Universal CDs now under $10

[Geoff Grace]

what I keep seeing is that loads of money is being spent by the majors to produce crap.

 

 

Again, I guess it depends on what you consider to be "loads of money."

 

Sure, the budget for a major label release is more than that of the typical bedroom release. But it's dropped considerably since the '90s. Evidence of this can be seen in major studio closures, articles about prominent artists recording at home, the comparative lack of well-known session musicians rising in the ranks of younger players, and the absence of string and orchestral sections being used outside of film and classical releases.

 

Most of the money in today's reduced major label budgets seems to go to mix and mastering engineers and the rooms that support them. And by then, it's too late to create a good track if none existed before. Furthermore, the hands of these engineers are tied to a degree by the loudness wars, reducing their effectiveness at serving the quality of the sound. So, in that respect, it's money down the drain.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[MikeRivers]

But, what I keep seeing is that loads of money is being spent by the majors to produce crap.

 

No, you're seeing major labels spend loads of money publicizing music that you don't care for. But somebody does, because they're selling a lot of a few artists. It's how the business works at that level. Independent artists don't get hundreds of thousands of dollar advances. Heck, you can't even get a $10,000 bank loan on civilized terms to buy gear to record your next hit.

 

Where is this glut of music that is being produced by everybody and their brother that is killing the music business, or perceived value of music?

 

It's not the glut of amateur music that's killing the music business, it's killing the perceived value of music. There's a difference. One has money attached to it, the other is the desire to hear the song again.

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

I would say the music industry, that is the record companies and the worldwide marketing, is not killed by any mean, but had a crisis, mainly because many CEO' didn't prepare for the future at the right time.

For example the record company I worked with until last August, the owners decided to stop pressing CD in 2004, and started to digitize the whole music catalogue (aggregated all songs and albums with meta data), and started immediately to sell in online shops. I the first month he sold music for € 29.--, three months later it was already € 25'000.--, and twelve months later 760'000 Euro.

[flatfinger]

It's not the glut of amateur music that's killing the music business, it's killing the perceived value of music. There's a difference. One has money attached to it, the other is the desire to hear the song again.

 

 

 

Another issue that has cropped up is related to the "me ,me , me" attitude is the use of the term "filler" in relation to cuts on an album that someone id displeased with .

I'm willing to admit that the majors contributed to there being lesser efforts on albums either by pushing a writer timewise (" haste makes waste" ) or by just plain knowing that they had a single that was a hit then shoving unrefined songs together to make it a full length album . Obviously those in the industry who did this were shooting themselves in the foot .

 

But the Freetard nation uses the "filler" strawman as a catch-all reason to justify stealing only songs they regard as worthy from an album . As a writer , I'm always trying to write stuff that will be popular . I want to produce an album that's all hits ... who would'nt ??? ( and you can bet your sweet bippy that the record company want that too !!!)

But you can't please all the people all the time , and a writer also needs to follow the muse , which can and does lead you down paths that vary from the pop hit formulas ... How many interviews have you read where an artist notes that the song they thought would be a hit doesn't happen , and yet a song not as dear to them hits it big ??

 

How can you tell an artist to paint the same picture over and over again and always make it a hit , or like that other song ?? Was that song that did'nt rub you the right way loved by someone else ?? ... FILLER

[MikeRivers]

Another issue that has cropped up is related to the "me ,me , me" attitude is the use of the term "filler" in relation to cuts on an album that someone id displeased with . I'm willing to admit that the majors contributed to there being lesser efforts on albums either by pushing a writer timewise (" haste makes waste" ) or by just plain knowing that they had a single that was a hit then shoving unrefined songs together to make it a full length album .

 

More importantly, it makes it a full PRICED album. The cost fits the pricing model better if there are 10 publisher royalties and 10 studio sessions (assuming an average cost of a session, which we know there isn't) accounted for rather than two or three. Imagine the confusion in retail record sales if CDs were priced by the number of songs. This is one reason why the single one-price download model seems to be working. Sure, some of those singles have a $30,000 production cost, others have a $1,000 cost - the one-take song at the end of the session, or the home-produced demo, for instance - but the rest of the costs are fixed and uniform.

 

But the Freetard nation uses the "filler" strawman as a catch-all reason to justify stealing only songs they regard as worthy from an album.

 

Are you objecting to the the moniker "filler" or to the concept that there are a pretty good percentage of songs that CD purchasers are forced to pay for that they won't listen to? As a writer, I realize that you're proud of your work. As a businessman, though, having a reason why you can't lower the price without cutting into your profit is important.

 

As a writer , I'm always trying to write stuff that will be popular . I want to produce an album that's all hits ... who would'nt ???

