FINALLY, a mainstream article saying what I've been saying for years. The production quality today is trash. Clipping is everwhere and there is no dynamic range. Production quality peaked by the mid-1990's, and it's been all downhill since then.

 

Why New Music Doesn't Sound As Good As It Did

Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:17PM EDT

See Comments (207)

 

Never mind that today's factory-produced starlets and mini-clones just don't have the practiced chops of the supergroups of yesteryear, pop in a new CD and you might notice that the quality of the music itself—maybe something as simple as a snare drum hit—just doesn't sound as crisp and as clear as you're used to. Why is that?

 

It's part of the music industry's quest to make music louder and louder, and it's been going on for decades, at least since the birth of the compact disc. Click the link for a nice little video, a mere 2 minutes long, which explains it in detail, with audio cues that you'll be able to hear in crisp detail.

 

 

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/33549

^Yeah, I saw this, however their example is a bit cheesy. 

And if they aren't getting it on a CD, they are buying it (or stealing it) online at half the quality!

 

I didn't realize I had my bass cranked when I played that example.  The second sample (at 2006) was really horrible on my ears.

I have a problem with the music itself. Majority of it is superficial dance-club type rap or whiney corny punk music.

This is called "hard limiting" in the industry, and it's a crime.

I think that a big part of the reason that this is done is because of the changing environment in which people listen to music.  Most music listening is done in cars these days.  This means that there is a noise floor due to road and wind noise that quite passages have to come in above, or they get lost entirely.  At the same time, the loud passages can't be too ear shattering, so simple volume adjustments are inconvenient.  The natural response is to bring up the soft parts during the recording process, with the consumate loss in overall dynamic range.  For most people, it is a useful tradeoff, though audiophiles may be disappointed by the loss of dynamics.

I think that a big part of the reason that this is done is because of the changing environment in which people listen to music.  Most music listening is done in cars these days.  This means that there is a noise floor due to road and wind noise that quite passages have to come in above, or they get lost entirely.  At the same time, the loud passages can't be too ear shattering, so simple volume adjustments are inconvenient.  The natural response is to bring up the soft parts during the recording process, with the consumate loss in overall dynamic range.  For most people, it is a useful tradeoff, though audiophiles may be disappointed by the loss of dynamics.

 

I think another part of it is the declining hearing of the baby boom and "Generation X", both due to the aging process and too many concerts.  I know from personal experience that that means you miss a lot of the subtleties, particularly riding in a car.  Likewise, if the volume of the soft parts isn't boosted you'd miss that as well.

emerging technologies and formats

Most music listening is done in cars these days.  This means that there is a noise floor due to road and wind noise that quite passages have to come in above, or they get lost entirely. 

 

Yeah I notice that when I started listening to classical.  In classical pieces there might be a real low intro, which gets lost in the road noise and car AC.  I usually have to crank the car stereo volume in a classical piece at first, then adjust down as the piece progressess to the climax. 

 

 

If all cars had a "smartsound" type feature that raised the volume automatically with speed and accessory use, maybe production could return to normal.

 

Wow, another thing to blame on the car.

That song on the radio "Make Me Better" had finally gotten into my head so I downloaded it on itunes.  Let me just say, HORRIBLE sounding quality.  I was playing it on moderately low volume on my $150 headphones, which have always produced beautiful sound out of even the worst of tracks.  The bass hits were scratchy.  When I turn it up, it's all static.  If I play it on my ipod in my truck, it will wreck the 11 year old speakers.  That's it, back to downloading music for free (except from artists I actually like, I go to the store)

Kanye West is the worst. Not because of the sound quality but becuase his arrogance wont allow him to make a track that isn't over produced with too many sound effects.

Well I think the main reason for the loudness is that while scanning through radio stations people will tend to listen to the ones that sound better.  That is of course the advantage of FM over AM, but even within FM you will hear the pop channel cut through in a way NPR and so on do not, and part of it is because of this kind of recording.  Compare new pop to a classic rock station when a loud but traditionally recorded band like The Doors or Jefferson Airplane comes on. The other night I was driving when "Happy" by the Rolling Stones came on, a definite radio rarity, and partly because its recording is so muffled compared to nearly anything else.   

 

And of course the other reason why pop music sucks so bad is because the companies are run by total clowns.  From my experience with people in the music industry, I can tell you a lot of those people are complete, complete idiots.  This past winter I met a guy at a party in Nashville who worked for BMI (okay it wasn't BMI but it was something that recognizable, I'm just trying to not give away who this guy was).  He told me he got the job through an alum of his fraternity.  The guy having the party was playing a Merle Haggard record on his old record player.  I asked the BMI dude how big of a Merle Haggard fan he was.  He didn't know who Merle Haggard was or that we were listening to him.  This after he had just told me he had signed off on like a $43,000 royalty check that day to Vince Gill's first wife.  That's just one story of mine. 

 

Another one is my former roommate's band (in fact they wanted me to join the band back around 2000 but I was leaving town, just one of my several near-misses with fame), who are fantastic and who were signed to Columbia in 2002 and given a $100,000 advance.  Their video got played 25 times on CMT, they played Conan O'Brien's show, and then the label dropped them.  As you will see from the following translation, everything the record companies do has to do with a forced sexualization of everything.  The single (yes, an original) is a song about alcoholism and self-destruction yet there isn't a single reference to that in the video, just them trying to turn Robin into a sex kitten.  And Robin's married to the mandolin player, so if I was him I probably would have gone down there and kicked a few people's asses for filming his wife that way.   

