Perect Storm - what's going on in the remote business?

[RobAnderson]

I've been thinking about this for a while.

What has really changed in the music industry that so greatly effects the bottom line of those who service it - especially the remote recording and classical businesses (i.e. engineers, studios, etc.)?

I don't think piracy is entirely to blame: when I was a kid I didn't have enough money to go out and buy every cassette I wanted. Most of the recorded music I consumed was either recorded straight off the FM radio or bootleg tapes from my friends.

Declining quality of product? Maybe, but the labels were putting out plenty of crap back in the '60's and '70's as well. We only seem to remember the good stuff.

The fact that "most people don't really sit and listen to music anymore" doesn't hold water with me either - I don't think "most people" ever did. From my childhood I remember my mother (and my grandmother for that matter) putting on records and going about her day in the house, enjoying the music for sure, but it was not that she was sitting and listening always. There were sometimes where this was the case, but it was not the norm.

Were the numbers really sustainable to begin with? There was so much over-production, especially in classical recording, for so long and the budgets did not reflect the reality of the returns. I think this raised expectations beyond what was reasonable. Everyone involved was milking it, but I don't think anyone was really doing the math. I mean, how many copies of Vivaldi's "Four Seasons" or Rachmaninoff's 2nd Piano Concerto can one possibly own?

Corporatization? Maybe, but there were always a few "big" labels that had a great deal of control over what went on the market. Maybe the corporatization of radio played a bigger part, but maybe the declining interest in terrestrial "mainstream" radio plays a bigger part. You could blame that on corporate homogenization I suppose.

Technology? The fact that you no longer need a big reel-to-reel to multitrack a band does make a big difference to the remote business - a remote truck was a necessity just to transport and house the tape machines. Now a couple of JoeCo boxes or HD24's can be easily integrated with the FOH setup. Also the cost of such equipment has gone down considerably lowering the barrier to entrance - there are now more people competing for a smaller slice of the same big pie. But the advent of the portable camera for the consumer did not drive professional photographers out of existence? Why is it that music production facilities are so much harder hit?

Multi-media competition? Music does have a lot more to compete with nowadays - before the '80's cable TV and home movies didn't really exist, nor did video games. But surely, with this surge in content, shouldn't there be a need for more technicians and providers?

Also, there is a lot more subdivision of the market than there used to be in television and radio. Is there really such a thing as a mass market anymore?

In the classical world, I think budget labels like Naxos have really done a number on the traditional business model, but did they undermine the industry, or did they just come up with a better model? I am not sure that the classical productions were ever really profitable - I think they were mostly subsidized by the other profit-making enterprises in the major labels. Can you really blame a company for not wanting to pour money into the hole?

Maybe it is just a perfect storm of all these things?

[LX3]

At the end of the day, there aren't nearly as many albums being sold as there used to be. For whatever reason... rampant piracy (which has gone WAY beyond the days of making cassettes of your friend's LPs), over-saturation, alternative distractions (video game budgets are astronomical compared to recording budgets... what does that say?).

The money listeners spend on music is, at the end of the day, the same money that pays recording engineers. There's far less money to go around.

And that's total music sales. When you consider how many artists there are releasing product nowadays - which has exploded with the home recording revolution - each individual artist is (on average) receiving an even narrower slice of a shrinking pie.

On the other hand, there are a lot more artists to work for, and they still go out playing live. So at least there are lots of opportunities around in the live arena. They just may not be quite as lucrative as they were ten years ago.

I don't really know how things have changed in classical, since I don't follow that market particularly closely.

[bishopthomas]

Originally Posted by LX3

On the other hand, there are a lot more artists to work for, and they still go out playing live. So at least there are lots of opportunities around in the live arena. They just may not be quite as lucrative as they were ten years ago.

I'm not so sure I agree with this. Maybe across the pond this is true, but I can't seem to find any bands willing to pay ANYTHING to hire a FOH engineer. Your "not quite as lucrative" equates to beer money from what I've found. There are touring bands out there, you're right; but they're doing it "for the music" and "we'll make it big one day." The number of bands actually making a living at this (and can afford to employ techs) has most certainly NOT gone up, even if there are more artists out there. And I'm not so convinced that there are "more artists to work for."

