The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Is there anyone else here that thinks mixing ITB is a dream come true?
Old 10th July 2009
  #391
Lives for gear
 
che_guitarra's Avatar
 

You can't polish a turd - Good music is good music, my drive as producer is to make it sound it's best and take pride in the end result. OTB might sound 7.89% better than ITB, who knows? 7 Billion can judge our efforts.

Seems to me it's all about the right combo of nice outboard / software / plugs / A/Ds /mics / engineering / tracking / production chops / EXPERIENCE and experimentation... as well as a great band / great songs / right mood / right vibe / right attitude / hot band chops / good gear / right location / right people / right side-kicks and right publication... combined with the right place / time / tools / the right crowd / friends / connections / the right gigs / support /media / marketing /distribution / label affiliations... need I go on.

Quite hard to get it all right.
Old 10th July 2009
  #392
Lives for gear
 
Tube World's Avatar
Wow, 14 pages on this topic. Mixing in the box is a dream come true for me due to automation, and recall. Hours of time is saved with this. Back when Toto did the Africa song (I forget was that Toto IV), they had to have so many guys man the faders and work them for the automation with the analog console. Now with a DAW, you can handle it on your own.

As long as you work with high end mic's, pre's, EQ's and compressors, I don't miss anything that analog has to offer that is not there in a DAW. Work with tracking with great analog gear to get the sound you want, then on a 2 bus, run your mixes through more analog gear, and send it off to the matering house where they run your mixes through more great analog gear.
Old 10th July 2009
  #393
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tube World View Post
Wow, 14 pages on this topic. Mixing in the box is a dream come true for me due to automation, and recall. Hours of time is saved with this. Back when Toto did the Africa song (I forget was that Toto IV), they had to have so many guys man the faders and work them for the automation with the analog console. Now with a DAW, you can handle it on your own.

As long as you work with high end mic's, pre's, EQ's and compressors, I don't miss anything that analog has to offer that is not there in a DAW. Work with tracking with great analog gear to get the sound you want, then on a 2 bus, run your mixes through more analog gear, and send it off to the matering house where they run your mixes through more great analog gear.
And it still sucks, right? I mean compared to , er, Toto......
Old 10th July 2009
  #394
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
If music were cheap enough that people felt free to take risks on things they're unfamiliar with, it'd be selling like hotcakes.

What would happen if iTunes sold entire albums for $.99? There's no medium anymore, there aren't 5 middlemen taking their cut and hyping the margins... why do records still cost $10-15?


.
All those albums you're buying for 99 cents weren't designed to sell for so little. Either they've already earned their money from their first run of music store sales, or they were financial failures. 99 cents an album simply won't economically support the music making process.

Regarding iTunes, the reality as I understand it is that at 99 cents a song no artists, except perhaps the megasellers, are making any real money. At 99 cents an album you'd have to sell about 15 times as many. Not likely, IMO.

There is also the problem of fixed costs per song in terms of the minimum mechanical royalties.

-R
Old 10th July 2009
  #395
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by che_guitarra View Post
You can't polish a turd - Good music is good music, my drive as producer is to make it sound it's best and take pride in the end result. OTB might sound 7.89% better than ITB, who knows? 7 Billion can judge our efforts.

Seems to me it's all about the right combo of nice outboard / software / plugs / A/Ds /mics / engineering / tracking / production chops / EXPERIENCE and experimentation... as well as a great band / great songs / right mood / right vibe / right attitude / hot band chops / good gear / right location / right people / right side-kicks and right publication... combined with the right place / time / tools / the right crowd / friends / connections / the right gigs / support /media / marketing /distribution / label affiliations... need I go on.

Quite hard to get it all right.
Oh, I beg to differ, I have a song I call "the turd" and it break it out once a year for a polishing. It has cellos and a new bass line now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by princeplanet View Post
And it still sucks, right? I mean compared to , er, Toto......
Yup.
Old 10th July 2009
  #396
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
All those albums you're buying for 99 cents weren't designed to sell for so little. Either they've already earned their money from their first run of music store sales, or they were financial failures. 99 cents an album simply won't economically support the music making process.

Hey, let a brother have his pie in the sky!

