How Much Does it Cost to Produce a Recording? 820
An anonymous reader writes "How much does the average new album cost to produce? I have seen this cost estimated between $500,000 and $1,000,000, but some quick figuring does not support a cost this high. According to various sources (Ok, Slashdot stories...), somewhere around 27,000 albums are produced each year and 906.6 million albums are shipped. I would guess that the album retail (about $15 per album) is based on a 100% markup, so that these 906.6 million albums are sold at wholesale for about $7.50 apiece, which means that the revenue from wholesale sales is about $6.8 billion. This means that the actual production cost has to be less than $250,000 per album, otherwise the record industry is losing money. I have left out the cost of actually printing and copying the albums as I think that the average cost is probably less than $0.25 per copy."
Not that much (Score:5, Informative)
Reproduction costs are higher though. Especially for nice packaging, like cardboard cases or multipage inserts. We got a great deal and it was still $1 per CD.
For $250,000 you could build your own studio and still hire a good engineer and producer... and get 5000 copies made. Markup is way more than 100%, I believe most of it goes into marketing and "artist development"
Just a guess (Score:5, Informative)
But still, just looking where I live (Austin, TX) people are able to churn out decent CDs without a huge effort or much money, so when you get right down to it, outside of paying your "talent" we are talking a relatively small figure.
RonB
From the Producer of In Utero (Score:2, Informative)
A must read for any band about to sign a contract with a label, and an interesting look behind the curtain from an insider.
Costs can be huge. (Score:5, Informative)
And, if the label thinks you might actually move some units, they'll be paying expenses, per diems, touring costs and marketing. Believe me, that can cost a lot of $. Fact is, it costs a lot of money to put together a "best-seller."
FYI, signed bands actually pay for the recording costs (the money is "fronted" by your label) so the studio only pays if the album doesn't break even (most albums actually) -- and if the band never generates sales to cover it, the label will eventually eat the cost, but even in those cases it's a write-off
You would be surprised how many bands you know that have never made a dime from royalties because they owe their label for the recording costs. Hopefully most signed bands are smart enough to know that the only money they'll likely see is from sales of schwag.
Classic Steve Albini Article (Score:5, Informative)
The article demonstrates how a band can manage to generate millions of dollars of profit for a label, but still owe the label money.
The article includes sample figures that indicate 'recording costs' of $150,000, and a wholesale price of $6.50 per CD (circa 1994, when the article was first published).
Re:100% (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Faulty premise (Score:5, Informative)
Real recording numbers (Score:2, Informative)
This just describes the pieces to get the Album into a shippable form. Then there is the production costs after that. These numbers are obviously not exact figures, but they are real figures of what things cost in the music recording world. So you can see where such a high figure could come from.
Original poster forget all the OTHER costs. (Score:5, Informative)
WRONG.
Three is also the costs of running the business, i.e. building rental, employees, taxes, operating costs, etc. Only a naive fool would think that the mere cost of recording and pressing a CD is all a label has to worry about. And that $18 that one pays for the product, well not all of it goes to the label.
Starting a music label is not a licence to print money.
about 5 grand (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, costs of producing an album rise drastically when you gots your hoes and coke to supply.. note that it costs SNoop Dogg 90 g's in hoes alone to make a video.
Figure about a half ounce per roadie of premium bud, probly about a grand a day in coke per performer, strippers, a Bentley, and maybe payments to various law enforcers - shit adds up when yore a real rap superstar.
Other side of the coin is Remy Shand, who built a platinum record in his parents' basement in less than four years, and spent almost every cent on just buying the equipment.. no recording studio time for that lad. It's all so relative - I mean, somebody can spend billions developing an operating system that's only marginally better than the next best OS which was built by freak hobbyists working out their parents' basements.
for those who care, I'm recording an album right now in my parents' basement. I'll be trolling
Re:its getting cheaper (Score:4, Informative)
The real costs of any effort of that type are going to be people costs. So it costs $600 for a recording for a chuch band, maybe $1000 if you had to hire more of the equipment.
