The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Music economy 3.0
Old 2nd October 2011
  #1
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Music economy 3.0

I wrote and recorded the song in my sig in under two hours. It wont be everyone's cup of tea but there will be folks who like it. If less than 20 of them go to the bandcamp link and buy it, setting aside the cost of equipment acquired over the years as a write off, I will have been paid somewhere just above the UK minimum wage for my labour. To a lesser extent, this is true of the whole "Countryside Walks With Piet Haag" album - it took less than 70 hours to write, record, mix and master, though I did have to shell out £250 in session fees....

It struck me that amidst all the woe, misery, despair, gnashing of teeth and endless piracy threads, that the one thing musicians actually have control over is how much time they put into composing and recording their songs. If everybody started spending an amount of time that was more appropriate to the near universal expectation that you will earn little or nothing from your music, then in a flash everything that makes it all so unfair just evaporates.

For example, there is a commonly deployed argument by the anti-copyright / pro piracy community that music (and other IP) creators should think of themselves more like everybody else - that is, paid at an hourly rate for an honest days labour... generally this idea is fought tooth and nail, but perhaps there is something in it after all, because unlike the joiner, plumber, accountant etc, the musician ALSO has the copyright system. This means if you create music economically, and invest time proportionate to the likely financial outcome, that the prospect of realistic earnings becomes achievable.

So I'd like to propose a paradigm shift. Rather than music being the object of value, make it instead the time you put it into it.

Last edited by Whitecat; 9th October 2011 at 03:22 PM.. Reason: mod edit: signature abuse
Old 3rd October 2011
  #2
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Sorry man, I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed ➡️
I wrote and recorded the song in my sig in under two hours.
It struck me that amidst all the woe, misery, despair, gnashing of teeth and endless piracy threads, that the one thing musicians actually have control over is how much time they put into composing and recording their songs.
I hate to say it but that's so entirely bogus.
The time I spend on creating music is exactly the amount of time it takes to get it right..... make it the best piece I can manage to concoct.
Sometimes a song can take minutes (Yesterday - Lennon & McCartney?), other times it takes months of hard work to get it right.
The inevitable end game of your suggestion is the that'll do mentality.
That road leads to hell. The route where artistic people do just enough to pay the bills and never strive for excellence.


Quote:
For example, there is a commonly deployed argument by the anti-copyright / pro piracy community that music (and other IP) creators should think of themselves more like everybody else - that is, paid at an hourly rate for an honest days labour... generally this idea is fought tooth and nail, but perhaps there is something in it after all, because unlike the joiner, plumber, accountant etc, the musician ALSO has the copyright system. This means if you create music economically, and invest time proportionate to the likely financial outcome, that the prospect of realistic earnings becomes achievable.
Again, this is a catastrophic misreading of the way creative people operate.
Actually, I wouldn't mind being paid hourly. I've donated hours and hours of toil for less than minimum wage (in civvy street terms) to make music people would value.
I'll give you actual evidence. When I was quite a well thought of studio drummer the musician's union had an hourly rate applicable to my job.
But the actual usual practice of players like me was to quote a daily rate, equal to less than the musicians union rate. Hire me for £500 and you get my entire attention for up to 24 hours until the job is done.
This was understood by both the record companies and the record producers too. They realised it was cheaper to block hire someone and get the best result for the music, than race against the clock on the basis of the recording budget.
In addition, instead of doing the minimum and bringing one kit, one set of cymbals and a couple of snares, me and most other top drummers would cart a kit, multiple bags of cymbals, ten or more snares. On one level we are providing a service in a competitive scene, but on another level we take professional pride in our work and want to sound f***ing kick ass on our recordings. In your thesis I would work to a clock, and only invest in standard equipment, bringing nothing unique to the table.
I once endured a session with an orchestra that was paid hourly. They couldn't play the music very well and left the studio at the alloted time with out of tune and sloppy music in the can.
I would NEVER do that. I stayed at the studio until the job was done, and everyone was satisfied that the drums could not be played or sound better.
That's the way true musicians are.

