How Much Does It Cost To Make A Hit Song?

[Roflcopter]

Gotta dig deep, it seems

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/01/137530847/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-a-hit-song

[MichaelJohnAnthony]

It's easy to see that we will never be Top 40. Question is, would you still do what you do knowing that? What does success mean to all of you?

[Roflcopter]

Amazing!..........makes me incredibly happy to be a recreational writer!

Tom

Yeah well it's pretty amazing to see what it takes to get a #1 hit - this kind of money just to produce it, and then for the clip you need to buy the cooperation of a couple of huge other names, a few Hollywood stars, shot by a moonlighting director and his team, and *still* your topics should include domestic violence/raunchy sex, or it will fail to appeal on an 'emotional' (=sensational) level.

Yeah, then you will get guaranteed returns, and several *hundreds of millions* of views on YouTube.

And hey, *maybe* I will use that track for my next game. Maybe.

(love that YT comment: This porn has some nice music.)

[Roflcopter]

It's easy to see that we will never be Top 40. Question is, would you still do what you do knowing that? What does success mean to all of you?

Success is a smoking chimney, and a smile on the face of the people you work with.

[Prometheus]

Everything Else Within the realms of affordability

Song Roll Out $1,000,000

No surprises here really. If you had a team of people with the relevant skills, you can eliminate pretty much all of the $78,000 that isn't part of the song rollout.

The song rollout is absolutely prohibitive to most people though and it's hard to imagine any way round it even with the NET.

[PeteJoe]

Most of the song of Rihanna's album were old songs written by Ester Dean and the one with eminem I think was written by Eminem and skylar grey. I think the $18,000 a day for a studio is a bit exaggerated. $5,000-10,000 would be more realistic.

My question is. If you had the money, or an investor. You have the potential. Would you take a chance and do it? Or is it too much money?

[Roflcopter]

Ester Dean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ester_Dean

God, she's gorgeous.

I think on a big enough budget, it's not a lot of money - but that's like, not saying anything at all, really.... if you just got started, it might as well be a kazillion.

So we're back to square one: in order to be a player, you need backing - that much would seem clear, no?

[Retrosaurus Rex]

Most of the song of Rihanna's album were old songs written by Ester Dean and the one with eminem I think was written by Eminem and skylar grey. I think the $18,000 a day for a studio is a bit exaggerated. $5,000-10,000 would be more realistic.

My question is. If you had the money, or an investor. You have the potential. Would you take a chance and do it? Or is it too much money?

If you want to make money, you're better off to invest in penny stocks or hit the craps tables in Vegas before you invest in a singer. Even a independent film would be a better bet, probably. If you want to be a player the music game, however, you have to pay the entry fee. Like Prometheus said, if you have a capable team that's willing to defer compensation you can get an album produced for next to nothing, but the marketing roll-out (even if done on a regional basis, or to a targeted audience), is a hurdle that very few can overcome...

[Prometheus]

My question is. If you had the money, or an investor. You have the potential. Would you take a chance and do it? Or is it too much money?

I can think of no way of trying to become rich that is more crazy than investing in the music industry as it operates today.

In my opinion, the entire music industry is an unmitigated farce that needs to be completely annihilated and rebuilt from basic principles again. Of course, the apologists for the industry will point out that my outspoken attacks have led to my being thoroughly routed from said industry.

[Roflcopter]

I can think of no way of trying to become rich that is more crazy than investing in the music industry as it operates today.

In my opinion, the entire music industry is an unmitigated farce that needs to be completely annihilated and rebuilt from basic principles again. Of course, the apologists for the industry will point out that my outspoken attacks have led to my being thoroughly routed from said industry.

That's not entirely impossible - several people have suggested a company like Google *buying up* the entire music industry from their petty cash (they can) and do exactly that.

What would you suggest the Google management would change, first off? Serious question...