 

A writer who wants to have hits on his next album. It's an admirable goal, but I don't know of anyone who has actually ever accomplished it, at least not without a huge publicity machine, and those things don't last forever. You'll get ugly some day and you won't be pushed by the record company any longer. The best you can hope for (and this is actually pretty good) is to have your publisher consistently place your songs with artists that help to turn them into hits. If you have 10 songs a year on platinum CDs, you can easily keep up the boat payments.

 

But you can't please all the people all the time , and a writer also needs to follow the muse , which can and does lead you down paths that vary from the pop hit formulas ... How many interviews have you read where an artist notes that the song they thought would be a hit doesn't happen , and yet a song not as dear to them hits it big ??

 

All the time. Nobody intentionally writes bad songs (unless their goal is to write one that's so bad it's good), but the record company doesn't want to sell a song, they want to sell THE CD, so they'll pick the hit and push the hell out of it, and if they're right, it will become[.i] the hit whether the artist or writer or producer planned it that way or not, though it's often a cooperative effort. But sometimes a "filler" will go viral on YouTube or be pushed by an independent radio station and it catches on nationally. It's not always how good a song is, it's how it gets marketed after it's cast in plastic.

How can you tell an artist to paint the same picture over and over again and always make it a hit , or like that other song ??

 

You can't - but this is what producers and A&R executives do for their living. If they have a property who's successful as an artist, people will buy the CD because of the artist, on the bet that there will be at least a few songs that they like. They wouldn't necessarily pick out the song from a voice-and-piano demo by the songwriter, but the producer picks the song, molds it into something that the artist they're working with can make a hit, push it hard when the CD comes out, hire some great backup singers, dancers, and lighting techs for the tour to push that CD, and you have a hit.

 

If it doesn't turn out the way they planned, and many do, they just put it in the cutout bin and try again - with another song, another writer, another producer, or another artist.

[John Bartus]

As a solo artist who owns my own recording studio and can control all aspects of production (and keep my costs down), I can do all right on $10 a CD. As the only guy in my band with a recording studio (and the guy who does all the work of recording and production), a four-way split of $10 for a CD just doesn't go as far, even after expenses.

I find it amusing that people will pay to download a sonically inferior mp3 when they could easily buy the CD, pop it into iTunes, and still get their mp3 while having a (much) better sounding version on CD. Besides, when the hard drive crashes, it's nice to have backup.

I know that many vinyl fans are salivating at the prospect of paying $19.95 (or more) for new releases on the good old LP. As someone who grew up with vinyl (well over 500 albums in my pre-1985 collection) and considered it far superior to 8-track and the godawful cassette, I don't get the romance. The CD fixed a lot of vinyl-specific problems, like low-frequency needle rumbling, scratches, limited dynamic range, low- and high-frequency anomalies, and the fact that the record would never sound as good as it did the first time it was played ever again.

Maybe if you put the virgin vinyl record on the world's best turntable and recorded its very first play into your 24-bit DAW...

There was a nice bonus for audiophiles in the recently released Tom Petty live box set: a Blu-Ray disc with the 24-bit masters of all the songs on the CDs. If Blu-Ray is the next disc "standard," then perhaps high-def audio may find a way to get to discriminating consumers. Until then, I'll keep buying CDs.

[Hard Truth]

 

 

 

In 1978 a local record store was going out of business and I bought several (new, not used) LPs for 25 cents each. That JBs album, two Flaming Groovies albums and the Masked Marauders*. I believe they're all collector's items now.

 

*look them up, its an interesting story.

 

The point: today's rejects are tomorrow's gems.

[MikeRivers]

As a solo artist who owns my own recording studio and can control all aspects of production (and keep my costs down), I can do all right on $10 a CD. As the only guy in my band with a recording studio (and the guy who does all the work of recording and production), a four-way split of $10 for a CD just doesn't go as far, even after expenses.

You need to be a better agent for yourself. Get the others in the band to pay you for the recording and production, and see how much they end up with after their $2.50 share of the sales.

Seriously, doing buisness as you're doing it is OK as long as you don't expect to make any significant money from your CD sales. With no distribution or marketing, you're not going to make $500,000 a year for a few years like the big boys make.

I find it amusing that people will pay to download a sonically inferior mp3 when they could easily buy the CD, pop it into iTunes, and still get their mp3 while having a (much) better sounding version on CD. Besides, when the hard drive crashes, it's nice to have backup.

It's a combination of instrant gratification with a download as opposed to waiting for an on-line ordered CD to come in the mail, or the "I don't want to carry the CD with me for the rest of the evening" syndrome if they see you perform and you offer CDs for sale after the show.

