MR

...as elucidated by David Byrne in WIRED.

There's still time, guys. Fortune favors the bold.

stabbim wrote:...as elucidated by David Byrne in WIRED.

There's still time, guys. Fortune favors the bold.

Excellent read! All of this can be quite confusing for those who do not know the business. This was clearly presented and quite interesting to read.

Thanks for the link.

Bugsy

That was an interesting article. But it failed to mention one very important fact.

Now that music can be so freely distributed and stolen, the whole model breaks down.

kansas666 wrote:That was an interesting article. But it failed to mention one very important fact.

Now that music can be so freely distributed and stolen, the whole model breaks down.

Not necessarily. Besides the extra emphasis placed on licensing, touring revenue and publishing rights as buttresses, there's this:

"Major labels aren't doing well because they put out terrible records for years and years and kept raising the price of those terrible records and finally people were like, 'Screw you.'"

And this:

Radiohead adopted this DIY model to sell In Rainbows online — and then went a step further by letting fans name their own price for the download. They weren't the first to do this — Issa (formerly known as Jane Siberry) pioneered the pay-what-you-will model a few years ago — but Radiohead's move was much higher profile. It may be less risky for them, but it's a clear sign of real changes afoot. As one of Radiohead's managers, Bryce Edge, told me, "The industry reacted like the end was nigh. They've devalued music, giving it away for nothing.' Which wasn't true: We asked people to value it, which is very different semantics to me."

Now, since sales of that nature are tracked internally rather than by an outside party (say, Soundscan) it's probably impossible to get objective numbers, but the idea seems to be that if an artist forges a close enough relationship with their fans, rampant pirating is a storm which they can weather. By giving the public the power to value the music themselves, Radiohead actually increases the chances of their loyal following, at least, plunking down a bit of cash for it. And even if that amounts only to a tiny fraction of gross income compared to the days of yore, thanks to the DIY model they stand a better chance of seeing actual profit than they would if they were still beholden to a record label.

Another case in point: Marillion. Their last three albums have been entirely financed by their fanbase in advance. They set a budget, throw the doors open, and when they have received enough pre-order payments to cover their costs, they begin work -- and the fans get an advance, special edition copy of the recording in question. It's a model which has been working for them for nearly a decade.

Maybe these alternative approaches would work for Styx, and maybe they wouldn't. There would be a lot of obstacles to overcome, not the least of which are a number of prejudices held by the band, their fans, and the public at large, not to mention timing (it would have been ideal had they chosen this route pre-Cycylorama.) I'm just saying that options are out there, and the band is crazy not to be actively exploring them, rather than keeping their heads down and waiting to be saved by the industry ...which unfortunately seems to be the current plan.

stabbim wrote:

kansas666 wrote:That was an interesting article. But it failed to mention one very important fact.

Now that music can be so freely distributed and stolen, the whole model breaks down.

Not necessarily. Besides the extra emphasis placed on licensing, touring revenue and publishing rights as buttresses, there's this:

"Major labels aren't doing well because they put out terrible records for years and years and kept raising the price of those terrible records and finally people were like, 'Screw you.'"

And this:

Radiohead adopted this DIY model to sell In Rainbows online — and then went a step further by letting fans name their own price for the download. They weren't the first to do this — Issa (formerly known as Jane Siberry) pioneered the pay-what-you-will model a few years ago — but Radiohead's move was much higher profile. It may be less risky for them, but it's a clear sign of real changes afoot. As one of Radiohead's managers, Bryce Edge, told me, "The industry reacted like the end was nigh. They've devalued music, giving it away for nothing.' Which wasn't true: We asked people to value it, which is very different semantics to me."

Now, since sales of that nature are tracked internally rather than by an outside party (say, Soundscan) it's probably impossible to get objective numbers, but the idea seems to be that if an artist forges a close enough relationship with their fans, rampant pirating is a storm which they can weather. By giving the public the power to value the music themselves, Radiohead actually increases the chances of their loyal following, at least, plunking down a bit of cash for it. And even if that amounts only to a tiny fraction of gross income compared to the days of yore, thanks to the DIY model they stand a better chance of seeing actual profit than they would if they were still beholden to a record label.

Another case in point: Marillion. Their last three albums have been entirely financed by their fanbase in advance. They set a budget, throw the doors open, and when they have received enough pre-order payments to cover their costs, they begin work -- and the fans get an advance, special edition copy of the recording in question. It's a model which has been working for them for nearly a decade.

Maybe these alternative approaches would work for Styx, and maybe they wouldn't. There would be a lot of obstacles to overcome, not the least of which are a number of prejudices held by the band, their fans, and the public at large, not to mention timing (it would have been ideal had they chosen this route pre-Cycylorama.) I'm just saying that options are out there, and the band is crazy not to be actively exploring them, rather than keeping their heads down and waiting to be saved by the industry ...which unfortunately seems to be the current plan.

