By George Ziemann

While I generally try to space my postings out by at least a day, something just happened in another forum which I and others feel is of interest to the audience of this site (DMusic.com) as well as the other venues which may post these articles.

To avoid embarrassment to others, I will withhold the identities of all others whose comments are used.

I was responding to the following statement:

--------

Consistently overlooked in discussions of the cost of producing music are pre-manufacturing costs:

1) artist time in creating the content
2) recording costs
3) mastering costs
(a partial list)

For indie artists, where sales of 10,000 CDs is a "success," these costs are a significant portion of the cost of each unit of finished product. Sure, once you recoup those costs, it's all gravy, but getting there can be a challenge. Given that the pre-manufacturing costs can be a large percentage per unit, the profit margin shrinks considerably. So saying that "it only costs $1 per CD" distorts the truth.

For an indie release, per unit costs might be, as just one rough example, $3 pre-manufacturing, $1 manufacturing, and $3 promotion & distribution. At a wholesale of $7.50, that leaves a very small margin.
This is without doing videos and all that major label stuff.

---------

My response:

I would have to say that this assumes a high-priced studio. My CD cost less than $1000 to create.

No one ever pays the artist for their time to create content. Not even the majors.

ProTools can be purchased for $800. I bought a copy from a PC user who couldn't make it work. I spent $400.
I already had a Mac that I bought six years ago to do programming.

Recording costs -- $400

We released our music on CD-R
Mastering costs - $0

I would say that what is constantly overlooked inthese discussions is the fact that the major labels have convinced everyone that everything is prohibitively expensive when it is totally unnecessay.

We spent the other $600 on beer.

-------

New post:
It's not that simple. Yes, the labels have a cost structure an order of magnitude or two greater than reality, but a bargain basement cost structure may not be reality either. I'm assuming some combination of digital and possibly acoustic instruments/sound modules/etc. were used, all of which weren't free the last time I looked in a music store.

Barebones productions, even with DSP effects in software, simply don't sound the same as tracks done with a bit more horsepower (i.e. - equipment that costs money to buy or rent). What many pholks
discussing this issue use is real world experience making competitive music.

Yes, it can be done for under a grand, but it'll sound like it, even if you're Bob Dylan.

My response:

That is ridiculous.
George Martin used 2 four-track tape recorders.
My gear is better.

I have been a professional audio technician for 30 years. I have worked for a long list of professional acts, including:

* Lola Falana
* Patti Page
* Mel Tillis
* Blue Oyster Cult
* Sha Na Na
* Tammy Wynette
* Bobby Goldsboro
* Dread Zeppelin
* Bellamy Brothers


I have also provided technical assistance at live performances for:

* Steppenwolf
* Poco
* Charlie Daniels Band
* Tony Orlando and Dawn
* Bobby Vinton
* Paul Anka
* Frank Sinatra
* Lou Rawls


The next act on my agenda will be Pete Best, formerly of The Beatles. July 4 and 5, Tama, Iowa.

I believe that over Labor Day weekend, I may have the opportunity to record a live performance of Mr. Best at the Surf Ballroom in Clear Lake, Iowa, where Pete will be part of a tribute to Danny Gatton. At this time, a memorial will be created for Gatton, to be placed next to that of Buddy Holly, who gave his final performance at this historic venue.

Among the expected guests are Paul Shaeffer and Les Paul.

It will sound better than the original "I Want to Hold Your Hand."

As for the other point in the argument.
Any other equipment mentioned was already necessary or already in our possession. No, it doesn't come free.
But we had to have it years ago to perform live. It was not a recording cost. We did not buy anything specifically for recording other than Pro Tools.

Our CD sounds exactly as I intended it to sound.

If people are willing to pay $1 for a 128kbps mp3 file, then final quality isn't really an issue any more. The general public is not as particular as the labels would like us to believe.

I certainly would never pay for an mp3 file.

Statistically, half of the population is of below average intelligence. The next 20.7 aren't much better off, if you look at a statistical bell curve.

You're debating a point that the record labels and Apple has already proven to be moot.
It's about the music.

People want it. I can undercut the major labels by 100% if I have to. And so can each and every one of the tens of thousands of independent acts that the majors aren't interested in anyway.

While the copyright pirates are worried about the music pirates, I have a whole ship full of pirates.

We don't want your music. Most of it is pretty lame anyway.

We're going to steal your entire industry.

