Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Media Music The Almighty Buck The Internet

Musicians Have Many Money Options Online, Says Talking Head 114

Posted by Zonk from the i-want-money-lots-and-lots-of-money dept.
Time Slows Down writes "Scottish born musician and former record label owner David Byrne says the future of music as a career is wide open and identifies six different distribution models now available to musicians in an article in this month's Wired magazine. At one end of the scale is the 360, or equity deal, where every aspect of the artist's career is handled by producers, promoters, marketing people, and managers. At the other end of the scale is the self-distribution model, where the music is self-produced, self-written, self-played, and self-marketed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Musicians Have Many Money Options Online, Says Talking Head More

Musicians Have Many Money Options Online, Says Talking Head

Comments Filter:

  • So what he's basically saying is... (Score:5, Funny)

    by BadAnalogyGuy ( 945258 ) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Sunday December 30, 2007 @02:34AM (#21854536)
    It's the same as it ever was.
    • word.
    • No visible means of support and you have not seen nuthin' yet.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hxnwix ( 652290 )

      It's the same as it ever was.
      Yes, it's kind of like how it was when the lucky users had 2400 baud modems and gopher was hot shit in that .... ??
    • No, he's saying...

      This ain't no party, this ain't no disco this ain't no fooling around.
      I got some groceries, some peanut butter
      to last a couple of days
      But I ain't got no speakers
      ain't got no headphones
      ain't got no records to play

    • Re:So what he's basically saying is... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by edwardpickman ( 965122 ) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @02:56AM (#21854634)
      Not exactly it's easier than it ever was which is a double edged sword. Now almost anyone can release an album. That severely dilutes the market. I saw this happen in independent film. Low budget horror films virtually turned into a non profit industry because everyone with a video camera started making them and Blockbuster and other vendors starting accepting crappy ones because they could pick them up cheap. I used to be a fan of the genre but I don't even bother to rent them anymore because they're all bad. It used to be that if you were going to shoot a film you needed half a mill to a mill so you had to maintain a certain quality or no one would touch it. Now large numbers are made for 10K to 50K and a 100K to 500K are considered real budgets. It's going to get harder and harder to get recognized as the market floods. Lets says there are 10X as many bands that now can get their music out there. In five years it'll be 100X and in ten years it'll be a 1000X. There are tens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of garage bands in this country alone. How many hours a day do you have to listen to music? Yes some of the good ones will shine through but the irony is it probably just got radically harder to succeed. People may find it easier to hear your music but it's going to get harder to make a living at it and instruments and recording equipment cost money.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ghyd ( 981064 )

        Now almost anyone can release an album. That severely dilutes the market.

        So far so good then?

        I saw this happen in independent film. Low budget horror films virtually turned into a non profit industry because everyone with a video camera started making them and Blockbuster and other vendors starting accepting crappy ones because they could pick them up cheap.

        Could it be: I saw this happen in film. Low budget films virtually turned into a non profit industry because everyone with a video camera started making them and Blockbuster and other vendors starting accepting crappy ones because they could pick them up cheap.
        Or just that cheap horror films are made so because people don't really want to see them anyway. Cheap horror movies seem more like a cinematographic "meme" than a side effect of technology.

        I used to be a fan of the genre but I don't even bother to rent them anymore because they're all bad.

        Or that the greatest part

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) *

        That severely dilutes the market.

        No, it only "severely dilutes" the market for the very lucky few who made it to the top, like Mr. Byrne.

        Yes some of the good ones will shine through but the irony is it probably just got radically harder to succeed. People may find it easier to hear your music but it's going to get harder to make a living at it and instruments and recording equipment cost money.

        That is just so much bullshit. It's no harder than it ever was for your rank and file musicians to make a living.

        • you'll notice that the Wired magazine article didn't mention any recent hit records
          I missed the memo that requires an artists has to have continued commercial success to be considered relevant. Uh, when was the last successful Stones album? How about the Boss (outside of his core, not a mainstream success since 1984)?

          So I should be listening to what Britney Spears has to say about the industry instead?

