Slashdot Mirror
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."
is based on a 100% markup
i would guess that the markup is higher than that. it has to be higher than that. most of the cd's i have recently bought were more that $15. it has to be somewhere in the range of 150-250%, especially becuase im sure it ain't getting more expensive to make a cd these days.
xao
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
I was just talking to my fiancee about this, trying to convince her of the evils of the RIAA. And, you are very right. It doesn't cost nearly as much as they say.
My uncle was in a band who self produced 500 CDs. Not much but all accounts, but even that was only 2 bucks a CD and that included studio time, equipement rental, editing, and album cover printing. And, of course, in more bulk the price goes down.
Question
http://www.ironfroggy.com/
with large ATA hard drives and digital interfaces for various applications to drive real-world mixers and soundboards becoming cheaper and cheaper, the actual cost of recording, in a real sense is very minimal. A whole setup can be had for $20,000.
Then there's studio time. And paying the engineers, artists, producer, and the entourages of all the above mentioned people. Plus food, limos, champagne, jimmy hats, mini hot dogs, whipped cream, broken instruments, bail, hush money, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, and there's about $980,000.
So you can see how these things add up.
While your numbers may hold true for the average, it obviously takes less money for the likes of William Shatner or David Hasselhoff to produce an album than U2.
Also, everything is getting cheaper. Things like mixing are moving towards being done on a less and less expensive PC. A Mac with ProTools can do a LOT these days.
I have no doubt that a lot of "big label" albums go into the million dollar range, but I would have a hard time believing that's the average.
Plus, there are other ways to bring in cash besides CD sales. Royalties for radio play, soundtracks, etc, Concert sales (due in part to marketing of CDs), and plenty more I'm sure.
In any case, I bet >500k production costs are the exception, not the rule. Although, if you include marketing costs as well, it probably jumps up a lot.
Jeff
The truth is that most of the production costs are paid by the artist. With a new artist, the label fronts the money to produce the album, to be paid back out of artist royalties.
One of the big complaints of artists, which several prominent performers have pointed out before, is that they can almost never repay all of these costs from their first album, unless they are one of those rare acts which goes platinum with their debut. Most acts are then pressured to rush a second album, as cheaply as possible, to increase their revenue to pay off the production costs of the first album and get them into the black. (Hence, all those infamous "sophomore slump" albums.)
In other businesses, this practice is called "loan sharking", but it's the way the record industry has worked for decades, and there's no sign of stopping as long as this business model continues to work.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
... bailing the artists out of jail.
Hmm, this comment'd be funnier if we were talking about the Portland Trailblazers.
"Derp de derp."
The cost is similar to the cost to produce a movie..the studios and equipment have already been bought and paid for, so the conglomerates can bill themselves whatever ridiculous amount they feel is neccesary, so they can then steal the "cost" from the artist when their record sells. I don't know how a why this system is still around, but I don't see it changing anytime soon. The actual cost to record and album can be just about anything, you can make "professional" quality sond on just about any PC with a variety of software..and many "artists" do just that, especially dance artists. Just about every beat you hear in a hip hop song was or can be made on a sampler that cost less than $3,000 USD. The Wu-Tang clan is a prime example, they produced their first album for next to nothing!
actually its because people are interested in the topic, and its a good place for discussion.
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
the cost of an album depends considerably on what you're trying to do, and who you are. Assuming you're in a small band (like myself), an album will usually cost maybe $600 just to record and master, and then another $2000 for a good amount of copies in cd and tape. This doesn't add a lot of frills, especially in the recording process; not much can be done on a budget such as that, like studio musicians and really nice effects and what not. But then again, you could get a bunch of buddies to do anything special on your album, and that'll usually work. Or, you could do it with less quality for even less money, or record it at home. But for some professionalism, thats the way to go, and it'll usually run between $2000 to $3000.
;) and special hardware and a technician that's expensive as hell. Plus, with all the processing, even more goes into it. Producers at that level are also hella expensive, further jacking up the price. And studio musicians are expensive as hell.
For big business music, however, several thousand dollars are spent. The average is raised a lot due to how many effects and how much processing goes into making pop music. Britney doesn't hit that note? Touch it up with several thousand dollars worth of software (if you're legit
But the bottom line here is it depends on what you meant: Major recordings or a bunch of bumblefucks like myself on a budget.
We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
...back in the 80's when CDs 1st appeared they were more expensive than albume, even though they cost LESS to produce. The record industry said once the cost of tooling was paid for cost would go down, they lied... Even in a pro studio you can record an album for way less than $100k. The rest of the supposed cost goes to marketing and promotion, which is a bunch of BS. The record companies are bigger crooks than Enron... I see 1000 CDs regularly for just over $1k w/ packaging....
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
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
A music video, a self-contained commercial for the album costs a LOT of money ($100k up to $500k), without actually bringing any money in by itself (except for the growing trend of musicvid DVD's).
Everytime you watch a music video or listen to the radio, that's marketing money spent just to get you to buy the album. For people that want to go big-time, you gotta shell out the big-bucks. That $20 you pay for the CD pays for pretty much every method that got you aware of the CD in the first place. Except for word-of-mouth, which to marketers, is priceless (which it is, since it's free).
Standard recording costs range between $40 on up to $200 or $300 an hour depending. But an average joe could record at a high quality studio for about $60 an hour. Depending on how good the band is you could do a whole album in one week at 12 hours a day. Thats $3,600.00 in recording costs. About another week to mix the album at 12 hours a day. Another $3,600.00.
Mastering of an album costs about $4000.00 at Gateway Mastering. Thats the best place in the world. CD Duplication for color inserts and other things it's about $1.00 each.
So it's like $12000.00 for recording, mixing and mastering and another $8000.00 for 8,000 cd's. So now we're upto $20,000.
But now you gotta' pay the "independant promoter" companies (which are subsiderary companies to the radio stations) lots of money to get it played on the radio. Thats an extra $10k.
So a total of $30,000 for a good band to pound out a great CD.
I don't really care how much the markup is on a CD. That's not an issue with me. If it costs them a penny a CD, and they sell it for $15, that doesn't bother me one bit. The truth of the matter is that they're charging what people are willing to pay, not based on what they actually cost to make.
What does bother me is their reluctance to satisfy me as a customer. If an album sucks, I want a refund. Forget it, open it == bought it. They don't even want me sampling the music to alleviate their no returns policy. The way I see it, if they're going to charge a premium for this crap, shouldn't I become a happy customer?
So yeah, they can charge what they want as long as I find the price reasonable, but I demand better customer satisfaction if they're getting such a ridiculous markup on it.
"Derp de derp."
$5,000/hour to rent studio time * 4 hours, and another $5,000 for post production work.
Jason
ProfQuotes
A must read for any band about to sign a contract with a label, and an interesting look behind the curtain from an insider.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
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.
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).
Man, I almost went blind reading that.
On the other hand,
if a chicken and half lays an egg and a half every day and a half, then how long does it take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick all of the seeds out of a dill pickle?
It really depends on the band, their needs, their own access to equipment, etc. Electronic artists, for example, can completely produce their own CD from each song to the final track layout without having to touch a studio. Many well known artists such as Fat Boy Slim are almost entirely done in their basements, etc. In those cases you're looking at about $20-$30k worth of gear from start to finish. DJ's have it even easier -- my setup, including the computer and legal (yes, I paid for it full price) software amounted to about $4000.
