Slashdot Mirror


How Amateurs Destroyed the Professional Music Business

David Gerard writes "Here in the future, musicians and record companies complain they can't make a living any more. The problem isn't piracy — it's competition. There is too much music and too many musicians, and the amateurs are often good enough for the public. This is healthy for culture, not so much for aesthetics, and terrible for musicians. There are bands who would have trouble playing a police siren in tune, who download a cracked copy of Cubase — you know how much musicians pirate their software, VSTs and sample packs, right? — and tap in every note. There are people like me who do this. A two-hundred-quid laptop with LMMS and I suddenly have better studio equipment than I could have hired for $100/hour thirty years ago. You can do better with a proper engineer in a proper studio, but you don’t have to. And whenever quality competes with convenience, convenience wins every time. You can protest that your music is a finely-prepared steak cooked by sheer genius, and be quite correct in this, and you have trouble paying for your kitchen, your restaurant, your cow."

42 of 617 comments (clear)

  1. How is this news? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People prefer a $1 McDouble over a $15 premium burger. The public chose VHS over Betamax. "Good enough" is good enough.

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    1. Re:How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Beta took two tapes to hold a movie, while VHS took one, this was significant. The quality difference when hooked up to old TV sets via RF was negligible. If I recall, Beta machines were more expensive as well. At the time, VHS was a better choice for most people.

    2. Re:How is this news? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Likewise, the $100/hour studio's extra quality doesn't help when some moron will crank all the knobs to 11 and compress it to hell to produce the master. Then it will be played through cheap earbuds. Now that DIY recording is becoming practical, the old way isn't looking so good. It can produce better results but typically doesn't even though it always costs more.

    3. Re:How is this news? by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Professional recording artists sell fuck-all these days. In the UK: in 1983, Red Guitars got to #8 in the indie charts with 60,000 sales of "Good Technology". In 2013, Rihanna has a mainstream number one album with under 10,000 sales.

      The important thing to remember is that "pop music" is not actually all that popular. It's mostly a way to get publicity for your live shows and yourself as a celebrity - buy yourself onto the iTunes top 40. You've never heard of half these people because they are not actually popular.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    4. Re:How is this news? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Forcing viewers to interrupt the experience of a movie because they have to get up and change a tape is not "quality".

    5. Re:How is this news? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 5, Funny

      "I ate at one once and it was tastless cardboard so I vowed never to set foot in one again."

      Shit. What the hell is happening to people these days? Does McDonalds really need to sell their burgers with instructions? You are supposed to open the friggin box, remove the contents, and just eat the contents for christ sake!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    6. Re:How is this news? by icebike · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Likewise, the $100/hour studio's extra quality doesn't help when some moron will crank all the knobs to 11 and compress it to hell to produce the master. Then it will be played through cheap earbuds. Now that DIY recording is becoming practical, the old way isn't looking so good. It can produce better results but typically doesn't even though it always costs more.

      The fact that you can produce mediocre quality in his bedroom using digital equipment does not mean the death of quality.

      The cost of a quality piece of music, simply means that someone with a better understanding of the process, and slightly better tools, and a desire to produce a quality product, will take the time to do so. But that doesn't mean a full recording studio, 47 musicians, 5 bodies in the control room.

      It means one or two dedicated people using slightly (and I do means SLIGHTLY) better computers with more skill will still find enough of a market for their recordings or appearances to pay their bills, and stay in business, long after the crap churning artists move on to day jobs. A few will find success in music, but most will take up farming (or whatever).

      This is an age old story:
      Just look at the crapbands you knew in high school, annoying the neighbors practicing in their garage every Saturday. If you are like most people you don't know a single one of these clowns that even bothers to pick up an instrument today. They were never good enough to bother listening to. Even the vocalists sucked.

