Back in the spring, Wes made a great comment while we were in a recording session. We were talking to our Production Assistant about the state of the recording industry and he said:
"What we need is less students and more entrepreneurs."
That statement is still in my head. Each year, around 15k fresh-faced graduates leave their college or vocational school, degree in hand, with the hope of landing a dream job behind a mixing console at their favorite recording studio. Sounds attainable, and it should be; you work hard, you make connections with the right people, and voila, you got it. Unfortunately for most aspiring engineers, it's not that simple and there are many external forces at work that have a lot to gain by making them believe that it is.
Check out this article I found today. I'm just going to tell you flat out- it's a lie.
Yes, there is a renewed interest in recording thanks to the advances and increased affordability of digital recording technology. But I don't see a shortage of engineers being such a problem that it creates a demand to the point where "a good engineer can earn a significant amount of money in a short amount of time." No, that just isn't true.
As I said, tens of thousands of people are certified to be engineers; whether through college or vocational programs like the Conservatory Master Recording Program or (gulp) the Music Industry Workshop. The reality is, there are tens of thousands of engineering grads hitting the job market every six months, and only a few hundred actual positions. Some of these grads will land an internship at a studio with the hope of one day attaining a full-time, paying gig that may not materialize until after many years of free service.
Case in point, the PA I mentioned at the beginning of this post. Wes and I have the great opportunity of working with some of the best studios in the city when we need to outsource our services, which isn't uncommon. We have formed great relationships with studio managers and their staff, all of which have a similar structure when it comes to job hierarchy.
Our PA's studio has a chief mixing engineer who commands the majority of the gigs that come in. When the time comes for him to retire or move on to a better gig, there is an assistant engineer who has worked under him and will be his replacement. The PA directly under the assistant engineer will move up to the assistant position. The rest of the PAs will continue working, in most cases for free, until the pecking order changes again. And so on and so on.
This process can take years, and meanwhile our stalwart PA will have to hold down another job, maybe even two or three, to pay the bills until the day comes, if it comes at all, for him/her to move up into the engineer's chair.
I guess there's no harm done if these people choose to be there, and my intent is not to squash someone's dream or discourage them from doing what they want, I just think it's deceitful for organizations to pass off engineering as a lucrative career move in today's job climate. These companies make millions every year in tuition money spent on training programs and recording certification that may not benefit the students in the slightest.
Again, I'm not a dream killer. To anyone interested in a recording career, I suggest the following:
-Read as many books on the subject as you possibly can. You don't need to sit in a classroom to do that.
-Purchase some recording gear that is within your budget and level of ability and practice, practice, practice.
-Don't do it for the money. If you're in it for the paycheck, you are going to be sorely disappointed. Sorry. I don't care to share how many times I've talked with people who have this outlook on the industry: "Well I'm a musician, but I figure being an engineer will be a good fallback job to pay the bills." No. It's just as hard to be a successful engineer as it is a successful artist. With home recording on an unyielding uprise, I'd say it's almost harder.
-Beware of any industry program that promises an easy, "A-to-B" success path towards your field of choice. Doubly so if they're trying to pitch you their program in a music equipment retail store like Guitar Center. There is a purpose and agenda behind that.
-Study other facets of business, music and otherwise, and apply it to what you do. Why be an employee if you could be your own boss? Innovate. Please innovate.
Both Wes and I have had experience with traditional methods of learning how to be an engineer. Him moreso than myself, but the common fact is, we've both learned more about the trade outside of any curriculum than actually in one. Our PA friend undoubtedly knows more about the ins and outs of a mixing console's functions than I do, but I work on a great board whenever I want and occasionally I'm fortunate enough to be paid for it, so... does that qualify me enough to make this point?
Please share any comments, thoughts, and stories you may have on the matter...and next time you're in a recording session, tip your PA; they work incredibly hard for very little.
-TJ
Showing posts with label music business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label music business. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Friday, March 14, 2008
Lefsetz Archive: February 20th
Here's an article from Lefsetz Letter, a great blog on the ever-changing face of our industry. We don't always agree with him, but he makes some great points. Check it out, share your thoughts, etc.
The Future
I’m going to make a prediction. The major labels are not going to control the future.
This is important not only because the majors controlled the past, but because they’re trying to control the future. And as the media chronicles each and every flailing, defensive effort, the sea change in consumption of music is being ignored.
