Print

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

[wwittman]

rankus wrote on Mon, 07 July 2008 21:17

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

perhaps they are being limited in their POTENTIAL to reach a broader audience by these decisions though.

and as far as them not being "interested in polished music", how many of them have The Beatles and Led Zep on their ipods?
plus, I reject the idea that a good producer equals a "polished" record; only a BETTER one.

We're not talking about only "big budget" producers.
We're talking about being able to spend ANYTHING on getting some help to make a record

I work with and talk with a lot of young bands as well.
Most of them WANT a producer, and a good one; if they can figure out how to find one and pay for one.

[compasspnt]

wwittman wrote on Tue, 08 July 2008 01:33

Most of them WANT a producer, and a good one; if they can figure out how to find one and pay for one.

Yep.

I hear this every day.

[rankus]

As always I agree with you William.  The bands I refer to will likely find their way to a good producer as their careers develop. And many of them may become name producers themselves eventually.

I was just thinking, that as you mentioned, they are likely to start out on their own these days, then progress towards people like yourself if sales warrant it. Rather than the old model of having the name guy there first.

Perhaps I was being a little dramatic with the reference to "polished" music.  I agree that most artists would want a little polish if they have the opportunity.

I suppose my point was that "backyard" production is a viable starting point.  And I should state that I'm including little shops (with decent ears) like myself in this category ... not that these artists are doing it literally in the bedroom... "Grass roots" may be a better term.

[jetbase]

rankus wrote on Tue, 08 July 2008 15:56

I agree that most artists would want a little polish if they have the opportunity.

You mean like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9b-VqCD-Xc

[rankus]

 And in a thread where I was talking trash about WW's typo  

[maxim]

a lot of people on these boards know how to make a record

they also know they can't make a hit record

all they can do is allow the material "to reach a broader audience"

that is a very valuable skill and can be an excellent financial investment

however, to return to the subject of this thread, i don't think it makes the song

the songwriter/s make/s the song

if the producer contributes to the songwriting, they are entitled to publishing

otherwise, as a songwriter, the most common regret i hear is people giving their publishing away

sure, it's a commodity...

[maxim]

my understanding of a producer's role is that of BOTH a film director AND producer

the goal is to produce the best possible record using the money available

if the entire budget goes on recording the symphony orchestra at abbey road, then so be it

if the cash is spent on a gaggle of engineers (what is the multiple of audio engineers?.. a current?... a potential difference?... a47???)), then all and good also

one thing for sure people will always want to hear SONGS

it is part of our cultural genotype...

[MDM,]

in the old days producers might sneak in one song or two they had publishing on, but not always..

as far as whining about giving up 'lifeblood' publishing, I'm not sure it makes sense, because either you have the money to pay the producer or not..

if you offer the producer a price which will make it worthwhile for him you probably will get help..

if you don't have the money because you're life as an 'artist' is not generating any money from lack of sales and airplay.. that probably means that you are not giving up much anyway does it...

and if by some miracle of effort a producer DOES actually make you sell tons of records and get airplay, that probably means that the producer made the difference... and that you should be happy that you gave up some of your publising because the share you now own is worth a lot more than 100% would have been before you actually called someone who knows what they are doing.

[jimmyjazz]

I wonder what the average "name" producer would accept as a fee for services rendered?  $50/hour?  $100/hour?  More?

Audio engineers freely quote their rates.  So to mastering engineers.  What is a good producer worth?

[MoreSpaceEcho]

a quarter of the royalties, apparently.

[i dig music]

i wouldn't really worry about any of this as most artists suck.

only a few {here and there} would it be nice to own their publishing. but even then, the good ones are very weary of folk like us.....................

but, the good ones are sometimes temperamental, obnoxious, and narcissistic anyways.

what i found is....if you want to make money off of publishing think mowtown. control and manufacture your own tunes and "artists". with that there is no artist baggage.

otherwise, why play the game were talking about? if a label or a band can't come up with real advance money or points, its not worth to them, why should it be worth it to anybody else.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

i dig music wrote on Tue, 08 July 2008 15:16

the good ones are very weary of folk like us.....................

they're very wary as well.

[J.J. Blair]

MoreSpaceEcho wrote on Tue, 08 July 2008 06:52

a quarter of the royalties, apparently.

No.  I'm not sure you understand how publishing works.  25% of your publishing is only 12.5% of the royalties.  

Personally, if I were going to do one of these types of deals, I wouldn't, in good conscience, be able to ask for more than 10-15% of the publishing.  

Also, you have to understand that you don't have to write a song to get publishing.  It's not uncommon in bands for publishing to be divided equally, although, the writer will get the sole writer's share.

If you don't understand what all this means, out of every dollar in public performance and  mechanical royalties, half goes to the writer's share, and half goes to the publisher's share.  And you can sell your publishing, but you can't sell your writer's share.  

Reading this thread, it is still evident to me that many people do not understand the value of a good producer.  They tend to be people who've never worked with one, and are not acquainted with exactly how huge a difference it makes.

[rnicklaus]

All of this is based on how much the artist wants to work with the producer and what the artist believes the producer would bring to the table that would even open the door to participation in the publishing.

In terms of producer quoting their fees? It happens all the time.  In many cases the producer fee is very rich.  Even at a 50 to 75K or more producer fee, producers still want record royalties in the 3 or 4 point range.

An artist must really want a particular producer to also give up part of the publishing on top of all this.

Not all band members write songs in a band.  Many artists may already have a publishing deal in place before a record is made.  The publishing deal may very well recoup all song income, outside of the writer's share of ASCAP/BMI performance income, so there is no publishing % to share until the publishing deal recoups.

The variables here are many.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

my bad jj, i should've written 'publishing'. i understand how it works.

i am totally small time compared to you guys, i'm sure our worlds are very different, but i still can't get behind this idea at all, to me it reads like:

Producer #1: "hey, no one's buying cds any more, artists aren't making any money on records, so they're totally broke now! like, even more than before."

Producer #2: "i know! it's terrible! how are we gonna get our cut outta them? i gotta put in a new pool this summer!"

Producer #1: "hey...i know, let's take it out of their royalties! they're flat broke already, what will they care?"

Producer #2: "brilliant! what a great idea. hey, lunch is on me."

Producer #1: "i'll have the lobster."