And? I don't seem to remember Sonic Youth, which was one of the premiere alt bands of the late-80's early-90's doing anything to help smaller bands, such as a nascent Radiohead.

/"I bought another Sonic Youth album. It sucked. It's just noise."

She obvioulsy hasn't listened to In Rainbows then. It was a genius album.

/I do love me some Sonic Youth

big_pth: And? I don't seem to remember Sonic Youth, which was one of the premiere alt bands of the late-80's early-90's doing anything to help smaller bands, such as a nascent Radiohead.

You mean aside from their early on grass-roots network of touring and supporting local bands? They've done plenty.

And Kim brings up a good point (while also admitting that she wished she thought of the idea!)- Bands gotta eat. And while the "In rainbows" release was a middle finger to the music industry, it doesn't help people who need to make some money while making art.


/Juno was a crap-written movie with terrible dialog that was rescued by having fantastic actors. And that line is terrible.

mekkab: it doesn't help people who need to make some money while making art.

Thing is, Radiohead made millions on In Rainbows by allowing people to pay what they wanted. And albums are not exactly a way to make money given how record company accounting works.

I don't think Radiohead really thought it through that far. From what I gathered, they finished it, then thought what now? Why don't we just put it out, and work out the label shiat later? It's ready, so why not?

It wasn't meant to be deep. It was a case of the record's done, so why don't we let people hear it?

I love it when shiatty bands complain about each other. It's way more entertaining than what they're actually selling.

FTFA: It was a good marketing ploy and I wish I'd thought of it! But we're not in that position either. We might not have been able to put out a record for another couple of years if we'd done it ourselves. And it takes away from the actual making music.

What? This doesn't make any sense to me. How does it take away from the "actual making music?" Why would it take them "another couple of years" to put out a record if they had done it themselves? Plenty of musicians do it themselves and are extremely lucky to make any kind of living off of album sales alone.

She seems less in touch with her "musician brothers and sisters" than Radiohead.

I'm a big fan of Radiohead and Sonic Youth, but one of them asked me to name my price for the very good In Rainbows, and the other asked me to pay 12-15 bucks for the craptastic NYC Ghosts and Flowers. So, I'm gonna side with Radiohead on this one.

danduran: I don't think Radiohead really thought it through that far. From what I gathered, they finished it, then thought what now? Why don't we just put it out, and work out the label shiat later? It's ready, so why not?

It wasn't meant to be deep. It was a case of the record's done, so why don't we let people hear it?

From what I gathered, they were complaining about their record label for a while and were fed up with how the industry is being run and what it's become. I dunno if it was some great master plan they were sitting on for years, but I really don't think they had any interest in "working out the label shiat" with anyone. I agree, though, I don't think it was supposed to be some grand statement. Good timing more than anything else, probably.

Links: I love it when shiatty bands complain about each other. It's way more entertaining than what they're actually selling.

Radiohead AND Sonic Youth shiatty? Don't you have a Nickelback thread to go troll in?

What the fark? Sonic Youth isn't quite who the act was against, y'know, or any band. If it was anything it was promusic/anticorporation and very little else. Maybe if Sonic Youth ever released anything half as good as anything Radiohead ever did they'd be able to make millions off giving shiat away for free too.

mekkab: And that line is terrible.

That was the best line in the movie.

Tantrum: What? This doesn't make any sense to me. How does it take away from the "actual making music?" Why would it take them "another couple of years" to put out a record if they had done it themselves? Plenty of musicians do it themselves and are extremely lucky to make any kind of living off of album sales alone.

The issue here is economy of scale. Over 1.2 million people paid "whatever" for In Rainbows online, so even if they all paid just a couple of bucks, you're looking at $2.5 million in revenue before the physical album even drops (and it went on to sell another 3,000,000 copies worldwide). Radiohead made it work because they're one of the biggest bands in the world.

Now let's say you're a scrappy indie rock band who's a fraction the size of Radiohead, and your 10,000 devoted fans pay "whatever" for your new album, again averaging a couple of bucks. A quarter of that covers the cost of setting up the website to take the couple of bucks and deliver the songs in the first place, and that leaves you with $15,000 to pay for having made the album. 80 hours in the studio is going to set you back $10,000 of that (AT LEAST). That leaves $1,000 each for the band members -- congrats on the new album, guys, but now you're going to need a day job.

And having a day job means it's probably going to be at least a couple of years before you can get a new album written and recorded.

See where I'm going with this?