[Prometheus]

That's not entirely impossible - several people have suggested a company like Google *buying up* the entire music industry from their petty cash (they can) and do exactly that.

What would you suggest the Google management would change, first off? Serious question...

I honestly believe it probably is impossible to change it in any meaningful way in the long term. Human nature being what it is, the tail will always end up wagging the dog.

In my experience, you have two basic choices in life. You can be cool or you can be rich. Only a handful of people in the world ever get to be both and sadly it looks like I'm never going to be one of them.

This being the case, I'd rather maintain my Jack Kerouac like spirit of rebellion but live on a meagre income. At least this way I can look at the Brendan Moons of the Scottish music industry and feel that I have the bluer blue eyes and the more sex appeal out of the two of us even if he has all the money.

That said, the industry needs to accept that it can't expect to keep a vice like grip on the means of distribution and the licensing. No sane person is going to buy one copy of Dark Side of The Moon for their car stereo, another for their MP3 player and refuse to play it with the window open incase their neighbours get to listen to it, that's absurd.

There also needs to be some basic ethical standards and formalities in how industry profiteers deal with the people they employ. For industry executives to adopt a High Sheriff of Nottingham stance in their own business dealings and yet cry foul at the dishonourable behaviour of file downloaders is simply not going to wash with people. All it does is make downloaders feel like Robin Hood instead of feeling like a robbin' bastard.

One other thing I would suggest is that the executives should let the artists handle the creative process and they should keep their noses out of it and stick to what they're good at, which is creative accounting. The likes of Simon Cowell and Amanda Holden, one of whom is primarily known for being fabulously rich on the back of other people's work and the other who is primarily known for two timing Les Dennis, getting to tell the public who has talent and who doesn't is causing untold damage to the creative arts.

[Roflcopter]

Prometheus, on 06 July 2011 - 09:00 PM, said:

I honestly believe it probably is impossible to change it in any meaningful way in the long term. Human nature being what it is, the tail will always end up wagging the dog.

I believe that if you change an environment sufficiently, the whole ruleset can change. This does not mean human behaviour will be different, but in a leveled playing field the stakes can be even again, because you could start from scratch, in a lot of *meaningful* ways.

Prometheus, on 06 July 2011 - 09:00 PM, said:

In my experience, you have two basic choices in life. You can be cool or you can be rich. Only a handful of people in the world ever get to be both and sadly it looks like I'm never going to be one of them.

They say money has its own sex appeal. But I agree, having money *and* real friends does not go hand in hand automatically.

Prometheus, on 06 July 2011 - 09:00 PM, said:

This being the case, I'd rather maintain my Jack Kerouac like spirit of rebellion but live on a meagre income. At least this way I can look at the Brendan Moons of the Scottish music industry and feel that I have the bluer blue eyes and the more sex appeal out of the two of us even if he has all the money.

Not familiar with him, nor can I find much when I google him - care to explain why you think he 'has made it' while others don't?

Prometheus, on 06 July 2011 - 09:00 PM, said:

That said, the industry needs to accept that it can't expect to keep a vice like grip on the means of distribution and the licensing. No sane person is going to buy one copy of Dark Side of The Moon for their car stereo, another for their MP3 player and refuse to play it with the window open incase their neighbours get to listen to it, that's absurd.

Nolo contendere - but that's just moneyshoveling capitalism at it's worst (some would say give *any* capitalist system enough time, and it will always devolve to that)

Prometheus, on 06 July 2011 - 09:00 PM, said:

There also needs to be some basic ethical standards and formalities in how industry profiteers deal with the people they employ. For industry executives to adopt a High Sheriff of Nottingham stance in their own business dealings and yet cry foul at the dishonourable behaviour of file downloaders is simply not going to wash with people. All it does is make downloaders feel like Robin Hood instead of feeling like a robbin' bastard.

Nolo contendere - and that's not even mentioning the deliberate leaking of material by shady promoters.

