The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
How did the pros quantize before daws?
Old 1 week ago
  #241
Gear Head
Just saw this, and was going to reminisce about concerts by bands like Rush and Supertramp who didn't need no stinking quantize, but even back then, we had gates and side-chaining.
Old 1 week ago
  #242
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Yeah, if all the "dads" were right and music has gotten "worse" with every successive generation
I have a theory on this. It is all to do with artistic evolution.

In music, (or any massively popular artform), there are changes with time. Doing exactly what has been done for years, regardless of how technically adept you might be, doesn't have the same emotional effect on people. Doing something approachable, but different enough to have an element of surprise, catches people's attention and sometimes catches lots of people's attention. But if you're too weird, too forward, too out there to be relatable, even of 50 years later people say you were "ahead of your time" you are still going turn people off.

So, Beethoven fans HATED Romanticism. Wagner and his ilk vs Brahms and his predecessors was as much a thing as jazz players thinking rock and roll was juvenile crap, or rock listeners hating country, or other trope in late 20th century popular music.

What's different in the rock era is that technology to record music and to make it massively popular was developing along with jazz and rock. At the end of the Jazz Age, very few recordings were made, and when they were they were pretty simplistic. Straight to wax type of thing. After WWII you could more easily record, but until Les Paul not really multi track, and until electric guitars became a phenomenon. Even the first Beatles album was Mono as there wasn't widespread stereo until the mid 60s. Track counts jumped, the concept of a "recording artist" came to be, mics, preamps, effects, and techniques rapidly evolved... I mean, from Elvis to Punk was 20 years. And when Elvis sold a million records there were only 10 million record players in all of America. That's how much it exploded. I'm not even considering radio, either, which as a thing in the pre-war era but was so often music (or other types of shows) performed LIVE over the air, while in the second half of the 20th century was most often recorded music.

So, folks could get down on older music. Wagner talked smack nonstop about Classical. But The classical era was generations long. The 18th century. The romantic era was mid 19th century to early 20th. And, to the untrained listener, they're not such different genres as 60s rock to 70s rock! Likewise, your favorite music wasn't something you listened to over and over. If you wanted to hear it again, you had to wait for the next time the symphony played it! It all moved more slowly, even though it certainly evolved.

We do the same in the modern day, getting down on older genres, but for a baby boomer the genres evolved thrice before they turned 30 then splintered wildly. The excitement around electrifying old American roots, jazz, and blues was tied with massive and rapid technological change that excited creative types to do new and interesting things all the time.

Now it's not so exciting. For rock, it's all been done. Even if players are technically better, it's classical music the romantic era. Maybe beautiful, but you've heard it all before. As that faded, the excitement and evolution outside of rock was hip hop, electronica, club and dance stuff... pretty easy to overlook genres you have to search harder to find as an old man and say "New music is crap."

That said, as someone with extremely catholic taste in music, hard autotuned, robot-voice pop turns me off faster than just about anything. I get it. A 15 year old, just discovering music, who has no musical background will not likely have an appreciation for musicianship, or is influenced by his friends' tastes, or a million other things that makes him dig it. But I'mma stay grouchy old man about this one.
Old 1 week ago
  #243
Some studio drummers were famous for playing like a machine or able to replace a drum machine.

John JR Robinson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ro8-ngA8gs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQqwG_rQx7A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsVcUzP_O_8

Leon Ndugu Chancler:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi_XLOBDo_Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZZQuj6htF4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSIL-SU--Lw

Jeff Porcaro:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRdxUFDoQe0

Its the hardest thing for a drummer to not only replace a drum machine, but to be able to put his own flavor without changing the original groove.

But the guys who did it best are the ones that got recording gigs right?
Old 1 week ago
  #244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumblepig View Post
Chris - you've played on loads of heavy tracks. I haven't been following this thread for a while, so maybe this has already come up, but I'm curious if there are any particular songs/albums you've worked on where you tracked without a click...
I can't think of any, other than live albums.
Everything done to a click, or programmed synth parts, or drum/percussion loops.
Old 1 week ago
  #245
Lives for gear
 
Crazy4Jazz's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
Me too. The exception being when I write a song using midi or virtual instruments. But actual acoustic or real instruments, drums, bass, guitar, vocals - I NEVER quantize. I have on occasion fixed a wrong note. I have to fight to use Melodyne or any pitch correction. I hate the computerization of music,
I alos record mostly acoustic instruments. There is no such thing as quantizing in acoustic jazz.

