L.A. Times studio articles

[Gregg Sartiano]

Record Studios Face the Music

July 04, 1988|WILLIAM K. KNOEDELSEDER Jr. | Times Staff Writer

Back in the 1970s, it was not uncommon for a rock band making an album at the Village Recorder in West Los Angeles to be treated to free champagne and a catered meal at the start and finish of a recording session.
"We even used to pick up their hotel bills and rent-a-cars, which is totally out of the question now," said studio manager Nick Smerigan.
Nowadays, the bands get cookies and soft drinks, and the cost is added directly to their bill, Smerigan said.

These are tough times for the recording studio business in Los Angeles. Beset by skyrocketing equipment costs, tighter budgets from record companies making fewer albums, the advent of computerized music and competition from hundreds of studios in the homes of rock stars and producers, professional studio operators say they are struggling for profitability in the 1980s.

"We used to average 22% net profit after taxes; now we average 10% if we're lucky, and we're happy to get that," said Chris Stone, the founder and owner of the Record Plant, once a favorite of such 1970s superstars as the Eagles, Stevie Wonder, Chicago and Fleetwood Mac.

Dramatic Increase

"I have a masters in marketing from UCLA, and this business is all that they taught you to avoid," Stone said. "It's high risk, high cost of entry, high intrigue, ridiculous obsolescence--most of it planned--a totally fickle client base and an elasticity of demand that's dead set against you. Anyone who goes into the recording studio business is crazy."
Judging from the number of studios that have sprung up in recent years, there are a lot of crazy people in Los Angeles. According to Ellis Sorkin, owner of Studio Referral Service, there are 600 to 800 recording studios in the Los Angeles area.

"Of that number, only 125 to 175 are real solid professional studios," said Sorkin, who started his referral business in 1980 in response to the confusing proliferation of studios. "Still, in 1979, there were probably about 50 to 60 professional studios in town, and in 1969 there were only 15."

"I think Los Angeles is the recording capital of the world right now--at least there are more studios here than anywhere else on the planet," said Paul Camarata, who runs Sunset Sound, the studio founded by his father, Tutti, in 1958--which makes it the oldest independently operated studio in the city. "I also think there's more recording going on now than ever before; it's just that it's spread out over more studios."

The glut of studios has forced down rates by as much as 30% from 10 years ago, studio operators say. At the same time, the cost of equipment has gone up 300% to 400%. The price of a state-of-the-art mixing console--the most expensive piece of equipment in a studio--has risen to as much as $500,000 from about $80,000 a decade ago.

"We used to get $205 an hour and now we get $145," said Dee Robb, co-owner of Cherokee Recording Studio along with his brothers, Bruce and Joe, and their father, David. "We put a million dollars into the complex last year, and it hasn't bought us a dollar in rates."

What's more, constant innovations in sound technology have produced what one veteran sound engineer calls "an equipment race."

Blames Standardization

"Every week there's something; I have to buy some new piece of equipment at a minimum once a month," said Victor Levine, manager of Amigo Studios in Glendale. "Right now, our goal is to just break even and stay abreast of technology."

"The problem is, people aren't willing to pay for the equipment you have to buy in order to keep bringing them into your studio," Village Recorder's Smerigan said. "Price-wise, it's very difficult to increase your room rate to offset the cost of the equipment."

Dee Robb traces the current crunch to the mid-1970s, when electronics manufacturers revolutionized the business by starting to mass-produce and standardize professional recording equipment. "Before that, each studio had its own system custom built in-house, all tailor-designed for the individual operation."

As a result of standardization, "a lot of people got into the business who normally wouldn't have because you could literally go to the store and pick one of these and one of those and, boom, you had a studio," he said.
"This is one of the few businesses where you can buy credibility if you have the money. The problem is that so many operations come on line backed by external funding. People want to get in for the glamour, and they walk in with wads of money, buy top-of-the-line equipment, cut rates down to where they're losing money, then sell the studio to someone else who comes in and does the same thing. Most people in the studio business never make a profit, and we have to compete with this price structure. It's unrealistic competition."

[Gregg Sartiano]

MEMO

July 04, 1988|WILLIAM K. KNOEDELSEDER Jr.

When an artist goes into a recording studio to cut an album, the money for the session is usually paid by a record company in the form of an advance against the artist's royalties on the eventual sale of the record. The success of the studio business, therefore, is tied directly to the performance of the record industry at large. In recent years, that's meant hard times for studio operators.

