|
|
Post by kevinnyc on Jun 30, 2014 10:52:22 GMT -6
Ya gotta live for the 4 to 6......
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 30, 2014 10:58:48 GMT -6
We were down the rabbit hole during the Frankie Avalon era too. Then along came the Beatles...
I really trust in the power of music when people can get exposed to it. A treasure hunt on I-Tunes or YouTube is not exposure. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 30, 2014 12:20:49 GMT -6
It just all comes down to money. Union scale for doing a limited pressing (10,000 units or under) is $400 for the leader and $200 for each additional sideman for 3 hours. So - 6 song Ep, I'm looking at at least $2400 for musicians. And that's for 1 hour per song. So - who has $2000 a day for the studio?
I would LOVE to record in RCA A (I bet it's cheaper than $2k a day) but there are only so many of those big budget venues that can survive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jun 30, 2014 12:22:24 GMT -6
I think I'm down to 4 to 6 artists/groups a year who really want to make great music. Otherwise, a lot of crap that takes the joy out of the music. I think that's why I've been leaning more heavily towards jazz lately. Where the music, lyric and recording matter. |
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Jun 30, 2014 12:32:26 GMT -6
Yep. That's precisely the point, that's not exposure. Artists with means should ban together and buy Clear Channel as a conglomerate. I recommend Garth Brooks as chairman. He has YET to sell out to I Tunes.
As long as this shitty music is force fed to the air ways by limp noodles, nothing will ever change. It's like Hitlers propaganda, when that's all there is to listen to, the people follow along.
A young artist who cares about the art has no chance of getting played right now on popular radio. And yes, radio still leads the way for exposure. Another aspect is artists now have even less leverage no matter how talented they are. Labels take more and more from them and the artists are powerless against this.
Use to, the labels owned the majority of record sales and the concert door belonged mostly to the artist. Not anymore, the labels have swooped in on concert gates now because guess what, nobody buys records. And that's because of what Bob said above, they aren't worth owning because there is nothing on them that moves people.
It's a vicious cycle that can only be broke by screws in charge if the airways.
Artists need to buy Clear Channel. This mess would clear up in a week.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Jun 30, 2014 12:40:23 GMT -6
Not mention the complete lack of cowbell on modern radio...
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jun 30, 2014 13:02:22 GMT -6
We were down the rabbit hole during the Frankie Avalon era too. Then along came the Beatles...
I really trust in the power of music when people can get exposed to it. A treasure hunt on I-Tunes or YouTube is not exposure. Werd... From ur fingers to gods ears 8) |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 30, 2014 13:18:25 GMT -6
Not mention the complete lack of cowbell on modern radio... That, in and of itself, is a crime against humanity. I make no wonder the millenials are so 'entitled'... they have no cowbell to keep them in check! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2014 14:58:52 GMT -6
@jordanvoth ^ ? Am I to understand that u consider ur recordings of the same quality as those that are coming out of RCA studio A? Or am I misunderstanding this? Every device in production these days can create a high quality recording. It only comes down to people, I'm sure in the wrong hands that studio could sound dreadful. I recently did a project in which some of the vocals were done in one of our nicer studios in town, the files I got back were compressed to hell, filtered off awkwardly and pitch corrected to death. The quality of my work was much higher. I think what I'm trying to say is that quality is not dependent on these old studios and more on the people working on the music. I'm not sentimental but I will admit it will be a sad day when all these old palaces are gone but there's nothing that's going to stop that day from coming. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jun 30, 2014 19:53:11 GMT -6
When you record live you spend way less time fixing and mixing because the players are creating the dynamics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Jul 1, 2014 7:38:21 GMT -6
I absolutely hate building tracks around one instrument. That isn't the way music was intended to be played and it never sounds right when it is finished. I get as many guys in the room that will come on the same day as I can. I sure don't have an enormous room like RCA a either. In fact, I have noticed an impact in the playing when the band feels like they are almost on stage and bumping elbows. It works. Try it!
R
|
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Jul 1, 2014 10:17:10 GMT -6
Artists need to buy Clear Channel. This mess would clear up in a week. It would be the same movie, different cast. The new owners, (there would be many to fund such a purchase for several BILLION dollars) would instantly be hard pressed to keep the profit margins or they would end up selling it to avoid losses. The reason Clear Channel is so successful is they have found that the bottom line is the bottom line, like any other corporation. They don't exist to make art, they are there to make a profit, the largest they can. The formula they have relied on is the formula that makes them the most money. If listeners didn't like what they play, they wouldn't be the most sucessful music radio conglomerate ever. Clear Channel is providing a service the people want to buy. If you want change, it would begin with the listeners, not the owners. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jul 1, 2014 10:37:32 GMT -6
Jim, it isn't about listeners liking what they hear. It's about large corporate advertisers being able to cover their asses for stock market analysts using the demographic statistics about who listens.