I don't see anyone saying "I'm going to give up music because I can't make enough money at it", but it's an absolutely true that a lot of great bands are going years between albums because they can't afford to make music for a living. I'm in one of those bands (well, maybe not a great one, but certainly one going a long time between albums) because we've decided to stick to our DIY indie guns instead of signing somewhere. I'm not bitter about it, but when people say "do that Radiohead thing", well... it isn't that simple.

It's not a 'cheap' marketing ploy by any means because it worked.
Second, the release of 'In Rainbows' has done more for smaller-indie bands than 99.9% of the other records released in the past few years. It shows that small bands don't have to get signed in order to succeed. You can still be creative and have fans.

WhyteRaven74: Thing is, Radiohead made millions on In Rainbows by allowing people to pay what they wanted.

Thing is, that isn't correct. It was mostly just a marketing stunt.

Then, they put out a cd (with more tracks) and a pricey box set (with more tracks), itunes and vinyl, which all sold well. THAT'S where they made their money on the album.

People that believed that pay what you want thing was the future of music retail, are morans. Radiohead hasn't released anything else in that manner, and that says it all. Not even an EP, or a live show.

Which they certainly would have if they had made millions on the pay what you want thing. Lots of bands with the clout would have.

npt: Maybe if Sonic Youth ever released anything half as good as anything Radiohead ever did



/hot like melted wax

Tantrum: FTFA: It was a good marketing ploy and I wish I'd thought of it! But we're not in that position either. We might not have been able to put out a record for another couple of years if we'd done it ourselves. And it takes away from the actual making music.

What? This doesn't make any sense to me. How does it take away from the "actual making music?" Why would it take them "another couple of years" to put out a record if they had done it themselves? Plenty of musicians do it themselves and are extremely lucky to make any kind of living off of album sales alone.

She seems less in touch with her "musician brothers and sisters" than Radiohead.

Radiohead wasn't created in marketing meeting the way most boy bands and bleached blond pop stars are. They paid their dues. They started off as nobodies as well. The truth is that they, along with Wilco and NIN and many others, are paving the way music industry where the crooked large labels are no longer needed. It is cheaper to produce a professional-sounding record than ever before. It is cheaper and easier to sell said record across the globe. These bands are showing everyone how you can utilize it.

Wasted Pixels: Tantrum: What? This doesn't make any sense to me. How does it take away from the "actual making music?" Why would it take them "another couple of years" to put out a record if they had done it themselves? Plenty of musicians do it themselves and are extremely lucky to make any kind of living off of album sales alone.

The issue here is economy of scale. Over 1.2 million people paid "whatever" for In Rainbows online, so even if they all paid just a couple of bucks, you're looking at $2.5 million in revenue before the physical album even drops (and it went on to sell another 3,000,000 copies worldwide). Radiohead made it work because they're one of the biggest bands in the world.

Now let's say you're a scrappy indie rock band who's a fraction the size of Radiohead, and your 10,000 devoted fans pay "whatever" for your new album, again averaging a couple of bucks. A quarter of that covers the cost of setting up the website to take the couple of bucks and deliver the songs in the first place, and that leaves you with $15,000 to pay for having made the album. 80 hours in the studio is going to set you back $10,000 of that (AT LEAST). That leaves $1,000 each for the band members -- congrats on the new album, guys, but now you're going to need a day job.

And having a day job means it's probably going to be at least a couple of years before you can get a new album written and recorded.

See where I'm going with this?

I don't see anyone saying "I'm going to give up music because I can't make enough money at it", but it's an absolutely true that a lot of great bands are going years between albums because they can't afford to make music for a living. I'm in one of those bands (well, maybe not a great one, but certainly one going a long time between albums) because we've decided to stick to our DIY indie guns instead of signing somewhere. I'm not bitter about it, but when people say "do that Radiohead thing", well... it isn't that simple.

Or the could go the way of Stevie Wonder the Beetles, who made their producers millions and millions and made shiat from it. A band's bread and butter is always going to be live shows, as well it should be.

big_pth: And? I don't seem to remember Sonic Youth, which was one of the premiere alt bands of the late-80's early-90's doing anything to help smaller bands, such as a nascent Radiohead.

You mean like Thurston Moore's Ecstatic Peace! Records label? You mean like curating No Fun Festival? You mean like the innumerable collaborations they have each done with artists known and unknown?

Sonic Youth's new album "The Eternal" comes out Tuesday and it's awesome.