True enough, the industry collectively could care less what happens to Styx, or any other band that is past its sales peak. If it's going to be done, they are going to do it themselves, there is no doubt about that. I wonder sometimes if JY - who would be the guy that had to be convinced of the value of this - is hesitant because of the bad experience he had running his own label and releasing his own projects in the past. Perhaps that experience negatively colored his perception of the possibilities that are out there, because his solo career went badly, and Absolute Records was really never a money-making venture. But if we were being brutally honest, JY was not armed with products that would have sold even if a label had released them - which was the consensus of the labels themselves, which is WHY they didn't release them. For Styx to take the DIY path JY would have to be fully on board, because he is the guy that sets up the business side of Styx, and Tommy really would not be capable of any such thing. Unlike JY's past experience, where he had marginal solo albums and was largely unable to trade on the Styx connection, if he got the business side together, and if Tommy and Gowan (and maybe Ricky?) delivered on the songs, and if the band collectively delivered a great album that could really re-invigorate the fan base, they could really do something with an Internet-based DIY business model. That's a lot of ifs, and that may also be part of the hesitation.

I have to confess, back when Marillion first proposed that its fan base would pre-order their album, I thought they were crazy. You're right, they did have a lot of skepticism to overcome, including mine, LOL. I did not think fans would do that. Boy was I wrong! They've managed to continue for another ten years, whereas if they had left it to record companies, Marillion would probably have had to discontinue its career by now. They've even had somewhat mainstream "hits" during that period; not the success they once had, but surely far exceeding anyone's expectations for how that might work out. Styx' fan base is every bit as fanatical in its own way as Marillion's, and arguably far larger. I can't think of any reason that could not work for them except one: the members of Styx - particularly one of them - are attached to bigger, more expensive lifestyles than the Marillon guys ever were, and that is part of the financial equation that can't be denied. It's not merely the cost of the recording and such to be considered, it's also the revenue lost while doing so, which in this case might be considerable. The only other way would be to squeeze in the recording with the existing schedule, and that would be terribly hard on everyone. It's hard to say how the band will deliver its next album . . . or if, in fact, Styx may limit future recordings to one-offs through i-Tunes. Although this has not been said publically, I suspect a lot of that rides on what Tommy does or does not do next, and whether he is producing any new songs or not as well.

Sterling

wow, that's really an interesting idea. I cannot see HOW a band of Styx's ilk CANNOT produce new stuff. Seems they'd find ANY way of doing it.

Rockwriter wrote:True enough, the industry collectively could care less what happens to Styx, or any other band that is past its sales peak. If it's going to be done, they are going to do it themselves, there is no doubt about that. I wonder sometimes if JY - who would be the guy that had to be convinced of the value of this - is hesitant because of the bad experience he had running his own label and releasing his own projects in the past. Perhaps that experience negatively colored his perception of the possibilities that are out there, because his solo career went badly, and Absolute Records was really never a money-making venture. But if we were being brutally honest, JY was not armed with products that would have sold even if a label had released them - which was the consensus of the labels themselves, which is WHY they didn't release them. For Styx to take the DIY path JY would have to be fully on board, because he is the guy that sets up the business side of Styx, and Tommy really would not be capable of any such thing. Unlike JY's past experience, where he had marginal solo albums and was largely unable to trade on the Styx connection, if he got the business side together, and if Tommy and Gowan (and maybe Ricky?) delivered on the songs, and if the band collectively delivered a great album that could really re-invigorate the fan base, they could really do something with an Internet-based DIY business model. That's a lot of ifs, and that may also be part of the hesitation.

Another good example is Howard Jones: he's been on his own with his own label dtox since about 1993. He's done well, still tours all around the world, and doesn't look like he's starving. He can release - or not release - product when he wants.

Well, I've been saying similar things for years, but I think you hit the nail on the head Sterling based on JY's experience of selling LPs out of his garage I think Styx doesn't need to finance things a la Marillion - they had more success than Marillion did and are not cash poor - but pre- and post-Cyclorama, I never understood why Styx just didn't do it themselves. It's easier to find distribution to get in stores than it is to get a label deal.

I mean, just do the numbers. Let's say that the album costs $50,000 to make since at this point, they can do a lot of recording on their own and only need a studio for things like drums. And I'm assuming professional mixing and mastering. Factor in manufacturing, et al., and let's say $55k. If you sell 5,500 copies @ $10, you've recouped costs. Everything else is profit. We all know they wouldn't charge $10, but I think saying the could have nearly 6k sales off of the 'net alone is not a stretch. Then you sell it for $15 or $20 at shows, and while you may not sell 3000 copies per show, it adds up over time especially considering how often they tour.

Rockwriter wrote:Although this has not been said publically, I suspect a lot of that rides on what Tommy does or does not do next, and whether he is producing any new songs or not as well.

I think this is the proverbial "keys to the kingdom" for the future of Styx. If Tommy is disinterested - and by all indications I've seen Styx is not as fun for him anymore - JY can want new material all he wants, but Gowan's not the marquee. And I like Gowan's contributions to both Cyclorama and BBT.

StyxCollector wrote:
Another good example is Howard Jones: he's been on his own with his own label dtox since about 1993. He's done well, still tours all around the world, and doesn't look like he's starving. He can release - or not release - product when he wants.

Well, I've been saying similar things for years, but I think you hit the nail on the head Sterling based on JY's experience of selling LPs out of his garage I think Styx doesn't need to finance things a la Marillion - they had more success than Marillion did and are not cash poor - but pre- and post-Cyclorama, I never understood why Styx just didn't do it themselves. It's easier to find distribution to get in stores than it is to get a label deal.

