A Pro Musician Answers Your Questions About Professional Music
So, my recent posts of some recordings reminded me that things I consider part of ordinary life are sometimes mystical to people outside of my little world. I thought it would be fun to throw open the door a bit, and give people a peak inside how things really work.
So, think of this thread as an "insider perspective" on the music industry. If you have any questions, I'll answer them as well as I can. I prefer not to answer questions about my specific career (private messages might be more appropriate for that), but about things in general. If you wonder how people get paid, who does what on an album, how people find work, what the studio process is really like, anything like that, I'll answer as best I can.
So, ask away.
My BIL is a drummer who toured with a band for a couple of years, and made enough money to live off that income at the time. But the band broke up. He's recently lost his fall back day job.
What are the prospects for getting paying work in a studio or something like that? He's in northern New Jersey and could make it in to NYC. How do you get into the studio musician world?
Almost everybody makes it into the recording world by being a first-call sub for somebody already working. Usually that means being a student of one of the top players. There are a lot of people who pay to take lessons from the top call players specifically so that they can get on their radar, and hopefully start picking up sessions that the top call guy can't do.
My path in was a little different. I played keyboards for a major label artist on her very last tour. After she got off the road, she started working as a song-writer and producer for up and coming female artists. She pulled me in to play keyboards on the recordings, and from there I was able to network with other people in the recording industry.
The live world and the recording world are surprisingly separate from each other. The live world is sort of the slums of the music industry. It doesn't pay very well unless you're at the very top, a lot of young players get hired because they're cheap and pretty, and the standards for musicianship are usually pretty low. There are a LOT of people trying to make the transition from playing live to playing on recordings.
Are there people who are kinda not talented, but who get by because they're dependable and not assholes and maybe know a couple good jokes? Like a guitarist who can't solo anything but 12 bar blues, which he's great at but can't really do much else, but he's a good guy and people like having him around?
The live world and the recording world are surprisingly separate from each other. The live world is sort of the slums of the music industry.
FWIW, the same is true from the mixing/engineering side of things. Setting the mix for a live performance is a completely different beast from running things in a nice studio, and depending on the venue can require much more skill to do it well, yet everyone I've ever worked with would still rather do
anything in a studio than run a live tour, no matter how big or famous. Maybe because in the studio you're the "engineer," while on tour you're just called a "roadie."
Since you work with keyboards...
What is the best recording software? I normally use either Reaper or Soundbooth as of now, but is there anything better out there?
Have you seen the film being screened about The Wrecking Crew?
http://www.wreckingcrew.tv/index2.html Ever met any of those folks?
Just saw that not too long ago at a film festival, very cool stuff I hope it makes it to DVD soon.
Are there people who are kinda not talented, but who get by because they're dependable and not assholes and maybe know a couple good jokes? Like a guitarist who can't solo anything but 12 bar blues, which he's great at but can't really do much else, but he's a good guy and people like having him around?
Converse to the guy who has killer chops but is impossible to get along with?
I've read that "not being an asshole" is among the most desirable qualities.
Are there people who are kinda not talented, but who get by because they're dependable and not assholes and maybe know a couple good jokes? Like a guitarist who can't solo anything but 12 bar blues, which he's great at but can't really do much else, but he's a good guy and people like having him around?
No, not really. Studio players are almost all amazingly versatile. I've seen players go from nylon string classical guitar solos to flamenco to face-melting power chords all on the same session. That's the norm.
There are a handful of people who have built a career out of being good at only one thing, but that one thing is usually very niche, like being good at authentic early delta blues dobro guitar, or chinese folk erhu.
Being dependable and not an asshole and knowing a couple of good jokes is important, but if you can't hang with the music, you don't get called back. You might get called to go out for beers after the session, but in the room, what matters is what matters, the music.
Since you work with keyboards...
What is the best recording software? I normally use either Reaper or Soundbooth as of now, but is there anything better out there?
For the money, I don't think you can beat
Apple's Logic Studio. I use that pretty much exclusively for programming, sound design, composing, film scoring. I use
Pro Tools when I have to, but for everything else, I use Logic.
Setting the mix for a live performance is a completely different beast from running things in a nice studio, and depending on the venue can require much more skill to do it well, yet everyone I've ever worked with would still rather do anything in a studio than run a live tour, no matter how big or famous.
I have ton of respect for good live engineers. They can make or break show.
But I've never known a live engineer who can make $250k in a year, and I know dozens of studio engineers who clear that.
There are no back-end royalties on live tours.
Have you seen the film being screened about The Wrecking Crew? http://www.wreckingcrew.tv/index2.html Ever met any of those folks?
Just saw that not too long ago at a film festival, very cool stuff I hope it makes it to DVD soon.
The Wrecking Crew were waaaaay before my time, and frankly way higher up than any of the circles I'm traveling in. The closest I've come to any of them is buying a bunch of old gear that Glen Campbell used on his live rig.
I did some low-level technical work on a software instrument called the Trilogy, a bass emulator. Carol Kaye was a consultant on it, but I've never met her.