I regularly put in hours of my own unpaid time on projects.
Kenny Larkin for example, who is an electronic musician I admire, reports it usually takes him three months to complete a single remix. Is his fee more than another top DJ who only takes a week on a remix. I think the answer is no.
I actually welcome being paid a real wage for the work I actually do.
I think you'll find the music scene would grind to a halt under the weight of huge wage bills. In reality, at least 95% of professionals in the music industry are not working to a time based income. they are all working until the music is as good as it can be. Being creative is not the same as being a plumber or a baker.
There isn't a set time to write and record a song, as there is to fit a wash basin.
Making music a race to see who can finish something the fastest is a real race to the bottom.

I think
Old 3rd October 2011 | Show parent
  #3
Lives for gear
 
AcoosticZoo's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
I like your concept, It's inspired me to write a one chord song too. now...which key should I...

I hope your song becomes viral.... You should do a utube video bro. As a songwriter, I find this concept of a one chord amusing (in a good way).

Peace.

Regards
Josef Horhay
Mixing Engineer
www.acoosticzoo.com
Old 3rd October 2011 | Show parent
  #4
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Sorry man, I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.....

<snip>

Being creative is not the same as being a plumber or a baker. There isn't a set time to write and record a song, as there is to fit a wash basin. Making music a race to see who can finish something the fastest is a real race to the bottom.
I disagree - creative people invariably thrive and adapt wherever constraints are applied. If an idea is worth expressing, they will find a way of doing it, because necessity is the mother of invention. It doesn't matter whether you are talking about renaissance era church composers, a band signed to an indie label with a micro recording budget, or somebody writing music for a video game, deadlines are a routine feature of creative work, and often drive the process of creativity. And lets be clear here - perfect sound and perfectly played takes are not about creativity - they are technical details, and their blind pursuit can easily render music anodyne and lifeless.

What I've highlighted above is that market conditions are creating a new constraint which is making this notion of "as long as it takes" completely uneconomical - especially for DIY artists whose sales are often modest. In fact I'd go as far as saying that the removal of time constraints which has come about through the ubiquity of home recording facilities is downright anti-creative. I've long since lost count of the number of times I've heard something fresh and interesting at its early stages being turned into something dull and uninspiring by being subject to several months of needless noodling.

I'm not saying that there isn't room for musicians to spend months or years pursuing perfection, just that for many who aspire to earn a living in this business that it represents an operating model which doesn't work with a generation of music consumers who expect it to be free or cheap. Art needs to reflect life, and that is life as it is right now.

My expectations in terms of the musical outcome are very different from yours. I see music as a communicative medium and its effectiveness greatest when what is being communicated is direct and honest - qualities which are easily diluted or lost through over emphasis on matters of technology and technique. I would anticipate that musicians with talent who choose to adapt to market conditions by working quickly, will hone their performance and writing skills, and focus on what is essential rather than embroidery - and their work will become better for it, not worse.

Last edited by Whitecat; 9th October 2011 at 03:23 PM.. Reason: mod edit: signature abuse
Old 3rd October 2011 | Show parent
  #5
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
You actually don't understand the concepts you are talking about.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed ➡️
perfect sound and perfectly played takes are not about creativity - they are technical details, and their blind pursuit can easily render music anodyne and lifeless.
Hmmmmm, what about if the chords in the middle 8 don't sound right. Hey, you've run out of your alloted £ hours, so do you stick it out with bad sounding chords, or go over time to find better chords? In short, my view has absolutely NADA to do with 'technical perfection'. The creative process comes and goes, it doesn't work to an hourly rate.

Quote:
Art needs to reflect life, and that is life as it is right now.
No, art should move people and strive for relevance and excellence...... none of which has anything to do with £12.99 per hour.


