Hacker News Reader

Comment by domp | Hacker News Reader

I disagree with his outlook on the music biz. I think that recorded music does have a value. Although there is a small cost to produce it these days every musician dreams of making money off of it. No musician enjoys giving their music up for free. They assume that it'll pay off in the long run(whether that be buying tracks on itunes, getting a cd or a tshirt at their show). Just because the current model for selling music isn't working and piracy is a popular alternative doesn't make music worth nothing.

Also, any band already relies on live concerts for their means of money. This is nothing new. What is happening is that major labels are getting a bigger piece of the pie when it comes to merchandise(which used to go straight to the band). I just think a new means of selling music must be created that benefits all parties.

View on HN

Digital content "wants" to be free. That's the problem for industries that have historically generated revenue by artificially restricting access to content: when content distribution (and even production) are without cost or restriction, revenue must come from other sources. This is glaringly obvious for music, and we're headed that way for film.

The film industry will do it's best to stay ahead of the bandwidth: 3D projection, better surround sound, etc, but will also need to adapt to make formerly secondary revenue streams (product placement, franchise merchandise, etc) more primary. That and they're going to have to find ways to get their costs down, significantly, to compete with a fast approaching internet and independent film community.

I don't know much about the film industry so I won't try and touch on that issue. But with music, the content distribution is obviously free on the internet. Production is definitely not. If you're talking about a junk recording than yeah. But any band nowadays who is taking their careers seriously look for a producer, an engineer, and a good studio. These all cost money. And other sources of revenue have been created. Look at ringtones. I just believe that another type of approach to selling music has to be created.

sure... but realize that those costs of production are sinking fast and heading asymptotically towards zero. The downward slope for film is slower (more people involved, 100 instead of 10), but headed the same direction.

There's no reason, with hundreds of aspiring producers and engineers, that a good band with limited resources couldn't cut a great album for $1k instead of $100k. Given, of course, that the band could find a producer willing to work for the same reasons they want to play.

Keep talking.

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Neumann-U87-Ai-Shockmount-Set-Z-Microphone-with-Box?sku=271404

Keep talking? Why are you linking to a 3000 dollar microphone? I don't see how this is relevant in recording cheap or adding to the conversation that we were having. There's a lot more to recording a band than having an expensive microphone.

Domp, I've been loving the discourse that has emerged between you and far33d, and I have absolutely no idea what mynameishere is trying to say.

Not sure if the post is trying to be offensive, or if it's simply trying to help (though not clearly) the conversation.

Thanks JMiao. Yeah I was thrown off with his comment too. I guess he was on my side by trying to prove that things cost a lot of money? Although that wasn't my side because if I had a home studio I would never spend 3 grand on a microphone.

Sorry for the extreme confusion. You mentioned making a "great album". When artists go to make a "great album" they need to use great tools. Great tools are expensive. Ergo, 1000 dollars isn't going to do it.

"There's a lot more to recording a band than having an expensive microphone."

Indeed there is. Great point. Really great. Having _multiple_ good microphones is just one tiny necessity. It's just one tiny expense compared to everything else, and so that is why I linked to _one_ item. Do you want me to provide links to mixing boards, high-end reel-to-reels, synths, pianos, rental prices on orchestras, estimated costs of studio musicians, singers, engineers, producers, etc, etc? Because all of those things cost more than even very expensive microphones.

Hope I've cleared up the bewilderment.

myname: You are correct. To get a "studio-quality" recording, you'll need lots of expensive equipment.

But you've obviously missed the idea: the gap between what you can make with mediocre equipment and top-notch equipment is closing fast. In the old days, you needed good mics because analog equipment needed high quality input. With digital processing and recording, you can get close with a mic that costs $200 (which, if you had a good marketplace for borrowing/sharing equipment, you might only pay $5 for the weekend).

Yeah I'm with far33d. To make a "great album" doesn't take that much money. I bet only a small percentage of people could tell the difference between a good basement recording and a real nice studio.

"In the old days,"

No. In the old days, home equipment had one track, and studio equipment had one track. Sgt. Pepper was recorded on a 4-track--what distinquished them were the things that you just can't get in your garage: Studio-quality accoustics, a vast array of equipment, world-class instruments and studio musicians, producers, arrangers, etc.

Yeah, if you want to be the next White Stripes, okay, maybe you can pull it off. But then you aren't dealing with "great albums" by any measure.

Sorry about all this; it just bugs me when people think things come cheap when they don't.

Let's just settle this and agree that quality music production has become more accessible.

haha yeah this conversation went sour. We're all right!

I completely realize that. 1000 bucks for an album is not reasonable though. At this point it's around 10 grand for a solid album with an okay producer. That's still a big investment for a small band.

Production costs will never reach zero. It makes no sense. You're always going to have good producers out there, better engineers, a genius mastering person and great studios that people will pay for. Anyone right now could make their own movie with a home camcorder but I'm sure they'd rather go with some professionals.

my point is that the quality level of the two ends (what you get from the world's best producer and what you get from a mediocre or inexperienced one) are quickly approaching each other, at least in technical quality.

The point is that what you could do at home for free (or with some help from smart people for cheap) now is orders of magnitude better than 3 years ago, and is still improving.

Some people will always be willing to pay. But everyone else won't HAVE to.

Yeah I agree. The amount of money is no doubt going down. I mean my brother's studio can make a recording that sounds close to the 50 grand ones by just putting triggers on the drums and doing all these other tricks. Would a big musician pay to record with a 20 yr old? No chance in hell.

I wish I was going to the startup school. It'd be nice though if I was cause I'm sure this conversation would have been much better. I didn't realize it was a free event until it was too late.

ps. domp, are you going to be at startup school this w/e?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com