I'm not claiming the existing model would support .99 albums; I'm just saying that some clever restructuring of the music-buying experience, combined with a price too low to be ignored, the net effect would imo be massive in terms of how consumers come at it, how much they buy, what they end up buying, and how they make the choice to buy in the first place.

Clamoring over royalties and the cost of making the record in the first place might be missing the boat, if the boat is indeed sinking the way it appears to be. If musicians, engineers, producers, and content providers adjusted their expectations of what 'success' looked and felt like, a whole other universe of possibilities might open up before their eyes.

I'm talking about reinvigorating the experience of buying and adopting new music, and the relationship the buyer has to the buying and the listening, from the ground up. Without an interested, excited, willing consumer, what does any business have? What does any product or interest in that product matter?

Can't we do better? Is anybody willing to make sacrifices here, perhaps take a risk, maybe even try something radical?


Gregory Scott - ubk
.
Old 10th July 2009
  #397
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mobius.media View Post
Part of the problem is I think if you want the best sound you need to steer clear of surface mount components, which can't be fixed in a mod - it must be done by the builder - and those take up more space. Discrete opamps and high end parts (Wima, Nichicon Muse) probably wouldn't hurt too, but they're expensive.
The funny thing is that you don't even need an amp of any kind on the front end of an A/D since full scale is only 3.3 or 5 volts.

/Dave
Old 10th July 2009
  #398
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
Dave's attitude is typical of many developers and companies that see every download as a lost sale. What they either don't understand or deliberately ignore is that probably 99% of those people downloading wouldn't be in the market for their product in the first place and that most of those who are are "comparison shopping", which probably bothers the hell out of the many software companies who are trying to peddle inferior products. Of those who actually use what they download without paying for it nearly all couldn't afford to buy it in the first place. If they actually get good enough with it to actually generate income most will go ahead and purchase the products they have been using. How the hell else is some poor kid going to be able to afford to learn to use the software? Go rob a liquor store?
If you knew how may people making major records didn't pay for their software. I don't have a problem with people who can't afford software using free downloads. I also don't have a problem with people who always pay for what they use but I have a big problem with the others which form the majority of the piracy problem.

/Dave
Old 10th July 2009
  #399
Lives for gear
 
gutr2's Avatar
 

What I usually say is - if you can't hear the difference, why waste money on analog? Stay ITB and save a bunch.

But for me, taking the same track and processing it with plugins versus analog is a HUGE difference. No plugins (I have some of the best) give the same sonic satisfaction. Especially compressors and EQs. No plugins can do what my Hammer does to the top end for example. No plugins can add that thickness of my CL1B, or the grit of my MC77.

That sucks cause it's a money pit.. but oh well.
Old 10th July 2009
  #400
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
Hey, let a brother have his pie in the sky!

I'm not claiming the existing model would support .99 albums; I'm just saying that some clever restructuring of the music-buying experience, combined with a price too low to be ignored, the net effect would imo be massive in terms of how consumers come at it, how much they buy, what they end up buying, and how they make the choice to buy in the first place.

Clamoring over royalties and the cost of making the record in the first place might be missing the boat, if the boat is indeed sinking the way it appears to be. If musicians, engineers, producers, and content providers adjusted their expectations of what 'success' looked and felt like, a whole other universe of possibilities might open up before their eyes.

I'm talking about reinvigorating the experience of buying and adopting new music, and the relationship the buyer has to the buying and the listening, from the ground up. Without an interested, excited, willing consumer, what does any business have? What does any product or interest in that product matter?

Can't we do better? Is anybody willing to make sacrifices here, perhaps take a risk, maybe even try something radical?


Gregory Scott - ubk
.
I think most people have readjusted their expectations, and in fact the vast majority of recording musicians would be thrilled to just find themselves at some sort of subsistence level. So by all means, let's figure out how to accomplish this. There are already new paradigms evolving.

As per your suggestion, why don't you make your own album and try selling it for 99 cents. Where will you find your "interested, excited, willing consumer"? The mere fact that you're selling it for 99 cents doesn't find you these consumers, and if it does they won't buy your product JUST because it's only 99 cents. So what will it cost you in terms of money and life sacrifice to create something that a significant number of consumers will want to buy, and then find a way to hip those consumers to its availability?