However, when using virtual instruments I may or may not quantize depending on the style of music. Because of DAWs and quantization, some styles of pop music demand quantization.

As for how it was don't before DAWs. It wasn't. Pop music is not the most technically or intellectually demanding style of music. The players were not hired for thier instrumental prowess but rather for their feel. Take, for instance, keyboard players like Richard Tee. He was not technically on the level of most jazz players at that time but what he could do was play with a certain feel and time. That was his greatness. This was so with many players who did pop music sessions. Jazz players, on the other hand, were posessed of great technique as well as feel and time.

These things are still true except for certain styles, mostly electronic music, that were created with quantization and part of thier sound is quantization.
Old 1 week ago
  #246
Lives for gear
 
tymish's Avatar
 

The other night my wife and i were doing kareoke. Yeah, we do it for fun and voice practice at home. She was trying to sing a coupo0le modern productions and couldn't get a breath in between verses and choruses. She's not a pro or anything. She was wondering how the heck they can sing that. I told her, that song was never sung as a complete piece when it was created and recorded in sections. So natural breathing space just wasn't there. I mean a couple of these tunes had maybe a beat in between long lines LOL.
Old 1 week ago
  #247
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tymish View Post
The other night my wife and i were doing kareoke. Yeah, we do it for fun and voice practice at home. She was trying to sing a coupo0le modern productions and couldn't get a breath in between verses and choruses. She's not a pro or anything. She was wondering how the heck they can sing that. I told her, that song was never sung as a complete piece when it was created and recorded in sections. So natural breathing space just wasn't there. I mean a couple of these tunes had maybe a beat in between long lines LOL.
I one worked on a radio spot for a big music festival. The announcer had to list all the (major) bands playing at the festival in machine-gun fashion in the last 20 seconds of the ad. It was too many bands and he couldn't get them out fast enough and also breathe. So we divided up the list and he did all the odd ones first, leaving a tiny gap, then went back and did all the even ones in the spaces. He had to make the beginning of each phrase actually step on the end of the previous one, but the funny thing was you could understand it completely.
Old 1 week ago
  #248
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
I ABSOLUTELY would prefer to go back then. That's when I made money. That's when there was a standard you had to fight through to get a deal, and to get recognized AND there was a budget to get you to break through or not.

ARE YOU KIDDING??? Absolutely. No contest. Most people today have no real reference point. I had record deals unlike most. Not one but two. And before it all fell apart I set up my own label and got WW distribution in brick and mortar stores when it meant something and before vanity labels were a thing. NO. Those were much better days for the arts in music. Not for the Joe Normal mediocre guy where anyone could release whatever they wanted whenever they wanted. But for those who could clearly rise to the top, yeah, much better. Songwriters could make real livelihoods.
Amen, I was signed to two different majors at different points, two major indies, and some smaller labels.

And EVERY RECORD I've released (All the way to 2015) has been the result of someone handing me an advance and a budget.

It used to be a mud check if you had a record in stores, you had separated yourself from the pack, you weren't f'ing around, you were doing business, someone made an INVESTMENT in you,

I can't remember when it was that everyone started saying "Yeah, I'm droppin' a record this month" I would be surprised, and ask, "Who's putting it out?" "How's the promo budget?" "Have the publicists started the campaigns?" "Tour support? When you headed out?"

The blank stares and evasive mumbles answered my question.
Old 1 week ago
  #249
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by terrible.dee View Post
Amen, I was signed to two different majors at different points, two major indies, and some smaller labels.

And EVERY RECORD I've released (All the way to 2015) has been the result of someone handing me an advance and a budget.

