The new music industry paradigm

The one thing that is also overlooked is the technology advancement is also what is contributing to the sorry state of music these days. From a business perspective, record companies are now basically looking for artist (and I use that term very loosely) who can just put out a hit single. Also, the low cost of production has made it possible for anyone with a compuer and creative social media to turn themselves into the next one hit wonder.

Gone are the days where the album art was almost as important as the music. Then you needed an artist who could actually produce an entire album. Artist had to work to get fans to drop $15 for a CD. 95% of artist couldn't sell an album nowadays, but people are willing to pay 99 cents for a single or add them to a spotify playlist.

With that said, I love the fact I can stream pretty much anything from Spotify. The have 99% of the songs I want. I just wish they had more of the classic hip hop remixes

I used to make mixes with headroom and people complained that the sound was too low...so now I crank up the compression to a decent level.

I still own a lot of music, I don't like the idea of renting music per month and probably never will. There's something very different about having the files and listening to them on the internet, I don't like feeling powerless.

I totally disagree that vinyl sounds better, it just sounds different. Hi-def digital recording in 24bit 96000khz scientifically sounds better, a flac from that type of source also sounds better and CD's go up to 44100 khz which even dolphins and probably many aliens can't even get to. Someone might prefer vinyl but to say it's better is an outright lie, it's entirely subjective.

originally posted by: Edumakated
The one thing that is also overlooked is the technology advancement is also what is contributing to the sorry state of music these days. From a business perspective, record companies are now basically looking for artist (and I use that term very loosely) who can just put out a hit single. Also, the low cost of production has made it possible for anyone with a compuer and creative social media to turn themselves into the next one hit wonder.

Actually, that is how the music industry started. The Beatles invented the record format. Before that, it was all about finding singles to release. Also, the music industry isn't in a sorry state. There are TONS of awesome musicians and bands out there to listen to. They just don't play most of them on the radio.

Gone are the days where the album art was almost as important as the music. Then you needed an artist who could actually produce an entire album. Artist had to work to get fans to drop $15 for a CD. 95% of artist couldn't sell an album nowadays, but people are willing to pay 99 cents for a single or add them to a spotify playlist.

$15 was WAY too overpriced for a cd. Most of that price was markup from the record's producer and didn't go to the artist/band's bank account.

a reply to: theMediator

I used to make mixes with headroom and people complained that the sound was too low...so now I crank up the compression to a decent level.

Headroom doesn't equate to low sound. It just means plenty of room for dynamics, and a discrete amp capable of reproducing those dynamics at low or high volumes. Pink Floyd - DSOTM. Yes - Fragile. Fleetwood Mac - Rumours. Even Linda Ronstadt and the Nelson Riddle Orchestra, and classical music. All produced with expertise and headroom.

At the same time, I'm convinced that some people don't know that the sounds of life are dynamic. And therefore, don't appreciate the subtleties and nuances of music.

a reply to: greencmp

True and not true...it depends on what the file extension is for your digital media. There are lossless formats such as .wav that contain all of the information recorded with no compression. You can test this by taking 2 of the same files as .wav and invert one and play them both back. They will cancel each other out...if it doesn't fully cancel out then one or both files aren't lossless.

a reply to: theMediator

Very true and also there can be many variables within that which can effect the quality...the mic type and placement. The cables used. The list can go on and on. A proper mix should be mastered by an experienced mastering technician... Mastering isn't done well easily and the experience factor should never be overlooked for cheaper options...lots of better places to save a buck.

originally posted by: RickyD
Mastering isn't done well easily and the experience factor should never be overlooked for cheaper options...lots of better places to save a buck.

I know! I think it's the worst part. I'm a composer and I play all instruments, I record them, mix them and at the end it always sounds deceiving!

Like this song of mine , I really love it but damn I wish the sound was spectacular.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: greencmp

True and not true...it depends on what the file extension is for your digital media. There are lossless formats such as .wav that contain all of the information recorded with no compression. You can test this by taking 2 of the same files as .wav and invert one and play them both back. They will cancel each other out...if it doesn't fully cancel out then one or both files aren't lossless.

If you can get it in uncompressed AIFF or WAV yes, which you can't.

I have to play through the AES/EBU out into a hardware sampler (A6000) and sync everything with an external wordclock master generator (Nanosyncs). If you can do that, you would have the actual frame-accurate audio but, that isn't practical for most people and could be considered extralegal. It has to do with red book and the way that PCM audio is written to the optical media as well as the separate issue of stripping the destructive SCMS subcode that can be present in the signal among other things.

a reply to: theMediator

One thing that will make that happen is your monitor's frequency response. When mixing music the best thing to do is find monitors with a flat response. The flatter the better but also more expensive. The other thing you can do is use something like a 34 band parametric eq plugin to make an inverse of the monitors response and use that to flatten them. Also listen to your mix on crappy speakers too...like a laptop or a factory car stereo. If you can make something sound good on crap then it will sound good on better monitors too...not vice versa. Then you should spend the 200-500$ a track to have aa reputable mastering technician do the mastering and you will be amazed at the results. I went to school for all of this and now have a bachelors in live event production with a minor in recording engineering, this is all stuff I've seen in my time at school.

a reply to: greencmp

Yea I see what you mean...and in cases like yours it may be much more advantageous to have formats like redbook CDs. I used to DJ a bit as a hobby and I found that I could frequent torrent sites that cater to DJs and find legit tracks in a multitude of formats including and almost always lossless...and they were all done well...even vinyl rips.

Really it can also come down to what you're listening on. If you're performing or using professional or even high level consumer gear you should always use lossless but if you wanna jam on your iPod or something 320kbs mp3 is not bad. You really won't even notice the compression of the file so much unless you have a trained ear.

Are there any music publishers in here? or anyone in the music production agency that is not an artist and instead someone who is in charge of selling the audio to the consumers? Is there anyone here watching this thread who is a big head of the music industry in some form or another. Please PM me if you are. I have some questions to ask you in private.