This video is a great representation of everything wrong in the U.S. Personally, I like streaming music over buying CD's. But what he said is exactly true, not only is their no money in royalties, but the artists have no budget anymore. While the CEOs of big companies like Spotify and Amazon make billions in this year alone, the people who actually make the products cannot afford their rent, or even to continue making the products they put on these platforms. How can we expect people to put forward money for an engineer or producer, if they can't afford their rent or feed their kids first? Music being an "enhancement" as it is, as lines at food banks grow around the country, this issue is only going to get worse. It's an issue with both our corporate structure and the government, that is far more complex and nuanced than I would care to delve into in a single comment. But, there's only going to continue to be less money in music production, unless in the words of Rage Against The Machine, we "take the power back". Good video, but it's important to ask why the clients no longer have a budget, and how that came to be the case.
Hm I think there is some misconception here. Jeff Bezos might be making billions yes but Amazon is not just music. Music makes a fraction of what Amazon as a company represents and holds as financial assets. But Amazon is a more "traditional" company in the sense that it started small and slowly made profit over time to the point where it is today. Spotify is a tech company and a completely different beast. It's in the league of companies who make sh*tloads of revenue, but don't make any profit (actually they lose money). It's basically investors keeping those companies up for some long term gain. You see that with a lot of new tech companies like uber, airbnb, snapchat, and more of those kind of companies. It is a completely different game. I mention this in order to clarify that while artists are not making much money, it is not that a company like spotify adds a huge load of margin on the product and keeps that margin by itself. That may seem so, but is less the case. I think there are multiple major changes which are really of disadvantage to the musician/artist and it doesn't have to do with "Brand association" as Tony explains. Branding is always associated with artists. 1) Change of pricing model from you as a buyer of music paying upfront a larger sum of money in order to get a physical product which you can use for eternity to a model where you pay for your actual number of listens. So if I pay 24,95 for an album in the old days and a stream is rated at 0,01, it means I need to stream 2495 times in order to generate the same amount of money for the industry. Singles used to be ranging from 4,99 to 9.99. In "best" case, I only need to stream a song 499 times in order to generate the same amount of money for the industry. When was the last time you heard ANY song in your record collection 499 times? Even if we factor out the streaming and take it that a digital copy was bought (like at the Apple Music store) for 99 cents, there is already this price drop which is at worst a 10th of the price. That is partly justified because all of the physical aspect is gone (no real store, no distribution, no logistics, no physical product manufactured from plastics, etc.). The cynical way to look at this is that the consumer actually overspent on physical media and this made huge profits for the industry. If I listen 10 times to a single or 1000 doesn't matter, I paid them 9,99 and that's what they get from me. Now to be fair, the most of that money goes to the industry around the artist/musician (hence I keep writing "industry" instead of artist). I would love to see good data on this but it is my suspicion that the actual margins for artists maybe haven't changed that dramatically, depending a bit on the contract and model the artist has. 2) Change in behaviour or music consumers: we are too occupied with things and swamped with choice. Back in the day, the record store and radio determined the music you could get in touch with and buy. Unless you were a very avid collector but even then, a lot of the existing music was obscure. Nowadays, everything created is available for everyone, at every place. We change from album oriented to song oriented. We use playlists with similar kinds of music, nitpicking from everywhere. You can create an album as an artist but maybe 2 or 3 songs are most listened to and the other parts mostly ignored/discarded. 3) Recording music became very accessible, meaning that the market now also gets overcrowded with products. Back in the day you needed funds (labels) to go to a studio and play the stuff. Nowadays you can create a complete album on your smart device. That opens up the market place to a wider audience because it is much easier to find the specific niches you are looking for. It also is a win for the artist because their niche music can now reach every possible fan on the planet. But, it also means that there is more choice than demand. That causes deflation. It also means that a lot of the industry has basically been cut out and replaced by a different industry: I as an artist can now directly sign up with a digital distributor to get my stuff out in the digital media stores. No record label and what have you not in between. 4) Touring has always become a good source of revenue but that changed in the process (I'll ignore the Covid situation for a moment here). What you see is that the entertainment industry is about cultivating personalities and their brand more than ever. With ever growing economies, we get more wealthy and consume more. This also means that the best way to make profits is not by the music, it is by all the non-music stuff related to your personality and I think this is what Tony is meaning here. Bands and artists always have been brands at least since the Beatles but probably earlier. The Rolling Stones, Beatles, The WHo, Pink Floyd, Genesis, U2, Queen, Michael Jackson, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Beach Boys, you name it. They are all brands since their inception. It's just that they always kinda stuck to the music. That has become secondary as advertising, endorsement, and licensing deals earn you the real revenue.
@@santibanks You are right on the money! Here: "This also means that the best way to make profits is not by the music, it is by all the non-music stuff related to your personality and I think this is what Tony is meaning here. Bands and artists always have been brands at least since the Beatles but probably earlier. The Rolling Stones, Beatles, The WHo, Pink Floyd, Genesis, U2, Queen, Michael Jackson, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Beach Boys, you name it. They are all brands since their inception. It's just that they always kinda stuck to the music. That has become secondary as advertising, endorsement, and licensing deals earn you the real revenue." This applies to so many areas in the entertainment industry.