        • Thom Yorke: "Uh, David, but now they've got the Internet to get people's attention. They don't have to be well-off art students who's parents pay for them to live in Manhattan and hang out in clubs."

          Although I agree with Thom Yorke's sentiment here, the buzz surrounding "In Rainbows" seriously needs to be kept in check.

          In short, they did it to make money and generate hype.

          Radiohead plateaued in popularity a few years ago, and are perfectly okay with the fact. Their music is appealing to a small subset of t

          • I would suggest that Thom Yorke's success has little to do with the efforts of his record label, who mostly tried to get him to re-make "Creep" over and over again.

            I'm not a huge Radiohead fan, but I give Yorke due credit for resisting the best efforts of his original label to destroy his music. I would also give Byrne credit in this regard.

            My objection with this Wired article is mostly that David Byrne is whining about the changes in a music industry that has made it harder for major labels to control eve
            • "My objection with this Wired article is mostly that David Byrne is whining about the changes in a music industry that has made it harder for major labels to control everything. Just because he got to the top by playing the game, and the game has changed, he has decided that it's now harder for people to succeed."

              I disagree. Byrne did not seem to be whining about anything in the article. And what he means by "harder to succeed" is simply that there is no longer one simple way: sign your life away to a label

              • Rather than just touring about, a band today could have a small studio equipped for video broadcast over the Net. With live or "pre-recorded live" performances sold by subscription, a band wouldn't have to physically tour as much to make the same sort of money and have the same degree of contact with their fans that touring provides.

                This is a terrific idea, Master. I don't know if it's something that you came up with or is already being done, but I can see it adapted in many ways, including live music/vid

                • Go right ahead. In my view, ideas are open source. It's action that matters.

                  I've been touting this concept for at least a year now. It's basically a return to how musicians started - live performing before an audience. Not really a new concept except for the introduction of Net broadcasting.

                  Of course, it may be a while before effective, cost efficient Net broadcasting (at least via video) is feasible for everybody. Bandwidth for video costs. Bob Cringely has been talking about it recently.

                  For audio, of cour
        • Uhm, as far as I can tell from the article, Byrne is impressed by how things are going that make it easier for emerging artists to have CHOICE in how they make their deals.

          The article wasn't about bitching and moaning that he isn't a "star" any more. It was exactly about what you said: that making a living as a musician is now more accessible.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rbanffy ( 584143 )
        This is business as usual.

        Industries rise and fall to the winds of technological advances. Textiles, horse-pulled carriages, ice for refrigeration. All intangibles, like software, books, music and movies are next. No surprise at all.
      • Reminds me (a real graphic designer) of when html crashed our design party in the mid 90s. Suddenly anyone with an Internet connection was a "graphic designer". And we all know about the quality of Joe Random on the Internet.

      • The only problem with the premise is that too many decent bands have already sold away their rights to the record companies - for their current albums, as well as upcoming ones. Many artists have quite some time to wait before they can release music on their own due to that fact. Sad but true. Many artists not in that boat, can't afford alternative methods, because even as cheap as they are, the cost is still above what they can afford - and that doesn't even take into account paying for air-play or adverti

      • This is indeed true. I've heard very few new bands in the last 5-10 years that sounded even vaguely interesting. The dearth of rock radio stations doesn't help either. There's a total of one in Seattle.
    • "This is not my beautiful song!"

    • Stop making cents

    • my favorite quote:

      . . . gives them the right to exploit their work in mediums to be invented in the future -- musical brain implants and the like.
    • It's the same as it ever was.

      Someone controls electric guitar.

  • well, (Score:2, Funny)

    by onion_joe ( 625886 )
    I guess he's Byrne-ing down the RIAA's house.

    sorry...

  • Talent is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)

    by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @02:44AM (#21854588)
    Unfortunately you have to have some actual talent to make it on your own, where with labels all you need to do is suck the right cock and you'll get plastered all over the tv and have a song written for you and have your voice digitally smoothed out.

    no wonder peopel still sign with labels, your soul for some easy money.

    • ...your soul for some easy money.