I mean, just do the numbers. Let's say that the album costs $50,000 to make since at this point, they can do a lot of recording on their own and only need a studio for things like drums. And I'm assuming professional mixing and mastering. Factor in manufacturing, et al., and let's say $55k. If you sell 5,500 copies @ $10, you've recouped costs. Everything else is profit. We all know they wouldn't charge $10, but I think saying the could have nearly 6k sales off of the 'net alone is not a stretch. Then you sell it for $15 or $20 at shows, and while you may not sell 3000 copies per show, it adds up over time especially considering how often they tour.

Rockwriter wrote:Although this has not been said publically, I suspect a lot of that rides on what Tommy does or does not do next, and whether he is producing any new songs or not as well.

I think this is the proverbial "keys to the kingdom" for the future of Styx. If Tommy is disinterested - and by all indications I've seen Styx is not as fun for him anymore - JY can want new material all he wants, but Gowan's not the marquee. And I like Gowan's contributions to both Cyclorama and BBT.

I like your model but there is no reason that it should cost Styx anywhere near 55k to record an album even with mastering. The big sucker of money are bands that rent a studio for stuff that could really be done in preproduction. Styx has all the tools at their own homes (quality recording gear, space for rehearsal and writing) that they shouldn't have to have gigantic preproduction expenses. They are also good enough players that if they do preproduction correctly they could literally rent a studio for a few days at cut the album live with some overdubs, and be done with it. I think Styx could easily cut a record for under 10k, which includes a few days of studio time. (if needed more work could be done at their home studios) Add mastering a duplication to the mix (we aren't talking a Bob Ludwig master) and they aren't much north of that number. A significant number of good sounding records are cut this exact way. For further proof go over to TapeOp.com and peruse. It's filled with great advice on how to reduce recording costs.

shaka wrote:I think Styx could easily cut a record for under 10k, which includes a few days of studio time. (if needed more work could be done at their home studios) Add mastering a duplication to the mix (we aren't talking a Bob Ludwig master) and they aren't much north of that number. A significant number of good sounding records are cut this exact way. For further proof go over to TapeOp.com and peruse. It's filled with great advice on how to reduce recording costs.

Well, that's where one of the other prejudices mentioned earlier may rear its head. For a band that once commanded the kind of resources and clout that Styx did, they may feel it's beneath them to do such bargain-shopping over the future of their recording career.

Then again, TS & JB pretty much knocked up Influence in their backyards, so I suppose anything is possible...

StyxCollector wrote:
I think this is the proverbial "keys to the kingdom" for the future of Styx. If Tommy is disinterested - and by all indications I've seen Styx is not as fun for him anymore - JY can want new material all he wants, but Gowan's not the marquee. And I like Gowan's contributions to both Cyclorama and BBT.

Why does it seem Tommy's not interested? He's been touring Styx TONS for years, he's playing Styx tracks with Jack, he's doing Styx tracks with TSO, his were the new tracks for the CYO record....

I dunno, he seems pretty interested to me. I think that they have to be just going "How do we fix this record-company dilema?"

stabbim wrote:

shaka wrote:I think Styx could easily cut a record for under 10k, which includes a few days of studio time. (if needed more work could be done at their home studios) Add mastering a duplication to the mix (we aren't talking a Bob Ludwig master) and they aren't much north of that number. A significant number of good sounding records are cut this exact way. For further proof go over to TapeOp.com and peruse. It's filled with great advice on how to reduce recording costs.

Well, that's where one of the other prejudices mentioned earlier may rear its head. For a band that once commanded the kind of resources and clout that Styx did, they may feel it's beneath them to do such bargain-shopping over the future of their recording career.

Then again, TS & JB pretty much knocked up Influence in their backyards, so I suppose anything is possible...

For them to feel 'it's beneath them' is really a poor way of looking at things, if that's the case. It's no longer 1981. They need to adapt to the times. If that means Audio downloads on their site or Itunes, then I cannot see why they don't do that. Jesus, take the middle man out and use their site (which must get tons of hits) to market it. Also, with the exposure from other sites like Melodic Rock, etc., word would get out pretty fast to their general public.

Think about it, when Cyclo was released, I heard about it ON THE WEB. Nowhere else. They would STILL have that advantage without the distribution costs of a full on CD.

It's definitely worth a Shot for them. They'd have to make it an album's worth though and it'd have to be NEW stuff to truly see if it would work.

shaka wrote:I like your model but there is no reason that it should cost Styx anywhere near 55k to record an album even with mastering. The big sucker of money are bands that rent a studio for stuff that could really be done in preproduction. Styx has all the tools at their own homes (quality recording gear, space for rehearsal and writing) that they shouldn't have to have gigantic preproduction expenses. They are also good enough players that if they do preproduction correctly they could literally rent a studio for a few days at cut the album live with some overdubs, and be done with it. I think Styx could easily cut a record for under 10k, which includes a few days of studio time.

Eric, I want to live where you live!! I bet I could own my home for a few hundred bucks a month with escrow!

