Slashdot Mirror


Cheap Audio Production

OneInEveryCrowd writes "Rolling Stone reports that four out of five new albums are now produced by a program called Pro Tools (or similar packages) that costs $495 for the home version or $15,000 for the pro version. The article describes a fairly amazing savings in time and effort compared to the older ways of producing an album. I realize that a talented producer can cost a lot of money and some bands drink a lot of beer, but why aren't the benefits of lower production costs being passed on to the consumer?"

16 of 616 comments (clear)

  1. Why? Hmmm.... let me think by julesh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why aren't the benefits of lower production costs being passed on to the consumer?

    I suspect its because 99% of the cost of producing commercially successful records is not (and never has been) studio related. Sure, studio time costs a fair bit, but never anything like the amount of money that is typically spent on publicity, production, promotion, distribution, and stuff like that.

    1. Re:Why? Hmmm.... let me think by PacketCollision · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Despite the natural reaction to such a thread (I mean who doesn't want to bash the recording industry?) the fact of the matter is that studios are still very expensive. Add to Protools (which, in the configurations I've worked with, could easily cost over $30,000) all the other gear, and a studio can easily cost in the 100s of thousands to build. A good recording engineer isn't cheap either, nor is a good mixdown engineer. The best mixdown engineers cost several hundred an hour. All the design for the cover, etc. isn't free either, nor is mastering, nor are musicicans, for that matter. That, and as the parent post stated, there are many costs that aren't related to the production.

      All but the most popular albums don't even make much money (for the artests at least), where they make their money is off radio-play, which goes to the artists, not the label. But even this isn't free - you need a publicist to get your work out.

      All in all, the buisness isn't as easy as sitting down in front of a computer with some software. There is a complex set of variables, and making the statement that with the advent of ProTools, albums should cost less is a gross oversimplification.

  2. We already know the answer to this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    because there is no competition!

    It it were a truly open market, then these increases in efficiency would be passed on to the consumer as lower prices. However, since the recording industry has done everything possible to insure that there is little or no competition, it just results in higher profits.

    This is the danger inherent in monopolies and oligopolies.

  3. ProTools is a large reason modern music sucks by Faggot · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ProTools, while of course being immensely powerful and featureful, is responsible for many pervasive problems with modern music:
    • over-compression of everything (ever notice how most modern music is the same volume all the time?)
    • voice-tuning (as debuted by Cher on "Love After Life"). able to make a crappy singer perfectly on-key, and since it's matured a little it's much harder to notice
    • lifelessness resulting from using the "best" parts of a recording session (a riff here, a drum fill there, a bassline there) to collage together a song. the resultant music is (surprise!) devoid of the life which comes from musicians interacting with each other
    • the same effects make it into modern songs at the same time. unoriginal overuse of ProTools plugins

    it's depressing how such a featureful tool is used mainly for evil.
    --

    But what do I know. I'm just looking for anonymous gay sex.

    1. Re:ProTools is a large reason modern music sucks by dash2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you mean "Life after Love". If you believe in Love after Life, then you're pretty twisted.

    2. Re:ProTools is a large reason modern music sucks by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 5, Insightful


      ProTools doesn't run itself, not even in the $15,000 version. If too much music is coming out that's over-compressed, sterile, and voice-tuned to hell, then it's the fault of the person sitting at the console -- not the tool.

    3. Re:ProTools is a large reason modern music sucks by Mr_Dyqik · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm sure similar things happened when Les Paul invented multitracking.

      I think that it now needs different qualities in a producer to get good results with Pro Tools than it did to record with old style big desks etc., although the techniques haven't changed that much. Pro Tools essentially simulates using a very big and expensive studio in software, so you can do everything that very expensive studios have been doing for years. It does automate some of these things though, so that there is a temptation to over use some things.

      Just using Pro Tools doesn't mean that recordings suffer from the afflictions that you've listed (listen to Martin Grech's "Open Heart Zoo" for a recording which certainly isn't over-compressed, and was recorded on Pro Tools, with just two instrumentalists).

      Pro Tools is allowing my brother to record almost an entire album, where he plays almost all of the instruments (not the drums, but only because he has a drummer available, he can play drums), for the cost of a computer and the software/hardware, in his bedroom, and get a better sound than most people managed in the 1980's (from a technical point of view, I'm not diss'ing the 80's sound).

    4. Re:ProTools is a large reason modern music sucks by onepoint · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Amazing, you post the best response about issues using PT.

      People don't realize that the best music comes from band interaction. the WHO who's music will live for a long time.. there band had a huge interaction amoung each other. same for Rush, Metalica and other very popular bands that feed off each other while creating music.

      but to the topic, the money is fronted to the band, the band then is required to produce the tracks. how they produce the tracks is not related to the lable, if anything they should be able to produce more tracks for the album because studio time will be less and the artist keeps more of the advance.