 

First is the band playing a typical gig:

 

Columbia's marketing wisdom:

 

The story I always heard was the record company "didn't know what to do" with this band. Well, maybe just get their stuff played on the radio and let it sell itself.  Record companies totally control how much things are played on the radio and on TV and they have a sort of formula where if it doesn't hit right away they drop the groups.  It's tough for lower-key groups which is why Norah Jones is such an anomaly.   

 

The other thing is with stuff like American Idol it makes it look like being able to sing on-key is so rare.  Go to any church with a good choir and you'll find a dozen people who can out-sing Clay Aitken or whatever his name is.  There are tons and tons of good musicians and groups out there but the record companies, like a said, are run by complete scum. 

jmecklenborg you have a point.  When I worked in the music, we tried to protect our investment.  Recored companies are like banks.  We loan you money to make a record and we want a return on our investment.  People think its as easy as going into a music studio and laying down tracks and bada-bing you gotta hit.

 

Its a complicated formula and in the states (in 2004) an artist/group had to sell at least 3.5 million CD domestically to break even.

 

Most first time acts are pretty much at the mercy of the label from producing, marketing, promotion standpoint since the label wants to make sure they can get the most out the money they've already shelled out.  And not all record company's force sex, but it sells.  I myself have had to compromise my own personal beliefs (for instance the "n" word) when working with artists. 

 

Your friends husband didn't have a choice, the bottom line is your friends group was at least $100k in the hole.  I presume your friends were dropped, not allowed to record for another label until the length of their original contract ran out and Colombia took a loss on them, in addition, Columbia owns the master to their album.

 

That "I don't know what to do" is because of bad A&R.  I was in that position myself, but sometimes you gotta trust your gut and get to know the artist(s) in order to really get a sense of what to do with them.  Its not always as simple as putting them in front of the audience they "think" they appeal to .  Once an artist signs on the dotted line, they are a "brand" and its in the labels best interest to make that "brand" known to the widest audience.

One of the things that's really changed is the way bands start out.  You need to be using the internet, specifically Myspace, to create a buzz.  Playing live is a lot less important than it used to be, indeed you need to be bringing people in the first time you play at a bar, not build a following playing for audiences of 10 to 20 like used to happen.  There's less places bringing in live bands because it's not profitable.  People used to go out to hear a new band, but now they can check them out online first.

 

Not too long ago I saw a guy excoriating people to go out more often and check out new bands, ironically on a Myspace forum.  It struck me a lot like the jingoistic "Buy American" campaign the automakers used when Japanese imports were making headway, before they realized that their customers priorities had changed.  Only it was worse, GM never actually criticized their potential customers for "not giving a damn".

"The story I always heard was the record company "didn't know what to do" with this band. Well, maybe just get their stuff played on the radio and let it sell itself."

That video is pretty hilarious. I kept thinking, "ok, where is the guy she's singing about?"

Anyway - what radio station, in Cincinnati at least, would ever play that band ?

Did they want to be promoted as "Country" ?

Yeah, I really don't see much of a market for that band's style.

 

 

It's tough for lower-key groups which is why Norah Jones is such an anomaly.    

 

There's a dark side to that too; Norah Jones commands 80 percent of the jazz market.

 

The other thing is with stuff like American Idol it makes it look like being able to sing on-key is so rare.  Go to any church with a good choir and you'll find a dozen people who can out-sing Clay Aitken or whatever his name is.  There are tons and tons of good musicians and groups out there but the record companies, like a said, are run by complete scum. 

 

True but like any other reality show, we watch it because we love to see humiliation. and we love to be critical of other people on tv; Americans get off on it. Much of the real talent is probably scared off by the prospect of humiliation on the show. That could damage not only someone's self esteem but their career as well. What it attracts is the massive amount of people who will do anything to become famous period (I think I read a study that like 90 percent of teenagers think they're going to be famous some day? Some crazy figure).

>I presume your friends were dropped, not allowed to record for another label until the length of their original contract ran out and Colombia took a loss on them, in addition, Columbia owns the master to their album.

 

Yeah, they have actually since recorded another record on a small label but they can't even sell the Columbia record at their own shows.  In other words they have to go to the record store just like anyone else to buy their own record. 

 

>Its not always as simple as putting them in front of the audience they "think" they appeal to .  Once an artist signs on the dotted line, they are a "brand" and its in the labels best interest to make that "brand" known to the widest audience.

 

Well some groups are of course terrible live but they sell a lot of records.  This band built its reputation around the region playing live and in fact they sell out small clubs at $20-$30 a head.  The core issue with the band in my opinion is that they were actually making a good living playing and so weren't hungry enough to move to Nashville or LA and so missed out on a lot of exposure to other musicians and tourists.  Also there's no reason they couldn't have been played on any station that was playing Allison Kraus and put on TV or movie soundtracks, which seem to be incredibly effective at raising popularity.   

 

>Not too long ago I saw a guy excoriating people to go out more often and check out new bands, ironically on a Myspace forum.  It struck me a lot like the jingoistic "Buy American" campaign the automakers used when Japanese imports were making headway, before they realized that their customers priorities had changed.  Only it was w

 

Yeah but the problem with that is that a lot of bands are absolutely terrible at promoting themselves.  My #1 complaint is that out of the 4 songs you get on Myspace, bands tend to either pick the most recent ones or just random ones instead of putting, you know, their good ones on there.  The other thing is that a lot of bands have this attitude like "whoever comes, comes" and don't concentrate on getting on the bill at big outdoor festivals or opening slots for major bands on tour. 

