keeping Steve Albini's studio afloat

For Inc magazine, Joshua Hunt wrote a very detailed piece about the present-day struggles of Albini's studio Electrical Audio and the finances of running a business like this.

"Meanwhile, in the midst of broader considerations of his legacy, the dozen or so employees of Electrical Audio were forced to struggle with the more immediate question: Was it possible for the business Albini built to outlive him—even for a day?

Throughout the years, the famously candid engineer had said in interviews that his unforgiving work schedule was partly a function of the need to generate $30,000 per month in revenue to keep the lights on at Electrical Audio, “come hell or high water.” This meant the studio was sometimes booked to capacity for up to six months in advance, leaving the staff with hours, not days, to start making decisions about the future of an institution that sits at the center of a fragile ecosystem of small businesses that keep the music industry from falling apart."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2024 07:02PM by steevee.

Part of that relentless drive may have been due to his principles when it came to how he charged his clients. I remember reading that Albini charged a flat fee for recordings, and didn't demand points on sales of records he produced. (I know he shunned the title of "producer," but let's just go with it.) He was quoted in the article as saying that, in his opinion, anyone who collects royalties on a record that they didn't help write, or sing on, or play an instrument on, is a thief.

Granted, that article was published around the time of In Utero. He might have changed his policies somewhat in the ensuing years, as the demand for his time at Electrical Audio increased and he brought a staff on board. Given the way that the staff has to scramble now, though, I suspect Albini held onto that principle to the end.

Nothing against the hugely talented and influential Mr. Albini, whose music I have dug mightily over the years, but the idea that "anyone who collects royalties on a record that they didn't help write, or sing on, or play an instrument on, is a thief" is a buncha hooey. That's like saying a director has no stake in a movie since he isn't one of the writers, actors, etc. You need someone's firm hand to steer any art project to completion. I don't know if Phil Spector, George Martin, or Brian Eno got a cut of the royalties, but it wouldn't bother me at all if they did, as they were (more or less) as much responsible for the success of their recordings as anyone.

I've never understood why Albini was so down on producers. He was one, whether he liked to admit it or not. SOMEONE is making creative decisions behind the board. Albini had as distinctive a production sound as anyone.

FWIW, George Martin originally did NOT get royalties, and I was under the impression that was due to different standards in the British recording industry. But by 1965, when it was clear the Beatles were going to be an ongoing cashcow and that Martin was pretty much THE guy they wanted to work with, he was able to negotiate a royalty and lived a pretty comfortable life after that.

Spector definitely got royalties, and so did Eno - IIRC, U2 was the big payday, specifically The Joshua Tree, and he pretty much did whatever he wanted from that point on. Not bad considering he originally turned down U2 flat, only to have Bono (rock history's greatest talker) persuade him to change his mind and then persuade Chris Blackwell that Eno wasn't going to ruin the band.

Doesn't the producer's cut of royalties come out of the artist's, rather than labels taking a slightly smaller profit to keep paying them? That seems like a good enough reason to question the practice.