      Perhaps Artists will appear on stage with boat load of synthesizers and stacks of keyboards, and (hopefully) not a real instrument anywhere in sight. You won't be able to tell if you are hearing a recording or they are playing any of it live, and you probably won't care. Tangerine Dream made a lot of money in appearances with seldom a real instrument appearing on the stage.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:How is this news? by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This already happens. Deadmau5 has confessed he basically shows up, presses "play" and dances a lot. (no cite readily to hand, sorry)

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    8. Re:How is this news? by SerpentMage · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, sorry I don't think it is about quality.

      Let me illustrate. So I have a burger, and I serve it to people. One costs 1 dollar and another costs 10 dollars. Does the 10 dollar burger have better quality?

      It reminds me of the movie "The Devil Wears Prada". Remember the scene with the "blue" belt? What people are doing is splitting hairs. Google essentially killed my profession (being quite serious here), but I am not complaining because I use Google as well. What the Internet has done is forced musicians to say, "oh wait I am not worth 10 gazillion dollars?"

      This is what the Internet is doing namely reassessing what you are actually worth. I don't think this is bad because this is what happens all the time. It is called free market economics, capitalism, the invisible hand, what have you. So if somebody complains I say, "suck it up daisy!" Move on and figure it out. Ask yourself the following. When cars began to overtake horses do you want to be a buggy whip manufacturer or car mechanic?

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    9. Re:How is this news? by camg188 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      From the article:

      We're not going to run out of music, but it's going to be a bit mediocre by and by.

      No. I completely disagree. It's the same as it ever was and ever will be.
      If you plot almost any human metric on a graph you will get a bell curve type distribution where there is always a small percentage that is the superlative of that particular metric.
      The rest is mediocre because, well, that's the definition of mediocre.

    10. Re:How is this news? by Lloyd_Bryant · · Score: 5, Funny

      You are supposed to open the friggin box, remove the contents, and just eat the contents for christ sake!

      But then you lose half the nutritional value!

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I had one once. It sucked.
    11. Re:How is this news? by blackm0k · · Score: 5, Informative

      The parent to your comment was talking about album sales, whereas you're talking about single sales. That album sales are down and single track sales are up has been known for a while now, and all it really indicatesis that people are consuming music differently now: in single track chunks.

    12. Re:How is this news? by chipschap · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a former owner of a small studio back in the 90s I regret the loss of quality as reflected in poor playback conditions (ear buds, bad headphones etc.) and the ubiquity of MP3s (no they do not sound the same, and it's the difference between pretty good and superb). I recorded to 16 channels of analog tape with Dolby S, and it was fantastic quality sound.

      The other side of this, though, is the easy availability of very good digital processing equipment. Now that the standard is 24 bit, there are no longer headroom problems and the noise floors are low. A studio like the one I had would be today largely superfluous, or at the least not very busy. (Good mics still cost, and, leaving aside possible questions of technique, that's where many home recordists seem to fall back in quality.) Music is easy to distribute.

      So it's hardly all a black picture. The marketplace delivers what the market demands. Live with it.

    13. Re:How is this news? by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Audio technician here.

      A well-tuned sound system adds a lot to a party environment. No, it's not going to be cranked up to full volume, nor playing death metal, but it will be on and loud enough to understand. The room should be fairly well-padded, so the music is heard but doesn't produce echoes. With such a setup, the music is a diversion, filling the empty space that otherwise is an "awkward silence". If and only if there's a gap in the conversation or someone wants to hear it, the music comes through.

      Not all music must be loud, and not all parties must be quiet.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    14. Re: How is this news? by PRMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the 80s Christian Rock was born. It may not have always had the highest quality, but some bands were good and there were lots of options. In the 90s, all the small CCM labels got bought by the majors and soon there were about 6-7 bands pushed, all mediocre. With the rise of the internet, the labels couldn't control things anymore. In the 2000s, cool innnative bands thrived. And they seem to be making a living at it still. I'll take that any day over the alternative.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    15. Re:How is this news? by craigminah · · Score: 4, Informative

      The public determined what "quality" meant. Kind of like how the PS2 lives on after a decade of service or how DVDs are still king (for now). Good enough quality plus convenience are what matter.

