I was just watching a programme a few days ago about the money made on new singles and the result was that it is extremely rare that a new single (well cd, these days in most cases) hardly makes enough money to cover the total cost of production, marketing, and the rest. This must be a nightmare if it bombs.

Obviously in the 60s with our type of music there must have been a pot of gold available if a single record sold big time, and perhaps the losses were not so bad, if like so many it bombed as far as sales are concerned.

My question is considering the current situation, is it the end of inependant single production?

Ed

I was just watching a programme a few days ago about the money made on new singles and the result was that it is extremely rare that a new single (well cd, these days in most cases) hardly makes enough money to cover the total cost of production, marketing, and the rest. This must be a nightmare if it bombs.

Obviously in the 60s with our type of music there must have been a pot of gold available if a single record sold big time, and perhaps the losses were not so bad, if like so many it bombed as far as sales are concerned.

My question is considering the current situation, is it the end of inependant single production?

Ed

I think the times of indie labels like Factory, Blanco Y Negro and 4AD etc... were over years ago. Most indie labels, and most of the labels we know (if they still exist) are now owned by one of the Big Five companies (literally known as The Big Five btw) Sony, Warners, BMG, Universal and EMI.

There are still plenty of indie labels around, but how do you compete with the marketing power of the big five?

Go here and take a look at all the labels these five companies own. Amazing

https://www.bl.uk/collections/sound-archive/record.html

There is an awful lot more self publishing than there used to be though. I collect modern ska and must have cds on over 50 labels, most of who put out a handful of records and then vanished. There will always be small one man operations putting out music that they like to hear/make.

I'm sure I don't need to point out any historical similarities

There is an awful lot more self publishing than there used to be though. I collect modern ska and must have cds on over 50 labels, most of who put out a handful of records and then vanished. There will always be small one man operations putting out music that they like to hear/make.

I'm sure I don't need to point out any historical similarities

Actually i just remembered Rob Moss and Tracey Records. His banners are on here. I wonder how he's getting on with that?

I think the times of indie labels like Factory, Blanco Y Negro and 4AD etc... were over years ago. Most indie labels, and most of the labels we know (if they still exist) are now owned by one of the Big Five companies (literally known as The Big Five btw) Sony, Warners, BMG, Universal and EMI.

There are still plenty of indie labels around, but how do you compete with the marketing power of the big five?

Go here and take a look at all the labels these five companies own. Amazing

https://www.bl.uk/collections/sound-archive/record.html

Hello Matt,

Don't forget there are only FOUR majors now, since the Sony / BMG merger. And you're quite right that the majors own many companies which people assume are independents. Also, there are many "indie" labels in which major companies have a 49% shareholding.

Best regards,

Paul

It's not that it actually needs to be expensive, it's just that as we got better equipment we got lazier along the way. I'm willing to bet that in the US there are still one or two small recording studios that still use the same equipment they used back in the 50s, but by and large if you go into a studio nowadays they just plain ain't equipped to record everything in a couple of takes. They want every instrument recorded seperately, and if anyone makes a booboo they want to drop in a perfect line to replace it, all this stuff is recorded onto seperate tracks which then have to be mixed down...

Personally I can't think of a better way to destroy any soul that a record might have had in it.

Even for a four piece band like, say, the Next Beatles, that's at the very least 5 times longer than it would have taken in the 60s, and all that extra time has to be paid for. If you could find one of those old studios and go in there with all your musos and an engineer who is still physically capable of mixing on the fly you could do the whole thing in just one take. After that you have to decide upon the media. 45s are very expensive these days, partly because they always were expensive, but also because they can name their own price, but CDs are dirt cheap, you can run them off yourself as and when they're wanted. No wastage!

It's odd really when you think of it. Jazz bands, classical orchestras, easy listening outfits, even rock'n'rollers (As Jerry Lee proved with his recent release) can still perform and sound exactly the same as they always have, but we're locked into this weird 'late 50s to early 70s' thing because as the gear that made the recordings changed so did the sound, and even though people are still recording this kind of music it sounds different (Can I go on record as saying that I hate digital sound?...) because of the equipment it's being recorded on. Take a listen to some Carolina Beach Music and see what I mean.

It's not that it actually needs to be expensive, it's just that as we got better equipment we got lazier along the way. I'm willing to bet that in the US there are still one or two small recording studios that still use the same equipment they used back in the 50s, but by and large if you go into a studio nowadays they just plain ain't equipped to record everything in a couple of takes. They want every instrument recorded seperately, and if anyone makes a booboo they want to drop in a perfect line to replace it, all this stuff is recorded onto seperate tracks which then have to be mixed down...