On the other hand a top act such as U2 or the like are likely to want to spend several days in a fancy studio with a full crew of sound technicians, personal assistants, caterers and the like. It is pretty easy to end up spending $10K a day that way - even if you own the actual studio and all the equipment.
After that there is the cost of making music videos and the payolla required to get airplay. Those costs have gone up quite a lot since Queen spent $500 to make the Bohemian Rhasphody video.
Clearly the industry can't spend $500K+ on the low budget albums that form the bulk of new releases. But even so few of those low budget efforts are going to have a chance to get anywhere near the top 40.
It all completely depends... (Score:3, Informative)
Two hardcore/metal bands I knew a couple of years ago from the same town each put an album out around the same time. One spent a couple of weekends at a small local studio and put together a full-length CD for about $1200. The other, who had hired a manager and thought they were going to go big time, took a month off, put themselves up in an apartment in a town 30 miles away and recorded an album in a "big" studio for $30,000. They never did get the big break. The two guys who wrote most of the material left the band because they refused to quit their jobs to do the joke of a "tour" the band set up after the CD came out.
The band i farm, with whom my former band used to play shows, went from making self-released records at the same $20/hour studio we recorded at and being recorded by their friends in recording school to recently doing an album for a small indie label for $6000 at the Blasting Room (run by Stephen Egerton and Bill Stevenson from All/the Descendants).
The point is, it's a really difficult question to answer. Really big bands spend a lot of time in really big, expensive studios working on albums. It's incredibly easy to run the cost of a recording up to the $200,000 mark or past when you're speding six months in a $2000/day studio in another country (thereby incurring housing costs as well). Or working in multiple studios. And bringing in guests to play. And hiring three different engineers to mix, etc.
As for markup. When I was working in a CD store (1994), we, as an independent store, paid the one-stops an average of between 8.99 and 10.99 for discs which had a usual retail of about $15.99-$16.99 at the local chain store (it was a big deal at the time that the new Tom Petty greatest hits album cost us $12.49 and was going for $17.99 in the chain stores).
Of course, as an independent, we had to undercut the chains by selling the discs for $13.99-14.99. And, of course, as an independent, we also had less buying power and had to buy discs through a middle man. The chains who were charging more for the same discs got them far cheaper directly from the labels by the truckload.
One more thing to consider as far as major labels are concerned is that their idea of artist development is to throw a bunch of money at a whole group of performers and hope that one or two of them make it big. They charge the associated costs to make the album back to the artists and give them all a big advance. A couple make it and actually pull in enough money to cover those costs and make some money. The rest never see any money past their advance because they aren't paid royalties until the album breaks even. Some make several albums that never break even and just go deeper into debt with each album.
The best thing that happens to some indie bands that jump to majors and don't get big is to get dumped from the label because by the time that happens they're usually so far in debt they'll never get out. If they've still managed to keep a good portion of their fanbase, they can go back to making cheaper albums for a small label again (see: The Mighty Mighty Bosstones).
The interesting thing about the music industry is that albums are like films. If you keep the budget down, you don't have to get a lot of business to make money. Chasing Amy was Kevin Smith's most successful film not because it brought in the highest box office take. Chasing Amy, Dogma and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back all made about $30 million at the box office, but Chasing Amy was the only one that cost less than a million to produce. Similarly, Elektra stays with a band like Phish, who refuse to promote themselves to a wider audience and don't sell a lot of albums because they sell a steady amount of albums and they don't spend a lot of money making those albums.
link (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So.. (Score:3, Informative)
Put it this way: you can spend however much you want to make an album. If you want it to sound like it wasn't recorded in a bathtub, you'll spend more. If your band is ready to play the songs (instead of writing them in the studio), you'll spend less. Are you loading your own gear? No cartage fees. Do you even own the gear you'd like to play with? Using session players? How many guys in your band? Have they recorded before? Are you recording the parts separately? Are you recording it 8 seconds at a time? Digital? Analog?