Have you seen the film being screened about The Wrecking Crew? http://www.wreckingcrew.tv/index2.html Ever met any of those folks?
Just saw that not too long ago at a film festival, very cool stuff I hope it makes it to DVD soon.
I've gotta see that. I've emailed with Carol Kaye a couple of times over the years. Great gal, incredible bassist.
Pro Musician:
Have you gotten rich yet doing local gigs for weddings? What do you eat for dinner on a regular basis? Have you considered growing your own food or raising chickens to supplement your diet?
Have you gotten rich yet doing local gigs for weddings? What do you eat for dinner on a regular basis? Have you considered growing your own food or raising chickens to supplement your diet?
1. Yes, most of my fabulous wealth comes from butchering Stevie Wonder tunes while wearing a tux.
2. Well, this week my wife is gone, so the answer has been mostly tequila and burgers.
3. That sounds like a very inefficient use of my drinking time. I think I'll stick with the solution provided by living in a robust free-market economy, and let some other chump do it for me.
I've gotta see that. I've emailed with Carol Kaye a couple of times over the years. Great gal, incredible bassist.
She's in the film a number of times, old footage from back in the day and interviews from more recent years. It's being produced by a son of one of the Crew, Denny Tedesco. I just got a newsletter email from the site saying they're shooting for an early 2010 release date for the DVD. It's going to have a TON of footage, interviews, etc. Licensing issues are really the only thing holding it up at this point. Plus they're working hard on releasing a soundtrack to go along with the DVD that gives credit where it's due. I can't wait.
I can't even imagine what a nightmare clearing licenses would be on something like this.
Dear Professional Musician,
I want to be a rich and famous rock star and have chicks hurling themselves at me. I have no talent, average looks, and don't want to work hard. What should my parents buy me?
Hopeful.
Dear professional musician, Please will you write a theme tune for the cellar?
Dear Professional Musician,
I want to be a rich and famous rock star and have chicks hurling themselves at me. I have no talent, average looks, and don't want to work hard. What should my parents buy me?
Hopeful.
Plastic surgery and Autotune.
Dear professional musician, Please will you write a theme tune for the cellar?
Sure! you write the lyrics, I'll write the music.
Dear professional musician, Please will you write a theme tune for the cellar?
Sure! you write the lyrics, I'll write the music.
And then we'll all perform it - can we send you files which you can tweak to make an ensemble out of, Smooth? If so, what sort?
I was thinking more instrumental.... Hmm.....
How about this:
"The Cellar - The Musical"
With full singing and dancing, choreography.
I was thinking more instrumental.... Hmm.....
Yabbut there could be a verse or two or even just a chorus ....
Mr Pro M, (if that is indeed your real name)
Forgive me if you've already covered this at some point. I'm too lazy to search the archives for your comments on this issue.
As an outsider I enjoy the musical talents of a wide variety of artists but do not know any pro musicians personally. What little I do read of them is that they're generally a bit crazy or perverted. Or both.
Here are my questions:
Have you had the opportunity to become casual friends with a bonifide rich and famous musician? Hopefully you have so you can provide interesting answers to my next questions.
Is this person in balance meaning that they may be able to create popular quality music but can't seem to tie their laces.
Does this person know their own shortcomings? Or does his ego completely ignore any personal weaknesses?
Fame and money aside, would you like to spend time with this person?
In recent years I've met people that have very famous friends and was quite pleasantly surprised with those celebrities' personal lives and dealings with the world outside of their fame and fortune.
Completely opposite from their public persona.
I'm hoping that this is true of at least some highly popular musicians.
Can you support that hope ( and change :) )?
"keep hope alive" - Jessie Jackson {man who thinks he is uncle to Micheal}
Mr Pro M, (if that is indeed your real name)
It is. I had it legally changed after the incident with the mexican bull and the midget jugglers.
As an outsider I enjoy the musical talents of a wide variety of artists but do not know any pro musicians personally. What little I do read of them is that they're generally a bit crazy or perverted. Or both.
I think you're talking about artists vs. pro musicians. Artists are the ones whose names you know. Pro musicians are the blue-collar people who actually make the albums.
Have you had the opportunity to become casual friends with a bonifide rich and famous musician? Hopefully you have so you can provide interesting answers to my next questions.
Yep. Good friends, families are friends, I officiated at their wedding, kids play together.
Is this person in balance meaning that they may be able to create popular quality music but can't seem to tie their laces.
As balanced as any other person. Their perspective on what is normal is a bit skewed, but it seems like it would almost have to be, when everyone you meet treats you differently.
Does this person know their own shortcomings? Or does his ego completely ignore any personal weaknesses?
A little of both. They tend to have a decent sense of their character and personality short-comings, they tend to have a huge blind spot for their musical weaknesses.
Fame and money aside, would you like to spend time with this person?
Yep. We do.
When you were at the Berk did you know a guy named Thomas Anthony? How about Nate Collins?