Artists that actually need a sound studio are in for paying a lot more because it takes a lot more people to actually make things happen, along with space, equipment, etc. Get into bigger acts and you're talking about a lot more expensive people too since "my cousin who did the high school play audio" isn't going to be the same guy who mixes down a Top 40 album.
The actual costs seem to be what this article has in mind. Most people know what it costs to press a CD and wonder how that $0.25 turns into $20. We also imagine that musicians already own their instruments and have something to record. As you seem to know so much about what's going on, could you detail some actual recording costs for us? Like, what does it cost to rent a studio? Where do we get this outrageous half a million dollar figure from?
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
A high quality (ie expensive) studio with high quality engineers and high quality software and equipment can make a decent singer sound good, and a good singer sound great. That's where a big chunk of that change is going.
Another big chunk is probably inflated values given by the RIAA in order to milk as much money out of the artists as they can in fees.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Sure, you *can* record something in your basement recording studio, and these days it can be pretty good, but it's easy to see where higher costs can come from:
1. Bringing in a well-known producer to help you get the sound you want. Ditto for engineers.
2. Studio time in the high-end studios--with millions of dollars in equipment--can be very expensive.
3. Spending lots and lots of time in the studio--weeks or months instead of the "4 hours" people are citing. Heck, you'd be lucky to get one good take of a song in four hours, even in your basement studio.
4. Session musicians brought in for various tracks.
5. Celebrity backup singers (e.g. Emmylou Harris and Gillian Welch singing backup for Steve Earle).
6. Weeks of production work done by someone else, often someone well known and highly compensated, after the initial recording sessions.
Yeah, local bands don't do all of this, but we're talking about big "cash cow" acts here, not a bar band from Austin.
Recording technology has gotten incredibly cheap - thus, there is NO REASON for production costs to be as high as high as they are often quoted. Case in Point: Good friends of mine are in a NewYork Hipster band called "Liars". They recorded their fabulous album "They Threw us All in a Trench and Stuck a Monument on Top" in TWO DAYS for $2,000. They pressed a thousand copies, jumped in a van, and toured the US for 3 months straight selling their own CD's. In so doing they generated a lot of buzz (because of their TALENT, remember that stuff?). Thus, when they returned to NewYork, they got picked up by a bigger label, which re-released their original $2000 album. Rolling Stone picked it as the second best debut album of 2002. So, these days there is NO more reason for record production to cost $500,000 than there is for C.D.'s to sell for $16. The old old regime of bullshit prices is rapidly going extinct.
I think, therefore I thought.
There are many costs that go into account for a big budget project then for the average person who records at a budget studio. A well known recording studio with large sound boards, multiple isolation booths, and lots of new and vintage out board effects units will run 2 to 3 thousand dollars a day and that usually only includes the studio and an Assistant Engineer. You can figure 2 to 3 months of studio time. That right there is around $200,000. Then you include the engineer who will charge $500 a day and the producers fee's. So add $40, 000 for the engineer and about the same for a Producer. Many times an album will be Mixed at a different studio then it was recorded, so that adds on more days. Top notch mixing engineers will charge 3 to 4 thousand per song. So we can add 20 more days of studio time to mix at $40,000 and $40,000 for mixing. Now add a Mastering engineer to master the album at a cost of $5,000. Then add the day to day food for the group and any other luxories. Hotels, flying to different studios to work with different people etc ...
This just describes the pieces to get the Album into a shippable form. Then there is the production costs after that. These numbers are obviously not exact figures, but they are real figures of what things cost in the music recording world. So you can see where such a high figure could come from.
Cost of producing an album for me? About $5000 tops. That's including software, but excluding hardware like my protools and mic. Recording digitally is so easy any sucker can do it... remember Afro Man? Cuz I Was High? That was done in a basement with cheap synth crap equipment, and I'll bet it cost less than $1000 to do the entire thing.
/. with my website as soon as we're done.
Of course, costs of producing an album rise drastically when you gots your hoes and coke to supply.. note that it costs SNoop Dogg 90 g's in hoes alone to make a video.
Figure about a half ounce per roadie of premium bud, probly about a grand a day in coke per performer, strippers, a Bentley, and maybe payments to various law enforcers - shit adds up when yore a real rap superstar.
Other side of the coin is Remy Shand, who built a platinum record in his parents' basement in less than four years, and spent almost every cent on just buying the equipment.. no recording studio time for that lad. It's all so relative - I mean, somebody can spend billions developing an operating system that's only marginally better than the next best OS which was built by freak hobbyists working out their parents' basements.
for those who care, I'm recording an album right now in my parents' basement. I'll be trolling
just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
Of course this is in early '90 dollars but here is the snip on the bottom:Of course Albini had a different point with this article: the majors screw people over so if you decide to not go independent, you are putting your life in your hands. Or from the article: "The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on royalties. The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month. The next album will be about the same, except that the record company will insist they spend more time and money on it. Since the previous one never "recouped," the band will have no leverage, and will oblige. The next tour will be about the same, except the merchandising advance will have already been paid, and the band, strangely enough, won't have earned any royalties from their T-shirts yet. Maybe the T-shirt guys have figured out how to count money like record company guys. Some of your friends are probably already this fucked."
What is music when you despise all sound?
on the artist, the label, the studio, etc. Even among people I know personally, the figure has varied widely. The most my own band ever paid in studio costs to record anything was when we paid $140 to record a six-song EP. I know one band who had a pretty decent regional following and were together for ten years. They released several recordings, but a lot of them were done really cheaply because they knew people who would cut them breaks.
Two hardcore/metal bands I knew a couple of years ago from the same town each put an album out around the same time. One spent a couple of weekends at a small local studio and put together a full-length CD for about $1200. The other, who had hired a manager and thought they were going to go big time, took a month off, put themselves up in an apartment in a town 30 miles away and recorded an album in a "big" studio for $30,000. They never did get the big break. The two guys who wrote most of the material left the band because they refused to quit their jobs to do the joke of a "tour" the band set up after the CD came out.
The band i farm, with whom my former band used to play shows, went from making self-released records at the same $20/hour studio we recorded at and being recorded by their friends in recording school to recently doing an album for a small indie label for $6000 at the Blasting Room (run by Stephen Egerton and Bill Stevenson from All/the Descendants).
The point is, it's a really difficult question to answer. Really big bands spend a lot of time in really big, expensive studios working on albums. It's incredibly easy to run the cost of a recording up to the $200,000 mark or past when you're speding six months in a $2000/day studio in another country (thereby incurring housing costs as well). Or working in multiple studios. And bringing in guests to play. And hiring three different engineers to mix, etc.
As for markup. When I was working in a CD store (1994), we, as an independent store, paid the one-stops an average of between 8.99 and 10.99 for discs which had a usual retail of about $15.99-$16.99 at the local chain store (it was a big deal at the time that the new Tom Petty greatest hits album cost us $12.49 and was going for $17.99 in the chain stores).
Of course, as an independent, we had to undercut the chains by selling the discs for $13.99-14.99. And, of course, as an independent, we also had less buying power and had to buy discs through a middle man. The chains who were charging more for the same discs got them far cheaper directly from the labels by the truckload.