      Where do I sign?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cromar ( 1103585 )
      Ha ha. If only that were true. I would be rich.
    • You also have to have "talent" at self-promotion, music-distribution, and at whatever your previous job was, because you'll need a lot of money in order to make a decent career for yourself. You may also need talent at surviving below the poverty line if you happen to fail and lose your investment. Or, I guess, you could have a talent at working two (possibly three) jobs simultaneously.

      Yeah, bunch no-talent hacks can't make money off REAL music. Those damn punks taking the easy road just because it's easier
    • There are plenty of talented bands who have stuck with the old way of doing things. It's what they now, it makes them tons of money, and it lets them have time to conduct the self-destructive behavior they have all grown to love. You can't assume that GREAT musicians don't use the old model, just because there are new and exciting ways to promote yourself. You also can't assume if an artists "sells-out" that their music will automatically be worse than if the self-manage. It may be the case in 99% of po

    • no wonder peopel still sign with labels, your soul for some easy money.


      Only a person who's never had to spend a year living in a van with three guys eating fast food, dealing with exploitive and moronic promoters all across the US could all it easy. The reality is, it's anything but. The Britneys and Lindsays are very rare, for everyone else it's a life of work so hard the average US worker could never do it.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AGMW ( 594303 )
      I'd say Talent is in the eye of the beholder ... er ear of the, er, beerholder?

      Anyway, if you can produce something to a reasonable standard in your bedroom recording studio you may be able to find yourself a market, which may lead to bigger and better things. Look at what Sellaband [sellaband.com] are up to. Unsigned Artists register and put up three songs and try and attract Believers (don't panic about the religious overtones of the terminology - the company's Dutch!). A Believer can pre-buy your next CD for $10 (USD)

  • Great article. Especially with the dig at Pete Doherty towards the end. I think he is making an important point with that example.

  • next up: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by circletimessquare ( 444983 ) <circletimessquar ... m ['gma' in gap]> on Sunday December 30, 2007 @02:53AM (#21854624) Homepage Journal
    movies

    seriously, the internet is seriously fucking with the music and movie industry in some really important and earth shattering ways

    i for one look forward to a fracturing of culture: where before there were a few number of portals where people can find new music/ movies (a few radio stations, a few movie houses), now we will see a million online portals for all sorts of subgenres

    in a way its interesting how this will also reshape culture and a sense of identity: you belong to group a, because everyone in that group shares your interests and knows the same media you consume. everyone knows seinfeld jokes, everyone knows star wars references. whereas in a more fractured world, more subcultres are created, and more borders between groups of people not knowing commonalities between each other evolves

    interesting time folks. i look forward to it

    • i for one look forward to a fracturing of culture: where before there were a few number of portals where people can find new music/ movies (a few radio stations, a few movie houses), now we will see a million online portals for all sorts of subgenres

      Let's hope they're more like this [sanctuaryforall.com] rather then drek like this. [youtube.com]

    • You just described slashdot. Cool.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by lysse ( 516445 )
      I'm optimistic too, but the phrase "divide and conquer" keeps nagging at me.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tm2b ( 42473 )
      Yeah. As the revenue model evolves, we're going to see content that better suits narrower and narrower groups - fewer big smash hits (which risk huge flops) and more cult hits. Science Fiction will probably be first since its fans are so Internet-centric, but I'd expect other fanatic cultures (like sports fans) to soon follow.

      Even though its numbers were borderline, Firefly is interesting in that it was fueled by DVD sales, promoted by on-line fans, of a TV show that failed. Babylon 5: The Lost Tales

  • Almighty Institute of Music Retail (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @03:04AM (#21854656) Homepage

    The Almighty Institute of Music Retail [almightyretail.com] cited in the article actually exists. It's like the marketing and promotion part of a record label, but without the label.

  • Who would have thought... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thegrassyknowl ( 762218 ) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @03:13AM (#21854676)
    ...that (actual, talented) musicians could actually be successful without a record label!
    • What's really eye-opening is how much the dinosaur labels managed to entrench themselves in the idea that their business doesn't need it. Now that you have a lot of the talented musicians in the industry moving to flexible labels and newer ways to distribute, the relics that continue making plastic pop icons for a quick dollar will (hopefully) wither.
      • You'd hope the relics would wither but instead they are rallying politicians and passing more draconian laws to further protect their interests (indefinite copyright is one).