I never went to Berklee. I did an artist certificate program with them, but it was in LA - they brought their faculty out to Claremont for the summer, and we studied there.
Is there danger of being too good? Many people say they didn't like Steely Dan because it was too precise, for example, or that slick highly produced works are unauthentic or even worse, sterile.
My own example of this is the Hooters, who started with a *wonderful* 5 song local EP that everybody in Philly heard, it just rocked. And then we were all deeply disappointed when they did some of the same songs on their major debut. They had enough studio time to slick-ify their sound, which just ruined the songs, from our perspective.
Then there's, like, Ben Folds, who is clearly quite talented as a player and yet there's a certain lovely imprecision about how he plays. He tours with a grand piano, which must be a constant tuning nightmare, and yet he throws his stool at it at the end of the show.
I never went to Berklee. I did an artist certificate program with them, but it was in LA - they brought their faculty out to Claremont for the summer, and we studied there.
My ex went to Berklee. Piano player as well.
Is there danger of being too good? Many people say they didn't like Steely Dan because it was too precise, for example, or that slick highly produced works are unauthentic or even worse, sterile.
My own example of this is the Hooters, who started with a *wonderful* 5 song local EP that everybody in Philly heard, it just rocked. And then we were all deeply disappointed when they did some of the same songs on their major debut. They had enough studio time to slick-ify their sound, which just ruined the songs, from our perspective.
Then there's, like, Ben Folds, who is clearly quite talented as a player and yet there's a certain lovely imprecision about how he plays. He tours with a grand piano, which must be a constant tuning nightmare, and yet he throws his stool at it at the end of the show.
Oh, God. I must remind myself that I have work to do and I can't take the time to compose a novella-length response to this. What a goldmine of discussion this opens up. I will be revisiting this topic as soon as possible.
Edit: This is drivin' me crazy. I'd like to see everyone weigh in on this.
Are you really famous and we just don't know it?
Dear Mr. P-M,
Two friends of mine wrote an EP's worth of material. I pulled some strings and put together enough equipment to get a clunky recording space set up (a basement; vocalist in the bathroom down the hall), and pulled 4 tracks with only a little bit of guitar bleedthrough on all of the mics, etc. I'm now gradually going about mixing it, after the fact, and trying to undo all the damage that a lack of experience did in two days of recording. They're across the country from me, now, and in a state of constant strife; recording more isn't really possible.
So, now that I have about 25 minutes of music that I'm quite fond of, in spite of it being very raw and unrefined and sometimes straight up crude, I'm not sure what to do with it. They're uninterested in commercial success, and my only absolute goal was to have something to set down as a semipermanent portrait of the music that they were making at the time.
Once the mix is done, what can I do on the low end of financial and emotional investment to get the music "out there"? Burn a few hundred copies and give them to friends?
Are you really famous and we just don't know it?
Ask your mom.
Are you really famous and we just don't know it?
Definitely not. I've probably played on a couple things you've heard on the radio, but no, nobody outside of this town knows my name.
Once the mix is done, what can I do on the low end of financial and emotional investment to get the music "out there"? Burn a few hundred copies and give them to friends?
Yeah, probably. You can submit it to iTunes using
tunecore, and then email the link around to family and friends. You might recoup a little cash, and it'll at least be making the music public.
Get a release from the artists first. People who "don't care about the money" have a nasty way of becoming very care-about-the-money once there's some actual money to care about.
Is there danger of being too good? Many people say they didn't like Steely Dan because it was too precise, for example, or that slick highly produced works are unauthentic or even worse, sterile.
My own example of this is the Hooters, who started with a *wonderful* 5 song local EP that everybody in Philly heard, it just rocked. And then we were all deeply disappointed when they did some of the same songs on their major debut. They had enough studio time to slick-ify their sound, which just ruined the songs, from our perspective.
Then there's, like, Ben Folds, who is clearly quite talented as a player and yet there's a certain lovely imprecision about how he plays. He tours with a grand piano, which must be a constant tuning nightmare, and yet he throws his stool at it at the end of the show.
Whew.
Like Flint, I could write a novel about this.
I think I come down on this side of the argument: the cases you've cited are not a problem of being "too good", they're an issue of being very bad at artistry, and overcompensating on something technical. That technical thing can be studio editing, use of error-correcting software, or just highly technical execution of difficult playing.
Artistry is the craft of knowing what matters, at least that's part of it. It's knowing that the thing that matters most is this passionate thing here, more than this technical thing here. That's not always the case - if the guitarist hits a very passionate clunker of a note, then the technical matters waaaaay more than the passion. Artistry is knowing the difference.
I almost came to blows with an artist on an album last summer. That never, ever happens, I'm a very low-key guy. I know this artist really well, and we have a long history, so I treat him a little differently in the studio. We were recording a song that was wide open, exposed fender rhodes and voice, and that's it. The rhodes was bleeding into the vocal mic, and there were all kinds of things that were technically bad on the song. But, in the middle of the verse, he sang this incredible, soul-wrenching vocal that had a crack right in the middle of it.