If you're "big," 1,000 bucks a day for the studio's about average, not including engineers/producer/etc. Plan for 3 or 4 months in the studio. The first Sabbath album was recorded in a day; Metallica's Black Album took ~8 months.
Are we including promotion? That's a whole new set of equations. Basically what it comes down to is:
It depends,
which is why it's not a good place for discussion.
Re:Just a guess (Score:5, Informative)
Studio time, at a decent studio runs between $300 - $400 an hour (NYC/LA). Some bands tend to keep within the 60 - 120 hours, so your taling about $50K for a marquee studio.
The producer is the killer. If your a "hot item" new band, typically a record company will bring in a "big name producer" to direct traffic and guide the band. If your a veteran band, say like Aerosmith, you can call your own shots and require that the record company get who you want, regardless of the price. Now heres the kicker. Most producers take some upfront money, and depending on the band, will take some money on the "back end". Much like an actor or director, the record producer makes a point or 2 on sales. This of course is all guided by the record company and basically is very broad in terms, both legal and fiscal.
Remember, Elvis Costello recorded My Aim is True for under $5,000. But then spent (estimated) over a million dollards on Imperial Bedroom, which was far less of a seller... Nirvana recorded their first album for $800 and it sounded like, Nevermind was MUCH more money as they had a bigtime producer twisting the knobs. So its all relative, and recording costs mean shit.
Its not the cost its the quality.
Another good example: Boston's first record (which I still think is one of the best recorded albums) was recorded in Tom Scholtz's basement, he did a few overdubs at a big studio, but for the most part the recording was free! So there ya go.
You're talking to a recording engineer here... (Score:5, Informative)
Recording costs can run anywhere from a mere $200 to the sky's the limit. Recording house rates are not state secrets, every studio will quote you with no problem. In fact, you probably will pay less if you haggle, only the superstar studios will get what they ask for. But you will get what you paid for in a producer. Recording sound is an art, and to get a final recording that has the subjectivelly and normally accepted level of quality, you will need a good producer. All the state of the art equipment in the world will not guarantee a quality recording, if so studio would have monkeys as engineers and producers. A quality producer can get a great recording with almost any equipment (within reason for the selected output), BUT he will want money for it.
That's not to say one must always use and pay a producer. There are occasionally musicians and engineers who have a natural facility for this.
But to get to the original reply of producing an album, well you are confusing promotion (payola, advertising, etc) with production. The music business is like every other business in the world. The actal physical production of the product is just one aspect of it.
As a side note to everyone, payola is legal. anybody can pay to have their record played on the radio (provided the station did want to do it). However this payment must be mentioned.
Re:AVERAGE $500k+? (Score:5, Informative)
From personal experience: in 37 years as a recording artist, I've created 25+ albums for major labels, and I've never once received a royalty check that didn't show I owed them money. So I make the bulk of my living from live touring, playing for 80-1500 people a night, doing my own show.
-Janis Ian [janisian.com]
Re:Not that much (Score:4, Informative)
1) The Internet. It costs very little to create a web presence, more than just a band website. Making some of your tracks available for download off MP3.com and the like, having fans of the band talk you up in the circles that listen to that sort of music, swapping advertising space with other productions with a similar clientele, and generally getting your name out there. It doesn't take much, and if you are a half decent band you will create a snowball effect.
2) GET OUT THERE!! play gigs, and plenty of 'em. Play with bands that wouldn't usually play together to try and get some crossover fans. Play underage gigs as well as licensed, because grommets grow up to influence the music industry too. Hook up multiple-bill gigs so the divided costs are less between the bands while giving the punter more bang for their buck. After ripping up a few scorcher gigs, we've attracted the attention of localised media, ie: fanzines, interviews in gig guides, and the local (and bigger) music press. Yeah, I know this sort of promotion is not on the same level as U2 would use, but every little bit helps and the money saved by getting awareness through the free media can then be used to try and break new markets. As my old grandpa used to say, a dollar saved is a dollar earned. If you are prepared to put in the hard yards, you can do quite a lot of promotion with very little cost involved at all, if any.
