MR

This was posted on Facebook by Queenie, Glen's web master

Glen Burtnik's out-of-print albums 'Welcome to Hollywood' and 'Palookaville' will soon be available for digital download on CDbaby! Stay tuned to www.glenburtnik.com for more details.

'Bout F'ing time...
Why has it taken so long and why is it not on Itunes? Never understood that.
I've got Palookaville but wanted Hollywood and just wasn't into sending for it.

I never did understand why albums that have a digital recording or pressing like a cd could ever go out of print. Looks like the industry is finally getting to the point of moving to digital downloads for previously released albums that they have no intention of re-releasing on CD.

This is good news. Especially seeing that most of today's music buyers don't understand or care what they are missing between audio formats.

styxfanNH wrote:I never did understand why albums that have a digital recording or pressing like a cd could ever go out of print. Looks like the industry is finally getting to the point of moving to digital downloads for previously released albums that they have no intention of re-releasing on CD.

This is good news. Especially seeing that most of today's music buyers don't understand or care what they are missing between audio formats.

Only really worth it if they are lossless. Otherwise, why bother?

Oh yeah, people could give two shits about sound quality, right?

styxfanNH wrote:I never did understand why albums that have a digital recording or pressing like a cd could ever go out of print. Looks like the industry is finally getting to the point of moving to digital downloads for previously released albums that they have no intention of re-releasing on CD.

This is good news. Especially seeing that most of today's music buyers don't understand or care what they are missing between audio formats.

I was happy to read that he's making those available to purchase!!!

I guess I'm "old school", I personally perfer the cd compared to the download. I love my cd's I don't even own an Ipod or mp3 player.

StyxCollector wrote:

styxfanNH wrote:I never did understand why albums that have a digital recording or pressing like a cd could ever go out of print. Looks like the industry is finally getting to the point of moving to digital downloads for previously released albums that they have no intention of re-releasing on CD.

This is good news. Especially seeing that most of today's music buyers don't understand or care what they are missing between audio formats.

Only really worth it if they are lossless. Otherwise, why bother?

Oh yeah, people could give two shits about sound quality, right?

Lossless would be great. But there are many that'll buy mp3s or itunes and not really worry about it. For some artists, I have to buy the CD. For others, it doesn't bug me that much. Many albums today have crap distribution, so you couldn't find it locally anyway. I'd much rather pay $9.99 for an mp3 download that I can listen to NOW, then to pay 15.00 plus shipping for a CD that I have to wait weeks for.

Artists should cater to both. The cost vs. the return to the artist for digital downloads is negligible.
MANY more will download impulsively than will send 2 box tops and a check.

CD sales continue to erode, the only thing keeping them even above water is the fact that a lot of artists don't like to have their songs sold individually on iTunes and Amazon Music. Groups like the Eagles though are forcing a change in that practice. Once enough artists get the leverage to make complete album sales compulsory in the digital download market, I think the end of CDs will come swiftly, with only special edition high priced versions available for diehard fans.

SuiteMadameBlue wrote:

styxfanNH wrote:I never did understand why albums that have a digital recording or pressing like a cd could ever go out of print. Looks like the industry is finally getting to the point of moving to digital downloads for previously released albums that they have no intention of re-releasing on CD.

This is good news. Especially seeing that most of today's music buyers don't understand or care what they are missing between audio formats.

I was happy to read that he's making those available to purchase!!!

I guess I'm "old school", I personally perfer the cd compared to the download. I love my cd's I don't even own an Ipod or mp3 player.

I'm the same way. Although if i don't feel like waiting for the cd to arrive i'll just download it.

As a musician who does recording (in the midst of doing my new jazz album now), the economics are there for an artist like Styx to do it if they want to even just sell it at shows or on the web. Let's say they do it mainly at Tommy's studio, but drums elsewhere. I'll be fair and say that recording will cost them $20,000 at most if they do it that way and are efficient. Add $5,000 for other production costs including pressing a decent amount of CDs. Let's say they sell them at $15 a pop. They'd need to sell under 1,700 to break even at those costs. For a band like Styx with as many shows as they do, that's nothing.

If they also sell digital downloads, that makes selling CDs even easier since digital downloads can cut away at expenses right off the top.

Now, I get my albums done in the $3k range give or take, but I can't sell thousands. I'm doing it mainly to have fun and if I sell a few, great. This one we'll see ... some potential guest players. No big hopes. I've got a backlog of songs and some new arrangements of tunes I like.