 

The other thing is that people who are managers for local bands or local clubs or work for small labels tend to be total clowns.  I deal with these people pretty regularly because I get a lot of assignments taking photos of bands at clubs or dance nights.  There are a lot of people out there in management who have an interest in music but who can't, you know, follow through.  Returning phone calls?  Getting a straight answer?  Geesh, it's like pulling teeth with these people.  The funniest thing recently for me was watching a guy who was about 23 who was full of energy get hired and then fired as manager (the youngest person in the band was about 38) for a band.  He looked like a lost puppy after getting fired but I dealt with the guy about 5 times and he was just a total idiot when it came to the nuts and bolts. 

 

>Yeah but the problem with that is that a lot of bands are absolutely terrible at promoting themselves.  My #1 complaint is that out of the 4 songs you get on Myspace, bands tend to either pick the most recent ones or just random ones instead of putting, you know, their good ones on there.  The other thing is that a lot of bands have this attitude like "whoever comes, comes" and don't concentrate on getting on the bill at big outdoor festivals or opening slots for major bands on tour. 

 

Yeah, and that's not anything new, let alone unique to Myspace at all.  Musicians in general seem to be hung up on their latest work, or into change for the sake of change.  That's fine if you're doing it as a hobby but if you want to be a professional then you have to be focused on the potential customer.

 

During the early 90s my brother was in a band that never played bigger than bars.  He had the most professional attitude in the band by a good margin.  They had one truly IMO great song, the rest was so-so and some semi unique covers. 

 

After awhile the other guys decided they weren't going to play that song anymore because they were sick of it.  I was incredulous:  at most 300 people had heard this song but a large number of them thought it was fantastic.  Dave was POed himself and he left the band soon after.  I was reminded of the old Sam Kinison skit:  "you think the Beach Boys get of singing "Surfing USA?!"

 

I think anyone remotely related to the music business knows that planning and even luck probably play a bigger role than talent.

Why Does My CD Sound Different on the Radio?

By Bernie Nau, Matthew Toledo- 6/12/2008

You've spent a lot of time and/or money tweaking your latest recording. You've played it in your car, on your home stereo, in your computer, and on a boom box. Each time, you adjust the recording until you think it sounds perfect almost everywhere. Then you hand your recording to a radio station. They play it, you hear it, and to your horror, the recording sounds absolutely nothing like it did during all your previous experiments. What happened? You raise your fists into the sky and proclaim, "Why does my CD sound different on the radio?"

 

The answer is simple: radio stations process your recording.

^A few years ago I turned on the radio and was stunned/delighted to hear the station playing a track from my old band's CD. There came a point, though, during a guitar solo, where you could clearly hear my voice saying something like "guitar solo goes here." In the studio, while the whole band was tracking down the master, I had leaned into my mike and spoke to remind the producer that a solo would be tracked in later. Apparently, on the final mix, the engineer didn't mute my track, and you can't hear my voice when you listen to the CD on headphones or anything. Something about the radio processing, though, brings it out clear as day. Creepy.

^Similarly in Michael Jackson's "Beat It" you can hear the producer knock on the studio door, then open it and shut it just as  Eddie Van Halen launches into his guitar solo.

 

Anybody know why Fox 92.5 and Radio 94.1 come in much softer on my car radio than 102.7. 105.1 or 107.1?

^Similarly in Michael Jackson's "Beat It" you can hear the producer knock on the studio door, then open it and shut it just as Eddie Van Halen launches into his guitar solo.

 

Anybody know why Fox 92.5 and Radio 94.1 come in much softer on my car radio than 102.7. 105.1 or 107.1?

 

the stations frequencies and own "settings".

There is apparently an entire conversation about cameras in the background of "Wouldn't it be Nice" on the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds album, but I've never been able to hear it.  There was some kind of uproar from fans when they took it out when it was remastered in the 90's. 

 

You can hear Mick Jagger yell "yeah!" at 1:12 on this one:

 

 

I hate it when some radio stations really pump the bass.  I like to raise my car's bass when I plug in my ipod, but when I change to the radio, it's all scratchy sounding.  It's probably because my truck was built in 1995.....still though.

 

 

Don't know about other music, but I hate a lot of the beats heavy industry artists and producers are using.  Some of them just don't have the right sounds, regardless of what media you hear them on.  Synths are "buzzy" and some of the strikes are way to "tinny"  The new Madonna and JT song that's been playing on the radio is a great example.  They have this sample of brass instruments playing a few measures over and over.  Low brass instruments in general can sound scratchy, especially when they are shooting for the marching band type of sounds.  If that's what producers were shooting for, it's really unfortunate because it's just not the right type of sound to be looping.  It's irritating.

 

 

BTW, has hip hop enthusiasts ever compared a song with lyrics to just the instrumental.  It's amazing all the nuances the instrumentals contain to the point of being a composition.  You never hear that in tracks with the voice recordings.  My best guess is that those additional instruments might compete with the vocals?

I hate it when some radio stations really pump the bass.  I like to raise my car's bass when I plug in my ipod, but when I change to the radio, it's all scratchy sounding.  It's probably because my truck was built in 1995.....still though.