Quote:
My expectations in terms of the musical outcome are very different from yours. I see music as a communicative medium and its effectiveness greatest when what is being communicated is direct and honest -
Be honest...... you have absolutely no clue as to what my expectations of musical outcomes are.
Old 3rd October 2011 | Show parent
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Empty Planet's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcoosticZoo ➡️
...As a songwriter, I find this concept of a one chord amusing (in a good way).
You might like Jandek. A friend hipped me to him a few years back. He's been writing essentially one-chord songs for decades, though they vary a tiny bit. And making records. For decades. Occasionally people get him to tour. Very occasionally.

The music is, to say the least, something of an acquired taste, but even with a determination to make a form of music that 95 people out of 100 would probably never listen to, the man seems to have more persistence and dedication in his little finger than most of us have in our whole body.




Cheers!

Old 3rd October 2011 | Show parent
  #7
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Hmmmmm, what about if the chords in the middle 8 don't sound right. Hey, you've run out of your alloted £ hours, so do you stick it out with bad sounding chords, or go over time to find better chords?
Apart from the wilful misinterpretation of the idea, you'd have to wonder whether a band or artist who got to the closing stages of writing/recording a song only to notice that the middle 8 was composed of "bad sounding chords" should actually be making music in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
In short, my view has absolutely NADA to do with 'technical perfection'. The creative process comes and goes, it doesn't work to an hourly rate.
What does this mean? Is it like if someone books you for a days music making work you have some sort of "non creative zones" where everybody has to go drink tea while you wait for the mythical muse to emerge from the desert of deep silence? Its total nonsense - creative people in all walks of life switch on and get creative every day, often working to specific deadlines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
No, art should move people and strive for relevance and excellence...... none of which has anything to do with £12.99 per hour.
Well whats relevant here is that people want the art for little or nothing. So we have a choice. Keep on doing what we're doing till the people hear the dull rhythmic thud of us banging our heads against the wall and hope they start dancing, or we can do what creative people are generally renowned for doing: adapt to the circumstances we find ourselves in and find new ways of earning a living from music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Be honest...... you have absolutely no clue as to what my expectations of musical outcomes are.
All I said was that they would be different from mine. I didn't claim to know anything else, and its disingenuous to imply that I did.

Last edited by Whitecat; 9th October 2011 at 03:23 PM.. Reason: mod edit: signature abuse
Old 3rd October 2011 | Show parent
  #8
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Keep dreaming is all I can say.
No successful* creative person has ever stopped the creative process when the hourly rate has eaten up their budget. The creative process stops when you are sure the art is finished, and that can be anything from 5 minutes (for a tv jingle) to several years for a movie.

*By successful I'm talking creatively successful, not financially.

The answer to downloading and piracy is not to dumb down music to a monetary equation, an hourly rate fixed to a low budget. That's how soap operas like 'Eastenders' and 'As The World Turns' operate.

Finally, I haven't seen anyone who is anti piracy fighting tooth and nail against being treated like normal working people...... far from it actually.
I'd love to be paid for all the hours I put in.
I'd also love some holiday pay, sick leave, health benefits, a company car, anti-work place bullying and unfair dismissal laws.
Old 3rd October 2011 | Show parent
  #9
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Keep dreaming is all I can say.
No successful* creative person has ever stopped the creative process when the hourly rate has eaten up their budget. The creative process stops when you are sure the art is finished, and that can be anything from 5 minutes (for a tv jingle) to several years for a movie.

*By successful I'm talking creatively successful, not financially.

The answer to downloading and piracy is not to dumb down music to a monetary equation, an hourly rate fixed to a low budget. That's how soap operas like 'Eastenders' and 'As The World Turns' operate.