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    5. Re:ProTools is a large reason modern music sucks by martyros · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Amen, mod that parent up. It may sound impressive at first, but if you listen you can definitely tell the lame music done the way described in the article from the good stuff.

      What's more, the article talks as though the studio is now obsolete -- as though the mixing decks and equipment were the only importnat part of the studio. One of the major reasons for going to a studio at all is the sound. No matter how good your mic is, if you record it in a square room you get standing waves and all kinds of acoustic crap, making it sound like you did your recording in a bathroom; furthermore, if you're not isolated, you pick up the ventilation system, the whir of the computer fans, and trucks (or ghetto blasters) driving by outside. There's only so much Pro Tools can do to compensate for a crappy input (I know, I've tried).

      Studios put a lot of work into making a room tha has good acoustic qualities and is isolated from all nasty bits of noise; designing, building, and maintaining such a room is still an expensive venture, and still necessary for a decent recording.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    6. Re:ProTools is a large reason modern music sucks by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nonsense...

      Over-compression is a problem with many recordings, sure, that's not because of Pro Tools. Many amateurs over-compress too, and they have been since they figured out how.

      "Voice-tuning" is usually done by a product made by Antares and has nothing to do with Pro Tools. It's available for every other recording software too, and is available as an external box. Auto-Tune is actually used on many recordings these days to clean up the singing. Again, this is the fault of the people using Pro Tools, and has nothing to do with Pro Tools. Pro Tools doesn't do this out of the box (at least, last I used it).

      In fact all your complaints have nothing to do with Pro Tools. Popular music was faddish and homogeneous long before Pro Tools.

      PT is a great program and turns any machine into a flexible multi-track recorder. It reminds me a lot of Photoshop in that it has a good interface, it helps you get your work done, it opens up huge new possibilities, and certain features of it are cliched and over-used by a lot of folks (are we sick of drop-shadows yet? over-sharpened photos? "funky borders"?)

      There's nothing "evil" about PT. It doesn't "do" anything unless someone pushes the buttons and slides the sliders.

      You could argue that any music tech is bad ... tape recorders (no live music!) ... soundproof studios (where's the ambience?) ... electric guitars (all the sound is effects) .. microphones (they color the sound!) ... but you'd be wrong .. Pro tools like any other music tech has opened up a lot of possibilities, and popular music aside, I love to hear the things people can do when they start to push the boundaries of those possibilities.

  4. Producers. by supabeast! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...but why aren't the benefits of lower production costs being passed on to the consumer?"

    Pro Tools might knock a few tens-of-thousands off the cost of producing an album, but the real cost is the producer himself. Good producers can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for a big album. In short, it doesn't matter what tools Puff Daddy uses to produce an album, all that matters is that Puff Daddy produced it.

  5. Why Aren't The Costs Passed On? by clifyt · · Score: 5, Informative

    Because instead of having 4 studios that are full purposed, folks build their own studios and spend the money on their own equipment than they would have normally at the big boys.

    In the end, it STILL costs the industry the same amount of money or probably more.

    That and the human element has gone up steadily as the pricing of the hardware has gone down. before the Home Recording Revolution occured, I was able to charge $20 an hour to show up and help someone with their gear...generally I was paid for by the studio I was in. NOW I show up at someones home, read the manual to them and charge them $75 an hour and I'm not even what I'd call professional (I've worked with several professional artists in the past and I'm going to be the head music tech for an up coming Al Green show next month, so I work with folks that are VERY professional...still pretty much a hobby for me so I can support my university and its research addiction).

    And what happens AFTER folks finish their home opus? They generally head to the bigger studios to polish it up. Producers are going to ask a LOT of front money to work on this -- along with their own engineers that retrack certain items -- and they will STILL ask for points (though that generally comes out of the artists share...EVERYTHING comes out of the artists share :-) What kind of studios are they going to be running? Ones that are $100k - 300k in just equipment.

    Looking at my HOME studio, I have 2 K2600s ($5500 each), Digital Mixer ($3k), Mac G4 ($3k), PC ($1k)Audio Interfaces for both Macs and PCs ($2k), Software (DAW -- Logic Audio $1k / Softsynths & Effects $2k). Thats almost $25k right there (Heh! Glad most of this was comped as I couldn't afford it). There is NO WAY IN HELL that Vig's entire studio is $15k at Stone tries to make out...I wouldn't be surprised to know it was on order of $150k at the MINIMUM.

    BTW the $500 version of the CHEAP Protools is NOT Protools...its a cheap immitation with the same interface. its designed solely as a learning tool to get folks use to what the big boys use and hooked so that they can go into the studio with a little preknowledge OR convince them to buy the more expensive stuff.

    Theres no doubt about it, recording a major label album is going to cost a lot of money. Indie albums will be MUCH less.