 

 

Don't know about other music, but I hate a lot of the beats heavy industry artists and producers are using.  Some of them just don't have the right sounds, regardless of what media you hear them on.  Synths are "buzzy" and some of the strikes are way to "tinny"  The new Madonna and JT song that's been playing on the radio is a great example.  They have this sample of brass instruments playing a few measures over and over.  Low brass instruments in general can sound scratchy, especially when they are shooting for the marching band type of sounds.  If that's what producers were shooting for, it's really unfortunate because it's just not the right type of sound to be looping.  It's irritating.

 

 

BTW, has hip hop enthusiasts ever compared a song with lyrics to just the instrumental.  It's amazing all the nuances the instrumentals contain to the point of being a composition.  You never hear that in tracks with the voice recordings.  My best guess is that those additional instruments might compete with the vocals?

 

That because the original songs most likely were performed live and recorded.  The remakes/samples only take a small portion of the original song , looped and slightly modified electronically, therefore it looses that "something" the original had, the new recording/production (via radio - depending on the stations format), video and live all have a certain oddity to them.

BTW, has hip hop enthusiasts ever compared a song with lyrics to just the instrumental. It's amazing all the nuances the instrumentals contain to the point of being a composition. You never hear that in tracks with the voice recordings. My best guess is that those additional instruments might compete with the vocals?

 

I don't know about hip hop per se, but your right in general, one wants to leave musical "space" for the vocals.  That means making the instrumentation more sparse- instuments either drop out entirely or play fewer notes/less busy melody, less loud, etc.  Especially with "midrange" instruments that would interfere the most with vocals that occupy the same frequency range.  Note how guitars tend to drop out or mute in rock songs when the vocals come in.

There was a time not so long ago when heavily-produced pop recordings actually sounded great.  Appetite for Destruction is frequently cited as the last all-analog bit-budget rock record, it was recorded in 1987.  Various digital effects started appearing one-by-one in the 80's and the move from tape to digital in the 90's along with even more digital effects ruined everything.  The single artist you can point to for having great sound was Lenny Kravitz in his early all-analog recordings but everything since about 1993 on from that guy has been electronic crap.  Pro-tools has allowed people with absolutely no singing talent like Britney Spears to nevertheless eak out a singing career.     

 

Well, I tried to post some big-budget youtube clips here but the record companies don't allow embedding!

 

*edit*

Okay here's one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXmlJQN5Pm8

 

All these nerds doing recording on their laptops have never heard a tube reverb unit and don't have access to the classic equipment that made recordings like this possible.  Digital reverb will never match the classic tube reverb (or tape delay, or a variety of other analog effects)!   

 

 

Pro-tools has allowed people with absolutely no singing talent like Britney Spears to nevertheless eak out a singing career.

 

You aint neva lied about that.  When I worked strictly for at the record label, I couldn't believe how many no talent losers were getting contracts and how many projects my teams had to come up with to sell records.    Some acts with the right grooming, campaigns and videos turned into decent overall performers.

In all fairness it's quite possible that they are fully aware of the benefits of analog equipment but unable to afford the steep price.  I'd love to have a VOX AC30 Top Boost, but it costs 3x what my amp-modelling multieffects board cost me.  And that's just for that one amp, no effects.  That's money I just don't have.

 

My personal pet peeve is that most guitarists these days have a tone that is just flat and overcompressed.  There are no subtle dynamic changes when they play quietly, no punch when they smack the strings hard.  It robs the guitar of its expressiveness.

In all fairness it's quite possible that they are fully aware of the benefits of analog equipment but unable to afford the steep price.  I'd love to have a VOX AC30 Top Boost, but it costs 3x what my amp-modelling multieffects board cost me.  And that's just for that one amp, no effects.  That's money I just don't have.

 

My personal pet peeve is that most guitarists these days have a tone that is just flat and overcompressed.  There are no subtle dynamic changes when they play quietly, no punch when they smack the strings hard.  It robs the guitar of its expressiveness.

 

X, you need a gig at rolling stone!  LOL

“Never mind that today's factory-produced starlets and mini-clones just don't have the practiced chops of...yesteryear…”

 

Forget about production qualities, sound levels and all the technical rigmarole that goes into producing a recording, the first line in the article referenced would have sufficed to accurately judge just what is wrong with the music industry. The most fundamental problem is that the major “artists” of the day (at least among non-rock oriented, pop performers—the ones the record executives are foisting on an increasing tone deaf public) just cannot sing! Not that she’s the most recent example of divadom, but Mariah Carey seemed to set a (dubious) standard many years ago as someone for aspiring singers to emulate, and music industry “professionals” still endlessly praise her. Huh? Technically she’s amazing (at least that what those presumably in the know tell us); that’s not the same as being a great singer. If Ella Fitzgerald was attempting a career today she would be shown the door before even given a chance to open her mouth—so far have standards fallen (note to music producers: believe it or not, sometimes even average looking folks without breast enhancements or pec implants have talent!). I’d like to believe there was a time (maybe in the 1940’s?) when the pop music world was actually about talent and not marketability (or, well, maybe I'm wrong--surely Ashlee Simpson must rank right up there with Peggy Lee; and certainly if there were ever to be another Sinatra or Nat King Cole it would be Justin Timberlake :-P)—but with the public so lobotimzed by the kind of garbage that is deemed music (for now at least a generation), I seriously doubt if talent will ever triumph over profit. (And don’t even get me started on the dearth of decent lyrics--Cole Porter, the Gershwins, etc etc etc…must be rolling over in their graves)