Finally, I haven't seen anyone who is anti piracy fighting tooth and nail against being treated like normal working people...... far from it actually.
I'd love to be paid for all the hours I put in.
I'd also love some holiday pay, sick leave, health benefits, a company car, anti-work place bullying and unfair dismissal laws.
I do agree with that, and I too would love an hourly wage and benefits! But there is a difference in putting in the creative time to have something you are satisfied with (granted it may not tangibly exist), and putting in the time to make a product [recording] out of it. I would never intentionally dumb down the creative process/music I write, quite the opposite: I continuously strive to meet an increasingly higher bar. But I do spend less time making recordings, which is the physical medium in which people perceive your art if you are a musician. It's not strictly a monetary incentive to do that, it has just as much to do with the general state and perspective of society as well.
Old 3rd October 2011 | Show parent
  #10
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Two points.....
For most people these days the recording process and the writing process are one and the same.
Regarding your last point, the criteria for me is to be satisfied I've done my best and be proud to put my name to the work. I think this is the same for most artists.
The perspective of society, and/or a money vs quality thought process doesn't (and SHOULDN'T) come into it.
Old 3rd October 2011 | Show parent
  #11
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Well without getting too into philosophy, I believe in "balance". I think there is a natural force in the universe that continuously strives to maintain that balance, even though an exact mathematical balance may be impossible.

So because of this, I think it is only natural that a response to over commercialized music that fits precisely on a grid of both frequency and rhythm, should at somepoint emerge as the antithesis of that. So I believe overall, music will continue to be dumbed down to robotic level, as well as an upserge in the "not cool to be good trend", until a more human approach is more prevalent. I may just take up writing my music out in score and bypassing the recording all together, in hopes of preserving the true ideas just in case future generations aren't robots.
Old 4th October 2011 | Show parent
  #12
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
That's your work method and that's completely fine, but I fail to see any relevance to the subject being discussed.
Due to affordable technology, the majority of creative musicians, both the incredibly innovative ones and the crass commercial ones, record and compose in one moment. That's just the reality.
Old 4th October 2011
  #13
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
There is no music economy 3.0... Sorry.
Old 5th October 2011 | Show parent
  #14
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
The answer to downloading and piracy is not to dumb down music to a monetary equation, an hourly rate fixed to a low budget. That's how soap operas like 'Eastenders' and 'As The World Turns' operate.
.
Major and indie labels operate as businesses - they sign bands for specific amounts - proportionate to their revenue expectations - and hire personnel and facilities to come up with a saleable product, which they then market and promote. The whole process is characterised by constraints - time, finance, physical and human resources. And given the typical nature of present day popular music product, I think its fair to say that it has a great deal in common with "Eastenders"... its churned through a well oiled system week in week out.

The flip side is that for musicians operating outside this system, the range of constraints which serve to balance artistic objectives with financial viability don't exist. No immovable deadlines; no experienced producer with a track record to provide objective input; no seasoned engineers to take route 1 to the optimum sound, no financial constraints on studio time.... it all falls to the judgement of the artists, and often results in more time being spent song perfecting than song writing.

In practical terms, what I have suggested is that musicians start to use some of the constraints that would apply if they were signed. And the most obvious one is to consider realistically how much they're likely to earn from a release, and use it as a guide for the amount of time they put in. Now unlike you, I really don't foresee a situation where bands/artists will reach the end of the process and suddenly notice "bad sounding chords" ... what will be impacted by this process are things like excessive fixing of timing and tuning, line by line comping, over processing / mixing / mastering etc...

Critically, having realistic time frames to create thing like albums, singles or EP's means that musicians have to draw a line and move on. Learn from the experience and do better next time - and not by disguising their limitations through technology, but enhancing their abilities to compose and perform music which reflects their intent.

There is a really nice article by Robert Barry at The Quietus, where he asks what the music industry actually is, and eventually reaches the conclusion that its all of us who have a vested interest in music. From managers to labels, musicians to journalists - we're basically all in it together.... but it begs the further question, if the industry needs to change and adapt to the circumstances it finds itself in, who should be driving the change? Should it be global corporations ... or teams of IP lawyers ... or web 2.0 designers ... or governments ... or rights organisations?