One more thing to consider as far as major labels are concerned is that their idea of artist development is to throw a bunch of money at a whole group of performers and hope that one or two of them make it big. They charge the associated costs to make the album back to the artists and give them all a big advance. A couple make it and actually pull in enough money to cover those costs and make some money. The rest never see any money past their advance because they aren't paid royalties until the album breaks even. Some make several albums that never break even and just go deeper into debt with each album.
The best thing that happens to some indie bands that jump to majors and don't get big is to get dumped from the label because by the time that happens they're usually so far in debt they'll never get out. If they've still managed to keep a good portion of their fanbase, they can go back to making cheaper albums for a small label again (see: The Mighty Mighty Bosstones).
The interesting thing about the music industry is that albums are like films. If you keep the budget down, you don't have to get a lot of business to make money. Chasing Amy was Kevin Smith's most successful film not because it brought in the highest box office take. Chasing Amy, Dogma and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back all made about $30 million at the box office, but Chasing Amy was the only one that cost less than a million to produce. Similarly, Elektra stays with a band like Phish, who refuse to promote themselves to a wider audience and don't sell a lot of albums because they sell a steady amount of albums and they don't spend a lot of money making those albums.
Independent bands in Indianapolis produce a whole albums for under $10,000 by using their own computer as the studio mix board, cd burner, and etc..
Thats one of the many problems of the music industry..the cost to produce an album using latest technology went way down and yet the music industry did not adjust to offer better quality albums..so the big question is what did they do with the money?
Was it snorted up their collective noses?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
a) Musical equipment. Not cheap. Many unknown musicians think nothing about having 5-20 thousand dollars worth of equipment. Multiply that by the number of musicians in the band. OTOH, a $150 used MIM(made in Mexico) Fender strat played through a $100 amp will convincingly duplicate the "Nirvana" guitar sound.
b) Studio Time. If a band is skilled enough, they can produce their records in a home studio. You could feasibly do this with one microphone plugged into the back of a sound card, record one track at a time, and mix it down with some program you downloaded off alt.binaries.whatever. Or you could spend more money. Or you could spend a lot more money.
b2) You could hire out a studio and an engineer, and a producer, and this is where it really can get expensive. It would not be much of a problem to blow through 500 grand if you hired a couple of name brand guys and spent a month or two in an expensive studio.
So, does it cost $500,000 to record a CD? It can. It can be done for much less. And if you have some geeks at your disposable who know something about audio engineering, you could conceivably even get a high quality record for a small fraction of what some rich rock star is going to blow through making an album.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Bruce Springsteen recorded "Nebraska" by himself on a 4-track. If you figure $1000 for the 4-track and $500 for the guitar, you've got a professional album right there for $1500. I'll assume you don't want to figure in time spent practicing the guitar or money spent on lessons. But what about the actual CD? Do you have a computer (if not, add $1500 for say, an iMac and Digidesign's mBox (and if you like, forget the 4-track altogether))? Well, you can burn 1 for a quarter. Or you can get 1000 professionally duplicated for $1000. Or you can get a bazillion duplicated for a quarter-bazillion dollars. But you want to record in a professional studio? $50 an hour then, $100 an hour, whatever you want. Add an orchestra ala Metallica? What's that, $1000 an hour? Studio musicians? Take a wild guess. You'll find someone who works at that rate.
And then there's the marketing. Just put up some flyers. It's free. Want something more effective? Buy a guest appearance on Saturday Night Live. Or negotiate a spot on the Tonight Show. Or something in between.
And don't forget to pay the independent promoters to do their payola thing with the radio stations. Don't want to get involved with those goombas? That's okay. You've still got your album. Just don't expect it to get radio play.
How much does it cost to produce an album? However much you want.
c-hack.com |
I think there needs to be a distinction made between Production, Manufacturing, and Distribution. I believe in the music industry, these are distinct costs. Manufacturing is mostly a standard cost for everyone that is the same across the board. Distribution (includes Marketing) has many levels and the cost scales based on the Distribution Channels. (sending a copy to the local radio station is much cheaper than buying ads on MTV) Production is highly subjective and can range from nothing to millions. It can include many costs, including paid musicians, musical instruments, studio time, post production, blank tape, etc... (common practice: "hey, let's go play guitar on the yacht in the Bahamas and write it off as 'production costs'")
What's the lowest cost to produce an album and have it sound good? I don't know, and I'm sure everyone won't agree. -DNA
Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
I Hate \.
A good engineer != good producer. If you want good production, you will have to pay for it. And producers, the ones who really know how to mold a good sounding album, aren't cheap, even for the non-famous ones. Yeah you could find some uber engineer who knows every miking technique know to man to wear the producer hat as well, but that is no guarentee he can produce. If you want to really get miserly with your recording costs, and DAT rental is all you need, record it live with 2 mics. There is no law that says all recordings must be multi-tracked.
The biggest part of getting a recording is the human element. John Mutt Lange could get better results on an 8-track unit than you could with all the time and best equipment in the world.
It's a horrible place for discussion. You're going to get a bunch of anecdotes about how "My uncle's friend recorded his church band and sold CD's out of his van, and they only costed him like, less than 50 cents a piece, and so you'd save money if you made a million!!!1!" It's moronic.
Put it this way: you can spend however much you want to make an album. If you want it to sound like it wasn't recorded in a bathtub, you'll spend more. If your band is ready to play the songs (instead of writing them in the studio), you'll spend less. Are you loading your own gear? No cartage fees. Do you even own the gear you'd like to play with? Using session players? How many guys in your band? Have they recorded before? Are you recording the parts separately? Are you recording it 8 seconds at a time? Digital? Analog?
If you're "big," 1,000 bucks a day for the studio's about average, not including engineers/producer/etc. Plan for 3 or 4 months in the studio. The first Sabbath album was recorded in a day; Metallica's Black Album took ~8 months.
Are we including promotion? That's a whole new set of equations. Basically what it comes down to is:
It depends,
which is why it's not a good place for discussion.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
1000 cds kost about $800 to produce, booklet included. 7 days in your own studio costs nothing. Bandwidth for 1 average MP3 costs $0.03. CDs for $2.00 should already have been reality something like 35973 years ago. The same for MP3s for $0.10 a piece and $1.00 per album. Sell 50K albums and you get about $25. I think that's about the same for artists in the current system. ...but you'll never get through the marketing-wall the big labels have put up with the money of CD-buyers. The same wall that helped the region-code (or whatever it is) on the DVD, will help DRM to your PC and will help your money in their hands.
The system in which we all have to pay for way too expensive studios with way too much way too expensive managers which usually also produce a way too expensive videoclip and have a way too expensive team to think about what the next single from this or that album should be. All payed for by us. Well then we all have to pay for things like MTV, RIAA-tax, normal tax and the rest is income to artists. Some make multizillions a year but newcomers can hardly get on the market because of the marketing-machine all CD-buyers invest in. So I say once again: don't buy CD's from the big labels, don't record your album at the big labels. ANY band with a bit of a studio at home (cheap multitrackers work just) can record an album in a few days. Invest $800 in the first 1000 CD's and sell them online. Just send them out yourself - when the volume goes up, let somebody else do it for you..