The sad truth is that most people out there recording their own music are not creating anything that people would be even willing to download for free or listen to at all.

-R
Old 10th July 2009
  #401
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
If you knew how may people making major records didn't pay for their software.
Sure, as I understand it the main reason Digidesign and others moved over to the iLok when they introduced the HD systems was because of the number of cracked plugins out there being used on Mix systems...the users of which, considering the $10K+ - ish point of entry were very unlikely to be the proverbial poor kids who can't afford to buy their plugins.
Old 11th July 2009
  #402
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 

Hey dudes, check these items out:

Pandora Now Limiting Users to only 40 Free Hours per Month
Starting in July, Pandora, the free streaming internet radio service, is going to begin limiting listening to 40 hours per month.
For those unfamiliar, Pandora is a free radio service that allows users to type in the name of either an artist or a song. The music begins to play, and as one song ends, the website plays a song by a similar artist. Thousands of artists have their music featured on Pandora, from Michael Jackson to Lucero.

Until now, the service has been free. Pandora has come up with two solutions:
When you reach the 40 hour limit in a given month, you have the option pay $0.99 for unlimited listening for the rest of that month.
Users can also upgrade to a premium version called Pandora One. Pandora One costs $36 per year.
Pandora has promised to be sure to let users know if they start getting close to the limit, and have created a counter to show how many hours users have already gone through each month.
If Pandora considers you to be a heavy listener, then you will be receiving an e-mail about this soon.

Also:
Radiohead Co-Manager Joins Mama, Nettwerk On Artist Venture

and :
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/te...t/08radio.html
Things are changing for the better.
Old 11th July 2009
  #403
Quote:
What would happen if iTunes sold entire albums for $.99? There's no medium anymore, there aren't 5 middlemen taking their cut and hyping the margins... why do records still cost $10-15?
The problem is that the failure rate for new bands probably remains at the same 85% or higher that it's always been. The costs of an album have nothing to do with the cost of making the album, I don't think. It was the cost of supporting an industry which, because of the nature of the beast, has a failure rate of new 'product' that would completely destroy any other industry. Those that do hit must make enough to both cover the failures and provide a profit sufficient enough that the people who invest in it won't just go put their money elsewhere.
Old 11th July 2009
  #404
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman View Post
As per your suggestion, why don't you make your own album and try selling it for 99 cents.

I'll actually be giving my music away because I have no need of making a profit or even establishing a fanbase, I make music as a woodcarver carves, it's about the doing; but I'm not talking about bedroom warriors here, I'm talking about the machine that's already in place to create the levels of exposure necessary to break an act on a career-making level. This is the entity that I propose may do well to pay a lot more attention to the psychology of the modern consumer and a lot less attention to maximal quarterly dividends, at least while they build something a) more effective and b) more sustainable.

I'm well aware of the challenges and sacrifices involved in creating a worthy product, getting it to market, getting it noticed, and selling it to the end user; if you look at my sig you'll be reminded that I recently did exactly that and am currently undertaking to do it again. I also write and perform great music, and am of the opinion that doing so is neither more difficult nor more mysterious than modifying a high end compressor.

You either have the talent and the drive to do a thing, or you don't. But this is neither here nor there.

There's this vast pool of resources out there specifically designed to locate talent, capture it, and market the end product. They've gotten incredibly efficient at the first two, but they've completely dropped the ball on the third and in their ensuing panic the quality has steadily declined on all 3 fronts. Most discussions on this industry focus almost exclusively on bitching about the talent and the capture, and blaming those for the current state of the sell, when in fact the sales and marketing end is an entity unto its own right and needs to be treated as such or nothing else will matter.

So suppose my initial hyperbolic rush to .99 was changed to 4.99 per album, is that more palatable or workable in anyone's mind? If not, where is the magical price break for a record, and why? And could this industry, as so many others have done out of basic market necessity, determine what the market will bear and build to that cost? Do they even have any clue about any of this?