For example, according to the Recording Industry Assn. of America, the major record companies released 4,170 new albums in 1978. The following year, as the record industry began to feel the effects of declining sales, only 3,575 new albums were released. In 1980, the number fell to 3,000. By 1984, with the record industry in a full-blown depression, the number had dropped to 2,170--a decline of nearly 50% from just four years before. In 1985, the number of new releases started inching upward again as the record industry began recovering from its slump.

The problem is, the recovery has been fueled largely by the sale of older records reissued on compact discs--records that don't require additional time at the recording studio. Last year, with record company profits at an all-time high, the major companies released only 2,406 new albums--still far below their output 10 years ago.

Making matters worse for the studios, belt-tightening by the record companies has reduced the average recording budget for an album from about $125,000 a few years ago to between $80,000 and $100,000 today, according to studio operators. And with home studios siphoning off recording time, studio operators estimate that their share of an average album's recording budget has fallen to between 50% and 60%.

In 1967, the Beatles' classic album "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" was recorded using what was then state-of-the-art studio technology--a four-track tape-recording machine. That meant that four different elements--vocals, guitars, drums and piano--were recorded separately and then combined on a single half-inch tape. In the ensuing 21 years, technological advances in sound recording have made four-track recording seem almost as primitive as, well, chiseling in stone.

Today, the state of the art is 48-track recording. For music lovers, the advances have meant better-sounding records; for studio operators, they've meant huge expenses. A 24-track recorder--considered the minimum for professional recording--can cost $25,000 to $90,000. A 32-track digital recorder costs about $140,000.

One studio operator estimates that to keep up with technology and remain competitive, a studio must completely upgrade its equipment "every 2 1/2 or three years--consoles, tape machines, new mikes, the whole schmear."
When Chris Stone opened his famous Record Plant studio in 1968, "fully equipped, including construction, right down to the floor tile, it cost $75,000," he said. "Today, that same room would cost $1.5 million."
After a five-year onslaught of computerized pop music--what one sound engineer described as "two-skinny English kids, a synthesizer and a drum machine"--studio operators say they are witnessing a backlash. "Right now, the cutting edge is live music; some of the new young bands are looking down on synthesized sound," said one veteran recorder, adding with a chuckle, "They actually think they've discovered something new; they're calling it 'organic recording.' "

[drBill]

I agree with the sentiment and focus of the articles, but the numbers seem way out of whack.

First, there's thousands of studios in LA. Second, consoles were $80k 10 years ago and now $500,000. More like the opposite I think although I do agree that other gear related costs as well as buildups are way are up. Weird numbers - like they hit a time warp or something. Studio rates have steadily been decreasing (as a whole) since the mid-80's I think.

[charlieclouser]

Originally Posted by drBill

I agree with the sentiment and focus of the articles, but the numbers seem way out of whack.

First, there's thousands of studios in LA. Second, consoles were $80k 10 years ago and now $500,000. More like the opposite I think although I do agree that other gear related costs as well as buildups are way are up. Weird numbers - like they hit a time warp or something. Studio rates have steadily been decreasing (as a whole) since the mid-80's I think.

The article was written in 1988.... 23 years ago.

[drBill]

Ha! OK. Not enough coffee this AM. Makes perfect sense then.

[Music Guru]

The OP really should've highlighted the fact that this article is from 1988. I guess my eyes just scanned over that part

[MarkRB]

Originally Posted by Music Guru

The OP really should've highlighted the fact that this article is from 1988. I guess my eyes just scanned over that part

Although it could have easily been written yesterday. Change a few numbers here and there. Even the recording budgets aren't that far off. Certainly not 22 years off!

Great article.

I've always thought of the mid 80's as the "Golden Years" for studios. A mix between big budgets and cool new tech. Not that I was there.

Particularly enjoyed the "a lot of people got into the business who normally wouldn't have because you could literally go to the store and pick one of these and one of those and, boom, you had a studio," comment.

[LAstudio]

"It's high risk, high cost of entry, high intrigue, ridiculous obsolescence--most of it planned--a totally fickle client base and an elasticity of demand that's dead set against you."


Yep.

"...There's also a negative side."

[Gregg Sartiano]

Originally Posted by Music Guru

The OP really should've highlighted the fact that this article is from 1988. I guess my eyes just scanned over that part

I was actually going to leave the date completely off. I would have, but there were too many 80's references, and it would have been confusing.

I think it's interesting that the 80's studio owners felt many of the same pressures, even though the business climate and the underlying issues were so different. They may be "singing the same tune" we hear a lot today, but re-read the article. Their circumstances are very different.