@@santibanks There is no misconception. I did not mention Amazon as a music only company. And no, I did not mention Spotify as the sole reason why musicians/artists/brands struggle to make money from their music. My point is that the reasons why artists have no budgets and are on their own in the midst of a crisis, is not unrelated to Jeff Bezos becoming the worlds first trillionaire during a pandemic. It is not unrelated to growing food bank lines around the country. Artists, engineers, and brands alike, have never been disconnected from systems which support some and oppress others. To take a contemporary example, despite the common craze, Billie Eilish did not go from bedroom to stardom without already having powerful connections in various industries. The tale of the rugged individual is and always has been a lie, and the situation is no different here. I don't know where Tony lives, but I will assume from your use of commas, that you are not from the U.S. I don't know if you are familiar with the current situation here, but while folks from some countries have received support that would make saving up for a record and hiring a producer or engineer feasible, that has not been the case here in the U.S. Whilst Jeff Bezos becomes the first trillionaire, our lawmakers actively undermine any efforts of supporting us. My point is that none of these struggles are disconnected. Also, I don't know what sort of Spotify plan you have, but I pay monthly, not per stream as you described. I do not think it is Spotify's fault that musicians are struggling, but they could do a lot more on behalf of the artists who actually make the platform possible, just like Amazon could have done much more on behalf of their employees, and they should both be held accountable. Instead we see a very similar picture, where the CEO makes billions and the rest get $0.0038 per stream. It does not matter that the company supposedly loses profit if the CEO has become a billionaire while the rest of our lives are in shambles. If the CEO is making billions off of other folks music, then the payment per stream can surely increase, regardless of what type of company it is. It does not matter how much a CD would have cost to buy nor to make. People are being exploited, people are starving, people are losing their homes, and we can and should do something about it. Continuing this thread will do nothing to further those means, so I will leave it here.
This is the kind of serious conversation I urge all the experienced ones to talk about in a very LOUD and unified fashion. There’s a big problem going on and I think that the only solution is to first acknowledge and debate about it so changes can occur. Rarely do I see anybody talking about how undervalued engineers are. Thank you for the glimpse Tony. Hopefully this ignites much needed conversation and change.
Just want to comment how beautifully you guys are lighting and shooting these videos. All the MWTM stuff looks great. Credit to your videographers and production team.
This is a smart businessman! He is talking about economics. Dealing with scarcity of some resource, such as money. The streaming royalty rate is so low, it forces songwriters, producers and engineers to produce more, at a faster rate, than before.
A great video. He says it as it is, you can feel it. Things are changing and it's hard to face the reality which we could end up in. When the music will sound soulless and shitty because of amateur budget recordings and AI mixing, will the listeners even notice? I believe there is a joy that a person experiences in great sounding records, even if he or she has no clue about music at all. Unless we fight the giant corporations like spotify, who could EASILY pay everybody 5 times more, things are going to go worst and worst
1:30 -> Music Management Lessons Number One, I will never forget: "Take a step back, and see it as product" because "Then you'll be able to manage what you can measure" and focus on your artistic vision to create the best you can.
@@fr4nc1sPT Maybe it's because Steve Albini charges his clients just an upfront fee instead of a model based on royalties or a mix of both - wich seems to yield a lower income with the onset of streaming services nowadays. Wikipedia states "Albini does not receive royalties for anything he records or mixes" and "Albini drew a salary of US$24,000 a year in 2004". Seeing that Albini worked with many high profile artits within the last years, he would still recieve income today had he chose the royalties-model. Maybe he never thought that the music industrie would change so much so fast.
@@herrsebastiankoenig Steve is super duper eccentric in many ways, but it’s his own fault if he’s cursing the music Gods. I haven’t mix any high profile records yet but I still charge 1-2 points royalty even for low level indies with no plays. It’s about the principle and how valuable I am to the song/project. The artist can come in with a nice record but once it leaves me it’s a different sound for better or worse. As mixer, that’s my DNA on the track so I think I should have equity.
I actually believe things are getting better. Engineering is just a skillset every musician needs to have nowadays. This brings more creative control, and less costs. Distribution wise, things will probably stay as they are and people have to accept the fact that music has become 1 of the elements of a music artist and not the main deal. Shows, merch, streaming, social media, everything else has to be squeezed financially in order to make a living. It is what it is. Things change. We got to adapt and move on.
@@MixedbyJoshua EVERY single artist is reaching that same place and virtually without compensation... therefore the Art and artist is devalued. That’s why only the outrageous 💩 or artists backed by tons of money see the top. few peak through off of sheer talent. Even if you do break through there’s not much money there... you have to make money from brand deals, merch or other business. Too much access to anything devalues it.