/ SY's my favorite band and Radiohead is in the top 10.

My buddy just made his first E.P. He recorded it on a pro-tools rig at my friends house. They pressed up 300 10" albums with 1000 digital downloads. Total cost for everything was like $1500-2000. You do not need a record label to do anything for you.

If you like country you can check him out here...Bill Cardinal (shameless plug)

Wasted Pixels: Tantrum: What? This doesn't make any sense to me. How does it take away from the "actual making music?" Why would it take them "another couple of years" to put out a record if they had done it themselves? Plenty of musicians do it themselves and are extremely lucky to make any kind of living off of album sales alone.

The issue here is economy of scale. Over 1.2 million people paid "whatever" for In Rainbows online, so even if they all paid just a couple of bucks, you're looking at $2.5 million in revenue before the physical album even drops (and it went on to sell another 3,000,000 copies worldwide). Radiohead made it work because they're one of the biggest bands in the world.

Now let's say you're a scrappy indie rock band who's a fraction the size of Radiohead, and your 10,000 devoted fans pay "whatever" for your new album, again averaging a couple of bucks. A quarter of that covers the cost of setting up the website to take the couple of bucks and deliver the songs in the first place, and that leaves you with $15,000 to pay for having made the album. 80 hours in the studio is going to set you back $10,000 of that (AT LEAST). That leaves $1,000 each for the band members -- congrats on the new album, guys, but now you're going to need a day job.

And having a day job means it's probably going to be at least a couple of years before you can get a new album written and recorded.

See where I'm going with this?

I don't see anyone saying "I'm going to give up music because I can't make enough money at it", but it's an absolutely true that a lot of great bands are going years between albums because they can't afford to make music for a living. I'm in one of those bands (well, maybe not a great one, but certainly one going a long time between albums) because we've decided to stick to our DIY indie guns instead of signing somewhere. I'm not bitter about it, but when people say "do that Radiohead thing", well... it isn't that simple.

Yeah. I know why Kim Gordon feels she needs to speak for the little guy, but I guess I just don't feel like she is accurately speaking for the "scrappy indie rock bands" you describe. For one thing, I doubt you (or any other musicians with your DIY indie ethic) felt personally affronted when Radiohead released "In Rainbows." That's just silly. Secondly, nobody really tells smaller bands to "do that Radiohead thing." It's really hard to give your album away and have people take you seriously without some kind of solid fanbase. Small bands discover that pretty quickly. And thirdly, Sonic Youth is one of those bands that actually could do that Radiohead thing and profit! Their cult-like following would throw up and average of two or three bucks for an online album (which is already saving them the cost of duplication/distribution), and they could make tens of thousands of dollars right there without having to step on a stage. Sure, it's not millions, but WTF? ~$30,000 (wildly speculative guess) for ~80 hours in a studio sounds like a good paycheck to me (sure, I'm not factoring the time in that it takes to write the songs, but I'm also not factoring in the money to be made touring in support of the album).

I guess my point is that what Radiohead did for "In Rainbows" and what smaller bands have to do to get their albums out are not mutually exclusive. The only people who have a problem with a big band clueing into the shifting paradigm of the music industry are other well-known musicians who seem a bit confused about how it affects the people they righteously try to defend. Smaller bands know how much work and luck goes into making a living off of playing music. Yeah, maybe some have a chip on their shoulder about still having to be a bartender when their second album fails to get any attention, but let's face it, it's not the bigger bands who are keeping them down. When someone like Kim Gordon, who is making a living off of music (in spite of Radiohead's giveaway), is saying that Radiohead insulted bands who can't give away their album, it seems kinda offensive to me as a musician. I know that she probably was trying to hold onto some indie cred after releasing an album at Starbucks, but, to me, she just came off a bit misguided and bitter.

I don't know what tantrum and pixels are arguing about, cause thats a lot of reading!

Anyways, this is just a publicity stunt by SY because they are releasing a new album. I mean whats it been like a year since that radiohead album came out, and NOW they have a problem with it?

B*tch please!

Life for most bands isn't very profitable, hasn't ever been. I think the indie methods are being held to a higher standard than what record labels have to offer. Of course set-your-own-price isn't going to work for a nobody when you walk in with fifteen grand in fixed costs for studio recording alone!

If your songs are getting traded on P2P networks for free, but your own electronic distribution is eating a quarter of your revenue, something is really really wrong. Tailor your methods to your situation.

big_pth: And? I don't seem to remember Sonic Youth, which was one of the premiere alt bands of the late-80's early-90's doing anything to help smaller bands, such as a nascent Radiohead."