        These people/labels have realised that they are on the way out and they are setting themselves up to protect their income for at least their lifetimes. They don't give a shit what happens after that.

        I shouldn't really say on the way out because that is not true. There will always be a majority element of popular society who buys into
      • OK, the thing that you need to understand about the music industry currently is that the focus is the end product, not the means of production. Music is no longer the one man (or one band) show that it was. There are a variety of people who collaborate, not least the performer, to produce a piece of music to sell. Like it or not, that's the way things are right now. It certainly does not mean that you don't have to have talent, it just means you don't have to do every job in the music creation process. You
    • And they can be successful by using the labels as well. You can't infer the correlation that you are trying to infer, in that good artists do it themselves, and crappy sell-out artists use the labels. I kinda get tired of the whole, "the industry is evil". If it is so evil, then the musicians should stop using them. If the other options are so good, and the industry so evil, then there really would be no reason for any artist ever to use the label route. Yet, thousands of artists become filthy stinking

      • You can't infer the correlation that you are trying to infer, in that good artists do it themselves, and crappy sell-out artists use the labels.
        I didn't get that. I simply heard that good artists can succeed regardless of what they do while bad artists can't succeed without the studios pumping out their drek. Which means the sooner the studios die the better for all music lovers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gsslay ( 807818 )
      Well that's obvious. Technology and the interweb is going to continue changing the landscape of lots of industries, not just music.

      But what's more notable is that every example given by Byrne ends with the musician getting paid for their music. No-where is it suggested that everyone takes a copy for free and then self-servingly pontificates about how the musicians only have themselves to blame because their business model is obsolete.

      So what's the excuse going to be when the big nasty music companies are
      • The level of cheapness varies from person to person. The quality of the music from the big labels is usually fairly average. It's all the same dribble, over compressed and engineered to sound "popular".

        Lowering prices will help encourage more people to pay for music. The price of a CD is more in most stores now than it was 10 years ago, yet the cost of manufacture has continued to decline.

        When the big labels are out of the picture I'll imagine that there might be a bit more variety in music. There's a

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gsslay ( 807818 )

          The price of a CD is more in most stores now than it was 10 years ago

          You know, just because people keep saying things doesn't make them true. Let's have some facts;

          Price of chart CD on www.hmv.co.uk today; £8.99. Price of chart CD at Amazon; in the range of £5 - £9
          Price of mainstream advertised CD in Q Magazine in November 1997; £11.99 - £12.99

          So can we just stop with bollocks about CD prices? The price of a CD is about 30% cheaper than it was 10 years ago. In real terms that make it significantly cheaper.

          The quality of the music from the big labels is usually fairly average. It's all the same dribble, over compressed and engineered to sound "popular".

          Mainstream music has always been 9

          • Let's see here...

            I said "in most stores". Buying CDs online from places like Amazon is a bit cheaper but you ignore postage and delays. I don't know anyone who buys actual CDs online. Everyone here still goes to the stores unless they're looking for something more obscure that you can't find in the stores.

            You are comparing apples to oranges anyway; online sales direct from HMV vs RRP in a magazine ad which meant a trip to the store. Why don't you walk down to your local music store and tell me the price

  • I didn't see this option (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pembo13 ( 770295 ) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @03:13AM (#21854678) Homepage
    I scanned through the article, and didn't see mention of this option:

    A subscription and/or ad based supposed set of central sites where artists post their music to from $0 and up, or as I preferred with AllofMp3, per unit of bandwidth -- with multiple codec options. And then said artists play music at concerts, small performances etc... ie. play for their supper. This may reduce the number of hummers that some artists can purchase, but I think it would be worth the loss. Maybe I could actually find new music that I like again.
    • What if subscription/ad-supported music production won't be enough to fund a particular endeavour? What if a piece of music being downloaded for bandwidth cost (plus small margin) can't be adequately performed? What about the people who actually like the options you're clearing away just because you haven't found new music that you like?
    • This may not be exactly what you're looking for, but SellaBand.com has a lot of free streaming music from good artists looking to 'make it.' Some music is downloadable as free samples. Other songs are downloadable for $.50 a song, or download a whole album for $1.00 to $3.50. DRM free! There are over 8000 artists on the site. You can make a playlist of what you like, so you can listen to your favorite SellaBand artists whenever you're online. Twelve (12) artists have raised a budget of $50,000 through the s
    • Check imeem.com - they're doing the whole advertising thing with all the major labels and a lot of the indies giving the green light. The only difference with what your saying is that the artist doesn't need to do anything more than registering their music and allowing their music to be played on the site, since the music on imeem.com is uploaded by its users the artist need never even visit imeem.com, if they have enough fans they'll just start getting royalty checks.... or more likely their label will get
  • And I know a lot of wierd things about his music, like his collaboration with Fatboy Slim - A Musical about Imelda Marcos
  • Being born in 1985 and not knowing the band, for a second there I thought this was some easter egg in submissive jesus [thesubmissivejesus.com]. Or from that talking head that ran after me in those nightmares I used to get. Perhaps not knowing the band is a good thing for me.
    • Jeez. In 1985, I was [doing things that I don't want described in detail on the Internet] and going to midnight showings of the Talking Heads concert movie, "Stop Making Sense." Is it possible that people born that year can now legally drink? Holy heck.

      Seriously, though, go get a copy of the "Stop Making Sense" soundtrack. It's great music. "Burning Down the House" is one of the all-time great songs. The early eighties might have been rife with strangely dressed cookie-cutter synth bands, but a few

    • Mod me totally off topic, but this post highlights EXACTLY why the current state of music is where it is (from a pop quality standpoint). Even if you are only 20, how can you have NOT heard of the Talking Heads? Bands like The Talking Heads are what make me right when I argue that 80s music is better than 2000s music.

  • Not an Apple Fanboi, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bennomatic ( 691188 ) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @05:04AM (#21855016) Homepage
    ...I have just one issue with the thing he mentioned about bands making less from iTunes than from a normal CD. I understand how the numbers work and I've seen the argument before, but there's one thing that he (and Weird Al et al) are missing from the equation.

    And that is that iTunes (and their ilk) brought the power of the single-song purchase to millions of people who did not have it before. Before iTMS came out, I had not bought any music in several years, close to a decade. Mostly, because, while I love the concept of whole albums--I cut my teeth on Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here, for example--a lot of what comes out from the majors these days is indeed one or two good songs on an album of cr@p.

    So since iTMS came out, I have bought at least 100 songs from albums that I never would have purchased. So those artists aren't getting $1.40 instead of $1.60 because I bought their album on iTMS; rather, they are getting $0.09 instead of $0.00 because I bought a song.

    I know my $0.09 isn't much, but neither was my $1.60. And if there are millions of people like me--or even hundreds of thousands--I would guess that the introduction of the a la carte $0.99 song has been a boon for lots of artists.

    Another thing to think about is that iTMS doesn't just sell artists from the majors; they also sell independents (search for "Cousin Isaac", a buddy of mine who sells a couple of albums via iTMS). I don't know the details of how that works, but it seems like there are opportunities for artists in some of Byrns' "control your own destiny" plans to take advantage of that infrastructure.