      If "professional" musicians can't get people to purchase their music and people instead purchase some "inferior" music isn't that "inferior" music actually superior because it's what people want? It might not be produced in an expensive lab/studio but it's what people want...who cares what label the creators have?

    16. Re:How is this news? by Starteck81 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Remember the scene with the "blue" belt?

      No, but then again I don't have a vagina either.

      Coincidentally you'll never get any action from a vagina either. Some of us have a girlfriend or are married and watch movies with our significant others, some of which they choose. Feel free to pop your head up out of the basement and ask your mom if you need to verify this practice.

      --
      "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
    17. Re: How is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      He was a "genius" in an Apple Store.

    18. Re:How is this news? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Quality be damned hard to sell to a market that's been dumbed down from Mozart to Miley.
      FTFY

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    19. Re:How is this news? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most working musicians make their money playing gigs and selling merchandise. Only the lucky get big money recording deals. And even the ones who get the recording contracts will usually get less than ten cents from every dollar sold. Record companies usually just take 50% or more off the top. Just because. Then they start taking their other cuts from their (profit, recording fees, marketing fees, etc etc etc. and a few pennies for the band.... now go promote it). Regular bands and musicians take their gigs as they can get them and some good enough or lucky enough get regular work. And even then the better ones count on the occasional private gig that they can charge or get paid a bit or more better than club pay.

      So the whole gazillion dollar thing... I call bullshit. What kills a lot of musicians is new shite bands who charge way less than they should because they live at home or have a day job, and think just getting in will let them live as a musician. It is like the whole living wage debate, there needs to be a minimum fee. And bar owners who are trying to make a go of it themselves who are then lead to believe that they are paying fair rates because some bands take it.

      Most people think a musician is working when they are on stage so wow the band gets paid a grand (thousand bucks) for four hours work (and now-a-days many bars don't like paying half that). Meanwhile they neglect to notice that pay has to be split four or five ways to the band members. And that also has to cover daily practice (yes that is work, it is their job), rental of practice space (because who can afford a house with a garage to practice in on those wages?), and pay for gas, never mind the car to get to and from the gig. That 200 to 250 dollars starts getting spread pretty thinly. Hopefully you can get two or three gigs this week...

      So this whole thing about musicians getting their money from recordings is for the lucky few. At best it is the demo home recording (or studio if you have the dough) self produced CD sold at regular gigs while you do road circuits across the country or state or province or city, if you live in a city that supports live bands.

      The whole gazillion dollar recording artist is what we see on TV or hear on radio. But they are the lucky few. There are a lot of really talented people out there who are in the trenches, playing from club to club.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    20. Re:How is this news? by philip.paradis · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's not supposed to have sex with his mother.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
  2. Music Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They have given us terrible artists for years, maybe they will finally go away...

  3. Also... by joocemann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... one might note that the mainstream industry has very little appeal to people that are intellectual or at least deeply interested in the actual content of their music.

    The mainstream studios that are cracking out 'hit' after 'hit' (aka: highly advertised until people like it) are producing basic melodies in C Major with 'artists' that cannot honestly perform well on stage and likely can't do their music well in a true LIVE setting.

    The mainstream studios are facing REAL ARTISTS and losing. What should they expect? They think they can churn out half-assed simpleton music and not be out-competed by bedroom producers with less than 5 years experience? Please... Mainstream music is awfully easy to make. 2 or 3 basic chords. Very little elaboration or demonstration of musical mastery. Major key. Generalized/Simplified/Non-confrontational/obvious/regurgitated lyrics. Chorus-Verse-Chorus-Verse-Chorus. Except you call the 'chorus' a "HOOK" now because it's usually very simple and has a catchy jingle.

    Yeah. Lame.

