Jump to content

Music today is better than in any other decade


woolyh

Recommended Posts

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by fractal

View Post

Hmmm... Be careful with this statement. You may like your records, but they are not an exact reproduction of live music either. Their dynamic range is less than CD (and many compressed formats). If, however, you mean compression in the mixing stage or mastering stage, no amount of new technology (or even old technology - i.e. vinyl) can save that...

 

yes mixing/mastering compression. vinyl4lyfe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

Quote Originally Posted by arthurdent'd

View Post

over-compression has killed music. I hope Neil Young gets his new digital music delivery system off the ground so it all doesn't sound like {censored}.....I recently got a new stylus for my turntable and am amazed at how much better vinyl truely is.

 

Objectively, or from an engineer's POV, I wouldn't say vinyl is "better" - and subjectively, from a musician's and listener's standpoint, while I appreciate the sound of vinyl, I would have to say it's not without its faults too. No matter how good the system, each playback slightly degrades the medium - you'll never hear the record in better shape than on the first playback. Similar things happen with tape too. They both wear, and deteriorate with each playback. Both have hiss... and some of that is subjectively pleasant, as is distortion in small amounts...


Look, I'm right there with you on the issue of over-compressed masters and album releases, but it doesn't take a new format to fix that. All it takes is for bands, artists, producers, engineers and (most importantly) the powers that be at the labels to decide that they're going to stop slamming stuff flat.


Good luck with that. There's still too many people who think one of the most important things is to have a loud album. facepalm.gif


You can record an album on digital without mastering it at -12dBFS RMS. We've got stuff that's technically much better than CD (16 bit, 44.1kHz) and stuff could be released on those formats - DVD Audio, SACD, etc. 24 bit audio blows 16 bit audio out of the water. But the public isn't interested in 24 bit. They want MP3's. Those other formats have largely failed due to lack of interest, although as most of you guys know, even inexpensive audio interfaces often can record 24 bit, and even at up to 96kHz sample rates. The 'tech" is already here, and it has been for years. In time, as storage becomes cheaper and larger, and online bandwidth increases, we may eventually see a move to high-definition audio formats. I'd LOVE to just be able to release mixes at the same sample rate and bit depth that I run the multitrack (DAW) at. But by that time, folks will probably be accessing it via streaming services like Spotify, not via "sales" and "downloads."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote Originally Posted by arthurdent'd

View Post

yes mixing/mastering compression. vinyl4lyfe.

 

Just an FYI - there is almost always considerable compression involved in the process of mastering to vinyl. And a boatload of EQ. Vinyl isn't linear across the disk either - the fidelity gets worse not only with every playback, but the further in to the record you go. IOW, the fidelity of the last song on a side is typically noticeably worse than the first song.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My tastes aside I find good songs with creative music and interesting lyrics (not things to dance on for instance) more and more difficult to find, at least in Southern Europe. The media play a boring mixture of "boum boum boum boum" everywhere. All the songs I hear promoted are roughly the same recipe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by brebis

View Post

My tastes aside I find good songs with creative music and interesting lyrics (not things to dance on for instance) more and more difficult to find, at least in Southern Europe. The media play a boring mixture of "boum boum boum boum" everywhere. All the songs I hear promoted are roughly the same recipe.

 

some puppets evolve. there was a time when even the Beatles were puppets.

as stated in this thread "false nostalgia"

give it time before judging todays puppets. even beiber got recognized for his talent before becoming Ushers puppet. wasn't usher a puppet just a few years ago, and now he's the one pulling the strings? does usher get artistic credit in this team-up?


lets not make this a discussion about barbie bands. biggest selling artists have always been 20yr olds singing to teens. at a certain point even these 'artists' get sick of their "baby baby i love you lets rebel together baby" lyrics. it's like you need someone with a stunted development issue to write top hit lyrics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Awesome post!


I don't know where I'd be without the internet, I've found so much moving, exciting, soul altering music... almost all of which is 60s/70s underground and 78rpm folk and jazz. If we're gonna go on the music ant the same rant, I'll chip in again. Maybe some people missed mine the first time round. idn_smilie.gif


I think there's a number of factors that make things, well, different today. One, we've had a hundred years for this God is dead thing to sink in. You can question the energy, the vibration, the soul, the afterlife, the feeling that connects us all, God as a fact is over. If science and philosophy didn't take it out, endless assassinations, the moon landing, Nixon, AIDS, several close calls with the apocalypse, the internet and 9-11 sure as {censored} did. God is over, and when you die, you probably just die. Time and time again has our entire social fabric been torn apart, burned to ashes, and rebuilt again. We've encountered more idol demolition than any century, by far. And without these tools, we've lost that conduit to speak to our inner selves.


