United States

WTH has Farner/Grand Funk got to do with talk about TODAY and producers? Terry Knight was the brains behind Grand Funk.

It is relevant because, unfortunately, this practice isn't only in the collective past.

There are still Producers, Managers, and Record labels who will only work with people that are willing to sign away their life and livelihood.

Nowadays they are offering what is called the "360 deal". Basically what that means is that they produce a record for you and then get their cut of EVERYTHING you make in the entire circle of your musical life.

In other words they not only own a part of your record sales but now also your t-shirt sales, your pay from the venue, your songwriter royalties, etc.

They are taking a management cut without managing you.


Terry Knight was a music-biz crook, imo, but at least he managed Grank Funk into fame before screwing them out of their music and money.

There really is only one way to stop that terrible practice... Go into the Labels locations and open fire with an automatic weapon...Maybe toss in a few grenades... What do ya think? LOL!

Heh. This is why I'm wary of anybody shopping around for a producer... So I don't do it. And to be perfectly honest, with information and tools online, only somebody incredibly lazy would let somebody rob them at this point.

It occurs to me that many viable resources who operate strictly on line, might be guilty of the same thing...But laziness aside... Who can one really trust online? The internet is replete with posers. All the good information is at best, a crap shoot, which works for a few and never the many... AT the end of the day, if you want to entertain people and make a lasting impression, you gotta hit the physical venues, present memorable music, pay the dues and move forward. If you are in it, strictly for the money, then yeah, the internet is a good way to do it...as long as you can proplerly filter out the posers...

Flat out, if you don't trust "it", don't work with it because "it" will rip you off.

Another thing I would like to mention....

There is a difference between being a singer/musician/songwriter/performer who can produce an entertaining live show every night; and being a recording artist, which is about making great records. With enough experience there is no reason why you can't do both...but I'm addressing only those who want to be a full-time recording artist, ok?

If you are paying someone to produce, then you own everything.

But if a truly big time producer wanted you to sign away all your rights to him/her for them to produce ONE album for you, it would be worth it, because to own everything they would be paying for it.

And if a REAL producer did produce something for you, it would advance your performing career rather quickly. Anytime a producer/manager/label has incentive to make a lot of money on you, they will work harder to do just that.

The problem is that they usually want more than ONE album to do that, and you probably don't have enough leverage to negotiate without a successful sales history. So it's almost always a trade-off. They get the fortune and you get the fame, which allows you to make money when your contract is up, assuming you can figure out the ropes quick enough and come up with your own product when that time is over.

Artists today make most of their CD sales money at live gigs. To get to the point where you are playing the venues that pay enough to live on, you'll need something the local band doesn't have...like a world class album and a professional image.

One can learn that the hard way coming up...or they can shorten the process by educating themselves and associating with successful people. If you don't have an uncle in the business already, you can start by making contacts during the recording process through someone who works full-time in the biz, like a REAL producer.

A REAL producer will have a track record of successful artists they've helped over several years. If you can get that producer involved with your music, you are ready for the big time.

Now all you need is the ability to reproduce the music live and then take it on the road...and you're set to be a full-time recording artist.






.

That's a cop out.

If you can perform well, you can record well.
If you have the 1st part, the 2nd is a matter or learning how.

If you can record well, you just need practice to hone your "craft".

You just have to know what you are doing.

To even intimate that you have to be one or the other makes you lose credibility in my eyes.

I am very firm in that without the ability to do both, you cannot really be effective.

But feel free to blow more smoke, anyone who's doing it knows better already.

That's a cop out.

If you can perform well, you can record well.
If you have the 1st part, the 2nd is a matter or learning how.

If you can record well, you just need practice to hone your "craft".

You just have to know what you are doing.

To even intimate that you have to be one or the other makes you lose credibility in my eyes.

I am very firm in that without the ability to do both, you cannot really be effective.

But feel free to blow more smoke, anyone who's doing it knows better already.

Bro, there ain't a person here "doing it" more than me, from what I've seen.


Have you ever seen George Martin in concert? Did John Lennon ever produce an album besides Yoko Ono? How good was that? Why do you suppose the most prolific songwriter & most successful recording artist of the early rock era ALWAYS hired a producer?

FYI, I have been a professional musician since 1977, when I was 17. Did the whole DIY thing you're advocating for about 15 years. Was a signed artist for 8 years starting in 2001 (Sony/BMG distributed label) and have paid the rent and raised 6 kids with my music since then.