And there's not a damn thing anyone can do to stop us.

Woo hoo first post.
http://noriaa.the-erm.com

I'm with you on this one. The indie artists are going to take over the recording industry.

Erm

Damn. Now I want to start an indie recording label.

I wonder how much it costs to rent a studio... and I need to learn to use Pro Tools...

I can make a 192khz digital recording with a computer and about $2000 worth of recording equipment. What the hell do we need a studio for anymore?

Mixing is a discovery all its own. Some people like the professional polish, some like it dirty. Everyone raved when lo-fi emerged in commercial music as if it was some great new discovery. A friend of mine cracked me up when he said, "Lo-fi? That's what I've been doing all these years - I guess I was ahead of my time!"

The real truth is that most money in "professional" recordings goes to grease the gears of the marketing machine to push stuff you would otherwise not listen to. They do this by hyping the artist and an attitude which in reality has nothing to do with the quality of a recording.

I guess this is a good place to repeat an earlier post.
The day I saw a VH1 interveiw of Sting recording his latest using Cakewalk was the day I relized anyone can own a home studio. This is part of what has the industry shook up. DVDs are at 480 x 640 resalution, one can download homemade porn at 600 x 800 (altho' a webcam's plastic lens kinda ruins it)
I posted a crappy little blues thingy as a song, play it five times in a row and thats how long it took to record it on my PC with Cakewalk from tuning the guitars to compressing it to an mp3. Ive since made recordings with less noise but still haven't recorded indivisual tracks at 48khz and then converted to the standard 44.1khz during downmixing (I hear this keeps the recording warm)
Henry Ford put a car in everyone's home and now the railroad system isnt what it once was. Bill Gates has put a PC in everyone's home, now what is going to happen to anything digital? From photography, telephones, music and movies to the undiscovered either embrace technology or become a dinosaur. I havent used a film camera since buying a digital one and as soon as my ma gets online and gets messenger I can shut our phone off.
Yes, I copied and pasted, but I was quoting myself, lol

Another sad thing that the RIAA doesn't see is the shift from buying cd's to digital music. They cry piracy, but have not even shifted there business model! There creating there own downfall, which i am thankful for.
From hearing Mr. Marks, the RIAA lawyer, he doesn't know much of anything about technology!

We recorded our own CD. It took us about a week (maybe 96 hours), and we just used a computer, a cheap mixer, and a few good mikes. It does not sound 100% professional, but then again, we rushed it a little, and it sounds damned good, especially considering that none of us had too much of a clue what we were doing. We have the initial investment paid off. We know what we're doing now. The next CD will be 100% better, and it we'll make it for FREE. The RIAA can cry me a freakin' river - if it costs $50000 to make an album, either the engineer is overpaid, or the band can't play their instruments (or both).

"I certainly would never pay for an mp3 file."

Neither would alot of people. An MP3 file IS NOT A TANGABLE product. I dont care what anyone says. You can not get rich off selling a MP3 file.

I would pay for a high-quality ogg-vorbis download, but I certainly would not pay a price comparable to current CD costs.

My ultimate preference would be an unlimited subscription service. I pay something like $20 a month, and I get unlimited downloads of high-quality files from a FULL catalog, not some top 40 listing. No hassle, and there is plenty of money to be made by all.

The phone companies put billion-dollar satellites into orbit, and make money on subscription services. Why can't the recording industry figure this one out?

It all depends on personal preference. It's totally subjective. I have released many recording at low cost over the years. I was usually not very happy (after some time had passed) with the final quality of the product. That is my opinion, though some say they liked it fine. I'm a hard critic of my own work.

I don't like the way things sound on a computer (usually), and I don't like dealing with latency problems when I'm trying to work. I like my hands on a real console with all the features I like, and none of the crap I don't like. I actually know my console inside and out, and my outboard gear as well. No wizards or automatic settings. Research, reading, watching others, and trial and error lead to that. I would never trade that for some system I could just install on my computer and instantly output mediocre sounds.

People often substitute gizmos, plug-ins, and toys for creativity, skills, and knowledge. I know people and bands releasing CD's three times a year on their allsihad (pro tools) and Cubase setups. It usually sounds like crap, in my opinion, and they don't seem to sell a lot of copies except to friends. They claim to be happy with it, but they always say something like "we didn't have to spend a fortune" or "we did it ourselves" to compensate for the quality.

