The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Music economy 3.0
Old 10th October 2011 | Show parent
  #61
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Exactly.
Old 10th October 2011 | Show parent
  #62
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
This discussion is happening in a time of economic downturn and widespread piracy.
I believe you started the thread in light of lower than usual income for musicians.
So in light of that, yes, in my experience, there will inevitably be much less quality if you work creatively for fewer hours per day because there is not enough income to justify more hours.
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.

---------------
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #63
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed ➡️
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
It's quite amazing that you assume isolated experiences add up to industry wide best practice.

Quote:
But in reality given the way music is now consumed, it is principally practical art, serving a function, and ultimately relatively disposable.
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.
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #64
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnycat ➡️
If everyone did this we would have a whole bunch of songs that were written in 15 minutes. You can tell if a song was tuned to perfection or slapped up in 15 minutes. We can all take the easy route but where will music go if everyone is concerned about how much time they spend on a track.
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.
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #65
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed ➡️
Why discuss this in such absolute terms?
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.

Quote:
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.
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.
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #66
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
It's quite amazing that you assume isolated experiences add up to industry wide best practice.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
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.
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.
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #67
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed ➡️
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.
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.
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #68
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
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'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?
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #69
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Flexibility mate, flexibility.
Funny that you said nothing about my opinion that you are seeking to impose your work methods on everyone else.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
"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.
Well granted my response was a little terse. Think of the effect mention of plumbers and joiners had on you several thousand words later

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
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.
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.
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #70
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed ➡️
I'm not imposing anything - it is an idea. People are free to take it or leave it
OK, I'll leave it.

Quote:
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 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.
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #71
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
...
In order not to get sidetracked let's agree you have no idea what I've paid for myself, and what has been paid for me?
On the contrary. I'll therefore feel free to use what I do know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
As a freelance musician I'm very similar to the self employed plumber, so it really makes more sense to discuss the relative wages without getting into any fantasy rock star mythology.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
... The two main discussion points in post #1 were matching your creative hours to your expected income, and aligning musicians more closely to the mainstream workforce which is paid hourly, as for example set into law by minimum wage legislation.
Two points? I think you'd better go read that post again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
The trouble with idea one is that low income equals low hours, and low creative hours almost certainly leads to low quality.
From time to time a song bursts out in minutes, as in the OP's case, but most of the time it takes a lot of work to turn in a great piece of art...... which we have tons and tons of evidence to back that up (from writers, painters, film makers and musicians).
That's pretty well understood. Remind us again what percentage of artists promoted by a record label can be expected to turn a profit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
The problem with point number two ...
... is that there isn't one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
... Come on man.
Firstly, you've never toured several continents, so you really have no idea what you're talking about.
The average per-diem would be $25 to $100 per day, often $25 to $50. It's a nod towards expenses, not full compensation.
Ever had your entire wardrobe cleaned in a 5 star hotel? Besides, I have to declare any per diem and am taxed on it too.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Secondly, if you work 9 to 5 in IT you expect to be paid for every hour between 9 to 5pm, right?
Actually, no. I get paid for the hours I work, just like I did when I was self employed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
When I live in London and am expected to play 3 shows in Tokyo, I expect to be paid for every hour I'm away from home, not the 3 hours I'm performing as you earlier claimed. When you x this by everyone involved, band members, road crew, it quickly becomes pretty uneconomical.
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."

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
You've neatly sidestepped the aspect of being away from home for long periods, being away from wife and kids. No tradesman I've spoken to, or IT worker, would accept being sent around the globe for 6 months on 3 hours paid work a day.
There's that 3 hours paid work a day red herring again. Where did you get it from? ... here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Ask a plumber to leave home for 6 to 9 months at a time and accept 3 hours paid work a day, five days work a week.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
So, instead of paying musicians 12 - 24 hours each day they are away, the music industry has evolved to all in package deals.
So shut up about 3 hours per day, already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Which keeps bringing me back to this point....
It was claimed in post #1 (and still unproven) that creative people have warred against being paid an hourly wage the same as plumbers and other workers in the workplace. In fact, I think most would revel in being paid properly for the work they actually do for once, instead of their creativity forcing them to go the extra mile and not really being financially compensated for it.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundseed ➡️
Leonardo da Vinci summed it up nicely: Art is never finished, only abandoned.
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #72
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills ➡️
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.
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.