0x or or snor perron?!
i remember seeing this on the television set. korn's new album cost 4 million dollars, because they set themselves up in rental mansions during the recording, and all kinds of other ridiculous things. i believe i remember hearing that the 1 million dollar mark was reserved for huge artists.
i'd say the average artist (but the average artist doesnt sell shit for records, comparatively) costs under $100K.
That's a great deal. However, as someone in a band I can assure you that finding decent engineers with access to good equipment who are willing to record for free is an extremely rare thing. In general it costs money to make a good recording. Not neccessarily 250,000 but as others have stated, promotion isn't exactly cheap either.
After winning $100 in our high-school "battle-of-the-bands", my band of three people decided to make an album. We each chipped in another $66 for a total of $300, and with this money, recorded for 6 hours in a decent, small studio (small room, one employee). We made one hundred copies ourselves using plain-old CD-RW drives. The 100 CDs were $10, and the cases another $30 (I think). The guitarist's mom (who is a graphics designer) did the art, using pictures the guitarist took for his photo class. We printed those on store-bought CD inserts and labels ($10, maybe?), and stuck them together ourselves. Total cost? $350. We sold each CD for $10 ($5 for close friends).
For $350, the quality of the album is pretty darn good, a whole lot better than our self-recorded one. All these recording costs seem simply absolutely ridiculous to me! Of course, professionals don't do 6-hour studio jobs, but then even The Police spent only $2000 for their first signed album.
This is the wrong question. The cost per album is really, really easy to calculate. It is the amount of money a record company spends over the number of albums they sell. The real question is what is the minimal cost to producing an album and why do they pay so much more? Well I think it is probably very much like drug companies (which I *do* know something about). Like drugs or potential drugs, there are probably things being produced that never become profitable. Albums that don't sell, but are paid for have to be included in this value. These are reasonable expenses. The, IMO, unreasonable ones are like the massive PR machine that tries to keep the status quo.
So you aren't asking the correct question. How much a single album costs is pretty much irrelevant to answering the real question you want the answer to.
-Sean
More than half of all the expenses go to advertizing and promotion. (not even counting concerts, because those pay for themselves and make a profit) In fact, it's an even larger expense than royalties. For a $12 album, I estimate $4 goes to the retail store, 100,000 copies regardless of filesharing or watnot. It can easily be produced for $20,000 + $0.50 packaging per copy + $3 royalties per copy. That means guaranteed profits as long as they can produce decent stuff while keeping costs down. Lack of profitibility is entirely the fault of the RIAA for having ridiculously and unnecessarily high espenditures. If they want to be more profitable they should stop spending so much money on bribing senators with campaign contributions, and let the music promote itself for a negligible cost by just mailing out free samples to radio stations.
Repeal the DMCA!
It's a great album. Captures everything they were about in their prime. It's not the best recording I've heard, but it's more than OK and I'm guessing the've made their $600 back.
But other forms of music require a bit more than a four track and a couple of cheap guitars. Into techno/electronic music? Expect to spend more $$$ getting that to sound right. Jazz can probably be done cheaply. Point and record is how the best sounding recordings are generally done.
IMO, any band that spends millions on recording is trying to get something that just isn't there. If you can't capture the essence of what your band is for far less money, then I suggest that the recording process is being used to hide the band's shortcomings.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Probably because if there's one thing more tempting than money, it's fame.
Note that this was a no-name studio, with a no-name engineer, and self-produced.
Yeah, and it shows.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Studio Time: 50K
Well Known Producer: 250K
Other Expenses: 100K
Seeing your album on KaZaA the day of release: Priceless
MP3's - there are somethings in life that you don't need money to buy - for everything else there is the RIAA
About 1/3 of those items are to the direct benefit of the artists. The guitars, the sound equipment, the blow-out party, the catering, the tour bus and the limos are all effectively income for the artists.
This trickery generally benefits the artists because they're not taxed on the benefits it provides them with, unlike the 7/11 clerk, who has to pay income and Social InSecurity taxes on every dime of his income.
I'll bet the 7/11 clerk would change places with them in a heartbeat.
I read a very interesting biography of Richard Branson, who founded the Virgin record label among other enterprises. He was taught a hard lesson in economics from the other side of the fence. He signed some number of bands. One was a huge hit, the rest did poorly. Overall, he made very little even though his business was glamourous and he had a lot of fun with it.
In other words, just because the gross is pretty doesn't mean the net isn't ugly.
In this case, consider that the semi-hit analyzed here has to support a number of flops, that don't come even close to recouping their costs. Overall, then, the label probably does a lot worse than you think, precisely because this guy selected a middle of the road example.
Anyone know what the actual profits of the record labels look like?
D
...ago, I worked for a contemporary country artist (Michelle Wright, "Take it like a man" was *the* U.S. hit) as the front-of-house tech.
She had a few cds out at the time, and I remember hearing from her (or her manager) that the cost to make an album *for the label* is around one dollar apiece.
Frad
Do I bother *YOU* at *your* work?
This is a sample sig. Press F1 to personalize.
http://www.buzzmachines.com
The real cost isn't equipment, its labor. Equipment is essentially a 1 time investment. I'm producing my album with about 30k of equipment and it will sound as good as a pro studio, however a real studio will have $100k - nearly infinite dollar ammount of equipment... but since I know how to use the equipment LABOR IS FREE. Also alot of the cost of equipment is the building. Real studios have special buildings with modified heating and cooling systems, special wiring ducts, and the rooms are dressed in sonics to reduce sound reflections.
I have no doubt that albums like britney spears cost 1mil to produce. Assuming the studio has all the equipment you need... You need to hire session musicians (drums, bass, keyboard, backup vocalists, string players, guitar). Then you need support staff like vocal coaches, multiple engineers, multiple songwriters, etc etc. All of these people make 25 - 100$ hour, plus the 50 - 500$ you are paying per hour just to be in the studio (the companies may own their own studios, I dont know. They may also have session musicians on salary, thats the way I would do it).
Now a band that comes to a studio with its songs written and well rehearsed, doesn't need anything but a few engineers and THAT can be done on the cheap. Real professionals can do an album for nothing. I've seen all star jazz bands walk into a studio, lay down each song in one take, and be done before lunch. Couple days mixing and the thing is done. But those are guys who've been playing for 35 years.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Studio time, plus the musicians pay was pretty much a days work for the 10 or so people involved.
Then there is the cost of pressing the records (which is probably higher than making CDs).
Anyway, check out the book Making of Kind of Blue.
Today you can probably record and print 1000 CDs for under $5000.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
has a sony 24 track digital studio! they were featured in time for a story on drugs in high school. but, since the parents in this high rent zip code subsidize the drug usage, the recordings are much cheaper to produce!
Back in the early 90s my band recorded 3 albums, all self funded and it took about $2k each time. But we were amateurs and got equipment for free and used friends instead of prefessionals wherever possible.
Today it's very different. I have a friend who does his own CDs. He writes it all and has his own prologic setup and does all his own music and sounds excellent.