I admit being somewhat ignorant on the subject of album-making, but I distinctly recall something Todd said to me once before with regard both "Cyclorama" and "Lullagoodbye," Taylor's CD. It was shortly after Taylor's CD came out, so I guess it was fresh on his mind. He said a good publicist can run 5 K or more a month and that between art direction, flights, hotels, pressing, photo shoots, engineers, mastering, legal, publishing, yada yada--Taylor's record cost over 30K. (And that's just a solo record recorded DIY). He said the cover of Cyclorama alone was astronomical, forget the actual CD making process. In other words, he wasn't recommending I go out and make a CD just yet.

Basically, you're being just a *bit* too optimistic here. Because cased on what Todd said, I'd say it's damn near impossible for Styx to make a new CD for LESS than $55,000.

Hey, maybe we could ALL move to your neighborhood!

Zan wrote:

shaka wrote:I like your model but there is no reason that it should cost Styx anywhere near 55k to record an album even with mastering. The big sucker of money are bands that rent a studio for stuff that could really be done in preproduction. Styx has all the tools at their own homes (quality recording gear, space for rehearsal and writing) that they shouldn't have to have gigantic preproduction expenses. They are also good enough players that if they do preproduction correctly they could literally rent a studio for a few days at cut the album live with some overdubs, and be done with it. I think Styx could easily cut a record for under 10k, which includes a few days of studio time.

Eric, I want to live where you live!! I bet I could own my home for a few hundred bucks a month with escrow!

I admit being somewhat ignorant on the subject of album-making, but I distinctly recall something Todd said to me once before with regard both "Cyclorama" and "Lullagoodbye," Taylor's CD. It was shortly after Taylor's CD came out, so I guess it was fresh on his mind. He said a good publicist can run 5 K or more a month and that between art direction, flights, hotels, pressing, photo shoots, engineers, mastering, legal, publishing, yada yada--Taylor's record cost over 30K. (And that's just a solo record recorded DIY). He said the cover of Cyclorama alone was astronomical, forget the actual CD making process. In other words, he wasn't recommending I go out and make a CD just yet.

Basically, you're being just a *bit* too optimistic here. Because cased on what Todd said, I'd say it's damn near impossible for Styx to make a new CD for LESS than $55,000.

Hey, maybe we could ALL move to your neighborhood!

Styx would need to do a lot of work to make this happen, but most importantly, they would have to put touring on the back burner for at least 6 months, write a ton of new material, get to the S.H.O.P. (if Tommy still has it) and record new material.

Once Styx has their new material, they need to do what they did with "I Am The Walrus" and release the single and get some press out of it. "...Walrus" was a success for the band, it got a lot of attention pointed their direction, but TBBT was kinda a mistake. The money that was used to make that album really should have been used for new material.

I believe the "Cyclorama" cover was so expensive was because it was Storm Thorgesson's artwork. Storm is/was a phenomenal artist, but I think Styx could have gotten a cheaper artist for the job, Hell, I would have just drawn stick figures and stick rabbits and carrot sticks, had Bayla color it in and viola, print 100,000 copies.

Anyway, I'm off like a Prom Dress,

Rowdy

I think the thing that costs STYX the most is meaningless conversations such as this. Just DO IT!!!!!!!!

Barbara wrote:I think the thing that costs STYX the most is meaningless conversations such as this. Just [b]
;b]...!!

You're just a little ray of sunshine, aintcha?

Rowdy

In your dreams.

shaka wrote:

StyxCollector wrote:
Another good example is Howard Jones: he's been on his own with his own label dtox since about 1993. He's done well, still tours all around the world, and doesn't look like he's starving. He can release - or not release - product when he wants.

Well, I've been saying similar things for years, but I think you hit the nail on the head Sterling based on JY's experience of selling LPs out of his garage I think Styx doesn't need to finance things a la Marillion - they had more success than Marillion did and are not cash poor - but pre- and post-Cyclorama, I never understood why Styx just didn't do it themselves. It's easier to find distribution to get in stores than it is to get a label deal.

I mean, just do the numbers. Let's say that the album costs $50,000 to make since at this point, they can do a lot of recording on their own and only need a studio for things like drums. And I'm assuming professional mixing and mastering. Factor in manufacturing, et al., and let's say $55k. If you sell 5,500 copies @ $10, you've recouped costs. Everything else is profit. We all know they wouldn't charge $10, but I think saying the could have nearly 6k sales off of the 'net alone is not a stretch. Then you sell it for $15 or $20 at shows, and while you may not sell 3000 copies per show, it adds up over time especially considering how often they tour.

Rockwriter wrote:Although this has not been said publically, I suspect a lot of that rides on what Tommy does or does not do next, and whether he is producing any new songs or not as well.

I think this is the proverbial "keys to the kingdom" for the future of Styx. If Tommy is disinterested - and by all indications I've seen Styx is not as fun for him anymore - JY can want new material all he wants, but Gowan's not the marquee. And I like Gowan's contributions to both Cyclorama and BBT.

I like your model but there is no reason that it should cost Styx anywhere near 55k to record an album even with mastering. The big sucker of money are bands that rent a studio for stuff that could really be done in preproduction. Styx has all the tools at their own homes (quality recording gear, space for rehearsal and writing) that they shouldn't have to have gigantic preproduction expenses. They are also good enough players that if they do preproduction correctly they could literally rent a studio for a few days at cut the album live with some overdubs, and be done with it. I think Styx could easily cut a record for under 10k, which includes a few days of studio time. (if needed more work could be done at their home studios) Add mastering a duplication to the mix (we aren't talking a Bob Ludwig master) and they aren't much north of that number. A significant number of good sounding records are cut this exact way. For further proof go over to TapeOp.com and peruse. It's filled with great advice on how to reduce recording costs.