What people like they'll often buy. Today there is little or no relationship between airplay and sales. Anything with much of a message polarizes the listeners and washes right out of Madison Avenue's focus groups. U.S. music radio uses the very same formula today that Muzak did during the '50s and '60s.
Support from small local businesses doesn't try to slice and dice listeners the way national advertisers demand. That's why radio worked for us in the past but is mostly a waste of time today.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Jul 1, 2014 12:23:38 GMT -6
It's absolutely about listeners liking what they hear. Clear Channel wouldn't be successful without those millions of listeners. Analysts would lose their jobs if listeners didn't tune in. Stock market Lords don't make up the demographics, they respond to them. No one listens to radio to buy music, they listen because it's free. You can find free downloads or copy friend's CD's if you want a personal copy.
There are plenty of alternatives to Clear Channel if one makes the effort. Because people choose Clear Channel programing isn't a fault of the corporation, they exist because of the listeners choosing to listen to them.
Almost every town has a college radio station, plus thousands more are available for free on the web. If you want Clear Channel to go away, you need to convince those people that tune in, not those that provide that service.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 1, 2014 13:19:14 GMT -6
Well.... If you shove shit down the throat of a moron long enough, then u stop, they'll say "why'd u stop?" Society is being turned to shit by a myopic focus on the idea that $ is everything smh
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jul 1, 2014 13:40:40 GMT -6
Clear channel is all about listeners identifying with what they have on in the background of their life. Each identity group is marketed separately to advertisers. That's why they own multiple stations in each market.
This chart tells the tale: thewombforums.com/showthread.php?t=12577
College radio is usually on too much of a "hipness" ego trip to be very listenable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 1, 2014 16:58:44 GMT -6
Artists need to buy Clear Channel. This mess would clear up in a week. It would be the same movie, different cast. The new owners, (there would be many to fund such a purchase for several BILLION dollars) would instantly be hard pressed to keep the profit margins or they would end up selling it to avoid losses. The reason Clear Channel is so successful is they have found that the bottom line is the bottom line, like any other corporation. They don't exist to make art, they are there to make a profit, the largest they can. The formula they have relied on is the formula that makes them the most money. If listeners didn't like what they play, they wouldn't be the most sucessful music radio conglomerate ever. Clear Channel is providing a service the people want to buy. If you want change, it would begin with the listeners, not the owners. Well, I agree with you...it's all about the bottom line...but it should also be mentioned that there is basically ZERO competition. When there is, Clear Channel or Cummulus buys them. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jul 1, 2014 21:53:18 GMT -6
Local radio stations no longer compete. They just divide up the audience using music or politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 1, 2014 22:14:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by keymod on Jul 2, 2014 3:55:34 GMT -6
Two sides to every story..................
I have to admit that I tend to agree with the Bradley letter. I do wish, however, that the property could be preserved while still being sold. Now, where's that lottery ticket .........?
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinnyc on Jul 2, 2014 6:36:42 GMT -6
Even if the property were preserved, could it be sustained as such? And how, with tourists buying tickets to see the place? Never happen...
Sustain it by selling studio time? Well we all know the economic feasibility of that....
If there were any appetite for national funding of the arts one could propose an ongoing "live from studio A" television program showcasing our national musical treasures...
Given that we do not respect or revere those of us truly contributing to the country's cultural legacy, that will never happen either....
Looks like condos will ultimately prevail....
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 2, 2014 7:45:59 GMT -6
I don't think Ben Folds is being disingenuous (hiding some ulterior motive) - I think he truly wants the place to be saved - but it's interesting to find out the other side of the story. I'm sure that building is cost prohibitive even for someone like Ben...so, the whole, "Mr. Folds could've bought this building for the past 11 years" comment is kind've snarky. I'm sure they're just pissed that they've owned this tugboat and tried to sell it for 24 years. Then, when they finally get a buyer, the tree huggers move in and try and screw it up. All this is to them is a pain in their asses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jul 2, 2014 10:38:53 GMT -6
Judging by Harold's letter, I suspect they were holding out for somebody to make the investment to turn it back into a world class facility that would attract out of town work such as film scoring. The fact that it will soon be eligible for historical status has undoubtedly put pressure on them to make some kind of a deal sooner than later. Of the owners, Harold has the greatest personal interest in preserving the studio and he isn't getting any younger.
Those of us who worked in these classic studios want to see them making great records again. We don't need more recording museums. Harold is also by no means a wealthy man like his brother and Chet were. His share may well constitute most of his life savings.
When we first moved to town 14 years ago I took one look at Studio A and began looking for investors. Unfortunately Napster had scared off almost all of the music investment community. This is yet another ugly consequence of the consumer tech industry permitting and promoting looting.
|
|
) Actually, this is kind of what I was trying to say a couple pages back with the progress comment. It's kind of bullshit that tree jiggers can come in and basically take away someone's property under the guise of "historic significance". Anyway, interesting points this litter makes...It's funny, we live in a world full of unintended consequences. Try to fix one thing and you screw up another. 