Personally I can't think of a better way to destroy any soul that a record might have had in it.

Even for a four piece band like, say, the Next Beatles, that's at the very least 5 times longer than it would have taken in the 60s, and all that extra time has to be paid for. If you could find one of those old studios and go in there with all your musos and an engineer who is still physically capable of mixing on the fly you could do the whole thing in just one take. After that you have to decide upon the media. 45s are very expensive these days, partly because they always were expensive, but also because they can name their own price, but CDs are dirt cheap, you can run them off yourself as and when they're wanted. No wastage!

It's odd really when you think of it. Jazz bands, classical orchestras, easy listening outfits, even rock'n'rollers (As Jerry Lee proved with his recent release) can still perform and sound exactly the same as they always have, but we're locked into this weird 'late 50s to early 70s' thing because as the gear that made the recordings changed so did the sound, and even though people are still recording this kind of music it sounds different (Can I go on record as saying that I hate digital sound?...) because of the equipment it's being recorded on. Take a listen to some Carolina Beach Music and see what I mean.

Interesting thread.

You'll find that most pop or rock bands take at least one full day to record one song and then they usually need a further day (or two) for overdubs and mixing. Thirty hours in total for one song is not unusual; in fact, it's considered to be pretty efficient.

Even at low rates in cheap studios you're looking at more than £1,000.00 + VAT per track - and that doesn't include any materials, travel, accomodation, general expenses etc.

A very common problem is that most bands usually spend half a day (or more) just trying to get a good drum sound. It always seems to be a huge problem.

Compare this to the days when people were recording and mixing four tracks in just three hours!

But here's the point: if an unsigned or indie band have spent about £6,000.00 recording four songs, they aren't likely to recover costs by releasing an indie single these days. Sales of physical products are just too low.

We really need to learn (again) how to record several tracks per session otherwise the costs are just too excessive for most unsigned or indie bands to survive.

Many people are returning to "live" recording on analogue equipment, not just for the sound and the spontaneuos feel but also because they tend to record more tracks in less time.

Best regards,

Paul

Interesting thread.

You'll find that most pop or rock bands take at least one full day to record one song and then they usually need a further day (or two) for overdubs and mixing. Thirty hours in total for one song is not unusual; in fact, it's considered to be pretty efficient.

Even at low rates in cheap studios you're looking at more than £1,000.00 + VAT per track - and that doesn't include any materials, travel, accomodation, general expenses etc.

A very common problem is that most bands usually spend half a day (or more) just trying to get a good drum sound. It always seems to be a huge problem.

Compare this to the days when people were recording and mixing four tracks in just three hours!

A couple of years back I wrote a sleeve note for a 'Best Of Creedence Clearwater Revival" CD (and why not, I like them very much!). In the course of my research I established that, on average, they recorded and released one all-new album - not counting 'best of's and 'live' sets - every eighteen weeks during their hit heyday.

Of course, the Beatles wrote, recorded and released "Rubber Soul", "Revolver" and "Sgt. Pepper" - as well as non-album singles "We Can Work It Out"/"Day Tripper", "Paperback Writer"/"Rain" and "Strawberry Fields Forever"/"Penny Lane" - in the space of just over a year.

Backtracking from 'Pet Sounds' and including it, the Beach Boys released five albums in 14 months, including two of their very best, "Today" and "Summer Days And Simmer Nights".

Compare that with today, when it takes most artists two to three years to record a second album that's usually little more than a lesser rewrite of the first one. That's if they follow it up at all...

If I had my way, artists would work under more or less the same conditions as they used to - as Paul said, four songs in three hours, with separate sessions to make singles that would not appear on their albums. They would also have to sell their music initially without the benefit of a video, YouTube or MySpace (or anything similar). To have to do so would soon sort out the true talents from the record company hypes....

They would also have to sell their music initially without the benefit of a video, YouTube or MySpace (or anything similar). To have to do so would soon sort out the true talents from the record company hypes....

...since there seems to be so much over-hyped (only-hyped?) dross about these days, that seems like a great idea, Tony.

Go do it!

Seriously, if singles (by law!) had to be made separately from albums - which could be marketed and promoted by whatever means and it was back to the "good old days" of hearing a single on the radio or on someone's record player as the only aural promotion, I'm sure class would rise to the top.

Bit like Swiss cheese that idea (full of holes), e.g. quality artists need to be able to record in the first place...

I'm rambling...