    Full disclosure: I've been a bedroom producer for 18 years now. I have a successful conscious hip hop crew and produce more complex and better music than most mainstream labels - check my sig. My emcees are more skilled than most of the latest studio-emcess, and they have great stage presence, and we have actual artistic/intelligent lyrics that have value beyond simple entertainment. I've been making music since before it was easy. MS-DOS was the OS when I started.

    1. Re:Also... by hedwards · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wrong. Budweiser bottles the best horse piss and Microsoft makes the best migraines.

  4. Deja Moo by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

    You can protest that your music is a finely-prepared steak cooked by sheer genius, and be quite correct in this, and you have trouble paying for your kitchen, your restaurant, your cow."

    Sacred cows make the best hamburgers.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Deja Moo by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Sacred cows make the best hamburgers."

      That's a ridiculous statement. The ones I've seen can't even hold a spatula.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  5. Old Codger Reveals All by Yergle143 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You reap what you sow...and what the record companies sowed were generations of unsophisticated listeners that don't know the difference between the popular artists and their next door neighbor and his robot. Musicianship, composition, pshaw. Drum machines and stored samples.
    I don't care at all, there's plenty of vibrant and new alternative music -- that being jazz and classical and what's out in the World. Just look.

  6. Re:Good line by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Shouldn't a quote at least be true to be good? Instances abound where people choose quality over convenience. If they didn't then there would be no option to by a quality burger. It would be "eat McDoubles or starve". Furthermore, the "professional" music business is full of incompetent hacks (as well as truly great musicians) and that is also true in the domain that he describes and implies is of lower quality. By his own admission you can get better quality of sound now with very inexpensive tools than you could get paying $1000.00 per hour in the 1970s. Yet, they made awesome music in the 70s. The difference is that in 1970 you only heard the music of a few, whereas now both high quality and lower quality music can proliferate with relative abandon. All you have to do is watch American Idiot to see that you can take a hack and add all the promotion and expensive tools in the world, and they are still a hack. Likewise, Stevie Ray Vaughn would blow your mind with a practice amp.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  7. Good riddance to the pros by John3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Professional musicians with record contracts use auto-tune tools all the time, so why can't amateur musicians have access to the same tools? I have no sympathy for the recorded music industry, they have been crooked since day one and reaped plenty of profits off the hard work of underpaid performers and songwriters. Live performance is even changing as performers can have their vocals corrected "on the fly" instead of trying to lip sync as marginally talented musicians did in the past. So the recorded music industry will go the way of the travel agency, which is just economic reality. The record industry was created to get music recorded and out to the people, and they are no longer needed. People will still find music they like, and performers will find ways to make money in local clubs until they build up a larger audience. Quality of the musical performance is not a requirement...look at The Sex Pistols or The Ramones. Interesting that as some industries (retail, banking) become more and more concentrated in the hands of fewer companies (Walmart, JP Morgan Chase) the music business is becoming more eclectic and wide open. Sure, the media companies have consolidated, but any kid with a PC and an internet connection can get his/her music to the world. Seems like progress to me.

    --
    "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
  8. Free Market at Work by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Being unable to make a living at something is the free market's way of telling you to find something else to do. Horse dung sweepers used to be a necessary job in cities before automobiles, now not so much. They either became machine street sweeper operators, or found a new job. If the same happens to mediocre musicians, so be it. The very good ones will still find work.

    I notice that new artists like Lady Gaga have adopted the popular "freemium" business model. She has given away literally billions of views of her music videos, and collects the ad revenue that YouTube pays, but it's free to the audience. Then she sells a limited commodity - seats at live shows - at a premium. I do that too, give away basic content, charge for premium service.

  9. This is the story for all kinds of art by bradley13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Art makes a great hobby - zillions of people play music, write short stories, act in amateur theater groups, whatever. This is wonderful for culture. Frankly I often prefer a heartfelt amateur performance to an overly-polished professional group going through the motions of the same damn thing for the thousandth time.