Time will tell, I suppose.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.
Old 11th July 2009
  #405
Lives for gear
 
synthoid's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
The problem is that the failure rate for new bands probably remains at the same 85% or higher that it's always been. The costs of an album have nothing to do with the cost of making the album, I don't think. It was the cost of supporting an industry which, because of the nature of the beast, has a failure rate of new 'product' that would completely destroy any other industry. Those that do hit must make enough to both cover the failures and provide a profit sufficient enough that the people who invest in it won't just go put their money elsewhere.
The failure rate is pretty spectacular. But the ITB revolution, if it has accomplished nothing else, has probably lowered the cost of failure when it comes to making recordings. I'm not saying good recordings or popular recordings, but recordings. After all, out of all those failures in the tape & vinyl era, there were some pretty LOUSY recordings. If you go back and listen to a stack of demos from say the mid-80s it'll turn your stomach. It's easy to forget how many bad analog recordings got made when we use hindsight to filter out everything except the stellar ones.

And goodness knows that record labels today have become masters of not investing much in their new artists.

What I'm saying is that there might be some hope that the cost of failure has gone down a lot. That's not necessarily a good thing, but it might be that if recordings start making money again, the internal economic balances of a record label will look pretty different than they did a couple decades ago.

-synthoid
Old 11th July 2009
  #406
Lives for gear
 
synthoid's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
So suppose my initial hyperbolic rush to .99 was changed to 4.99 per album, is that more palatable or workable in anyone's mind? If not, where is the magical price break for a record, and why? And could this industry, as so many others have done out of basic market necessity, determine what the market will bear and build to that cost? Do they even have any clue about any of this?
nobody knows about the price point, right? That is, there's not enough of a controlled set of data to really figure out an optimal pricing for albums. And do you mean physical CDs or digital downloads? At some point, if you go cheap enough, the physical CD begins to be interesting again. I mean, look at a stick of gum. It's worth almost nothing, but when you price it for just pennies you sell a lot of them. Digital gum just can't compete.

Where was I?

Oh yeah: it's not so obvious that music buyers today want to buy albums. It kind of looks and feels like a singles market today. Any CD I work on at this point, I'm going to look at as a collection of singles. If there's anything not single-worthy on there, or at least not interesting and viable on its own, I'd be inclined not to bother with it. Especially when using the internet to reach an audience, it's a singles and/or MV market.

-synthoid
Old 11th July 2009
  #407
Lives for gear
 
memphisindie's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
I'll actually be giving my music away because I have no need of making a profit or even establishing a fanbase, I make music as a woodcarver carves, it's about the doing; but I'm not talking about bedroom warriors here, I'm talking about the machine that's already in place to create the levels of exposure necessary to break an act on a career-making level. This is the entity that I propose may do well to pay a lot more attention to the psychology of the modern consumer and a lot less attention to maximal quarterly dividends, at least while they build something a) more effective and b) more sustainable.

I'm well aware of the challenges and sacrifices involved in creating a worthy product, getting it to market, getting it noticed, and selling it to the end user; if you look at my sig you'll be reminded that I recently did exactly that and am currently undertaking to do it again. I also write and perform great music, and am of the opinion that doing so is neither more difficult nor more mysterious than modifying a high end compressor.

You either have the talent and the drive to do a thing, or you don't. But this is neither here nor there.

There's this vast pool of resources out there specifically designed to locate talent, capture it, and market the end product. They've gotten incredibly efficient at the first two, but they've completely dropped the ball on the third and in their ensuing panic the quality has steadily declined on all 3 fronts. Most discussions on this industry focus almost exclusively on bitching about the talent and the capture, and blaming those for the current state of the sell, when in fact the sales and marketing end is an entity unto its own right and needs to be treated as such or nothing else will matter.

So suppose my initial hyperbolic rush to .99 was changed to 4.99 per album, is that more palatable or workable in anyone's mind? If not, where is the magical price break for a record, and why? And could this industry, as so many others have done out of basic market necessity, determine what the market will bear and build to that cost? Do they even have any clue about any of this?