[7rojo7]

When I started in 1986, first full time paid job, it was very difficult to get into this business, I entered as a musician with some computer skills and balls, most others had to be grads from an audio engineering program. I had some experience as a "producer" which meant I was basically an arranger for artists who liked the way I played around town and wanted a little help, I got to know the studio like this. I learned the tech side (which has now almost entirely disappeared) on my first job and carried that with me until 94 (after 94 the only aligning I did was to adjust the outs on a dolby SR24 to Converter inputs)
I wonder what most newcomers to this field bring. Not many jobs to be had I guess. Live seems the same as always, you work there or you don't.
There are a lot of causes and I agree that it's not 'only' piracy, but it sure is frustrating. Domino theory, throw one down and they all tumble
For me, it's something I do very well, but I've had my share of back stabbing too, and I've shot myself in the foot a few times. Hard times don't allow for this

[Plush]

One of the problems not addressed yet is that most of the music people want to buy has already been recorded a lot. There are marvelous recordings made by specialist smaller labels of exquisite music but these sell in very low numbers.

Virtually no one other than the performers themselves is interested in buying an inferior version of the Beethoven 9, Beethoven 5 or Ein Deutsches Requiem.
By inferior I mean with lesser soloists, lesser orchestras etc.

Now Naxos started off by offering just what I say is not wanted above. They sold it for $5. Now, they have moved up market somewhat and are recording better groups. The difference is that now they save money by taking it out of the engineer's/producer's hide. (very low fees for an all in package of recording/editing/mastering)

So the recordings market is saturated, the customer is picky and is also saturated. The pocketbook of the customer is not opened except for special releases.

How to survive and compete then?

I have increasingly relied on broadcast. Classical radio has 24 hours to fill and the station I work for does not only play cds but also records a lot and makes a lot of live broadcasts.
Also seek out work from specialist labels offering your quality work at close to full price. I never pull my pants down or agree to work for a cheap price
and I never agree to work for Naxos.

Of course those who, for whatever reason, choose not to live in a major metropolitan area cannot even have the opportunities discussed here. The prime requirement for success in the recording business is to have a major orchestra in your town.

[Corran]

Define "a major orchestra." I know the orchestras I play in are not "major" but I am still unclear as to where that subset beings. The biggest orchestra in the state? Or ones in cities with over 50k population?

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by Corran

Define "a major orchestra."

The ones that have endemic drinking problems.
Drinking problems rife in the great orchestras | Music | The Guardian

Here is another Poll from Gramophone.
LSO is only British orchestra in list of world’s best - Times Online

[Plush]

Originally Posted by Corran

Define "a major orchestra." I know the orchestras I play in are not "major" but I am still unclear as to where that subset beings. The biggest orchestra in the state? Or ones in cities with over 50k population?

I bet you already know what the major orchestras are in the United States, right?

They are the big orchestras that have many players teaching at universities near by and who also start spin-off musical groups that people can record.

So my point is we are talking about bigger cities such as NYC, Chicago, LA, Houston, Dallas, Philly, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Washington D.C. and San Francisco. My view is that one cannot make it doing recording outside of these towns.

ADDENDUM:--the reason I say that there must be a major orchestra in your area is not so that you can necessarily record THAT orchestra. It is because of all the other groups that will grow up around the orchestra that you CAN record. It has to do with the vitality of the arts community you live in.

[boojum]

Originally Posted by Plush

<snip>

Of course those who, for whatever reason, choose not to live in a major metropolitan area cannot even have the opportunities discussed here. The prime requirement for success in the recording business is to have a major orchestra in your town.

Ain't that the truth. Good recordings of great orchestras are more in demand than good recordings of nearly great orchestras.

In some ways, too, it is like baseball. There are just so many slots in the majors. The rest is AAA, AA, and A ball, or playing for a keg on Saturdays. Everybody wants to play for the majors; very few do.

[RobAnderson]

I have increasingly relied on broadcast. Classical radio has 24 hours to fill and the station I work for does not only play cds but also records a lot and makes a lot of live broadcasts.

This is true - but even in NYC we just went from having two outlets for Classical broadcast (WNYC and WQXR) to only one.

[boojum]

Originally Posted by RobAnderson

This is true - but even in NYC we just went from having two outlets for Classical broadcast (WNYC and WQXR) to only one.

I am hoping the NYT's QXR is still there. How about the cable channels? Don't they need music? Is it all from albums? I thought they covered live broadcasts, too.

[Corran]

Originally Posted by Plush

I bet you already know what the major orchestras are in the United States, right?

They are the big orchestras that have many players teaching at universities near by and who also start spin-off musical groups that people can record.

So my point is we are talking about bigger cities such as NYC, Chicago, LA, Houston, Dallas, Philly, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Washington D.C. and San Francisco. My view is that one cannot make it doing recording outside of these towns.

ADDENDUM:--the reason I say that there must be a major orchestra in your area is not so that you can necessarily record THAT orchestra. It is because of all the other groups that will grow up around the orchestra that you CAN record. It has to do with the vitality of the arts community you live in.

I ask because of course I know about THE big orchestras, as you mentioned, but there are still a lot of smaller orchestras that have everything you describe - musicians teaching at universities, forming chamber groups, etc. My college is one of those, but it's definitely not big. Anyway, I just didn't know if there was some other qualifications.