Inflation roughly doubles any dollar figures from 1988, so those $80k-100k 1988 album budgets (described as a drop from $125k) would be $160-200k today.

Multiplying that by 2,400 albums gets you an aggregate yearly major label production budget (for releases) of half a billion in today's dollars -- this doesn't count well-funded indie productions, movie song/score projects, "angel investor"-funded pitches, demo deals, "shelved" albums, etc., which would add millions upon millions to the total. And the vast majority of the money from these budgets was being spent in New York, L.A. (article estimates 125-175 "professional" studios), and Nashville, and, sure, the studios were feeling the home midi-based producers nipping at their heels, but if you work with the figures Chris Stone and Dee Robb were talking about, a ballpark estimate would be $250-400 (2011) "profit after taxes" per individual room, per day. A multi-room complex would be turning a six-figure profit every year.

And not one studio owner is complaining in the article about getting "stiffed" by a label. I am sure it happened, but they are not citing "flaky labels and fly-by-night music divisions and production companies who pay their tab late or not at all" as a main concern for their business model.

And 1988 was, in many ways, a dark time economically, making it even more significant that the studios were maintaining profitability. Deregulation in financial markets had exacerbated the boom/bust cycle, which, combined with the 80's Wall Street "greed is good" mantra (M&A mania, Milken/"junk bonds" if you need more search terms), came to a head with events like 1987's gut-wrenching "Black Monday" Dow drop only months prior, and the S & L crisis, which resulted in the failure of hundreds of banking institutions, as well as a halving of housing construction, later followed by a profound recession, a spike in oil prices, a real estate bust (1990), and a large-scale undeclared war half a world away. By early '89, President (G.H.W.) Bush was unveiling a massive bank bailout in an attempt to mitigate the most serious banking crisis since the Depression. What was that saying: He who does not learn from history...? But I digress...

In short, the economic and political context shared key similarities to ours in the last 3 or 4 years. And yet, the labels (in 1988) were pumping out a steady flow of releases and signing off on six-figure budgets which made radio-ready production studios profitable -- just a little less profitable then before. I think people overestimate the effect the recession has had on lowering recording budgets for "serious" studios -- it's the other factors which caused the bottom to drop out.

--

There are studios which would take $500 for a full day in an SSL room -- that used to buy less than 2 hours (adj. for inflation). The irony is that, if you add a PT HD 6 with 48 ch I/O and some plug-ins to one of these 1988 rooms ($30-40k investment) and maintain it, it is STILL state-of-the-art. This is seriously ironic since "staying abreast of technology" IS cited as a main factor in the struggles of the 1988 studio owner.

Or, as Norma Desmond said in Sunset Boulevard (1950), (in response to "you USED to be big"): "I AM big. It's the PICTURES that got small."

[daveway]

1988. Those were the good old days.

[dylanwissing]

[Disclaimer] Apologies if this is somewhat off topic, as it has to do with musicians rather than studio owners, but this great thread reminded me of a recent conversation that seemed somehow relevant... [/Disclaimer]

I'm a professional live and session musician in NYC, playing and recording with a wide variety of artists in the singer/songwriter-R&B-Hip Hop-Blues-Indie Rock-Pop-whatever scene. Since I moved here ten years ago, it seems like the going rate for your basic 50 minute set of live original music is $100. Of course, rates go above and below that (sometimes substantially), but a hundred bucks seems to be the anchor point.

OK, cool, I'm new to town, great, a hundred bucks for a set of music. And I've done lots of them since then. But then, I started working with older guys with VERY big name credits who have been on the scene since the 70s. And the shocking thing to hear is that the rate HASN'T CHANGED SINCE THE MID 70s! From the stories they tell, in the 70s there were lots of gigs, rent was cheap, and if you had some regular work you could pay your bills, feed your family, and generally call yourself a success from a few hundred dollar gigs a week. Times have certainly changed...

What does it all mean? I dunno. My great-grandfather was a drummer in vaudeville back in the teens and 1920s, and made a lot of money accompanying silent films in theaters. An entire industry went out of business when talkies came in and put countless thousands of musicians out of work, as well as all the various companies making sound effects and the like to support them. Did the music industry die in 1927 with "The Jazz Singer?" Certainly not. But it dramatically changed what you had to do to earn a decent living as an artist.

It seems like the music industry is eternally in such a situation. As the OP says, "I think it's interesting that the 80's studio owners felt many of the same pressures, even though the business climate and the underlying issues were so different." These issues probably have always been with us in the creative world, in one form or another, and probably always will be. The question is, how will you find your niche in the world of music to make a sustainable living? There are certainly much easier ways to make a living!