I don't think so..... it should be musicians. And that is the essence of Music Economy 3.0 - we don't have to wait for the existing music business model to completely collapse to start building a new one.

Last edited by Whitecat; 9th October 2011 at 03:23 PM.. Reason: mod edit: signature abuse
Old 5th October 2011 | Show parent
  #15
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed ➡️
I don't think so..... it should be musicians. And that is the essence of Music Economy 3.0 - we don't have to wait for the existing music business model to completely collapse to start building a new one.
Of course, musicians are adapting daily......already.
I actually think you'll find, even with budgets the end result is what matters. So if a mix doesn't turn out so well, extra money will be found to make a new one. You don't just say, that's not right but we'll put it out because we alloted £1000 to this project and we've spent £999.
You keep bringing up the chords thing but that was just a simplistic example. The fact is, in great art, more time gets spent than you think, more money gets spent, because the over-riding goal is to create great art.
The goal of Eastenders is to win ratings at a fixed budget.
The over-riding goal of Coronation Street is to sell advertising space on a fixed budget.
That's not where music should be going.
Old 5th October 2011 | Show parent
  #16
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by GearOnTheGo ➡️
There is no music economy 3.0... Sorry.
LoL, there wasn't even a '2.0'

Old 5th October 2011 | Show parent
  #17
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Of course, musicians are adapting daily......already.
I actually think you'll find, even with budgets the end result is what matters. So if a mix doesn't turn out so well, extra money will be found to make a new one. You don't just say, that's not right but we'll put it out because we alloted £1000 to this project and we've spent £999.
You keep bringing up the chords thing but that was just a simplistic example. The fact is, in great art, more time gets spent than you think, more money gets spent, because the over-riding goal is to create great art.
The goal of Eastenders is to win ratings at a fixed budget.
The over-riding goal of Coronation Street is to sell advertising space on a fixed budget.
That's not where music should be going.
Only the tiniest proportion of music which makes it to retail either constitutes great art, or is made by great artists. Most of it is distinctly average and doesn't stand the test of time; a modest amount of it is good and sometimes very good .... but the genuinely great and exceptional is a once or twice in a generation thing. So I think its reasonable to have expectations ad ambition, but at the same time be pragmatic - we're not painting the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel... we're making rock and pop, a routinely disposable product which is often little more than audio wallpaper for consumers' lives.

And there are no shortage of examples of music which was recorded with very basic facilities by contemporary standards, often with time constraints that would be considered completely ridiculous today. Even relatively recently, a song like Creep - the launchpad for Radiohead's stellar career -was reputedly done in a single take... and musically is incredibly simple... a key point, since at its core, pop and rock music revolves around simplicity - lyrics, melody, rhythm and chords... its not complicated, rarely requires any degree of genuine virtuosity and generally doesn't present the listener with much of a challenge.

In fact, if anyone faces a challenge, its the musician - its not easy to write music which finds the balance of being new, immediate and accessible, especially if there is some depth - lyrical or musical involved. So I think you're analogy of a soap opera is directly relevant. It involves teams of people coming together to deploy a range of skills and talents, working to deadlines and a range of other constraints to create a product accessible to, and enjoyed by a broad audience ... sounds a lot like music.

Last edited by Whitecat; 9th October 2011 at 03:24 PM.. Reason: mod edit: signature abuse
Old 6th October 2011 | Show parent
  #18
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed ➡️