I have been touring extensively and non-stop since 2004, averaging between 150-200 concerts per year nationally and internationally. I bought my way out the contract to get off the label in July of 2009. Have done quite well without them.

I've worked with several hugely successful producers who taught me what I'm trying to pass along here. I've also self-produced since the early 80s, and have a couple of albums since 2005 that are distributed internationally.

I'm not saying that being a musician means you can't be a producer also (since most of them are), but what I am saying is that being a producer requires focus on a different set of skills and requires a broader range of technical knowledge than playing an instrument or writing songs.

Not every songwriter/artist/musician is capable of doing both within a reasonably short amount of time. So the choice is usually between working with an experienced producer while you're young enough, or spending many years learning to be proficient at another craft while growing too old to be signed.

Ignore the wisdom of my experience if you want, doesn't matter to me. Those who want to learn, will.







.

That's a cop out.

If you can perform well, you can record well.
If you have the 1st part, the 2nd is a matter or learning how.

If you can record well, you just need practice to hone your "craft".

You just have to know what you are doing.

To even intimate that you have to be one or the other makes you lose credibility in my eyes.

I am very firm in that without the ability to do both, you cannot really be effective.

But feel free to blow more smoke, anyone who's doing it knows better already.

Not always true, Scott... 'Record well' is less the function of a musician...and more the function of the engineer...A good one will make the material you normally perform , sound like a class act commercial package.

On the other hand..If you meant 'create well" That too is doubtful... There are guys here on BM that do covers and can b;ow the roof off of any venue with their performances...but they typically create junk in the studio, that passes for music (thanks to a good engineer)

Yod's got it right about George Martin... Martin is arguably that 5th beatle that nobody likes to talk about (thanks to promoters who by- passed him in the name of beat fashion) . He's an excellent recording artist, classical musician and rarely if ever, set foot on a stage.


I do absolutely agree that practice is the key, for both performance and creation... But it seems to me, that it would take a life time to get noticed for that ...whereas, with a professional Producer, one could really expedite the process. And, As great as the Beatles were...they sucked on certain technical levels... Had it not been for their producer, they may very well have just wound up as another band, doing Vegas circuits with Pete Best (WHo was as good a drummer as the best of em) ...

I recommend "All You Need is Ears" by George Martin for anyone who wants to learn about the production process. Beatles fans might be surprised at how much of what they thought was "beatles" was actually the genius of George Martin.

George Martin's reputation certainly played a big part in EMI's decision to make a major push for the Beatles, and this is just one example of someone we're all familiar with.

Sir George Martin refused to work with Pete Best because his meter wasn't perfect, and Ringo was a phenomenon in the studio who translated to live well.



Would Rhianna be a household name if Evan Rogers hadn't taken her under his wing? No, she might be making home demos in Barbados and chatting on BM, but the right producer fast-forwarded her career post haste.




.

A REAL producer will have a track record of successful artists they've helped over several years. If you can get that producer involved with your music, you are ready for the big time.

You're kidding right?

I've just been in contact with people who'd been in the game for DECADES-- successful to boot-- and don't have that mindset.

Would Rhianna be a household name if Evan Rogers hadn't taken her under his wing? No, she might be making home demos in Barbados and chatting on BM, but the right producer fast-forwarded her career post haste.

.

How would you know? Seriously? You keep pushing that way is the only way really makes me suspicious about your motives.

It's a lot more than that Yod. It was Rhianna's MARKETABILITY the accelerated her career, NOT her singing. She could have the crappiest producer, but she was able to get a real good marketer.

I've been reading your posts... and the more I read them the more I'm shaking my head.

I know multiple Grammy nominated-and winning- artists that can actually refute your claims.

With info as recent as this past Saturday--from an actual industry professional, I can tell you point blank is labels are looking for the greatest ROI--this IS a business after all. NOT the artist who had the best music and the best producer. Labels--specifically Major labels-- are only looking for artists who has the best marketability, because they bring a ROI (Return Of Investment) as high as 20:1.

Yod, I've been holding my tongue and not trying to say that you're wrong. But after all I've read?

You're WRONG.

There are so many famous producers that are actually BAD, it's killing part of the industry. Track records mean NOTHING if their clients are crappy to begin with. What made those crappy artists--and producers--were MARKETING.

Read this and educate yourself:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/05/137530847/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-a-hit-song

So before you talk about certain things like this... make sure you don't promote ONE way is the ONLY way.

