|
Post by cicadashell on Apr 22, 2016 18:01:39 GMT
those activities can support a person, depending on their standard of living. but often there needs to be something else (i know a number of guys who drive a cab, for example). if you really only want to do music, it can be very hand-to-mouth. in general i want to say that there is very little money in recording, especially "creative" projects; that's the way it works around here, anyway. the musicians i know who are supporting themselves are getting most of their "bread" (as we used to say) playing private parties, some public gigs, and teaching. songwriting is very limited, some people can sell songs but the market is small, and the standards for songwriting have fallen greatly since the 1960s or so. by that i mean that songs don't really have to be good anymore, they just have to be made into records that sound good (greatly simplified).
|
|
|
Post by donavan on Apr 22, 2016 18:29:01 GMT
I read an article in record collector by AP shortly after his divorce. He talked about how he and his wife split the assets up. I was staggered by the amounts of cash he mentioned. It gave me a very different outlook on what he said after this. I guess everything is relevant.
|
|
|
Post by donavan on Apr 22, 2016 18:32:47 GMT
cicadashell, good to see you back What, you never went away?
|
|
|
Post by cicadashell on Apr 22, 2016 18:47:33 GMT
cicadashell, good to see you back :) What, you never went away? ;) i lurk, thanks for noticing though. this question caught my fancy in part because it is the story of my life (part of the story, anyway), but also because just last night i had occasion to play a little jazz gig for a party, not for the money but because i was asked to do it by an old friend and they are all old friends, actually. i keep meaning to play more but something else always becomes more urgent. i think i am slowing getting around to it; the luxury for me is that i don't have to make a living at it. in some way it makes me sad to see musicians having to work so much to just break even.
|
|
|
Post by peggs on Apr 23, 2016 1:33:23 GMT
From past conversations, cicadashell, I recall that you are a well informed and talented musician. I wish you satisfaction and success (however you measure it) in your musical pursuits.
Donavan's post about the magazine article shed a bit of light on the answer to my original question. Whatever the amount of monies involved, it may/must have been enough to keep AP (and, I assume, Colin, under different circumstances) from declaring bankruptcy or doing odd jobs in order to make ends meet.
As both of you have said, everyone's idea of financial well-being is relevant.
|
|
|
Post by peggs on Apr 23, 2016 1:37:27 GMT
cicadashell, I didn't want to make a deal of your posting for fear of scaring you back into lurking bushes, where I imagine many other forumers reside. But now that the cat's out of the bag, hi.
|
|
|
Post by peggs on Apr 27, 2016 0:17:18 GMT
This next question is tangentially related to the previous one I asked. Andy's Q&A on Reddit last week got me to thinking about all of the pieces of the puzzle it takes to get a piece of music into a listener's hands. With the ability of a musician to record music professionally in a home studio (I'm thinking of Andy's shed on the high end of the spectrum), where do all the other traditional record label/studio personnel come in to play - if at all? What of producers, engineers and all of the people I'd see in photos on the back of album covers? Jeff, this might be right up your alley to answer, as I recall you work in a recording studio (but anybody is welcome to answer) I realize this is a naive question and most of the answers could be found via a google search. But there are a bunch of interesting and intelligent people on this forum and I would like to hear from them/you. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Truzzi on Apr 27, 2016 2:58:40 GMT
Hey Cicada - nice to read you!
The answer Peggs is: Diversifying. Many top engineers and musicians and producers work and record mainly at their own and other people's home studios, using big studios only as necessary to record drums or an orchestra or mix. Movies and television pay far more studio bills than record companies do. Studios still in business have often branched into teaching: recording and music classes. Or they may be a tax write-off or a money laundering vehicle for folks who bank overseas. The big money is in residuals for movies & TV: getting paid any time something is aired, and ASCAP/BMI, which pays songwriters per airing. Downloads pay nothing: a million downloads and you make a hundred bucks. A single play on cable TV can be far greater. If you don't get airplay you play live, or run sound. People will pay for a t shirt or coffee mug, but not (generally) for recorded music. Selling your own (self produced) CDs at gigs gives you such a bigger percentage of profit per unit than big record companies do. So artists sub-contract those pictured people and lease the masters to big labels - if they're smart and savvy. Steely Dan used to be able to live off their recording royalties. No longer. This is why I suspect they will be on the road until they die.