And there are no shortage of examples of music which was recorded with very basic facilities by contemporary standards, often with time constraints that would be considered completely ridiculous today. Even relatively recently, a song like Creep - the launchpad for Radiohead's stellar career -was reputedly done in a single take... and musically is incredibly simple... a key point, since at its core, pop and rock music revolves around simplicity - lyrics, melody, rhythm and chords... its not complicated, rarely requires any degree of genuine virtuosity and generally doesn't present the listener with much of a challenge.
Although the point actually is, the song was recorded in a single take because that's how it worked out, not because their A&R department gave them only enough money to record the entire album in first takes.
You're taking a single incident, ignoring every other norm in recording, and imposing that one instance on everyone.
The thing is, if they'd had trouble capturing the song 'Creep' to tape, and their record company had recognised the significance of the song, you can bet your house they would have been given the extra time and money to finish it to the best of their ability.
And your proposal is for 'Music business 3.0' not for pop/rock 3.0.
You can't grasp the simplicity of pop music, the often lack of 'genuine virtuosity' (as you call it) and impose that on every other genre in the entire music business!
Old 6th October 2011 | Show parent
  #19
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Although the point actually is, the song was recorded in a single take because that's how it worked out, not because their A&R department gave them only enough money to record the entire album in first takes.
You're taking a single incident, ignoring every other norm in recording, and imposing that one instance on everyone.
The thing is, if they'd had trouble capturing the song 'Creep' to tape, and their record company had recognised the significance of the song, you can bet your house they would have been given the extra time and money to finish it to the best of their ability.
And your proposal is for 'Music business 3.0' not for pop/rock 3.0.
You can't grasp the simplicity of pop music, the often lack of 'genuine virtuosity' (as you call it) and impose that on every other genre in the entire music business!
Exactly, whether or not a song is a one take affair or not, it's dependant of the song and how it happens, not the other way around. You can't put how one song happened and try to fit others into that mold, as it just doesn't work that way.

I've had songs that were nailed in one take.. but those are the exception, not the rule. I've had songs that i wrote in 5 minutes, but took 15 years to simmer to the point that it came out in 5 minutes... i've had songs that took years to record and took years to write. Each expression is different. True art doesn't follow a timeline. Nor should it.
Old 6th October 2011
  #20
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Yep

Fleetwood Mac : 'Rumours'

The band started the album in February 1976 and were still working on it that Autumn.

Quote:
Chris Stone, one of the Record Plant's owners, indicated that Fleetwood Mac brought "excess at its most excessive" by taking over the studio for long and extremely expensive sessions
Quote:
Mick Fleetwood has called Rumours "the most important album we ever made", because its success allowed the group to continue recording for years to come.
Quote:
In 1998, Q placed Rumours at number three—behind The Clash's London Calling and Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon—in its list of 50 Best Albums of the 70s. In 1999, Vibe featured it as one of 100 Essential Albums of the 20th Century. In 2003, VH1 ranked the record at number 16 during its 100 Greatest Albums countdown, while Slant included it as one of 50 Essential Pop Albums. The same year, USA Today placed Rumours at number 23 in its Top 40 Albums list, while Rolling Stone ranked it at number 25 in its special issue of "The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time", the highest Fleetwood Mac record. In 2006, Time named it in its All-TIME 100 Albums shortlist, while Mojo featured it in its unnumbered list of 70 from the 1970s: Decade’s Greatest Albums.
Old 6th October 2011
  #21
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh ➡️
LoL, there wasn't even a '2.0'

Very True!


Posted from a scoring stage or recording studio via the Gearslutz iPhone app
Old 7th October 2011 | Show parent
  #22
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Yep

Fleetwood Mac : 'Rumours'

The band started the album in February 1976 and were still working on it that Autumn.
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.

Last edited by Whitecat; 9th October 2011 at 03:24 PM.. Reason: mod edit: signature abuse
Old 7th October 2011 | Show parent
  #23
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed ➡️

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 ...
Really heh

Like the 1969 UK number 1 'Albatross'?

Or the 1975 album 'Fleetwood Mac'.

No.1 in the US, selling over 5 million copies. Including hits like Stevie Nicks' "Rhiannon" ?
Old 7th October 2011 | Show parent
  #24
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh ➡️
True art doesn't follow a timeline. Nor should it.
But its creation is typically process driven; involves learning and building on the experience of prior work; and is in some part defined by the constraints of the circumstances in which it was created.... that could be time, money, resources, health, support (or lack of), societal or political factors etc etc.

