| October 9th, 2005 03:38 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
I was wondering what their budget is to record an album? I wonder how much they get for doing it and what the stipulations Virgin places and allows cash wise? This time I am sure they saved alot by doing the record at Micks. They could of used digital Audio Tape before dumping it down but this isn't so much called for nowadays. Also I think they may of recorded right to disc??? But I am not sure. My Guess is Don Was gets about 200-300,000 just for recording it then maybe 2-3 points (basically 2-3 %) from royalties for the year of sales. Still hardly any studio time was used this time. No extra studio musicians (your average professional session player gets around $100.00 an hour if in the union or a flat rate of 1,000 a day). A Stones session player such as say Blondie Chaplin or Waddy would get much, much, more. This time they didn't really use any except for Chuck and Daryl. I was wondering how much their recording budget is around. Does anyone have any idea?
Ian |
| October 9th, 2005 12:22 PM |
|
|
| DAVINO |
I would assume that any expense, within some sort of reason, would be covered. They are The Stones, they get what they want! |
| October 9th, 2005 01:16 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
I would doubt they have a "budget". It costs as much as it takes
Virgin gave them an advance in 1992 which is deducted from royalties of future record sales. Thats been paid back long ago. I would doubt that their record label would have any input into financing the making of an album other than the marketing of it |
| October 10th, 2005 07:18 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
[quote]Gazza wrote:
I would doubt they have a "budget". It costs as much as it takes
Virgin gave them an advance in 1992 which is deducted from royalties of future record sales. Thats been paid back long ago. I would doubt that their record label would have any input into financing the making of an album other than the marketing of it
____________________________________________________________________________
Gazza,
I'm sure Virgin pays for the recording costs as well. Studio time at a major facility is very expensive. That is not counting session musicians, Engineers, Mix engineer, Mastering Engineer, Techs, Travel, food, extra rented equipment ....etc. etc. I am sure Don Was isn't paying for any of it nor are The Stones.
When I say a "budget". I mean you know....a very very high cap not really any kind of money shaver plan. Such as say 1.5 or 2 million to record and all fees. I wonder what The Stones cap is. In certain circumstnces if the producer gets it done within the budget he gets to keep what wasn't spent on the recording as well as you know, his flat rate and maybe some royalty kick back.
Ian
[Edited by IanBillen] |
| October 10th, 2005 10:33 AM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
If Mick could save $1.49 by getting Virgin to pay..then I'm sure he did....(or at least get Cohl to do it for him) |
| October 10th, 2005 01:51 PM |
|
|
| stonesmik |
As far as I know the Rolling Stones are recording for their own label Rolling Stones Records, so they cover the full expenses (maybe one of the reasons why Mick always liked to hold the recordings in his own house, from Stargroves to his house in France).
I think they are just licensing the finished product to their distribution label which happens to be Virgin at the time. Virgin have to take what they get, they can't even change the cover art or the track order or something. |
| October 12th, 2005 05:41 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
[quote]stonesmik wrote:
As far as I know the Rolling Stones are recording for their own label Rolling Stones Records, so they cover the full expenses (maybe one of the reasons why Mick always liked to hold the recordings in his own house, from Stargroves to his house in France).
I think they are just licensing the finished product to their distribution label which happens to be Virgin at the time. Virgin have to take what they get, they can't even change the cover art or the track order or something.
____________________________________________________________________________
Now I see where you and Gazza are coming from. Still they did sign to record under primarily Virgin's name. I would think they would be footing the bill. This is how it almost always goes. This situation could be different as you guys say it may be since it is Virgin in conjunction with Rolling ?Stones Records. Can you tell me more?
Ian |