Time will tell, I suppose.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.
One, you can't sell what you can't believe in.
Two, everything you named has a price and is budgeted in or not.
Everything about marketing a hit record can have pretty knowable price. It is about Talent first an foremost, that is the product and what makes what the product is portrayed on over time, the recording of it. BUT, talent MUST be developed if it is to be great, very rarely is anyone gifted with the kind of talent it takes to be truly great, even then it must be steered, guided, cultivated and supported. THAT cost money, so, it's about the bottom line and the talent now.
That's where the problem is, we don't develop talent, although, that is changing now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by synthoid View Post
The failure rate is pretty spectacular. But the ITB revolution, if it has accomplished nothing else, has probably lowered the cost of failure when it comes to making recordings. I'm not saying good recordings or popular recordings, but recordings. After all, out of all those failures in the tape & vinyl era, there were some pretty LOUSY recordings. If you go back and listen to a stack of demos from say the mid-80s it'll turn your stomach. It's easy to forget how many bad analog recordings got made when we use hindsight to filter out everything except the stellar ones.
And goodness knows that record labels today have become masters of not investing much in their new artists.

What I'm saying is that there might be some hope that the cost of failure has gone down a lot. That's not necessarily a good thing, but it might be that if recordings start making money again, the internal economic balances of a record label will look pretty different than they did a couple decades ago.
-synthoid
Great points in bold, unfortunately to create greatness, the cost of failure must be unacceptably high, the stakes must be everything every time. Pressure is actually good, that's also where talent development and support, proper support, are crucial. Talent under that kind of pressure needs support, not just a fund, that's where the "team" came in, personal managers, PA's, etc., they don't work for free.
I actually heard a major label person say, "we want to see if we can get rock record recording funds ($250k+ at the time) down to the same level as rap records ($12k at the time)". There was no impending economic reason at the time for adopting this method to that degree other than greed. I heard a very high profile manager working for a minor with multiple #1's at the time say "I don't want f•••ing develop this guy, bring him to me ready". Pretty bad considering this was around 1988 to 1990.
Quote:
Originally Posted by synthoid View Post
nobody knows about the price point, right? That is, there's not enough of a controlled set of data to really figure out an optimal pricing for albums. And do you mean physical CDs or digital downloads? At some point, if you go cheap enough, the physical CD begins to be interesting again. I mean, look at a stick of gum. It's worth almost nothing, but when you price it for just pennies you sell a lot of them. Digital gum just can't compete.
Where was I?
Oh yeah: it's not so obvious that music buyers today want to buy albums. It kind of looks and feels like a singles market today. Any CD I work on at this point, I'm going to look at as a collection of singles. If there's anything not single-worthy on there, or at least not interesting and viable on its own, I'd be inclined not to bother with it. Especially when using the internet to reach an audience, it's a singles and/or MV market.
-synthoid
Garbage in garbage out, nothing in nothing out, no money in... you get it. nothing ventured, nothing gained, old old old saying.
Anyone remember old Genesis records?
I heard Cy Kearnan once say "It's good to be playing here, right up front and intimate like this" in the bar at the bottom of 251W 30th street in NYC, Downtime, was the bar I believe it was new then. I couldn't help but think, wow, this is what The Fixx is doing this year, that just sounds like a cover for a shrinking share of a dwindling biz, choked by cheapness and greed. They rocked and it has never been about intimate shows for me, though I've done my share of them, I always tried to make them like an arena show in a 600 seater. I like the audience to Feel all the power of the music and performance as if it were and arena and not necessarily with volume.
So, I didn't believe him.
I really think it's about to be time for album rock again after this singles time, but, they'll have to as good as old genesis records where some other artist vibes off just a part of one of the songs and creates a new extended production of it, not necessarily a new genre, we need to avoid labeling genre's this time, really really need to avoid that.
Old 11th July 2009
  #408
Another problem with the 99 cent album is that the physical package was never really that much of the cost anyway, right? The higher costs of CDs in the early days would have been more about recoupment of development costs for a (then radically) new format, and to some degree early on the lack of lots of production facilities I assume. But it's probably long since not been that big a part of the cost of the product, I woudln't think.

You have to remember that inflation has gone up over 2x since the CD came out, but it's price in dollars hasn't changed much, and with the fact of online purchasing probaby gone down. So, in effect, they are already 2x than back in the day for the same dollar cost (more or less), and the actual dollar price is dropping. And the cost of the physical medium probably hasn't been a large part of the cost for a while, I wouldn't think. So where would the slack come from to reduce the price that much? I don't think that getting rid of the physical mechanism would remotely make up for it.