Recording and sound engineering is a science and an art all of it's own. Completely separate from the artistic side of musical creativity. Many people don't bother to learn the basics of sound reproduction and audio recording and playback. They install some computer program and use all the features to compensate for knowledge and skill. This can be good, but it can also be bad. I think it is more often bad than good. Sometimes people have learned basics with "real" standard recording equipment, and then move over to a computer system once they have some recording skills and knowledge. This can lead to some very excellent results. Many people don't take this path however.

Just because I drive a Honda and I'm happy with it, doesn't mean that you aren't entitled to drive a Mercedes if you want to. You may think it is a better car or retains it's value or whatever you wish to think. Same thing with recording equipment.

Personally, I don't like having to say "we recorded this ourselves" or "it would have sounded better if we could afford more studio time" or any other excuses. I just want my product to speak for itself. So I decided to build my own real studio using standard recording equipment. Don't hate me or call me stupid for that. It's like me chosing a nice PRS guitar over a cheap strat copy.

Some people believe that tube amps sound better. Some people believe that more expensive guitars sound better and are easier to play. Some people disagree. It's all subjective. Nothing is right for everyone when it comes to gear.

I do count the cost of ALL of the gear used, whether it was purchased long ago or the day before the recording sessions. If it was used to make the musical recording, and it cost money, it was an expense used to create the music. It doesn't matter if I also use it for live performances too. Unless it is a fan or a stool which can be used for other things than helping make music. Without my guitar and amp and my other gear, I can't make music, let alone record it.

And actually, major labels must pay union wage to every performing artist involved in making the recording. So people DO get paid for the time to create if it is a major lable release. Overlooking this fact might change perception. It isn't wise to spread misinformation like this because it will be used for bad, not for good.

You can't even get your song on a commercial advertisement or a television show without proof that the performers were paid a certain wage for their efforts. I lost a few lucrative deals early in my career because of this exact situation. I've since learned my lesson, the hard way.

That two track recorder that George Martin used was probably state of the art at the time. I bet the same model is still used by mastering engineers, who prefer mastering to analog as well as a backup digital copy on DAT. Your gear may be better, or it may only be better in your opinion, or your gear may not be better at all.

Obviously, just about anybody can do things more efficiently than major labels when it comes to pre-production and actual recording efforts. I don't agree that the cheapest methods make the best recordings, or even an adequate recording for retail distribution. If it's recorded in a $1000 studio, it will likely sound like it. Maybe not always, but often enough. If you don't use a professional mastering engineer, your music will never sound like professionally released CD's. It's a matter of what level of quality you are happy with to represent what you are capable of. Everyone has a different position on this. What sounds good to someone, might sound like crap to someone else. It is very subjective. There is no right or wrong, but please don't ask me to use the tools that I don't like or suggest that I should have done what you have done.

How can $20 of unlimited downloads equate plenty of money for all. In less than one month, you could download the entire catalog for the price of a little more than one CD. That seems fair? To whom? They would become bankrupt in a very short time.

Phone companies don't provide art. It is a lousy example. And they have millions of subscribers, and a virtual monopoly (which I though we were all against). I, for one, don't want the phone company as a model for the new music distribution.

BlueCollarJoe: I congratulate you on your CD. Good for you. I hope you keep making music. Perhaps you can understand why someone who has already released music, and gotten over the initial inspiration and pride, and now wants to make better sounding recordings. Some of your posting is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. The excuses part.
Here is part of what you wrote: "We recorded our own CD. It took us about a week (maybe 96 hours), and we just used a computer, a cheap mixer, and a few good mikes. It does not sound 100% professional, but then again, we rushed it a little, and it sounds damned good, especially considering that none of us had too much of a clue what we were doing"

Some of us are not comfortable doing that any more. Maybe we did it in the past, but now we want to keep improving our sound. I hope you understand my using you as an example, and I hope you don't take it personally as an attack on your band or CD. I'm just showing that what is right for someone, may not be right for everyone. I spent a lot of money over the years, trying to escape that exact situation. Sure, I could have bought a cheap Roland desktop recording toy, but that isn't what I wanted. What if I want inserts on several channels at once? What if I want to be able to tweak knobs and move faders for ALL of my channels and tracks? That is why I went with an outboard mulitrack recorder and a 24 channel console. I'm much happier with the quality of my recordings than I ever have. And I've been self recording for over ten years, and recording other bands for almost five years. I'm entitled to my preferences.

btw, not everyone raved at lo-fi in commercial music. In fact, quite a few did not. More toys and plug-ins lead to that phenomenon than anything else. People don't prefer lousy sound quality, but they might be able to listen to it.

