5 Things Record Labels Don't Want You to Know They Do

Sorry for the link, but the article is too long to post:

http://www.cracked.com/article_20256_5-things-record-labels-dont-want-you-to-know-they-do.html

Yes, Cracked.com is a humor site, but I think the article is well-worth reading. Some of it won't come as a surprise to guys like us (we're all so savvy, right?), but it does help explain certain things.

Like why the "Loudness Wars" exist. While I finally grasped the premise of how it worked, I could never understand what the point was of making the music so loud as to distort it. One of the 5 points in this article explains it. Sort of.

The 5 Points are:

5. Demanding Payment Virtually Any Time Music Is Played in Public
4. Reducing Sound Quality So You Perceive a Song as "Louder"
3. Straight Up Paying to Get Their Song on the Radio
2. Manipulating the Charts to Make a Song Look Like a Hit
1. Inflating Prices, Then Screwing the Artists

Enjoy!

What? Limp Biz didn't make it on talent alone?

That is probably the best explanation of the loudness wars and compression and all that other jazz that I've seen.

I don't know that my ears would actually tell the difference, but at least I now understand what bothers some of you guys so much.

This is cool and I love Cracked.....I'm afraid to read the comments though.... with little context except 'record companies', there are always the usual idiots who say SEE THATZ WHY FREE MUZIK LOL

Dark Horseman wrote:

What? Limp Biz didn't make it on talent alone?

Few bands do.

Ultimatum did it. We made it BIG all on our own without the help of big record labels, executives, radio and MTV! We did it our way! Oh wait, sorry, that was a dream I had the other night. Well, heck at least we won third best garage band on the block! Not everyone can say that!

What were we talking about?

ultmetal wrote:

Ultimatum did it. We made it BIG all on our own without the help of big record labels, executives, radio and MTV! We did it our way! Oh wait, sorry, that was a dream I had the other night. Well, heck at least we won third best garage band on the block! Not everyone can say that!

What were we talking about?

Damn my band got 4th!

The Courtney Love article linked in the Cracked story is actually very good: http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/

It was written in 2000 and Love was correct with most of her predictions.

ZombieHavoc wrote:

That is probably the best explanation of the loudness wars and compression and all that other jazz that I've seen.

I don't know that my ears would actually tell the difference, but at least I now understand what bothers some of you guys so much.

I wonder if the artists have any say about the final mastering. I would think that some of them are against this brickwalling paractice, no?

MetalGuy71 wrote:

ZombieHavoc wrote:

That is probably the best explanation of the loudness wars and compression and all that other jazz that I've seen.

I don't know that my ears would actually tell the difference, but at least I now understand what bothers some of you guys so much.

I wonder if the artists have any say about the final mastering. I would think that some of them are against this brickwalling paractice, no?

I would assume that many artists would be against altering their originally intended sound. Then again, many artists do worse things to their own recordings (Mustaine, Ozzy). So who knows?

But I have often wondered as well how much artists have say in the matter. I guess it varies. Not all young artists have the George Lucas-like forsight to make sure they retain control of their creations.

ZombieHavoc wrote:

MetalGuy71 wrote:

ZombieHavoc wrote:

That is probably the best explanation of the loudness wars and compression and all that other jazz that I've seen.

I don't know that my ears would actually tell the difference, but at least I now understand what bothers some of you guys so much.

I wonder if the artists have any say about the final mastering. I would think that some of them are against this brickwalling paractice, no?

I would assume that many artists would be against altering their originally intended sound. Then again, many artists do worse things to their own recordings (Mustaine, Ozzy). So who knows?

But I have often wondered as well how much artists have say in the matter. I guess it varies. Not all young artists have the George Lucas-like forsight to make sure they retain control of their creations.

That's the thing. If you read one of the linked articles, it would appear as though Lars and Metallica are fine with the practice, which makes no sense to me. Well, honestly, most of what Lars does doesn't make sense to me, but you get what I'm saying. Young guys or pop/rap acts might not care or have any say, but you'd think the bigger rock acts would want the music to sound "right", not just loud.

With the upcoming Sabbath album with Rick Rubin at the helm, one would hope that Tony or Geezer would step-up and say, "Bloody 'ell, Rick. That sounds like shite!! Where's the dynamics? Everythings louder than Sharon when she got her tit caught in a wringer!!"

Very true that those majors will do that. I recall Andrew Schwab from Project 86 bitter about the same thing.

And this is where I also make a quip and promise everybody that the Skyliner record is NOT going to be mastered like a Hinder record, and it does NOT have computer-made tones, et cetera.

My take on the "volume war" is this.... The majority of sales in today's market are gonna be played on somebody's "device" and not their "system". The compressed sound "works" better for those devices than the other means of playing music.

As of now, if they discontinued "every" format of listening to new music other than "digital download", I'd quit buying new music altogether and not blink an eye.


Back when digital toys first popped up for us poor musicians to utilize in playing and/or recording, I was somehow able to figure out how detrimental it was gonna be in regards to quality of actual sound. It made certain aspects "easier" but the end result "suffered". Sure there are a few who can do amazing things with the technology, I am of the opinion that "digital" may work well with "sound" but fails in regards to music. Anaolg is real and digital is just a copy.

ZombieHavoc wrote:

But I have often wondered as well how much artists have say in the matter. I guess it varies. Not all young artists have the George Lucas-like forsight to make sure they retain control of their creations.

Are we actually using Lucas as an example of how not to completely screw up your classic work!

Boris2008 wrote:

ZombieHavoc wrote:

But I have often wondered as well how much artists have say in the matter. I guess it varies. Not all young artists have the George Lucas-like forsight to make sure they retain control of their creations.

Are we actually using Lucas as an example of how not to completely screw up your classic work!

NONONONONONONO! Ha, do not misunderstand. He has defiled his beloved creations and his fans more than any creator ever, probably.

But, even as a young, hungry director, he had the sense to make sure he maintained the control to do so. Most directors have no ownership at all over their earliest studio features. So when some studio decides to remake or sequelize it, even if the director is adamantly against it (like Wes Craven was for the NOES remake), there's nothing they can do about it.

Lucas will never be in that boat with Star Wars. He is free to piss all over it himself, but he controls the pissing.

Interesting article

Cracked is one of my favorite sites. They have a knack for getting the facts pretty much right while making you laugh out loud. The captions under the accompanying pictures are often funnier than the article! Great read!