As a side note to my off-topic digression, my son is now ten months old. The majority of clothing gifts we've gotten from friends and family have been along the line of "Mommy's Little Rock Star," "Daddy's Little Rocker," "Future Rock Stars of America," etc. Why doesn't anyone make "Future Database Administrator," "Daddy's Little Insurance Underwriter," "Junior CEO" onesies?! For Pete's sake, set the boy up for a sensible career where he can earn an actual living, with benefits!

Unless, of course, he catches the bug like most of us here on GS, and decides that he will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to have a career in the music industry, reliable income, sustainability, status and stability be damned. God help us all...

[baslotto]

Great article and great comments! It put me in a good mood.
Thank you for posting!

[Gregg Sartiano]

Originally Posted by dylanwissing

[Disclaimer]But then, I started working with older guys with VERY big name credits who have been on the scene since the 70s. And the shocking thing to hear is that the rate HASN'T CHANGED SINCE THE MID 70s!

Studio rates have followed the exact same trend.

I remember reading a Peter Buck (R.E.M.) interview in which he is discussing R.E.M.'s early days and the decision to not be a cover band, despite the obvious benefits (during R.E.M.'s formative years, circa '80): "we could play 'Whipping Post' and make $300 a night." There's your ballpark figure again...

My great-grandfather was a drummer in vaudeville back in the teens and 1920s, and made a lot of money accompanying silent films in theaters.

ASCAP administered the rights of this music -- even the sheet music theater organists played had the ASCAP stamp, which means the copyrights were protected, theaters contributed to the "kitty," and P.R.O.'s (royalties) got paid. You've probably seen that stamp on some older pieces from the 20's -- I know I have...

The question is, how will you find your niche in the world of music to make a sustainable living? There are certainly much easier ways to make a living!

In my opinion, in the context of this discussion, it is very important to separate the notions of the "music" business and the "recording" business. Is there a niche doing tracks for self-funded vanity projects? Yes. Does it represent a sustainable living? Yes, as far as I can foretell, if you are good and responsive to what the times dictate. There are plenty "demo factories" here in L.A., and they all predicate their business model on selling a certain product: We use our finely-honed talent and up-to-date technology make up for your son/daughter's...I mean, the "artist's" inadequacies -- to produce something (as close as possible to) radio-ready so you can post it and get an ego stroke from your Facebook friends while you take your 8x10's to the nearest major label office in the hopes that you will be one of the ten people they sign this year -- oh, yeah: nine of those spots are already taken, since Timbaland, Pharell, Weezy, Em, and Outkast have proteges, and Mraz, Matthews, and Mayer have friends, and...what about Jersey Shore?

This is not a quality judgment on studios and/or producers, either. I have personally witnessed more than one "vanity project" with A-list players and producers in the best rooms...not bad in itself, but a terrible trend when it repeatedly represents the best-budgeted album in town that day.

Two observations:

1) A lot of producers place personal value on this experience, in the same way that a lawyer values a good fight on the behalf of his/her client, but there can be a certain emptiness associated with making recordings that are inherently compromised, since the lone prequalifier for the artist becomes a budget that represents orders of magnitude more than, ummmmm, shall we say, most "artist" types can locate. Think about artists who are at the "breakthrough" point -- anytime in the past 400 years, there was a pathway for them to get a hand "up" locally from the prevailing market/social forces: church/sacred music (1600's), nobility (classical era), performance/touring in the railroad era (Liszt, Paganini), Industrial age "Broadway" and "Vaudeville" or traveling roadshows (Enrico Caruso, Gershwin, American folk music), early recordings and regional radio (Jazz age/WWII to Sun Records), sustainable pro nightclub gigs and demo/singles deals (1960-1990 or 2000).

So, until relatively recently, "the cream [would] rise to the top" -- entertain, deliver the "goods," and at some point that process feeds you. For the record, I place the breaking point between the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the radio consolidation which followed and Napster/the peaking of CD sales (2000) which resulted in the loss of growth and the total elimination of the "demo deal" for promising artists.

As a side note to my off-topic digression, my son is now ten months old. The majority of clothing gifts we've gotten from friends and family have been along the line of "Mommy's Little Rock Star," "Daddy's Little Rocker," "Future Rock Stars of America," etc. Why doesn't anyone make "Future Database Administrator," "Daddy's Little Insurance Underwriter," "Junior CEO" onesies?! For Pete's sake, set the boy up for a sensible career where he can earn an actual living, with benefits!

