new disk type called
"Dickdisk" that is different from all current formats and can only be
played on the Sony Dickdisk Player. Sony refuses to license the
technology to anybody else, or uses an encryption scheme to prevent
these disks from playing on any other device. All very feasible
technically. Then they issue the new album by, I don't care, Britney
Spears, on this format only. No other copies are made to any other
format (other than the original recording medium in the studio).
What happens? Nothing, because nobody can hear the music. Okay-- so
some people start buying the new Dickdisk player so they can hear the
new album. How many copies will she sell? Sony finally realizes they
need radio play, so they give the players away free to radio stations.
How well does that go over? Who knows. Many radio stations will
probably just ignore the release and just play music on standard
formats. Sony releases their entire catalogue on Dickdisk-- how many
people will buy the Dickdisk player just they can play Sony's catalogue?
Sony starts giving the dickdisk player away free, inside specially
marked boxes of Cheerios, just to try to increase sales. The cost of
this, to Sony, is horrendous. Meanwhile, competing acts continue to
release music in CD's and, in spite of downloading and copying, still
sell millions of copies at $12.95. Sony tries desperately to persuade
other music companies to make their catalogues available on the
Dickdisk, but, realizing that there are huge amounts of money to be made
in licensing fees, they are all trying to promote Buttdisk and Nipdisk
and Arsedisk and other competing proprietary systems.
Microsoft Windows can do what Sony is attempting, in my fictional tale
here, because they have a monopoly. Welcome DRM on the next version of
Windows (called "Pickpocket" I think). (Now are you sorry you voted for
Bush?) Why is the government allowing Microsoft to collude with Sony on
these technologies? Because competition, like free trade, is for you
and me-- not big multi-national corporations.
But Sony will take a bath because the public has a decided preference
for open or relatively open standards. Open standards means it will be
copyable.
Or who knows. If anybody could be sure of what would happen, you'd be rich.
So this is all just my speculative rumination. Have a nice day.
she...@yahoo.com
It's always copyable!!
E.g. put a microphone next to your speaker and press record. I
estimate 15 minutes after the release of a dickdisk I can download the
music for free. Enterprising entrepeneurs will sell the music on other
formats too.
>
> Or who knows. If anybody could be sure of what would happen, you'd be rich.
>
We're sure, and we're rich - at least in terms of the music we can
listen to before we decide what concert to go to this weekend.
--
Support live music!
JP Gerard
> Record Industries in Holland.
Will look it up. So far I've only heard of a plant in German that's supposed
to be really old school...
> >But I DO know some people who are going to do it, mainly to avoid the
> >horrible CD mastering process.
> There is no reason the CD mastering process should be horrible, except
> that people make it horrible. Find a mastering engineer who is actually
> competent and not obsessed with loudness and you'll find it's not bad at
> all.
What can you do when the executive producer is sitting behind, asking to
check the loudness vs.one of his "references"?
Most folks use multiband compression and I just can't stand it. Totally
fucks up the balance of the mix.
Another problem is that todays "standard" in the consumer HiFi world is
really low... very few system can take the sort of low end that I enjoy...
JP
Richard Crowley
>But I DO know some people who are going to do it, mainly to avoid the
>horrible CD mastering process.
How does making LPs obviate any mastering process?
Release format doesn't change the desirability of the
"mastering process" where an experienced engineer
equalizes/normalizes, etc. the tracks together.
And CD and LP both require the manufacturing of some kind
of mechanical (or optical) master from which to stamp copies.
Maybe we need a better definition of this
"horrible CD mastering process"?
Scott Dorsey
>JP Gerard wrote:
>>But I DO know some people who are going to do it, mainly to avoid the
>>horrible CD mastering process.
>
>How does making LPs obviate any mastering process?
It doesn't, but it does make it harder to do stupid limiting tricks
and get away with them. You can limit all you want but it won't get
any louder because it won't help you increase excursion much.
However, I don't see why you should put up with stupid limiting tricks
for CD issue either.
JP Gerard
> "Dickdisk" that is different from all current formats and can only be
> played on the Sony Dickdisk Player. Sony refuses to license the
> technology to anybody else, or uses an encryption scheme to prevent
> these disks from playing on any other device. All very feasible
> technically. Then they issue the new album by, I don't care, Britney
> Spears, on this format only. No other copies are made to any other
> format (other than the original recording medium in the studio).
OK
> What happens? Nothing, because nobody can hear the music. Okay-- so
> some people start buying the new Dickdisk player so they can hear the
> new album. How many copies will she sell? Sony finally realizes they
> need radio play, so they give the players away free to radio stations.