It's not the digital distribution. It's the fact that there are 5 million emerging artists making music from their laptops, putting out stuff for free or next to nothing hoping to "make it". So Spotify has 7 gazillion cheaply-made songs, and the struggling artists get a fraction of a cent and they refuse to quit because they are hoping their big break is coming. This is just market forces, if a ton of people are willing to work for free or next to nothing, then music production is worth free or next to nothing. How many doctors do you see working for free for 3 years in a row hoping to "make it". The big change was not the digital distribution. What changed is that you no longer need a $150,000 SSL console to make a popular song. Now people make music on their devices at home for free or next to nothing. Buy a $150 midi controller that comes bundled with a bunch of virtual instruments, and you are in business hoping to "make it", along with 5 million other people with the same plan.
...and this is the reason a lot of engineers are going 100% ITB. It is the reason I went 100% ITB five years ago. I saw it coming. I wish I had been wrong. There was no joy in being right on this occasion.
It ain't gonna be better. It's a business and it works like a business. The same sh*t happens to every commodity - there is always somebody who is willing to make it a bit worse for a bit less money. And this strategy works. Behringer owns half of the music hardware industry now, building its own "city" in China, and the top of the line companies (in terms of quality) are small "family-owned" enterprises or just enthusiasts with no market for their products. So even more compromises will be made, not because we, engineers, authors, producers like it, but because we have to survive in this world. And the quality is decreasing, and the public is getting used to it, and there is nobody to educate our youngsters that there is sh*t in their spoons instead of food because we all too busy making a living with 12-16 hours working days. Decommoditization of arts is impossible in the totally commoditized system. We can preach, we can teach, but we can't reach.
Standard is .5 - 2 percent of global sales. That means if the track gets 200 streams, you get a residual cut of that. If the track gets licensed for a film or commercial, you get a cut of that money. Physical sales are much fewer and harder to track these days.
@@goobstersroom okay so ASCAP, BMI etc are performing rights societies not publishers. Unless you have a pub deal with a company like (EMI, Sony etc), then YOU’RE the publisher. So you make up a name then open an account with ASCAP as a publisher. Then you log in your records and percentage. Next You get with the artist you’re mixing or producing and set up your royalty rate. So say if they distribute through Distrokid, they’ll set it up at that point who the co-writers etc are. Get your contract signed and go from there. It’s not an easy conversation but the more you make it a standard, it’ll go smooth. Key is letting the artist know they aren’t being taken advantage of.
The money is in master ownership. That’s always been the problem with engineering and mixing is there’s no ownership of intellectual property. Royalty points on mixes are a thing of the past. You’d have to only work on smashes and then wait for it to recoup if it ever does. Take the extra bread up front when you can get it and build your publishing up. If you can get 5% publishing per record as an engineer now your talking. You can keep the royalty points as far as I’m concerned.
A lot of good valuable advice, but also a lot of wishful thinking, Things are moving forward, they will not go back to the ways of the past. Digital tools are evolving, AI is evolving fast, producing, mixing and mastering is now easier than ever. This is where things are going, there's no denying it.
As things move in that direction, there will always be a large movement following older methods, no one is ever going to not want the sound of tape/big consoles etc. It may evolve but there will always be those that want to do things the more difficult and musical way.
Making records isn’t at all “easier”. It still takes time, a lot of money and most importantly a skillful ear to make solid music. Yea, if you’re using presets, samples and cookie cutter AI mastering it’s easier. But if you’re REALLY creating strong music, this shit isn’t easy. Then to barely make a living from it is ridiculous
totally agree with the other comments here. the craft and skill of making and writing music isn't any easier at all. some of the tools required are vastly cheaper, but without skill, experience and talent that is meaningless.
@@Jozelo I mean, you’re right, but... dang... how can anyone imagine making a decent living in music anymore? Sad. The money is in selling a dream, not in making music.
and now that people haven't been playing live shows all year and probably won't for another year or so, with one of the only places of revenue for artists completely disappearing from the map for 2-3 years budgets are gonna vanish even more... i don't want it to happen but i see yet another collapse of the industry ahead
It's just an arrangement, not a product. You associate Brands with a tune, anyone can make a tune. Be sure you only let a brand use the royalty for an arrangement for a week, just for one campaign. Be Andy Warhol, go to clubs, artistic scenes, run your business there, then you can create art! forget the product you make now! Why you need some better studio then you create at home with your personal toys?
I have the Tony Maserati plugins from Waves audio,amazing what you can achieve with it.These wonderfull studio's are not so special anymore.Sad for Tony,good for me.They have unvolded all their secrets.so now everybody can make a good mix with their plugins.But there is allways a solution for every problem
Sure, and I appreciate his plugins among many other programs such as DAWs, or compact hardware that can essentially replace the entire conventional studio, while still fitting in my backpack. The big problem is that the career options are slimming down. Making a living as a Mix engineer without a massive pedigree? No more. Producer without that 1 in a million artist, or viral video/song/clip? Nope. There's a surplus of professionals thanks to the things we all appreciate so much, which greatly reduces the chance of turning our hobby into a career. What's that great mix worth when nobody pays you for it and nobody gets to hear it?