StyxCollector wrote:As a musician who does recording (in the midst of doing my new jazz album now), the economics are there for an artist like Styx to do it if they want to even just sell it at shows or on the web. Let's say they do it mainly at Tommy's studio, but drums elsewhere. I'll be fair and say that recording will cost them $20,000 at most if they do it that way and are efficient. Add $5,000 for other production costs including pressing a decent amount of CDs. Let's say they sell them at $15 a pop. They'd need to sell under 1,700 to break even at those costs. For a band like Styx with as many shows as they do, that's nothing.

If they also sell digital downloads, that makes selling CDs even easier since digital downloads can cut away at expenses right off the top.

Now, I get my albums done in the $3k range give or take, but I can't sell thousands. I'm doing it mainly to have fun and if I sell a few, great. This one we'll see ... some potential guest players. No big hopes. I've got a backlog of songs and some new arrangements of tunes I like.

Good Luck. Investing 3K in yourself is a solid sign of faith. I hope it goes well. Back to the quality issue of the recordings, I just saw Norah Jones live and her voice sounds better in person than on CD. There is some quality of her voice that does not come through on the recording. Now I'm not a huge fan of her music, but I am a fan of her talent. After we left the concert, we were wishing for a way to capture her performance. The next level of technology needs to be on the way.

brywool wrote:'Bout F'ing time...
Why has it taken so long and why is it not on Itunes? Never understood that.
I've got Palookaville but wanted Hollywood and just wasn't into sending for it.

Well, I'm sure similarly, Glen wanted his lazy fans to have it but just wasn't into catering to them.

chowhall wrote:Good Luck. Investing 3K in yourself is a solid sign of faith. I hope it goes well. Back to the quality issue of the recordings, I just saw Norah Jones live and her voice sounds better in person than on CD. There is some quality of her voice that does not come through on the recording. Now I'm not a huge fan of her music, but I am a fan of her talent. After we left the concert, we were wishing for a way to capture her performance. The next level of technology needs to be on the way.

There are any number of reasons why a recording can suck and make someone not sound like they do live. Poor engineering. Good engineering, bad mastering. Lackluster arrangement that is changed live.

I went to the Howard Jones 25th Anniversary show in the UK a few years back and sold copies (3CDs, no less - it was a long show) of the show immediately after so you could walk away with it. Norah or anyone could do that, but it's complicated licensing deals and stuff you need to get done with venues. Artists generally can't just record with no kickback to some degree to the venue in all cases - especially if it's an "official" live album.

StyxCollector wrote:As a musician who does recording (in the midst of doing my new jazz album now), the economics are there for an artist like Styx to do it if they want to even just sell it at shows or on the web. Let's say they do it mainly at Tommy's studio, but drums elsewhere. I'll be fair and say that recording will cost them $20,000 at most if they do it that way and are efficient. Add $5,000 for other production costs including pressing a decent amount of CDs. Let's say they sell them at $15 a pop. They'd need to sell under 1,700 to break even at those costs. For a band like Styx with as many shows as they do, that's nothing.

If they also sell digital downloads, that makes selling CDs even easier since digital downloads can cut away at expenses right off the top.

Now, I get my albums done in the $3k range give or take, but I can't sell thousands. I'm doing it mainly to have fun and if I sell a few, great. This one we'll see ... some potential guest players. No big hopes. I've got a backlog of songs and some new arrangements of tunes I like.

Problem is with Styx is the cost would be more, because it is work. Each band member would charge $200 an hour during the recording process, so they need at least $500K to record an album.

StyxCollector wrote:

chowhall wrote:Good Luck. Investing 3K in yourself is a solid sign of faith. I hope it goes well. Back to the quality issue of the recordings, I just saw Norah Jones live and her voice sounds better in person than on CD. There is some quality of her voice that does not come through on the recording. Now I'm not a huge fan of her music, but I am a fan of her talent. After we left the concert, we were wishing for a way to capture her performance. The next level of technology needs to be on the way.

There are any number of reasons why a recording can suck and make someone not sound like they do live. Poor engineering. Good engineering, bad mastering. Lackluster arrangement that is changed live.

I went to the Howard Jones 25th Anniversary show in the UK a few years back and sold copies (3CDs, no less - it was a long show) of the show immediately after so you could walk away with it. Norah or anyone could do that, but it's complicated licensing deals and stuff you need to get done with venues. Artists generally can't just record with no kickback to some degree to the venue in all cases - especially if it's an "official" live album.