Some of this is just trickery (Score:4, Informative)
This trickery generally benefits the artists because they're not taxed on the benefits it provides them with, unlike the 7/11 clerk, who has to pay income and Social InSecurity taxes on every dime of his income.
I'll bet the 7/11 clerk would change places with them in a heartbeat.
I read a very interesting biography of Richard Branson, who founded the Virgin record label among other enterprises. He was taught a hard lesson in economics from the other side of the fence. He signed some number of bands. One was a huge hit, the rest did poorly. Overall, he made very little even though his business was glamourous and he had a lot of fun with it.
In other words, just because the gross is pretty doesn't mean the net isn't ugly.
In this case, consider that the semi-hit analyzed here has to support a number of flops, that don't come even close to recouping their costs. Overall, then, the label probably does a lot worse than you think, precisely because this guy selected a middle of the road example.
Anyone know what the actual profits of the record labels look like?
D
Re:its getting cheaper (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, you absolutely can get a set up for $20,000, but you get what you pay for. There are some things you can skimp on, but some things just simply cost big money and cutting corners directly impacts the sounds quality. For example, you simply can't buy a decent sounding studio vocal microphone for less than $1000, and you should be spending more like $3000 to get something that sounds nice - you can spend more if you want. A decent analog compressor will set you back over $1000, and while digital compression has its place (I'm definitely no luddite when it comes to audio technology) there are still times when an analog compressor is best for a number of reasons.
There is monitors and amps. The sky is the limit here, but I wouldn't mix a commercial album on anything costing less than $5000 (yes, I do use near fields most of the time, but still need the big speakers for reference).
Then you get to room treatment... oh boy. This one is HUGE. If you want a great sounding drum kit, you need in rough order:
- A great drummer
- A great sounding drum kit
- A great sounding room
- A bunch of nice mics (5 - 10 mics at $1000+ each)
- A bunch of good quality inputs for those mics
- Then something to mix it with, record it on, etc - that's almost a detail
A great sounding drum room with decent sound proofing can easily cost tens of thousands without going over the top. Let's not even mention the acoustics in the control room. On top of all that you need a skilled, experienced engineer who understands how all the above interact - the human, the acoustics and the electronics are all part of a complex synergistic relationship that feed off each other (yeah, it sounds like hippy crap, but it's true - work a few years in a studio and you'll know what I mean).This is just getting started, I could go on. So for those who think all you need is a beefy PC/Mac, a copy of Cubase and a nice sound card, then you need to get out of hobby land and work on some real records. BTW, I'm certainly not saying that you don't use those things, I'm generally a fan of computer based recording, but they are just a small part of a big picture.
One caveat: for electronica, anything goes. There are no rules and no real concept of low end as far as budget goes. I'm mostly talking about music with live musicians, which there will always be a demand for.
Ten years... (Score:3, Informative)
She had a few cds out at the time, and I remember hearing from her (or her manager) that the cost to make an album *for the label* is around one dollar apiece.
Frad
Do I bother *YOU* at *your* work?
looking at it from the wrong angle (Score:4, Informative)
The real cost isn't equipment, its labor. Equipment is essentially a 1 time investment. I'm producing my album with about 30k of equipment and it will sound as good as a pro studio, however a real studio will have $100k - nearly infinite dollar ammount of equipment... but since I know how to use the equipment LABOR IS FREE. Also alot of the cost of equipment is the building. Real studios have special buildings with modified heating and cooling systems, special wiring ducts, and the rooms are dressed in sonics to reduce sound reflections.