Which leads me directly into 2) A TV show only needs to sell ads to pay a great salary with (union) benefits to anyone who has a serious credit on the show, including composers, production sound, and post sound. Why is it that they can do this solely from ad revenue, and ASCAP/BMI can't squeeze Google/YouTube for a decent royalty rate on those videos that have the ads before and the banners above, below, and to the side?

So, the (literal) bottom line is this: Look up VEVO ad rates for YouTube. You will find that the ballpark is $25 per 1,000 views. That's $25k revenue per million.

If your "album" is ten YouTube videos which combine to 1,000,000 views, you should be able to get enough royalties to buy a decent used car or pay your rent for a year. YouTube would still be taking half the revenue (and then some, since "surfing" YouTube leads to peripheral searches and even more ad impressions), and you would presumably also be able to make your $100 a night as a performer, which would all be "gravy," as they say. Bingo, creative musician makes sustainable living by finding an audience and catering to that audience. The only problem is that Silicon Valley has yet to really "play ball" with us. Meanwhile, they are building empires on our backs. Can you say "thousands of tunes in your pocket?"

[Jim Williams]

Ironic how these rooms have gone Dodo not because of that articles assertions about the expense of the industry, but rather because of the affordability and portibility of recording equipment.

Them consoles are selling for 10 cents on the dollar or less and that $100,000 recorder now runs about $1200. It used to weigh 400 lbs, now I can carry it around like a cassette recorder.

One of the side benefits is now the world is a studio, you can seek and enjoy all the wonderful acoustic spaces without being tied down to a fixed recording facility.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by Gregg Sartiano

In my opinion, in the context of this discussion, it is very important to separate the notions of the "music" business and the "recording" business. (++++ more)

Greg - VERY insightful and thought provoking post. Actually, one of the best I've ever seen on GS. Things to think about....

Thanks.

bp

[Gregg Sartiano]

Originally Posted by Jim Williams

Ironic how these rooms have gone Dodo not because of that articles assertions about the expense of the industry, but rather because of the affordability and portibility of recording equipment

RIAA CD sales have dropped in half, and nothing picked up the slack. RIAA - Recording Industry Association of America The peak domestic sales total was $18b inflation-adjusted ('99 or '00), and the figure is now $7b. Remember, these are U.S.-only numbers. Every billion is ONE THOUSAND millions, equivalent to 10,000 x $100,000. And our business lost $11b per year from peak revenue.

I believe that if the revenue had stayed significantly higher, many more of those rooms would still be open. If things aren't leveraged too badly, $15-40k per room per month, while representing a decrease in revenue, is nothing to sneeze at, and when people are challenging themselves to make definitive recordings, they do want a shot at getting definitive sounds, which involves room, gear, vibe, personalities, and more. The "bridge too far" is the ever-shrinking budgets artist's shares of revenue. A lot of folks spend that money given the chance and the choice.

Meanwhile, Facebook's approximate book value is $50b, Twitter's is over $7b, Google/YouTube's market cap is approaching $200b, Apple's market cap is over $300b. These numbers represent value, not revenue, but they give you an idea of the weight the "big players" can throw around politically, socially, and culturally through mass media. Sure, a reporter here and there can take a pot shot at Apple or Steve Jobs, but it is standard practice in many circles for interviewers to routinely throw out "softball" questions to stay in the good graces of and ensure future scoops and VIP invitations from the corporate and political power players. Tough questions can be dangerous to a reporter's job security, unless it is in the news organization's agenda to align itself against a particular person or entity.

The irony is that the ongoing narrative in the news cycle, for 10+ years now, has cast the major label recording industry as the "big bad wolf" and the computer/information industry as the brash upstarts.

Here is the bottom line: Downloading and trading songs was a "bridge technology." But streaming represents an ideal of convenience -- the only improvements are incremental: can the stream be faster/higher resolution/better indexed, etc. Music on demand is the "be-all, end-all" of delivery mechanisms. So if we lose THIS fight, we may as well take our ball and go home, because the "music" (not recording) industry will be squeezed and squeezed as we are being told all the while that it is a "privilege" and a "service" to us for some company to host OUR CREATIVE OUTPUT and sell ads on it.

