Entertainment For Lively Minds

Word RSS FeedsWord Magazine on YouTubeWord Magazine on Last FMWord Magazine on Share My PlaylistsWord Spotify PlaylistsWord Magazine on FacebookWord Magazine on Twitter

The Producers

neilio's picture

Listening to the excellent recent podcasts with Steve Lillywhite and Nick Lowe, I realised that I don’t really know how record producers literally work. I’m not talking about knob twiddling etc. I mean –financially.
I naively assumed that the manager of “Band X” telephones the agent of (lets use an example) Mr Steve Lillywhite and asks if he would like to produce them. He looks at his diary and sees that there is a “window” of the whole of January to record, they agree a fee and “lets get on with that difficult second album”. I though that was it?

However, I now learn that the producer take a “royalty” (?) every time this record is played (or sold?). Also what happens if sessions drag on and on beyond January (they just can’t get that Bass part right).
Is the producer then paid on a daily (or hourly) basis after this January window. If he had agreed to produce “Band Z” in February what happens then? Does he have to leave the sessions or bump them on another month?

Also, based upon this “royalty” business shouldn’t George Martin be one of the richest producers in Britain – or were things different in those days?

How much would it cost me to get Brian Peter George St. John le Baptiste de la Salle Eno to provide ambient noodlings whilst dishing out his oblique strategy cards eg “Honour thy error as a hidden intention” whilst I do a kazzoo solo?

So word massive, can anybody enlighten me on any of these points with your vast experience and knowledge. How much would a “name” producer cost, or is the producers job actually overrated and it’s just worth getting a decent studio engineer to do the heavy lifting whilst you produce yourself?

0

George Martin

It's well documented that The Fifth Beatle was on EMI staff salary during the Beatles' early and big selling years. He had to resign and go freelance in order to get royalties. From that recent Arena documentary he's obviously still pretty sore about it, and who can blame him?

1
Vince Black | 19 January 2012 - 9:52am

Didn't he go freelance in about '65?

If so, he might well have missed out on royalties in the Beatlemania years, but he still earned a sizeable whack afterwards.

0
Paolo Meccano | 19 January 2012 - 12:36pm

I think

he was still employed on a flat fee even after he went freelance. A much bigger fee, granted.

I might be wrong though. I read his autobiography a couple of years ago and I seem to remember he goes into all this stuff in some detail. As far as I remember he didn't really make serious money until he opened he own studio in the 70s.

0
Stephen Merrick | 20 January 2012 - 6:38am

Royalties

I'll generalise :-

Some producers will be engaged on a "flat fee" basis, but most will get an advance and a royalty.

A producer will normally get a royalty on sales of records, not broadcast or any other ancillary use.

Rates will vary from, say, 2% of dealer price (about £9 for a physical album) up to 5% perhaps, for a "name" producer.

The producer royalty will normally be deducted from the artist royalty. So, band get 25% of dealer, less the 5% paid to the producer. So, if you have a band with 4 or 5 members, there's a reasonable chance that the producer can get paid as much if not more, than a band member.

The beauty of it, for a good producer, is that they do their work on the record, and that's it, on to the next project. No promotion, touring etc that goes with being in a band.

And if you've been around a long time, and worked on lots of records that still sell, then there's lots of income streams coming in, from work that maybe took a few months 30 years ago!

To paraphrase Danny Baker, some of them live in solid gold houses...

0
latenitetellyvision | 19 January 2012 - 12:38pm

But - what do they do?

The record company (normally) will be investing in vasto studio costs so presumably the role of the producer is to take the unformed ideas of the band, rework them, dissuade them from the crap ones, hire other musicians as required to supplement or replace band members, deal with the A&R guys, encourage/direct & record the performances & choose them & edit them together & mix them AND be aware of what's currently selling as a background consideration to the musical / recording choices they make.

And put up with the drummers endless flatulence

So the record won't often exist without the producers input, making them worth the money. Bands often get better at all of this and need their producers less - equally they more frequently delude themselves they no longer need a producer and disappear up their own arses, especially on the self-editing.

Some producers forget how much their artists help them and drift off into messianic delusions

Some partnerships just work and endure - Beatles/Martin - Bowie/Visconti - more prosaically Hot Chocolate/Most.

0
FakeGeordie | 19 January 2012 - 1:04pm

All this has changed massively in the last ten years

Owing to two factors:

1. The dramatic decline in record sales means that the producers can't command the fees they once commanded and any royalty income they get is far less than it used to be.
2. The availability of desk top recording technology means that less albums are made in the traditional studio set-up.

I was told recently that if you wanted to book a day in Britain's best-known studio you could negotiate the rate down to a couple of hundred of quid (including engineer), almost to the level where a middle aged hobby musician might consider it worth treating himself.

0
David Hepworth | 19 January 2012 - 4:37pm

Pro Tools

and computer based recording has changed music production in so many ways over the past ten years, for better and for worse. There was a brilliant article in an issue of the Word mag last year (Mr. Hepworth?) describing all the world famous and legendary studios, such as Muscle Shoals and Olympic, that have closed down for lack of business.

In the book 'Perfect Sound Forever' (by Greg Milner) the author relates the story of a famous band recording The Beatles 'Getting Better' (for a Sgt. Peppers anniversary) at Abbey Road studios with the original engineer, (Geoff Emerick?) in attendance. After many takes he becomes exasperated with the bands inability to nail a take. He tells the film cameramen to go away, has a meeting with the band for a couple of hours, then they get into the studio and record strictly under the engineer's directions. The band were so used to recording with computers where the engineer would later take the tracks away and mix all the best bits together into one that they had to be taught the dynamics of playing a song together in the studio. All thanks to the engineer (they were actually very grateful by the way). Reading this book also made me realise how a lot of producers and engineers (Glyn Johns for example) have worked on and contributed to an incredible amount of music. Although I do remember hearing that Charlie Watts was not impressed with Steve Lilywhite caught trying to tune Charlie's Gretsch drums as Charlie returned from the loo.

0
MrTaylor | 19 January 2012 - 6:44pm

Kaisers Chiefs 'doing' Getting Better

At 1:08 - "We normally do 5 or 6 takes, and if theres a bit in take 4 that isn't in take 6, you can just drop it in with ProTools"

0
Rigid Digit | 19 January 2012 - 8:08pm

I'm reading the Milner book at the moment

Highly recommended

1
Mousey | 20 January 2012 - 3:01am

That reminds me of the story...

...where, sometime in the '80s, someone in the studio asked: "Charlie, what are all these bits of coloured paper under the rims of your drums?". Charlie thought for a moment and eventually replied: "Oh, that must be confetti from the Hyde Park gig"...

1
Paolo Meccano | 20 January 2012 - 12:43pm

On a similar vein, I remember reading that Chics Bernard Edwards

Never changed the strings on his Bass.

0
BernkastelCues | 20 January 2012 - 12:46pm
Privacy Statement    ©  2006 - 2012 Development Hell Ltd