I do know of a big music college that has a lot of recitals and concerts, guest artists, an orchestra, and a nationally-recognized program, but pays undergrad students $7/hr to record everything there. They of course know nothing about recording, because they don't have to (they just put up some mics). Also in one of there halls they have three omni mics mounted on one hanging clamp, with the mics right next to each other and facing like \|/ , and that's how they record some of their large ensembles. There has been no response to some of my pushes to record there...

[RobAnderson]

Originally Posted by boojum

I am hoping the NYT's QXR is still there. How about the cable channels? Don't they need music? Is it all from albums? I thought they covered live broadcasts, too.

QXR (96.3 FM) still exists, but not as you may remember it. It was the only commercial classical music station left in NY. It was bought (saved from the guillotine really) by WNYC (93.9 FM - which was the other "classical station" that was left - they had done away with their continuous music programming after 9/11, but still did classical music in the evenings).

WQXR moved to 105.9 and 96.3 was sold to a Spanish-language station. WNYC now does 24-hour talk on 93.9.

WQXR is now a public radio station - it is the classical arm of WNYC.

[joelpatterson]

I'd agree, you need to be in an area with a lively arts scene. I do keep pestering the Albany Symphony Orchestra with samples of my work-- maybe, someday, they will come to their senses-- but whether they do or not, the secret of success as I've seen it is to move through as many circles of musicians as you can. Tonight I recorded the Sage City Symphony playing "Peter and the Wolf." Are there 'better' versions of this? Who cares? Four people wanted the deluxe audio CD packaging-- and then the commissioned work that opened the show, the kid's school wants a copy of that. And I'll be recording the wedding concerts in June for two people in the group.

The very utmost important thing you need, wherever you are, is a reputation where your name is synonymous with exceptional work, and then involve yourself with musicians that care passionately about what they're doing.

Listen to how much these guys dig playing with each other, the fact they are old friends and have created this hallowed Sage City tradition, they're just bursting with it, of course they want a copy!!!

4shared.com - online file sharing and storage - download Moderato quasi marcia by Dvorak -- Sage City Symphony.mp3

[Sevitzky]

This is an interesting thread/topic. But I don't think it can or should go much longer without a good long discussion about the distribution model.

Music used to be distributed on physical media at great overhead expense. And the technology used to create the product used to be purchased at great expense.

The importance of those two things can't be understated.

It had huge implications in the business and the artistic realms. It created gatekeepers and well-established channels for music to go from horsehair on metal into people's ears.

These were one-way channels, however. And music, as a human endeavor, is not just a one-way street at the heart of it all. So in my opinion, there WAS something very wrong with this "way" of doing things. Not all of it, of course, but a large fundamental issue was incongruent with human nature. And music is about human nature, to the core. So anyway, the transmission of music to wide audiences far outweighed the problems. At the time.

Now, one other important point to consider is that, in the 20th century, for music to make money, it had to be COMODIFIED. It had to be a product, preferably with a shelf-life (vinyl>8track>cassette>cd>remasterwhateverthef*ck).

Consumer buy products, products are always created for money.
Audiences listen to music, music is RARELY created for money.
Consumers and audiences are very different things, EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT BE THE SAME PEOPLE.
The tense intersection between these concepts is crucial to an understanding of the problems in our industry.

Now enters the internet. Now communications can occur WITHOUT THE MEDIATORS (record companies, TV networks, hollywood, NEWSPAPERS {if you want to see the future, look at the journalism field}). That's just a fact. It's not right or wrong. It's just a fact. In business, we deal with facts. In the arts, we ignore facts, and just live poor. Anyway, this is creating a shitstorm of re-alignment, and we are in the middle of it all. It will be a while before things 'settle out' and stabilize.

So let's keep one thing in mind. The record companies have always been for-profit entities. If you work under their paradigm, you are in a free market, period. The fact that we could work with and around art is awesome, but that was never a God-given right.

I see a lot of talk on this board and others, which mixes in the ideas of recording as part of the art. There's no time for that debate, here. But I will say, wanting to have it both ways is asking for trouble. You can't have the money of the market and the art of the artworld. Well, actually, we did, for a few golden decades. But the fact that it's unraveling, I think says more that it was a long-lasting illusion, rather than it is the norm to which our world should aspire.

If you're a business man, you gotta be a f*ckin business man. Don't get soft with all that art-talk, unless you have a fat margin to get artsy (self-subsidized w/in your BUSINESS), OR unless you have a channel to subsidize your art (just like the arts are subsidized, with rich people and grants. any grant-writers, here?)