This is the best idea I've heard yet. They COULD do it on their own...tick tock, tick tock....

Zan wrote:

shaka wrote:I like your model but there is no reason that it should cost Styx anywhere near 55k to record an album even with mastering. The big sucker of money are bands that rent a studio for stuff that could really be done in preproduction. Styx has all the tools at their own homes (quality recording gear, space for rehearsal and writing) that they shouldn't have to have gigantic preproduction expenses. They are also good enough players that if they do preproduction correctly they could literally rent a studio for a few days at cut the album live with some overdubs, and be done with it. I think Styx could easily cut a record for under 10k, which includes a few days of studio time.

Eric, I want to live where you live!! I bet I could own my home for a few hundred bucks a month with escrow!

I admit being somewhat ignorant on the subject of album-making, but I distinctly recall something Todd said to me once before with regard both "Cyclorama" and "Lullagoodbye," Taylor's CD. It was shortly after Taylor's CD came out, so I guess it was fresh on his mind. He said a good publicist can run 5 K or more a month and that between art direction, flights, hotels, pressing, photo shoots, engineers, mastering, legal, publishing, yada yada--Taylor's record cost over 30K. (And that's just a solo record recorded DIY). He said the cover of Cyclorama alone was astronomical, forget the actual CD making process. In other words, he wasn't recommending I go out and make a CD just yet.

Basically, you're being just a *bit* too optimistic here. Because cased on what Todd said, I'd say it's damn near impossible for Styx to make a new CD for LESS than $55,000.

Hey, maybe we could ALL move to your neighborhood!

Zan, you need to read what I said in my previous post about DIY (Do It Yourself) recording. When Todd was speaking about these expenses Styx was still doing things the old way. I wouldn't be surprised if Cyclo cost a LOT more than $55,000 to produce. Taylors CD wasn't recorded with the DIY ethos if there were flights, hotels, and art direction. There are many, many ways to save on these costs if you're creative.

For years I was a session musician which is what Todd does when he's not doing Styx. I know my way around recording studios and understand the costs associated with producing recorded product. I've also worked as an engineer and a producer. I know what it's like to spend days in a major studio hemorrhaging money. I also know what it's like to do entire productions in an artists bedroom studio. Both processes work. In the old days you would get a better end product if you booked a major studio. However the advent of computer based studios has leveled the playing field because it's possible for an artist to make records on a decent home computer or even a laptop. In my spare bedroom I have a recording setup which allows me to record pro quality tracks. Sure I had to spend a decent amount of money on some microphones, mic preamps, and analog to digital converters but these costs are minimal compared to what it costs to rent out a major studio for even a week.

I'd be willing to bet that the fellows in Styx have very decent home setups that would allow them to record an album for very minimal costs. At most they could just do the preproduction at home or wherever they rehearse and then spend a couple of days in a real studio tracking basic tracks. This is mostly to get the drums captured decently. Everything else can be layed on top of the drums at a place like Tommy's SHOP with no cost. If Todd finishes his drum room in time there wouldn't even be a need to book a major studio as they could just cut the drum tracks at Todds.

Even back in the early nineties bands were tired of spending huge amounts on recording costs. A good example is Toad the Wet Sprocket. I can't remember if it was the Fear or Dulcinea album but the production was done in one of the members home. They bought or rented the equipment they needed and had at it. The drums were cut outside on the porch and sound great! They were under no pressure to hurry because they weren't paying a commercial studio by the hour or day.

As for where I live the costs or recording in a studio are slightly less than you would find in LA. One of my favorite studios is a reworked historic house that was converted by a engineer/producer out of LA who also happens to be a friend. He's good enough that he was a house engineer at Sunset Sound (a legendary studio) in LA for a couple of years. You can record with him on a production deal for about $700 per song and that includes the studio, engineeer, and mixing. Let me tell you as far as talent, there isn't much difference between his production and the best in the biz. It's true, you don't have to hire Bob Rock or Brian Eno to get a decently produced album. If you'd like to listen to some examples of this guys work go to iTunes and download the Jerrytown EP Love & Sirens which he engineered and produced and the Sunfall Festival albums Bang Bang Bang and Monday 23 which he engineered and co-produced with Paul Fox. These artists are different style wise but he pulls off the recordings with aplomb.

I recommend you to over to TapeOp.com and start reading the forums. There are a lot of engineers and producers that frequent the place. It can give you a good idea of how the world of music recording is evolving. I guarantee you that people there would know engineers and producers in your part of the woods who could get you an album recorded for minimal cost.