The true divine power of music comes from spirituality, reaching to the greatness beyond our conception. In our day and age, that sort of release is rare and not often experienced. When I was a kid, Heaven and Hell were real. I don't think anyone, beyond the fringe hard right, deep down believes in them anymore, and our culture hasn't found much of a substitute. We've tried pop culture heroes with minimal success. Science has it's own, Carl Sagan niche. If anything, I think video games are the most vital. Early games have a primal quality to them, and are associated with childhood to a whole generation of people. We engage them. I think some decent art has been built around those feelings, but almost nowhere do I hear an inward, spiritual ovation to the infinite. A great cosmic AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!


Except for Earthbound and Katamari. Them {censored}s be mindblowing. love.gif


Humans know a fake. This has been studied time and time again. There are certain instincts in us that can identify humans, history, and what not. Our music has been entirely made by robots for some time know. It is loud, powerful, driving, and almost entirely removed of any spiritual component. We have become accustom to this, and turned away from the pulse of human drums. That waver, that live fluctuation, is central to the beat being real and heartfelt. With everything quantized, nearly across the board, you lose that. I think. I think we prefer the fake. The flat, slave driving, machine whip.


We don't have the earthy traditions of gospel and folk to be brought into whatever new wave we have next. The pioneers of rock, techno and hip hop all did. That kind of personal exposure and release is, once again, not in our culture. It's not something we listen for. When was the last time you heard anyone under 25 talk about playing from the heart, or if the music had "soul"?


Which is not to say music, or art, is entirely dead. There are sparks, here and there, even in today's mainstream. Kurt Cobain sure as hell had it. I think MGMT did too. There's a sweat yearning there. Radiohead does a little, in Thom Yorke's white-guy-fearing-nuclear-disaster kinda way. Eminem does in his anger and everyman portrayal of modern angst. Maybe him more than anybody. And I guess there's the solution for you, if there's any ticket to spirituality in music, it's in drugs, fear, anger, love, and madness. Which is where it always comes from. But, I don't hear the radiance. That love. That great cosmic OHM!! There's not much love in today's art. Passionate love. Feeling love. Feel it in your gut and cry out, because it can't be contained, Godmother{censored}ingdammit!! love. When was the last time you heard that anywhere near the radio dial?


This soul deadening, fascist anti-art didn't happen over night. The powers that be have been trying to crush natural spirituality, consciously and unconsciously, since this empire building bull{censored} took over ten thousand years ago. There isn't an army beating down our doors anymore. We can talk to each other and say whatever the hell we want. But there aren't any fantastic churches, soaring operas, monk monasteries, or overt revolutions. They own everything and have the most effective tools in history to demolish culture. Never has power been so globalized and interconnected. Never has slavery been so well hidden. Never has the great drive to mindlessness been so utterly invasive and demanding. Never have we been so Godless. And meanwhile, us first world people are cushioned fantastically well in a sea of infinite distractions and petty, addictive, material comfort. It's as if power has finally found the just-right balance to deaden the soul and assimilate control. And while exceptions squeak out, here and there, we've entered a strange, frightening dark time, and music has, without a doubt, taken a giant leap in distancing itself from it's core function; connecting us with humanity and each other.


God is it phony. :p


But there's a revolution at hand. It pops up here and there, and I say art will feel it soon as well. A great explosion in sincerity. Passion. And liberation. It's on the cave walls. The fight will be on against terror, the death throes of fundamentalism, environmental chaos, and the biggest empire the world has ever known. Or so I hope.


That's my Cobalt-60 rant for the month. Gimme a dollar. wave.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by Phil O'Keefe

View Post

Look, I'm right there with you on the issue of over-compressed masters and album releases, but it doesn't take a new format to fix that. All it takes is for bands, artists, producers, engineers and (most importantly) the powers that be at the labels to decide that they're going to stop slamming stuff flat.


Good luck with that. There's still too many people who think one of the most important things is to have a loud album. facepalm.gif

 

You heard of these guys Phil?


http://turnmeup.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by Phil O'Keefe

View Post

Objectively, or from an engineer's POV, I wouldn't say vinyl is "better" - and subjectively, from a musician's and listener's standpoint, while I appreciate the sound of vinyl, I would have to say it's not without its faults too. No matter how good the system, each playback slightly degrades the medium - you'll never hear the record in better shape than on the first playback. Similar things happen with tape too. They both wear, and deteriorate with each playback. Both have hiss... and some of that is subjectively pleasant, as is distortion in small amounts...