I have no doubt that albums like britney spears cost 1mil to produce. Assuming the studio has all the equipment you need... You need to hire session musicians (drums, bass, keyboard, backup vocalists, string players, guitar). Then you need support staff like vocal coaches, multiple engineers, multiple songwriters, etc etc. All of these people make 25 - 100$ hour, plus the 50 - 500$ you are paying per hour just to be in the studio (the companies may own their own studios, I dont know. They may also have session musicians on salary, thats the way I would do it).
Now a band that comes to a studio with its songs written and well rehearsed, doesn't need anything but a few engineers and THAT can be done on the cheap. Real professionals can do an album for nothing. I've seen all star jazz bands walk into a studio, lay down each song in one take, and be done before lunch. Couple days mixing and the thing is done. But those are guys who've been playing for 35 years.
my band's costs for our album: (Score:5, Informative)
so to sum up. we're totally independent, with completely non-bulk numbers, we put out a 30 song CD with nice packaging for $5, and we're making a killing profit-wise. tell me again why Eminem needs to sell his millions of CD's at $18 apeice to make a profit?
hell, we even have every one of our songs available for download on our website, and we still do fine with CD sales! take that, RIAA. maybe some people can still tell whether an artist is genuine or not.
"Kind of Blue" by Miles Davis (Score:4, Informative)
Studio time, plus the musicians pay was pretty much a days work for the 10 or so people involved.
Then there is the cost of pressing the records (which is probably higher than making CDs).
Anyway, check out the book Making of Kind of Blue [dacapopress.com].
Today you can probably record and print 1000 CDs for under $5000.
Hi. I work for an independant label. (Score:3, Informative)
Depending on the band, and the producer, and desired quality, base studio costs can run you from a few thousand to 20 or 30 thousand, depending how much you have to work with the artist. The studio charges you time and material, typically, including the media they master on. Most of the expense at this stage is for engineering, mixing, and mastering. If your band had to travel to the studio, you have that to account for, plus expenses if you flew in a producer or engineering team.
Once it's mastered, you've got to think about selling it. That requires art and layout work. These costs can be anything from farting on a piece of paper for some color to god knows what else.
Once you're ready to press, you find a manufacturer. For smaller batches, prices are understandibly higher. Decent quotes for quality CDs, covers, trays, plus time and materials for a batch of say, 3000 cds, would float around a buck to a buck and quarter per unit. Don't forget about shipping, because 3000 cds, in cases, weigh a little more than a pound.
If you're paying staff to handle all this for you, you've got them to consider, plus your real estate and other overhead figures for the period they're working on it. If you're doing your own marketing, well, you get the idea.
The major labels turn the market into a pigpen. CD prices for major artists are high because radio stations are fat and happy on the bribes^Wfees they charge the major labels for prime airplay. That's why you get the same 15 songs on a daily basis. You gotta root around to find the quality stuff. Labels with online stores for their artists (hint.) are great places to find quality music at prices that don't factor in distribution markups and larger overhead (which has to account for those large bribes^Wfees).
Tired of what's on sale at Walmart? Check into your local music scene. The fish are fresher.
Re:its getting cheaper (Score:3, Informative)
You're forgetting... (Score:3, Informative)
Wholesale costs. (Score:5, Informative)
In late 1996, a label rep from WEA (Warner's distribution arm) told me that it cost the label an average of $3.20 per cd to get it to market. Thing is, that's for a major artist, and that cost includes promotion, big-name producer, etc. Your mileage will vary significantly.
My advice is to get a good hard-disc 16-track (about $800) and do everything up to the mastering process yourself. Take the product to a local engineer and have him master it (usually about $200, often far less). With the finished product in hand, all you have to do is cut a deal with a distributor. From there, you have the choice as to how it's marketed, promoted, and most importantly, priced. Even if you can sell it at $10.00, you'll be far cheaper than major-label stuff, and yes, price is a selling point.