It used to be a mud check if you had a record in stores, you had separated yourself from the pack, you weren't f'ing around, you were doing business, someone made an INVESTMENT in you,

I can't remember when it was that everyone started saying "Yeah, I'm droppin' a record this month" I would be surprised, and ask, "Who's putting it out?" "How's the promo budget?" "Have the publicists started the campaigns?" "Tour support? When you headed out?"

The blank stares and evasive mumbles answered my question.
Yeah man. And I was never signed to a major. Still the smaller independents THEN tried to BE a major and gave you a budget and paid for stuff. There's NO COMPARISON vs today. None. And people don't get it. They never got a deal. Or they're too young. Or resentful they never qualified.
Old 1 week ago
  #250
Lives for gear
 

There are still those making money, high non-recoupable advances etc. Artists & associated crew living very very comfortably. Very. And mindnumbingly busy as well. You may not even be aware of some of them.

The time blip of a whole bunch of people getting that....was a time blip. Only destined to last what it did... 25-30 years.

We're now back to the way things were circa 1960 in terms of the percentage of those striking some pretty incredible contracts.

Anyone who thinks the "blip" was the norm......

At any rate, back to click tracks and tape loops and grids.
Old 1 week ago
  #251
Lives for gear
 
tymish's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
There are still those making money, high non-recoupable advances etc. Artists & associated crew living very very comfortably. Very. And mindnumbingly busy as well. You may not even be aware of some of them.

The time blip of a whole bunch of people getting that....was a time blip. Only destined to last what it did... 25-30 years.

We're now back to the way things were circa 1960 in terms of the percentage of those striking some pretty incredible contracts.

Anyone who thinks the "blip" was the norm......

At any rate, back to click tracks and tape loops and grids.
Out of about 100 year history of the business.. that's a pretty big blip.
Old 1 week ago
  #252
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
There are still those making money, high non-recoupable advances etc. Artists & associated crew living very very comfortably. Very. And mindnumbingly busy as well. You may not even be aware of some of them.

The time blip of a whole bunch of people getting that....was a time blip. Only destined to last what it did... 25-30 years.

We're now back to the way things were circa 1960 in terms of the percentage of those striking some pretty incredible contracts.

Anyone who thinks the "blip" was the norm......

At any rate, back to click tracks and tape loops and grids.
Not quite. The songwriter always got the big bucks, if you were able to get the contract written that way. This was for most of the 20th century. That’s why the record companies were slick enough to sneak contracts so they’d make the money. John and Paul kade serious money. As did the Brill Building folks. Gershwin, Cole Porter. But in those days the distribution of music was mostly in sheet music when the music buying public could actually read music.

A lot of folks on GS just think music started in the 70s or with R&R.
Old 1 week ago
  #253
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
A lot of folks on GS just think music started in the 70s or with R&R.
That's a big part of perspective.

And the songwriter royalties were definitely a byproduct of when the ip laws were written. As radio and recording came in, live musicians were in a panic over losing their gigs doing radio and public performance, etc. But the legacy of songwriting and publishing came from the era of publishing the sheet music.

Each "era" of all of this kind of took advantage of the rules that were legacy of a previous era.

Seriously, in 1965 if you wanted to put out an album you had to work with a company who had plants to manufacture the disks, make the sleeves, do the art, and all that. Or at least had all the contacts and people in place to get that done. And they had to have distribution into record stores nation- or world-wide. And likely had contacts into the recording process, if not owned their own studios. Etc. Record companies were a substantial capital investment.

Record companies these days are pretty much handling PR, which is a big investment I guess. But it's less a physical investment and more a gamble, like an angel investor hoping to reap profit on the one that goes popular. Mostly they're not producing physical products like they were 40-50 years ago. Everyone distributes albums mostly virtually or at the merch table now, and getting disks cut for merch sales is as easy as making the T-Shirts. Anyone with the dollars can record, putting it on the iTunes or the spotifys is a few clicks... So other than PR, why do "labels" even exist?

Also the industry has a lock on radio and some performance venues, so I guess they're pretty much rent seeking. They have a role, though certainly not the role they once had.