 

A big part of the 80's sound was that manufacturers of instruements, amps, cymbals, recording equipment, etc., all made an effort to create sounds that "cut" through the mix.  Even syths sounded warmer in the 70's because they were analog and recorded on tape and pressed on wax whereas starting in the 80's they were digital.  Also, digital keyboards started in place of analog stage pianos and Hammond organs.  Everything has continued in that direction.  Two notable early 90's respites were Lenny Kravitz's "Are You Gonna Go My Way" record and Beastie Boys' "Check your Head", which were heavy on what was already by then considered vintage equipment.  Now the stuff is fetishized even more, but I don't think recent mainstream vintage recording sounds that great, such as the White Stripes. 

 

Who else remembers seeing Kraftwerk on MTV in the early 80's?  Just imagine what would happen to all those 13 year-old girls in the TRL studio audience if they cued up this gem:

 

 

 

oooooooooh...I love kraftwerk.  IIRC, I think I went to a kraftwerk and Divo concert.  I think the Clash opened.  Ohhhhh the 80's were so fabulous!

 

anyway, EVD.  I can't tell you how many "artists" think they have talent, you would be amazed.

 

However, a good producer, publicist, and video make you an instant star.  Look a Ms. Madonna, she knows she's not the best singer, but she can reinvent herself and I have to give old girl props, she knows how to stay current or make herself the "it" factor.

 

I could tell you kids some story's that would make your hair curl.

I think that a big part of the reason that this is done is because of the changing environment in which people listen to music.  Most music listening is done in cars these days.  This means that there is a noise floor due to road and wind noise that quite passages have to come in above, or they get lost entirely.  At the same time, the loud passages can't be too ear shattering, so simple volume adjustments are inconvenient.  The natural response is to bring up the soft parts during the recording process, with the consumate loss in overall dynamic range.  For most people, it is a useful tradeoff, though audiophiles may be disappointed by the loss of dynamics.

 

This just seems like one more reason to drive less and not spend so much time in our cars.

Now the stuff is fetishized even more, but I don't think recent mainstream vintage recording sounds that great, such as the White Stripes.

 

That kind of surprises me to hear you say that.  I know The White Stripes are overrated in alot of ways, but one thing I've always admired about Jack White is his tone and the way he plays with a wide dynamic range- that he gets that mostly with his fingertips, not from the production.  He knows not to use too much distortion so he can make the guitar tickle or punch depending on how he lays in on the strings.  That's an almost lost art, at least amongst commercial rock.

Man, Kraftwerk had no idea then the type of music they would pave for the future.

^They recorded something like 10 albums, they never really ran out of ideas.  Kraftwerk and Devo in concert makes sense...a lot mroe than the crazy free concert I went to around 1995 with C&C Music Factory & UB40 opening for The Village People. 

 

X, I agree his guitar playing is about the only thing that passes for real guitar playing on the radio, but there are definitely a lot of people better at his style than he is, they just work at random jobs and wallow in obscurity.  Part of the paradox of music is there are a lot of great players out there who don't even want to be in a group or other people don't want to put up with them showing up late and drunk.  It's lightning in a bottle when a group of people from a neighborhood get together as teenagers and they have the individual skill and chemistry not only have a unique voice but to be able to keep it together for awhile.  The great singing groups like Simon & Garfunkel, the Mama & the Papas, and the Beach Boys are obvious examples because they are centered around vocal harmony, but that goes for instrumentation as well.  I think a big problem now is that groups get together in college but then break up at graduation since everyone scatters, or even worse never bother even getting together because they know everyone's going to move.  That's certainly the story of my life, both with music and the ladies!     

 

My clip of the day, this lead player is what Jack White is going for but he's just not as good (and this dude is having an off day, his studio recordings with Bob Dylan are awesome [and if the date of this clip is correct, the electric guitar, period, was only about 5 years old when they recorded this]):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91CtvqVqyUc

^According to a recent bit of hard-hitting journalism, this song is at the top of Obama's iPod playlist.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_en_mu/obama_music

 

the idea that the sound of a record is somehow responsible for the death of the record industry is good press, but faulty logic.  the industry is suffering because it's a dinosaur.  the industry adapted slowly to how people acquire music and, more importantly tried to maintain the same structure to how they promote, sell, and distribute music.  the result is suppressed sales.  then when filesharing came into vogue, they blamed napster and college kids for their problems, they blamed cd burning, they blamed chinese blackmarket pirating, they blamed the ipod, they blamed satellite radio.  anything but the industry itself. 

 

a few years back, someone posited that music has an expiration date.  it lasts maybe two months.  but even that has shortened.  most records are leaked before they are released, and old before the cd is on the shelf.  add to that, the forced release schedule for most musicians, and you have a watered down product being foisted upon an unwilling listener who is already over it.  the end.

^They recorded something like 10 albums, they never really ran out of ideas.  Kraftwerk and Devo in concert makes sense...a lot mroe than the crazy free concert I went to around 1995 with C&C Music Factory & UB40 opening for The Village People. 

 

Kraftwerk was off the chain. 

 

Now I'm having an 80s inspired music day.....we're gonna play 80's music in the office, starting now.

