Hacker News Reader

Comment by wtvanhest | Hacker News Reader

I do not disagree with Courtney Love that the system is not great for artists but the solution is probably not in the distribution method, or the structure of the financing. It is most likely in solving the cost problem.

If it costs $500,000 to produce a record, like she says it does, that would create limited room for a great number of bands and artist to record. The market size ($s of world wide discretionary income) can only support a certain level of production.

Figuring out how to lowering that number would be far more productive than trying to create the next huge app which helps starving artists with terrible recording quality get their music heard or some other distribution method.

(She also fails to add in concert revenue which may be lucrative for artists)

View on HN

I think the cost problem has largely been solved. Someone can throw together a DAW for $2 or $3k and start creating really great sounding music following hours of practice. I think most young musicians know about and go this route when they are learning.

The world Courtney Love is from is the old world, where you needed a specialist to do all these different jobs. You needed to pay a producer, engineers, buy studio time (sometimes these are packaged but the more well known the pricier, and acts like Hole use well known outfits), this is what drives costs up. Not to mention marketting, distribution, etc.

In today's world a poor musician who wants to record and distribute his or her music can, and the best of them will be able to demand a price, or merchandise.

Can you give an example of a band that recorded a CD for $3K? I'm curious what that sounds like.

I was looking for the web site, but a couple I know who sing typically folk songs put out a Christmas Album on CD and it cost them less than $5K for a production master and a bunch of copies of the CD.

What people can do and what they do do are a little different. I can't think of anyone who stopped building their rig at $3k, but it's possible to produce demo-quality records with a $600 computer, a nice A/D/A converter and software like Reason, or Ableton. All of which can be purchased with $3k. I personally own about $10k of recording gear and instruments, and I've never made a penny off any of it and don't regret the purchase.

That aside, the guy who recorded the "Owl City" records started out by releasing tracks from his parent's basement while working at Coca-Cola. Imogen Heap I think started off on home recording gear and recorded her entire first album herself. Also check out YouTube for Ronald Jenkies, that will give you an idea of what you can accomplish with a modern workstation, which will run you $3k new, decently equipped.

Edit: It has also occurred to me that if you're a band, and you can perform your music well (everything in 1 take), you can probably buy enough studio time to get a good sounding album for under $3k. I can't think of any specific music this applies to, but a great deal of grunge music in the 90s was recorded in this kind of a scenario.

I may be wrong, but I recall that the first Arcade Fire LP (Funeral) was recorded very cheaply. It's a very unique sounding record, in a good way.

Nirvana's 'Bleach' was famously recorded for $600 in a really cheap Seattle studio.

Not the best sounding record but when you have no money, you do what you can.

http://www.amazon.com/Feeling-Infallible/dp/B003UPU3T0/

Recorded as a favor from a studio owner. Sounds pretty decent, I think!

The hardware is only the start, though. Unless the music is totally electronic you'll need microphones and someone who knows how to record those. Many guitar players will want to use their amps and speakers to get a certain sound. There's still a lot of craft in the front end that can't be learned in hours.

Also, a big part of recording is having a producer/engineer, who knows how to capture the essence of a performance in a recording. If you've watched American Idol's last season you could see how high profile musicians and producers zero in on strengths and weaknesses of a performance.

I think one thing the Love piece really pointed out is that there is a lot more to getting your music out there than recording. The distribution system is about to be solved but all the other problems, the really big problems, still exist.

Everything you say is true, you need to practice to get good.

The hardware, everything I mentioned and one or several mics (or a guitar amp), is still only about $3k to get started. SM58s (great for guitar cabs and ok for rock vocals) are used all over the place, they cost $99. An introductory condenser, like an SM81 (acoustic guitar, drum overheads, most acoustic instruments, some vocals), is about $300. If your voice is what you want to showcase, spend $1000 on a Nuemann TLM103 (my college roommate had one of these). $1000 is about the cost of a guitar amp and a guitar to get started.

This equipment will not make you rich, but it will give you access to the tools you need to learn the craft. I'm contrasting to a time (the 60s) when you needed half a million dollars just to put a sound on tape. Putting a sound on 'tape' these days doesn't even cost anything, the technology is everywhere.

Edit: To more specifically address your post, yes you're right, the talent is still the "hard part" of making music. My point was that if you have the talent, recording it is not as expensive as it once was.

I would not be surprised if the recording costs have dropped precipitously since 2000.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com