The crack was wrong (technically) but it was right, in every way, for the song. He wanted to trash it and start over. I fought to keep it exactly as it was. I was right. He was wrong. He was too close to the project to see it. Eventually, he kept it in, and everyone who hears the record just goes nuts over that song.
It's not an issue of being "too good", it's an issue of knowing what matters for a particular song. Which stuff is important changes based on genre, the mood, the instrumentation, the specific song, all of that has to come into consideration, but it's the job of the artist to be very, very good at picking out the thing that matters.
At least half the appeal of the liberty bell is the crack.
At least half the appeal of the liberty bell is the crack.
Well that makes sense. I hear the area it's in is pretty run-down.
Thats a pretty good part of Philly, I believe. It was ok for a city the last time I was there. I guess it was mebbe 2 or 3 years ago (it was 5) .
Some ten or more years ago, when I talked to a composer/bandleader friend, the production of an album was considered in the several $10k range and it was hard to find this kind of money. Meanwhile, they put out at least one album per year, while I don't see that funding has improved (on the contrary rather). - So my question is: Have prices come down over the past 10-15 years, perhaps due to the fact(?) that these days anyone can setup a production studio at a comparatively low cost?
Oh can I take a shot at this one and them you can correct or add as you see fit SM?! This seems like a semi-pro question and not a pro question...
I've known a few people at the semi-pro level who have recorded albums for $5k, often at studios charging $25/hour. This is mostly guitar/bass/simple drums stuff, which people have recorded for a long time, and many people know how to do it. The result is "good enough" in that the results are accurate, pleasant, and convey the artist's songs sufficiently.
That same amount of money, invested in recording gear, would get you enough stuff to do some semi-pro recording yourself, provided you know what you're doing and depending on what you're trying to record. This is the sea change, because to record 72 tracks 30 years ago took a dedicated facility with massive equipment (huge 2" tape machines with large motors and remote automation!) and a full-time engineer keeping things running. Now 90% of that gear can be replaced with a $1k computer and $1k of software... as much as would be spent just on special recording tape, 30 years ago.
It's the "know what you're doing" part that seems to separate the pro from the semi-pro, and to take something from 90% done to 100% done, sonically broadcast-ready and marketable, etc. Furthermore there are sonic "fashions" which we minions are rarely even aware of, which go in and out of style as fast as women's shoes.
Take it SM
It is fairly easy nowadays to get a professional sounding recording from your own home.
But know which programs to use and how to use them BEFORE recording, because it is a real pain to have to go back and re-do everything.
My son Danny (17) wants to know how important is it to be able to read traditional music? Danny reads tone-notes.
And he wants me to say that he thinks you're bad ass for being a pro musician.
My son Danny (17) wants to know how important is it to be able to read traditional music? Danny reads tone-notes.
And he wants me to say that he thinks you're bad ass for being a pro musician.
I never really learnt to read music and music education at my school was lousy and next to non-existent. I have been interested in seriously listening to music (jazz) since I was 14. But it was only my mid-thirties, when I struck up acquaintance with my favourite musicians, that I wish I had had a better music education.
Here is where my friends record for a number of years now: Jon Hiseman's (of Colosseum fame) studio:
http://www.temple-music-studio.com/
That certainly looks pro to me.
UT is right on the money with this one, especially if you are making a "band" record, where the players are all working for free. Self-produced albums take less money, and a lot more time. If you have to pay the players, the money you saved by self-producing gets eaten up by paying players to sit there while you figure out how to make a record.
I think everyone should at least attempt to produce their own first album. You will learn more about music, about your own playing and songwriting, than almost anything else you could do.
Then, I highly recommend getting pros involved on the second go round. You'll appreciate the difference.
This is my thumbnail sketch of a budget for producing a pop singer/songwriter using everything pro, with the intention of getting songs placed on TV and Film, and major radio airplay. This is an indie budget, and includes no marketing, distribution, or even manufacturing budget.
Primary tracking (6 days)
Studio: $5000/ week (lockout with assistant engineer)
Engineer: $4500 ($450 per day)
Rhythm Section: $18,000 ($750 per day, 4 players, 6 days)
Vocal Tracking (3 days)
Studio: $1350 ($450 per day, including engineer)
Overdubs
Guitar: $1500 (2 days, his studio)
Keyboards: $1500 (2 days, my studio)
Mix (10 songs)
mix prep: $750 ($75 per song)
mix standard: $9600 ($1200 x 8 songs)
mix singles: $6000 ($3000 x 2 songs)
mastering: $3000 ($300 per song)
total: $51,200
This is what it would cost to make an album that could compete musically, sonically, artistically, with anything out there. This is hiring the best players around (maybe not the best known, but still top tier guys), great studios, high end mix, everything.
I hate the factor of money in music.
The words "music" and "industry" right next to each other sickens me.
Money just provides access to necessary resources, as it does in any other area of life.
In the most basic scenario, a musician spends money on a better quality instrument instead of other things.