> How well does that go over? Who knows. Many radio stations will
> probably just ignore the release and just play music on standard
> formats. Sony releases their entire catalogue on Dickdisk-- how many
> people will buy the Dickdisk player just they can play Sony's catalogue?
That's a good question.
But a better question is "how does DD sound?".
OK, OK, sorry...
> Sony starts giving the dickdisk player away free, inside specially
> marked boxes of Cheerios, just to try to increase sales. The cost of
> this, to Sony, is horrendous. Meanwhile, competing acts continue to
> release music in CD's and, in spite of downloading and copying, still
> sell millions of copies at $12.95. Sony tries desperately to persuade
> other music companies to make their catalogues available on the
> Dickdisk, but, realizing that there are huge amounts of money to be made
> in licensing fees, they are all trying to promote Buttdisk and Nipdisk
> and Arsedisk and other competing proprietary systems.
LOL, OK.
> Microsoft Windows can do what Sony is attempting, in my fictional tale
> here, because they have a monopoly. Welcome DRM on the next version of
> Windows (called "Pickpocket" I think). (Now are you sorry you voted for
> Bush?) Why is the government allowing Microsoft to collude with Sony on
> these technologies? Because competition, like free trade, is for you
> and me-- not big multi-national corporations.
>
> But Sony will take a bath because the public has a decided preference
> for open or relatively open standards. Open standards means it will be
> copyable.
>
> Or who knows. If anybody could be sure of what would happen, you'd be
rich.
>
> So this is all just my speculative rumination. Have a nice day.
I'll try!
JP
JP Gerard
It doesn't, but modern day CD mastering is just horrible, and that's what
I'm taling about.
> Release format doesn't change the desirability of the
> "mastering process" where an experienced engineer
> equalizes/normalizes, etc. the tracks together.
I disagree strongly. The D is a very capable format, I'll give you that. I
LIKE the CD.
But today's "loudness standard" makes it impossible to keep decent dynamics
and EQ. You have to fuck up your sound to get the the now standard
"loundness" to be accepted.
> And CD and LP both require the manufacturing of some kind
> of mechanical (or optical) master from which to stamp copies.
Yes.
> Maybe we need a better definition of this
> "horrible CD mastering process"?
I think it's pretty clear, and if you ever get to witness a mix you've
worked on long and hard being "mastered for commercial release", you'll see
what I mean.
Although there are some small labels out there who don't give a shit about
loudness and STILL get their albums mastered properly.
Those CDs I typically really like...
JP
JP Gerard
>
> E.g. put a microphone next to your speaker and press record. I
> estimate 15 minutes after the release of a dickdisk I can download the
> music for free. Enterprising entrepeneurs will sell the music on other
> formats too.
Technically, yes, until analogue recording will be a thing of the past. It
could happen. When it's all digital, copy protection codes can be embedded
in your signal (audio) data. It could indeed prevent further copying.
Whether some kind of filter could be designed, I dunno. I know next to
nothing aboyut digital technology.
But this is all speculative anyway... as Bill pointed out.
> We're sure, and we're rich - at least in terms of the music we can
> listen to before we decide what concert to go to this weekend.
>
> --
> Support live music!
Hmm, we're wandering off path aren't we now...
JP
Richard Crowley
>> How does making LPs obviate any mastering process?
>
> It doesn't, but modern day CD mastering is just horrible,
> and that's what I'm taling about.
>
>> Release format doesn't change the desirability of the
>> "mastering process" where an experienced engineer
>> equalizes/normalizes, etc. the tracks together.
>
> I disagree strongly. The D is a very capable format, I'll give
> you that. I LIKE the CD.
> But today's "loudness standard" makes it impossible to keep
> decent dynamics and EQ. You have to fuck up your sound
> to get the the now standard "loundness" to be accepted.
But that is a completely separate topic, IMHO.
Compressing the life out of your music so that it has the maximum
apparent loudness is a *voluntary* choice. The mastering engineer
will do whatever your instructions say. If you tell him/her that you
don't want to play that game, they will likely be happy to not squeeze
all the dynamic range out of your recordings.
For that matter, you can have CDs manufactured from your master
just as it is, without any "horrible mastering process".
How is releasing on LP even a viable alternative? What kind of
a potential market of customers do you have who can even play
the old black vinyl discs?
she...@yahoo.com
JP Gerard wrote:
> > It's always copyable!!
> >
> > E.g. put a microphone next to your speaker and press record. I
> > estimate 15 minutes after the release of a dickdisk I can download the
> > music for free. Enterprising entrepeneurs will sell the music on other
> > formats too.