One last thing. If you do it yourself, it's yours. It can't be shelved three weeks before release, used without your consent in a Gap commercial or held for ransom because you threaten to break a restrictive and humiliating contract. Paul Simon still has to pay to play "Sounds of Silence" in his concerts.
Size does matter (Score:5, Informative)
Let's say we have a five-piece rock band just trying to get their stuff heard. After spending months of their free time writing and rehearsing material they decide to record a four-song demo. One full day in a studio with an engineer. Then mastering, and optimistic 1000 copies of the disc, including cases and artwork, to sell in the Internet. Total cost approximately $2000. If they sell all the copies for $6 they get $6000. Reduce expenses, and they have $800 for one person. That's not much for months of hard work put into their material.
Let's take another example. CMX, a popular Finnish band who have basically no markets outside of Finland, because all their material is in Finnish. Three years ago they did a 120-minute double-album, which has sold over 20000 copies (that's successful, gold certification in Finland is 15000). They had two studios for four months to record it. Total cost, including cost of people involved, was probably somewhere near $200000. That's about $10 per album sold. Add distribution and marketing. Had it been a single-disc album it would've been a disaster, but as a double-disc it could be sold for a slightly higher price of about $22-$25.
This is one of the most expensive albums ever produced in Finland. It wouldn't have been made if they weren't a well-established and popular band. Getting songs even recorded and released if your potential audience is small (like in smaller countiers, or with somewhat marginal music) isn't easy.
Most less-known artists have dayjobs, because they would have to sell tens of thousands of CDs every year to make enough money to live. A lot of my over 600-CD record collection is from artists, who sell perhaps 20000 copies of their albums worldwide. They simply can't afford $200000 to do a record, nor have they time to write and record a new album every year because of their jobs.
Then again, should records really cost only as much as the production, marketing and distributing them really costs? Sure, you could get the latest Britney Spears or Limp Bizkit disc for $5 and they would still be profitable for the record company, but stuff by CMX or Shadow Gallery or [insert your favourite underground artist] would still be at least $15 just to break even.
First hand experience (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, for refernce, Nirvana's big hit record cost about 50k in the end to record, they probably paid somewhere in the 10-20 cent range for each unit, but they spent 100 million on promotion. its pretty easy to see why they charge 15 dollars each.
In the end it realy depends on your level in the pyramid, and your budget. I have heard awesome records that i know cost half of what our did, so It can be done relativly easily, you just have to have your head on the right way on the right day.
Re:And he probably got what he paid for. (Score:4, Informative)
So, add that cost (the studio time) to the cost paying the producer, to the cost of paying the band plus any studio musicians you need to providing catering and a top notch band could easily cost the record lable a bundle.
An unknown band probably costs at least an order of magnitude less than $500k to $1.5 million, but then, they don't get the top notch stuff. Sometimes, they'll come up with something phenomenal with midrange equipment. Sometimes they won't. But the ones who come up with the really good stuff are going to want the high end equipment next time around
$25000 is the cheapest you can go for professional (Score:3, Informative)
This is an album I am on. Including equipment and production, it cost us about $25000 to produce. That is probably as cheap as it gets...its an extremely well edited and recorded album, we happened to have the know-how to do the majority of it ourselves, with as little rented studio time as possible.
That price however, doesn't factor in the cost of our time.
Re:Just a guess (Score:3, Informative)
>>You ever hear "Frampton Comes Alive"?... No studio at all.
Yabbut, if you had the S/N ratio that you get at concert levels
(which translates to "lowering the noise floor" in the studio, which
is one of the most expensive pieces), and if you had the 3" console
they had in the "no studio" soundboard tent when that was recorded, AND
if you had the great Chris Kimsey on the knobs (the engineer responsible
for that Frampton album, and the person who made the great live Rolling
Stones albums), you have the best studio one could ever ask for. It does
not matter if it had walls.
Please also consider how much of the work is postproduction. The masters
for that Frampton album could have been mixed a million different ways in
post, but there's only the single 2-channel vinyl master released to the
public. So there's quite a bit of artistry yet to be done to a live recording
after the concert is over.