Americans used to purchase their records based on radio and the resultant word of mouth. There were very few opportunities to get signed and promoted, and the few winners that resulted were extremely successful. It is this era and goal that the majors are trying to hold on to and return to. They want very few acts to be exposed and sold in an era where anybody can make music and distribute it and it’s extremely difficult to get notice.
We can castigate NARAS for a lame Grammy show, the third lowest rated in history, but do these poor numbers have anything to do with what was up on screen or could it be that nothing could garner the numbers of the past? The Grammys actually won the evening. It’s just that fewer people are watching network television. They’re spread over many cable channels and untold Websites. And they’re not coming back. But the major labels believe they will.
Give the television networks credit. Once they realized cable was siphoning off their viewers, they purchased the cable outlets. However that was in a limited universe, getting on a cable system is very difficult. Majors try to make deals with independent labels, but they seem unaware that independents have options, and that the label might not be the key player controlling the act, that the label might only have a small piece of the overall pie, that the manager is the one collecting all the revenue.
The concept of rolling up indies or distributing them is a sound one. But the majors don’t seem to notice it’s a changed marketplace. The majors just offer their muscle. But you don’t need the majors’ muscle to get paid at iTunes. And very few acts are Top Forty radio friendly, or can get on television, the two areas where the majors can exert power independents usually can’t. Furthermore, print publicity sells fewer records than ever before, independents actually do a better job of publicity, focusing on what works online, where the people are paying attention, whereas the majors employ more of a scattershot, press the button philosophy. Independents grow slowly. This is anathema to the majors, who are also dishonest, both in promises and payments. So, the concept of rolling up indies is flawed. Transparent deals and accountings would have to be married with larger pieces of the pie. But the majors will never deliver this.
Majors are run by kingmakers in a world increasingly run by serfs. In order to succeed in the future, majors would have to establish trusted relationships with not only their acts, but their consumers, and be willing to sell ten thousand of this and twenty thousand of that, knowing that almost nothing will go platinum.
There will be rich people in the music business in the future. Acts and managers, of course. But the businessmen who are successful will see their roles differently, as aggregators. Selling wide swaths of product to everybody who wants it at a cheap price.
It’s akin to IBM and Microsoft. IBM ruled computers when most people didn’t have them. Big Blue believed the money was in corporations. Microsoft in concert with PC manufacturers ultimately sold an inexpensive product that everybody could buy. IBM? They sold their PC manufacturing business, even their vaunted ThinkPad line, they’re now a profitable company operating in a much smaller sphere, in the world of services. Major record labels have huge assets, their catalogs, this will give them a seat at the table in the future, they will do business, but they won’t dominate. They’re not constructed to dominate in the future.
In the future it’s about volume. Something the majors still don’t understand. The paradigm isn’t one track for a buck, but getting everybody to be a music consumer at a low price. Under the guise of protecting music’s "value", the majors are killing their business. And making recorded music sales challenging for everyone. Which is why all new players look to maximize touring revenue, sometimes giving their music away for free on the Internet.
The biggest story of the year is how the mainstream press and the pollsters were completely out of touch with the electorate. No one foresaw Obama, no one predicted his success. And his success so far has proven that people want change, they’re sick of the past, they want to believe in something new. The public has embraced digital music. People own thousands of tracks. The majors are against this. They want the average citizen to pay $40,000 to fill his iPod. But, more importantly, the majors and the infrastructure surrounding them fail to realize what the public truly wants, music to believe in, not the evanescent, oversold crap which dominates today. I’m not saying all sponsorships/endorsements/advertisements are bad, but I am saying that sometimes they come with a cost. They erode the consumer’s belief in the underlying act and its music. Majors talk about whoring out the music, they don’t ever speak of the bond between fan and act. But it’s exactly this bond that is at the heart of the future. And the new players know this.
Don’t become infatuated with the exact date the CD dies. Or ridiculous predictions by consistently inaccurate research companies when digital sales will eclipse those of physical product. There’s no evolution here, just revolution. And a research outfit can’t predict the details when confronted with a shake-up of this magnitude.
Music will be vital in the future. Its potential to reach people exceeds all other entertainment media. But it takes individuals who understand technology, in touch with the customer base, willing to take risks, in order to be successful. Those running the major labels fit none of these criteria. Therefore, these companies are doomed for marginalization.
The Future
I’m going to make a prediction. The major labels are not going to control the future.