If you're an artist, then be a f*ckin' artist and realize that the world is going to shit on you and toss your phone number as soon as you're sick for a day. But own your art, and make it real art, and never look back. And would you like fries with that.

If you're a service provider to artists - you gotta ask yourself, what service are you *actually* providing? What is the premium that you charge over what they can do on the cheap? And how does that premium relate to the jump in quality, THEIR EYES, not yours. They're the customers. 20 years ago, no consumer could make a CD. Now anybody can make one. The product choice we used to offer was "something" (us) or "NOTHING." (them) Now the product is "Better" (us) or "good-enough" (them).

It may just be that for many (not all) of us, owning, or wanting to own, a pair of Schoeps (take this as a symbol of your whole operation) is just good art and but bad business. Very few will ever appreciate what the Schoeps do over Shures (like ART), and you'll be forced to charge ART-prices when people are looking for POSTER-prices. You can lose on both fronts if you're not careful.

Choose your battles. The one-way broadcast/distribution paradigm is over.

Sorry if my words are gruff. I hope the spirit of them is taken in good faith.

[Sevitzky]

ps, a major symphony orchestra usually means a top 10 or top 15. Just pick the top 10/15 cities in america for size/money/status/etc.

They have 52-week seasons. (meaning the musicians are paid 52 weeks out of the year, playing or not) and salaries competitive with middle class, educated income earners.

They are musical morgues at worst and museums at best. (with notable exceptions)

They have been dealing with the issues our industry is dealing with, but the birds-eye view takes place over 400 years, rather than just the last 80 or 90. Which is to say, they can't figure out why they struggle, despite the fact that orchestras, historically, were never self-sufficient, and bloated in the 70's to unsustainable levels. ah, i better shut up, now.

[RobAnderson]

By all means, continue Sevitzky.

I think you are hitting the nail right on the head.

I'd also add that many of the bloated production budgets of the '80's were possible because of the profits from getting consumers to open their wallets and replace their vinyl collections with CD's of the same music.

It was only a matter of time before labels figured out that, at least as far as classical music is concerned, it is far more lucrative to sell product that they already had rather than invest money in new recordings.

[Sevitzky]

Right. Now get this.

People talk about talent development - that it's just not possible for a label to develop a band into megastars anymore. Ok, well, putting aside whatever your tastes are, I'll agree that bands that are fostered (financially) can have a chance to develop artistically, much more so than if not.

Now we're talking about the development (in the growing sense) of art. In other words, art for art's sake, not looking at the bottom line.

Well, this is squarely in line with the subsidized financial workings of art. But it's a socialistic view!!!! So easy to blur the lines between what is a commercial enterprise, and then pile on some social responsibility. It's a perversion of both the capitalistic and socialistic aspects of the music. Neither serve the musicians, audiences, or facilitators very well. (except for a few slick bastards and a few well-deserving bastards)

What it really comes down to is.. well, this is just soapboxville, but....

It's like the food movement. Mass produced, centrally produced products, be they food or music, are a money-driven walmart enterprise. Which is fine if you're walmart, power to 'em. I shop there.

If you want to engage in sustainable, ethical, fair trade, it's not just about shopping at whole foods and buying some organic f*ckin potato chips. You have to go to the farmer's market. You have to PARTICIPATE in the food you eat. That's how you know what you're putting into your body. You have to understand that good food is not cheap. And that farmers deserve respect and a living wage. Just like musicians, engineers, etc. I'm sorry if anybody reading this has just finished their 3rd twinkie dipped in espresso and has a cig between the fingers as they type, because they haven't seen the sun in 2 days. But you know what I mean.

Musical communities haven't been stamped out quite the way food communities have been, in the US, but they face similar challenges. A healthy musical ecosystem needs the participation of EVERYONE involved: the musicians, the engineers, producers, audiences, all the way down to the guy who cleans the bathrooms, or at least puts soap in there. (or towels... please....)

To thrive better, music needs to get more localized - I don't mean like a local music scene. I mean like, INTO peoples homes, as PART of their life. OFF the pedestal. In some ways, the excellence of classical music and engineering is a poison, taken and/or applied the wrong way. Offputting to people getting their hands on this shit and just loving and living it.

Growth for it's own sake is cancer, right? Some abstract notion of "quality", for it's own sake, is cancer, too.

It has to be better integrated into the ENTIRETY of the musical expression.



The printing press destroyed the profession of calligraphy as copyists. But it did not destroy writing. And it did not destroy those who had a talent with a brush.

I really do need to shut up about this. I could go ON and ON about urban revitlization and the concert ritual, cars/auto industry, public transportation, zoning incentives.