 

First song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWlgbAc3bbM

 

Oh man, the Village people!    I'm vaklempted!

the idea that the sound of a record is somehow responsible for the death of the record industry is good press, but faulty logic.  the industry is suffering because it's a dinosaur.  the industry adapted slowly to how people acquire music and, more importantly tried to maintain the same structure to how they promote, sell, and distribute music.  the result is suppressed sales.  then when filesharing came into vogue, they blamed napster and college kids for their problems, they blamed cd burning, they blamed chinese blackmarket pirating, they blamed the ipod, they blamed satellite radio.  anything but the industry itself. 

 

a few years back, someone posited that music has an expiration date.  it lasts maybe two months.  but even that has shortened.  most records are leaked before they are released, and old before the cd is on the shelf.  add to that, the forced release schedule for most musicians, and you have a watered down product being foisted upon an unwilling listener who is already over it.  the end.

 

Math, you're partially correct.  The music industry started to die when music video's (MTV) aired.  Nobody wanted to listen on the radio or go to concerts because the video was a concert you could see everyday.

 

Also, when DVD's became mainstream, the industry was propped up by sales of DVD because people were replacing their cassette and wax.  This is why today "catalogue" albums are ever popular.

 

Napster, Apple and other electronic media are such a small part of an albums overall sales.  The formula's on what it takes to make ONE "contemporary" album break even is very complicated.  It took me well over a year to learn all the aspects.

 

Good music doesn not have an expiration date.  The artists themselves become irrelevant.  Not the music.

 

When I came to warner, the first thing I had to do was revamp the images of various acts. EnVogue was the "it" girl group at the time.  Brandy was Americas darling. RuPaul was everywhere!  and Madonna was just coming back.  REM was Rock's face and Depche Mode was a Mega Band.

 

those artist didn't make bad music, the labels where ready to move onto the next thing.  Rap/Hip-Hop was dominating the charts and that is where music went.  EnVogue due to internal turmoil was thrown under the bus.  Aliyah replaced Brandy.  Lil Kim became an Icon.  Busta Rhymes, Missy and Timbaland became stars into a stars.  At the same times BoyBands and Garth Brooks were selling records at a pace were product coundn't be replaced.  I spent 7.5 years in the industry...It's fickle.  My experiences with our artists can be mirrored to other labels.

 

 

The way I look at major labels today is that they are one part of the  diversified large media companies' asset allocation. Music used to be the high-yield-but-risky "stocks" section of the portfolio, but today it is the low-yield, low-risk "money market" aspect. In the '60s-'80s, labels would take a chance on certain bands and continue to hold them to see if they caught on. This is how AC/DC, Kiss, Metallica, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Clapton's various bands, Yes, Nirvana, Def Leppard, Judas Priest, Iron Maiden Whitesnake and many more caught on -- they were allowed to use their first 1-4 records slowly build in sales until they turned into an unstoppable freight train. Meanwhile, they were doing exciting, solid live shows and earning the respect of real music fans and casual listeners alike. And of course, both the songwriting and musical chops were there (well, Kiss' musical chops are up for debate). They are the kinds of acts that have made by far the most money for the labels. While there were many Van Halens and Ozzys, there were also many Armored Saints and Metal Churches, bands that the labels sunk a lot of money into but saw relatively little return from.

 

But today, for the media conglomerate, the mainstream label is thought of as a money market account. Short term, low-risk, low yield investments (acts) are the norm. Cliche rappers, Nickelbacks, Seethers and American Idol trash are extremely low risk and have built in promotion from TV and radio. I know that acts have to be "sold" to radio and TV, but how can they resist when so many acts will do anything to make it? Don't fit into the box TV or radio wants? Somebody else will! Also, recording is SO CHEAP today that it really distorts what majors want. A rap album that could easily make it on the radio can be done at home for $0 and sound professional (well, at least production-wise). Same way with a pop record. Rock and country bands cost quite a bit more to produce, but still much, much less than 10 years ago. So rap and pop have a cost advantage right out of the gate, making them more attractive to labels. But what's the problem with this? The acts have little value-added service beyond the album. Live shows are dull or non-existent, and have disproportionately low ticket sales for the number of records sold by the act. Few people buy merch, because they don't CARE about the act enough to buy merch. And therein lies the danger and the lack of long-term sizable returns from an act. People CARED about Black Sabbath in 1970 enough to buy, buy, buy and people CARE enough about Black Sabbath/Heaven and Hell in 2008 to buy, buy, buy. Just like in your personal investing, the money market (record label) is a quick, low-risk way to make only a little money.

 

Note: this is the opposite of how most independent labels work, and is why many of them are flourshing.

 

MTS can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'd imagine that Time Warner as a diversified corporation is seeking the stock-like higher risk/return objective somewhere else in its business, perhaps in cable TV or in the film business.

GCrites80s, where are you getting this information from?

 

They are the kinds of acts that have made by far the most money for the labels.

Untrue, those acts real costs and insurance ate into the cost of a record.  Concerts have nothing to do with the label itself.

 

Rock and country bands cost quite a bit more to produce, but still much, much less than 10 years ago. So rap and pop have a cost advantage right out of the gate, making them more attractive to labels.

:wtf:

 

The acts have little value-added service beyond the album. Live shows are dull or non-existent, and have disproportionately low ticket sales for the number of records sold by the act.

Where are you getting this information.  Live shows are fewer and far between these days do to the onslaught of video and the industry itself has changed. Artist no longer have to "tour" to promote or market an "album".  In the past an artists had to start a "latest album tour" in order to pump sales of the album.  Now they can market via various outlets.