Quote:
If you could earn more in that time by staying at home, why tour?
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.


Quote:
There's that 3 hours paid work a day red herring again. Where did you get it from? ... here:
You dude:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills ➡️
The plumber charges $88 per hour. He doesn't get paid $88 per hour.
Even using that rate in your previous example, $88 per hour is only $264 per show. It doesn't take many ticket sales to cover that.
Ya know.... 3 x 88 = ????

Quote:
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.
Sorry, but making records is nothing like 'the IT world'. Much as I'm sure you'd like to dream it is.
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #73
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
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.
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #74
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
... It was claimed musicians wouldn't accept an hourly wage 'for an honest day's work'.
True. And I agreed with your point of view, as did several others. Bump the needle, already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
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.
Try that line on your plumber.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Well I'm pursuing a career in music.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Sorry, but making records is nothing like the IT world. Much as I'm sure you'd like to dream it is.
... 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?
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #75
Gear Addict
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
If it works out quickly - great! If not, keep going.
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.
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #76
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaczac ➡️
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]
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #77
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills ➡️
Try that line on your plumber.
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?



Quote:
Then you accept the bad bits that go with the good bits.
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?




Quote:
... 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?
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?
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #78
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaczac ➡️
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.
Yes, end of thread indeed.
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #79
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
BS!
They are both creative processes, and as such both are worked on until they are right in the eyes of the creator.
... 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
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?
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.
Old 11th October 2011 | Show parent
  #80
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills ➡️
... 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."
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?



Quote:
You miss the point again. There was nothing in the OP that required taking such a black/white, mutually exclusive position.
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?
Old 11th October 2011
  #81
Lives for gear
 
jimmyboy7's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed ➡️
Yeah but surely that makes my point: the band started recording albums in 1968 or so, and toured regularly and had label support throughout. They didn't just buy a home studio and pump out Rumours on their first attempt - they evolved and developed as musicians and songwriters within a process that would have included many constraints, but ultimately earned them the right to be able to spend long periods in the studio.

So in order to achieve the artistic pinnacle of Rumours, they had to write record and release material that was below the best they were capable of ... but here's nothing wrong with that, because it was part of an artistic development process for which there is little if any parallel today. Put it this way: if there is somebody out there reading this thread with comparable slow burn potential to Fleetwood Mac and they decide on the no constraints take your time route... they will never reach that definitive tenth album.
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
Old 12th October 2011 | Show parent
  #82
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
oh Nurse!?
Thorazine Drip STAT!
Old 12th October 2011 | Show parent
  #83
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
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?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
... 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. ...
I gave my opinion on this in post #71.
Old 12th October 2011 | Show parent
  #84
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
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?
Old 13th October 2011 | Show parent
  #85
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
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.
Old 13th October 2011 | Show parent
  #86
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed ➡️
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed ➡️
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.
Sure.
Based on my experiences working with musicians of genuine talent, you'd also have an extremely frustrated collective.
Old 17th October 2011 | Show parent
  #87
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
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.
..... 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Based on my experiences working with musicians of genuine talent, you'd also have an extremely frustrated collective.
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...
Old 17th October 2011 | Show parent
  #88
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed ➡️
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.
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.

Quote:
By comparison, songs are generally at the same tempo, same key, same time sig, repetition, small instrumental palette... i.e simple.
If that were true, everyone and their aunt would be churning out classics.
Often the most simple things are the hardest to do.

Forum Jump
Forum Jump