    • Case in point: me. I don't buy CDs. I occasionally buy tracks from the ITMS. Thus artists do not make more money from my CD purchases than from my digital purchases - it's a comparison between "nothing" and "something". The ITMS is infinitely more profitable for the artist if buying behavior like mine is the norm.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by fortunato ( 106228 )
      I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, I would add that I think the whole point of his article is that there is a massive shakeup going on in the industry, as anyone who reads Slashdot knows, and he was basically pointing out just some of the various new ways a musician has at his/her disposal to distribute their music. He broke it down into six, but I don't really think his intention was to make his six examples the only options. Those were just the biggest options right now. It's way too soon to sa
    • I agree. If Mr. Byrne is correct, and the artist makes about the same in royalties from a cd as the artist does from a download (because Apple eats up the 30% normally taken by distro and other costs of regular cds), the Artist will come out ahead eventually. Why? Because the cost to the consumer is less for the same amount of music, freeing up more money for the consumer to buy MORE music from the artists.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jbengt ( 874751 )
      I believe that you are misunderstanding his point. It was not that the iTunes sales are bad for the artist. It is that the artist loses out on the potential available from the lower costs associated with online sales. The label is giving the artist a percent of a lower total, rather than the same or better royalty in absolute terms. The benefits of lower costs are being shared by Apple, the consumer, and the label - but the artist is typically taking home less money per unit. Not to mention the standar
      • Agreed; we should feed the major labels to the lions. Hence my point about iTMS selling independent artists stuff as well. I think artists that go that route get more, something like $0.25/song, but I do not know for certain. That would have been an interesting data point to include, as I believe that iTMS (and other similar services) *can* be a tool that benefits artists as you describe, rather than just the consumer, the distributor (in this case, iTMS) and the label.

        However, I did not miss the point

  • More creative business models for musicians (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thbb ( 200684 ) on Sunday December 30, 2007 @07:43AM (#21855520) Homepage
    David Byrne's article is well thought out, but quite unimaginative. There are many other ways to produce music and make a living with it.

    For instance, since 2001, Einstuerzende Neubauten [neubauten.org] has been exploring new ways to produce records and interact with their public while producing the album. Their last 3 albums were produced by a subscription (like Mozart used to do in the 19th century!). As supporters, we could attend the recording sessions via webcam, chat online with the band members, or use the forums to discuss about the directions taken by the band ; we obtained early versions of the songs, and attended private concerts. Unanimously agreed as a great experience!

    They've been fairly successful so far, though they still want to polish their formula. There is a nice interview about their latest album and the issues they face in going "label-free" [re-public.gr].

    • There are many other ways to produce music and make a living with it.
      Undoubtedly there are more ways than Mr. Byrne stated, but to be fair, he was merely walking us through the business as it stands right now, limiting his response to just those realistic paradigms that are available.

    • (like Mozart used to do in the 19th century!)

      Ummm, Mozart spent the entire 19th Century decomposing.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by zig007 ( 1097227 )

        Ummm, Mozart spent the entire 19th Century decomposing.
        Are you saying he wasn't done doing that by then?
    • It is not exactly working out as it should with Einstuerzende Neubauten as you can read in this article on Einstuerzende Neubauten [side-line.com]
  • I don't know where he got those charts from but they're very informative, assuming they are accurate.
    They're going to be great input into our cube discussions at work (that occur while we're meant to be working).
  • from the article:

    "Recording costs have declined to almost zero. Artists used to need the labels to bankroll their recordings. Most simply didn't have the $15,000 (minimum) necessary to rent a professional studio and pay an engineer and a producer. For many artists -- maybe even most -- this is no longer the case. Now an album can be made on the same laptop you use to check email."

    As much as I used to like the Heads, Mr. Byrne, like most of his ilk, exists in a vacuum. (Not his fault, really)

    If one

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by zig007 ( 1097227 )

      As much as I used to like the Heads, Mr. Byrne, like most of his ilk, exists in a vacuum. (Not his fault, really)

      I would actually say the complete reverse, that he knows EXACTLY what he is talking about. Obviously, he's not unaware that people wants to, and already do, sell single songs(or "works", for adequate pretense).

      Of course he know the things you talk about. But what he is referring to is recording costs and distribution.
      When he is saying "almost zero" he is talking about a couple of hundred dollars or a figure that even poor musicians can muster themselves. Compared to the hundreds of thousands it used to cos

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by LowEndTheory ( 820826 )
        Yes, true, anyone can make anything very cheaply, I try to do that myself all the time!

        I also know that it didn't used to cost "hundreds of thousands" necessarily. That was the domain of the over-inflated mega-rockstar budgets. I've worked on many albums that had those kinds of budgets. Most of that money went to food, hotels, airfare, transportation, "handlers", personal chefs, etc., all of a very lavish nature. (Not begrudging them either, I think people should have fun with their money). But it w

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by zig007 ( 1097227 )

          I also know that it didn't used to cost "hundreds of thousands" necessarily.