But my point is, they're just legacies of an era with physical media who have found a way to somehow keep their fingers in the pie beyond record production and distrubition. Like songwriter royalties in the album sales and radio play days were a legacy of laws written at the end of the sheet music publishing era. Rock and Pop are somehow beholden, but how many DJs have made gazillions on club hits? Who here gets royalties from ads, television, movies, or other channels? I'm realizing there are a lot more channels for music than the trope of the Rock and/or Roll album getting into record stores of the boomer era, and there always have been. I am trying to take a broader view these days, but it's not always the first thing for someone my age with my limited experience to think outside the LP era.
Old 1 week ago
  #254
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tymish View Post
Out of about 100 year history of the business.. that's a pretty big blip.
so you don't count the previous 50,000 years of humans making music?

I would "count" that time. A time when musicians could make some money, or at least their supper, if they were really good and they could play live. If they found a King or a priest or something, they could have a steady gig.

Even if you don't count that time, it's hard to imagine any way that "sales" and "ownership" of music will ever come back - since it is no longer tied to a physical object that you can withhold if the person does not pay. The blip is finite - it had a beginning and now we see it has an end. So going forward into the future, that 100 year history of the business will become 200 years and then 300 years... the blip will appear smaller and smaller.
Old 1 week ago
  #255
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tymish View Post
Out of about 100 year history of the business.. that's a pretty big blip.
If you're talking about the business model of music being tied to a "mechanical", it begins in the late 1800's with sheet music publishing, and then player pianos where the player roll mechanism was the "mechanical", that's where the term comes from.

So, more like 140 some odd years.

However, within that time, there have been 15 to 20 year bubbles - the silent film industry, the radio industry, the session musician, the home recordists ...

It'll always change and move forward, unless people decide to stop making music.
Old 1 week ago
  #256
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
There are still those making money, high non-recoupable advances etc. Artists & associated crew living very very comfortably. Very. And mindnumbingly busy as well. You may not even be aware of some of them.

The time blip of a whole bunch of people getting that....was a time blip. Only destined to last what it did... 25-30 years.

We're now back to the way things were circa 1960 in terms of the percentage of those striking some pretty incredible contracts.

Anyone who thinks the "blip" was the norm......

At any rate, back to click tracks and tape loops and grids.
Not quite. The songwriter always got the big bucks, if you were able to get the contract written that way. This was for most of the 20th century. That’s why the record companies were slick enough to sneak contracts so they’d make the money. John and Paul kade serious money. As did the Brill Building folks. Gershwin, Cole Porter. But in those days the distribution of music was mostly in sheet music when the music buying public could actually read music.

A lot of folks on GS just think music started in the 70s or with R&R.
No, brill bldg etc writers, circa 1940-196* did not make guaranteed big bucks via publishing....not by a longshot. Many/most had those horrid low percentages with the publishing company taking the bulk percentage. You had guys so hungry that they often stupidly sold their entire share. The statutes themselves were relatively screwed up until the 90s. No one was self publishing because it was a screwed proposition until/unless you gained clout...which didn't start kicking in as a thing.....for the relative masses already armed with a recirding contract....until around late 1969 on. Super small subset of guys.

Then...you had the blip.....which was unsustainable on a-n-y kind of longterm level.

Super small subset of guys......that's the norm.
Old 1 week ago
  #257
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
No, brill bldg etc writers, circa 1940-196* did not make guaranteed big bucks via publishing....not by a longshot.
He did say if you could get the contract written that way.

I think the point was the Songwriter royalties -- whoever happens to own them, be it the big company or an individual -- has been where the mechanical payouts got big, and where the intellectual property law was focused.

Generally, players have always been itinerant. Paid for the gig.

This all reminds me of stories of classical composers having something really well received then running home and spending the next couple of months whipping out arrangements for various settings to be published because, if they didn't do it themselves, immediately, someone else could transcribe it and publish it without any legal recourse.

