Music • Sound • Video • Art

Ok. Really. What's the secret?

How do artists support themselves??

I’d really appreciate it if an interviewer would ask the straight up question:

“So, [fill in the name], it’s been three years since your last CD release. What have you been doing to put food on the table and keep the lights on?”

Specifically, there are some artists that I listen to quite heavily who put out CDs and MP3s on a regular to semi-regular basis but to my knowledge don’t really tour, have not licensed their tracks for commercials or movies, don’t seem to offer schwag on their sites for purchase, etc. So how do these folks support themselves? Surely it’s not from CD sales, or is it? I’m referring to artists like:

• Boards of Canada
• Helios
• Kiln
• Loscil
• Marconi Union
• Jumpel
• Near the Parenthesis
• Biosphere
• Johann Johannsson
• Julien Neto
• Brian McBride
• SND
• Olafur Arnalds

Do they have day jobs? Teach music? Survive on arts grants? All of the above? I NEVER see anyone discuss this in interviews.

I posted this same question in a couple of online forums that I frequent. I’m hoping to gather good responses and eventually post and share them here. Anyway, if somebody has some insight, please comment.

Thanks in advance.

I’ve recently bought and started to use Cubase.

Some folks are going to think I am nuts…and they might be right.

After all, (1) Cubase traces its lineage back to 1989 so is pretty “old school” as far as sequencers go…it is one of the apps that helped to establish many of the approaches that define the “traditional” sequencer. (2) I complain constantly about lack of time and information overload and how each reinforce and worsen the other. (3) I also have and use LOGIC9 so why would I want something else?

Well…

1. CUBASE5 is definitely old school in many ways. When I first opened up the fully functional 30-day trial version, I thought “uh-oh”. I had not opened and closed so many windows since DP5 or LOGIC7. There is a plethora of windows and not a unified interface in sight. But I quickly got used to it, and I was able to set up my screen layouts EXACTLY as I liked. Nothing I couldn’t do in LOGIC of course, but my point is that it wasn’t such a burden.
2. After futzing with the demo a bit, I decided to take a chance and nab a CUBASE5 tutorial from MacProVideo on sale. This was definitely the right move as a) the tutorial was a good basic overview, b) I was able to go through it in a couple of days, and c) I learned about the program the “right way” from the get go (i.e., good project management practices, keyboard shortcuts, etc.). This helped to make me efficient and capable with the program from the start. I should emphasize that CUBASE is fairly accessible without going this route particulalrly if you have any history with sequencers. The manual is also very clearly written and available online from within the program.
3. Well, it’s about comfort level and productivity. I feel more comfortable with Cubase than with LOGIC (and this after much use of LOGIC over the last year and many, many, many tutorials). And if you are more comfortable with something, you tend to do better with it. CUBASE also has this wonderful VST Expression feature with which I produced my best key-switched celli performances to date in just a few hours. (Note that I said “my best” and not necessarily “good”.)

Does this mean CUBASE5 is perfect? No. There are times I still miss a unified interface, and the program is not nearly as efficient as LOGIC when it comes to VSTs and using multiple cores efficiently (one of my original complaints about DP). And it does not have FlexAudio. But it is very capable, easy to get to grips with, and there is always hope that CUBASE6 will get to better grips with multi-processor management.

More on specific features, experiences, and results soon.

So I decided to try my hand at writing some sort of dramatic orchestral piece (and I blame this guy Hetoreyn and his VSL Podcast for this you know*)…

______________________________________

I’ve been holding back from trying to write something like this because, well frankly, my formal knowledge of theory and composition is not really up to the task in my opinion. With traditionally orchestrated stuff, there is a much larger, tighter, and more widely recognized rule set and when you break the rules or don’t know them, it stands out like a sore thumb. I’ve been trying to get up to speed on music theory with the thought that I would move on to more structured studies of composition and arranging. It’s a slow process compounded by my lack of time. But Slow Steady Progress is the order of the day….

Except for those damn podcasts! They make me impatient!

I have many of the tools (or so I thought), some of the knowledge (just enough to be judgmental), and I keep hearing these wonderful compositions. Surely I can come up with … something? Well I m trying my hand at it..and boy is it humbling. Some things I’ve learned in the last 24 hours:

• I really do need to know my Theory better. Yep. I spent 2.5 hours trying to find the “right” chord progression for the horns and if I knew my theory I’m pretty sure it would have taken me about 10 minutes to end up where I finally did. I’m not even sure where I ended up is “right”. We’ll see if it survives.
• It’s the articulations, stupid. I have three Orchestral Libraries: EWQL Symphonic Orchestra Platinum, VSL Special Edition, and Miroslav Philharmonik (acquired over the years during various sales and promotions). Between them, I have a pretty good set of different articulations. Unfortunately, I don’t seem to have the particular type of articulation I need for the Horn section that I hear in my head. OR I do, but I need to construct it out of several separate articulations (via a great method offered by Todd Jones in episode 4 of the VSL Podcast), and I don’t understand how to do this. Right now the horns sound tired and extremely flabby despite all types of velocity and expression programming. (They are supposed to be epic and a call to battle!) I think maybe they are just the wrong articulations.
• Choose your orchestral library wisely. While trying to solve the above problem I thought I’d use bits and pieces of all three libraries to create the arrangement. I discovered that it is very difficult to layer up the EWQLSO and VSL Libraries convincingly without a lot of work on reverb and ambiance. The VSL instruments are recorded really, really dry. This is nice because you can add exactly the type of reverb you want. EWQLSO is recorded with a lot of presence and a big hollywood sound. Even “dry”, it has a good deal of reverb in the recording. Getting the two to play nice requires a good deal of work. I’m sure it’s possible, but I didn’t get there. I had more success combining the EWQLSO with the Miroslav Philharmonic Library. (I use the MPL to provide some bite to the horn section.) So basically the lesson is this: When you pick a library, choose one that you can grow with. The VSL product line has (1) amazing breadth, (2) extraordinary depth, and (3) a breathtaking price should you want to get the whole thing. EWQLSO has (1) a big sound, (2) a fair number of articulations, and (3) a reasonable price (particularly if you can get it on sale). The VSL still wins on the breadth and depth, but it is just too expensive for me.
• What does a reasonable expression automation curve look like for horns? Cello? Violin? I always read that careful programming of note velocity and expression (cc11) goes a long way to helping your parts sound more authentic. But what does a reasonable expression curve for an instrument look like? Is this a reasonable bit of cc11 programming for a “horn” section?