Hey, wait, I've got a new complaint.

That said, nothing about this "interview" makes any sense given the band's and band members' past and current history, which includes supporting a number of folks who had never and will never and could never make anything close to a living making music. Let's face it, no one's going to be lining up at midnight waiting to buy the new Borbetomagus or Leslie Keffer albums. I'm not sure where this attitude is coming from exactly.

Then again, I'm not sure where the last two decades of Sonic Youth albums came from either, so...

big_pth: I don't seem to remember Sonic Youth, which was one of the premiere alt bands of the late-80's early-90's doing anything to help smaller bands, such as a nascent Radiohead.

you have them to credit for getting Beck and Nirvana signed to Geffen.

That said, I highly doubt Sonic Youth makes any money off of their album sales. Considering their sales topped out at 6 figures in the early 90s and haven't really approached that mark since and they continually put out new music, there's probably another source of income....

npt: Maybe if Sonic Youth ever released anything half as good as anything Radiohead ever did

Daydream Nation is better than anything Radiohead ever did. Sister and EVOL too. I like Radiohead, but they get more credit than they really deserve.

I kind of side with Sonic Youth over this but that's because people don't really understand the amount of work and money that goes into making a record. Entertainment is a commodity and if you can afford to make something and put it out there and go "hey, we'll let you decide what it's worth" then fine but I don't really trust most people to actually pay what an album is worth.

You know what else is marketing? Album covers. The cover image of the album is a powerful tool used to promote sales all the time. In many cases bands are best remembered by their album covers: everyone knows the covers of London Calling, Nevermind the Bollocks, Ten, ect. Hell, my mom even recognises the cover of Velvet Underground and Nico (but has no idea of the band or their music).

I seem to recall in the 90s some band released an album with nothing but a candle on the cover. It was s simple and powerful image that became an icon used to promote the band for years and even to this day people still recognize it, even if they don't remember the band's songs. This image was so powerful it was unfair to other bands because they lacked the resources and creativity to produce an equally powerful image, and thus unfairly lost sales. If this band hadn't been a bunch of dicks they would have released the album with a bland generic cover and allowed the music to stand on it's own without any cheap gimmicks.

Tyrosine: ...because they lacked the resources and creativity to produce an equally powerful image, and thus unfairly lost sales. If this band hadn't been a bunch of dicks they would have released the album with a bland generic cover and allowed the music to stand on it's own without any cheap gimmicks.

i don't think that's unfair at all, it's all part of it. if a band is not creative enough to make an appealing package of their album, they are in the wrong business.

The real question: Why doesn't Thurston Moore seem to age?

sadbad: The real question: Why doesn't Thurston Moore seem to age?

are you the one who added that to his Wikipedia's trivia section?

No. Is that really in the trivia section?

Tantrum: stuff

See, I don't think we fundamentally disagree on anything here, I think we're arguing the same point from much different perspectives. In my case, my band is feeling some pressure from friends and colleagues to follow the Radiohead/NIN approach of giving the album away (or selling it at extremely low prices) and counting on new fans and increased merchandise sales following, and while I'm sure that's a good way to build publicity and good will, good will doesn't put gas in the tour van or replace guitar strings -- you need a war chest for that stuff.

I think what it boils down to is that I agree with Kim Gordon on this because I am feeling pressure to give my work away, but if you're not feeling the same pinch, you're justified in saying "she doesn't speak for me". Beyond that, yeah, I think we're in complete agreement.

Oh dear lord, it is Link (new window)

mekkab: big_pth: And? I don't seem to remember Sonic Youth, which was one of the premiere alt bands of the late-80's early-90's doing anything to help smaller bands, such as a nascent Radiohead.

You mean aside from their early on grass-roots network of touring and supporting local bands? They've done plenty.

And Kim brings up a good point (while also admitting that she wished she thought of the idea!)- Bands gotta eat. And while the "In rainbows" release was a middle finger to the music industry, it doesn't help people who need to make some money while making art.


/Juno was a crap-written movie with terrible dialog that was rescued by having fantastic actors. And that line is terrible.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that, although many people did choose to get the CD for free, the average amount people chose to give for the album was $8, which made them a few million bucks, which did not go to middle men.

I think they're eating just fine.