Another thing they could do is to get out of L.A. and Chicago to record the CD. My group will be recording our second project beginning in about two weeks here in Nashville. We got an incrediable deal on studio time at a studio that is run by one of Nashville's top players. His place is right on historic Music Row and he has recently cut tracks for the likes of Garth Brooks, Martina McBride, Delbert McClinton and the list goes on and on. By agreeing to work with him on off hours (Nights and Saturdays) he's giving us the time at $40 an hour and will be mixing and mastering the CD himself. We do all our pre-pro outside of the studio so we should bring in the CD for under a grand. Now I'm not suggesting that STYX make an off hour deal with a studio but just that outside of the larger markets in a Music town such a Nashville the studio time is cheaper, the studios are easily as good as anything the larger markets have to offer and STYX can still have that Professional Studio environment and not have to feel below themselves by using a home studio. Plus they have a great rep in Nashville among the pro's so there could be some pretty intresting guest spots on an album produced here!

mr.v wrote:Another thing they could do is to get out of L.A. and Chicago to record the CD. My group will be recording our second project beginning in about two weeks here in Nashville. We got an incrediable deal on studio time at a studio that is run by one of Nashville's top players. His place is right on historic Music Row and he has recently cut tracks for the likes of Garth Brooks, Martina McBride, Delbert McClinton and the list goes on and on. By agreeing to work with him on off hours (Nights and Saturdays) he's giving us the time at $40 an hour and will be mixing and mastering the CD himself. We do all our pre-pro outside of the studio so we should bring in the CD for under a grand. Now I'm not suggesting that STYX make an off hour deal with a studio but just that outside of the larger markets in a Music town such a Nashville the studio time is cheaper, the studios are easily as good as anything the larger markets have to offer and STYX can still have that Professional Studio environment and not have to feel below themselves by using a home studio. Plus they have a great rep in Nashville among the pro's so there could be some pretty intresting guest spots on an album produced here!

I've seen this done many times. If a band is prepared when they go into the studio they can knock out a record in a day with overdubs. Take another day for mixing and you've got a complete disk ready for mastering. Stevie Ray Vaughn used to do this very thing.

One great thing about the advent of computer based recording is that if your recording engineer and the mixing engineer are the same person you can do a lot of the mixing on the fly as the songs are tracked. This saves a lot of costs in the mixing process. The old rule of thumb was that a song would take one hour to mix for every minute of the songs length. Of course a crazy involved mix could take longer.

Maybe some of us music guys should help Zan work up a record. Personally I'd love to hear it. Zan, have you been writing songs?

Zan wrote:Hey, I said I was ignorant about the process, and it's for a good reason, LOL...The thought of reading blogs about technical and engineering stuff makes my head explode, quite honestly, so I'll take your word for it at this point.

But I still have to ask...Why would Styx do things on a budget DIY when they have the means to do it the old way? At this point, they're content to tour and leave it at that. When they want to make a CD, they'll make one, and they'll do it whatever way they feel will produce the best CD - you or I may disagree with the outcome, but that's music for ya. I can't picture JY or Tommy suddenly deciding to "downsize" when they don't really have to. They've been spoiled by having everything at their disposal and being able to utilize whatever means they find best to get the job done. I realize that isn't entirely your point, but considering all that is involved in making a record, topped with the idea that nobody in charge seems to be chomping at the bit to make new music, I just think it's a pipe dream. The time & energy (and money) that go into a project like that evidently do not generate the kind of results they want. If it did, they'd be in the studio, I suspect. It's pointless to believe otherwise. As far as Todd & Taylor go, all I can tell you is what he told me. I wasn't there (altho that would have been a really cool experience) to challenge him on the facts. However, I'm also willing to bet your $10,000 is still low, due to the inevitable hidden & unexpected costs that incur with every large project, as I'm sure Todd would attest.

Well, Styx has partially been down the DIY road. Tommy did a lot of the stuff for 7DZ at his home and I know they tracked some of Cyclo there as well.

I think Styx would be smart to go it alone. At this point it's mostly fans buying their new product. I think if they cut a record on the cheap, offered it for download (not itunes), at shows, and maybe signed a distribution deal, they might come out ahead on financial side. Besides, then they get to feel like artists again. I for one think new material is vital to any musician even if it doesn't sell much.

Ed Roland of Collective Soul has done this. He put together his own record company, financed the recordings himself, and then signed a distribution deal. Collective Soul's last record was available exclusively through Target and concerts on the retail side, and available for download. By taking control of the process Collective Soul sells less product but makes much more on their records than they ever did when they had a major label deal.

I don't know what you all are smoking.

Even if STYX could produce an album for $1,500 all they would have to do is sell a couple of copies and it would end up freely distributed on the internet.

The days of selling pre-recorded music as product are over. Copy protection didn't work. Kids today have no concept that downloading free music is even wrong.

Like the article said - music performance existed for thousands of years before anyone figured out how to record it and sell it.

Music performance will continue to exist. That's where artists can still make a buck. That's why STYX tours non-stop.

Sure, a few small cults exist where artists have been able to eek out a few dollars from their fans. But the days of making a decent living by selling pre-recorded music are over.

No matter how many ways you slice th pie, the business model is dead.

For Styx, an album realistically probably costs about $100k minimum to make. I was lowballing at $55k. I know when I've done my jazz albums at a friend of mine's studio I can easily drop $5k when all is said and done. And that's maximizing my time and not stretching it out.

For Cyclorama, they recorded the drum parts at Capitol Studios in Hollywood. That alone had to be a minimum of $10k. While you can DIY or overdub some guitar work, drums you can't skimp on, and to get good mixing and mastering, it costs real bucks. I'm sorry, but every Tom, Dick, and Jane thinks because they have a computer, some software, and a sound card they can make a fantastic record. THere's a reason studios still exist.