Look, I'm right there with you on the issue of over-compressed masters and album releases, but it doesn't take a new format to fix that. All it takes is for bands, artists, producers, engineers and (most importantly) the powers that be at the labels to decide that they're going to stop slamming stuff flat.


Good luck with that. There's still too many people who think one of the most important things is to have a loud album. facepalm.gif


You can record an album on digital without mastering it at -12dBFS RMS. We've got stuff that's technically much better than CD (16 bit, 44.1kHz) and stuff could be released on those formats - DVD Audio, SACD, etc. 24 bit audio blows 16 bit audio out of the water. But the public isn't interested in 24 bit. They want MP3's. Those other formats have largely failed due to lack of interest, although as most of you guys know, even inexpensive audio interfaces often can record 24 bit, and even at up to 96kHz sample rates. The 'tech" is already here, and it has been for years. In time, as storage becomes cheaper and larger, and online bandwidth increases, we may eventually see a move to high-definition audio formats. I'd LOVE to just be able to release mixes at the same sample rate and bit depth that I run the multitrack (DAW) at. But by that time, folks will probably be accessing it via streaming services like Spotify, not via "sales" and "downloads."

 

http://www.audiotechnology.com.au/in...th-neil-young/


any opinions on this Phil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by iamthearm

View Post

i hate this sentiment.


art has whatever value the consumer places on it. the lawyers and label cronies are all but gone. big radio playing the same 20 songs is dying too. just because you shelled out 5k on your latest "masterpiece" doesn't mean joe buyer guy owes you {censored}ing money. create a demand, then sell it. and for the love of god play shows. you know... work. the bottom line though is that if you create something truly incredible, people will notice. then, if you're smart about it, you can use the current system to make some decent money.

 

Who said he owed anyone anything? What was said was that art was under-valued at the moment and from a monetary standpoint that's absolutely true. People absolutely do not realize how much art is worth to them at the moment because we have a tradition of treating artists like dirt and not paying them for the necessity they provide. This is because people see art as a luxury when it is really not. Art is what makes a culture a culture and it is a mental health commodity. If we did not have it very few people would enjoy their lives. In fact it's so essential, like water, that people feel it should be free and, unlike water, it doesn't just fall from the sky as a renewable resource. It takes years of practice, time, effort, money, and thought to produce. Most people don't realize the extent of that especially when it comes to music, where the old studio systems presented music as finished products for the consumer and downplayed or hid the considerable efforts that went into things. Even the {censored}tiest pop album is a considerable effort for someone to make.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think music and art should absolutely be free, comparing it to water is a solid comparison. Getting water to come up through pipes isn't easy either. I don't see any problem with money being derived from touring, donations, licensing, merchandising and "novelty" record and CD pressings. Selling a CD-R at a show is cool too.


But at the same time, I think not getting your music in a music store has some big down sides. It's taken it out of our culture. It used to be part of the whole social fabric, you'd go to the music store, then this one, then that. By spending money on music, especially in our consumer culture, we put value on it. But more importantly, it gave us a place to meet, discuss, and explore music in a public context.


In losing the music store, we lost a lot of what strengthened the culture music, I think. We have internet forums, but none of that has a human, interactive face. It doesn't have that personal attachment. Which is so much more on topic than anything I was babbling about last night. facepalm.gif


There's a part of me that thinks there should be a government program for getting artists in poverty money. If there was one pit to throw our cash down, it should be humanities highest spiritual aspiration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by cobalt-60

View Post

I think music and art should absolutely be free, comparing it to water is a solid comparison. Getting water to come up through pipes isn't easy either. I don't see any problem with money being derived from touring, donations, licensing, merchandising and "novelty" record and CD pressings. Selling a CD-R at show is cool too.


But at the same time, I think not getting your music in a music store has some big down sides. It's taken it out of our culture. It used to be part of the whole social fabric, you'd go to the music store, then this one, then that. By spending money on music, especially in our consumer culture, we put value on it. But more importantly, it gave us a place to meet, discuss, and explore music in a public context.


In losing the music store, we lost a lot of what strengthened the culture music, I think. We have internet forums, but none of that has a human, interactive face. It doesn't have that personal attachment.