On a more practical level, what would you forbid outright/make mandatory if you could reboot the system?

Prometheus, on 06 July 2011 - 09:00 PM, said:

One other thing I would suggest is that the executives should let the artists handle the creative process and they should keep their noses out of it and stick to what they're good at, which is creative accounting. The likes of Simon Cowell and Amanda Holden, one of whom is primarily known for being fabulously rich on the back of other people's work and the other who is primarily known for two timing Les Dennis, getting to tell the public who has talent and who doesn't is causing untold damage to the creative arts.

Saddeningly there seems to be a (cultivated) taste for tabloidism in Western society - maybe even in humanity in general. I think the best counter-practice would be to doggedly expose the cynicism of these people. Maybe we should start a 'fan' group for these people and post all materials on a website showing their not-so-glamorous practices in all its gory detail.

Tbanks for the detailed reply already.

[Prometheus]

They say money has its own sex appeal. But I agree, having money *and* real friends does not go hand in hand automatically.

I dare say that Simon Cowell's money does give him a certain, Je ne sais quoi, if you will, when it comes to dealing with women, but I don't know that many people think of him as a cool guy.

Not familiar with him, nor can I find much when I google him - care to explain why you think he 'has made it' while others don't?

He's Paulo Nutini's manager, an artist who is currently enjoying massive success in the UK. He is a very savvy, oily little man but certainly not stupid when it comes to turning a coin. He runs a company called Morsecode Management.

Nolo contendere - but that's just moneyshoveling capitalism at it's worst (some would say give *any* capitalist system enough time, and it will always devolve to that)

Touché.

Nolo contendere - and that's not even mentioning the deliberate leaking of material by shady promoters.

On a more practical level, what would you forbid outright/make mandatory if you could reboot the system?

In terms of how the end user is treated, I would make the record companies decide one way or the other, do they want to control the licensing or the distribution, and tell them that they can't have both. If they have any savvy at all, they must already know this. The moment first generation copying became possible, Pandora's Box was opened.

In terms of how people employed in the Music Industry are treated, every time I give my opinion on that the fit seems to hit the shan, but I'll try once more anyway. Quite simply, I would make employment laws apply to the music industry. It's the only industry that is currently exempt from it and I really don't see why it should be vouchsafed this exception.

Saddeningly there seems to be a (cultivated) taste for tabloidism in Western society - maybe even in humanity in general. I think the best counter-practice would be to doggedly expose the cynicism of these people. Maybe we should start a 'fan' group for these people and post all materials on a website showing their not-so-glamorous practices in all its gory detail.

Agreed.

Tbanks for the detailed reply already.

Thank You...

[PeteJoe]

If you want to make money, you're better off to invest in penny stocks or hit the craps tables in Vegas before you invest in a singer. Even a independent film would be a better bet, probably. If you want to be a player the music game, however, you have to pay the entry fee. Like Prometheus said, if you have a capable team that's willing to defer compensation you can get an album produced for next to nothing, but the marketing roll-out (even if done on a regional basis, or to a targeted audience), is a hurdle that very few can overcome...

Maybe not to make money and become rich, but I'd do it just because it is what I'd like to do with my life. I realize that I would be better off studying medicine and being a doctor, but it just isn't me. But yeah, I think I could do an album with about $10,000. You could pay $2,000 - $3,000 for studio time (could be even less, as you can record demos at home and when you're satisfied rent a studio for about $400/day to record). $5,000 to mix it (that could get you an engineer who has mixed top 100 hits), and $2,000 to master it. It could even be done for less if you record it at home with your gear.

[Prometheus]

Maybe not to make money and become rich, but I'd do it just because it is what I'd like to do with my life. I realize that I would be better off studying medicine and being a doctor, but it just isn't me. But yeah, I think I could do an album with about $10,000. You could pay $2,000 - $3,000 for studio time (could be even less, as you can record demos at home and when you're satisfied rent a studio for about $400/day to record). $5,000 to mix it (that could get you an engineer who has mixed top 100 hits), and $2,000 to master it. It could even be done for less if you record it at home with your gear.