It's really all tied in together. How people live. How people enjoy their lives. In communities? Locked up starting at the boob tube? The boob You Tube? Can you really offer a better beethoven than ****** bags on the phone? Really? Better than karajan and the f*ckin berlin? YES. If it's something PERSONAL and SPECIAL to the audience that relates to them in a way that a CD just can't. You can beat motherf*cking Karajan. We all know it 'cuz we've experienced it. But can you bring it to your clients? Can your musicians bring it to their audience? ........can YOU........bring it to THEIR AUDIENCE?....................................

Different in kind, not just degree. Don't just chase the (quality) dragon. Think outside the box. Don't ever give up. Even if you have to re-learn everything you thought was true. (I'm not trying to lecture anybody on this board, just talking to myself outloud, really...)



Kris knows what I mean. It's a hard f*cking life and we just make it. Somehow.

YouTube - Kris Kristofferson-To Beat the Devil



end
234%@#$T#@T#@T#@T234t234tlkqewj;aldkfjqd;faskdfaf
NO CARRIER.

[resound]

Originally Posted by Sevitzky

They have 52-week seasons. (meaning the musicians are paid 52 weeks out of the year, playing or not) and salaries competitive with middle class, educated income earners.

Any position in those top 10-15 orchestras will start over $100k. Even for the person on the last stand. That's beyond what I consider a middle-class income.

Speaking of perfect storms: high salaries, big administrative budgets, diminishing (or shifting) patronage, etc. all contribute to the crisis orchestras face today. This all too often creates a climate where the programming simply beats old battle-axes to an even duller point to attract the casual or unadventurous concert goer with recognizable anachronism. Perpetuating music of the (distant) past exclusively or predominately will unlikely lead to a vital, engaged, or relevant place in our cultural ethos. It may help to staunch the financial bleeding for now along with other measures, but a hemorrhage is right around the corner.

The above does relate to the general state of recording, broadcast, whatever right now vis à vis there's little reason for the market to support yet another recording of X, Y, or Z as many have rightfully noted in this thread.

[LX3]

Originally Posted by bishopthomas

I'm not so sure I agree with this. Maybe across the pond this is true, but I can't seem to find any bands willing to pay ANYTHING to hire a FOH engineer.

From what I see, it depends what level it's all going on at. Quite often, with signed bands on the first rung of the ladder, the FOH engineer is also the tour manager and bus driver.

Murderous job, I'm not sure I'd be prepared to do that, unless the money was GREAT. But I specialise in the recording side of things. For anyone whose main job is mixing FOH, I guess they have to take those kind of gigs occasionally.

On some tours, those bands can't afford to take an FOH engineer at all, and rely on the venue's people.

But it is a great time for live music here in the UK - which is surprising because I thought the bubble was going to burst a year or two ago, but it didn't. Lots of very interesting new bands, and lots of punters going out to see them in all kinds of venues. Maybe not a good time for making a fantastic living from it, because bands are being badly hit by lack of record sales (hey, except Ellie Goulding who has had both the number one single and album in the last few weeks), but there's really great stuff going on.

I think the XBox Reverb gigs we've been doing are a good example of how vibrant the scene is here. See this link (and click the "shows" button to look through the 5-minute specials):

Xbox.com | Xbox Reverb

[LX3]

Originally Posted by Sevitzky

I see a lot of talk on this board and others, which mixes in the ideas of recording as part of the art. There's no time for that debate, here. But I will say, wanting to have it both ways is asking for trouble. You can't have the money of the market and the art of the artworld.

Depends. Maybe in classical. My experience with classical is fairly disheartening, I agree. But things aren't quite that bleak in other genres.

Well, actually, we did, for a few golden decades. But the fact that it's unraveling, I think says more that it was a long-lasting illusion, rather than it is the norm to which our world should aspire.

If you're a business man, you gotta be a f*ckin business man. Don't get soft with all that art-talk, unless you have a fat margin to get artsy (self-subsidized w/in your BUSINESS), OR unless you have a channel to subsidize your art (just like the arts are subsidized, with rich people and grants. any grant-writers, here?)

As the recording guy, I'm caught in the middle between the people funding the project (the "label") and the artist.

1) The label naturally are concerned how much a project costs, because they know how much they're likely to sell, and if they ignore all that and spend spend spend, none of their artists ever recoup their advance, the label goes out of business, and everything comes tumbling down. And no matter what anyone says, you do need some kind of organisation behind you - whether it's a major, an independent, or just a bunch of your mates - doing the donkey work to get your music into the public's consciousness somehow.

2) But at the same time, the artist DOES care about how the product sounds. None of them want to put time and effort (and what's effectively their own money, even if it's advanced by a label) into something that sounds like crap. So there is still a demand for "artistry" in recording.

