James Combs <jwcombs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: On Dec 21, 2007, at 11:37 AM, BK
Broyla wrote:
> Since I'm curmudgeonly I have to find a bone to pick, and it's the
> flippant claim that anyone can make a record with the same laptop
> they use to check their email.
I took away a slightly broader interpretation of that statement; that
the cost of studio quality audio has plummeted, and that bands no
longer have to go into a studio to make a sellable album. It's been
nearly 15 years since I paid money to a "recording studio" for my
recordings. With what I paid for my first TASCAM 4-track setup back
in the day, I could get a pretty righteous MacBook system today with
10X the capability to make great recordings. Of course, I'm old and
actually know how to produce, engineer, mix, and master. I agree the
equipt doesn't run itself.
---
Ah, the Tascam 4-track-- still have mine. Going by your interpretation, sure I
agree with that, though he said 'recording costs have declined to almost zero'
and 'many if not most artists will be able to record this way', which seems
more extreme to me. I've made saleable music also, but how many people does it
sell to? It's gotten cheaper and higher-fidelity for the hobbyist/semipro
market certainly, but how much has it changed, in terms of recording costs and
methods, for people who make their full living at it, like Byrne or Radiohead?
When I hear 'artists in the music industry' I think of people whose albums you
can get in Best Buy and people who tour regionally, not the folks at
GarageBand.com or CDBaby. (CDBaby is great, but if you add all the sales of
all their artists it's about one or two major-label hit albums, and even there,
12% of their artists make 90% of their sales). Small fry, myself included.
I'm not trying to equate artistry with popularity or run down the
do-it-yourselfers which most of us here are, just saying if you want to make an
album _that gets heard and bought by enough people to support you financially_
it's still more likely to be done in a traditional studio or at least a
well-financed home studio with experienced band members/engineers. I'd be
willing to bet at least 90% of all albums sold are recorded in expensive
studios, even if most musicians are not doing it that way.
If someone has a MacBook, they still need an audio recording program and effect
plugins, which may replace tape, outboard effects, and the mixing board. What
about preamps, cables, stands and mics? SM58 <> Neumann. I'm sure you have a
lot of the auxiliary gear and experience from years of doing this, but someone
starting out would have to outlay some $ and a learning curve. And you make a
good point-- 'the equipment doesn't run itself.' Chimp at a laptop <> Tom
Dowd. ;-) I just think Byrne is overstating the case for the majority of 'the
industry'.
---
My audience seems to be 50% CDs and 50% downloads, but I've been
selling more downloads the last half of the year than CDs. But I
can't afford to abandon nor focus on one format over the other. I've
even considered remastering my latest album for a vinyl release,
albeit in small quantities. One vinyl release every 25 years seems
cool;^)
---
You make a lot of good points, and the 50/50 setup seems reasonable. It just
seemed like Byrne was saying everything is going digital, and unless it does,
there will still be a need for the traditional M&D, albeit from record
companies that are smaller or different, or some third party. Good luck with
the record!
Brian
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.