WTH has Farner/Grand Funk got to do with talk about TODAY and producers? Terry Knight was the brains behind Grand Funk.

It is relevant because, unfortunately, this practice isn't only in the collective past.

There are still Producers, Managers, and Record labels who will only work with people that are willing to sign away their life and livelihood.

Nowadays they are offering what is called the "360 deal". Basically what that means is that they produce a record for you and then get their cut of EVERYTHING you make in the entire circle of your musical life.

In other words they not only own a part of your record sales but now also your t-shirt sales, your pay from the venue, your songwriter royalties, etc.

They are taking a management cut without managing you.


Terry Knight was a music-biz crook, imo, but at least he managed Grank Funk into fame before screwing them out of their music and money.

There really is only one way to stop that terrible practice... Go into the Labels locations and open fire with an automatic weapon...Maybe toss in a few grenades... What do ya think? LOL!

Heh. This is why I'm wary of anybody shopping around for a producer... So I don't do it. And to be perfectly honest, with information and tools online, only somebody incredibly lazy would let somebody rob them at this point.

It occurs to me that many viable resources who operate strictly on line, might be guilty of the same thing...But laziness aside... Who can one really trust online? The internet is replete with posers. All the good information is at best, a crap shoot, which works for a few and never the many... AT the end of the day, if you want to entertain people and make a lasting impression, you gotta hit the physical venues, present memorable music, pay the dues and move forward. If you are in it, strictly for the money, then yeah, the internet is a good way to do it...as long as you can proplerly filter out the posers...

That's not exclusively true either, depending on the scene and genre. And there are plenty of other ways of paying dues... And I'm talking about getting information to do it yourself. There are successful artists that went through the internet because they couldn't afford the other way. So physical venues aren't the only way.

That's not exclusively true either, depending on the scene and genre. And there are plenty of other ways of paying dues... And I'm talking about getting information to do it yourself. There are successful artists that went through the internet because they couldn't afford the other way. So physical venues aren't the only way.

\\

You are not on page at all with what I am saying.

At the end of the day , if you aren't retailing a physical presence, you aint making it ...(Not the way a world class act makes it) Proof? I didn't see your CD at my local record store , never heard of you in my life... and I don't see you topping charts on the radio, nor do I see any posters of your upcoming shows.. Sorry dude...But I was talking about world class acts...

Now I do not dispute that you can make 'some money' with your approach... But if producers are telling you that that is the way to go, they need to be fired! LOL!

I'm just tryin to keep it real...

Would Rhianna be a household name if Evan Rogers hadn't taken her under his wing? No, she might be making home demos in Barbados and chatting on BM, but the right producer fast-forwarded her career post haste.

.

How would you know? Seriously?

Where was Rhianna before Evan Rogers? She was discovered by him while on vacation in Barbados. Rogers & Carl Sturken have a LONG history of creating bands to produce and then guiding their career EXACTLY as I've been saying in this thread. They created and made teen-idol bands like N'sync, 98 degrees, Jessica Simpson, Mandy Moore, Christina Agular (wrote most of the songs on her first album)


So many major artists have been concept bands of some producer's design.

You keep pushing that way is the only way really makes me suspicious about your motives.

It's a lot more than that Yod. It was Rhianna's MARKETABILITY the accelerated her career, NOT her singing. She could have the crappiest producer, but she was able to get a real good marketer.

I've been reading your posts... and the more I read them the more I'm shaking my head.

I know multiple Grammy nominated-and winning- artists that can actually refute your claims.

With info as recent as this past Saturday--from an actual industry professional, I can tell you point blank is labels are looking for the greatest ROI--this IS a business after all. NOT the artist who had the best music and the best producer. Labels--specifically Major labels-- are only looking for artists who has the best marketability, because they bring a ROI (Return Of Investment) as high as 20:1.

Yod, I've been holding my tongue and not trying to say that you're wrong. But after all I've read?

You're WRONG.

There are so many famous producers that are actually BAD, it's killing part of the industry. Track records mean NOTHING if their clients are crappy to begin with. What made those crappy artists--and producers--were MARKETING.

Read this and educate yourself:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/05/137530847/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-a-hit-song

So before you talk about certain things like this... make sure you don't promote ONE way is the ONLY way.

OK, it's true that I'm going on the assumption that anyone who has a great producer working with them is talented enough for that to happen.