It is very easy to make a tape that sounds like crap, no matter how good
the original source is. But it certainly does help if the source happens
to be one of those immortal performances
Re:Faulty premise (Score:2, Informative)
Read courtney's article.
The artist CAN'T declare bankruptsy anymore. They cannot get out of their contract by going bankrupt. Which means the artist is liable for that "loan", not the company.
And the reason unknown artists will give their left nut to be picked up by an album is twofold. one: they have no clue what they are getting into. two: a contract with a major studio is one of the ONLY ways you will get any sort of >local recognition.
One exception to these rules would be The Offspring. But only because they pretty much had their own label and studio set up by the time they made it big (nitro records if I remember right).
Actual CD costs? (Score:2, Informative)
nirvana - 1st album $600.00 (Score:1, Informative)
blah, i am drunk, pissed off at this crappy post and going to bed.
Depends on the production methods (Score:2, Informative)
To give an idea, a world-class studio (which would have 24-track 2" recording and million-dollar consoles) is generally $1200-1900/day + an engineer and a second. Depending on the engineer, it could be between $500/day and $5000/day. A second is generally going to be between $250/day and $500/day.
An album produced this way generally costs around $150,000 to complete, including the mastering and media and all parts.
Then there are smaller facilities which will produce an excellent quality album at a fraction of the cost. Of course, they might have a Trident console instead of a classic Neve 8068 or an SSL 9000 J. Generally speaking, an album produced in this manner would amount to $10,000-$20,000.
And then, there are home studios (not of the low-end project/hobby grade) that can also produce an excellent album and $10,000 or below.
Basically, the lower-cost facilities (or the lower-cost recordings) rely in the artist being "with-it" enough to get their job done in a reasonably quick timeframe.
A small facility can cost just as much as a world-class if the artist wastes lots of time.
The way the music industry works, basically, is they sign an artist and give them $150,000 to make an album. The artist can then choose how to record their album. The label's only requirement is that they get a high-quality multi-track master, a stereo master, and often nowadays, a multi-channel master.
The artist has the option of how to spend that $150k. They can spend it on a world-class facility (which is what most artists do) or they can build themselves a studio and do it themselves (and hire a good engineer).
The more intelligent artists build a facility and consider the first album's cost-of-production a loss. Then, if they're lucky enough to get a second album, the can pocket the next $150k and hire a good engineer.
The nice thing about the second option is that even if they don't get to do another album for the label, they keep the studio and can make whatever they want, whenever they want!
And you can make a pretty damn good studio for $150k.
Important Cost Factors to remember (Score:2, Informative)
Cover Art (graphics are not cheap and occassionally very expensive, not in the $10,000 mark usually, but still a cost)
Studio personel (high prices producers will cost up front, especially if they think the project will tank)
Hotel/food for band (unless they happen to live near the studio)
Tour Support (this is a MAJOR cost)
Videosanother MAJOR expense)
Payola (yes, it still exists)
print marketing (advertising is not cheap, neither to produce or get printed)
Cash Advances (most bands get some sort of advance and most bands never fully pay that back. I understand that this is a ruse, but on paper, it is a loss)
Bands operating at a loss (which is most recordings. Profit making acts must make up for the ones losing money)
Record company expenses (just like liquor must cost more in a bar, music must cost more in a company due to office space, secretaries to A&R people, to executives to janitors)
Image consultants (you have to decide how to market any product, it doesn't just 'happen')
Cost of CDs (this is a tiny per-unit cost, but some companies have a nice little scam where they pay their own sister/daughter company more than it should cost to produce them and thus increase their losses. BMG was known for this)
Don't jump to conclusions... (Score:4, Informative)
As mentioned in an earlier post, the compact disc media has become very very cheap over the last 15 years, yet CD prices continue to rise. Here are some of the other costs involved in producing a CD:
MECHANICAL LICENSE FEE: When you buy a CD, part of the cost covers a mechanichal license fee. Believe it or not there is a fee of 7.55 cents PER TRACK for any CD pressed.