Which is so much more on topic than anything I was babbling about last night. facepalm.gif

 

The problem is that nobody needs to pay the water to live and plumbers make a good wage, unlike musicians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by V

View Post

Who said he owed anyone anything? What was said was that art was under-valued at the moment and from a monetary standpoint that's absolutely true. People absolutely do not realize how much art is worth to them at the moment because we have a tradition of treating artists like dirt and not paying them for the necessity they provide. This is because people see art as a luxury when it is really not. Art is what makes a culture a culture and it is a mental health commodity. If we did not have it very few people would enjoy their lives. In fact it's so essential, like water, that people feel it should be free and, unlike water, it doesn't just fall from the sky as a renewable resource. It takes years of practice, time, effort, money, and thought to produce. Most people don't realize the extent of that especially when it comes to music, where the old studio systems presented music as finished products for the consumer and downplayed or hid the considerable efforts that went into things. Even the {censored}tiest pop album is a considerable effort for someone to make.

 

art has been "undervalued" since the dawn of time. but i put to you this question: how much is a good song worth?


the entire idea of adding monetary value to art is beyond arbitrary. just do the work thing, make the songs, don't suck, and hope for some money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Good luck with that. There's still too many people who think one of the most important things is to have a loud album.
:facepalm:



Funny you say that, I work overnights at a store so we all play our ipods/stuff over the PA, and "Jesus Is Just Alright" (:lol:) came on and it was super quiet compared to the other songs. And the guy I work with said, "Apparently this song needs to be remixed...." And every once in a while I put on the remaster of Thriller, and that CD is super LOUD. Drums sound great, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

louder = better to the human ear

 

 

Sure - engineers have known about that for ages. Play back two otherwise identical sound files, but increase the playback level by a dB or so for the second playback, and the vast majority of listeners will say they preferred the "second mix", even though it is otherwise identical to the first. It's why we have to be so meticulous about matching levels when doing double-blind listening tests (typically shooting for a match within 0.1dB or less); if we're not, the level discrepancy will skew the results.

 

However, that doesn't mean that if you make your album louder, it's automatically "better." Let's consider how that's done. If we have material with an RMS ("average") volume of -20dB, with peaks that go up as high as -3dBFS, we can raise the file's level by 3dB without clipping, and without applying any compression. That would bring it up to -17dB RMS, which would seem kind of low by today's "standards", but is not unreasonable based on historical standards - IOW, including the pre-CD era, and it's 100% transparent and harmless to the audio quality. However, if I apply 3 dB of compression to that, I can get it up into the -14dB range, which is on the "hot" side of what I'd typically feel is reasonable, but it really depends on the material. For highly dynamic music, that could be too much compression, and pushing it too far. If the music has very little dynamic range, and very few peaks in level, it's easier to push it hotter without doing too much damage, and that -14dB RMS level could be fine.

 

The problem occurs when people compress too much in an effort to get it "loud", without taking into consideration the dynamics of the music, and apparently, without using their ears to listen to the unintended sonic consequences of the compression. The highs start to squish and distort and get ice-picky sounding... I'm not against a bit of compression, or a little distortion, but IMHO some modern releases / "remasters" are absolute rubbish because they're been slammed too hard.

 

To me, levels aren't a good reason to remaster something - not unless they didn't bother trying to optimize them when they went to CD with the initial release. If you've got a CD with the loudest peak hitting 3-4dB below FS (full scale - the absolute maximum level possible on a CD), you could remaster it a bit hotter without making any changes to the rest of it, and it might make sense to do so. If it's an extremely popular or historically significant release, remastering from the original two track master tapes could also make sense - it would depend on when it was originally released on CD. If it was mastered for CD in 1990, re-doing it today makes sense from an improved fidelity standpoint. Case in point - all of the Beatles material, which was originally released on CD back in 1987. It was remastered and re-released in 2009. Why bother? Because it's the Beatles, and demand for the best quality masters is going to be high when it's a popular band like that. And secondly, there were HUGE improvements in digital recording technology and audio quality over the course of the 22 years between masters. The first were done with early 16 bit converters, and the later ones with high sample rate 24 bit converters. That alone means you're getting a truer, more accurate transfer from the original mixes. Not to mention what we can do today in terms of software cleanup tools vs what was available in 1987. And all of that is separate from the compression / limiting issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sure - engineers have known about that for ages. Play back two otherwise identical sound files, but increase the playback level by a dB or so for the second playback, and the vast majority of listeners will say they preferred the "second mix", even though it is otherwise identical to the first. It's why we have to be so meticulous about matching levels when doing double-blind listening tests (typically shooting for a match within 0.1dB or less); if we're not, the level discrepancy will skew the results.