So I disagree with you Shaka - recording is more than a few day affair. Mixing takes quite a few days, and you want to live with mixes before you even consider mastering. Never mix everything all in one shot. It can take a few months to really only do 3 or 4 songs when all is said and done.

I'm actually going back in the studio in March to record with the covers project I'm playing with and am most likely recording another jazz album this year which will set me back big time in terms of cost since it's going to be a big band project.



The other thing about a studio is you have folks who can hopefully give you an objective ear on what's going on. I trust the guy I work with - he won't bullshit me.

brywool wrote:Why does it seem Tommy's not interested? He's been touring Styx TONS for years, he's playing Styx tracks with Jack, he's doing Styx tracks with TSO, his were the new tracks for the CYO record....

Have you seen Styx recently? Tommy's doing his shrinking violet impression when he's onstage. He's done that before - like 1983. When I saw him in October, for the most part he stayed on his side and back by the amps unless he was singing. Sometimes he moved to Gowan's side, but rarely. He only seemed to truly enjoy doing "Everything All the Time". As I said, the CYO new tracks were weak. As were most of his songs for Cyclorama.

Just because he's playing with Styx doesn't mean he's happy. How many people do you know who get up every day and always love their job? And because he's doing Styx songs with Jack, those are also reinvented a bit with a twist and he seems to enjoy those. As I've noted more than once, seeing Tommy in S/B and seeing Tommy with Styx is night and day. It's almost two different people. Styx is TS' cash cow as Night Ranger is Jack's. It's their proverbial day job.

brywool wrote:I think that they have to be just going "How do we fix this record-company dilema?"

You're kidding, right?

shaka wrote:Maybe some of us music guys should help Zan work up a record. Personally I'd love to hear it. Zan, have you been writing songs?

Uh, no. lol

I leave that to the professionals.

I just get the impression that with Current Styx it is not so much how to or can do, but want to with regards to recording new music.

If there is some incentive, or the muse really strikes them hard, then they will choose the method to record new music and put it out there.

I am just not feeling it from the various interviews of late that the members have given. There does not seem to be any enthusiasm on their part to involve themselves in recording at this stage in their careers.

Just my take.


Bugsy

Zan wrote:

shaka wrote:I like your model but there is no reason that it should cost Styx anywhere near 55k to record an album even with mastering. The big sucker of money are bands that rent a studio for stuff that could really be done in preproduction. Styx has all the tools at their own homes (quality recording gear, space for rehearsal and writing) that they shouldn't have to have gigantic preproduction expenses. They are also good enough players that if they do preproduction correctly they could literally rent a studio for a few days at cut the album live with some overdubs, and be done with it. I think Styx could easily cut a record for under 10k, which includes a few days of studio time.

Eric, I want to live where you live!! I bet I could own my home for a few hundred bucks a month with escrow!

I admit being somewhat ignorant on the subject of album-making, but I distinctly recall something Todd said to me once before with regard both "Cyclorama" and "Lullagoodbye," Taylor's CD. It was shortly after Taylor's CD came out, so I guess it was fresh on his mind. He said a good publicist can run 5 K or more a month and that between art direction, flights, hotels, pressing, photo shoots, engineers, mastering, legal, publishing, yada yada--Taylor's record cost over 30K. (And that's just a solo record recorded DIY). He said the cover of Cyclorama alone was astronomical, forget the actual CD making process. In other words, he wasn't recommending I go out and make a CD just yet.

Basically, you're being just a *bit* too optimistic here. Because cased on what Todd said, I'd say it's damn near impossible for Styx to make a new CD for LESS than $55,000.

Hey, maybe we could ALL move to your neighborhood!

It just depends on what you value and what you feel is important. For instance, is the cover of CYCLO worth the more-than-likely-well-into-five-figures they paid for it? A matter of opinion, but MY view is a resounding no. They were paying for a name designer. Well, that's all well and good, but in the new digital model the art is just not as important, so the costs should be minimized. If it's not sitting on a shelf, you don't need a cover that makes it stand out. I think it's beautifully put together, but look at the packaging. It's clear that was a major expense. It's nice that the extra care was taken, but is it a selling point? I'm not so sure.

And to pay a lot of money in this day and age for PR is not necessary. I did my own PR for my book, and I have had tremendous media response (and I am a no-name complete nonentity with the media). Granted, I have a PR background, but even without that, there are so many places online where you can write a press release and have them distribute it for you electronically, it makes hiring a publicist needless and wasteful. Wanna know a secret? When you hire a publicist, all they do is write a press release, then hire those exact same online distribution services to distribute it. . . and then charge you ten times as much as those services would have charged you. So it's better to hire someone and pay them a one-time fee to write a decent release, then pay a couple of hundred dollars to have it distributed online. The total PR budget for my book was less than five hundred dollars, and for that I have had major coverage on Google news, blog placements, both wire services, Wireless Flash, all kinds of rock radio news shows here, in Canada, the UK, Japan and Germany, as well as loads of websites. I have gotten positive reviews in Record Collector and Classic Rock magazines, the Daily Herald, and on many web sites. I have had interviews galore online, and in about ten major radio markets, as well as Rock Talk in Canada and a show on the BBC. All for five hundred dollars, and again, I am COMPLETELY UNKNOWN. Styx could do the PR in-house for next to nothing and get a hundred times that reponse, just because they are who they are. It would mean everyone (and that means Tommy) saying "yes" to everything. They need everyone on their side they can get, even if it's a few people at a time. The reality for them now is this: it doesn't matter whether they spend two hundred dollars on PR and reach just a core audience, or spend twenty thousand and try in vain to reach the mainstream, because they are at a point where only hardcore fans are going to buy their next recordings anyway. Trying to reach for people beyond their core fan base at this point is just pissing in the wind, just like it is for everyone else of that era.