I managed to record an album for basically nothing, just the price of my electricity supply to run the studio equipment... It's just what you do with it after that. It ended up having a world wide cult following of a couple of hundred people, which is just not enough to make you living.

What I found was that about one in ten people liked my music, and maybe one in fifty were really quite enthusiastic about it. One in fifty, in the UK, translates into a million people if you can get it out to them.

[Roflcopter]

One in fifty, in the UK, translates into a million people if you can get it out to them.

Do you have a website where people could download it (and order any other relevant content, maybe home-printed Special CD/DVD/Blu-Ray or other artwork).

Maybe you don't really need the industry that bad, or be an employee, for that matter. Maybe that whole paradigm has had its time.

[Prometheus]

Do you have a website where people could download it (and order any other relevant content, maybe home-printed Special CD/DVD/Blu-Ray or other artwork).

Maybe you don't really need the industry that bad, or be an employee, for that matter. Maybe that whole paradigm has had its time.

To be honest, I no longer have any desire whatsoever to be a rock star. For one thing I'm too old, and for another I would not like to be recognised when I was out and about.

My outspoken attacks on the recording industry are as much to do with my feeling that the current model is stifling music as a genuine form of art as the fact that people are being treated unethically.

The trouble is that people tend to immediately jump to the conclusion that you suffer from a chronic case of sour grapes when you question the status quo. I earnestly believe that making employment law apply to the music industry, as it should, would in the long term benefit the industry by creating genuine career prospects in it.

The last movement in the UK music scene that was really exciting in any kind of way was the Metal Renaissance that occurred at the end of the 90's into the 2000's. Whether it's your type of music or not, I'm not arguing that, but young people were releasing music that had the old farts reaching for the blood pressure pills again, music that was clever, articulate, visceral, pushed the envelope and had something to say that captured and created a spirit of the times.

When this movement faded into the background again a few years ago, nothing has replaced it. Just endless streams of one hit wonders and over processed pop drivel. It's not to say that I haven't heard songs that I think are good tunes. For example, I liked the MGMT album that came out in 2008, I liked Nickelback's Rock Star song and video, I think Paparazzi by Lady GaGa is an annoyingly catchy tune and I like the short films she makes to go with her songs, but there hasn't really been any zeitgeist in music for a decade that has hit a nerve and redefined music and attitudes for a generation.

You can, however, go on myspace and such like and find bands that are talented, articulate and innovative. They are still there, working their butts off on their local scene, creating stuff that is infinitely superior to the mainstream pap heard on radio 1.

There is no doubt in my mind that the industry is in a large part responsible for this, with all their vapid reality television shows where a mediocre actress who's real claim to fame is that she two timed Les Dennis, a News Paper tychoon and an Australian Soap Opera star get to sit on a throne each and decide who gets the funding to launch a career.

As this thread clearly points out, it's funding that launches careers. Only those who have access to a good roll-out get to the stratosphere, even if what they are doing isn't particularly innovative or important. No Bucks, no Buck Rogers.

[Roflcopter]

Relevant:

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/07/blog-record-labels/

[Prometheus]

Relevant:

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2011/07/blog-record-labels/

An excellent way of protecting A & R guys from having to get up from behind their desks.

I don't really think that it'll do anything to protect naive young musicians from the worst evils of market forces though.

[Roflcopter]

An excellent way of protecting A & R guys from having to get up from behind their desks.

I don't really think that it'll do anything to protect naive young musicians from the worst evils of market forces though.

($1 of each sale goes to mental health organization MindFreedom, and digital versions of the record were made available through Bandcamp for $4 Tuesday.)

I agree they would do wiser to put that money into a legal fund to pay for lawyers protecting their butts - and first get a secure financial basis before playing Bill Gates.