If you look at the price of albums online, and of download prices, they are now probably making way less per track probably than back in the day, even if you in turn factor in getting rid of some of the middle men and didn't include the inflaction factor. I just panned thorugh a few pages of the last 30 days releases. The average price per disc is probably something like $12. Figure 2x inflation and that's $6 or less in real dollars relative to the time that CDs first came out.

Or, maybe I'm completely wrong. I dunno.
Old 11th July 2009
  #409
Lives for gear
 
synthoid's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by memphisindie View Post
unfortunately to create greatness, the cost of failure must be unacceptably high, the stakes must be everything every time.
I disagree. There is a whole mythology about the creative process that says that no one ever created anything great unless they were starving and stressed beyond imagination. History doesn't support this notion in my opinion. There are all kinds of examples of outstanding creativity by people who were not operating under duress or the threat of financial doom if they failed.

Quote:
Pressure is actually good, that's also where talent development and support, proper support, are crucial.
Right, and you go on to make good points about team and labels and so on. And I like what you say about labeling genres too, that drives me crazy and I can't see much good that has come of it.

But it doesn't follow that if some pressure is good then more and more pressure is better. It's possible to put so much financial pressure on a person that they buckle under it, out of common sense or concern for those around them, etc.

I'm not trying to leap out at you, because I agree with most everything you wrote. But I think it's worth throwing some cold water on the notion that a music business that's perpetually in dire financial straits is a good thing for productivity and creativity somehow.

-synthoid
Old 11th July 2009
  #410
death spiral

Dean,

Good observations and points.

It's becoming almost impossible to make a profit on physical product. For the first time ever in my 23yrs I ran a P/L on a 200k unit I/O and the breakpoint was just about even with that I/O because of reduced wholesale price demands by retailers. List price is no relevant.

When you've gotta flatline at 200k units in a declining marketplace, its pretty much over.

I can't see how labels will support a physical business after this xmas.

There's not much better margin on digital product, sans for the fact there is no mfg costs, inventory or returns liability - so the P/L is cleaner based on actual units sold. At that point it's all about containing upfront costs and scaling marketing expenses.

Retail's buzz phrase has been "on demand" inventory management, which is now leading to "on demand" marketing! Welcome to the death spiral...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
Another problem with the 99 cent album is that the physical package was never really that much of the cost anyway, right? The higher costs of CDs in the early days would have been more about recoupment of development costs for a (then radically) new format, and to some degree early on the lack of lots of production facilities I assume. But it's probably long since not been that big a part of the cost of the product, I woudln't think.

You have to remember that inflation has gone up over 2x since the CD came out, but it's price in dollars hasn't changed much, and with the fact of online purchasing probaby gone down. So, in effect, they are already 2x than back in the day for the same dollar cost (more or less), and the actual dollar price is dropping. And the cost of the physical medium probably hasn't been a large part of the cost for a while, I wouldn't think. So where would the slack come from to reduce the price that much? I don't think that getting rid of the physical mechanism would remotely make up for it.

If you look at the price of albums online, and of download prices, they are now probably making way less per track probably than back in the day, even if you in turn factor in getting rid of some of the middle men and didn't include the inflaction factor. I just panned thorugh a few pages of the last 30 days releases. The average price per disc is probably something like $12. Figure 2x inflation and that's $6 or less in real dollars relative to the time that CDs first came out.

Or, maybe I'm completely wrong. I dunno.
Old 11th July 2009
  #411
so much great stuff in this post, but I'll just take this one line:

Quote:
Originally Posted by memphisindie View Post
Garbage in garbage out, nothing in nothing out, no money in... you get it. nothing ventured, nothing gained, old old old saying.
and to wit - more canvases and more paints don't make more picasso's - just because recording technology has gotten cheaper doesn't mean we have more geniuses

see here:
SoundClick - Free MP3 music download and much, much more.