Genesis offered all their shows on cd on their last tour. You couldnt get it right after the show, but could order it a few days after I believe. I got the Chicago show I was at, it sounds pretty good too right off the sound board. Wish more bands would do this.

LtVanish wrote:Problem is with Styx is the cost would be more, because it is work. Each band member would charge $200 an hour during the recording process, so they need at least $500K to record an album.

And this is part of why the record industry is where it is right now. The economics of a band are complex. Taking time off the road (which is where you make the most money) to record an album means an outlay of cash. If they're getting union scale (is it $200/hr? I'm not in the union.), then it's not necessarily be cheap. But I think you're a bit off here, because if they are just band members, they've already worked out "Salary". It's a matter of the fixed costs (studio time, mixing, mastering). Since we all know Tommy has a home studio and they can do most of it there, it shouldn't be too bad. As much as I love a good studio to record in, for some things it's not 100% necessary in all cases as long as you have people who know what they are doing. A computer jockey randomly placing a $25 crappy mic to record a guitar isn't going to cut it.

StyxCollector wrote:

LtVanish wrote:Problem is with Styx is the cost would be more, because it is work. Each band member would charge $200 an hour during the recording process, so they need at least $500K to record an album.

And this is part of why the record industry is where it is right now. The economics of a band are complex. Taking time off the road (which is where you make the most money) to record an album means an outlay of cash. If they're getting union scale (is it $200/hr? I'm not in the union.), then it's not necessarily be cheap. But I think you're a bit off here, because if they are just band members, they've already worked out "Salary". It's a matter of the fixed costs (studio time, mixing, mastering). Since we all know Tommy has a home studio and they can do most of it there, it shouldn't be too bad. As much as I love a good studio to record in, for some things it's not 100% necessary in all cases as long as you have people who know what they are doing. A computer jockey randomly placing a $25 crappy mic to record a guitar isn't going to cut it.

I was more or less kinda kidding, but you are right about taking time off the road for recording. I was stating that the band looks at things only for profit it seems nothing more. I wish they were the type of band that would release things for themselves and the fans and not for the money.

LtVanish wrote:I was more or less kinda kidding, but you are right about taking time off the road for recording. I was stating that the band looks at things only for profit it seems nothing more. I wish they were the type of band that would release things for themselves and the fans and not for the money.

This is probably why the current version of Styx spreads songwriting credits to all members. All members would share equally in profits so that may be enough incentive for them to "donate" their time to an album. Profit sharing is a powerful tool.

chowhall wrote:

LtVanish wrote:I was more or less kinda kidding, but you are right about taking time off the road for recording. I was stating that the band looks at things only for profit it seems nothing more. I wish they were the type of band that would release things for themselves and the fans and not for the money.

This is probably why the current version of Styx spreads songwriting credits to all members. All members would share equally in profits so that may be enough incentive for them to "donate" their time to an album. Profit sharing is a powerful tool.

or that know they realize the benefits of being credited properly. tons of songs that are credited to solely dennis had a huge/equal portion written by tommy or jy but back then no one took publishing seriously(except for dennis) and didn't care if their name went on it too

chickenbeef wrote:

chowhall wrote:

LtVanish wrote:I was more or less kinda kidding, but you are right about taking time off the road for recording. I was stating that the band looks at things only for profit it seems nothing more. I wish they were the type of band that would release things for themselves and the fans and not for the money.

This is probably why the current version of Styx spreads songwriting credits to all members. All members would share equally in profits so that may be enough incentive for them to "donate" their time to an album. Profit sharing is a powerful tool.

or that know they realize the benefits of being credited properly. tons of songs that are credited to solely dennis had a huge/equal portion written by tommy or jy but back then no one took publishing seriously(except for dennis) and didn't care if their name went on it too

Go read the legal documents everyone signed in 1981 or so (they were public for a little while before the lawsuit was closed; I paid for my copies). You're out of your element here. Everyone profited to some degree back in the day, even on Dennis' songs. When the money was flowing like a waterfall, no one cared. At this point, Dennis and Tommy would still make the lion's share since they wrote most of the hits.

You're also naive to think JY didn't care. JY is arguably more business savvy than Dennis in some ways.

You once again speak about topics you know nothing about.