I know that many vinyl fans are salivating at the prospect of paying $19.95 (or more) for new releases on the good old LP.

That's actually just about keeping up with inflation. I suspect that except for the major hits of the day, sales numbers for a given re-issued LP today will be about the same as the original issue.

I don't get the romance. The CD fixed a lot of vinyl-specific problems, like low-frequency needle rumbling, scratches, limited dynamic range, low- and high-frequency anomalies, and the fact that the record would never sound as good as it did the first time it was played ever again.

I don't get it either. I would, if these LPs were being played on a really fine turntable, but those cost $20,000 and another grand or two for the cartridge, and a couple of grand for the phono preamp.


(I was going to post a picture of a $125,000 turntable, but this $19,995 one gets the idea across)

I'm sure that when played on a $150 Ion USB turntable (and heard on the computer speakers) it'll sound different from a CD, though better or worse will be subjective. On the other hand, it's big, you can read the liner notes and enjoy the artwork, and it probably smells nice, too.

Have you heard of The Tape Project? The release recordings on 1/4" tape, and there are a couple of companies that are sort of adjuncts to the project from whom you can buy a nicely refurbished tape deck.

[the stranger]

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

On the other hand, it's big, you can read the liner notes and enjoy the artwork, and it probably smells nice, too.

 

 

 

and the dirty fingers from the printer's color

[Kendrix]

The other thing to keep in mind is that most people do understand that indie artists don't have some huge corporation behind them and are okay with paying a bit more, kind of in the same way people will pay more for hand-crafted furniture than something they get at Target, even though both will end up functioning similarly.

 

 

That is a really interesting perspective. It's kinda like local/organic farming.

While true for some Im afraid many other folks discount the value of "hand crafted music".

[Kendrix]

I'd like to see the companies split things up into 2 things, downloadable single songs in .mp3/mp4 like they are now, and sell DVD-A and do away with 16 bit/44hz CD's. CD's are too close to consumer level quality-wise to compete with on line downloads at the moment to be a viable choice anymore, and DVD-A would satisfy the audiophile more than CD's.

 

 

Ive got DVD-A several discs and I'm sorry it didnt take off.

However, im not too sure how much of the perceived benefits versus CD's arise from the DVD-A format itself versus just a different approach to mastering for the format. I think both contribute.

[Beck]

I find it amusing that people will pay to download a sonically inferior mp3 when they could easily buy the CD, pop it into iTunes, and still get their mp3 while having a (much) better sounding version on CD. Besides, when the hard drive crashes, it's nice to have backup.

I agree with that, or better yet DVD-A.

I know that many vinyl fans are salivating at the prospect of paying $19.95 (or more) for new releases on the good old LP. As someone who grew up with vinyl (well over 500 albums in my pre-1985 collection) and considered it far superior to 8-track and the godawful cassette, I don't get the romance. The CD fixed a lot of vinyl-specific problems, like low-frequency needle rumbling, scratches, limited dynamic range, low- and high-frequency anomalies, and the fact that the record would never sound as good as it did the first time it was played ever again.

I don’t know about romance with vinyl but I like the sound. You must be thinking pretty far back because a decent turntable that didn’t destroy the record didn’t cost all that much towards the end of the vinyl era. I still have quite a few of my old albums… wish I’d kept a lot more.

People still speak as though digital has no anomalies, but to my ear it has the worst of all. We all choose our anomalies. I don’t like the cracks and pops of LPs either but I always could block them out much better than I can tolerate this brittle high end of many CDs… something screwy about it. It’s like fingernails scraping a chalkboard to me. Some CDs are better than others, but for those that aren’t the discomfort and ear fatigue come very quickly. I can’t listen to some of my fav classic rock tunes as loudly or as long on CD or mp3. But when I spin the same album on reel-to-reel or vinyl I can really soak it in and enjoy it.

[Beck]

Have you heard of The Tape Project? They release recordings on 1/4" tape, and there are a couple of companies that are sort of adjuncts to the project from whom you can buy a nicely refurbished tape deck .

Yep, I know of them. I always liked the Technics 1500 series like that in the pic. I just have a little Akai GX77 in the den, but it sounds sweet. Like this but the more rare black panel.

[MikeRivers]

Folkways, a 60 year old and highly independent (until it was taken over by the Smithsonian after the death of founder Moe Asch) label, has started issuing material on vinyl again. $20 for the phonograph record, $18 for CD or cassette, $10 for the download.

 

Folkways always had the policy that no record would ever go out of print. SI has continued that policy, sort of, by offering a hand made CD or cassette for any record initially sold on vinyl that hasn't yet been released on CD. Cool, huh?