Have you ever made a record in a real studio?? And I mean a REAL studio like Chalice, Larabee or Capital in La or Hit Factory Miami. Waves hasn’t even come close to that yet! The plug ins are great and I use them every day but if I could afford a real SSL9000 I wouldn’t buy waves. The plug ins aren’t even close to the real thing. They are amazing though compared to their competition. I can’t live without the L2 but again because I can’t afford the real thing. There is a depth to the real gear that makes your stereo imaging out of this world. As of yet digital can’t reproduce that.
@@yuppy5956 The great mix engineers are still getting paid well but it’s a lot less then they used to. Tony probably makes between $3000-$5000 a mix depending on who it’s for and the artist budget. In the 90s though he was making $5000-$7000 a mix all day long! It is a shame though because digital killed off most of the studios so there isn’t as much of a chance to get into the industry anymore.
There’s still nothing like the vibe of a full fledge studio whether home studio or big rooms like Capital. Plugins are great but analog gear is something different and pretty tactile. The sound of transistors versus the emulation of transistors are night and day. That doesn’t mean plugins are bad, but to say everyone can make a good mix with plugins is total nonsense. I’ve heard some TERRIBLE shit coming out of $2000 worth of plugins lol
Knowing what hardware or plug ins a great mixer uses is like knowing what paintbrush Picasso used. Knowing the type of tool doesn't mean you can use it, that's why mixers will happily give up their "secrets", because the gear and settings don't make the mix
Just seeing this for the first time in 2024. Needless to say the industry has gotten significantly worse. I was a full time studio engineer, producer and mixer for the past 27yrs and I finally had to take my first non music related job ever. The industry has gone away in this part of the world. Our new inflated economics has ppl choosing between art and eating now, and art is not the priority….
You guys need some sort of music bed underneath this video... really drags the tone down with the empty space. Unless that’s the goal... if so I missed it.
I guess a part of that story is that more and more amateur music-producers flood the market with their "products"... At the end we people/ music workers become the product. (in the eyes of a CEOs of Spotify, Amazon, instrument/ music gear-seller etc.)
well, that's not entirely true. but anyway the musicians and the singers aren't getting paid either, for exactly the same reasons engineers aren't getting paid.
@@hoojamaflicks Look I’m. Responding to a quote he made at the start of the video. I like CLA and use his plugs. But. I also come from a musician background and later on became an Engineer For past 17 years. And throughout I have witnessed many of these quotes and I’m sorry but when is wrong ? Is wrong. Similar quotes were made by big Labels , Prince fought a long battle correcting this. Altering a creation doesn’t make you the creator. Or paying an artist millions to exploit his creation don’t make you the creator or does it? This is why we artists/Musicians love the development that internet brought. Because this has reduced the amount of Sharks in the business. For your reference I started my career with an Atari ST 520e. Then a 1024 Ste then a falcon. And we then moved into the pc with 386 and the 486 So I followed the evolution of the music industry up to today my first Steinberg product was pro24 the it became Cubase Then Cubasis then cubase VST. Then cubase Xt So I’m use to ssl patchbay reel to reel Smpte scsi. Adat but melodyne pt12 and cubase 11 and the rest. ...
A PERFECT example of how these guys in the business, PRIMARILY, the older guys play GOD. There is sooooo much wrong with the old skool industry and im glad things have changed. Def pros and cons but i have no sympathy for this.
![Pop Mixing Masterclass with Tony Maserati [Beyoncé, Usher, Jason Mraz, Black Eyed Peas]](/img/1.gif)
Full video available exclusively on mwtm.org/tm-cost-management
This video is a great representation of everything wrong in the U.S. Personally, I like streaming music over buying CD's. But what he said is exactly true, not only is their no money in royalties, but the artists have no budget anymore. While the CEOs of big companies like Spotify and Amazon make billions in this year alone, the people who actually make the products cannot afford their rent, or even to continue making the products they put on these platforms. How can we expect people to put forward money for an engineer or producer, if they can't afford their rent or feed their kids first? Music being an "enhancement" as it is, as lines at food banks grow around the country, this issue is only going to get worse. It's an issue with both our corporate structure and the government, that is far more complex and nuanced than I would care to delve into in a single comment. But, there's only going to continue to be less money in music production, unless in the words of Rage Against The Machine, we "take the power back". Good video, but it's important to ask why the clients no longer have a budget, and how that came to be the case.
Hm I think there is some misconception here. Jeff Bezos might be making billions yes but Amazon is not just music. Music makes a fraction of what Amazon as a company represents and holds as financial assets. But Amazon is a more "traditional" company in the sense that it started small and slowly made profit over time to the point where it is today. Spotify is a tech company and a completely different beast. It's in the league of companies who make sh*tloads of revenue, but don't make any profit (actually they lose money). It's basically investors keeping those companies up for some long term gain. You see that with a lot of new tech companies like uber, airbnb, snapchat, and more of those kind of companies. It is a completely different game. I mention this in order to clarify that while artists are not making much money, it is not that a company like spotify adds a huge load of margin on the product and keeps that margin by itself. That may seem so, but is less the case.