JustASquirrel is right. The majority of costs for a major label release is marketing and hype. They have found that the public responds in great numbers to these marketing tactics. I'm sure they would prefer to not spend this type of money, but if they think it's going to sell records that is what they do. Radio promotion alone can go through the roof. I read an interview with Shania Twain's personal manager (not the band manager) and he said that they spent over two million (might have been five million) on radio promotion for one single song! Once it was on the charts, they don't want to slide down so they pump the money into the radio stations so they can climb the charts. Once they reached number one they continued to pay big bucks so they looked good at the top for a while. Once they felt like it all looked good enough, they let it fall down off the charts and out of heavy rotation. That is how they manipulate the charts. Being number one mostly means having the most money for radio promotion, and nothing to do with listener preference. It is very wasteful indeed, but that is what the mainstream public responds to.

Perhaps George is right, half of the population might be below average intelligence. But then again, if that is the case wouldn't that be the average? Isn't average usually reflecting the typical?

Musicfann,
I just wanted to comment on this part of your comments:
How can $20 of unlimited downloads equate plenty of money for all. In less than one month, you could download the entire catalog for the price of a little more than one CD. That seems fair? To whom? They would become bankrupt in a very short time.

With the internet now the main marketing tool of the world, the RIAA has been slow to react. Honest consumers want music at a reasonable price, but the RIAA is doing all they can to use the DMCA against creativity and stopping growth on the internet. If they don't adapt soon, they will go bankrupt. Is that a bad thing, probably not because from what i saw at the Copyright hearings, the consumers are LIED to and threatened with fear, even honest people.
Apples new downloading software is already hacked, check the LA times on 5/14/03. It took less than a week to hack it. They need to learn technology and adapt. They have yet to show that they care about technology, to them it is a tool to control and manipulate.
The control is starting to fade and things will have to get cheaper, i am not sure how low. But from what i saw, I don't even want to buy there music, nor do i think the world would either. If people want to, let them pay whatever the RIAA wants them to. THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO THE CONSUMER, its all about the money!
The solution, avoid there music.
Thanks

"In less than one month, you could download the entire catalog for the price of a little more than one CD."

Yeah, and then what would you do. Listen to all of it? How long would that take? Meanwhile, you are still paying your dues. This is subscription based, remember? Minimum terms of length like a year, maybe two?

Hey, you want money to be made. $20 each from at least 40 million people is better than nothing.

I don't want the recording industry to run the show either, but right now they have the lock and key on a lot of existing music. Going forward, we don't need them.

musicfann,

You agreeing with me on the marketing aspect is ironic because you have said on other topics that you felt there was nothing wrong with marketing music.

I take it then you feel that a certain level of marketing is ok, but all-out hype is wrong. Unfortunately, as long as music is in the hands of the corporate machine, they are going to do whatever they feel is necessary to make a profit.

I too think that $20 a month is too pricey. You should pay by the download (25 cents at the most). Maybe even charged a minimal sign up fee. Apple has gone in the right direction with this, but they haven't gone far enough.

Hype is a good marketting tool, because it works. I hate hype. If you don't see advertisements for the product, you see the bands saying how great it is and how they think it's better than their last effort. Well duh, let's all hope its going to be better than their last effort. Why would they settle for something less? Sadly, many people fall for this and think "well they said it was going to be 'off the hook', so it must be good!", then they find out that it really sucked. It's a common problem in mainstream music anymore.

Musicfann is right, most of the time, 'professional' recordings sound better (though, I guess in the end it's just all up to taste). I notice that with a lot independent bands that their mp3 files that they give out sound a bit hollow. With a professional recording, I have yet to hear this. I would choose the professional recording over the computer way that many you speak of. Though, doing it on computer can be sufficient enough if your band is really that good. I have quite a few mp3's that I've gotten from indies that are obviously not professionally done, yet they sound great the way they are.

I would like to point out that there is better DAW software out there than Alsihad (ProTools to the rest of you, musicfann must be a PSW-er.) Alsihad 007 (ProTools LE with the Digi 001 interface) is only a scaled-down version of Alishad, which is ridiculously expensive. Alishad has artificial track limits not based on actual performance. Many engineers believe there is something wrong with the mix bus (2-channel output) design, that results in flat, lifeless-sounding recordings. Alishad is raved about by people because it just happened to be the DAW that propelled the computer recording industry into the mass market. It wasn't even the first one. And it's definitely not the best one.

