Print

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

[henchman]

electrical wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 20:56

Then ask for money. If you're truly worth it, they'll pay you. If not, then you won't get the work. A royalty still strikes me as inappropriate for someone doing the marginalia.

Ah, yes. But therein lies the problem. The artists and bands I work with don't have anywhere near the money that it would cost to pay me for the hours I put into a project. In fact, budget is never the reason I work with a band anymore. I only work on stuff I like.

I can't help but think that if EVERYONE would see the majority of their income from a point or 2 of the record they work on, that then the quality would actually go up, because overall more effort would be put into the recording.
And people would be a bit more picky as to what they work on, instead of tryign to rape as many bands per year to make a pile of dough.
Should this come from the artists points? No. I don't think so.

But if the model was to pay the producer/engineer and mixer a "normal" hourly wage for their work, as opposed to ridiculous upfront fees, album would cost less, and be easier to recoup.

I find it nauseating to see mixers getting paid obscene amounts of money to mix a record. But as long as that current model exists, I have no problem getting points to make up for what I should have made in the first place.

[electrical]

Eric Vincent wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 20:36

This is really an extremely simple concept. The gentleman from Chicago is making quite the effort to make it seem very complicated, but it's not. Here's why: Anyone who has recieved an interest payment from a bank account, or a dividend from a stock, bond or MMA, KNOWS why the producer gets a percentage of the sales of the product he helped produced. The artist promises a dividend to the producer on earnings, in return for the INVESTMENT the producer makes in helping the artist bring a product successfully to market. It is THAT SIMPLE. <ad hominem/inflammatory remark deleted by administrator>

Yes, I am inept in this business. I am foolishly turning down royalty income. I also fail to grasp how a bank is the same as a band.

I ponder the mystery of this multi-million-dollar studio I sit in, booked with more work than I can handle. How can this be? I am utterly inept.

See you in another ten years. Whatever you're doing then, please interrupt it to tell me I'm utterly inept at something again. It's a kick.

[Curve Dominant]

electrical wrote on Mon, 14 February 2005 02:10

Eric Vincent wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 20:36 This is really an extremely simple concept. The gentleman from Chicago is making quite the effort to make it seem very complicated, but it's not. Here's why: Anyone who has recieved an interest payment from a bank account, or a dividend from a stock, bond or MMA, KNOWS why the producer gets a percentage of the sales of the product he helped produced. The artist promises a dividend to the producer on earnings, in return for the INVESTMENT the producer makes in helping the artist bring a product successfully to market. It is THAT SIMPLE. <ad hominem/inflammatory remark deleted by administrator> Yes, I am inept in this business. I am foolishly turning down royalty income. I also fail to grasp how a bank is the same as a band. I ponder the mystery of this multi-million-dollar studio I sit in, booked with more work than I can handle. How can this be? I am utterly inept. See you in another ten years. Whatever you're doing then, please interrupt it to tell me I'm utterly inept at something again. It's a kick.

Albini, if you're going to respond to things out of context, not properly understand what you're responding to, put words in our mouths, and respond to reason with sarcasm, then your opinions become absolutely worthless.

I am through wasting time with these idiotic debates.

[electrical]

Level wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 20:52

No offense to Steve, but this is how I see it. I have worked the old model for most of my life. It is taking its final breaths. Someone always stands by with the defibrillator.

The old model is where this payment-by-points nonsense came from. It's where managers and lawyers and referral fees and all the other leeching comes from. I detest the old model.

There is nothing new about trying to get a piece of someone who is making a career for himself. It's just gross, that's all.

Why can't all these people just earn their own money instead of trying to sift it from the puny amount that filters down to the bands?

If you want money for something, ask for money. If you think you deserve more than what is available to pay you, then I bid you welcome to the market evaluation of your services. You are free to lay off with the "extras" you think merit this extra bump in pay. If you're doing it to be a good guy, then don't get greedy if it looks like someone else is in for a bit of good fortune.

In short, I think people should earn their own money, and not leech it opportunistically off the success of other people. The end.

[henchman]

Eric Vincent wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 20:36

<ad hominem/inflammatory remark deleted by administrator>

You know Eric, you really need to think about some of the things you say sometimes.

Calling someone like Steve Albini an inept businessman, woudl eb like calling Gordon Ramsey a useless cook.

[cerberus]

PaulyD wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 18:06

...When I listen to a track like Cheryl Crow's "Every Day Is A Winding Road," I really wonder who's idea it was to use delay and reverse reverb at the end of the last verse ("Were ever really happening..." Trina Shoemaker perhaps?). Some engineers or producers would probably have just used a backing vocal there. It would still be good, but what was done sounds fantastic. Isn't that truly creative?

Yes, why not start a separate thread on this magic mix. Hopefully it will not overlap too much with the "I miss that stone floor" threads. (OK it was a beautiful sounding complex, I am sad too, but what about the mix itself ?)

Points.. did you read the Chris Squire interview referenced in the Eddit Offord/Yes thread ?  If Ahmet's people were stealing his points, what hope is there for you and I ?

Mr. Albini wrote a popular essay which goes into detail about points:
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html


cerberus

[groucho]

Wow, I just had to say how refreshing and inspiring Steve's posts on this topic have been to me. Kudos to you, Mr. Albini. Long may you prosper.

Chris

[Eric Rudd]

Eric Vincent wrote on Mon, 14 February 2005 02:17

Albini, if you're going to respond to things out of context, not properly understand what you're responding to, put words in our mouths, and respond to reason with sarcasm, then your opinions become absolutely worthless. I am through wasting time with these idiotic debates.