    My heart does not bleed for professional artists. Most of them need to get a real job to support their hobby, the same as the rest of us...

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:This is the story for all kinds of art by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Totally agree.

      And add to that a previous article by a professional producer talking about how new bands get financially screwed by the industry and routinely make less than at a 711 on their first few tours...

      What exactly are we supposed to be protecting here??

      Exploitation? Slavery? Cult of personality? The needs of the few super stars to be filthy rich at the expense of the rest?

      Please...

      This is AWESOME and I have personally been wishing for it to happen for over a decade now.

      Let the revolution begin. Only good will come of this.

      Next step: KILL ITUNES!!

  10. Musicians are nobodies. Deal with it. by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For most of history, musicians were nobodies, ranking below, say, bartenders. For a brief period in history, from the early 1960s to the late 1980s, being a musician was a Big Deal. That's over. At peak, there were over 8 million bands on Myspace. Some of which didn't suck.

    On top of that, music became automated. Between synthesizers and AutoTune, who needs musicianship? All those years of practice, and your job can be done by a box that costs a few hundred dollars.

  11. The Beauty of the Original Idea by MarkvW · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A beautiful and raw original idea kicks the ass of a flawlessly executed banality.

    Who cares if the music industry deflates? The "Rock Stars" are a study in decadence and greed and the "Music Industry" is a study in ruthlessness and greed.

    Cubase, ProTools, Ableton . . .. The kids of today are going to lead us away from "computer music" into very new territory. Just imagine what Mozart could create if he had a decent music workstation!

    The music industry (as it has been) would have us listening to stuff that was fresh forty years ago.

    Sooner or later the kids are going to learn how to market themselves, just like they're mastering the new music creation tools.

    I'll give up production values for originality any day.

  12. Re:Also...deflationary internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, in the early days, my band paid off two home mortgages by giving away terrible quality mp3's and asking for 10 bucks for a high quality CD - and we got lots of sales. Yes, we were good live and in our (homebuilt) analog, then digital studio. We had a decent following, and got an offer from Warners. Being engineers, a couple of us read the contract - no frigging way we'd sign that stupid thing. We had product *already* but they wanted to "front" us millions to remake it in their overpriced studios, cut a deal where we got a tiny fraction of any profit after all costs (mostly imaginary) by them were paid and so forth. While she's otherwise "out there" Courtney Love's rant on this is dead on - hollywood accounting isn't worth being on the wrong side of. My own book sold over 50k copies and they haven't paid me a dime yet - I know because it came with code, and my email was in the code. The book co claimed I sold negative numbers some months!

    The internet is the most deflationary creation of all time. Back in the day, if you wanted music, you made your own, or watched one of the rare "artistes" touring your little settler town. Or you lived in one of the bigger cities in a pile of manure on the streets.

    The record company model only lasted as long as artificial scarcity could be created. With the fact that it's now easier to be good at music (better gear, some stuff helps you "cheat"), and that now there's little if any scarcity - they lose, just like buggy whip/carriage makers. Good riddance, they were cheating all the actual workers all along, as Frank Zappa correctly stated.

    Go see your local bands, and buy their CD's out of the back of the car if you like them. Better model, we'll get better music as a result anyway.

    Did you know that if I want to hear say, the Berlin Philharmonic play say from 1950 or so - it's illegal? Not in print - but still in copyright. Making a copy, if I find one, is against the law, but I can't find anyone to pay to make it legal either. So those assholes have stolen our musical heritage for all time. Don't support them.

  13. Isn't this exactly the history of musicians? by retroworks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except for a recent few decades, musicians have always struggled to make a living for precisely this reason. This "millionaire musician" has been a historical outlier, a quirk of physical media bottlenecks and copyright law. Music was not scaleable until the victrola came along, and then it became a business where 99% of the wealth was in the hands of 1% of the musicians, and now the pendulum is swinging back towards normal.