A couple of years back I wrote a sleeve note for a 'Best Of Creedence Clearwater Revival" CD (and why not, I like them very much!). In the course of my research I established that, on average, they recorded and released one all-new album - not counting 'best of's and 'live' sets - every eighteen weeks during their hit heyday.

Of course, the Beatles wrote, recorded and released "Rubber Soul", "Revolver" and "Sgt. Pepper" - as well as non-album singles "We Can Work It Out"/"Day Tripper", "Paperback Writer"/"Rain" and "Strawberry Fields Forever"/"Penny Lane" - in the space of just over a year.

Backtracking from 'Pet Sounds' and including it, the Beach Boys released five albums in 14 months, including two of their very best, "Today" and "Summer Days And Simmer Nights".

Compare that with today, when it takes most artists two to three years to record a second album that's usually little more than a lesser rewrite of the first one. That's if they follow it up at all...

If I had my way, artists would work under more or less the same conditions as they used to - as Paul said, four songs in three hours, with separate sessions to make singles that would not appear on their albums. They would also have to sell their music initially without the benefit of a video, YouTube or MySpace (or anything similar). To have to do so would soon sort out the true talents from the record company hypes....

Couldn't agree more Tony.

But the other problem is that people just aren't buying singles anymore and even the CD album is now vulnerable - I think it's got another year at the most. Basically sales have dropped off a cliff, paid download income isn't compensating for the loss in sales and everyone's swapping their music for free, so the market's being obliterated.

Also, the business still isn't helping itself much either. The afformentioned majors are still charging 1995 prices even though the market's massively shrunk.

It's grim out here......

Ian D

Ian - I agree. The CD format looks like it is at the end of its life. But, what is the solution? I recently attended a seminar about this and it is widely thought that the 'worth' of recorded music must come from the extras with the purchase. Like merchandise, or good sleeve notes, or bonus tracks. Restricting the Internet to a shorter lower bandwidth free version to attract interest, but a condusive price for the collectable media being affordable. There will always be people who want a physical entity and something to give the product value and most important a resale value.

Ian - I agree. The CD format looks like it is at the end of its life. But, what is the solution? I recently attended a seminar about this and it is widely thought that the 'worth' of recorded music must come from the extras with the purchase. Like merchandise, or good sleeve notes, or bonus tracks. Restricting the Internet to a shorter lower bandwidth free version to attract interest, but a condusive price for the collectable media being affordable. There will always be people who want a physical entity and something to give the product value and most important a resale value.

They could always go back to analogue!

Someone somewhere would, of course, still copy the record onto the 'net for downloading, but if it was known that all digital copies were be illegal it would sure make it easier to track the ba... arbabians down.

I'm warming to this idea already...

Well, being in the music industry for so long and owning my own independant record shops for over 20 years, I can say that I saw this happening years ago. People don't realise what damage they are doing to the industry by downloading every tune that they want, usually free. can't they see that while they are getting the tunes for free, less and less money is going back into the industry and eventually, there will be no money to pay the artists, producers, pressing plants etc. The internet is slowly but surely killing the music industry. I think that the new policies that are being put into place, when people illegally downloading will be on a 'three strikes and out' policy and then their internet will be shut off, is a brilliant, but very hard to police idea. At least the first step has been taken. Where have the days gone when finding a tune that you have been after for ages is a real buzz, and the feeling the you get browsing through thousands of records in record shops, charity shops, car boot sales, when now you can just type in the record the you after and download it. Gone are the days of the DJs have a good name for the good records that he has collected and plays, now anyone and his dog can get a collection together good enough to play out within a matter of hours. The ONLY solution to the problem of downloading is to BAN BLANK CDs, Well! you cant copy a record on a pc without a blank cd can you?

Edited February 25, 200817 yr by steveluigi

Couldn't agree more Tony.

But the other problem is that people just aren't buying singles anymore and even the CD album is now vulnerable - I think it's got another year at the most. Basically sales have dropped off a cliff, paid download income isn't compensating for the loss in sales and everyone's swapping their music for free, so the market's being obliterated.

Also, the business still isn't helping itself much either. The afformentioned majors are still charging 1995 prices even though the market's massively shrunk.

It's grim out here......

Ian D

Hello Ian,

Album sales in general have been gradually declining for ages, as have all physical sales; you only need to sell 3,000 units to hit the Top 200 US album charts these days. Yet some indie labels are reporting static or increased sales of specialist products which aren't aimed at mainstream or youth markets. This suggests that older people are remaining more faithful to physical products than youngsters who (1) aren't bothered about credits and linere notes and (2) they tend to think music should be free anyway.