>
> Technically, yes, until analogue recording will be a thing of the past. It
> could happen. When it's all digital, copy protection codes can be embedded
> in your signal (audio) data. It could indeed prevent further copying.
> Whether some kind of filter could be designed, I dunno. I know next to
> nothing aboyut digital technology.
That could only happen in such a distant future that we no longer have
analogue ears. The analogue portion cannot be bypassed because that's
what we can hear, at least until direct jacking in to the brain becomes
the only way to go. Even then, analogue will still be necessary, for
some time at least..
..speaking of speculative.. :)
hank alrich
> I often think the government should just give the RIAA exactly what it
> wants-- in spades. Let's make it illegal to listen to music on the radio.
Hunh??
--
ha
Bill Van Dyk
What if the RIAA were able to effectively prevent copying of the music
in their catalogues. Then suppose some unsigned young up-and-coming
musicians decided that, to crack into the business, they would offer
their music as free downloads, and allow it to be played on internet
radio stations for free, and gave away CD's at parties and events.
Suppose that the only music you could download through the internet, or
play on internet radio stations, is music by independent artists who are
not under contract to the big record companies?
If you were a record company executive, and you watched this happen
before your eyes, would you be a bit disturbed, and worried about the
consequences of a parallel independent market developing outside of the
control of the industry? What did Microsoft do after Word Perfect
removed copy protection from their disks?
pupp...@gmail.com
someone adding us to their website's playlist. People then linked to
that playlist and everytime someone goes to their webpage, it
automaticly downloads our song. So, 26k downloads does not equal 26k
unique hits on our site, but people were hearing the music, even if we
weren't making dime.
At this point I love that people are hearing our stuff but someday I
would like to be able to support myself with it.
So to your point, we will continue to make music by having day jobs,
recording what can and going to studios only when we can afford to.
This makes for lower quality recordings but it does keep some money
coming into the studios and the home recording industry.
Maybe in the future everyone in the music industry will need day jobs
in another industry. there's a depressing thought. But we'll all keep
doing it, I hope.
Scott Dorsey
The Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 already makes it illegal to
listen to FM in stereo. It defines a subcarrier as a form of encryption...
and from then on it just gets worse. Thank the cell phone lobbyists for that
abomination.
Roger W. Norman
whether it's on the streets or in a clubs, sell CDs at your performances,
and you'll likely get enough to subsist on. If you want to create a buzz
then the same formula exists, but you then have the opportunity to do more
on the back end because you'd have label support, radio spots, etc.
Nothing beats live performances with your home crowd if you can develop it.
Anything else is extra. Music performance has changed, recordings only go
to supporting local live acts these days, not national or international
acts, or at least most national/international acts aren't easily going
platinum. The Grateful Dead were the pinoneers of the future, which are us.
Play as much as possible as often as possible, let people do their things,
and the fans will support you as much as one could hope. The days of
superstardom like the Beatles is gone, Nivana died when Curt did, and
Alyesha Keys does as many performances as she can. Videos only work for
pretty people and if you aren't pretty you'll be spending lots of money for
pretty people.
Besides, nothing beats knowing how to play your music well and doing it in
front of other people. If they like it, they'll buy the CDs, and that's
money in your pocket. I know tons of creative talented jazz musicians that
make a good living (homes, Mercedes) from just this formula. They work when
they want, draw crowds that support them, walk away with money and plan the
next event. The large majority of music is this way. Any hopes of
something better should be on the back burner, and then if they present
themselves to you, think carefully about whether you want to be a shill for
the record companies or you want to make music as your livelyhood for the
rest of your life.
Think about Eubie Blake. Died at 100 after a normal day's performance.
That's the way I'd like to go out.
--
Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
http://blogs.salon.com/0004478/
"Bill Van Dyk" <tr...@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message
news:h6idncZ8Krt...@golden.net...
Scott Dorsey
>> How does making LPs obviate any mastering process?
>
>It doesn't, but modern day CD mastering is just horrible, and that's what
>I'm taling about.
It is only horrible if you let it be horrible.
>I think it's pretty clear, and if you ever get to witness a mix you've
>worked on long and hard being "mastered for commercial release", you'll see
>what I mean.
I just keep saying, "turn it down, turn it down" and "I don't want this
crushed" and they get the point. I also try to work with a mastering
engineer who actually knows what acoustic music is supposed to sound like.
If you're handing it off to the label and letting the label deal with the
mastering, so you have no creative control, there's nothing you can do.
But I assure you that it's possible to make crappy sounding LPs as well.