Sonic Youth, STFU

Wasted Pixels: Tantrum: stuff

See, I don't think we fundamentally disagree on anything here, I think we're arguing the same point from much different perspectives. In my case, my band is feeling some pressure from friends and colleagues to follow the Radiohead/NIN approach of giving the album away (or selling it at extremely low prices) and counting on new fans and increased merchandise sales following, and while I'm sure that's a good way to build publicity and good will, good will doesn't put gas in the tour van or replace guitar strings -- you need a war chest for that stuff.

I think what it boils down to is that I agree with Kim Gordon on this because I am feeling pressure to give my work away, but if you're not feeling the same pinch, you're justified in saying "she doesn't speak for me". Beyond that, yeah, I think we're in complete agreement.

Oh, totally. I didn't mean my rant to be an attack against you or anything. I was just running off with the discussion.

I understand if you are actually faced with some of the fallout from Radiohead's move against major labels. I still hesitate to blame them, or NIN, or any band, really, but that's neither here nor there. Every band has different goals and paths to reach them, and while I'd like to say I'm feeling the same pinch as you in my band(s), I'm not. For me, it's more like I've been crushed under the shoe of the industry for the last 6 or 7 years. I long to be feeling a pinch. I think I'm putting a lot of my own cynicism into my response to Kim Gordon's thoughts on the matter. I know it's not a black and white thing.

By the way, if you've got a good place to give away albums for free, I've got about 500 CDs from one of my old projects in my broom closet to unload. Clearly, I am quite the popular musician.

Is it a coincidence that Sonic Youth decides to trash one of the most prominent bands in the world, two days before the release of their newest album? Talk about a "marketing ploy".

Besides, the first notable musician to distribute music for free was Trent Reznor - and before him, many of the "smaller bands" had also used this method of distribution, to varying degrees of success. Kim Gordan is completely clueless. I sure hope she doesn't represent Sonic Youth as a whole when she made such silly attacks.

stutter: Tyrosine: ...because they lacked the resources and creativity to produce an equally powerful image, and thus unfairly lost sales. If this band hadn't been a bunch of dicks they would have released the album with a bland generic cover and allowed the music to stand on it's own without any cheap gimmicks.

i don't think that's unfair at all, it's all part of it. if a band is not creative enough to make an appealing package of their album, they are in the wrong business.

That's my point. The "pay what you want download" is just a variation on the theme, not unfair marketing.

Herunar: Is it a coincidence that Sonic Youth decides to trash one of the most prominent bands in the world, two days before the release of their newest album? Talk about a "marketing ploy".

You're erroneously suggesting that Sonic Youth needs either 1) publicity, or 2) an excuse to say crazy shiat. Saying crazy shiat and being overhyped by the indie press has been par for course for them since the early 90s.

chascarrillo: big_pth: And? I don't seem to remember Sonic Youth, which was one of the premiere alt bands of the late-80's early-90's doing anything to help smaller bands, such as a nascent Radiohead."

Hey, wait, I've got a new complaint.

Yeah, THIS.

Sonic Youth and Radiohead are both great, can't we all just get along.

Wasted Pixels: Herunar: Is it a coincidence that Sonic Youth decides to trash one of the most prominent bands in the world, two days before the release of their newest album? Talk about a "marketing ploy".

You're erroneously suggesting that Sonic Youth needs either 1) publicity, or 2) an excuse to say crazy shiat. Saying crazy shiat and being overhyped by the indie press has been par for course for them since the early 90s.

Sonic Youth isn't the force they used to be. Their whole style and genre is played out. Now they just sound like bitter old people. Should change their name to Sonic Get Off My Lawn

Wasted Pixels: 80 hours in the studio is going to set you back $10,000 of that (AT LEAST).
[...]
I'm in one of those bands (well, maybe not a great one, but certainly one going a long time between albums) because we've decided to stick to our DIY indie guns instead of signing somewhere.

If your band is spending 80 hours in the studio for each album, I think I found somewhere you can cut costs.

Seriously, the only bands I know spending tons of hours in the studio are ones who have someone else footing the bill. Paying for 80 hours of studio time is just ridiculous for a small band. A smart act with no money rehearses like crazy before recording (or better yet, plays a ton of live shows, where they can make money), so they can run in, record, and get out as quickly as possible. Or they record at home, or they do something else to creatively solve their problem. Because they can't throw money at it.

I personally know lots of small bands who have recorded and released CDs, paid for out of their own pocket. None of them spent 80 hours in the studio (unless the studio was their own home), and they certainly didn't spend $10K on studio time.