So, I guess I'll just tell Danny you didn't respond to his question.
ok.
I hate the factor of money in music.
The words "music" and "industry" right next to each other sickens me.
Ah yes, the old "art shouldn't be whored out for money" crap. Ask yourself why a song contains more "art" than, say, a masterfully-architectured building, and why the architect ought to be paid like any other job, but the musician should somehow belong to... what? Some completely different society where they are just taken care of, for being so special?
Music is different. If someone is getting paid a lot to do music, then they are likely popular. To maintain the popularity, the record label dumbs down the sound for the mainstream masses, which only enjoy simple, catchy tunes. Every single mainstream album has one or two good songs on it, and the rest is all filler crap. All they have to do is promote a single song, make an MTV compatible music video for it, and wala. They make money, but the music sucks. But, hey, they're making money so they have to be good, right?
Or you could just put your voice through an auto tune, the mainstream music fans today love those.
How is that different from the factor of money in anything else? Music is not different, it is exactly the same.
This is my thumbnail sketch of a budget ...
Thanks, that is very illuminating. The sum total is about the price tag I had from a discussion years ago. So, having the individual components spelled out like that, I understand much better now.
Edited: Having said that, it is still completely beyond me, how musicians who don't go down the dumbed down pop chaff producing lane can make a living. They are certainly welcome to the money I spend on their concerts/albums, as well as lottery funds and such. - MC, I'd rather say "The words 'music' and 'pop' right next to each other sicken me."
My son Danny (17) wants to know how important is it to be able to read traditional music? Danny reads tone-notes.
And he wants me to say that he thinks you're bad ass for being a pro musician.
Ooops! Sorry Bri, I skipped over it the first time.
It depends on what he wants to do. For serious session players, it's essential. You have to read or you don't work. If you work mostly on band projects, and ear is much more important.
On about 50% of the projects I play for, I never see an scrap of written paper. I go into the studio, listen to the demo once or twice, then go sit down at the piano and play something that feels right. I have a system for sketching out a basic rhythm chart while listening to a song for the first time, so that after one listen I can play it. That matters more, most of the time, than being able to read traditional piano music.
And tell him thank you. I feel pretty bad ass. Here in my khakis and polo. Driving a jetta. To Gymboree.
Music is different. If someone is getting paid a lot to do music, then they are likely popular. To maintain the popularity, the record label dumbs down the sound for the mainstream masses, which only enjoy simple, catchy tunes. Every single mainstream album has one or two good songs on it, and the rest is all filler crap. All they have to do is promote a single song, make an MTV compatible music video for it, and wala. They make money, but the music sucks. But, hey, they're making money so they have to be good, right?
Or you could just put your voice through an auto tune, the mainstream music fans today love those.
What you're ranting against is how the industry worked 10 years ago.
Labels are becoming irrelevant. Every year, more and more of my work is for artists who have bailed on the traditional label structure, and who are making a living doing music that they own instead. They may release an album, or more commonly these days they record one or two songs at a time and release them online. They get placements on TV or film, those are the big chunks of money, the rest comes from merch and concerts.
10 years ago, anytime I talked to a younger artist, they all asked the same thing, "How do I get signed?"
Now, none of them ask that. They don't care. They all ask, "How can I make a living doing this"? If you can appreciate the significance in how different that question is, you can start to appreciate how much the industry has changed.
I think that's a really, really good thing. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE playing on big budget label albums, where everything is completely 1st class. But almost always, the music is unbearable. I love much more being in the room with an artist who is really, truly and artist, and where I get to become part of their thing for a little while, and make truly good music. Music I can be proud of.
I hate the factor of money in music.
The words "music" and "industry" right next to each other sickens me.
Do you think it makes me a better musician or a worse musician that I get to spend 100% of my professional life, 40+ hours per week, doing music? Do you think I would be half the musician I am if I had to hold down the swing shift at Walmart and do music on the side?
No disrespect, (at all!) to musicians who do that. Viva la music! More musicians, playing more music, in more places, please! I also know that many of those guys would be much better players than I am if they had been given the chance to pursue it professionally in the way I was.
But I can speak about my experience. I wouldn't have the creative and personal energy to spend 40 hours a week at a day job, and then still practice 10 hours a week, hustle for gigs, rehearse, record, arrange, mix, do all of the hundreds of things that go into being a professional. I just wouldn't
So, I don't know if what I've contributed to the world musically matters at all, but there are some things I've done that I am damn proud of, and they would have been impossible without the "evil" influence of money in music, because it's that money that allows me to DO this.
The general impression of Master Cthulhu is not that musicians shouldn't be rewarded, but rather railing against well funded producers turning no-talent wannabees into megalomaniac pot-tarts that swamp the airwaves with the musical equivalent of MacDonalds.
If that is so, hear hear! So to speak. p:
:) thanks, smooth. You made Danny's day!
(he said, "He's cool - I like him!")
The general impression of Master Cthulhu is not that musicians shouldn't be rewarded, but rather railing against well funded producers turning no-talent wannabees into megalomaniac pot-tarts that swamp the airwaves with the musical equivalent of MacDonalds.