MOTU's Digital Performer, Emagic's Logic Audio, Steinberg's Nuendo, Cakewalk's Sonar are all professional DAWs with track limits determined by CPU performance, not artificially created. All have much better MIDI support than Alsihad. All except Nuendo are less expensive than Alsihad 007 for even the most expensive versions, but do not include converters or mic preamps, which is what the 007 module is. There are much better converters and preamps out there anyway, plus the 007 can only go to 48kHz.

Don't think you need to get Alsihad.

JustASquirrel, what people need from recording studios is: good mics, good preamps, good converters (if recording digitally), analog tape machines (which many prefer the sound of), good outboard gear (which plug-ins can't often match for quality) and most importantly, a room with good recording acoustics, and an engineer who knows what they're doing. Some people just prefer to go to a recording studio, even if they're releasing their record themselves. It's easier to that feeling into the song if someone else is taking care of the technical end.

BlueCollarJoe: "if it costs $50000 to make an album, either the engineer is overpaid, or the band can't play their instruments (or both)." Engineers can indeed be overpaid, but not that much. The mixing engineer (if it's different from the tracking engineer, which it usually is with major releases) gets much more than the tracking engineer. The main cost of the recording, which can easily be more than $50,000, is the studio. They have very expensive gear that needs to be maintained. It costs a lot of money to run a professional recording studio. And of course, they have to spend more time than it should take in the studio, because the band can't play their instruments.

musicfann, I don't think you're going to get much agreement here on the benefits of recording in a studio. I'm with you, but it doesn't seem to be the common philosophy around here.

Oh yeah, VampireMoon, the common opinion of DAW engineers is that downsampling from 48kHz to 44.1 is not worth it. You get some benefits from recording at 48k, but resampling to 44.1k produces enough distortion that it would be better to just record at 44.1k to begin with. What you could do, if you want to record at a higher sample rate, is record at 88.2k. This way, when you downsample, all it is doing is pulling out every other sample. It is supposed to be better-sounding. If your final product is to be 48k, record at 96k. I personally can't vouch for these claims, I haven't had an opportunity to compare on decent equipment.

If you convert back to analog before converting to the final 44.1k, record at whatever sample rate you want. The issue only arises when a 48k file is resampled to 44.1k. Or when a 96k is resampled to 44.1k, or an 88.2k to 48k.

Apparently html does not work in replies to news articles.

It doesn't on boycott-riaa.com, but it does work on dmusic.com.

This is the only post I'll make here today. Got lots to do.

kneo - "I notice that with a lot independent bands that their mp3 files that they give out sound a bit hollow."

I can say that this is undoubtably the case with mine. I could go back and fatten up the 1.5 to 3 kHz frequency range on the master and remix for an awesome sounding mp3.

This would sound all of those "muddled vocals" complaints as well.

But hey, I'm not trying to sell an mp3. I'm trying to sell CDs. The mp3s are free samples. They ARE inferior to my original recording.

If people REALLY want to pay for mp3s, I'll spend a little more time on them.

But for now, and for the distinct purpose of being a major annoyance to everyone in the industry, I'm giving mp3s away. No matter what the majors' "price" for downloads, I'm going to consistently undercut them by 100%.

They have to take more than $10 off their retail price to compete with my $5 price point.

I can do it as long as necessary.

Veracohr,

Anybody who has been making music for any length of time has all that studio stuff, except of course the engineer, and possibly the acoustics. I agree that sometimes it is easier to just pay up. It's just so simple to do it at home now with very high quality output - that's my only point.

It's also a great learning procedure to record yourself. Most musicians I talk with think it is beyond them, but it is not that difficult and provides great personal reward.