This is important not only because the majors controlled the past, but because they’re trying to control the future. And as the media chronicles each and every flailing, defensive effort, the sea change in consumption of music is being ignored.
Americans used to purchase their records based on radio and the resultant word of mouth. There were very few opportunities to get signed and promoted, and the few winners that resulted were extremely successful. It is this era and goal that the majors are trying to hold on to and return to. They want very few acts to be exposed and sold in an era where anybody can make music and distribute it and it’s extremely difficult to get notice.
We can castigate NARAS for a lame Grammy show, the third lowest rated in history, but do these poor numbers have anything to do with what was up on screen or could it be that nothing could garner the numbers of the past? The Grammys actually won the evening. It’s just that fewer people are watching network television. They’re spread over many cable channels and untold Websites. And they’re not coming back. But the major labels believe they will.
Give the television networks credit. Once they realized cable was siphoning off their viewers, they purchased the cable outlets. However that was in a limited universe, getting on a cable system is very difficult. Majors try to make deals with independent labels, but they seem unaware that independents have options, and that the label might not be the key player controlling the act, that the label might only have a small piece of the overall pie, that the manager is the one collecting all the revenue.
The concept of rolling up indies or distributing them is a sound one. But the majors don’t seem to notice it’s a changed marketplace. The majors just offer their muscle. But you don’t need the majors’ muscle to get paid at iTunes. And very few acts are Top Forty radio friendly, or can get on television, the two areas where the majors can exert power independents usually can’t. Furthermore, print publicity sells fewer records than ever before, independents actually do a better job of publicity, focusing on what works online, where the people are paying attention, whereas the majors employ more of a scattershot, press the button philosophy. Independents grow slowly. This is anathema to the majors, who are also dishonest, both in promises and payments. So, the concept of rolling up indies is flawed. Transparent deals and accountings would have to be married with larger pieces of the pie. But the majors will never deliver this.
Majors are run by kingmakers in a world increasingly run by serfs. In order to succeed in the future, majors would have to establish trusted relationships with not only their acts, but their consumers, and be willing to sell ten thousand of this and twenty thousand of that, knowing that almost nothing will go platinum.
There will be rich people in the music business in the future. Acts and managers, of course. But the businessmen who are successful will see their roles differently, as aggregators. Selling wide swaths of product to everybody who wants it at a cheap price.
It’s akin to IBM and Microsoft. IBM ruled computers when most people didn’t have them. Big Blue believed the money was in corporations. Microsoft in concert with PC manufacturers ultimately sold an inexpensive product that everybody could buy. IBM? They sold their PC manufacturing business, even their vaunted ThinkPad line, they’re now a profitable company operating in a much smaller sphere, in the world of services. Major record labels have huge assets, their catalogs, this will give them a seat at the table in the future, they will do business, but they won’t dominate. They’re not constructed to dominate in the future.
In the future it’s about volume. Something the majors still don’t understand. The paradigm isn’t one track for a buck, but getting everybody to be a music consumer at a low price. Under the guise of protecting music’s "value", the majors are killing their business. And making recorded music sales challenging for everyone. Which is why all new players look to maximize touring revenue, sometimes giving their music away for free on the Internet.
The biggest story of the year is how the mainstream press and the pollsters were completely out of touch with the electorate. No one foresaw Obama, no one predicted his success. And his success so far has proven that people want change, they’re sick of the past, they want to believe in something new. The public has embraced digital music. People own thousands of tracks. The majors are against this. They want the average citizen to pay $40,000 to fill his iPod. But, more importantly, the majors and the infrastructure surrounding them fail to realize what the public truly wants, music to believe in, not the evanescent, oversold crap which dominates today. I’m not saying all sponsorships/endorsements/advertisements are bad, but I am saying that sometimes they come with a cost. They erode the consumer’s belief in the underlying act and its music. Majors talk about whoring out the music, they don’t ever speak of the bond between fan and act. But it’s exactly this bond that is at the heart of the future. And the new players know this.
Don’t become infatuated with the exact date the CD dies. Or ridiculous predictions by consistently inaccurate research companies when digital sales will eclipse those of physical product. There’s no evolution here, just revolution. And a research outfit can’t predict the details when confronted with a shake-up of this magnitude.
Music will be vital in the future. Its potential to reach people exceeds all other entertainment media. But it takes individuals who understand technology, in touch with the customer base, willing to take risks, in order to be successful. Those running the major labels fit none of these criteria. Therefore, these companies are doomed for marginalization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