Now try recording a band who doesn't know anything about production. Invariably there's a sound engineer and producer - total cost is 100-200$ per hr but could be a lot more. Studio hire (and extra equipment hire if necessary) is anywhere from $0 to $X000 a day, but lets say its $500 a day. Now how long will this sucker take? Record it in a week and it'll sound like it. Let's say a month which still isn't generous. Then you're all working 12-20hrs a day. That's $2.5k a day, $75k a month. Then all the things we missed like up front money for the band to live off, legal fees, CD cover design, marketing and so much more.
Yes, you can record a CD for $2k. But you can also validly spend $500k too (especially once marketing kicks in). Then there's all the times money is spent on all the above and the album bombs and makes hardly a cent (it happens more often than an album doing well).
You want to do it all at home on your PC and do your own cover art etc etc. Great! More power to you, yep you certainly can. Doesn't Moby record all his stuff at home in his NY apartment? You can too! Now what's the chance you'll sell millions of copies (even if you're really good)?????
pithy comment
Seriously. And I've spent all day slogging through invoices and records, so all this shit is nice and fresh in my head.
Depending on the band, and the producer, and desired quality, base studio costs can run you from a few thousand to 20 or 30 thousand, depending how much you have to work with the artist. The studio charges you time and material, typically, including the media they master on. Most of the expense at this stage is for engineering, mixing, and mastering. If your band had to travel to the studio, you have that to account for, plus expenses if you flew in a producer or engineering team.
Once it's mastered, you've got to think about selling it. That requires art and layout work. These costs can be anything from farting on a piece of paper for some color to god knows what else.
Once you're ready to press, you find a manufacturer. For smaller batches, prices are understandibly higher. Decent quotes for quality CDs, covers, trays, plus time and materials for a batch of say, 3000 cds, would float around a buck to a buck and quarter per unit. Don't forget about shipping, because 3000 cds, in cases, weigh a little more than a pound.
If you're paying staff to handle all this for you, you've got them to consider, plus your real estate and other overhead figures for the period they're working on it. If you're doing your own marketing, well, you get the idea.
The major labels turn the market into a pigpen. CD prices for major artists are high because radio stations are fat and happy on the bribes^Wfees they charge the major labels for prime airplay. That's why you get the same 15 songs on a daily basis. You gotta root around to find the quality stuff. Labels with online stores for their artists (hint.) are great places to find quality music at prices that don't factor in distribution markups and larger overhead (which has to account for those large bribes^Wfees).
Tired of what's on sale at Walmart? Check into your local music scene. The fish are fresher.
- billn
In my day as a musician (no I won't say when that was) record companies signed about 100 groups per year and would hope 10 would be popular. But they still had to pay to record those groups, market them, underwrite tours, In other words they spend far more money than you are calulating, and losing a lot more than you are aware of. The recording costs you are talk about might work out the be the average. The big groups are dropping way more on recording and new groups records on super tight budgets. Then I hate to think about the money they waste on these formula boy bands and Britney all looks no talent types.
I won't even get into this swamp of comparing costs, but what no one has pointed out is that while there are situations where you can record great tracks in your basement using digital gear, it's not universally true for all musical styles
Take classical music. You need a BIG ass room like Olympic 1 in London, or at least a decent size room like Electric Lady A. That costs a lotta money.
Many artists want to use a lot ot live, real musicians, and sometimes they require more than a tiny room filled with geekware to give a great performance.
For proper strings, you need a nice space, ditto live drums. Same with live piano. Again for horns. Backing vocals sound great in a big room. And there is world of difference between lead vocals done in a bathroom versus those done in a solid isolation booth with a great mike.
While we're on mikes, there is going to be a huge difference between some cheap ass stage mic and a Neumann U47 from the 40's which are VERY expensive.
Then let's discuss mixing. Mix it yourself in your basement? Cool. But if you want it to sound amazing, get Bob Clearmountain or Andy Wallace to remix it at 5 grand a day.
So, can you get a record out the door cheap? Yeah sure you can. Can you get a album that is as flawlessly made as a Seal CD? Not a chance. Even Nirvana had Andy Wallace mix their stuff.
Speed costs money: how fast do you wanna go?
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
In late 1996, a label rep from WEA (Warner's distribution arm) told me that it cost the label an average of $3.20 per cd to get it to market. Thing is, that's for a major artist, and that cost includes promotion, big-name producer, etc. Your mileage will vary significantly.
My advice is to get a good hard-disc 16-track (about $800) and do everything up to the mastering process yourself. Take the product to a local engineer and have him master it (usually about $200, often far less). With the finished product in hand, all you have to do is cut a deal with a distributor. From there, you have the choice as to how it's marketed, promoted, and most importantly, priced. Even if you can sell it at $10.00, you'll be far cheaper than major-label stuff, and yes, price is a selling point.
One last thing. If you do it yourself, it's yours. It can't be shelved three weeks before release, used without your consent in a Gap commercial or held for ransom because you threaten to break a restrictive and humiliating contract. Paul Simon still has to pay to play "Sounds of Silence" in his concerts.
THE GOOD HUMOR MAN CAN ONLY BE PUSHED SO FAR
Bart Simpson on chalkboard in episode 2F18
The problem is that not every record sells a million copies. Not every artist tours large arenas and stadiums. Many international artists sell perhaps 50000 copies per album, and tour at small clubs. If they can afford to tour at all.
Let's say we have a five-piece rock band just trying to get their stuff heard. After spending months of their free time writing and rehearsing material they decide to record a four-song demo. One full day in a studio with an engineer. Then mastering, and optimistic 1000 copies of the disc, including cases and artwork, to sell in the Internet. Total cost approximately $2000. If they sell all the copies for $6 they get $6000. Reduce expenses, and they have $800 for one person. That's not much for months of hard work put into their material.
Let's take another example. CMX, a popular Finnish band who have basically no markets outside of Finland, because all their material is in Finnish. Three years ago they did a 120-minute double-album, which has sold over 20000 copies (that's successful, gold certification in Finland is 15000). They had two studios for four months to record it. Total cost, including cost of people involved, was probably somewhere near $200000. That's about $10 per album sold. Add distribution and marketing. Had it been a single-disc album it would've been a disaster, but as a double-disc it could be sold for a slightly higher price of about $22-$25.
This is one of the most expensive albums ever produced in Finland. It wouldn't have been made if they weren't a well-established and popular band. Getting songs even recorded and released if your potential audience is small (like in smaller countiers, or with somewhat marginal music) isn't easy.
Most less-known artists have dayjobs, because they would have to sell tens of thousands of CDs every year to make enough money to live. A lot of my over 600-CD record collection is from artists, who sell perhaps 20000 copies of their albums worldwide. They simply can't afford $200000 to do a record, nor have they time to write and record a new album every year because of their jobs.
Then again, should records really cost only as much as the production, marketing and distributing them really costs? Sure, you could get the latest Britney Spears or Limp Bizkit disc for $5 and they would still be profitable for the record company, but stuff by CMX or Shadow Gallery or [insert your favourite underground artist] would still be at least $15 just to break even.
Keep in mind that, despite how little the artists make there is still money to pay out to:
Ultimately I think that asessing things on a per-cd cost is the wrong way to go. The RIAA Like everyone else is not just into CD's they are into "Brands." Each band isn't just woth the fees for CD's but also the revenue from concert tours (that Ticketmaster doesn't take), the Revenue for Music Videos (minus the cost of getting them made), T-Shirts, Magazine appearences, benefit shows, movie spinoffs (I'm certain that Britney's manager got a cut of her acting fees), etc.