However, that doesn't mean that if you make your album louder, it's automatically "better." Let's consider how that's done. If we have material with an RMS ("average") volume of -20dB, with peaks that go up as high as -3dBFS, we can raise the file's level by 3dB without clipping, and without applying any compression. That would bring it up to -17dB RMS, which would seem kind of low by today's "standards", but is not unreasonable based on historical standards - IOW, including the pre-CD era, and it's 100% transparent and harmless to the audio quality. However, if I apply 3 dB of compression to that, I can get it up into the -14dB range, which is on the "hot" side of what I'd typically feel is reasonable, but it really depends on the material. For highly dynamic music, that could be too much compression, and pushing it too far. If the music has very little dynamic range, and very few peaks in level, it's easier to push it hotter without doing too much damage, and that -14dB RMS level could be fine.


The problem occurs when people compress too much in an effort to get it "loud", without taking into consideration the dynamics of the music, and apparently, without using their ears to listen to the unintended sonic consequences of the compression. The highs start to squish and distort and get ice-picky sounding... I'm not against a bit of compression, or a little distortion, but IMHO some modern releases / "remasters" are absolute rubbish because they're been slammed too hard.


To me, levels aren't a good reason to remaster something - not unless they didn't bother trying to optimize them when they went to CD with the initial release. If you've got a CD with the loudest peak hitting 3-4dB below FS (full scale - the absolute maximum level possible on a CD), you could remaster it a bit hotter without making any changes to the rest of it, and it might make sense to do so. If it's an extremely popular or historically significant release, remastering from the original two track master tapes could also make sense - it would depend on when it was originally released on CD. If it was mastered for CD in 1990, re-doing it today makes sense from an improved fidelity standpoint. Case in point - all of the Beatles material, which was originally released on CD back in 1987. It was remastered and re-released in 2009. Why bother? Because it's the Beatles, and demand for the best quality masters is going to be high when it's a popular band like that. And secondly, there were HUGE improvements in digital recording technology and audio quality over the course of the 22 years between masters. The first were done with early 16 bit converters, and the later ones with high sample rate 24 bit converters. That alone means you're getting a truer, more accurate transfer from the original mixes. Not to mention what we can do today in terms of software cleanup tools vs what was available in 1987. And all of that is separate from the compression / limiting issues.

 

Yeah, I know; it's a "relative" better (relative to money, nowadays, I guess you'd say). All of the albums I've done, I've told the mastering engineer to keep it conservative and go for quality. However, I'd had more than a few fans ask why our albums were so quiet, almost like there was something wrong with the recording. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The problem is that nobody needs to pay the water to live and plumbers make a good wage, unlike musicians.

 

I'm with ya, but I can also counter those points. You need to pay for water in your house, and is often a government subsidized resource. And that's in the modern world. Water is much more precious in other parts of the world. People pay more than a dollar for a bottle of water to be shipped around the world in a case made of crushed dinosaurs. "Music" also plays, free of charge, in most public places. Most plumbers do make a decent living, but none of them become millionaire rock stars, riding teenage {censored} on a motorcycle down the top floor of a Hilton.

 

:idk:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

remember that old albini article. a gold record, 500,000 copies netted a musician in a 4 piece band about 25k. if you sell your album to 100k people for 4 dollars you're netting close to 100k per member in the same situation. people are buying music more these days, just not the same way. you have smaller target markets but a massively larger piece of the pie... that you baked.

 

 

Toplay devils advocate....What this leaves out is that the big evil record company advanced the band money to live on and make the record. They also promoted the record and sometimes even provided tour support. For all the artists that got screwed there were plenty of artists who "screwed" the record company by making records that didn't sell. There were even artists that the record companies kept around even though they knew they would probably never make their investment back. I personally think the record companies were more evil for controlling distribution and keeping independent music off radio. Also in your example of the independent artist you are actually referring to gross revenue not net.

 

While we have certainly gained something by having such easy access to music I think we've lost something as well. When I was fourteen it was lucky if I could get one or two records a month. Made it a hell of a lot more precious to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Toplay devils advocate....What this leaves out is that the big evil record company advanced the band money to live on and make the record. They also promoted the record and sometimes even provided tour support. For all the artists that got screwed there were plenty of artists who "screwed" the record company by making records that didn't sell. There were even artists that the record companies kept around even though they knew they would probably never make their investment back. I personally think the record companies were more evil for controlling distribution and keeping independent music off radio. Also in your example of the independent artist you are actually referring to gross revenue not net.