I guess intellectual property like copyright is only about as old (in the US) as the constitution, and in a modern, more worldwide form about 140 years. I just looked that up and I guess Sharp means the berne convetion -- 1886. Strange the threads I pull together reading random debate here.
Old 1 week ago
  #258
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenoodle View Post
No, brill bldg etc writers, circa 1940-196* did not make guaranteed big bucks via publishing....not by a longshot. Many/most had those horrid low percentages with the publishing company taking the bulk percentage. You had guys so hungry that they often stupidly sold their entire share. The statutes themselves were relatively screwed up until the 90s. No one was self publishing because it was a screwed proposition until/unless you gained clout...which didn't start kicking in as a thing.....for the relative masses already armed with a recirding contract....until around late 1969 on. Super small subset of guys.

Then...you had the blip.....which was unsustainable on a-n-y kind of longterm level.

Super small subset of guys......that's the norm.
I didn’t say the songwriters did. But Don Kirshner did. The publishers. The business guys who took a piece of the copyright. What I’m saying is there was money to be made. Gold in them thar hills. And those songwriters didn’t mind. They didn’t have the bureaucratic know how to get the songs delivered and sold. So they paid the bureaucrats. They were work for hire.
Old 1 week ago
  #259
Bottom linje - we NEED to get back to musicians being paid for their work. *Please don't bring up the BS tech propaganda of paying people to sit at home doing nothing. I mean WHEN WE WORK.
This virus crisis has shone a major light n what I've always said - you can't force the music workforce to earn a living just by playing live. Just about everyone except the top 1% are currently unemployable and earning $zero.

A record is a product, just like a movie.
Why we don't tell actors and directors to make movies for free, to help promote their live work (theatre) I don't know.
Over more than ten years at Gearslutz I've seen so many nonsensical arguments that magically didn't apply to anyone else in the workforce.
My paid work ended at the beginning of March when multiple countries stopped gatherings of people and started closing borders.

I released an EP a year ago that's had 20,000 streams on Spotify alone (I know, small beer but....) and I haven't seen a penny from it as yet, and I don't really expect to.

That's OK. My point is, musicians can't be forced to only earn a living from playing live as the current situation completely illustrates. A recording is still a piece of art and it still takes a lot of work to produce. It isn't a freebie.
Old 1 week ago
  #260
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Bottom linje - we NEED to get back to musicians being paid for their work. *Please don't bring up the BS tech propaganda of paying people to sit at home doing nothing. I mean WHEN WE WORK.
This virus crisis has shone a major light n what I've always said - you can't force the music workforce to earn a living just by playing live. Just about everyone except the top 1% are currently unemployable and earning $zero.

A record is a product, just like a movie.
Why we don't tell actors and directors to make movies for free, to help promote their live work (theatre) I don't know.
Over more than ten years at Gearslutz I've seen so many nonsensical arguments that magically didn't apply to anyone else in the workforce.
My paid work ended at the beginning of March when multiple countries stopped gatherings of people and started closing borders.

I released an EP a year ago that's had 20,000 streams on Spotify alone (I know, small beer but....) and I haven't seen a penny from it as yet, and I don't really expect to.

That's OK. My point is, musicians can't be forced to only earn a living from playing live as the current situation completely illustrates. A recording is still a piece of art and it still takes a lot of work to produce. It isn't a freebie.
This is getting offtopic, but IMO music is just becoming less relevant to the younger generation, of at least the aural aspect of it. Many music videos emphasize visuals over sound. Kids are spending their time playing videogames and watching videos, listening to music is becoming a niche. I see no way out of this, we are living in an increasingly visual world as far as culture goes. A youtuber can make a video in a lot less time than it takes to make a good song, and will get more views (and therefore revenue) in a shorter time. You can also spam video content at a much higher rate than output quality music. Let's face it, the ROI of music making had always been low, and its getting lower and lower.

Proof is in the pudding - this video has over 2.9 BILLION views. Which song you know has anything close to that?

Old 1 week ago
  #261
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm2c View Post
This is getting offtopic, but IMO music is just becoming less relevant to the younger generation, of at least the aural aspect of it.
This is a common argument and we've already gone over it many times.
Which video festival has 200,000 attendees every June?

