How Much Does it Cost to Produce a Recording?

An anonymous reader writes "How much does the average new album cost to produce? I have seen this cost estimated between $500,000 and $1,000,000, but some quick figuring does not support a cost this high. According to various sources (Ok, Slashdot stories...), somewhere around 27,000 albums are produced each year and 906.6 million albums are shipped. I would guess that the album retail (about $15 per album) is based on a 100% markup, so that these 906.6 million albums are sold at wholesale for about $7.50 apiece, which means that the revenue from wholesale sales is about $6.8 billion. This means that the actual production cost has to be less than $250,000 per album, otherwise the record industry is losing money. I have left out the cost of actually printing and copying the albums as I think that the average cost is probably less than $0.25 per copy."

Comments

Just a guess

[rblancarte]

I have a friend who did some record production a few years back. Overall his cost of production was never more than $3000 or $4000. That all said, he never had to do the recording or the mixing or any of that. Nor was paying the band part of the deal. Still when we are talking real production cost of the CDs themselves, we are talking dirt for that. When you start talking studio time and the time and effort to mix a CD properly, then we are talking a great deal more.

But still, just looking where I live (Austin, TX) people are able to churn out decent CDs without a huge effort or much money, so when you get right down to it, outside of paying your "talent" we are talking a relatively small figure.

RonB

Re:Just a guess

[telecaster]

Its not the recording, its the producer.
Studio time, at a decent studio runs between $300 - $400 an hour (NYC/LA). Some bands tend to keep within the 60 - 120 hours, so your taling about $50K for a marquee studio.
The producer is the killer. If your a "hot item" new band, typically a record company will bring in a "big name producer" to direct traffic and guide the band. If your a veteran band, say like Aerosmith, you can call your own shots and require that the record company get who you want, regardless of the price. Now heres the kicker. Most producers take some upfront money, and depending on the band, will take some money on the "back end". Much like an actor or director, the record producer makes a point or 2 on sales. This of course is all guided by the record company and basically is very broad in terms, both legal and fiscal.
Remember, Elvis Costello recorded My Aim is True for under $5,000. But then spent (estimated) over a million dollards on Imperial Bedroom, which was far less of a seller... Nirvana recorded their first album for $800 and it sounded like, Nevermind was MUCH more money as they had a bigtime producer twisting the knobs. So its all relative, and recording costs mean shit.

Its not the cost its the quality.

Another good example: Boston's first record (which I still think is one of the best recorded albums) was recorded in Tom Scholtz's basement, he did a few overdubs at a big studio, but for the most part the recording was free! So there ya go.

Costs can be huge.

[saddino]

My band released our second CD (right before getting signed alas) independently and the seven songs on it (about 30 minutes worth) cost us about $15K of studio time. Note that this was a no-name studio, with a no-name engineer, and self-produced. We've known small bands that have been signed to semi-majors, and even a somewhat-known producer, engineers and studio time can easily cost $250K. I imagine top quality studios, engineers and producers cost much more.

And, if the label thinks you might actually move some units, they'll be paying expenses, per diems, touring costs and marketing. Believe me, that can cost a lot of $. Fact is, it costs a lot of money to put together a "best-seller."

FYI, signed bands actually pay for the recording costs (the money is "fronted" by your label) so the studio only pays if the album doesn't break even (most albums actually) -- and if the band never generates sales to cover it, the label will eventually eat the cost, but even in those cases it's a write-off

You would be surprised how many bands you know that have never made a dime from royalties because they owe their label for the recording costs. Hopefully most signed bands are smart enough to know that the only money they'll likely see is from sales of schwag.

Classic Steve Albini Article

[cmcguffin]

Steve Albini wrote a classic article, The Problem with Music, on the financial shenagins pulled by the record industry.

The article demonstrates how a band can manage to generate millions of dollars of profit for a label, but still owe the label money.

The article includes sample figures that indicate 'recording costs' of $150,000, and a wholesale price of $6.50 per CD (circa 1994, when the article was first published).

Re:Faulty premise

[revividus]

That's right, I was hoping somebody would point that out. A good description of this process has been made by Steve Albini, in Some of your friends are already this fscked.

Re:its getting cheaper

[m00nun1t]

I see comments like this sometimes on /. and it is a classic case of the /. crowd showing their ignorance over something they know little about. As someone who spent 7 years as a professional sound engineer (I ended up doing a lot of digital audio and found the computers more interesting than the sound...), there is a lot of rubbish spoken.

Yes, you absolutely can get a set up for $20,000, but you get what you pay for. There are some things you can skimp on, but some things just simply cost big money and cutting corners directly impacts the sounds quality. For example, you simply can't buy a decent sounding studio vocal microphone for less than $1000, and you should be spending more like $3000 to get something that sounds nice - you can spend more if you want. A decent analog compressor will set you back over $1000, and while digital compression has its place (I'm definitely no luddite when it comes to audio technology) there are still times when an analog compressor is best for a number of reasons.

There is monitors and amps. The sky is the limit here, but I wouldn't mix a commercial album on anything costing less than $5000 (yes, I do use near fields most of the time, but still need the big speakers for reference).

Then you get to room treatment... oh boy. This one is HUGE. If you want a great sounding drum kit, you need in rough order:

• A great drummer
• A great sounding drum kit
• A great sounding room
• A bunch of nice mics (5 - 10 mics at $1000+ each)
• A bunch of good quality inputs for those mics
• Then something to mix it with, record it on, etc - that's almost a detail

A great sounding drum room with decent sound proofing can easily cost tens of thousands without going over the top. Let's not even mention the acoustics in the control room. On top of all that you need a skilled, experienced engineer who understands how all the above interact - the human, the acoustics and the electronics are all part of a complex synergistic relationship that feed off each other (yeah, it sounds like hippy crap, but it's true - work a few years in a studio and you'll know what I mean).

This is just getting started, I could go on. So for those who think all you need is a beefy PC/Mac, a copy of Cubase and a nice sound card, then you need to get out of hobby land and work on some real records. BTW, I'm certainly not saying that you don't use those things, I'm generally a fan of computer based recording, but they are just a small part of a big picture.

One caveat: for electronica, anything goes. There are no rules and no real concept of low end as far as budget goes. I'm mostly talking about music with live musicians, which there will always be a demand for.