RECORDING/ENGINEER FEES: It is not a simple process to create a CD. There are 3 steps, recording (at least $2,500 per track assuming you don't need to many overdubs), mixing (at least $2,000 per track) and mastering (at least $500 per track). Now these costs are relative to the caliber of studio you record and mix at. For a big-time artist at a platinum-quality studio, you can easily quadrouple these numbers.
RECORD COMPANY FEES: Most people get upset and claim these guys are driving the cost way up. Well, for the most part, that is true. But it is important to realize that these people are the ones responsible for promoting an album. The artist does NOTHING to help move their albums (well, I suppose you can count touring). The producers and record execs do all the work to push your album.
PRODUCTION: It boils down to $2.25-3.00 per disc for 1,000 - 10,000 copies. This includes a glass master, the disc itself with 4-color face printing, 10 page 4-color insert, jewl case, barcoding and all those annoying stickers on the case edge. For large quantities, the cost is certainly hess. Probably about 40% less for more than 500,000 copies.
I certainly hope you find this information useful.
-DJ Blair
Re:I would guess??? (Score:3, Informative)
<sarcasm>
Doubled? Yes, because record stores are well-known for not marking up their products, right?
In fact, they might even sell their products at a loss! So that makes the income even more!
</sarcasm>
I've worked in retail. Product markups for items less than $100 are typically in excess of 100%. Friends who worked in record stores got 50% off. You think that the record stores are selling to them at a loss?
Yes,the 100% markup figure is wrong - however it's not too high, it's much too low.
Re: What do they do for three months.... (Score:2, Informative)
The point here is we're talking about rock music, not jazz. Jazz recordings: the focus of a session is to "capture" a take in as natural a setting as possible. Particularly solo or small group recordings. This is very much also the case with classical recordings. In most cases with a classical recording, no compression or other outboard gear of any sort is allowed. It has to be as pure as possible.
Rock and pop music: the focus is much more about the presentation. Artifice. Have you heard the drums in a rock record lately? They don't resemble real drums in any way whatsoever. Mixing the drum sound on a recording so that it in any way sounds like Limp Bizkit or Marilyn Manson: that takes days. Days!
Many bands now, on a major label recording, it goes like this:
Spend several days setting up for beds. Set things up so everyone can see each other and you can all track live off the floor. However when you first hit "record", the only thing you're keeping from that session will be the drums. That's it. Drums alone can take days of tracking, then it's thrown over to protools guys for time optimizing (matching it rigorously to a click track.) That can take an extra day or three. ProTools engineers alone charge $8000 a day just to be on site (whether they actually do anything or not.)
Next step: is guitars. They're laid down very strategically so that they're tracked clean, but that the effects settings for mixing can evolve. That can change drastically from the first day of tracking to the last. Average time for that with most bands is a week. There are entire books written about micing instruments, and guitar amps in a rock recording can eat up more than two thirds of those books.
By the time we get to vocals, now you hire specific protools people for post production retuning of vocals. If you are dealing with a band which in any way is expected to get airplay or top-ten status, if you're not using protools retuning or retiming, radio is not interested. Vocals in most pop / rock recordings are not at all "natural" vocals. They're sweetened, processed, compressed, punched (ie: retaken in portions even for single words, or syllables of words.) Often they're doubled for reinforcement (ie: the vocalist has to retrack the "keeper" vocal as closely as possible to the original keeper.)
On and on.
Mixing a track can take anywhere from one day to eight days. Then the label can still say it requires a remix. "The drums need more punch", "The vocals aren't loud enough", "those guitars need more crunch", "Bass is too loud", "Too much / too little autotuning", "Rock radio will never accept that vocal take", etc.
This is the reality of most if not all recordings you hear on radio today. I am not making any of this up.
ad