[tekis]

[QUOTE=
Here is the bottom line: Downloading and trading songs was a "bridge technology." But streaming represents an ideal of convenience -- the only improvements are incremental: can the stream be faster/higher resolution/better indexed, etc. Music on demand is the "be-all, end-all" of delivery mechanisms. So if we lose THIS fight, we may as well take our ball and go home, because the "music" (not recording) industry will be squeezed and squeezed as we are being told all the while that it is a "privilege" and a "service" to us for some company to host OUR CREATIVE OUTPUT and sell ads on it.[/QUOTE]

You've got my attention. Thank-you for this informative post!

[Solidtube]

I thought I was seeing things when the article mentioned 24 track tape multi tracks costing 25-90K! Then I realized it was 1988. The thing is, recording equipment cost next to nothing nowadays comparing to the 80s, the cost of tapes for a project alone back then could cost more than a DAW system now. It's a very different world right now. I read an interview recently with Mick Jagger saying that he was lucky that he was making music when musicians were able to make huge amount money, between 70s and the 90s, not before or since, which I think is totally true, even Beethevon weren't nearly as wealthy as Mick and Mozart died penniless.

[Gregg Sartiano]

Originally Posted by Solidtube

It's a very different world right now. I read an interview recently with Mick Jagger saying that he was lucky that he was making music when musicians were able to make huge amount money, between 70s and the 90s

I don't disagree, but I would like to add that before Hi-Fi audio reproduction for home and public spaces, professional performing musicians had an intrinsic, indispensable value within a community. If an event needed music, performers had to be contracted, period. The evolution of the "golden age" upper crust rock 'n roll gentry is constant fodder for VH1 specials (I won't deny that it is interesting both on its own and as a microcosm with parallels to be drawn to our current scene), but the evolution (leading up to the current plight) of the middle-class regional music professional is a more opaque topic.

It's a case of history being written by (and in the service of) the victors.

But somewhere below the surface is a legacy of family music groups, gospel quartets, folk-harmony singers, blues combos, "juke joint" stride pianists, and more who may not be remembered by history but whose gigs paid the rent and put food on the table. Sure, some composers may have chosen to starve for their art, but professional performers didn't have to compete with DJ's and karaoke.

[toneguru]

I hereby nominate Mr. Gregg Sartiano to the Gearslutz Hall of Fame.

You may be in the wrong business Gregg if you are in music and recording. I would say a journalist might be your better calling. I could see you as a staff writer for the LA Times... oops.. that industry also got run over by the internet.

You do have a way with words and a good grasp of history and logic, how bout you work as a political lobbyist? Yes, finally a career that pays well and may also be tech proof.

- Cheers

[paterno]

Nice thread Gregg...

[Gregg Sartiano]

Originally Posted by toneguru

I hereby nominate Mr. Gregg Sartiano to the Gearslutz Hall of Fame.

You may be in the wrong business Gregg if you are in music and recording. I would say a journalist might be your better calling. I could see you as a staff writer for the LA Times... oops.. that industry also got run over by the internet.

Thanks so much for the compliment. Pursue writing...and leave all this? Besides, I heard journalism and doing cool rock 'n roll poses at your desk don't mix.

The (actually serious) upside to a career away from the "room with a VU" would be that I believe I would actually be able to listen to music as an audience member again. How nice would it be to have the radio on in the background during work? It's so ironic (don't you think?) that that is the one thing we who love music so much cannot do.

You do have a way with words and a good grasp of history and logic, how bout you work as a political lobbyist? Yes, finally a career that pays well and may also be tech proof.

Right on -- as long as I don't have to turn to the dark side to do it..."OK, that radiation leak is...ummmmmm...almost under control...here are your talking points, you are on in 5...4...3...."

[GearHunter]

When I first started engineering in 1983 I made $25 to $30 per hour in 1980 dollars -- as a rookie. The studio made $90 to $100 per hour. Good veteran engineers made upwards of $40 an hour. So for a 10-hour day, the client paid $1,000 plus tape. I don't know what that translates to in today's money but I'd guess it's equivalent to $4 grand. * Just went to an on-line calculator: $1000 in 1983 dollars translates to $2300. today.Conversely, the $500 per-day WE ASK FOR TODAY to do a project would have been $220 in 1983

Here it is 2011 and a "studio" has a hard time getting $250 to $500 per day, including an engineer. I do weekender sessions for $900 total for both days, which includes studio time, myself and the assistant engineer. I end up keeping maybe $300 tops after the two days (which typically end up being long days - 11 hours plus).

I recently offered to mix an album for an artist, with me teamed-up with another really good engineer. Keep in mind this client approached us because he likes our work. Between the two of us this guy could not have a better set of ears to mix his CD. The price we put forth? $500 per song, all-included. There were 10 songs. He looked at us like we had two heads (which actually we did). He chose a bargain-basement guy (who was possibly a crack-head) who charged him $200/song. The CD came out sounding like shit.