    --
    Gently reply
  14. Re:Good line by donstenk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On top of that, the music of the 70's has been filtered through 40 years and many songs were thankfully lost along the way. In forty years we'll know for sure what was notable today - right now i may have missed it in a cacophony of many sounds that do not interest me.

    --
    Dennis Onstenk
  15. Pros who aren't super-famous restored... by istartedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pros who aren't super-famous *restored* the "music industry" for me, assuming that what you mean is "got me to pay for music". On more occasions than I can count, I have visited coffee shops or the San Gregorio General Store and flipped some money into the tip jar.

    Prior to that, I just didn't pay for stuff because radio was good enough, or I had Yahoo music subscription and they ruined it. So yeah, RIAA got ruined by pros who aren't famous, but these guys get money directly from me without going through you and I help to support interesting local music. In other words, so long RIAA. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  16. I don't have a problem with this by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd rather drop $10 in an online tip jar of a band in Japan or Kenya than give it to some parasitical US music studio that will take the lion's share of the money for itself and use it to pursue a piracy jihad against its users if its profits don't make their numbers for the quarter. Sure a lot of those garage bands are complete crap, but at least they're doing it for the love of music. And even if their delivery is imperfect, sometimes their artistic vision more than makes up for their musical talents. So go ahead and kill the "professional music business." I'm sure we'll all have fun dancing on its grave, to music it would never have been able to imagine.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  17. technology vs. quality by noh8rz10 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    this summary and the whole thread make absolutely no sense to me.

    Definitely true that the technological hurdles for recording music have been coming down. For $100, I can buy a high-quality interface for plugging my guitar into my ipad. For $200, a condensed microphone. And garageband costs $15, and it's free on new phones and ipads. I can see how all of this really hurts the music industry, from the technical side - all the recording techs, fancy recording studios, especially those that catered to the mid-tier pay-for-it-yourself crowd. I'm sure they're getting pinched.

    Also, more competition broadens the market. There will be fewer multi-millionaire recording artists, but I bet the total amount spent on music (including live shows, etc) will only grow because the supply is growing. This trickles up to the record labels as well - sorry capital records!

    But he're is what I don't get - the idea that the quality of music will go down. You know, the amount of music that's really good. I think this can only go up! The music industry has always had this shadow of really talented people who didn't make the cut for the big boys. Now they all have a voice, and there will be many more diamonds that rise to the top.

    In short, the music recording industry may be taking a hit, but the music culture is going through a renaissance.

    1. Re:technology vs. quality by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In short, the music recording industry may be taking a hit, but the music culture is going through a renaissance.

      Yep, why does Ireland have so many popular musicians and singers for such a small country? Go to a good Irish pub and you will find out. All UK pubs were like that at one time, no need to hire entertainment since the pub is full of talented locals who are more interested in entertaining each other than getting paid..

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:technology vs. quality by noh8rz10 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But I would still warrant that if you professionally engineered your stuff and put it up against your home recording, people would pick the professional job; if the price were the same.

      you still don't get it...

      Yes, if you took the same song and compared the studio recording with a bootleg, people will choose the studio recording.

      BUT!!! If you took a studio recording of a sucky song, and compared it to a bootleg of an awesome song, people will choose the awesome song. Don't you get this? people want to listen to awesome things! they don't want to pay for sucky things!

      Also, I hear what you're saying about sound engineers vs. amateurs. But I bet that a reasonably trained and provisioned amateur (a couple hundred $$ in gear, a couple editing classes or online courses) could get a pretty good result. so it's not about comparing the best technical quality to shit quality, you're comparing the best technical quality to pretty good quality.

      lastly, there's no point in buying the finest most exquisitely recorded record in history if you're just going to play them through a set of earbuds. I would say a very minute portion of the population listens to music with the proper equipment and in the proper setting to discern pro from pretty good. heck, i spend most of my time listening to internet radio, so everything's already been compressed to hell and back!