If you're complaining that your band doesn't make money, while throwing $10K at studio time, you've got your priorities mixed up.

Herunar: Besides, the first notable musician to distribute music for free was Trent Reznor

I've always thought this point was a little odd. Yeah, he leaked some of the Year Zero tracks months before release and streamed the entire album beforehand as well, but it doesn't really compare at all to what In Rainbows did. One could argue both were different forms of hype for their respective albums, but I would say the methodology for both is completely different to the point where Trent started working off the Radiohead model for subsequent releases.

ArturoBandini: If you're complaining that your band doesn't make money, while throwing $10K at studio time, you've got your priorities mixed up.

I own my recording space and gear, so I'm getting a kick out of...

But yeah, if your friends are crapping out albums for a couple thousand dollars, I'd be willing to bet that they don't sound very good.

Wasted Pixels: ArturoBandini: If you're complaining that your band doesn't make money, while throwing $10K at studio time, you've got your priorities mixed up.

I own my recording space and gear, so I'm getting a kick out of...

But yeah, if your friends are crapping out albums for a couple thousand dollars, I'd be willing to bet that they don't sound very good.

While that can be true (depending on the resourcefulness of the band), $10000 should buy you a lot more than 80 hours in a decent studio, or you are getting ripped off. That's about what they charge major labels, not indie bands. $10K should get at least two solid weeks of 10-hour days at a higher end place. Not many bands I know can do that without label support. But who cares, your original point is still valid.

Wasted Pixels: ArturoBandini: If you're complaining that your band doesn't make money, while throwing $10K at studio time, you've got your priorities mixed up.

I own my recording space and gear, so I'm getting a kick out of...

But yeah, if your friends are crapping out albums for a couple thousand dollars, I'd be willing to bet that they don't sound very good.


This is a very good studio back in my old town: http://chaseparktransduction.com/index.html (new window)

Rates start at $30/hr (although I don't know offhand how much the better folks there cost). So ten 8-hr days will run you around $2400, a little more w/ mastering. I think a well-rehearsed rock band could easily record a good sounding album for that much.

(BTW, the more I think about it, I realize that 80 hrs isn't that much for a full album, at about a song a day, although a straightforward rock album could be done quicker, if there's minimal need to rearrange drum mics, etc, between songs, and the band is good enough to knock out the songs)

I don't know what you consider "good sounding," or what kind of music you make, but I think the albums I've heard that only cost a couple thousand to make sound good to my ears. Then again, I'm a music fan, not an audiophile. "Bee Thousand" is a great album, regardless of how it was recorded. Of course, "Loveless," one of my favorite albums, is infamous for how much it cost to record.

But my point remains the same -- if a band is paying $10K to record, and can't figure out why they're not making money, then maybe they need to find way to record for less. It can be done.

Pwndoggle: Links: I love it when shiatty bands complain about each other. It's way more entertaining than what they're actually selling.

Radiohead AND Sonic Youth shiatty? Don't you have a Nickelback thread to go troll in?

Why? Nickelback is just the other side of the same crappy, pretentious, noisy coin.

ArturoBandini: This is a very good studio back in my old town: http://chaseparktransduction.com/index.html (new window)

Rates start at $30/hr (although I don't know offhand how much the better folks there cost). So ten 8-hr days will run you around $2400, a little more w/ mastering. I think a well-rehearsed rock band could easily record a good sounding album for that much.

For the record, that's insanely cheap. I'm in the midwest, and you're looking at about $70/hr for decent space in Chicago (and engineering costs are on top of that). You can get $30/hr graveyard sessions at a couple of studios in St. Louis, but that doesn't include engineering either (and the rooms are pretty sparse on the gear front, so you're renting/buying mics and cabs, too). I'll absolutely concede your point, as I'd just never seen studio time at such an affordable rate before -- or I'd have moved to Athens.

As far as recording time, you can theoretically bash out an album in fifteen hours if you rehearse like crazy and don't mind cleaning things up with autotune after the fact. Realistically though, I'm going to want to dub four or five layers of guitar, I'm going to want to give the singer plenty of time to hit her notes just right... and god help us all if we realize on playback, "I'm not sure about the bass part here", you can end up having to rework a whole song on the go. Even on fairly straight-ahead rock stuff, I think you'd still be looking at about 50 or 60 hours of studio time minimum.

Also, Fark is a lot less exciting when you end up agreeing with people and having reasoned, interesting discourse, heh.