So the real question is, is the amount that I kick in to the brand with my cd price of 20USD "fair" or am I getting shafted by the same people who claim that I'm screwing them because I have an internet connection and a CD burner and therefore must be stealing Mettalica's crap?
I say its not. Even though Clearchannel owns enough radio stations to dictate the rules there, and MTV/VH1 are in the same sets of hands, thus forcing the record companies to play by their rules, I still think that they're doing well. I belive this because The costs of CDs has risen faster (so far as I can tell) than the rate of inflation. In order for this to be a survival move it would mean that:
At then end of the day though I have little sympathy for them because:
To Quote Paul Wolofowitz "Companies come, companies go that's the genius of capitalism."
I have a band, Metric Nut metricnut.com, and we have a cd about to come out on February 25th on Times Ten Records. The cds total cost to record for us was about $10k. This is a pro peice of work. The studio that we use is a moderately high end place that charges in the 500 a day range and since we aren't selling a million records we only pressed a couple thousand at about 90 cents each. We have gotten a little college play around the US, and some good reviews, so you can figure that the recording is decent enough, although look at the white stripes...that is a garage recording.
Anyway, for refernce, Nirvana's big hit record cost about 50k in the end to record, they probably paid somewhere in the 10-20 cent range for each unit, but they spent 100 million on promotion. its pretty easy to see why they charge 15 dollars each.
In the end it realy depends on your level in the pyramid, and your budget. I have heard awesome records that i know cost half of what our did, so It can be done relativly easily, you just have to have your head on the right way on the right day.
The / in
Being the big Beatles fan that I am, I have to wonder how they were able to get such good sounds (which often still sound fresh nearly 40 years later) without all that top of the line equipment. I'm not suggesting that they had crap 2nd hand stuff, but certainly much of the equipment at Abbey Road wasn't state of the art even for the times - that became a point of contention in the late 60s (using 4 track when others had 8 track, etc).
creation science book
The Music industry is a business. As with any business, don't sign anything without having a contract lawyer look at it, and if it involves budgets, go over it with someone who understands such things [i.e. an accountant].
www.newsateleven.com
This is an album I am on. Including equipment and production, it cost us about $25000 to produce. That is probably as cheap as it gets...its an extremely well edited and recorded album, we happened to have the know-how to do the majority of it ourselves, with as little rented studio time as possible.
That price however, doesn't factor in the cost of our time.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
If you're "big," 1,000 bucks a day for the studio's about average, not including engineers/producer/etc. Plan for 3 or 4 months in the studio. The first Sabbath album was recorded in a day; Metallica's Black Album took ~8 months.
Maybe it's just because I'm a jazz musician, but I don't understand how people can spend 3 months in the studio! Doesn't it make more sense to write your songs first, rehearse them, and then go to the studio and record each one in 3-4 takes, max? Go ahead and spend a couple of days getting the equipment set up, but that still doesn't come anywhere close to months!
Do people actually try to write new songs in the studio? Do they spend weeks teaching cute teenage boys and girls how to play four chords on a guitar so that the band appeals to the target demographic? Any they honestly wonder why they never make any money...
I can only assume that they're recording dozens of takes of each track. Maybe if they hired more talented musicians to begin with, they'd be able to get it right the first time.
If there is a serious answer to my question (what do bands DO for 3 months), please respond...I'm curious...
Seriously, is Robbie Williams *really* worth 80 million UKP? I mean, what can he possibly spend it on?
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
A little online research got the following: Studio time including mixdown for mixing $30.00 per hr or $300.00 per song. Figure 12 songs just for grins =$3600.00 Provide master for you to do your own mixdowns add $100.00 CD pressing in quantities over 5000 is about $.20 ea. Now add in the speculation for a total. Who gives a damn? Go to a retailer and buy a CD by, say, the Doors called, say, The Doors, because you have to update your music library again. Lets make the assumption that all the LP promotion, studio time, extra musicians, production, legal stuff, artwork, and all the rest of the overhead were paid for in the first couple of years - hell, give it 4 or 5. But, it sure seems there was at least one hit on the album so I suspect it was sooner. Now let's assume in the next 25 years or so that releases on 8 tracks, cassettes, and additional LP sales made the band and the record company a few bucks. Any LOGICAL explanation why this CD costs within a buck or two of the new releases? HELL NO, WE'RE NOT GETTIN SCREWED. That doesn't even begin to describe it. If it takes 30 year old music to support today's artists then maybe some of these people shouldn't be recording. I bought that album for about 6 bucks when it came out. Damsure didn't cost an additional 10 to press and ship CD.
For a world-class studio-produced album, the costs are going to be much higher than for a smaller studio recording.
To give an idea, a world-class studio (which would have 24-track 2" recording and million-dollar consoles) is generally $1200-1900/day + an engineer and a second. Depending on the engineer, it could be between $500/day and $5000/day. A second is generally going to be between $250/day and $500/day.
An album produced this way generally costs around $150,000 to complete, including the mastering and media and all parts.
Then there are smaller facilities which will produce an excellent quality album at a fraction of the cost. Of course, they might have a Trident console instead of a classic Neve 8068 or an SSL 9000 J. Generally speaking, an album produced in this manner would amount to $10,000-$20,000.
And then, there are home studios (not of the low-end project/hobby grade) that can also produce an excellent album and $10,000 or below.
Basically, the lower-cost facilities (or the lower-cost recordings) rely in the artist being "with-it" enough to get their job done in a reasonably quick timeframe.
A small facility can cost just as much as a world-class if the artist wastes lots of time.
The way the music industry works, basically, is they sign an artist and give them $150,000 to make an album. The artist can then choose how to record their album. The label's only requirement is that they get a high-quality multi-track master, a stereo master, and often nowadays, a multi-channel master.
The artist has the option of how to spend that $150k. They can spend it on a world-class facility (which is what most artists do) or they can build themselves a studio and do it themselves (and hire a good engineer).
The more intelligent artists build a facility and consider the first album's cost-of-production a loss. Then, if they're lucky enough to get a second album, the can pocket the next $150k and hire a good engineer.
The nice thing about the second option is that even if they don't get to do another album for the label, they keep the studio and can make whatever they want, whenever they want!
And you can make a pretty damn good studio for $150k.
Jory
There's a video documentary you can get about how Metallica recorded the album mentioned in the comment you quoted. Its been years since I saw it, so I don't remember the precise details, but yes, they were pretty much writing the stuff as they recorded it. Also they did a lot more than 3 or 4 takes on some of the stuff, particularly the vocals - prior to this most Metallica vocals were very rough & raw; they went for a much more refined sound and weren't used to producing it, which is one of the reasons it took so long.
Of course, that didn't please a lot of the older fans, but it got them many new ones, so who knows whether it was good move or not...
Its really unfortunate when I read this kind of outlook on music. It is almost the same kind of story as people absolutely certain that anything but a BMW is crap.
I have spent most of my life playing the violin (~20 years). I have played in quite a few nice halls, including Carnegie hall. I have a violin that cost $15,000 ten years ago a violin bow that cost $3000 eight years ago. I appreciate and understand that musical instruments are expensive.