I also agree about pricing, it's really important now to give good value for money. As for the deifficult singles market, the majors are making things even worse by trying to introduce new formats such as the USB single ...costing £5.99 for two or three MP3 quality tracks (which may also have DRM restrictions). That's poor value for money and I don't think the format will be popular.

Sometimes the music industry creates its own problems.

Best regards,

Paul

Hello Steve,

Banning blank CDs won't change things because it's so quick and easy (and inexpensive) to plug an external drive or a large iPod or whatever into a computer and transfer thousands of wav files or MP3 files.

The blank CD has limited capacity and is no longer considered to be a very useful storage device.

In the late 1990s there was a levy charged on recordable blank CDs which were designed for standalone audio CD writers. For a while they cost £5.00 per disc and £20.00 for rewritable discs. As soon as computer-driven internal CD writers (for audio and data) became affordable it killed the market for standalone machines and their specially encoded (and levied) blanks.

Things really started to change when high-powered and high-capacity PCs (and software) became easily affordable to the man in the street.

Best regards,

Paul

Hello Steve,

Banning blank CDs won't change things because it's so quick and easy (and inexpensive) to plug an external drive or a large iPod or whatever into a computer and transfer thousands of wav files or MP3 files.

The blank CD has limited capacity and is no longer considered to be a very useful storage device.

In the late 1990s there was a levy charged on recordable blank CDs which were designed for standalone audio CD writers. For a while they cost £5.00 per disc and £20.00 for rewritable discs. As soon as computer-driven internal CD writers (for audio and data) became affordable it killed the market for standalone machines and their specially encoded (and levied) blanks.

Things really started to change when high-powered and high-capacity PCs (and software) became easily affordable to the man in the street.

Best regards,

Paul

Yes I get your point, as someone said above, the industry hasn't done itself any favours. There must be a way to either slow it down or stopping it (downloading), closing down the download sites wouldn't help either, cos folks can upload onto private ftp's for people to download from. After condidering all of the above, maybe the three strikes and out policy is probably the best option, making people aware that ALL downloading is illegal, none of this 'first copy is legal' nonsense. The industry REALLY has to make a stand and very quickly, before it's completely out of control if it isn't already. Another idea would be for someone to come up with an encoded disc that stops copying, there are a few out there, but none have been too succesful, even then all you have to do is to copy it from a cd player onto a cd writer manually via cables. Where will it end?

Edited February 25, 200817 yr by steveluigi

Steveluigi - I agree the internet is damaging the music business. However, there is a paradox amongst some music fans that download somebody else's intellectual property rights, play it, copy onto MP3 players and share it with their friends and transmit it around the world through their ISP's to all in sundry. They criticise the songs and production etc and yet they feel they are justified in doing it because they are alleged fans and probably do not quite understand the legalities and ramifications in what they are doing. It is a contradiction, as I am sure most would agree a true fan would pay their dues and purchase the license to play the material and in doing so put much needed funds back into the kitty for the next production. Young people are growing up with a culture of music constantly playing in their ears, which suggests somebody must be making a lot of money...but it is not the musicians from back in the 1960's because of whatever their contracts said or did not say which is understandable. Many of those who performed on some soul records in Detroit for example, would do it for a flat fee and expect no residuals from future exploitation. On the other hand those who are more mindful of copyright issues, listen and enjoy internet music, but with a view to purchasing a cd or download afterwards. It is those people who are helping labels produce new material and research old material for us to enjoy!

With all that in mind, if anybody wants to make a donation to the musicians performing on my Detroit session in March, feel free. Five of them have appeared on more 1960's soul records than anyone can imagine...including things like 'Ooh! Pretty Lady, You gotta pay the price, Cool Jerk, Band of Gold, SOS, Headline News, Agent Double O Soul, My girl, It's the same old song, Signed sealed delivered, Tears of a Clown, What's going on' etc etc. These musicians have graciously offered to perform on my songs without question of the future of the recordings and where they may end up. They are excited that somebody from Hull can be bothered to track them down after 35 years with a view to paying homage to them and their colleagues who are no longer with us. Any money received will be put in a pot and shared equally amongst the session musicians and vocalists who have compromised their fee's to accommodate me! I would suggest private messages would be more appropriate at this time. Remember the Darrell Banks memorial? Well, here is a chance to put some faith in those still performing and showing them that we really do care about the music of yesterday, today and tomorrow. Because if this works out and there is a revenue stream, there is no reason why any of us who dream about song writing or production cannot do it themselves in the future. The talent is still there and they want to record. Give them a chance and we will all benefit from their expertise again!

Edited February 27, 200817 yr by Carl Dixon