Eric,

It's posts like this that let me know that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. This disrespectful drivel indicates that you have little or no credibility in this industry.

It's quite alright for you to have a difference of opinion with regard to Steve's work philosophy or personal business practice. It's another to insult someone who has contributed positively to this industry and music for a hell of a lot longer than you have.

A little professional courtesy goes a long way. Otherwise, the only one here who appears an idiot is you.

Eric Rudd

[Kenny Gioia]

It really amazes me how people feel the need to rag on Steve Albini for not taking points.

If you don't agree with him, do it your way.

Don't make HIM carry around YOUR greedy guilt.

Eric "Curve" Vincent: Take as many points as you can get. Take em all. The chances of you producing anything that earns "back end" money is as likely as Steve Albini switching to a Pro Tools HD Accel 3 rig.

It seems quite simple to me. Steve figured out how much he needs to make to have a happy life. That's what he charges. Real simple. It will keep him working too.

I do have to take you to task on a few small points. The money you get from some of the bands was made from some of their profits. So you are taking some.

And some of the production pop music I'm sure you hate, sells more for the production than the artist. In these cases, the artist wouldn't be an artist without the producer. So I wouldn't call these situations taking money from the artist. There wouldn't be anything to take without them.

But otherwise, much respect.

Peace

[Tim Gilles]

Eric Vincent wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 21:01

After the last roll of tape is used and the last commercial studio is padlocked, producers will still be in business.

I'm thinking I should start calling Steve Albini at the start of every "Iron Chef" to get the inside rail on whose gonna unseat the champ.

On those 59 days a year he's not working his day job, he's been known to whip up a mean Lobster Thermidore.


Tim "Rumblefish" Gilles

[Curve Dominant]

You always know you've made a strong point when they suddenly go personal on you.

The last 5 posters singled out an aside, took it completely out of context, twisted its meaning, and then used it as an excuse to derail the discussion, while completely ignoring the economic reality of what I ACTUALLY posted.

I'm not impressed. I can understand the impulse to do the "pucker-up" dance with Steve, but I don't respect it. A few of you guys who collect producer points were awfully quiet on this subject until you found an excuse to bash on The Curve.

It's cute, but it doesn't address the issue.

That's how industries fail. To wit: The current climate.

Keep on ignoring the relevant issues, kids, and watch how much worse it gets.

[Curve Dominant]

And another thing...

Will somebody please define "vanity project" ???

Does that mean a recording that doesn't go platinum?

I am positively aching for anyone who accuses me of being in the "vanity project" business to actually define the parameters of that term. I'm envisioning you now, falling flat on your faces tripping over your own logic while trying to explain that one.

I'm sure Mutt Lange's productions would NEVER qualify as "vanity projects," and we all love THAT stuff, don't we?

[Lee Flier]

Level wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 20:52

As long as a working system is in place, like the old teletype, someone will keep one active and go down in history as a "pioneer" of some sort. No offense to Steve, but this is how I see it. I have worked the old model for most of my life. It is taking its final breaths. Someone always stands by with the defibrillator.

Sorry but this is a goofy analogy.  Technology and obsolescence as it relates to art is completely different than how it relates to efficiency.  When it comes to cars, computers, defibrillators, and the like, we will always gravitate toward efficiency - if it's faster or more accurate or convenient or saves energy, we want it.  The new will replace the old.  And so we're tempted to do that with art, too.  But the best art is rarely the most efficient.  So the artist who persists in doing things in the way he feels will produce the best result, regardless of efficiency, will never be obsolete.  That's why guitarists still lug tube amps around and digital studios are still using ribbon mics.  For some applications, that's what sounds best and there is no substitute.  To call it obsolete is to totally miss the point (and yes, for awhile they tried to declare tubes "dead" too).

Granted it may not be "big business" anymore to do things the best way, but that's exactly what Steve's point is.  And obviously, the fact that he is successful on his own terms really gets under some people's skin.

Oh... and when you say Steve is "old school" I assume you're referring to his studio setup, not his business model.  There is nothing old school about his business model at all - in fact it's always been quite "standard" and "customary" for producers to take points and sometimes engineers too.  So it seems like your  calling him some sort of museum piece is just a nice big red herring as regards the actual subject of this discussion.

[jfrigo]

If anybody has any extra points they don't want anymore after reading this thread, I'll be happy to take them.

I understand part of Steve's opinion on the subject: not everybody who swept the floor deserves points, including those $10k/day guys, if you ask me. The mixer doesn't make a hit. The song and the artist make a hit. However, I think a producer can deserve points (a negotiated flat fee can also be fair), and somebody investing in a project by trading studio time and professional services deserves whatever they agree upon with the artist. In that situation, it's between the artist and you, not the record company and you, so if the artist feels like you deserve a slice of the pie for your contribution, hats off to all. I suppose you optionally could keep track of your hours and the spec deal could read that you get paid up to the amount your time would have cost had you been paid your full rate all along. That's fair too. But if the artist feels you made an important contribution, I have no problem with points being part of the compensation.

[henchman]

Eric Vincent wrote on Mon, 14 February 2005 00:14

I can understand the impulse to do the "pucker-up" dance with Steve, but I don't respect it. A few of you guys who collect producer points were awfully quiet on this subject until you found an excuse to bash on The Curve.

No Eric, it's the way you say things, and the demeaning attitude you have towards people who have been doing this engineering "thing" for a living for quiet a few years, that makes people call you out and "bash" you. What's good for the goose, so to speak.

I disagree with Steve, and feel that my input does does warrant points.
I will respectfully have to agree to disagree with him on this point.

Simple.