 

Merchandise, has nothing to do with the label an artists is own.  any merchandise is a deal done via the artist and his management/agency.

 

Time Warner does not own a record label any longer and we've just reorganized or Motion Picture movie houses under one imprint (they were already distributed by only one, so this was a streamlining business decision) and spun off or Cable division.

^Well, I guess I kind of thought of it myself.

 

Insurance? What kind of insurance for these bands? Tour insurance? That makes sense, but a good live show makes an imprint that lasts forever. While tour support does cost money it can pay off big time... or sometimes not. Of course concerts have nothing to do with the label... until a bunch of people buy records because they were impressed by the live show, and remember the band years later because of the live show!

 

I know that labels don't see money from merch. But, the marketing and brand recognition appeal of merch is undeniable. While it means a lot of money for the band, it also is FREE advertising for an act, often worn by influencers. When people wear merch, everyone sees it, not just mass media consumers.

 

Basic production is CHEAP today -- production that casual music listeners don't notice, that is. Really cheap! You've been in the situation where you worked for a major label and once the contract was signed, a ton of money was spent on production in the '90s -- and sounded amazing. It's really tough to beat '90s production. These days, you can spend as much as you want on any type of record -- but you don't have to. There's this ongoing project that I really like, Vomitron (mp3.com/vomitron) where one guy does it all himself except for the drums. He records, writes all the songs and plays all the instruments. The production is explosively awesome, has about a billion tracks per song, the songs have a billion changes and most songs are at least six minutes. They are crystal clear and hit you like a ton of bricks. His albums would have cost millions to make in the '80s and '90s, but he does it all at home with Cubase on a laptop and instruments, amps and mics that he would have anyway as a musician. In fact, he has turned his laptop and mics into a mobile recording studio for fun and profit. If he can to this for basically free, a rap or pop album done on a simple set of beats (drum machine/keyboard setup), which many are, should cost nothing except for the cost of the producer's time with no engineers needed! You don't even need an actual studio because the equipment is so good today, no matter the genre!

 

I don't agree that live shows are fewer and far between. It's the only way a lot bands can make any money. While there are fewer people at each show, there are more shows than ever.

 

I didn't know about the spin-offs.

^I disagree...it's the very cheapness of recording that is hurting so many bands nowadays.  I think there are a lot of groups that can put out one or two good albums without a producer, but beyond that a group starts losing focus and they need outside opinions and they need constraints (personally I do way better with constraints and deadlines).  They are are trapped by what worked but know they need to change to stay fresh but usually can't do it without someone cracking the whip.

 

Digital home recording has been a disaster so far as people taking way too many takes and basically never getting a song done let alone a record.  When you're burning up $50/hr if not $250/hr of a studio's time, you show up well rehearsed and you get the tracks laid down.  I think it's totally possible for a band to show up and record a great-sounding record in 3-5 days no problem.  Meanwhile I don't know anyone who has gotten a home-recorded album done.  Sure, they pull off 1 or 2 songs but months go by and there's been no progress whatsoever.  You need the expertise of an engineer and a producer to take it to the next level.  You might be able to get a few songs sounding good but you're both being arrogant and limiting yourself by not seeking outside help.  There's a big difference between how a part sounds during playback and how it's going to sound in its final form, and a respectable engineer has that ear.     

 

I'll admit I've been impressed by the sound quality of some home recordings in regular spaces, but again that is limited to certain kinds of music which can tolerate a lot of sloppiness.  And while clean (no tape hiss) recording is pretty cheap, good microphones still aren't.  If you want to record track-by-track you can get by with 2 or 3 good mic's but if you want to record as a group you need a lot more than that and your average hack doesn't have the money for that many good mic's and they don't know where to place them next to drums or amps.  When I would play around with my roommate's digital recording setup, I could get a clean sound but never a really rich sound and a lot of that was because we didn't live in a studio and I didn't know where to put the mic's.  There's just way too much to know about recording to assume that you can do it in your house.  And again, since there aren't too many constraints, people play around with too many tracks and too many takes.  A studio musician in Nashville can be called in the morning to come down and lay down a part, he shows up on time and lays down the part within 45 minutes, collects his $450, and goes home before dinner.  Hacks out in suburbia can't do that.

 

Now this clip refutes some of what I just said.  The ultimate sign of major label gluttony is the band burning up studio time for writing.  Mick Jagger was and is a terrible guitar player, but this was about his finest moment as a lyricist & songwriter, and around the 6th minute the light bulb went off and music history was made...one of the greatest singles of all time was entirely dependent on whoever came up with the bongo idea.  And I'd bet they were burning $1,000/hr in that studio in 1968 dollars.  Or pounds.  But this illustrates my argument that it's awfully rare that a truly great song is completely the product of one mind.     

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JQHA7H8l2w   

^Well, I guess I kind of thought of it myself.

 

Insurance? What kind of insurance for these bands? Tour insurance? That makes sense, but a good live show makes an imprint that lasts forever. While tour support does cost money it can pay off big time... or sometimes not. Of course concerts have nothing to do with the label... until a bunch of people buy records because they were impressed by the live show, and remember the band years later because of the live show!

 

Insurance for a Tour.  The venues at the tour and the employee's/ticket buyers.  along with increased producation and union cost.