"the common opinion of DAW engineers is that downsampling from 48kHz to 44.1 is not worth it." Thanks for the input Veracohr, Im still expiramenting. Seems I lose something when I let Cakewalk downmix to the two mastertracks. Im allways aiming for the final "product" to be 44.1khz, a WAV for car stereos Oh yeah, Cakewalk ProAudio 9 is what Im using.
Some of what musifann stated makes it seem as if he thinks PC recording uses midi generated sounds and that label backed stars and studios are NOT using PC based studios. VH1's interveiw with Sting was in his studio as he was recording his next CD, I bet those large rooms with acoustic tiles sound better then my den, but it was Cakewalk Im thinking of buying it just to hear how it came out... I do agree that expiranced engineers can usually make a better recording but dude have you heard some of the latest CDs? I forgot what band my wife's girlfriend just bought (sounds like disco to me ) but I can do better reordings then Metallica's Garage Days lol
Another thing I like about a home studio is while writing I can come up with differant ideas. Like for example differant bass lines on differant tracks with the same ryth. guitar, then pick my favorite. or solo guitar A and B, then pick one. Do label backed artists eat up time with stuff like this in a rented studio?

Hey Im game for starting an Indie Label so if anyone is interested let's do it the more indie's the mor competition the Majors Have!

Oh yes it is Vamp if you can get the right sound card to format the recording so it doesn't sound like a 33 record

I subscribe to emusic.com; it costs me $10 a month, and I can download whatever they have, and make my own CDs from it.

Obviously some copyright owners think it's worth doing a deal with emusic.com

Incidentally, chart topper "You Were Right" by Badly Drawn Boy was recorded at home with a low budget.

Also, see "The problem with music"

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Tim

tim,
In order to be on emusic, you must be on mp3.com. We just left. We're not going back.

when users do computer music it sounds like crap and unproduced. The quality of the songs drop by ten percent but, I guess thats the way to go for some artists who may not be able to afford real studio time. I do make some of my own stuff with Calkwalk sometimes it comes out just a s good but it's still not top quality.

if you're in a band and want to make a real good sounding demo I suggest saving the money and going into a real studio to record. PC studio's are just not the same. especially those that are serious about their careers.

Sting uses Cakewalk.

The last time I went into a studio, they recorded to 2-inch tape.

Then loaded it into ProTools for editing and mixdown.

Just curious - what differentiates "good sound" from "bad sound"? There have been countless major label studio releases that are praised for their quality of sound, and there are countless others that are defamed. Usually it is some "critic" doing the analysis of the sound. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't. So really it just comes down to what the majority of the audience likes?

An example is someone like the White Stripes. Doesn't sound like a whole lot of "expert mixing" went into a lot of their earlier stuff, yet it is just as desirable as Doug Easley's work, if not more.

I've done the studio thing, and I've done the home recording hard drive thing, each have their pros and cons.
Pro studios obviously have the advantage of high quality gear and technically skilled engineers,(if you're lucky), but good studios cost a lot of money and you're always watching the clock.

That time pressure causes you to gloss over faults in performance for the sake of staying within your window.

In my case, things that seemed trivial during the recording session now bug the shit out of me when I listen to the finished product years later.

Home recording allows for more experimentation and more exploration of studio arrangements, the sort of luxury that only big name bands have traditionally enjoyed,(those who could afford the copious studio time).
but you have to accept the reality that whoever is pressing the "record" button is usually an amateur, inexperienced in the art of capturing sound on tape, not to mention shitty mikes and lame acoustics.

At the end of the day, the old adage which was conveyed to me by a studio engineer friend of mine applies...(all together now), YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD.
Quality music transcends the recording medium in which it was recorded, we all would rather hear bootleg-quality recordings of kickass music than highly polished, "studio-magic" infused crap.

That's the best post I've seen anywhere in weeks, shoshidge.

But you know, if you've done enough live work, someone's already got to mix on stage half of the time anyway. And I play keyboards, so I'm constantly thinking about which buttons to push, what setting I need next, etc. etc.

Spend a little while on good levels, press the record button, turn around and play. It's not really that hard, compared to all the stuff I have to remember anyway.

Just keep it hot, but out of the red. Everything else can be fixed.

Don't let anyone tell you different.

But you'll still have those little things that always bug you. No one is perfect. We can all always do it just a little better.

That's all we've got to do.

Got new web stats installed today. My logs are loaded with educational and government addresses.

They're finally looking.

So let's forget about the RIAA and go back to talking about music for a while, eh? They are really of no significance any longer. Either they give us something useful or we just take it anyway.

If they call, I'll let you know.

George,
Stop talking about the RIAA? Excellent point, till i begin to think about the verizon case and other ruthless things they are doing.

