Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MoreSpaceEcho]

RSettee wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 23:38

For artists, it sucks. As an artist, rights to publishing is a shakedown tactic. I'll say this firmly and strongly right now.

i've gotta agree 100%.

i'm sure not making a whole lot of money as an engineer, but it's a hell of a lot more than i ever made being in a band.

if anybody said they wanted 25% of the publishing in exchange for doing a record...well, i'm sorry, but NO. i'll just do it myself at home, thanks. if the songs are so good that anyone thinks it'd be worth trying to get a piece of them, then i imagine they'll survive even my substandard production.

[jimmyjazz]

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not making a value judgement.  Take your pay in cash, in points, in publishing, in beer, I don't care, as long as both parties are fully aware of the scope of the deal.  I would say that the "back end" model, particularly where smaller, independent artists are concerned, is essentially the equivalent of sweat equity in a startup company, the vast majority of which fail.

When one considers the time value of money, it probably works out better for most producers if they just earn their fee for services provided and call it a day.  Of course, that represents a paradigm shift for most artists and record labels, and paradigm shifts almost never happen without pain being incurred by all involved.

[rankus]

wwittman wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 18:03

intrinisic in most people's proposed "future model" always seems to be the idea that an artiste's first few records are just about bound to be "homemade" unless said artiste has a trust fund. This will work well for almost no one.

Well ignoring the spelling issues,...

having worked with some young people very closely for the last year I can honestly say that MOST of the stuff they are turning me onto (and each other) has been stuff coming out of what those on this board would be considered to be homemade recordings... self produced or very low budget stuff... A lot of it is truly amazing music albeit a tad "low fi"

I can also say that very very little of the indie stuff the young folks are buying up has ever been near a big budget producer... These young people are simply not interested in polished music. They are interested in honest music.

The way we old codgers perceive the industry, and what is actually going on with the young music lover is not in alignment IMHO

[rnicklaus]

J.J. Blair wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 17:56

Randy, who's doing 25% publishing deals?  The records publishing I bought, it was 50%, which was of course only 25% of the over all royalty.  Is this what you meant?   BTW, Randy, what used to be a producer's advance is the total budget for a record now, if we are lucky.  My friend said the biggest record he did last year was $120k, and I was like, "Yeah, that used to be a small budget record." BTW, if Madonna records your song, last I heard, you have to give her half your publishing, but you get to keep your writer's share.  But I'd gladly give that up, than have 100% of a song not recorded by Madonna.

You are correct 50% of the publishing.  Sorry about that.  25% of the song.  

Recording budgets are all over the place depending on the artist.  A client just finished a record with a 250K budget. The one before that (right before) was 150K and the one right before that was 50K.  

It's all over the map. and it depends on the artist.  An album just last year he did was over a million.  Go figure.

It's nutty out there - you just do your best.

[Bill_Urick]

This is an extremely interesting and extremely depressing thread.
The only reason I'm recording anything is that my daughter wants this as a career.

A line from one of our songs:

"Not only is your timing real bad, but it's the worst idea anybody ever had."

I think this kind of sums up wanting to be a recording artist.

[maxim]

the role of the producer in the art industry is to manage the budget

full stop

it is NOT a creative position

the music business was a strange aberration, related to the movie industry, where the cost of production was prohibitively expensive for the artiste, so the producer took creative control

however, if the budget for the production comes from the artiste's pocket, why the hell would they bother???

the artiste might still have to hire an assortment of engineers and an arranger, and the publisher/promoter might provide an "editor" to hedge their bets on commercial appeal, but the time of the artiste not owning their tools of production is gone

thank goodness...

[jimmyjazz]

Sounds like a classic case of supply exceeding demand.

[rankus]

jimmyjazz wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 18:32

Sounds like a classic case of supply exceeding demand.

!

[rankus]

maxim wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 18:29

the role of the producer in the art industry is to manage the budget

And to ensure that the product delivered to the label is in fact marketable after they spend the $.

However I see your point Max.  If there is low, to no budget then the label does not need a producer. They can just choose to pass or not pass on the album...  hmmm

If I were a label it would be pretty tempting to just hand 10 good bands $10k each and see what they hand in... one or two good records could recoup that $100k pretty easily!

No messy production fees, points, etc. etc.

[jetbase]

rankus wrote on Tue, 08 July 2008 11:41

maxim wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 18:29 the role of the producer in the art industry is to manage the budget And to ensure that the product delivered to the label is in fact marketable after they spend the $. However I see your point Max.  If there is low, to no budget then the label does not need a producer. They can just choose to pass or not pass on the album...  hmmm If I were a label it would be pretty tempting to just hand 10 good bands $10k each and see what they hand in... one or two good records could recoup that $100k pretty easily!

I always thought the role of record producer incorporated "director" (to use a movie term) as well, which is a creative role.

[jimmyjazz]

Again, that's not a value judgement.  It sounds like the revenue stream is shifting away from that which classically ran through the labels (sales) to that which is collected by the artist or publisher (tickets, merchandise, performance royalties).  If the same amount of money is expected to change hands, and the same people are to get paid, then "the deals" need to be restructured.

I have a feeling producers are going to fall by the wayside in many cases.  Sure, overall quality might suffer, but since most of those records aren't being heard in the first place, does it really matter?  (I'm being somewhat facetious.)

[rankus]

jetbase wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 18:46

I always thought the role of record producer incorporated "director" (to use a movie term) as well, which is a creative role.

Yes.  The one definition that I like is from Phil Ramone: "The role of the producer is to guide the creativity"

I suppose I am trying to play devils advocate in this thread.  I could just as passionately argue the other side.

Complex issue!

[feedback loop]

This is nothing new. There was a producer working with a famous act about 5 years ago who talked his artist out of recording any songs for her album that he wasn't getting a cut from the publisher. She didn't know about his side deals until after her record bombed. I heard about it because one of the publishers who refused to play ball with the producer sent me the rejected material; which was great stuff by the way.

[mgod]

Definitely nothing new.

DS

[danickstr]

Bill_Urick wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 21:28

"Not only is your timing real bad, but it's the worst idea anybody ever had."