As far as recording costs, again it varies an awful lot on what you feel is important. Look at 'Welcome To Hollywood' . . . I don't even think there are live drums on that record, but it sounds phenomenal. I know Glen mentioned having a shoestring budget, but boy, did he make it work for him. For Styx, they could do what we call "pre-production" either at rehearsal while on the road, parts of it being decided on the long bus rides, or from the comfort of their homes via email (listening to demos via email and so on to narrow the down the tracks they want to work on collectively). They would have to track Todd live, and I don't know if Tommy has a live drum room at his studio, but if not they could track the drums elsewhere and finish everything thing else at Tommy's house. With CYCLO they had people flying in and out, here there and everywhere to do parts, and that obviously adds a lot to budget. What's stopping them from having everyone stay at Tommy's house for a couple of weeks? No hotels, no flights, no nothing. Just everyone there together, focused on the same thing, and then bam! You're done.

Mind you, I'm not saying Styx WILL do this. I'm just saying they COULD. I believe in real life that 'some' of the members are too comfortable to consider it.

I hope all is well.


Sterling

StyxCollector wrote:For Styx, an album realistically probably costs about $100k minimum to make. I was lowballing at $55k. I know when I've done my jazz albums at a friend of mine's studio I can easily drop $5k when all is said and done. And that's maximizing my time and not stretching it out.

For Cyclorama, they recorded the drum parts at Capitol Studios in Hollywood. That alone had to be a minimum of $10k. While you can DIY or overdub some guitar work, drums you can't skimp on, and to get good mixing and mastering, it costs real bucks. I'm sorry, but every Tom, Dick, and Jane thinks because they have a computer, some software, and a sound card they can make a fantastic record. THere's a reason studios still exist.

So I disagree with you Shaka - recording is more than a few day affair. Mixing takes quite a few days, and you want to live with mixes before you even consider mastering. Never mix everything all in one shot. It can take a few months to really only do 3 or 4 songs when all is said and done.

I'm actually going back in the studio in March to record with the covers project I'm playing with and am most likely recording another jazz album this year which will set me back big time in terms of cost since it's going to be a big band project.



The other thing about a studio is you have folks who can hopefully give you an objective ear on what's going on. I trust the guy I work with - he won't bullshit me.

It just depends on how prepared you are when you go in, how many people are involved, and so on. I have a good friend named Jerry Kilgore who is a country artist. He was the flagship artist of Virgin Nashville a few years ago, when Scott Hendricks (the Nashville superproducer) signed Jerry as his first male act at Virgin. Jerrry was pushed as the "new Alan Jackson". They spent more than a million dollars on his album and video. He went on tour opening for George Strait. His single went to #38, and right as they should have been pushing even harder, the label folded due to mismanagement. Jerry was dropped and ended up working at Starbucks.

Last year Jerry self-released his first album since then, called 'Loaded and Empty'. He recorded it with all A-list Nashville session cats that he got to agree to take a pay cut to do the sessions. He bargained for a day rate at a great studio of $200 per day, an unbelievable price for a Nashville studio where major artists sometimes record. He cut basic tracks in two days, then converted the tracks and took them to a small home studio to sing his vocals and dub the backing vocals there for no money. He had a few players come in and dub some extra "sweetening" at that home studio as well, for diminished session fees he negotiated. He got one of the most well-respected engineers in Nashville to master the entire album for a thousand dollars by getting him to work on it in his down time. The guy was so tired of working on crap that he did not like, he was glad to do it just to be part of something he could be proud of for once. The total cost for the album was right at $10,000, for an album comparable to any Nashville A-list album that might have cost well over $100,000 for a label to produce.

Jerry's album has paid for itself five times over, has received substantial airplay in Europe, and was recently named Best Independent Album of 2007 by Country Music People magazine in the UK - the largest, most respected country mag in the world. He just shot a video that both CMT and GAC have agreed to start airing in the next month or so. The cost of that video is - are you ready for this? - $250. Yes, $250. That's what it took for him to rent the restaurant it was shot at for the night. He got everyone (including me) to appear as extras for nothing, and got the film maker and his crew to do it for the exposure. This guy wants to shoot label videos, and this is his "in" to do so. Now that Jerry's video is going to be aired, this guy can go to the labels and rightfully say that he has shot a video that has aired on CMT and GAC.

My point is, it CAN be done. Jerry Kilgore is not exactly a household name, but he was smart about parlaying whatever notoriety and contacts he did have into an indy success. There is simply no reason Styx could not do far more with their resources. The question is, WILL they?

I hope all is well.


Sterling

for the record- tommy bulldozed the SHOP last year. no idea when he'll have a new studio up and running. but i'm pretty sure todd's would have a good drum room. LOL