When I'm talking to artists, I talk art... which naturally is the bit that interests me most. But when I'm talking to the label etc, I'm trying to find a way to be compatible with their budget if possible.

Actually, even the label care that the product sounds good, because they know its a world of pain for them if it sounds bad. They just need it done on budget, and there's no doubt that budgets are heading downwards. See 1.

[boojum]

Something which I do not think has been addressed is ease of entry to the marketplace, another factor. The mega-expensive mixing gear has been replaced by the computer DAW. Samplitude goes for ~US$500 for a big version. A really excellent recorder can be had for $3 - $6,000. Add a couple or three pairs of good mics and the whole package can be under US$15K.

With a little practice someone can get pretty darned good results. Work on the mix and you have a CD for sale. It will not be as good as a Bob Katz mix nor recorded as well as Plush or some of the other long time pros here would do, but would be way better than what could have been done 10 years ago.

Name some really hot new acts to compare with what was shaking "back in the day." Not many. R&R has become a diffuse market, jazz, too. Classical has a multitude of recordings of the same piece. Just look at the Schwann or other catelogs. Stereo is already here. Can't re-mix and re-sell those recordings. CD; same. 5.1 is not setting the world on fire. So it is more and more dogs fighting for fewer and fewer bones. With the economy as it is some of those dogs will be selling their gear and sacrificing their dreams to go to steady jobs.

I think it is a mature market, just like sports and playing music. Lots of wanna-be's and almost no room for the top players. I am just glad I am an amateur who can do this for the love of it and not have to depend upon it to pay my bills.

As an aside, I am eternally grateful to this board and its masters of the craft. I cherish what I can glean here. And I am happy so much is so feely and gladly shared. And you pros, not to worry, I will never be a threat to your liveilihood.

[charlienyc]

Originally Posted by resound

Any position in those top 10-15 orchestras will start over $100k. Even for the person on the last stand. That's beyond what I consider a middle-class income.

Speaking of perfect storms: high salaries, big administrative budgets, diminishing (or shifting) patronage, etc. all contribute to the crisis orchestras face today. This all too often creates a climate where the programming simply beats old battle-axes to an even duller point to attract the casual or unadventurous concert goer with recognizable anachronism.

i'm sorta shocked to see no one has brought up the musician unions. these have certainly been a factor in the slow demise of classical music recording, whether it be for standard music release or film soundtrack. this pertains mostly to the u.s., but not exclusively. from what i gather, eastern european orchestras are coming up steadily.

from my perspective, i'm still (thankfully) finding enough work between editing, concert recordings and the occasional session. again, thankfully. the recording portion -the most challenging and enjoyable to me- does seem to be on the decline, and i am worried about the future. a couple of things in this thread have struck a chord, like taking into consideration the cost of mics that meet my standards probably won't make a difference either way to the client. would i record an orchestra or choir with a pair of something sub-standard? no. would "they" notice if i did? probably not.

in the end, i only have myself to answer to. i'm not the kind of person to lower my standards just because i can. not when it comes to audio. eventually i may be working for peanuts or working at a loss. still that would be better than listening to a recording i loathe with my name all over it...

depressedly yours,
-c

[Sevitzky]

Unions can be horrible things. But they can be lifesaving counter-balances to satanic 'managers'. To be relevant, they will have to become more agile organizations, that don't stifle innovation (as they do currently) while still protecting their members. Whether it's AFM, IATSE, NABET, whatever. But I think the unions reflect their members. Orchestral musicians tend to become entreprenurially, and often, unfortunately, artistically paralyzed, the deeper into their tenure they go. I think there's a lot of dead weight in the vision of the union(s), but I don't think it's the major issue at hand. They would adapt if they HAD to.

In my mind, recording has been deeply entwined with the commodification of music. As a commodity, it becomes subject to the will of the market - and there's no crying in baseball. Corn farmers produce a commodity too, but the gov't says, we're going to subsidize this commodity, because we deem it essential. That probably won't happen with top-notch engineering.

So how to 'rise above' the commodification conundrum? Well, what we do is let people hear things they might not otherwise ever hear. That IS special. That IS worthy. That IS a part of the musical arts.

I think a large bulk of the people who thrive, will be the ones who say, I'm not going to just *record* music (or sound, dialogue, whatever) to some internal standard of frequency response, I'm going to BRING music/sound/etc to AUDIENCES to the best of my abilities. This is what the best musicians do.

Or, to put it this way, the best recordists of yesteryear were doing amazing work within the technical confines of their equipment and media. Filling the headroom of tape with as much sound as possible, achieving saturation, so to speak. Acoustics, physics, EE, were the support knowledge of a very multi-disciplinary field.