I said having a great producer involved is the fast track. Never once said it's the only way. It was the producer, Evan Rogers, who chose Rhianna to make her a star, so of course whether she could be marketed after he produced something great was an important concern, but that doesn't change the fact that she made it because a producer had the contacts she needed.

Whether you think there's a better way, is another issue, but it is entirely factual that practically every major artist today has a great producer working with them. Marketing comes after you've got a product worth selling.

Do you like music because of the advertising or because of the way it sounds?

I said nothing about hiring crappy producers just because they're famous, but even that would be a faster track than DIY if that Producer has contacts and you don't.

You can market a pig wearing lipstick, but how a record sounds will determine how much people actually like it.

Everything you say about ROI only confirms what I've said about how artists get ripped off by labels and producers. Not sure why you think you've challenged me on that point?

When given the choice between a good band who already has a recording that is produced well and a band that doesn't....if all other things are equal (looks, ability to tour, willingness to sign their publishing away, etc) which one do you think they will choose?

The one who has an album that has already been produced for greatness will be the best ROI. Think about what you're saying, bro.


So which grammy award winning artist do you know that will say having the right producer had no influence on their success? I'd really like to hear this...

By the way, did you read the article link you posted? It confirms everything I've been saying

As it happens, "Man Down" has not sold that well, and radio play has been minimal.

But Def Jam makes up the shortfall by releasing other singles. And only then, if the label recoups what it spent on the album, will Rihanna herself get paid.

Def Jam is the label and hired the producer, bro. They spent a LOT of time and money on producing her before it went to marketing as the article will state.


Not sure why you think that article was going to correct or discredit what I had just said?





Can you explain?

That's not exclusively true either, depending on the scene and genre. And there are plenty of other ways of paying dues... And I'm talking about getting information to do it yourself. There are successful artists that went through the internet because they couldn't afford the other way. So physical venues aren't the only way.

\\

You are not on page at all with what I am saying.

Proof? I didn't see your CD at my local record store , never heard of you in my life... and I don't see you topping charts on the radio, nor do I see any posters of your upcoming shows.. Sorry dude...But I was talking about world class acts...

Now I do not dispute that you can make 'some money' with your approach... But if producers are telling you that that is the way to go, they need to be fired! LOL!

I'm just tryin to keep it real...

I'm not on page because of what I've seen and with how times are changing...

Proof? I didn't see your CD at my local record store , never heard of you in my life... and I don't see you topping charts on the radio, nor do I see any posters of your upcoming shows.

lol... ok... number one: Who goes to record stores anymore? Have you even research the declining sales of CDs of the past few years!? And most record stores are DEAD...


Two: So music that's not topping charts on the increasingly outdated mainstream American radio stations means a musician's not world class? Where have you been the past few years!?

Three: World class acts? By your skewed standards, thousands of REAL world class artists wouldn't fit your criteria.

Three: as for not seeing my posters... YOU ARE NOT MY TARGET AUDIENCE.

Now I do not dispute that you can make 'some money' with your approach... But if producers are telling you that that is the way to go, they need to be fired! LOL!

Unlike YOD, I never said my way is the only way. I'm my own producer and I'm doing pretty decent...not where I want but I'm getting there.


And as for keeping it real? About as real as a three dollar bill. Thanks for giving me your insight.

Now I know why few of the Big Dogs never heard of this board. Interesting.

By the way, did you read the article link you posted? It confirms everything I've been saying

As it happens, "Man Down" has not sold that well, and radio play has been minimal.

But Def Jam makes up the shortfall by releasing other singles. And only then, if the label recoups what it spent on the album, will Rihanna herself get paid.

Def Jam is the label and hired the producer, bro. They spent a LOT of time and money on producing her before it went to marketing as the article will state.


Not sure why you think that article was going to correct or discredit what I had just said?





Can you explain?

As you read the article about 75K was spent on the actual song (still a rip-off but whatever)

But ONE MILLION DOLLARS was for MARKETING.

My point is this: would a label invest $1 million in a great musican but an okay marketer that brings about 3:1 to 10:1 ROI or to an ok singer but a GREAT marketer that can bring up to 20:1 ROI?

Note: I think the song sucked but that's neither here or there.

There are so many Mediocre artists.... but the reason why you hear them on the radio more than "better" artists, among other things, they had an IMAGE, and the labels found something they can market and EXPLOIT.


Now you get the point of the article?