 

This is why you don't see many new artist(say in the last 10-15 years) do a large stadium concert, because they can't afford it.  This is something the label has NOTHING to do with.  Rock and Rap concerts are too costly to insure.

 

However, revival acts, motown and 70s disco acts can perform continually and there music is still relevant.

 

 

Basic production is CHEAP today -- production that casual music listeners don't notice, that is. Really cheap! You've been in the situation where you worked for a major label and once the contract was signed, a ton of money was spent on production in the '90s -- and sounded amazing. It's really tough to beat '90s production. These days, you can spend as much as you want on any type of record -- but you don't have to. There's this ongoing project that I really like, Vomitron (mp3.com/vomitron) where one guy does it all himself except for the drums. He records, writes all the songs and plays all the instruments. The production is explosively awesome, has about a billion tracks per song, the songs have a billion changes and most songs are at least six minutes. They are crystal clear and hit you like a ton of bricks. His albums would have cost millions to make in the '80s and '90s, but he does it all at home with Cubase on a laptop and instruments, amps and mics that he would have anyway as a musician. In fact, he has turned his laptop and mics into a mobile recording studio for fun and profit. If he can to this for basically free, a rap or pop album done on a simple set of beats (drum machine/keyboard setup), which many are, should cost nothing except for the cost of the producer's time with no engineers needed! You don't even need an actual studio because the equipment is so good today, no matter the genre!

 

What is your experience with being involved with producing a record?  I strong disagree about the production value.  Now the way songs are produced is vastly different than just 5 years ago.

 

I don't agree that live shows are fewer and far between. It's the only way a lot bands can make any money. While there are fewer people at each show, there are more shows than ever.

 

I didn't know about the spin-offs.

 

Live shows (using 2003 numbers) have declined 70% from the same time in 1983.  Due to how music is marketed and the talent.  In 1983, the only way to introduce your music to your fans OR introduce an artist to a particular audience is to arrange for a promotional tour in major cities. 

 

You met, the program directors, DJs and station managers.  They controlled what music you would hear.  In order to gaurantee a hit, you music (pop/top 40, R&B or Rock) it had to be played on Radio in Detroit, Cleveland, Los Angeles or Philadelphia - Period.  NYC has never been a artist loving music market.  It's and advertisers market.

 

In addition, many big markets had local "music variety shows" that an artist would usually perform on, to further promote their latest project.

 

Now when you talk about merchandise, you're talking about two different things

I know that labels don't see money from merch. But, the marketing and brand recognition appeal of merch is undeniable. While it means a lot of money for the band, it also is FREE advertising for an act, often worn by influencers. When people wear merch, everyone sees it, not just mass media consumers.

Promotional Merchandise has to be paid for - by the artist.  Nothing is free.  The label might front the money, but it's deducted from the artists royalties.

 

Brand recognition, is a whole 'nother issue.  An issue that their manager/publiscist/agent deal with.  The label would see none of that.  If an artist wears a pair of diesel jeans and doesn't have a marketing deal with diesel, the only "brand" making any money is diesel and it can't be attributed to that particular artist.

^ With merch, I meant that merch (shirts, stickers) with the bands logo or image is seen over and over again around town and at shows. Merch is free for the label, because management/the band pays for it to be made, but the label gets money when people see the logo, find out if the act is any good or not, then buy the album due to good things they've heard about the band. I wasn't referring to bands that are "sponsored" by clothing like Korn and Adidas or bands' deals with the companies that make their musical equipment. When I said "brand recognition" I meant recognition of the act as a brand.

 

jmecklenborg, you make some good points. The situation you describe with only a few songs getting finished out of a proposed homemade full album does happen a lot. In fact, I am stalled at three songs for an album project . The rest of the songs are written, it's just tearing apart my computer again, dragging it into the living room, programming the scratch drum machine, getting my voice in shape, blah blah blah. But, I am working with a guy on I've never met out in San Diego who knows more about mixing and mastering than me; I'm sending him all of my parts dry with no effects whatsoever. Then he adds more parts, such as the real drums. He might need to come along and kick me in the ass to get me going again. Also, it's true that a lot of this cheap recording sounds cheap to a trained ear. But throwaway pop listeners don't care, they only respond to the marketing push behind the act and 2-3 good hooks per song.

^ With merch, I meant that merch (shirts, stickers) with the bands logo or image is seen over and over again around town and at shows. Merch is free for the label, because management/the band pays for it to be made, but the label gets money when people see the logo, find out if the act is any good or not, then buy the album due to good things they've heard about the band. I wasn't referring to bands that are "sponsored" by clothing like Korn and Adidas or bands' deals with the companies that make their musical equipment. When I said "brand recognition" I meant recognition of the act as a brand.

 

Incorrect, nothing is free.  The "artist" has to pay for the product, (Mailers, T-Shirts, Stickers, Buttons, etc. which includes and outside artists/vendors that created those products) to be manufactured, which is usually done via an advance and then deducted from Royalties.

 

Also, just because a group is selling a CD, that doesn't mean the label is making any money. Using 2003 information an artist releasing a CD had to sell 860k units domestically just to breakeven.  I'm not even going to get into international production, manufacturing or distribution as that add an additional layer of costs.

 

Record labels are like a bank, the pay all the upfront cost to produce, manufacture and distribute a "project" and recoup all the cost via sales and recording & Publishing Royalties.

860k units to break even? It obviously can be done more efficiently than that or independent labels wouldn't exist.