The best recordists of tomorrow will be the ones that fill the 'headroom' and 'saturate' the new medium: the internet. The field is still multi-disciplinary, but now you can ADD: video, html, RSS feeds, social networking, and all that other new media stuff to the mix.

Is that comparing apples to oranges? Yes. Is it fair? Nope. (but who's asking?) We were selling apples, people want oranges, now.

[boojum]

You mention subsidies. I am very much in favor of tax dollars being spent to support the arts. I would like to see symphonic orchestras and operas get a large share but all musicians need to eat. And the folks in the ancillary professions, like recording, also need to eat. I think we stand alone in not having state arts subsidies among the industrial nations. It is a shame. Folks in Europe are familiar with a far broader band on music than we are, in general.

In Europe many, if not all, have more than a nodding acquaintance with opera and symphony. At the very least it is not an alien art form. Jazz is popular, too. We have to get some "kulchuh" here. The music vids on TV are just not enough to build a music vocabulary on, unless you want to confine it to swearing.

/rant

[rumleymusic]

You mention subsidies. I am very much in favor of tax dollars being spent to support the arts.

Good luck with that one. In California, about 20mil was spent on the arts yearly. That was cut to about 1mil around 15 years ago. I think they want to cut all arts funding completely now. The US does not support performing arts at a government level other than a few politically correct grants to very specific ethnic and cultural organizations.

I reiterate like I always do, that I don't thing the recording scene is dead. I think it is in a major slump and needs to reorganize itself, figure out some standards that keep professional engineers in business as well as keep the consumer happy, and slowly but surely, things will turn around.

[hbphotoav]

Originally Posted by boojum

You mention subsidies. I am very much in favor of tax dollars being spent to support the arts. I would like to see symphonic orchestras and operas get a large share but all musicians need to eat. And the folks in the ancillary professions, like recording, also need to eat. I think we stand alone in not having state arts subsidies among the industrial nations. It is a shame. Folks in Europe are familiar with a far broader band on music than we are, in general.

In Europe many, if not all, have more than a nodding acquaintance with opera and symphony. At the very least it is not an alien art form. Jazz is popular, too. We have to get some "kulchuh" here. The music vids on TV are just not enough to build a music vocabulary on, unless you want to confine it to swearing.

/rant

They also tend to have 20% VAT, on top of all the other "usual" taxes and fees (ever wonder why so many Brits and Frenchmen and Swedes emigrate to USA or marry a citizen?); 30-hour work weeks; 15% unemployment; and steadily declining economies. Not to get too political here, but we're treading perilously close to those tendencies as we seek to emulate European nanny states...

Art has always required patrons (usually kings and queens and wealthy individuals and institutions) to flourish. When the "patron" becomes the government, I must (under penalty of arrest, fines and, perhaps, imprisonment) subsidize (through my Federal, State and Local taxes) "art" of (in my eyes) dubious value... a photo of a crucifix in urine and a nude woman smearing herself with chocolate in public performance (the "artists" in question subsidized by government grants) to name two over-quoted examples. Understand that I DO support the local "kul-chuh" by two subscriptions to the Nashville Symphony's entire season (20 years, now) and, more recently, the Tennessee Repertory Theater. They do music and drama I like... I pay for it. I do not demand that my neighbor who cares less for symphonic music subsidize my choice of "kul-chuhed" entertainment... although the State of Tennessee does, to some extent...

If I can't make photographs, produce video projects in which someone is interested enough for which to pay, or record music well enough to be "in demand" at a rate which keeps me "in business"... I need to be flipping burgers or selling insurance or digging a ditch (any "honest labor")... and recording music as a hobby. I deserve NOTHING in return for what I offer my clients except the market value of my services.

No... I do not seek work in the "public sector", nor do I submit grant proposals. My soul would suffer, greatly, for I believe I have no right to financial benefit from the taxes of others. Nor do I have all my eggs in one basket... my work (and client base) are all over the "moving electrons" map. Works for me.

YM, of course, MV.

HB

[Thomas W. Bethe]

As posted elsewhere on this forum.

I have been doing a lot of thinking about remote recording and why it seems to dying profession for many. Here is what I have come up with as to reasons it is less profitable and there are less gigs to do.

1. Orchestras and Ensembles either going under or deciding not to have their concerts recorded because they are trying to save money or they decide to DIY their concerts with someone from the staff doing the recording.

2. Too many people doing remote recordings and not enough places or groups needing their services.

3. Amateurs doing the recordings for fun or as a hobby and not charging or charging very little.

4. Some groups no longer want their concerts recorded audio only because many parents and participants want to see themselves on a DVD. If you are not offering Video recording as part of your services you may soon find yourself out of a job.