George,
Stop talking about the RIAA? Excellent point, till i begin to think about the verizon case and other ruthless things they are doing.

but, in order to get the "vibe" of actually getting together with your and mates if you have a real band than, lets say, sitting behind your computer to record by yourself, which sounds better? Recording and mixing all by yourself or going to a studio for an hour or so to record a demo? Call me old fashioned maybe, but I think computer recording is much harder. I dabble in it with Cakewalk myself but I;m not in a band. How do you hear each other play? How does a singer record with his band behind a computer without listening to his bandmates play?

I doubt Sting sits behind his computer all day recording and mixing his songs lol. even if he does use Cakewalk.

i can get together with my bandmates fine in my basement with a computer.
Also, we don't have the added pressure of some highly paid engineer sitting there waiting for us to accomplish something
Using hard disk recording does not imply that one is a shut-in.
For the price of cutting good a studio demo, I can buy a computer with a good sound card, a copy of cubase/protools, a couple of good mics, and have a few hundred bucks left over for beer, cocaine and hookers if such is my desire.

All you need is someone with some sound engineering skills and computing savvy to run the stuff.

Actually, I'm recording with a friend of mine right now,(on a break).
The engineer is using a PIII running win98, Steinberg Nuendo and a few good mics borrowed from his day job, we're in his parent's basement, the folks are upstairs playing cards under instructions not to run any water or make any other noise without fair warning.

The finished product isn't going to win any grammys but its as good or better than he would get at a studio over a weekend.

Of course, we would all prefer some cushy studio with a team of genius engineers to make us sound better than we are, but the crux of the issue is bang for the buck.

Actually, I think anyone out there using a recording studio for any demo quality music is a total sucker

"Of course, we would all prefer some cushy studio with a team of genius engineers to make us sound better than we are, but the crux of the issue is bang for the buck."

Too many mainstream bands do that today. When you hear their live performances, they sound NOTHING like they do on CD. It's a big disappointment if you ask me.

Sometimes that's true, there is such a divergence between the way a band sounds in the studio compared to how they sound live, it's almost like hearing two different bands.
Studio magic does not have to be used that way, but as a composer/arranger, I have no moral problem with using technology if it helps make the song sound the way I want it to sound


when a band/artist goes into the studio, the intent is to make the music sound like it sounds in their own heads, this can be a good or bad thing.

Some bands do great things in the studio, others over-perfect their recordings making them sound sterile.
Prince and Frank Zappa are two examples of guys who tend to over produce in the studio, whereas their live shows are amazing.

directive -- Come on, man. You know how pissed I was at the DMCA when the RIAA thing started lying.

Nothing could possibly happen before tomorrow. We're all pissed about everything.

shoshidge is, once again, right on target.

And sometimes you go and see a band that sounds just as good live as they do on a CD when you're sure they could never do it.

My rule of thumb -- If someone says, "That will never work" maybe they're just not doing it right.

And Cakewalk... here's a little tidbit for you. Cakewalk didn't know about us either. Had no idea how many artists were out there. Think about it.

No worries George, i was being more sarcastic about my post than serious. Though i do not like there actions, there NEEDS to be more discussion on how to get independents more exposure!

Like most endeavors, it can boil down to what you can live with.

Can you live with an empty wallet? Go to a real studio.

Can you live with bad performances? Don't rehearse before you record.

Can you live with saying "it sounds pretty good when you consider we did it ourselves". Don't worry about learning how to capture good sounds and room acoustics, and just do it yourself with whatever you can get your hands on.

Sting may have used Cakewalk recently, but he has obviously used many other technologies as well. Does he exclusively use Cakewalk? I doubt it, but I don't really know. He also has quite a bit of "real" studio experience and insight that many beginners do not have. What are his reasons for using Cakewalk? Is it just better? Is it cheaper?

Does it even matter? Each of you can decide for yourself what is right for you. Don't let somebody else decide for you. Sometimes it's better to remain undecided until you can get more experience and some detailed information that you can understand.

I'm not against PC recording. I don't prefer it, but I see many benefits to it. Most professional use is for editing and/or cost effective automated mixing. Automation is absolutely fantastic, and can lead to an incredible sounding mix. There are reasons for wanting flexible editing. It is usually to compensate for something that is lacking. To copy and paste the best verse, to fix a small but annoying noise during the guitar solo. Things like that. Not everybody needs those fixes.