The problem I have with the recording crowd is that most are somewhat dilusional in their experience of music and sound. This is primarily due to the "measurement effect". People come to assume that weights and measures are the only standards of value in a variety of instances, and this is quite apparent with recording engineers. Using all sorts of gizmos, they have come to convince themselves that they know what high quality sound really is. They have all sorts of proof to back up their claims, all sorts of essentially meaningless technobabble.
But compare a live violinist on a $500,000 Stradivarius to a locally produced violin and the former will sound far better. Even the sound enginner will agree. The problem is he will not be able to fully explain why. The reason is sound is still something that is not well understood. Even the most musically illiterate know a Stradivarius is the best violin, but no one really knows why. I won't even get into how a musical hall has such a profound impact on the sound as well. There are so many factors, so many variables, a precise measurement or even facsimile is virtually impossible. In the end, sound quality is very subjective, "purity" in a recording doesn't exist. Its the music itself, the patterns and harmony that really defines the music.
This, more than anything is why sound engineers produce work that always sounds artificial or at least different from the original. It may be a good copy but it is still a copy.
I got news for you, that $3000 microphone really is nothing special. There is no way a manufactured microphone truly costs $3000 when a violin bow made by hand over weeks using imported Brazil wood costs $3000. Nothing in that microphone justifies that price in raw materials or craftmenship.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
I have a question you could ask of any desperately aspiring musician or band: "would you sign a deal with the devil, if it were the only way you could ever become nationally famous?"
I'll bet that in at least half of the cases, you'd get a "yes". The record labels know this, so they do everything they can to be the next best thing.
I had something that I needed to say with the album. I wasn't looking to become a Superstar I just wanted to make my money back. A lot of people were really supportive of my songwriting. Requesting my songs in the clubs. I'd been interviewed by reporters, signed autographs, and won a competition with one of my songs. I figured if I could get $5 per CD then I could sell 700 and break even. Leaving 300 sample/promotional CDs.
I got a distribution deal, UPC barcode, top spine label strip on the CDs, and got one of my songs onto a compilation CD that was sent to approximately 400 radio stations here in America. I'm thinking why would anybody need a record label? I can do this all on my own.
Then I found out that this is when the hard work really begins. Everything I've done until now has been for naught. I've got boxes of CDs that no one knows about and I don't know how to promote them. I'm a songwriter, not a salesman. I can hire independent promtional teams for as "little as $250 a week" they said. They'll get my name out, put stickers on walls, give away T-shirts, etc. Of course I have to have the stickers and the T-shrits, after I've spent thousands making the CD.
Well I'll just play, I thought. The music's what important. Until I got a phone call at home from a club owner saying they couldn't allow me to play my songs there, because someone had threatened them with legal action. Appearantly my songs are "intimidating" and they took offense to them. I don't who it was, but it was probably the same person that was sending certified letters to my P.O. box saying if I didn't apologize for my music they were going to sue me within five days.
I was getting requests for my CD from radio station DJs in Europe (Great! I've promotional ones I can send them). I didn't figure the cost of mailing them out. The shipping costs added to the price, dollars depending on where it was going. Some countries have import tariffs, customs requirements, etc. I either had to sell more CDs or increase the price. Can't sell them without promotion, which I can't afford.
I tried a free web hosting service to promote the album, but the bandwidth was far too limiting to allow MP3 downloads. So I pay monthly for improved reliability Shameless self-promotional plug. More money. More cost.
Then the distributor sends me an E-mail saying Valley Media, which is their link into main distribution channels, has gone bankrupt and I won't see any money for any of the CDs they had in their warehouse.
I've been threatened, harrassed, investigated (3 times now), insulted, lied to, stolen from (by companies not fans). I understand why some bands say they don't want to be famous. I found out what real parasites some people can be.
I finally put all the songs on my website as free MP3 downloads. I rather give the music away that have it used against me. Besides it's not that good. (Told ya' I not a salesman)
P.S. Did you know that managers at some chain record stores don't have the authority to buy CDs? They're only allowed to stock what they've been shipped from the corporate buyers.
Studio time (wide range in prices here)
Cover Art (graphics are not cheap and occassionally very expensive, not in the $10,000 mark usually, but still a cost)
Studio personel (high prices producers will cost up front, especially if they think the project will tank)
Hotel/food for band (unless they happen to live near the studio)
Tour Support (this is a MAJOR cost)
Videosanother MAJOR expense)
Payola (yes, it still exists)
print marketing (advertising is not cheap, neither to produce or get printed)
Cash Advances (most bands get some sort of advance and most bands never fully pay that back. I understand that this is a ruse, but on paper, it is a loss)
Bands operating at a loss (which is most recordings. Profit making acts must make up for the ones losing money)
Record company expenses (just like liquor must cost more in a bar, music must cost more in a company due to office space, secretaries to A&R people, to executives to janitors)
Image consultants (you have to decide how to market any product, it doesn't just 'happen')
Cost of CDs (this is a tiny per-unit cost, but some companies have a nice little scam where they pay their own sister/daughter company more than it should cost to produce them and thus increase their losses. BMG was known for this)
The truth doesn't care what I think.
Remember you are paying for MORE THAN THE DISC when you buy a CD. I must admit that CD's are grosley overpriced. YES, the record companies are making a killing and YES, the artists are (for the most part) getting screwed. However, looking over the threads, I've seen some people are a bit unclear about the process of creating a CD and the costs involved.
As mentioned in an earlier post, the compact disc media has become very very cheap over the last 15 years, yet CD prices continue to rise. Here are some of the other costs involved in producing a CD:
MECHANICAL LICENSE FEE: When you buy a CD, part of the cost covers a mechanichal license fee. Believe it or not there is a fee of 7.55 cents PER TRACK for any CD pressed.
RECORDING/ENGINEER FEES: It is not a simple process to create a CD. There are 3 steps, recording (at least $2,500 per track assuming you don't need to many overdubs), mixing (at least $2,000 per track) and mastering (at least $500 per track). Now these costs are relative to the caliber of studio you record and mix at. For a big-time artist at a platinum-quality studio, you can easily quadrouple these numbers.
RECORD COMPANY FEES: Most people get upset and claim these guys are driving the cost way up. Well, for the most part, that is true. But it is important to realize that these people are the ones responsible for promoting an album. The artist does NOTHING to help move their albums (well, I suppose you can count touring). The producers and record execs do all the work to push your album.
PRODUCTION: It boils down to $2.25-3.00 per disc for 1,000 - 10,000 copies. This includes a glass master, the disc itself with 4-color face printing, 10 page 4-color insert, jewl case, barcoding and all those annoying stickers on the case edge. For large quantities, the cost is certainly hess. Probably about 40% less for more than 500,000 copies.
I certainly hope you find this information useful.
-DJ Blair
geekee writes "But unknown artists will give their left arm for a recording contract that is a supposed rip-off. Why? Because it isn't a rip-off. Unknown artists want someone to take a risk on them."
Lots of people also give their 'right arm', so to speak, and their paycheck to casinos and other such types of gambling. IMHO, it it probably easier to win a slot machine jackpot than it is to 'make it' in the music business in the way that many starry eyed wannabes think is coming to them when they 'get signed' by a major label.