5. Many places are now offering to record concerts as part of their offerings. Colleges have been doing this for years but lately churches and auditoriums that are used by outside groups are offering to record the performance both audio and video for a set fee and many times these same places put in so many restrictions that an outside contractor cannot do the recording. There is one church near here that on their RULES AND REGULATIONS sheet says that 'there will be no cables allowed on the floor due to fire code restrictions" but of course the church has all their cameras built in and all their microphones are flown. I don't know how you would get around this rule but it is GREAT reason for using their in house AV production unit and not to hire someone from the outside.

6. The colleges, as part of their courses, are offering to record performance for free or for a very reduced rate so their students can learn the art of ensemble recording. They typically have someone with some advanced skills supervising the students but the students are using this experience as part of their course work and the school picks up much of the cost as an educational expense.

7. NPR radio stations are now doing a lot of the recording of events that use to be done by an outside person and they are doing them for free.

8. More and more community orchestras and singing groups are buying their own equipment and doing the recordings themselves.

9. Many non profit organizations doing concerts had the recording funded by companies that no longer exist or have moved out of the area so their funding has dried up.

10. Many parents purchase their own video and audio devices and bring them to the concerts so they can film their own videos featuring their own Johnny or Jill and they don't purchase the DVDs or CDs of the concert so the revenue stream is down. Many non profit orchestras use to make enough money off the sales of the DVDs and CDs to pay for the recording costs. If enough parents decided to go the DIY route then the organization can no longer cover the cost of the recording and may decide to just let the parents do the recordings or decide to buy their own equipment and do it themselves.




As to unions....I was at a Cleveland Orchestra recording session. We were about 10 seconds from the end of the movement and the union representative blows a police whistle ruining the take because we were "over time". Now I understand that the orchestra members don't want to be taken advantage of by the recording company but 10 seconds??? and I also have to ask was the union representative more concerned with watching his stopwatch or with playing the music? This is why a LOT of record companies no longer wanted to record large orchestras.

I did all the recordings of the Cleveland Opera from their beginnings in a high school auditorium. A couple of years ago they were in contract negotiations with the union orchestra that played for their shows. The orchestra/union wanted $75.00 per concert per musician IN ADDITION to their normal salaries for the "privilege" of having the performances recorded and or broadcast. We always did TWO recordings of each of 6 operas and did a live broadcast of couple of operas each year. This would have added about $6,000 to the recording costs per opera. The Cleveland Opera chose to stop recording the operas so they were no longer broadcast on the radio, the orchestra went "professional" and became the RED orchestra and they went out of business not too long afterward. The Cleveland Opera had other financial problems and finally got together with another arts organization and now do about two shows a year which are not recorded. Maybe if some people had not been so focused on only the money and could have seen the larger picture of what the radio presence was doing for them this would not have happened.

I sometimes think in their zeal to do what is right for their members, unions do more harm than good because they have a very narrow perception of what is going on and really fail to see the bigger picture. If they would work out some of their differences with out putting a dollar figure on them maybe things would be smoother and less like likely to have catastrophic consequences. YMMV

[charlienyc]

Originally Posted by Thomas W. Bethe

As to unions....I was at a Cleveland Orchestra recording session. We were about 10 seconds from the end of the movement and the union representative blows a police whistle ruining the take because we were "over time". Now I understand that the orchestra members don't want to be taken advantage of by the recording company but 10 seconds??? and I also have to ask was the union representative more concerned with watching his stopwatch or with playing the music? This is why a LOT of record companies no longer wanted to record large orchestras.

i saw the same exact thing with a different orchestra. after an indication was given there were only 30 seconds until break the producer asks, "do we have time for one more take before break?" the union rep. replied, "no, we'll have to do it after." everyone in the control room was left thinking, "...after break when everyone is in a different mood, has forgotten the tempo, the line, what needed to be improved musically and the moment has passed."

[hughesmr]

Nothing we really didn't know, but worth shining a light on from time to time....

Here's an excerpt from an interview with Paavo Jarvi by Gilbert Kaplan for WQSR in New York the day after the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra performed in Carnegie Hall. Kaplan asks Jarvi how music directorships in America are different from those in Europe:

Jarvi — “Well, if I would introduce myself in a gathering, and jokingly I have introduced myself very often as part of the development rather than artistic. Because I spend more time raising money, dealing with sponsors, donors, auditions, all kinds of labor issues, enormous amount of marketing and PR, post concert and pre concert activities that have very little to do with actual music. Music is like an oasis that you feel you can do something that you actually want to do. And American orchestras are basically thinking about only one thing — and that’s money.”

There are also some comments made by others, esp Viktoria Mullova, on a promotional video for the Deutsche Kammerphilharmonie Bremen (which Jarvi also directs) about what makes playing with that orchestra different than a US orchestra. Link is here.