3 ms·

I disagree with his outlook on the music biz. I think that recorded music does have a value. Although there is a small cost to produce it these days every music

by domp 20y ago

I disagree with his outlook on the music biz. I think that recorded music does have a value. Although there is a small cost to produce it these days every musician dreams of making money off of it. No musician enjoys giving their music up for free. They assume that it'll pay off in the long run(whether that be buying tracks on itunes, getting a cd or a tshirt at their show). Just because the current model for selling music isn't working and piracy is a popular alternative doesn't make music worth nothing. Also, any band already relies on live concerts for their means of money. This is nothing new. What is happening is that major labels are getting a bigger piece of the pie when it comes to merchandise(which used to go straight to the band). I just think a new means of selling music must be created that benefits all parties.

far33d 20y ago
Digital content "wants" to be free. That's the problem for industries that have historically generated revenue by artificially restricting access to content: when content distribution (and even production) are without cost or restriction, revenue must come from other sources. This is glaringly obvious for music, and we're headed that way for film. The film industry will do it's best to stay ahead of the bandwidth: 3D projection, better surround sound, etc, but will also need to adapt to make formerly secondary revenue streams (product placement, franchise merchandise, etc) more primary. That and they're going to have to find ways to get their costs down, significantly, to compete with a fast approaching internet and independent film community.
- domp 20y ago
  I don't know much about the film industry so I won't try and touch on that issue. But with music, the content distribution is obviously free on the internet. Production is definitely not. If you're talking about a junk recording than yeah. But any band nowadays who is taking their careers seriously look for a producer, an engineer, and a good studio. These all cost money. And other sources of revenue have been created. Look at ringtones. I just believe that another type of approach to selling music has to be created.
  - far33d 20y ago
    sure... but realize that those costs of production are sinking fast and heading asymptotically towards zero. The downward slope for film is slower (more people involved, 100 instead of 10), but headed the same direction. There's no reason, with hundreds of aspiring producers and engineers, that a good band with limited resources couldn't cut a great album for $1k instead of $100k. Given, of course, that the band could find a producer willing to work for the same reasons they want to play.
    - mynameishere 20y ago
      Keep talking. http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Neumann-U87-Ai-Shockmount-Set-Z-Microphone-with-Box?sku=271404 http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Neumann-U87-Ai-Shockmount-Set-Z-Microphone-with-Box?sku=271404
      - domp 20y ago
        Keep talking? Why are you linking to a 3000 dollar microphone? I don't see how this is relevant in recording cheap or adding to the conversation that we were having. There's a lot more to recording a band than having an expensive microphone.
        JMiao 20y ago
        Domp, I've been loving the discourse that has emerged between you and far33d, and I have absolutely no idea what mynameishere is trying to say. Not sure if the post is trying to be offensive, or if it's simply trying to help (though not clearly) the conversation.
        domp 20y ago
        Thanks JMiao. Yeah I was thrown off with his comment too. I guess he was on my side by trying to prove that things cost a lot of money? Although that wasn't my side because if I had a home studio I would never spend 3 grand on a microphone.
        20y ago
- domp 20y ago
  I completely realize that. 1000 bucks for an album is not reasonable though. At this point it's around 10 grand for a solid album with an okay producer. That's still a big investment for a small band. Production costs will never reach zero. It makes no sense. You're always going to have good producers out there, better engineers, a genius mastering person and great studios that people will pay for. Anyone right now could make their own movie with a home camcorder but I'm sure they'd rather go with some professionals.
  - far33d 20y ago
    my point is that the quality level of the two ends (what you get from the world's best producer and what you get from a mediocre or inexperienced one) are quickly approaching each other, at least in technical quality. The point is that what you could do at home for free (or with some help from smart people for cheap) now is orders of magnitude better than 3 years ago, and is still improving. Some people will always be willing to pay. But everyone else won't HAVE to.
    - domp 20y ago
      Yeah I agree. The amount of money is no doubt going down. I mean my brother's studio can make a recording that sounds close to the 50 grand ones by just putting triggers on the drums and doing all these other tricks. Would a big musician pay to record with a 20 yr old? No chance in hell. I wish I was going to the startup school. It'd be nice though if I was cause I'm sure this conversation would have been much better. I didn't realize it was a free event until it was too late.
  - far33d 20y ago
    ps. domp, are you going to be at startup school this w/e?

by domp 20y ago

far33d 20y ago

Digital content "wants" to be free. That's the problem for industries that have historically generated revenue by artificially restricting access to content: when content distribution (and even production) are without cost or restriction, revenue must come from other sources. This is glaringly obvious for music, and we're headed that way for film. The film industry will do it's best to stay ahead of the bandwidth: 3D projection, better surround sound, etc, but will also need to adapt to make formerly secondary revenue streams (product placement, franchise merchandise, etc) more primary. That and they're going to have to find ways to get their costs down, significantly, to compete with a fast approaching internet and independent film community.

domp 20y ago
I don't know much about the film industry so I won't try and touch on that issue. But with music, the content distribution is obviously free on the internet. Production is definitely not. If you're talking about a junk recording than yeah. But any band nowadays who is taking their careers seriously look for a producer, an engineer, and a good studio. These all cost money. And other sources of revenue have been created. Look at ringtones. I just believe that another type of approach to selling music has to be created.
- far33d 20y ago
  sure... but realize that those costs of production are sinking fast and heading asymptotically towards zero. The downward slope for film is slower (more people involved, 100 instead of 10), but headed the same direction. There's no reason, with hundreds of aspiring producers and engineers, that a good band with limited resources couldn't cut a great album for $1k instead of $100k. Given, of course, that the band could find a producer willing to work for the same reasons they want to play.
  - mynameishere 20y ago
    Keep talking. http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Neumann-U87-Ai-Shockmount-Set-Z-Microphone-with-Box?sku=271404 http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Neumann-U87-Ai-Shockmount-Set-Z-Microphone-with-Box?sku=271404
    - domp 20y ago
      Keep talking? Why are you linking to a 3000 dollar microphone? I don't see how this is relevant in recording cheap or adding to the conversation that we were having. There's a lot more to recording a band than having an expensive microphone.
      - JMiao 20y ago
        Domp, I've been loving the discourse that has emerged between you and far33d, and I have absolutely no idea what mynameishere is trying to say. Not sure if the post is trying to be offensive, or if it's simply trying to help (though not clearly) the conversation.
        domp 20y ago
        Thanks JMiao. Yeah I was thrown off with his comment too. I guess he was on my side by trying to prove that things cost a lot of money? Although that wasn't my side because if I had a home studio I would never spend 3 grand on a microphone.
      - 20y ago
domp 20y ago
I completely realize that. 1000 bucks for an album is not reasonable though. At this point it's around 10 grand for a solid album with an okay producer. That's still a big investment for a small band. Production costs will never reach zero. It makes no sense. You're always going to have good producers out there, better engineers, a genius mastering person and great studios that people will pay for. Anyone right now could make their own movie with a home camcorder but I'm sure they'd rather go with some professionals.
- far33d 20y ago
  my point is that the quality level of the two ends (what you get from the world's best producer and what you get from a mediocre or inexperienced one) are quickly approaching each other, at least in technical quality. The point is that what you could do at home for free (or with some help from smart people for cheap) now is orders of magnitude better than 3 years ago, and is still improving. Some people will always be willing to pay. But everyone else won't HAVE to.
  - domp 20y ago
    Yeah I agree. The amount of money is no doubt going down. I mean my brother's studio can make a recording that sounds close to the 50 grand ones by just putting triggers on the drums and doing all these other tricks. Would a big musician pay to record with a 20 yr old? No chance in hell. I wish I was going to the startup school. It'd be nice though if I was cause I'm sure this conversation would have been much better. I didn't realize it was a free event until it was too late.
- far33d 20y ago
  ps. domp, are you going to be at startup school this w/e?