Here's #1 Pop Song on Soundclick Right Now
MP3 Player SoundClick
Old 11th July 2009
  #412
And I should have pointed out that that real dollars $6 value is the *retail* price, which means that the real dollars value getting back to the labels who shoulder the huge failure rates and production costs is something south of that.
Old 11th July 2009
  #413
Quote:
Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios View Post
so much great stuff in this post, but Here's #1 Pop Song on Soundclick Right Now
MP3 Player SoundClick
Ouch! I'm always very loath to put down music that young people like, because for it to be popular it has to be saying something to them. But that seemed pretty wretched.
Old 11th July 2009
  #414
point is - that's whats #1 on soundclick with all the "investment" that's gone into it... and this is the #1 song on Itunes by comparison with all the investment that's gone into it:

iTunes Store - Black Eyed Peas - The E.N.D. (The Energy Never Dies) - I Gotta Feeling

and that's the difference between a bedroom and a record label...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey View Post
Ouch! I'm always very loath to put down music that young people like, because for it to be popular it has to be saying something to them. But that seemed pretty wretched.
Old 11th July 2009
  #415
Lives for gear
 
herecomesyourman's Avatar
I'm an engineer damnit.

I'll mix in the box or on a board or in a friggin' cassette deck if I have to, all I care about is results.

That being said I really dig Audio Damage plugins...Adverb rocked my world last year, ever since I've really been doing a lot of fun stuff with aux sends ITB.

Also I kind of run my sessions like a tape machine if I can...so mixing in the box never seems to be a chore when it comes to getting sessions to be cohesive.
Old 11th July 2009
  #416
Quote:
Originally Posted by herecomesyourman View Post
Also I kind of run my sessions like a tape machine if I can...so mixing in the box never seems to be a chore when it comes to getting sessions to be cohesive.
Hear here! 24 tracks and 8 busses!
Old 11th July 2009
  #417
Gear Guru
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by memphisindie View Post
Everything about marketing a hit record can have pretty knowable price.

I would argue that the marketing methods of the major label music biz are as cumbersome, ill-conceived, and ineffective as any industry anywhere on the planet.

Why? Because they now have two jobs: first, to get a consumers attention and convince them that the product is something they want; and second, to convince them to *pay* for the product. This second level is, afaik, unique to music and software, which are now one and the same.

So how do you deal with this reality, which most assuredly is a reality? You can't come at it with traditional thinking, it doesn't work. You have to completely redefine what it means to shop and buy music. It is no longer simply enough to find/cultivate the talent and produce it in a compelling manner, because people can and will pirate it. You have to build meaning and significance into the very act of acquiring it.

People think that music is losing its value, but its not; the experience of getting the music has. Buying music now looks, feels, and is nearly identical to stealing it. You fire up software, you browse, you point, you click, it downloads. Aside from the isolation and sterility, there's nothing but a razor thin ethical line dividing the two experiences.

There has to be something more on offer, something more at stake, for the consumer to be motivated to choose one over the other in ways that the industry can bank on... literally.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.
Old 11th July 2009
  #418
Quote:
Aside from the isolation and sterility, there's nothing but a razor thin ethical line dividing the two experiences.
It's not razor thin. Everyone knows perfectly well they are stealing it. And, frankly, it doesn't matter how thin the line is. You know which side you are one. And it doesn't matter how close to the other side you are. It only matters, from an ethical standpoint, which side you are on.
Old 11th July 2009
  #419
Gear Addict
 
B-sharp's Avatar
 

I work in the box with a decent front end, in my bedroom because it's what I've got right now. I can get some pretty decent sounding tracks. I still have a lot to learn. Performance is key (the understatement of the year.)

But........Did you guys happen to notice that most consumers are listening to low sampled mp3's through stock Ipod crap headphones? Now, one could argue that Since the the standard is so low, that edge of OTB is all the more important. Honestly, the average person probably won't notice or care!

Good material... A good performance... A good mix and tasteful mastering....


ITB, OTB? keep the engineer happy. Beyond that.....who cares?
Old 11th July 2009
  #420
Quote:
Originally Posted by B-sharp View Post


ITB, OTB? keep the engineer happy. Beyond that.....who cares?
We as the engineers should. Before the mixes are played for the clients, we need to be happy and satisfied first with the sonics & vibe.

We are the first line in the defense and if something gets by us that we don't approve or like the clients will pick up on it.

How can you play something confidently to a client you can't really stand behind? The answer is you can't. So maybe that's why everything appears to be a bit on the "too anal side" to someone who doesn't really have these concerns. Nothing feels more deflating or frustrating then when you hit a brickwall sonically knowing that even though things sound good it could sound better if.

Whatever "if" is, is that which is in question here.
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