Leonardo da Vinci summed it up nicely: Art is never finished, only abandoned.

Last edited by Whitecat; 9th October 2011 at 03:24 PM.. Reason: mod edit: signature abuse
Old 7th October 2011 | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
3rd Degree's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I can't say I totally disagree with the idea of getting paid a fair price per hour but there are too many factors.

Most of us have to pay upfront costs to record, where does that equate?

Do you really feel you can get paid for every hour you worked?

You may put in 80 hours per week while recording an album but if it isn't half the year, you are not working full time.

Are you considering the fact you should be getting paid 55 cents per mile you drive in your own car (in the US) for everywhere you travel, if you want to compare it to a conventional job.

Have you added up the cost of insurance on where you work if it's your own studio. That would be electricity, insurance, security, and sq footage cut into your own home, or something you pay more for if you are renting, compared to working for someone else.

Health insurance?



I could list so many more. The biggest thing is job security. If you work everyday and come home and make music for a few hours and can sell, sure, it seems nice. But if you are not working a steady job, you may not see things the same way.
Old 7th October 2011 | Show parent
  #26
Gear Addict
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
Really heh

Like the 1969 UK number 1 'Albatross'?

Or the 1975 album 'Fleetwood Mac'.

No.1 in the US, selling over 5 million copies. Including hits like Stevie Nicks' "Rhiannon" ?
What is your point?

You included quotes which highlighted that their most important, iconic and critically acclaimed album took 10 months to record. I made the counter point that it actually took many preceding albums and the best part of a decade to complete, and to reach their artistic zenith. Are you saying that from the first album onwards they operated at consistent level of artistry; the critics have got it wrong; and there was no development process as artists which lead to the creation of Rumours? Or are you saying that Fleetwood Mac would have been a better album if they'd spent 10 months rather than 2 on it?

It cant be the fact that they made albums which sold well prior to Rumours, because as you pointed out...

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
*By successful I'm talking creatively successful, not financially

Last edited by Whitecat; 9th October 2011 at 03:25 PM.. Reason: mod edit: signature abuse
Old 7th October 2011 | Show parent
  #27
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundseed ➡️

It cant be the fact that they made albums which sold well prior to Rumours, because as you pointed out...
You think that's mutually exclusive?
Albums can be both critically and financially successful.

You took my quote completely out of context.
By creatively successful I mean something that has reached a successful creative conclusion in the opinion of the artist.
In my years of experience that's almost never based on a factor of time, or pounds per hour.

My point is.....
It's not creatively a good idea to put creative people on the clock.
That's pretty much undisputed in all art forms over hundreds of years.
Old 7th October 2011 | Show parent
  #28
Gear Addict
 
MTStudios's Avatar
 
8 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
I think the best response to SoundSeed's suggestion is

Good luck mate. Lets see how you feel listening to your music in 20 years.
Old 8th October 2011 | Show parent
  #29
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso ➡️
... My point is.....
It's not creatively a good idea to put creative people on the clock.
That's pretty much undisputed in all art forms over hundreds of years.
That's true enough. The OP's point is also valid, namely that you can't expect to make a profit (or a living) that way.
Old 8th October 2011 | Show parent
  #30
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Hills ➡️
The OP's point is also valid, namely that you can't expect to make a profit (or a living) that way.
That isn't the OP's point.
The OP's point is to devise a system where musicians are paid hourly.
You mischaracterize the debate. It's my decision whether or not to work an extra few hours to make something better than I can in the pre-budgeted timeframe.
I, and just about every other creative person, make that decision in full knowledge of our expected profit etc....
No one, as I keep telling you, expects anything, other than to be paid when someone consumes something with a fee attached. I decide my fee based on what I think I can get.
As I said earlier, I'd love to see the text where musicians rejected being paid on an hourly basis for the work they actually do. Most are working above and beyond the average wage earner on the street. 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.

Forum Jump
Forum Jump