I think it is ok for a band to sound different on CD than live and in person. When you see a band live there is a certain energy, and the crowd feeds off the band and the band feeds off the crowd. You also have the benefit of getting a visual. It's a beautiful thing. On a CD you don't have that. What's wrong with adding horns or other instrumentation that isn't there live? If the songwriter imagined it that way, it isn't his fault if the band doesn't have every instrument available to perform. There is more to studio magic than just pitch correction and tricks to mask poor performances. What is wrong with the singer performing his own backup vocals on a recording? I think it is totally acceptable.

Now if I buy a ticket to the show and they just plain suck, I'm gonna be pissed. Nobody likes getting burned like that.

I just dabble with Cakewalk. I'm in no way a professional at any of it. I just think that "bands" would need to practice in a live setting, even if it is in someone's house. If you are a solo artists, well then, whatever works for you. Cheap is cheap, it depends on the persons themselves and what they can afford to do but "bands" need to hear how each other sounds, so each person doing their own recording on their own computers then what? cut and paste the track into your favorite music app??? I don't know. I still think that way is much harder.

to each his own.

*shrugs*

Anybody who believes that you can't make a studio grade record in a home studio should listen to Lewis Taylor's stuff, it's all self performed and engineered in his grandma's attic and it is kickass.
He's doing the sort of music that prince could be doing if he'd only dislodge his self-absorbed head from his anus.

if I were a millionaire, I'd quit my job, build a state of the art ANALOG studio, and only use stuff like Nuendo for editing and such, alas, until that winning lottery number comes in i'm glad I have cubase.

Digital HD recording technology is the one thing that will free the independent musician/band from the yoke of the RIAA and its minions.
if you can't get your music to sound half decent using protools, than maybe the technology isn't the problem, maybe your ability to wield it is lacking, or MAYBE, your music sucks and your ego won't let you admit it to yourself

Wow. Very lively conversation. I have to agree with all of your very good points.

This isn't really on-topic, but which Cakewalk PRODUCT is the one in question here? There are several to choose from, at widely varying prices.

I always thought Cakewalk was sorta lightweight in the HD recording software spectrum.
The big debate that I've encountered is between Steinberg users,(cubase, nuendo, reason) and protools users.
As far as I can tell, the judgement is about 50/50, so it's mostly ends up being personal preference.
I've never heard any indication that Cakewalk compares to the Steinberg/protools professional software.
I've always assumed that Cakewalk's only selling point was its simplicity, but I could be wrong.

I have CakeWalk Pro Audio 9, I dont even know how much it can do, I dont use the midi features at all. My point is that "real studios" are going digital and sometimes with the same programming you and I can run on our PCs. Yes in that interveiw clip Sting had shitloads of equipment and Ive been reading up on how some of the initial digital tracks get downmixed analogly. His version of CakeWalk was just a part of it.
I prefer CakeWalk because of its ability to use multiple soundcards and several musicians can lay down their tracks simultaneusly. Each soundcard equals one stereo track or two mono tracks. For example to record a rythym start to a song each band member would get his own soundcard, the drums mixed by an outboard mixer to two tracks, the rythym guitarist lets say runs thur a stereo pedal board into his soundcard and the bassist lets pretend plugs his active preamped bass straight into his card. Now they play "live" 'til they get a savable performance. Then its possible to digitally process each instrament separetly. To monitor, simply plug the output of each card into a "monitor mixer" which can go to a multi-headphone amp if you like. Later the lead guitar, vocals, ect can be added also recorded simultainiously or at separate times.
I hope this helps some questions and dispells the myth that ALL PC based recording is one instrament at a time.
My problem is now down to one thing. While the finished tracks are separate I get the full rich beautifull sound I captured during playback, when I use CakeWalk to mix down to twotracks I lose that fullness. Later on I'll post some examples and seek advice.
(make that two problems left, I need a babysitter! )

okay, posted now is a short stereo track of just the accoustic guitar, if/when I record a bass line, lead guitar, ect it all will sound just as clear and clean during playback of all the tracks untill I use CakeWalk to downmix 'em into a Master Track. Then it sounds compressed and sterile like Too Much Weed does. Stop laughing at the drum machine in Too Much Weed, my drummer friend needs a sitter also
Not to get too far off the subject, 12 Accoustic Bars was recorded with the built in preamped guitar plugged directly into the soundcard using CakeWalk, a touch of reverb was added using Cool Edit 2000. On both songs Ive posted, from the time when the signal hit my PC's Analog to Digital converter 'till it hit your PC's Digital to Analog converter the music has never left the digital realm. This basic technology could kill RIAA backed expensive studios in the right hands.