The most successful artists are not the great musicians they subcontract. They are the artists who are the best business people, who are better at shaking hands and talking with lawyers than punching buttons or keys.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Truzzi on Apr 27, 2016 3:13:29 GMT
Private Parties or corporate gigs (private company parties), as cicadashell says, are huge for playing musicians, and can be more lucrative than playing on an entire tour. Rich people and companies pay Paul McCartney or Elton John millions of dollars to play a single company party or wedding reception. For that kind of money, they do it. They just don't like talking about it much.
|
|
|
Post by cicadashell on Apr 27, 2016 20:34:26 GMT
cicadashell, I didn't want to make a deal of your posting for fear of scaring you back into lurking bushes, where I imagine many other forumers reside. But now that the cat's out of the bag, hi. :) i don't scare that easily! From past conversations, cicadashell, I recall that you are a well informed and talented musician. i'm pretty sure i have provided no evidence regarding my talent. i am flattered that you think of me that way, though.
|
|
|
Post by cicadashell on Apr 27, 2016 20:42:28 GMT
People will pay for a t shirt or coffee mug, but not (generally) for recorded music. such a world we live in! Selling your own (self produced) CDs at gigs gives you such a bigger percentage of profit per unit than big record companies do. So artists sub-contract those pictured people and lease the masters to big labels - if they're smart and savvy. i just read a bit in the new yorker, reviewing two recent books related to paul mccartney's career. one of them was actually about allen klein, and how smart paul was to steer clear of him. apparently klein's approach was all about owning what an artist produced; his philosophy was (allegedly) instead of taking 20% of your client's income, pay them 80% of yours. the difference being, of course, who is controlling the stream.
|
|
|
Post by peggs on Apr 27, 2016 22:48:30 GMT
Thanks for the answers. Following up, this goes to the musicians among us; stickman, cicadashell,...who am I forgetting? Anyway, how do you folks go about recording your music? Do you use a home studio or rent time at a studio? Who does the technical studio stuff (sorry for that lame description), like what Jeff does? Do you sell CDs at gigs you play and/or online?
I seem to be stuck on this subject of musicians/artists creating a living for themselves. I'm a longtime fan of Bob Mould and was listening to his latest album (it's excellent - give it a listen), legally and for free, on his website. He has the album available for purchase in a variety of formats on his site (I bought the CD). As Jeff said earlier, download sales are miniscule. With so many people going the digital route with music today, I can only imagine that his regular touring schedule and selling of merchandise is what enables him to make a living with his art (and hopefully royalties from Husker Du and Sugar and his solo albums).
|
|
|
Post by miles on Apr 27, 2016 23:30:48 GMT
I wonder what Bob gets for the "Daily Show" theme? Hopefully it wasn't a flat fee.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Truzzi on Apr 28, 2016 15:11:28 GMT
i just read a bit in the new yorker, reviewing two recent books related to paul mccartney's career. one of them was actually about allen klein, and how smart paul was to steer clear of him. apparently klein's approach was all about owning what an artist produced; his philosophy was (allegedly) instead of taking 20% of your client's income, pay them 80% of yours. the difference being, of course, who is controlling the stream. Mick Jagger told of, when the Stones' 1960s albums (which Klein owned the rights to) were to be released on CD in the 80s, sitting in a New York board room across from him to negotiate. Mick, the guy who sang and co-wrote the music, asks Klein: "How much do you want? 40%? 50%? 60%? 70%?" Klein says: "I want it ALL."
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Truzzi on Apr 28, 2016 15:38:01 GMT
Peggs: just as everyone these days learns how to use a computer, pretty much all musicians learn how to use their computer to record. And they record it themselves, at their own home. Classes on doing so are big at studios that are still in business. (Like mine.) So they are their own engineer, and their own producer. The up side is they have total control over every aspect of the process.
The down side is they are responsible for every single aspect of the process. And often you want to record more than your home setup can handle, like a band live. That's when you book a 'real' studio - or just maybe a friend's home who has a bigger setup and recording room than you do - and hire an engineer, so you don't have to play and engineer at the same time (a pain in the ass.) THEN you can take that home and overdub and edit and mix by yourself. Or involve others, as your budget permits.
The down side of total control is no objectivity, and too much multitasking. My old recording teacher said: "Thou shalt not engineer and produce at the same time." Because you want the engineer to be concentrating on the technical specifics like putting the microphones in the best places possible, using the right mic for the right instrument, EQ, compression, levels - all the engineer stuff. You want the producer to concentrate on the overall performances, is this the best take or can they do it better, is the tempo right, is this what whoever hired me (usually record companies but often the artist these days) wants - producer stuff. And you want the musicians to concentrate on playing it as well as they can, is this the right feel for this tune, maybe I should solo less here, left's do it half time in the bridge - all the musician stuff. Naturally all these jobs have a certain amount of overlap. But doing it ALL yourself is an awful lot.
I am reminded if Andy Partridge's high praise of Todd Rundgren as an arranger, his questioning of his production skills (certainly his people skills, although he now agrees what he did with moulding Skylarking was brilliant), and his downright disdain for his engineering chops.
I can't really do it all myself at the same time. But I CAN do each job adjacent to each other by myself. I think of it as wearing hats. I wear the engineer hat to get everything set up and the mic in place. Then I wear the artist hat and record a bunch of takes. Then I wear the producer hat and listen to the takes and think do I need more or can I edit these? Then I wear the engineer hat and edit. I don't know how other people do it, but that works for me.
|
|