When you look at the sheer number of highly anticipated and pre-sold out music festivals every Summer, from Coachella (99,000 fans per day) to Glastonbury, it is clear music still appeals to most young people.
Just the sheer fact Facebook, Google and Apple all took music (over every other art form) to sell their products and advertising tells you everything.
Music is massive, it's just that the tech sector managed to create a situation where it was 'OK' to give it away free.
Old 1 week ago
  #262
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
This is a common argument and we've already gone over it many times.
Which video festival has 200,000 attendees every June?

When you look at the sheer number of highly anticipated and pre-sold out music festivals every Summer, from Coachella (99,000 fans per day) to Glastonbury, it is clear music still appeals to most young people.
Just the sheer fact Facebook, Google and Apple all took music (over every other art form) to sell their products and advertising tells you everything.
Music is massive, it's just that the tech sector managed to create a situation where it was 'OK' to give it away free.
In the current state of affairs, there are already signs pointing to the "festival bubble" collapsing. If that happens, what then?

I've long thought that music is moving along a path that will lead us to conditions pre 1886, it will be a way to socialize and have fun, but there will not be a business left, it will be a communal thing where more or less everyone participates in it, instead of a select few performing it to "listeners". I don't know if it is good or bad, it is what it is.

IIRC Kraftwerk guys envisioned a festival, where one area has a facility where people make music collectively, which is then played in another area where other people are rocking out to the music being made on the other side. Something along those lines maybe, I cant see the future, but my intuition tells me there will be a paradigm shift.
Old 1 week ago
  #263
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm2c View Post
I've long thought that music is moving along a path that will lead us to conditions pre 1886, it will be a way to socialize and have fun, but there will not be a business left, it will be a communal thing where more or less everyone participates in it, instead of a select few performing it to "listeners". I don't know if it is good or bad, it is what it is.
'More or less everyone participates' in sport. we still understand there is a place for the elite, and we pay them to perform. So I really don't see any difference in highly skilled people, who have done the hard yards, and who bring pleasure to millions, being paid to play music full time.
Just like we pay Basketballers, Footballers, cyclists and most Olympians.
Sports started going 'pro' around the same time music started going pro.

What is the difference, other than tech companies have fostered an environment where people think 'all music should be free'?
Old 1 week ago
  #264
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robotchicken View Post
In listening to some of the records of yesteryear, some of the grooves I hear sound wayyy too tight to be true.

I read somewhere that tape was manipulated to correct time in performances.

How common of a practice was this in studios before daws?
Just saw this thread and went through it. Just to try drive it back on topic. I am also a little curious how they made grooves before proliferation of computers to masses and DAWs. I am more curious how did they made the grooves on some of those dance and R&B records in early 90s.

For instance, these ones.. is it all loops and a drum machine into ProTools?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUhRKVIjJtw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rtn06ZW9Xm0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf1zznRZ71U



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
as for "tightness" in general, if you listen to recordings from the earlier era of say the late 60's in to 70's, you'll hear quite a bit of tempo variation from beginning to the end of tunes - some songs rush quite a bit. It's fun, just move the slider around.

some songs had actual tempo accelerando and ritards built in -
Usually happens in live band situations as the song progresses from verse to chorus -- it picks up tempo a bit as everyone playing gets more into the tune then its supposed to drop back down to regular tempo.


Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
I ABSOLUTELY would prefer to go back then. That's when I made money. That's when there was a standard you had to fight through to get a deal, and to get recognized AND there was a budget to get you to break through or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
The demise of the industry had to do with the public unwilling to purchase music and the labels unable to sell and make a profit.
The "demise" of the old music industry had nothing to do with the public and everything to do with the record industry people themselves that were actually, in retrospect, quite stupid when it came to running a business and economics. (I guess too busy doing coke). If you look at it historically, the old music business was build on selling consumers the same product they already had in different formats. LP -> 8 track -> cassette -> CD -> e.t.c.
Where it all they got screwed was when computing and technology enabled the consumer to get access to the music without having to pay for it.
It required people and companies that were specialists in selling consumer devices to get consumers to start to pay for music again (though a minuscule amount compared to the past because -- they are really in the business of selling gadgets not selling CDs or Bluray music or hi-def muisc).