If that is so, hear hear! So to speak. p:
"Product, meet market. Market, meet product."
...And tell him thank you. I feel pretty bad ass. Here in my khakis and polo. Driving a jetta. To Gymboree.
bwahahahahahahahahahaha :D
awwwwwww yeaaaaah. That's how I roll.
What you're ranting against is how the industry worked 10 years ago.
Labels are becoming irrelevant. Every year, more and more of my work is for artists who have bailed on the traditional label structure, and who are making a living doing music that they own instead. They may release an album, or more commonly these days they record one or two songs at a time and release them online. They get placements on TV or film, those are the big chunks of money, the rest comes from merch and concerts.
10 years ago, anytime I talked to a younger artist, they all asked the same thing, "How do I get signed?"
Now, none of them ask that. They don't care. They all ask, "How can I make a living doing this"? If you can appreciate the significance in how different that question is, you can start to appreciate how much the industry has changed.
I think that's a really, really good thing. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE playing on big budget label albums, where everything is completely 1st class. But almost always, the music is unbearable. I love much more being in the room with an artist who is really, truly and artist, and where I get to become part of their thing for a little while, and make truly good music. Music I can be proud of.
I was actually wondering about that as I read the thread. Back in 1989-1993 I worked in the music industry, for a label and then a recording studio, and my cousin (who is a musician) made two records, one for Polygram and one with RCA. The musicians didn't really make very much money, unless they made it to a certain level, even after being signed to a label. In fact, some of them ended up owing money to the label if the sales didn't pay for all the promotion and recording bills, which happened a lot. Most of them made money from touring, not from record sales. Until they made it past a certain level that is.
So I'm glad the industry has been turned on it's head. That needed to happen. The thing that was so great about the 50s, 60s and 70s and the music that was created, is the industry didn't have as much control over the artists as they have today (or 10-15 years ago), creatively I mean. Everything has become so homogenized, because of the business end of it. The one area where I would say that isn't really true, is in the jam band arena.
Everything has become so homogenized, because of the business end of it.
I think that's overstated. Radiohead, Beyonce, Fleet Foxes, and Lil Wayne are all bands that have been singed and promoted by "the evil music industry". That's a pretty wide spread to call "homogenized".
Flaming Lips frontman and creative power, Wayne Coyne, is 48. How much longer can they have a career?
[SIZE=1]ETA: from
Mr. Coyne's Wikipedia entry: Each Halloween, Wayne dresses up to scare trick-or-treaters that come to his home. He feels that it is good to scare children, because when they grow older, there are things "that are horribly scary...you can't just run away from them or turn on a light and it runs away."[/SIZE]
On the amateur circuit, we have Craigslist. Is there a Craigslist for pros?
Flaming Lips frontman and creative power, Wayne Coyne, is 48. How much longer can they have a career?
Quincy Jones is 76, what's your point, whippersnapper? :p
On the amateur circuit, we have Craigslist. Is there a Craigslist for pros?
Yep.
Craigslist.
I have multiple email alerts setup to comb CL for potential gigs. Whenever the words "keyboard piano organ composer arranger studio recording session" show up in an ad, I get sent an email. Here in LA, there's the same amount of crappy work posted there, but there are also lots of legit gigs that are looking for specialized work. About once a month I find something on there that's really worth pursuing.
Do professional musicians get laid a lot?
I mean hot groupies, not your wife.
Yep.
Craigslist.
I have multiple email alerts setup to comb CL for potential gigs. Whenever the words "keyboard piano organ composer arranger studio recording session" show up in an ad, I get sent an email.
so now we know how to bug you next time you're MIA from the cellar! :lol:
so now we know how to bug you next time you're MIA from the cellar! :lol:
exactly right!
Do professional musicians get laid a lot?
I mean hot groupies, not your wife.
No, you're thinking of rock stars. I'm more like an accountant, who just happens to play keyboards instead of do taxes.
I think that's overstated. Radiohead, Beyonce, Fleet Foxes, and Lil Wayne are all bands that have been singed and promoted by "the evil music industry". That's a pretty wide spread to call "homogenized".
I'll give you Radiohead. And I didn't say the industry was evil. It employed me for several years, with very interesting jobs. I just believe there are a lot of people making records that are mediocre when it comes to talent, and there are plenty of very talented people not making records. That's all. The executives are going to market certain things that they know will sell, regardless of how good it actually is.
So, ask away.
Does the back of Ted Nugent's guitar smell like sweaty dick?
Is there danger of being too good? Many people say they didn't like Steely Dan because it was too precise, for example, or that slick highly produced works are unauthentic or even worse, sterile.
...