    Don't take my word for it, I run one of the largest Logic user groups dedicated to digital audio. Take a look at:

    http://community.sonikmatter.com

    and check out our user forums. These folks know what they are doing and we have quite a few folks that have worked on albums that have resulted in precious metal on the wall. Again, I'm just a hobbiest that been caught up with the big boys because I was a geek when they needed technology taken care of and don't consider myself to be anywhere near their calibre -- but its a fucking shame to see that my bedroom studio is bigger and better than Butch Vig's if we are going to take this article at face value.

    clif marsiglio
    cofounder sonikmatter

  6. benefits *are* being passed on by John_Sauter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Almost every time I hear a professional soloist or well-organized group play live music, I can buy a CD from them of their music. Recently I encountered a very good guitar/tambourine player in a restaurant. He didn't have a CD, so I referred my friendly local CD producer to him.

    Music production is moving from the expensive studio to the musician's garage. I don't use Pro Tools, and I don't have a sound studio, but I can make a simple demo CD for a music group by mikeing their rehearsal hall for about $500. That's $250 for me and $250 to stamp the CDs commercially. My friendly local CD producer charges more but gets better results. If all you want is a demo or a CD to sell at your gigs you don't need a $100,000 producer.
    John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)

  7. On a related note... by liquidsin · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just moved into a new apartment. The rent here is lower. I was thinking that the honest thing to do would be to tell my employer that since I now have an extra hundred bucks every month that maybe I should take a pay cut, since I don't want to appear greedy. Any thoughts?

    --
    do not read this line twice.
  8. Re:What does it do? by Doc+Hopper · · Score: 5, Informative
    The big thing for Pro Tools is that it has been around a very, very long time, and is the industry standard. Cakewalk and its ilk have also been around for a while, but at least in Cakewalk's case it started out as a MIDI sequencing program in the early 1990's -- and many people still think of it that way.

    So yeah, there are a lot of programs that do this. But Pro Tools is, and has been for a decade, the industry standard in professional hard disk recording systems. Some great things you can do with a Pro Tools setup:
    • Looping tracks
    • Extending lengths of tracks with little (if any) distortion of the source. Think drum loops, changing them from 148bpm to 140bpm. The aliasing gets worse as you go further from the source speed, though.
    • automated punch-in/punch-out
    • undo. This is a huge win for tapeless over tape-based studios!
    • noise extraction
    • the list goes on...


    The basic thing is, Rolling Stone is finally catching on to the what musicians have been doing in the mainstream for about 7 years now, and that's completely tapeless recording, and the move of recording out of the studio and into other places. There are enough plugins out there to clean up sound from even very noisy areas, so the need for a completely silent "studio" is much less. Studios are definitely going out of business as a result of this move to home-studio-based recording, and ProTools is generally a compatability requirement.

    Me, I use Cakewalk Sonar at home, and this is one area where no free software product yet comes close. I'm on the Ardour mailing list, and use Ardour periodically to see how it's coming along, but definitely nothing there yet to replace my studio setup.

    So to answer your question, Pro Tools is simply one of many hard-disk recording packages. However, among professionals it is the most widely used, and boasts a much larger library of compatible software than any competitor. Oh, and until about 4 years ago, it was Mac-only.
  9. One Tiny Cost by nick_davison · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "$495 for the home version or $15,000 for the pro version.

    why aren't the benefits of lower production costs being passed on to the consumer?"


    Because that's one program. Install it on your Alienware PC and you'll still create terrible sounding crap.

    Now pay rent on a building. Properly set it up for acoustics. Add perfectly matched, pro level monitors. Add some seriously expensive sound cards that can work with multiple sources and no lag. Add a set of mics at a couple of grand a pop. Add a mixing desk that connects to pro-tools so you can actually make smooth fine controls. Add a decent guitar/amp (about $5k), now multiply by about five for all the variations used on a typical album. Add a drum kit and a lot of heads (Dave Grohl reportedly got through a set of heads per track when recording Nevermind). Add pro-grade cabling so your sound doesn't get muddied up. Add a PC capable of dealing with it all, fast SCSI drives and all.

    Those are just the bits and pieces I can think of, just being an amateur guitarist who never records but does spend too much time in guitar shops. I'd imagine there's a hell of a lot more.

    All of a sudden, the $495 seems insignificant. Even the $15,000 for the pro version.

    Yes, you can record music with pro-tools and a typical home PC. A lot of people do. And it sounds fairly good compared to recordings of say the 1950s.

    Just because one aspect gets a bit cheaper, doesn't mean the process gets cheaper. It just means that the capabilities get higher. I remember paying $200 for 4mb of ram, $3,000 for a 16mhz 286. Now I can get a hundred times that power for about $250 yet I still buy $3,000 PCs. How can that be?