I'm a veteran and have forgotten more about recording than 75% of the newbies out there, yet I have to compete with them. So basically I don't. That's why I only do a couple projects a year. If you can pay essentially $500 a day for me and the studio, you will get a fantastic recording. Any less than that, never mind.

Didn't plan a rant, but it ended up ranting.

[chris@theblue]

thanks. . .and there's a down side!

the real estate bubble put a lot of cash in the working class hands,
some bought guitars and amps. . .
I and many others went into this ?
C

[toneguru]

I would be love to hear from an engineer in Shanghai or perhaps Hong Kong. I would imagine that the supply/demand of pro studios in that region might make for a far more lucrative environment.

It might be the start of "the golden age" of studios in young burgeoning economies like China and India.

Just some food for thought.

- Gan bei... (cheers)

[RKrizman]

Originally Posted by toneguru

I would be love to hear from an engineer in Shanghai or perhaps Hong Kong. I would imagine that the supply/demand of pro studios in that region might make for a far more lucrative environment.

It might be the start of "the golden age" of studios in young burgeoning economies like China and India.

Just some food for thought.

- Gan bei... (cheers)

Not sure you'd find that to be the case in mainland China, if only because the monetary scale is so different. By that, I mean a dollar will in general buy maybe 5 times as much in China as it does here. So if you're in China, and making Chinese money and spending it there, where a beer is 30 cents and so forth, perhaps there's a business to be had. But the money you make probably won't amount to much if you try to spend it back here in the US.

Any Beijing GS members care to chime in on the studio economy over there?

-R

[toneguru]

Originally Posted by RKrizman

Not sure you'd find that to be the case in mainland China, if only because the monetary scale is so different. By that, I mean a dollar will in general buy maybe 5 times as much in China as it does here. So if you're in China, and making Chinese money and spending it there, where a beer is 30 cents and so forth, perhaps there's a business to be had. But the money you make probably won't amount to much if you try to spend it back here in the US.

Any Beijing GS members care to chime in on the studio economy over there?

-R

I concur, with the Yaun at 6.5/1 to the Dollar it would not make a lot of sense for an American to fly home with a pocket full of Yaun. I was thinking more of what it would be like to be Chinese or living in China and working in the biz. It could actually be hot over there or perhaps about to get hot for major recording studios.

Then again, I could be completely wrong.
What do I know, I am just an unemployed musician living in San Fran.

- Cheers

[wellyouneednt]

Very thoughtful posts Greg.

I often think about the conundrum our profession is in...it is overwhelming.

The loss of ownership of our work (as musicians/composers/engineers etc.) has occurred very rapidly...with the wheels being greased by the technological revolution. The biggest problem is the public perception that our craft has little or no intrinsic economic value.

The irony that this attitude has been adopted by some of our wealthiest corporations is quite galling. Companies whose existence is based on their intellectual property have no qualms about gutting our industry...an industry whose 'intellectual properties' have been amongst mankind's greatest achievements. (The 'Golden Record' that accompanies the Voyager space probes includes recorded greetings, scientific and mathematical data, photographs, sounds, images...and of course...music...Stravinsky to Guan Pinghu to Chuck Berry. The disk is inscribed "To the makers of music — all worlds, all times")

How do we re-establish our profession? How do we create an environment where a young Stravinsky or Guan Pinghu or Chuck Berry or Tom Dowd can have the financial means to pursue their work? Let alone...

Originally Posted by Gregg Sartiano

...somewhere below the surface is a legacy of family music groups, gospel quartets, folk-harmony singers, blues combos, "juke joint" stride pianists, and more who may not be remembered by history but whose gigs paid the rent and put food on the table. Sure, some composers may have chosen to starve for their art, but professional performers didn't have to compete with DJ's and karaoke.

...all of the amazing, talented folk that provide music for us. Pros who've worked their butts off to hone their craft.

This is the harsh truth:

Originally Posted by Gregg Sartiano

Music on demand is the "be-all, end-all" of delivery mechanisms. So if we lose THIS fight, we may as well take our ball and go home, because the "music" (not recording) industry will be squeezed and squeezed as we are being told all the while that it is a "privilege" and a "service" to us for some company to host OUR CREATIVE OUTPUT and sell ads on it.