Disclaimer, this is a drummer's perspective. In short, this is a question of "micro-timing" which is what makes or breaks a groove. In the
thread about syncopation I talked about subdivisions of the beat but never got back to what made Motown/John Bohnam "behind the beat" backbeats sound so great. I mentioned that Neil Peart is called the Professor because everything he does is cold, calculated math. But I never defined the difference as existing outside "the grid" of standard subdivisions. The difference in what creates a "groove" are in tiny "micro" timings. Milliseconds of variation that create a push and pull within a series of simple notes. That make Charlie Watts somehow sound different from Ringo Starr, playing "the same" beat. And the reason that 10 year old kids can "learn to play" a Vinnie Colaiuta beat off YouTube, but it doesn't quite sound right.
The micro-variations can be intentional, or more often the result of poor mechanics (unintentional). Learning the physics of how a stick rebounds, or when to play heel-up or heel-down, can allow you to control the feel of your beat rather than having it dictated by stiff, limited motions. You can also adopt a physical "attitude" on the kit in order to emulate a historical sound, i.e. sitting goofy like a big band dude in a suit.
Can you be too precise? Dave Weckl claims that people complained about his time feel for years, because he was too perfect. He had to learn how to relax and play looser. A tiny, almost unmeasurable amount looser. Afterwards he seemed better able to deliver what people wanted. Steely Dan did this too, buy the way, with every song. They created the perfect song in the studio, and then deconstructed it intentionally in order to get a human feel back in there. This "humanized" version was released to the album. I would say that they were successful, but I guess some people prefer... looser standards.
In answer to the very first iteration of your question, can you be "too good"? I would say, no. If you are sufficiantly good, you will know what is needed in a situation. Playing what is not needed or wanted cannot ever be classified as good.
Thanks, Flint. That's an excellent breakdown of the concept.
In time, as in pitch, perfect is not always the same thing as "right".
very well put, I thought; that tiny "imperfection" that makes it perfect, is what makes it art not science or engineering.
But this is the strange thing -- how far "micro off" you "need to be" is a matter of learned fashion, culture, trends.
Somebody told me that Neil Young, on one song, told everybody to switch instruments to something they didn't normally play.
In retaliation for all the highly auto-tuned pop, in which almost nothing is micro off, we have a new trend: jam bands, who are macro off.
That's why I only listen to Ornette Coleman.
10 years ago, anytime I talked to a younger artist, they all asked the same thing, "How do I get signed?"
Now, none of them ask that. They don't care. They all ask, "How can I make a living doing this"?
What do you tell them?
The biggest thing is to quit thinking like a tortured, pampered artist, and to start thinking like an entrepreneur. You are now a small business owner, and your music is your product. You face all of the same questions that all small business owner's face.
How do I make customers aware of my product?
How do I distribute it efficiently?
What are potential streams of revenue (merch, song licensing, albums sales, live shows, etc.)?
Where do people congregate who might be interested in my product? How do I reach them there?
How do I turn customers into evangelists, so that they sell my product for me? How do I make them feel included in the culture of my product?
I ask them if they think anybody ever launched a successful business by working at it 5 hours a week, then spending the rest of the time on the couch waiting for people to magically discover how awesome their product is? If they want to be a professional musician, I tell them to treat it like a profession. Spend 40+ hours per week on it, just like a real job. Put your money at risk, like you would with a real business.
The specifics of how to do all that are different for every artist, but the biggest thing that has to change is the mindset. Nothing is owed you, but everything is in reach for you.
So, how many of them look awfully disappointed when you explain all that to them?
What, work at it? Shrug, look away, slouch, wander off....
No, they all nod and agree vigorously.
But it's what they do when they get home that matters, and too many of them never bother to follow through.
Disclaimer, this is a drummer's perspective. In short, this is a question of "micro-timing" which is what makes or breaks a groove. In the thread about syncopation I talked about subdivisions of the beat but never got back to what made Motown/John Bohnam "behind the beat" backbeats sound so great. I mentioned that Neil Peart is called the Professor because everything he does is cold, calculated math. But I never defined the difference as existing outside "the grid" of standard subdivisions. The difference in what creates a "groove" are in tiny "micro" timings. Milliseconds of variation that create a push and pull within a series of simple notes. That make Charlie Watts somehow sound different from Ringo Starr, playing "the same" beat. And the reason that 10 year old kids can "learn to play" a Vinnie Colaiuta beat off YouTube, but it doesn't quite sound right.
The micro-variations can be intentional, or more often the result of poor mechanics (unintentional). Learning the physics of how a stick rebounds, or when to play heel-up or heel-down, can allow you to control the feel of your beat rather than having it dictated by stiff, limited motions. You can also adopt a physical "attitude" on the kit in order to emulate a historical sound, i.e. sitting goofy like a big band dude in a suit.
Can you be too precise? Dave Weckl claims that people complained about his time feel for years, because he was too perfect. He had to learn how to relax and play looser. A tiny, almost unmeasurable amount looser. Afterwards he seemed better able to deliver what people wanted. Steely Dan did this too, buy the way, with every song. They created the perfect song in the studio, and then deconstructed it intentionally in order to get a human feel back in there. This "humanized" version was released to the album. I would say that they were successful, but I guess some people prefer... looser standards.
In answer to the very first iteration of your question, can you be "too good"? I would say, no. If you are sufficiantly good, you will know what is needed in a situation. Playing what is not needed or wanted cannot ever be classified as good.
Heheh...He said beat off...
related link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhxnHVgL9PAI was part of a panel discussion yesterday on how to make a living in the music industry. The best comment of the evening came from one of the other panelists:
"There is a world of difference between what people say they want, and what they are willing to work their asses off to get."
Question: have you worked with any of the Cakewalk "by Roland" hardware?
Question: Why are you getting insensibly drunk right now?
Maybe you should consider the weed....
(Please excuse if you find that most of the questions are related to how artists get paid, I just always wondered about that)
1. How important is it for a new artist to be able to write his/her own material?
2. What does it cost to produce an album and how is the cost calculated?
3. I've heard that the artist doesn't get close to what the recording company gets when it comes to sales. Is that true?
4. How much does an artist get paid from sales and how is the artist's share calculated?
5. How much do they get paid if they don't have an album out?
6. If I want to remix or sample a part of the song who gives permission?
7. Is the split of the revenue between an artist and his bosses based upon sales?
8. Does the artist get his/her share paid into their bank acc. or do they get a cheque delivered by hand?
9. If a song does well, who earns more between the producer and songwriter?
10. If permission to remix or sample a song is refused, what are in
most cases the reason/s for refusal?
Question: have you worked with any of the Cakewalk "by Roland" hardware?
A little bit, just enough to know that I'm not switching away from Logic.
(Please excuse if you find that most of the questions are related to how artists get paid, I just always wondered about that)
1. How important is it for a new artist to be able to write his/her own material?
Songwriting is one of the last ways left to really make a living in the industry. The publishing money is well defined, well protected by law, not just by contract. It's very hard to make a living if you're singing music written by other people.
2. What does it cost to produce an album and how is the cost calculated?
See above.
3. I've heard that the artist doesn't get close to what the recording company gets when it comes to sales. Is that true?
True, but it's also the record company that's fronting all of the cost. The label is taking a huge financial risk to record and promote a new artist, and 9 times out of 10 they don't recoup their financial investment. They take a large share of the profits from successful artists to cover the cost of recording and promoting the other 9 projects that lose money.
4. How much does an artist get paid from sales and how is the artist's share calculated?
If an artist is on a label, they get paid a percentage of the retail sales price of the album, but not until the label pays back the recording and promotional budget. A first time artist can expect to sign a contract for about 10% of the sales price, out of which they pay the production costs, including points to the producer. A general rule of thumb is that retail price (after discounts and refunds are calculated) is about $8 per album, so a point (one percentage point) is worth about 8 cents. If an artist signs a contract for 10 points, they get about $.80 per album sale.
5. How much do they get paid if they don't have an album out?
Not sure what you mean by this. If you're talking about an advance, then it varies hugely by contract. Artists with a bigger fan base and strong sales before they sign a contract can command a bigger advance, sometimes up in the 6-figures. Advances are usually smaller than that. It's intended to be money to live on while the album gets made, not money to blow on cars and blow. Most artists don't realize that it's probably the only money you'll see from being signed.
6. If I want to remix or sample a part of the song who gives permission?
There are two pieces of property involved, the sound recording, and the underlying piece of music. You need permission from whoever owns both. You can find out who controls the publishing on the underlying song by checking ASCAP, BMI or the Harry Fox Agency. The sound recording is owned by the label that releases it.
7. Is the split of the revenue between an artist and his bosses based upon sales?
not sure what you mean.
8. Does the artist get his/her share paid into their bank acc. or do they get a cheque delivered by hand?
I guess you could set it up either way.
9. If a song does well, who earns more between the producer and songwriter?
The producer receives no money for radio airplay, or from any live performances. They only receive money from album sales. A typical producer cut would be 3 to 4 points on the album sale.
The songwriter is paid everytime the album sales, and anytime the song plays on the radio. The songwriter earns 9.1 cents for every album sold, and receives about $5 every time the song plays on a radio station (that number changes based on how much advertising revenue the station earns).
If an album goes platinum, the producer earns about $240,000, over and above whatever they were initially paid to produce the album. The songwriter makes about $91,000 for each song they have on the album. The songwriter of a #1 pop/rock song on the radio can expect to make between $40,000 and $50,000 per week that it stays at #1.
The songwriter splits everything 50/50 with their publisher, the producer keeps all their money (unless they have an agent)
10. If permission to remix or sample a song is refused, what are in
most cases the reason/s for refusal?
I have no idea. The only work I've ever done with remix and sample was for an acid jazz artist, and they were already signed to a label. The label dropped off 6 crates full of CDs, everything in their catalog, and said, "You can use anything from any of these albums without needing to clear samples."
Quite a fair amount of risk involved in this business... And with that I gather it is also cut throat...?:eyebrow:
Depends on which part of the industry. Players look out for each other, artists do too, the cutthroat part is mainly the suits vs. the long-hairs.