Many aspiring artists and songwriters fail to understand that -you- are employing the -label- when you sign a contract. They wouldn't be so enthusiastic about 'getting signed' by the door-to-door insurance salesman or Anderson Consulting, for that matter. They think that 'getting signed' == being propelled to stardom on a magic carpet, but in reality, it is more like hiring a major consulting company to help you reach Fortune 500 status but instead going bankrupt paying their fee while they have you running around doing all the legwork. To extend the analogy, once you are bankrupt, they buy you for a 'song' and -then- cash out, leaving you wondering what happened.
This illusion is propogated by the media concentration and marketing influence of the major labels. The same influence which creates manufactured one-hit-wonders with billions in revenues yet elusive profits seems to make people think they can be the next pop star if they are just 'found' by the right sugar daddy.
This stuff is becoming more and more like an infomercial every day- "Johnny signed the contract, and now he's down at the beach partying with the babes. You too can be the next Britney Spears- if you're hot and you can dance, we'll let you sign the contract too, and then you can be on stage selling product for us, erm.. performing your art as well. In only 20 years, you too might be rich and famous. (fine print...compensation not guaranteed...substantial penalty for early withdrawal...artist is responsible for all expenses incurred on their behalf...company held harmless if artist fails perform as instructed)". You get the idea.
Business like these will gladly take a sucker for all they are worth. These people are not out to help your career, they are out to extract maximum value from your intellectual property and your good looks while you 'till the soil', so to speak. This is why most business-savvy artists don't sign major deals unless they have a lot of leverage (like a huge existing fan base) to negotiate equitable agreements.
BTW, in order to justify getting the lion's share of the profit, less than ethical businesses tend to grossly inflate the perceived monetary risk they are taking. As we've all seen, especially lately, corporate conglomerates have many unseen pockets to help them define 'risk' and 'profit' in a way that best suits their own interests.
Or, it could mean that this guy didn't do his homework before he put out the album.
Sounds like it to me.
If there is a serious answer to my question (what do bands DO for 3 months), please respond...I'm curious...
The point here is we're talking about rock music, not jazz. Jazz recordings: the focus of a session is to "capture" a take in as natural a setting as possible. Particularly solo or small group recordings. This is very much also the case with classical recordings. In most cases with a classical recording, no compression or other outboard gear of any sort is allowed. It has to be as pure as possible.
Rock and pop music: the focus is much more about the presentation. Artifice. Have you heard the drums in a rock record lately? They don't resemble real drums in any way whatsoever. Mixing the drum sound on a recording so that it in any way sounds like Limp Bizkit or Marilyn Manson: that takes days. Days!
Many bands now, on a major label recording, it goes like this:
Spend several days setting up for beds. Set things up so everyone can see each other and you can all track live off the floor. However when you first hit "record", the only thing you're keeping from that session will be the drums. That's it. Drums alone can take days of tracking, then it's thrown over to protools guys for time optimizing (matching it rigorously to a click track.) That can take an extra day or three. ProTools engineers alone charge $8000 a day just to be on site (whether they actually do anything or not.)
Next step: is guitars. They're laid down very strategically so that they're tracked clean, but that the effects settings for mixing can evolve. That can change drastically from the first day of tracking to the last. Average time for that with most bands is a week. There are entire books written about micing instruments, and guitar amps in a rock recording can eat up more than two thirds of those books.
By the time we get to vocals, now you hire specific protools people for post production retuning of vocals. If you are dealing with a band which in any way is expected to get airplay or top-ten status, if you're not using protools retuning or retiming, radio is not interested. Vocals in most pop / rock recordings are not at all "natural" vocals. They're sweetened, processed, compressed, punched (ie: retaken in portions even for single words, or syllables of words.) Often they're doubled for reinforcement (ie: the vocalist has to retrack the "keeper" vocal as closely as possible to the original keeper.)
On and on.
Mixing a track can take anywhere from one day to eight days. Then the label can still say it requires a remix. "The drums need more punch", "The vocals aren't loud enough", "those guitars need more crunch", "Bass is too loud", "Too much / too little autotuning", "Rock radio will never accept that vocal take", etc.
This is the reality of most if not all recordings you hear on radio today. I am not making any of this up.
ad
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
Think of it like a Car Rental buisiness. You go a buy a bunch of cars at a big one time cost, but you're not done there, cars need to be repaired and replaced at times, to the point where there are none of the original cars left. Same with the studios, they'll go through small replacements and maybe total remodeling and re-gearing eventually, not only with upgrading to stay with the market, but also as things wear out.
Upgrades are also for time/sanity sake, a lot of the new gear may technically be "cleaner" than some of the older gear, but a big part of it is new features and time saving. Going from tape to hard disk can save a lot of cue time and can make punch ins a whole lot easier, as well as instant feedback on effects and switchouts. Add to that easier "un-do's" and archiving of the steps, and losless copies. Now, of course with Dat you can have losless copies, but only so many, eventually that Dat wears down as well, especially if you're tracking back and fourth a bunch of times over one spot.
Mics also wear out over time, not always to the point where it stops working, but can loose some of it's acoustic clarity, dynamic range, and ability to deal with loud input (especialy true with close instrument mics; like for drums, trumpets, saxophones, electric guitar amp stacks, etc.)
Mixers also wear out, pots, pre-amps, plugs. Mixers can go obsolete as well, many producers and engineers would get lost without a computer controled mixer, especially with the 24, 48, 96 or more tracks available to them now. Many producers and engineers like to mic and track each drum head, cymbals, etc seperately to mix. Same with electric guitars, they'll take a raw feed from the instrument and a multi-mic feed from a stack, then pick and choose from there. Options and quality are a big deal, and innovations can make huge strides in both.
Now, those are just studio costs, but record companies don't always own the studios they use, often time in the studio is rented, expensively. Then paying all the engineers (often multiple) and various setup people. Things get real expensive real quick, and that's just to lay down the tracks, after the track are laid down, they must be mixed. The mixdown proceedure takes many things in to consideration, and things can change drasticaly from the original recording to output from the mix with effects and other sounds. Look at albums like U2 Zooropa, there are lots of studio effects and lots of coordination in that album (compare it to the Joshua tree, funny how the basic make up of the song styles fit almost track for track) that probably took up close to the same ammount of time in post production as in the actual recording.
There's also a lot of equalization that goes in to each recording, watch a good recording in a spectrum analyzer and you'll see peaks and everything, but you'll also see program across the spectrum. The "wall of sound" is an important part of music as a basic "rule," although, if you're good any rule can be broken, something that a little band called Strawberry Alarm Cock proved to many producers long ago. They proved that rules are there for people who need guidelines to make "good" sound, but if you're naturally good enough, you can ignore those rules and at times intentionally break them and still come out with a good sound. Take the time to listen to Incense and Peperments and you may see what I mean, or you may just hear a good song, either way you'll win.
Of course, with the original question, you do have to take in to account that all of those "albums" produced aren't all done the same way, and at the same cost. You can have a few hundred albums at well over $2 million to produce, and a few thousand at $5000 to $100,000. That's also assuming that those numbers are correct, and not inflated (ala the RIAA inflation of cd burners incident.)
matguy(.com)