          No, of course you are right, that is a completely insane level if one were talking about the cost of making a single recording for the normal band.
          I must have thought about the costs of the buying studio equipment then vs now, because people were talking of purchasing computers and gear.

          I remember though, in the old days, when a 16 or 24 channel 2 inch recorder(+controller gear and Dolby NR units), a then requirement for any serious mainstream recording studio to compete, could cost from 20-30 000 dollars

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by LowEndTheory ( 820826 )
            For a studio owner? Oh yes, life was (and still is) brutal. Those huge Neve or SSL consoles are a million or more. That, along with the cost of everything else, drove strong men to weep and lose their sanity on a regular basis. Huge nut every month...

            I think in a weird way it's way cheaper and just as expensive these days to produce music. The lines are definitely blurring between artist/label, or artist/engineer, labe/distributor, artist/distributor/road manager... it's freaky, it's really cool - j

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by zig007 ( 1097227 )

              just a pain in the ass to sort out and impossible to put in neat little boxes.

              Yep. Actually it is quite interesting to see the industry trying. Since everybody in it has had well-defined roles and jobs(and aspirations) forever... I mean how much has really changed the last 60 or so years in how a record(which it ALWAYS has been) has been marketed and distributed? Not much.
              Hence, the industry has solidified, and now, there is a possibility that everything will be completely turned over on it's head and suddenly they will have to move really fast to survive.
              You know, for Britney and t

              • Well, yes, marketing hasn't changed all that much. You have to do it, always had to, and you generally use the same tricks. But the actual distribution I would say has changed pretty dramatically in the last 60 years. Snocap, iTunes, CDBaby, Discmakers et. al., selling your own CDs at gigs, home-burnt or not (not many people had cutting lathes for vinyl 50 years ago), sticking CDs into magazines (LPs just didn't work as well for that), physical copies of music in places like Wal-Mart, Barnes & Noble

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )

      But he should talk to all the singers, songwriters and musicians out here that want to do "different" things - like have a real string quartet or chamber orchestra, or a really good gospel choir, or record the interplay between a great jazz drummer and an insane guitar shredder, or do an HD video release of the recording session, etc. etc.

      When I was at school, my Young Enterprise company put out a CD containing recordings from the school orchestras and bands. The entire cost, including getting the CDs professionally duplicated and paying for performance rights to the in-copyright songs was around £3-4 per CD for an hour of music selling 200 copies (I think; these figures are from memory).

      Note that this was around a decade ago. Costs have gone down a huge amount since then.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by LowEndTheory ( 820826 )
        Your absolutely right, the costs for those particular things has definitely come way down, thank god.

        It's a bit different for a band or singer-songwriter these days. I could do an album right now, for free, with the technology we have today. As long as I have the software. Which could range from free (very poor choice), cracked or stolen (even poorer), a couple of hundred dollars to about $10,000. Oh, and a good mic if I want to actually sing. I should also have a couple of backup drives (200-300 bu
  • And Byrne correctly sees it in the article.

    Music as "product" is out.

    Music as "performance" is back in.

    You produce CDs as loss leaders for your tour, not the other way around as it used to be.

    As I've said repeatedly here and elsewhere, nobody in history has ever PAID FOR MUSIC. They've paid for ACCESS to music - whether it was drinks at a pub or bar, or tickets to a concert. Nobody paid for the music itself. The Grateful Dead realized this with their motto, "The music's free - the concert costs."

    Only when p
  • Music doesn't mean as much to people as it did in the past. It's got so much more to compete with - Internet, cable, DVD's, video games, and on and on. And even though it's cheaper to make than ever before, the cost has gone up, due to corporate greed. The symptoms of this are rapidly declining CD sales, fewer and fewer venues for musicians to play at, and decreasing pay for those remaining gigs. Lots of people think that musicians should have to make a living playing live, but they should also recogniz

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close