›

Why don't labels own their own studios?

BrianBrian 7,618 Posts
edited February 2006 in Strut Central
I was reading this article on Guns N' Roses "most expensive album that never happened" and it seemed a lot of the money wasted on the project was studio time. It seems to me that record labels don't own their own recording studios and I just can't see the reason why. Anyone wanna break it down for me?

  Comments

  • El_MezcalitoEl_Mezcalito 312 Posts
    Dude Guns n Roses should've had their own studio, then recording would've been free. only free recording is if its at home and you engineer yourself. Everywhere else you gotta pay engineers, they got rent and equipment etc ..

    I heard the Stones recorded their last album in dude's garage, but I have a feeling his garage is more like a dome football field .
  • chasechase 767 Posts
    I know alot of the labels do own there own studios..
  • SwayzeSwayze 14,705 Posts
    I have a studio. Would you like to be on my label?
  • Tuff_GongTuff_Gong 627 Posts
    A lot of labels used to own their own studios. Probably the most famous example is Capitol Records who had one of the most well-known studios. Sinatra recorded there and lots of other big names recorded there. It was highly regarded because of the acoustics it provided. That was back when an artist was associated with specific labels though and artists were almost truly property of the label. That was also when artists had orchestras backing them up or skilled house bands. The rock and roll era kind of changed all that and bands were self-contained and could record anywhere. A lot of artists opened their own studios. These days I honestly think it's a matter of economics as much as anything, as well as technology. It doesn't make economic sense to own a big studio anymore because rent is outrageous in bigger markets. Can you imagine what rent on just open space (which is what a studio is) in New York or Los Angeles costs?

    Another reason labels owned studios is that back in the day recording machinery such as tape machines, mixing consoles, effects processors, big plate reverbs, expensive microphones, etc, were far too expensive for most individuals to own. People had to come to the studios and use their equipment because very few could afford all that equipment or had the know-how to run machines like that. Thanks to home recording being so affordable and so much easier to use people aren't going to pay the sky-high per-hour prices the studios used to charge. That's especially true today in the hiphop era where you hear about a guy like Jay Dee doing music from his hospital bed; you don't even need a true studio anymore.

    Musicians are independent contractors and the studios really don't have to provide anything for the musicians. Record labels are trying to cut costs as much as possible these days so having a big recording studio doesn't really fit into their budgets.

    This is all my theory, anyhow.
  • UnherdUnherd 1,880 Posts
    A lot of studios used to own their own studios... Another reason studios owned studios..

    You got some kinda mental block, maybe about labels?
  • luckluck 4,077 Posts
    You mean anymore? Some of the biggest labels in recorded history have always owned their own studios; just look at Detroit, Chicago, Memphis, Muscle Shoals, etc.

    I think BEP should own their own studio. They could even have a separate room for the shoe polish, white gloves, and top-hats. Yas Yas Yas!
Sign In or Register to comment.