I think there are multiple major changes which are really of disadvantage to the musician/artist and it doesn't have to do with "Brand association" as Tony explains. Branding is always associated with artists.
1) Change of pricing model from you as a buyer of music paying upfront a larger sum of money in order to get a physical product which you can use for eternity to a model where you pay for your actual number of listens. So if I pay 24,95 for an album in the old days and a stream is rated at 0,01, it means I need to stream 2495 times in order to generate the same amount of money for the industry. Singles used to be ranging from 4,99 to 9.99. In "best" case, I only need to stream a song 499 times in order to generate the same amount of money for the industry. When was the last time you heard ANY song in your record collection 499 times? Even if we factor out the streaming and take it that a digital copy was bought (like at the Apple Music store) for 99 cents, there is already this price drop which is at worst a 10th of the price. That is partly justified because all of the physical aspect is gone (no real store, no distribution, no logistics, no physical product manufactured from plastics, etc.). The cynical way to look at this is that the consumer actually overspent on physical media and this made huge profits for the industry. If I listen 10 times to a single or 1000 doesn't matter, I paid them 9,99 and that's what they get from me. Now to be fair, the most of that money goes to the industry around the artist/musician (hence I keep writing "industry" instead of artist). I would love to see good data on this but it is my suspicion that the actual margins for artists maybe haven't changed that dramatically, depending a bit on the contract and model the artist has.
2) Change in behaviour or music consumers: we are too occupied with things and swamped with choice. Back in the day, the record store and radio determined the music you could get in touch with and buy. Unless you were a very avid collector but even then, a lot of the existing music was obscure. Nowadays, everything created is available for everyone, at every place. We change from album oriented to song oriented. We use playlists with similar kinds of music, nitpicking from everywhere. You can create an album as an artist but maybe 2 or 3 songs are most listened to and the other parts mostly ignored/discarded.
3) Recording music became very accessible, meaning that the market now also gets overcrowded with products. Back in the day you needed funds (labels) to go to a studio and play the stuff. Nowadays you can create a complete album on your smart device. That opens up the market place to a wider audience because it is much easier to find the specific niches you are looking for. It also is a win for the artist because their niche music can now reach every possible fan on the planet. But, it also means that there is more choice than demand. That causes deflation. It also means that a lot of the industry has basically been cut out and replaced by a different industry: I as an artist can now directly sign up with a digital distributor to get my stuff out in the digital media stores. No record label and what have you not in between.
4) Touring has always become a good source of revenue but that changed in the process (I'll ignore the Covid situation for a moment here). What you see is that the entertainment industry is about cultivating personalities and their brand more than ever. With ever growing economies, we get more wealthy and consume more. This also means that the best way to make profits is not by the music, it is by all the non-music stuff related to your personality and I think this is what Tony is meaning here. Bands and artists always have been brands at least since the Beatles but probably earlier. The Rolling Stones, Beatles, The WHo, Pink Floyd, Genesis, U2, Queen, Michael Jackson, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Beach Boys, you name it. They are all brands since their inception. It's just that they always kinda stuck to the music. That has become secondary as advertising, endorsement, and licensing deals earn you the real revenue.
@@santibanks You are right on the money! Here: "This also means that the best way to make profits is not by the music, it is by all the non-music stuff related to your personality and I think this is what Tony is meaning here. Bands and artists always have been brands at least since the Beatles but probably earlier. The Rolling Stones, Beatles, The WHo, Pink Floyd, Genesis, U2, Queen, Michael Jackson, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Beach Boys, you name it. They are all brands since their inception. It's just that they always kinda stuck to the music. That has become secondary as advertising, endorsement, and licensing deals earn you the real revenue." This applies to so many areas in the entertainment industry.
@@santibanks There is no misconception. I did not mention Amazon as a music only company. And no, I did not mention Spotify as the sole reason why musicians/artists/brands struggle to make money from their music. My point is that the reasons why artists have no budgets and are on their own in the midst of a crisis, is not unrelated to Jeff Bezos becoming the worlds first trillionaire during a pandemic. It is not unrelated to growing food bank lines around the country. Artists, engineers, and brands alike, have never been disconnected from systems which support some and oppress others. To take a contemporary example, despite the common craze, Billie Eilish did not go from bedroom to stardom without already having powerful connections in various industries. The tale of the rugged individual is and always has been a lie, and the situation is no different here. I don't know where Tony lives, but I will assume from your use of commas, that you are not from the U.S. I don't know if you are familiar with the current situation here, but while folks from some countries have received support that would make saving up for a record and hiring a producer or engineer feasible, that has not been the case here in the U.S. Whilst Jeff Bezos becomes the first trillionaire, our lawmakers actively undermine any efforts of supporting us. My point is that none of these struggles are disconnected.
Also, I don't know what sort of Spotify plan you have, but I pay monthly, not per stream as you described. I do not think it is Spotify's fault that musicians are struggling, but they could do a lot more on behalf of the artists who actually make the platform possible, just like Amazon could have done much more on behalf of their employees, and they should both be held accountable. Instead we see a very similar picture, where the CEO makes billions and the rest get $0.0038 per stream. It does not matter that the company supposedly loses profit if the CEO has become a billionaire while the rest of our lives are in shambles. If the CEO is making billions off of other folks music, then the payment per stream can surely increase, regardless of what type of company it is. It does not matter how much a CD would have cost to buy nor to make. People are being exploited, people are starving, people are losing their homes, and we can and should do something about it. Continuing this thread will do nothing to further those means, so I will leave it here.
@@tortugulaproductions ** Marxism intensifies **
Artist strike time?
This is the kind of serious conversation I urge all the experienced ones to talk about in a very LOUD and unified fashion. There’s a big problem going on and I think that the only solution is to first acknowledge and debate about it so changes can occur. Rarely do I see anybody talking about how undervalued engineers are. Thank you for the glimpse Tony. Hopefully this ignites much needed conversation and change.
Wow, that was pretty depressing, especially coming from that caliber of engineer.
Just want to comment how beautifully you guys are lighting and shooting these videos. All the MWTM stuff looks great. Credit to your videographers and production team.
This is a smart businessman! He is talking about economics. Dealing with scarcity of some resource, such as money. The streaming royalty rate is so low, it forces songwriters, producers and engineers to produce more, at a faster rate, than before.
Also, I am curious to know what happens to the royalties once Tony passes on or any other artist passes on? Can they be given to your heirs?
A great video. He says it as it is, you can feel it. Things are changing and it's hard to face the reality which we could end up in. When the music will sound soulless and shitty because of amateur budget recordings and AI mixing, will the listeners even notice? I believe there is a joy that a person experiences in great sounding records, even if he or she has no clue about music at all. Unless we fight the giant corporations like spotify, who could EASILY pay everybody 5 times more, things are going to go worst and worst
I listen when a master speaks!!!
1:30 -> Music Management Lessons Number One, I will never forget: "Take a step back, and see it as product" because "Then you'll be able to manage what you can measure" and focus on your artistic vision to create the best you can.
This guy is almost George Clooney.
Yep, reminds me too!
oh so that's who he reminds me of lmao
are you sure? :-/
Some where, Steve Albini just Vomitted
I don't get it, can u explain?
@@fr4nc1sPT Maybe it's because Steve Albini charges his clients just an upfront fee instead of a model based on royalties or a mix of both - wich seems to yield a lower income with the onset of streaming services nowadays. Wikipedia states "Albini does not receive royalties for anything he records or mixes" and "Albini drew a salary of US$24,000 a year in 2004". Seeing that Albini worked with many high profile artits within the last years, he would still recieve income today had he chose the royalties-model. Maybe he never thought that the music industrie would change so much so fast.
@@herrsebastiankoenig Ohhh ok now I get it, thank you!
@@herrsebastiankoenig Steve is super duper eccentric in many ways, but it’s his own fault if he’s cursing the music Gods. I haven’t mix any high profile records yet but I still charge 1-2 points royalty even for low level indies with no plays. It’s about the principle and how valuable I am to the song/project. The artist can come in with a nice record but once it leaves me it’s a different sound for better or worse. As mixer, that’s my DNA on the track so I think I should have equity.
most useful knowledge ever thanks
Good things to keep in mind about value and the why behind every business decision
What a badass video Tony! 👍👍
I actually believe things are getting better. Engineering is just a skillset every musician needs to have nowadays. This brings more creative control, and less costs. Distribution wise, things will probably stay as they are and people have to accept the fact that music has become 1 of the elements of a music artist and not the main deal. Shows, merch, streaming, social media, everything else has to be squeezed financially in order to make a living. It is what it is. Things change. We got to adapt and move on.
digital distribution devalues art
How? Digital distribution allows art to reach places its never been
@@MixedbyJoshua EVERY single artist is reaching that same place and virtually without compensation... therefore the Art and artist is devalued. That’s why only the outrageous 💩 or artists backed by tons of money see the top. few peak through off of sheer talent. Even if you do break through there’s not much money there... you have to make money from brand deals, merch or other business. Too much access to anything devalues it.
It's not the digital distribution. It's the fact that there are 5 million emerging artists making music from their laptops, putting out stuff for free or next to nothing hoping to "make it". So Spotify has 7 gazillion cheaply-made songs, and the struggling artists get a fraction of a cent and they refuse to quit because they are hoping their big break is coming.
This is just market forces, if a ton of people are willing to work for free or next to nothing, then music production is worth free or next to nothing. How many doctors do you see working for free for 3 years in a row hoping to "make it".
The big change was not the digital distribution. What changed is that you no longer need a $150,000 SSL console to make a popular song. Now people make music on their devices at home for free or next to nothing. Buy a $150 midi controller that comes bundled with a bunch of virtual instruments, and you are in business hoping to "make it", along with 5 million other people with the same plan.
Depressing - such a great talent too!
You wanna make a million in a studio, spend 2 million. Lol Jk great info my good sir appreciate you sharing 🔥
Great insight
...and this is the reason a lot of engineers are going 100% ITB. It is the reason I went 100% ITB five years ago. I saw it coming. I wish I had been wrong. There was no joy in being right on this occasion.
what is ITB?
@@moskva-kassiopeya In The Box? I don't know but it's a guess.
@@moskva-kassiopeya In The Box, sorry I should have explained.
@@peevee605 That is correct dude, I should have explained.
Can you please explain what that phrase means in the box 📦 ??? I would apperciate it
It ain't gonna be better. It's a business and it works like a business. The same sh*t happens to every commodity - there is always somebody who is willing to make it a bit worse for a bit less money. And this strategy works. Behringer owns half of the music hardware industry now, building its own "city" in China, and the top of the line companies (in terms of quality) are small "family-owned" enterprises or just enthusiasts with no market for their products. So even more compromises will be made, not because we, engineers, authors, producers like it, but because we have to survive in this world. And the quality is decreasing, and the public is getting used to it, and there is nobody to educate our youngsters that there is sh*t in their spoons instead of food because we all too busy making a living with 12-16 hours working days.
Decommoditization of arts is impossible in the totally commoditized system.
We can preach, we can teach, but we can't reach.
awesome
Summary: We’re all screwed
Tony is ReAl 🙌🏿🙌🏿🙌🏿🤛🏿
How do you charge royalties as a mixing engineer?
Standard is .5 - 2 percent of global sales. That means if the track gets 200 streams, you get a residual cut of that. If the track gets licensed for a film or commercial, you get a cut of that money. Physical sales are much fewer and harder to track these days.
@@futuristiccavemanofficial would you sign up for the percentage through ascap or BMI or would it be through another publisher to do this?
@@futuristiccavemanofficial I guess my question is how would you sign up and collect
@@goobstersroom okay so ASCAP, BMI etc are performing rights societies not publishers. Unless you have a pub deal with a company like (EMI, Sony etc), then YOU’RE the publisher. So you make up a name then open an account with ASCAP as a publisher. Then you log in your records and percentage. Next You get with the artist you’re mixing or producing and set up your royalty rate. So say if they distribute through Distrokid, they’ll set it up at that point who the co-writers etc are. Get your contract signed and go from there. It’s not an easy conversation but the more you make it a standard, it’ll go smooth. Key is letting the artist know they aren’t being taken advantage of.
@@futuristiccavemanofficial you're hired.
Wow! Sign me up! 🙁 what a seriously depressing state for the industry.
The money is in master ownership. That’s always been the problem with engineering and mixing is there’s no ownership of intellectual property. Royalty points on mixes are a thing of the past. You’d have to only work on smashes and then wait for it to recoup if it ever does. Take the extra bread up front when you can get it and build your publishing up. If you can get 5% publishing per record as an engineer now your talking. You can keep the royalty points as far as I’m concerned.
A lot of good valuable advice, but also a lot of wishful thinking,
Things are moving forward, they will not go back to the ways of the past.
Digital tools are evolving, AI is evolving fast, producing, mixing and mastering is now easier than ever. This is where things are going, there's no denying it.
As things move in that direction, there will always be a large movement following older methods, no one is ever going to not want the sound of tape/big consoles etc. It may evolve but there will always be those that want to do things the more difficult and musical way.
Making records isn’t at all “easier”. It still takes time, a lot of money and most importantly a skillful ear to make solid music. Yea, if you’re using presets, samples and cookie cutter AI mastering it’s easier. But if you’re REALLY creating strong music, this shit isn’t easy. Then to barely make a living from it is ridiculous
totally agree with the other comments here. the craft and skill of making and writing music isn't any easier at all. some of the tools required are vastly cheaper, but without skill, experience and talent that is meaningless.
Cool, thanks!
This saddens me, I thought things had been getting better in the last few of years, not worse.
Damn....
damn
this looks and sounds likes a man whose ready to give it up and leave room for new guys such as myself
👍
get nollygetgood on here
But he still sells a lot of cars 😎😎
💚💚💚
Is he slowly but surely turning into Dave Matthews?
The music industry is absurd, people need to strike in some form to insist people are being paid a reasonable amount
This dude definitely picks up women claiming he is George Clooney.
God, this is a depressing video.
Is a honest and real video.
@@Jozelo I mean, you’re right, but... dang... how can anyone imagine making a decent living in music anymore? Sad. The money is in selling a dream, not in making music.
and now that people haven't been playing live shows all year and probably won't for another year or so, with one of the only places of revenue for artists completely disappearing from the map for 2-3 years budgets are gonna vanish even more... i don't want it to happen but i see yet another collapse of the industry ahead
Ok
It's just an arrangement, not a product.
You associate Brands with a tune, anyone can make a tune. Be sure you only let a brand use the royalty for an arrangement for a week, just for one campaign.
Be Andy Warhol, go to clubs, artistic scenes, run your business there, then you can create art! forget the product you make now! Why you need some better studio then you create at home with your personal toys?
I have the Tony Maserati plugins from Waves audio,amazing what you can achieve with it.These wonderfull studio's are not so special anymore.Sad for Tony,good for me.They have unvolded all their secrets.so now everybody can make a good mix with their plugins.But there is allways a solution for every problem
Sure, and I appreciate his plugins among many other programs such as DAWs, or compact hardware that can essentially replace the entire conventional studio, while still fitting in my backpack. The big problem is that the career options are slimming down. Making a living as a Mix engineer without a massive pedigree? No more. Producer without that 1 in a million artist, or viral video/song/clip? Nope. There's a surplus of professionals thanks to the things we all appreciate so much, which greatly reduces the chance of turning our hobby into a career.
What's that great mix worth when nobody pays you for it and nobody gets to hear it?
Have you ever made a record in a real studio?? And I mean a REAL studio like Chalice, Larabee or Capital in La or Hit Factory Miami. Waves hasn’t even come close to that yet! The plug ins are great and I use them every day but if I could afford a real SSL9000 I wouldn’t buy waves. The plug ins aren’t even close to the real thing. They are amazing though compared to their competition. I can’t live without the L2 but again because I can’t afford the real thing. There is a depth to the real gear that makes your stereo imaging out of this world. As of yet digital can’t reproduce that.
@@yuppy5956 The great mix engineers are still getting paid well but it’s a lot less then they used to. Tony probably makes between $3000-$5000 a mix depending on who it’s for and the artist budget. In the 90s though he was making $5000-$7000 a mix all day long! It is a shame though because digital killed off most of the studios so there isn’t as much of a chance to get into the industry anymore.
There’s still nothing like the vibe of a full fledge studio whether home studio or big rooms like Capital. Plugins are great but analog gear is something different and pretty tactile. The sound of transistors versus the emulation of transistors are night and day. That doesn’t mean plugins are bad, but to say everyone can make a good mix with plugins is total nonsense. I’ve heard some TERRIBLE shit coming out of $2000 worth of plugins lol
Knowing what hardware or plug ins a great mixer uses is like knowing what paintbrush Picasso used. Knowing the type of tool doesn't mean you can use it, that's why mixers will happily give up their "secrets", because the gear and settings don't make the mix
:(
Just seeing this for the first time in 2024. Needless to say the industry has gotten significantly worse. I was a full time studio engineer, producer and mixer for the past 27yrs and I finally had to take my first non music related job ever. The industry has gone away in this part of the world. Our new inflated economics has ppl choosing between art and eating now, and art is not the priority….
God how depressing...
... fuck spotify.
You guys need some sort of music bed underneath this video... really drags the tone down with the empty space. Unless that’s the goal... if so I missed it.
Yeah, that wouldn't be a good idea at all. Unless these videos are meant to be pure entertainment, which I don't think is the case.
@YUPPY Agree to disagree, but that’s okay. Just giving my honest feedback. MWTM is killer either way and I value their content.
They're meant to be a more intimate video.
george clooney's less good looking brother
He sould have studied acting instead 🤣😑
I guess a part of that story is that more and more amateur music-producers flood the market with their "products"...
At the end we people/ music workers become the product. (in the eyes of a CEOs of Spotify, Amazon, instrument/ music gear-seller etc.)
Sorry Chris the engineer don’t make the product the musician and the singer does. 😀
well, that's not entirely true. but anyway the musicians and the singers aren't getting paid either, for exactly the same reasons engineers aren't getting paid.
@@hoojamaflicks Look I’m. Responding to a quote he made at the start of the video. I like CLA and use his plugs. But. I also come from a musician background and later on became an Engineer For past 17 years. And throughout I have witnessed many of these quotes and I’m sorry but when is wrong ? Is wrong. Similar quotes were made by big Labels , Prince fought a long battle correcting this. Altering a creation doesn’t make you the creator. Or paying an artist millions to exploit his creation don’t make you the creator or does it? This is why we artists/Musicians love the development that internet brought. Because this has reduced the amount of Sharks in the business. For your reference I started my career with an Atari ST 520e. Then a 1024 Ste then a falcon. And we then moved into the pc with 386 and the 486 So I followed the evolution of the music industry up to today my first Steinberg product was pro24 the it became Cubase Then Cubasis then cubase VST. Then cubase Xt So I’m use to ssl patchbay reel to reel Smpte scsi. Adat but melodyne pt12 and cubase 11 and the rest. ...
A PERFECT example of how these guys in the business, PRIMARILY, the older guys play GOD. There is sooooo much wrong with the old skool industry and im glad things have changed. Def pros and cons but i have no sympathy for this.
@@devianthousend 😂😂😂😂😂😂