Best,
wellyouneednt

[The MPCist]

Originally Posted by RKrizman

Not sure you'd find that to be the case in mainland China, if only because the monetary scale is so different. By that, I mean a dollar will in general buy maybe 5 times as much in China as it does here. So if you're in China, and making Chinese money and spending it there, where a beer is 30 cents and so forth, perhaps there's a business to be had. But the money you make probably won't amount to much if you try to spend it back here in the US.

Any Beijing GS members care to chime in on the studio economy over there?

-R

Can't speak for Beijing but as for Taipei, the chinese pop capital (nope, Beijing isn't it), studios are struggling as well.

The main two big commercial ones, Platinum and Megaforce, are still open but cater to the few high budget projects that are still around.

90% of all the other cases are done either in the label's own studio or producer/musician project studios. No one wants to spend money for big studios with consoles when they can do the 'same thing' with PT and ITB in their own studios. It's all about saving money and budgets have been shrinking for the past 8 years.... It's probably 1/2 of what it used to be.

It's the same story as the US.

[Gregg Sartiano]

Originally Posted by wellyouneednt

How do we re-establish our profession? How do we create an environment where a young Stravinsky or Guan Pinghu or Chuck Berry or Tom Dowd can have the financial means to pursue their work?

Oh, boy, THIS is a tough one. There are innumerable factors in play here. People lose sight of global population growth as a factor in artistic expression of a society -- if someone is "one in a million," there used to be 150 of them in the U.S. around Kennedy's time, and now there are over 300. But take this back to 1900 or 1800, for that matter -- and include the fact that the middle and upper-middle classes have the time and the means to enable viable self-expression (because you can't be an "artist" if you are having to grind out a lower class living...well, Faulkner could write at his power plant job...but even HE made the L.A. move to be a contract writer at MGM 3 years later...). Demographics plays into the artist-audience dynamic in an often overlooked way.

And self-expression is a professed goal of the leisure time activities of SO many people. The gift of the internet age is that now we have an audience of pundits and Monday-morning quarterbacks.

Does anyone remember the Best Buy commercial from about a year ago? Smart & attractive (isn't everyone in those commercials attractive -- as if our neighbors are all catalog models? Not supermodels, just catalog models...) anyway, smart and attractive (in a "catalog model" way) young girl (22-ish?) enters the Best Buy looking for a laptop computer. Cool-looking, college-age, apparently savvy salesman with freshly whitened teeth says "what kind of computer are you looking for?" Young catalog-model girl says (almost verbatim -- sorry if my memory fails me): "I'm a filmmaker. I'll need something with some power."

Ummmmmmm...OK. "I'm a filmmaker." Yes, I remember CLEARLY that she uttered the word "filmmaker." This in itself isn't implausible -- but the very obvious subtext is that she is being cast as an "everyman/everywoman" type, just a little more attractive (vibrant, in control) and focused. But nothing in the commercial explored the concept of study of the medium or professional exploration. Nevertheless, she is what you, the "target market" audience member, would LIKE to be. The message is: Define yourself as expressive, and purchase the tool that enables it.

This brings up our current conundrum: Can she (and the computer-buying public, by proxy) define herself as a "filmmaker?" Well, if you cut together your vacation photos on iMovie and put a public domain music bed on it, then, yes, you are a "filmmaker." But I remember reading in Variety around 2005 (after the Final Cut Pro boom) that the number of Sundance submissions had doubled and were rising. But how many defining works can the cultural Cuisinart of a given era actually use? And how does one define "classic," anyway?

And what WOULD a young Stravinsky do? What's stopping anyone from composing "art music?" Vivaldi's genius was discovered by the world posthumously, and Emily Dickinson's wish was that her papers be destroyed upon her death -- she wasn't exactly a serialized, appreciated (in her lifetime) writer a la Charles Dickens. Nowadays anyone with a decent standard of living can afford the tools of CONCRETE expression -- no longer is it the unrealized screenplay or the dusty, handwritten score, it is CD's full of compositions and DVD's of "video art." And why not? "Art is what the artist says it is." (Andy Warhol).

I can tie this all together, but it will unfortunately be a series of unsatisfying questions. "Future Shock" is defined as "too much change in too short a period of time." Basically, we are changing our paradigms too quickly for society to agree upon and digest the "classics" of any given medium of expression. And the logical extension here is that playing to the lowest common denominator becomes a necessity, because what else IS there when the word "classic" loses relevance? But we have to ask ourselves questions that cut to the very core of how both "popular" and "high" art function in our society, and how that function (and the audience itself) changes when the world is a mere "click" away.