The rest is history and a long line of media companies amalgamating and gobbling up competition which was widespread to a lot of other sectors than just music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
Fewer tours, fewer bands a much smaller pool of available talent.
I completely disagree with this. The opening up of cheap access to decent quality music making tools and ability to release it to the public has opened up the definition of who is and what is "talent" and opened up a slew of music genres that under the old music industry system would never see the light of day. There are a lot of really cool people out there making very niche type music who devote a lot of their time and effort into making their releases great and the time and effort they put into making their music can be directly linked to why they are more popular and have a bigger following than others.

I think what this cheap access to music i doing is opening up options for people to what they want to listen to. Sure, there is the marketing machines and the pop machines still working and targeting certain demographics, that has always been there and always will be there . But there is also an enormous amount of other music out there . It all depends what the person want to and feels like listening to. That other music would have been impossible to get access to in the era before streaming -- now you have situations where a niche artist releases a new track and its instantly available the minute she/he clicks upload.
Old 1 week ago
  #265
Gear Addict
 
robotchicken's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Bottom linje - we NEED to get back to musicians being paid for their work. *Please don't bring up the BS tech propaganda of paying people to sit at home doing nothing. I mean WHEN WE WORK.
This virus crisis has shone a major light n what I've always said - you can't force the music workforce to earn a living just by playing live. Just about everyone except the top 1% are currently unemployable and earning $zero.

A record is a product, just like a movie.
Why we don't tell actors and directors to make movies for free, to help promote their live work (theatre) I don't know.
Over more than ten years at Gearslutz I've seen so many nonsensical arguments that magically didn't apply to anyone else in the workforce.
My paid work ended at the beginning of March when multiple countries stopped gatherings of people and started closing borders.

I released an EP a year ago that's had 20,000 streams on Spotify alone (I know, small beer but....) and I haven't seen a penny from it as yet, and I don't really expect to.

That's OK. My point is, musicians can't be forced to only earn a living from playing live as the current situation completely illustrates. A recording is still a piece of art and it still takes a lot of work to produce. It isn't a freebie.
Can I ask why you haven't been able to collect your revenue from the Spotify streams?
Old 1 week ago
  #266
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robotchicken View Post
Can I ask why you haven't been able to collect your revenue from the Spotify streams?
I think 20K streams amounts to pennies in Spotify land.
Old 1 week ago
  #267
Quote:
Originally Posted by telecode View Post

For instance, these ones.. is it all loops and a drum machine into ProTools?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUhRKVIjJtw
This is a live sample with programmed drums on top.

The original drummer on the Diana Ross hit "I'm Coming out" is Tony Thompson from Chic( Niles Rodgers and Bernard Edwards produced it).

Stevie J of Badboy's Hitmen is the one that flipped it for Mase(which is what BadBoy did alot in the mid late 90's through the 2000's until it got too expensive to get samples cleared). Puffy heard it and gave it to Biggie...rest is history as they say!

[/QUOTE]
Old 1 week ago
  #268
Gear Addict
 
robotchicken's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
I think 20K streams amounts to pennies in Spotify land.
Yea but that's not the point is it.. He made it seem like there was something amiss about him not receiving due revenue from streams.

Just trying to find out what that is...
Old 1 week ago
  #269
Lives for gear
 
telecode's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robotchicken View Post
Can I ask why you haven't been able to collect your revenue from the Spotify streams?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
I think 20K streams amounts to pennies in Spotify land.
The bigger question is, why are you only getting 20K streams if you are making good quality music that connects with a decent size audience?

I follow a lot of what I consider pretty small time nobody artists that are making various variants of EDM and Chillstep. They release a few EPs per year and do tours where they charge between $20 to $30 per ticket for a show with two or three of them performing that night. It's all pretty much peanuts compared to what what concert ticket prices of go. These small artists average around 250k to 500k monthly listeners. What is is that you are doing that is only generating 20K?
Old 1 week ago
  #270
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by robotchicken View Post
Can I ask why you haven't been able to collect your revenue from the Spotify streams?
That’s a joke, right?
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump