Exactly.

I'm just not sure that necessarily follows. Here is an album which I produced - tracking, mixing and mastering came to no more than 120 hours, and quite a few of the songs were written during the sessions, and selected over older material. It was well reviewed, got a good amount of radio play and though sales were inevitably modest they continue to crop up.

Down To Reverie | Robin Adams

I don't think you can say that this represents the kind of scenario which is being touted - the end of good music etc... At the other extreme, a song from my album, which maybe had about 10 hours put into it, and is intentionally quite raw has been getting airplay with little effort, and the lack of time which went into it does not seem to have detracted from the presenter's enthusiasm: BBC iPlayer - BBC Introducing with Tom Robinson: Tom chats to Unseen and Deeflux

People who write for film, tv, games, theatre and so forth routinely work under severe constraints - far tighter than I've been suggesting - and somehow there is still plenty of good and sometimes genuinely great work in these fields.

The key seems to be that "popular music" has this element of self expression to it which demands that the artist present his or her work in the most flattering light possible, because it is "art". But in reality given the way music is now consumed, it is principally practical art, serving a function, and ultimately relatively disposable.

I dont think anyone would argue that the status quo is good for musicians, and yet that is exactly what is happening here. Nobody is saying, interesting, but how about x or y or z instead? It might well be that my suggestion is not the right one, but if we are to find a Music Economy 3.0 it'd be nice to think that it was defined by the people who actually make the product which drives the music industry, rather than those who seem to perpetually profit from our labour.

---------------

It's quite amazing that you assume isolated experiences add up to industry wide best practice.

Is a mind set we should really try to avoid.
It's the difference between throw away McDonalds and The Manoir De Qautre Saisons, or The Fat Duck.

Why discuss this in such absolute terms?

There is absolutely no reliable correlation between the amount of time a song takes to write or record and the effect it has on the listener. In fact tuning music to perfection can have precisely the opposite effect to that desired - it can leave music anodyne and lifeless and result in the artists being over-exposed to the extent that they actually hate listening to and performing their own work.

Music is principally a communication medium, and it doesn't need to be perfect to make perfect sense.

You are. You're proposing we should work quicker to reflect the lower income we now make. largely it seems because it works for you, and a few artists you admire.

Who said anything about 'perfect'? Not me.
You are the one being absolute. I'm actually arguing for flexibility.
Yeah, sometimes a great song comes in minutes. Sometimes it's a slow burner that takes months to form. I'm actually open to both scenarios. Quick when it can be, but don't sacrifice the great song when it turns out not to so quick to pull together.
This is the opinion I formed from watching many, many musicians over the years, plus what's happened in my own work.
Some of my best work, and proudest moments have come from difficult, exhausting and long projects. That's just creativity in action. there are no rules. I'm saying there are no rules. Your making a rule that everything should be done quickly to reflect income per hour.
In addition to that, you don't understand what I'm saying to the extent that you can only criticise me on some made up level that I am all about 'perfection' and killing the music by going over and over it until it reaches 'perfection'.
No, I'm saying all work methods are valid. The final product is the thing to be judged, not the route to get there.
In proposing 'Music Business 3.0' you seek to impose your values on to others.
I'm opposing nothing. If it works out quickly - great! If not, keep going.

I think its amazing that you'd use an ugly corporate cliche like "best practice" in the context of something like music. It sums up that you are determined to defend the status quo, despite the fact it is not doing the development and progression of our artform much good at all.

You're doing a good job of making my point for me. McDonalds is exactly what the industry is interested in serving up. And every "burger" is just perfect - they all look and taste the same and their number is beyond counting.

Flexibility mate, flexibility.
Funny that you said nothing about my opinion that you are seeking to impose your work methods on everyone else.

"best practice" is just a term, the use of language to describe something. If you want to pick it apart in some attempt to characterize me negatively, I guess you are not able to persuade others you're work method should be exclusively used by them.

I've never made any attempt to talk for 'the industry'. My comments reflect a wide experience with hundreds of creative people.
The fact is I've made a lot of records people love that were both quick and cheap, and long and expensive. In my experience you choose the method that brings out the best in the material.
In your experience there appears to be only one way.

I'm not imposing anything - it is an idea. People are free to take it or leave it, or argue to the nth degree.

I saw a report a while back which noted that only 2.5% of the 100,000 albums releases in 2009 (I think), sold more than 5,000 copies ... for the 97.5% who hit 4,999 or below, thats sales which after distributors and aggregators have taken their split amount to no more than the kind of salary an administrator might expect - and with an album of course there's a good chance the income will be split amongst more than one person. Here in Scotland the last research to cover the subject found only 189 musicians working in the creation of original music - i.e. people like us - earning a median of £2,500 or more per annum from music - and most of them would fall below the poverty threshold if it was their sole source of income.

Its abundantly clear that the system as is, is of benefit only to a tiny minority. So the choice is status quo or change. Artists careers are progressive and involve development over time, whether it be the ability to write songs, play instruments or realise ideas. If you make an album in a reasonable time frame and sell some, then it makes sense to move quickly onto the next, and keep your fan base - and any media interest engaged, and keep repeating. And all the time, if you are heading in the right direction musically it is natural to expect that you'll be in position to invest more time and money in making your music - as part of a process of improving your art.

What I proposed at the outset was that time spent should be proportional to expectation. If you think you can sell 10,000 albums, then of course why not spend 1,000 hours creating your magnum opus. But you're unlikely to reach that on your debut no matter how much time you put in. And the more time you put in to one singular defining product, the less time you'll be progressing artistically by writing, performing and recording new songs.

I've already said that what I've suggested might not be the way forward... but where are yours or anyone else's counter proposals? Does nobody have anything to offer except defence of the status quo?

Well, again, it is only an idea and as I reiterated in my last post the essence of it is "proportional to expectation" which is pretty flexible and open to interpretation. Its certainly not a stop watch, which some of the posts here have construed it as ... e.g. everything ending up done in 15 minutes, which is plainly ridiculous ... unless you're Miles Davis.

Well granted my response was a little terse. Think of the effect mention of plumbers and joiners had on you several thousand words later

Thats not the case at all. I too have had plenty of experience with recording in all manner of configurations and durations, both direct and indirect, with a very wide range of people, and talent from the barely perceptible to the arguably genius level. One thing I have noticed is that people do not as a rule produce a Dark Side Of The Moon or Rumours or OK Computer on their first outing into the studio. They earn the opportunity by demonstrating potential. That system has dissolved, and now anyone can spend the same amount of time making an album as Pink Floyd or Fleetwood Mac or Radiohead simply by buying a pile of gear. But in doing so they are depriving themselves (and their potential audience) of the context of artistic progression and development, and all the experience that as musicians they would gather along the way.

Obviously you have read my argument in a way which you see as detrimental to music. I see it as a translation of a system which was proven to develop artists and their music to the contemporary practice of DIY and independent artists.

OK, I'll leave it.

I disagree.
By toiling over a difficult song, I'm learning, gaining experience and progressing.
The funny thing is I probably argued at length because I'm currently exactly in the scenario you describe.
I'm making music on my own, for little or no financial reward.
The genre is not one I'm experienced in, so my progress has been slow. I'm not a keyboard player for example, so any keyboard parts have been slow to record. As I gain experience and proficiency I'll no doubt speed up.
But the work I'm turning out I'm proud of. I see no point in turning out less successfully realised tracks for the sake of the budget or my time. I might as well not be doing the music at all, unless I can make it as good as it can be (not 'perfection', but given my inexperience of the genre and my inability on some of the instrumentation).
I'm very happy with the decisions I've made.
I'm more likely to gain some notice in this genre if I turn out 'excellent' tracks, as opposed to rushed, less well produced tracks. There are 100,000 others turning out less well thought out and produced tracks in the style, and they are largely ignored.

On the contrary. I'll therefore feel free to use what I do know.

You have gone to some trouble to say that your compensation system is quite different than that of a self employed tradesman. Now you say that they are very similar. You appear to be changing your mind to suit your argument of the moment.

Two points? I think you'd better go read that post again.

That's pretty well understood. Remind us again what percentage of artists promoted by a record label can be expected to turn a profit.

... is that there isn't one.

True, I've never "toured" more than one continent at a time. But I have spent a total of almost 5 years overseas on business, usually for 3 to 6 months at a time, so I have some idea. I've variously been on per diem and A&R for expenses. Some of the hotels I've stayed in have been "rock star" calibre, too - I was in the lobby of a hotel in Adelaide once and thought "who's that geezer with the skinny legs and leopard-skin trousers?" I do agree on the eye-watering fees for hotel laundry service, though, and usually looked for a local laundromat or laundry service if I was in town for more than a day or two. Usually better quality, and there was less risk of some essential clothing item being left behind.

Actually, no. I get paid for the hours I work, just like I did when I was self employed.

If you could earn more in that time by staying at home, why tour? It reminds me of a saying I use often - "If you're not in business for fun or profit, you shouldn't be."

There's that 3 hours paid work a day red herring again. Where did you get it from? ... here:

It depends on what the hourly rate is, and what other compensation (accomodation, meals, travel etc) are included. Quite a few plumbers will be in this situation over the next few years in NZ.

So shut up about 3 hours per day, already.

Well, of course they would like it. I don't think I would like the resultant music that much more, though. One of my favourite artists used to annoy me by endless tweaking - he called it "tweezing" - of tracks, often years after they were originally recorded. I had similar problems with "Chinese Democracy". It's no different in the IT world - the same tension exists between doing the best that you know you're capable of and getting it out the door.

You're confusing the discussion.
It was claimed musicians wouldn't accept an hourly wage 'for an honest day's work'. I pointed out the vast majority of ordinary citizens (eg: plumbers) are not required to leave home for 3, 6, 12 months at a time in order to pursue their career.
Also that installing a sink takes a plumber a set amount of time, everytime. Nothing creative about it. Creativity isn't about repeating something you've done as an apprentice in a set number of hours.
That's about where my plumber analogy started and ended.


Well I'm pursuing a career in music.
If you had pursued a career in music you would know that 1) if you are in a band you can't decree you'll only do the recording and the hometown shows. 2) If you base all your career decision on what pays the best money, you actually wont get anywhere in the music business. Because varied experiences, notoriety amongst other parts of the scene, and a willingness to do interesting, sometimes less well paid gigs gives you professional kudos.....and brings in better paid gigs.


You dude:
Ya know.... 3 x 88 = ????

Sorry, but making records is nothing like 'the IT world'. Much as I'm sure you'd like to dream it is.

Anyway, despite all the attempted gotcha moments....
It's clear musicians general adapt to conditions pretty readily and automatically.
The only miscue in this proposal is that you can work faster based on lower income and most times get the same results.
The fact the whole discussion has not fired up more from the large Gearslutz membership says enough I think.

True. And I agreed with your point of view, as did several others. Bump the needle, already.

Try that line on your plumber.


Then you accept the bad bits that go with the good bits.

On the 3 hours per day: the record is clear. You started it.

... so there's no similarity between your creative process for your music and your creative process for your software? One is art and one is utility?
One is to be worked on until you're satisfied you've done the best job possible, and the other is to be got out the door to meet a deadline?

Well said. Knowing how long to spend on a song is an important art. Sure, many people overdo things, but I also hear plenty of tracks that could do with some more development even though I love a good raw mix.

How to best develop as a musician is also a balance thing. We learn different things from pumping out ideas quickly than from a long hard slog of a song. They're both important experiences.

Just as there is no one good eq setting for all voices there's no one good approach to time spent on all songs. Using time well is one of many skills worth developing as a musician.

[/end of thread]

Seriously Don, you are bickering. I don't really understand why.
The message the OP proposed is clear. My critique of that message is clear.
My critique is based on actual real life experience of the creative process in music for 30+ years. Yours?



Again, pointless bickering. I've never complained about the bad bits. Not many in the industry have. I didn't start the thread. It was proposed we do an 'honest day's work' like others in society. I agreed, as long as I get paid for the actual work I do. That's it, simple as that.
While you're bickering you've said nothing to explain why other industries are moving rapidly towards an 'excellence' reward environment and music should go the other way? Why are other industries doing that?




BS!
They are both creative processes, and as such both are worked on until they are right in the eyes of the creator.
Again, I don't really understand the energetic bickering.
You want great music don't you, or do you agree that music made on a low budget time limit always ends up being great?

Yes, end of thread indeed.

... so there really in't that much difference after all, giving the lie to your comment "Sorry, but making records is nothing like the IT world." QED.

You miss the point again. There was nothing in the OP that required taking such a black/white, mutually exclusive position. And I see you agree with zaczac's post (as do I). So before you accuse me of bickering, you need to examine your own position.

I dunno, you tell me, you initially made the claim.
Are most employees in IT working 'creatively', or performing already set out and standardized tasks, or working to an edict from either a higher up, smaller creative team or management?



My 'mutually exclusive' position was to let creative people decide how long to work, and when the work was finished to the best of their ability.
In response, the OP continually criticized me for seeking perfection to the point of stultifying work methods, plus pandering to the mainstream industry norms.
Who's more 'black and white'?
Still, in continuing the argument you haven't revealed how much you'd prefer your music listening experience when artists stop the creative process at the point their likely income/effort balance is met, as opposed to stopping the creative process when they feel the music is as good as it can be.
Plumbers and music industry 'conservatives' aside..... which approach would you say more leads to a vibrant, exciting music scene for the public to enjoy?

That exposure process (touring etc.) is time and era specific and is incidental to the creative process. Today's equivalent is virtual exposure via digital and social media which proves the opposite of your incubation /big label support conclusion. Namely, that almost everyone can be exposed to massive amounts of people and have it affect their creativity.

Nevertheless, making comparisons between the old industry model and today's industry to draw the conclusion that constraints and big label support are the only incubators capable of nurturing creative genius is a bit of a stretch. I see where you are going with this, I understand your lament over the death of a great process and great era. However, the lunatics have taken over the asylum, there is no turning back. May I humbly suggest you accept this and learn to relate to the lunatics (AKA artists) on whatever timetable is necessary? I rather like the loonies and have learned to have a servant heart and patience of a saint with them it has resulted in a successful business and some great relationships and music

oh Nurse!?
Thorazine Drip STAT!

I suspect it's much the same balance as in the music business. There's likely also as many IT people working creatively in their bedrooms as there are writing music.

I gave my opinion on this in post #71.

In truth you barely touched on it in post #71.
Aside from bringing up one particular artist that annoyed you, what is your gut feeling about the quality of music for a music fan such as yourself, between one group of musicians who put $500 effort into their music, because they think they'll probably only earn $500, and another group that just makes the best music they can, hang the expense and how long it takes?

If the $500 band was the modern day equivalent of Bob Dylan or The Beatles or Miles Davis, they'd probably produce something pretty extraordinary. If the time no object band was just your typical run of the mill thing, they'd probably produce something something pretty run of the mill and unmemorable apart from sounding good... but that as we know is just polishing the proverbial.

If you turned it round, and the run of the mill band had to do a $500 recording, they'd come up with something which would probably be unintentionally honest - raw and with some charm even if the material was weak. Our super talents on the other hand might come up with some seminal masterpieces, or quite possibly some bloated, self conscious overcooked averageness.

One thing you could certainly be sure of.... if this "proportionate to expectation" approach gained momentum, people with a genuine musical talent would very quickly stand out from the crowd. With most of us musicians being of pretty average talent, that might be a rather threatening prospect.

Genuine thumbs for for trying to answer (unlike Don) and being honest with your answer.
I do however find your versions of hypotheticals rather slanted to your rough and ready is good approach to music.


Historically all of whom transitioned from short, wham bam, thank you mam, sessions as soon as they could, and indeed tended to produce extraordinary materpieces when given the chance to work more slowly with more thought.

Sure.
Based on my experiences working with musicians of genuine talent, you'd also have an extremely frustrated collective.

Why does this have to mean rough and ready? Why can't it mean skilled and talented? There are any number of musicians working in the media side of music making who consistently produce high quality work - often far more sophisticated than popular music, and routinely with very tight time constraints. By comparison, songs are generally at the same tempo, same key, same time sig, repetition, small instrumental palette... i.e simple.

..... surely this is "proportionate to expectation" in action? And it works two ways - labels were able to see if acts warranted further investment, and the acts themselves learned from the experience and built upon it to produce better work.

Reading the forums here, it seems that is already the case with the piracy epidemic, combined with the complete saturation of the market. It seems to me that being prolific and developing the skill to able to work quickly to good effect is precisely the kind of attributes which will help people of genuine talent stand out from the crowd. Make your own long tail...

I worked in film and tv for ten years, until quite recently.
It's quite true the time and budget constraints are there, but there is still more tweaking and tinkering than you seem to think. Film makers are notorious for requesting seemingly endless changes and alternative versions.
For my own part, if I had a day to do a cue and I wasn't happy with it, I kept going, frequently long into the night, sometimes all night.
Composers generally get a complete package including budget and fee. Again, i would love to have been paid per hour for the hours I put in.

If that were true, everyone and their aunt would be churning out classics.
Often the most simple things are the hardest to do.