While we have certainly gained something by having such easy access to music I think we've lost something as well. When I was fourteen it was lucky if I could get one or two records a month. Made it a hell of a lot more precious to me.

 

 

i see where you're coming from. a couple of things though.

 

the cost of recording and distributing a record on the internet @4 bucks a pop is seriously negligible. lets get crazy and call it 10k recorded, mixed, and mastered. (i know super premium studios doing work for a hell of a lot cheaper than that) so if we're splitting hairs, we're netting 97,500. so ALMOST netting 100k.

 

those bands that "screwed" the record labels still owed them all of that money for their advances. Those weren't all spec deals, an awful lot of those deals were straight up loans to the band. And they definitely would promise great bands the world, record them, then shelve their albums to keep from competing with another band they sank more money into.

 

the final point you made seems a little nostalgic/romantic to me. the less choices we have the better the music? i'm just going to have to agree to disagree with you on that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

i see where you're coming from. a couple of things though.


the cost of recording and distributing a record on the internet @4 bucks a pop is seriously negligible. lets get crazy and call it 10k recorded, mixed, and mastered. (i know super premium studios doing work for a hell of a lot cheaper than that) so if we're splitting hairs, we're netting 97,500. so ALMOST netting 100k.


those bands that "screwed" the record labels still owed them all of that money for their advances. Those weren't all spec deals, an awful lot of those deals were straight up loans to the band. And they definitely would promise great bands the world, record them, then shelve their albums to keep from competing with another band they sank more money into.


the final point you made seems a little nostalgic/romantic to me. the less choices we have the better the music? i'm just going to have to agree to disagree with you on that point.

 

 

It's not necessarily the cost of production and distribution that are the big issue. It's the cost of feeding and housing the band. I think when th record companies were advancing money to bands they at least had some amount of time to work exclusively on their craft. For arguments sake let's say a band woth four members needed six months to write, get their chops up and record an album for it to be really amazing. Let's say the guys in this band can make their nut on 25k a year. You would need 50k to keep them housed and fed for that six months.

 

Oh you were definitely in indentured servitude for your advance from the record company and the record companies did some creative accounting to keep you from actually being able to pay them back. I'm not really saying the old way was better, but I don't think it is super clea cut. I also think there were some aspects tothat system that probably allowed some great records to be made that wouldn't get made today.

 

It's not that it was better to have less choices, its that you had to focus more on the choices you did make.it also lengthened your attention span because if you bought a record and it didn't grab you right away you couldn't just click on a link and try something else. You were much more inclined to give that record you bought a chance to sink in over repetd listens because you didn't have as many options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

It's not necessarily the cost of production and distribution that are the big issue. It's the cost of feeding and housing the band. I think when th record companies were advancing money to bands they at least had some amount of time to work exclusively on their craft. For arguments sake let's say a band woth four members needed six months to write, get their chops up and record an album for it to be really amazing. Let's say the guys in this band can make their nut on 25k a year. You would need 50k to keep them housed and fed for that six months.


Oh you were definitely in indentured servitude for your advance from the record company and the record companies did some creative accounting to keep you from actually being able to pay them back. I'm not really saying the old way was better, but I don't think it is super clea cut. I also think there were some aspects tothat system that probably allowed some great records to be made that wouldn't get made today.


It's not that it was better to have less choices, its that you had to focus more on the choices you did make.it also lengthened your attention span because if you bought a record and it didn't grab you right away you couldn't just click on a link and try something else. You were much more inclined to give that record you bought a chance to sink in over repetd listens because you didn't have as many options.

 

 

fair points all around. the "free creative environment" argument is probably the only one that resonates with me. i can't deny that i'd love to spend 6 months in a beautiful studio with everything awesome at my disposal to make a record. consider, though, the advent of home recording and modeling software that allows for insane amounts of inspirational pre-production without spending more than the cost of a little bit of gear and some plugins.

 

also, i think the 75,000 dollar differential in my hypothetical model more than accounts for feeding and housing with 25k left over after the fact... and you don't owe anybody {censored}.

 

For your final point i agree and simultaneously disagree. I know plenty of young people who really spend time digesting a band's entire catalog because it is all so freely available now. And to the same tune of "singles" of the past, there has been and will always be a huge amount of throwaway music.

 

It's definitely not a secure and fixed system, but i like where things are headed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...