I visited muscle shoals a couple of years ago with a bunch of musicians from London, while on a road trip from Chicago to New Orleans. We had booked one of the afternoon tours but ran late, on account of us taking the scenic route rather than the highway, and had to switch to the last tour of the day instead.
Boy am I glad we did, because we ran into Steve Melton who worked as the chief engineer at sound studios for most of those seminal years. I don't remember if he worked on these songs, but boy did he have stories to tell about the studio! He was there on his own little pilgrimage, making a return to sound studios for the first time in however many years. Meeting him was this wonderfully serendipitous moment, and I'm immensely grateful to him for taking the time to chat with us and share his stories. One of my buddies later recorded an interview with the man, for a documentary about our road trip. If anyone's interested I can see if it's online somewhere.
Anyway, muscle shoal sound studio is a wonderful place, with very friendly and knowledgeable staff. There are so many cool stories from that place and it was like I could feel the history of it all, it was really quite inspiring and moving to me.
If you're in the area I highly recommend a visit. The nearby town of Florence had some great food and wonderful people as well.
There's an interesting documentary about this Alabama studio "Muscle Shoals" available on Netflix & Amazon Prime. Seems an awful lot of good music came out of there. Combination of excellent studio musicians, production and maybe a magical local vibe.
If you like that type of documentary, I recommend another called "Standing in the Shadows of Motown" about the mostly anonymous studio musicians who played on a ridiculous number of Motown and Pop tracks from 1959 - 1972.
"The Funk Brothers produced more hits than The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys and Elvis Presley combined." [0]
There a few interesting documentaries out. The Wrecking Crew about LA studio musicians. There’s one on Brian Wilson. 20 feet feet from stardom about back up singers. Laurel Canyon is interesting - its about the music scene there
I wanted the Laurel Canyon one to be more interviews and less "recreate the music". I'm sure there was far more interview footage that would have been more interesting.
Thank you, I upvoted you, lprubin, and belter, but I'll respond just here to not be repetitive. I come to HN for the tech but I stay for the etcetera :)
If I remember correctly, part of the reason for sending the Stones here was so that they couldn't misbehave quite as much and would actually finish their music.
This is part of the lore they told us when we did the tour at the studio a couple of years back. Not only was there almost nothing to do around there but record music, it was also a dry county. Of course they had their ways of scoring booze (and other things) anyhow, and there's even a "secret" room with a bar in the basement of the studio, but there were no clubs or the likes that they could frequent.
Moreover, very few locals actually knew them at the time. Everyone knows The Rolling Stones these days, but back then without the internet word didn't travel as fast, and very few people in Muscle Shoals or Florence at the time had even heard of the Rolling Stones let alone seen them. Apparently this was true for most artists who recorded at the studio back then. So aside from there being few distractions, the talent could actually roam free in town without being bothered by photographers or locals.
It seems to me that there was this perfect confluence of circumstances that made muscle shoals sound studio such a great place to record at the time. It wasn't far from Memphis or Nashville, while also being private, more or less distraction free, great studio musicians and engineers and perhaps most importantly a great sound.
Another cool story they told us was when the stones where there to record they didn't have all the lyrics to wild horses ready, or they had to redo parts of it, so Keith Richards (if I recall correctly) locked himself in the bathroom and didn't come out till they were done. The rest of them impatiently hanging out right outside waiting for the man to emerge with a hit. They referred to the toilet as the most important song writing room in the house. :o)
When we were there one of my buddies got so inspired by the studio that he actually came back about six months later or so and recorded with a band we'd met in Jackson the night before. Sadly the video is in black and white, but you can at least get a bit more of a sense of space in the studio than from the pictures in the article: https://youtu.be/s_HHgeKLqog
It's a wonderful place to visit, highly recommend it.
Well, if you look at a map, Muscle Shoals is fairly close to equidistant to Memphis, Nashville, and Birmingham. (Although, as I recall, it might as well have been Antarctica because nobody in the Rolling Stones could drive a car ... LOL).
However, it's probably mostly happenstance relating to a laissez-faire (for the time) attitude toward race from the area. WLAY would play both "hillbilly" and "race" music. Sam Philips (founder of SUN Records and ex-DJ from WLAY) and Rick Hall (founder of FAME Studios) were quite happy to record (some people would say exploit) artists regardless of race and that was a really big deal at that point.
"You'd go into a town and you'd find somebody nice enough to fix a dinner for you and let you sleep in a bed," Rush said. "You'd put some mattresses on the floor ... or you'd sleep in your car. That's what we had, man, and we didn't think nothin' about it."
And, do remember, The Blues in the US was almost dead by 1965--rock had pushed everything aside. It was all those silly Brits with electric guitars picking it back up and putting it into rock that effectively resurrected it.
This is a pretty good overview, even shows the "secret" bar in the basement! Thanks for sharing this, takes me right back to my memories of visiting a couple of years ago. I pretty much had the same "ooh, ahhh, wow" kind of reactions as the people in the video. :o)
Wonderful place to visit, I'll go back there on purpose given half a chance.
I don't often pay close attention to the lyrics in songs, but after hearing the Rolling Stones were pulling "Brown Sugar" from their set list [0] because of it's offensive lyrics, I read through the lyrics [1] and I was shocked to find that the song is about raping a young slave girl. I was shocked; the tone of the song is so incongruous with the horror of the crimes described in the lyrics.
So, let's not call "Brown Sugar" one of rock music's greatest songs. Without the lyrics, it's a great bit of music, but it's completely tarnished by the lyrics.
And overall, it is about sex with black women, in a general sense. Two of Mick's black girlfriends each claim it is about them. I'd say the first verse is sort of a twisted sex fantasy. (and not just men indulge in rape fantasy/roleplay stuff)
Obviously, Mick can relate to the slave trader in the first verse, in the sense that he had so many women who would let him do as he pleased with them, with zero regard for their enjoyment. I'm not saying he behaved that way, but he certainly could have, every day if he wanted to.
Not really defending it, it's pretty awful to listen to. It certainly has an iconic guitar riff.
I listen to music in the same way as comedy. It's often not clear whether it's criticizing an idea, reinforcing it, mocking it, glorifying it, or something else, or a combination.
Good lyrics or jokes make you think. They don't tell you what to think.
Surely, a lot of rap music would fall afoul of a moral filter pretty quickly if taken sincerely. Not sure why we'd apply a different standard to rock music written back when rock was more radical.
I don't know, "Brown Sugar" kind of seems incoherent. The tone absolutely doesn't fit with the content of the lyrics (which don't inspire thought, by the way). It's just not a great song.
If, in 50 years, you see me claiming some incoherent rap song with tasteless lyrics is one of the greatest rap songs of all time, you have my permission to call me a hypocrite.
I guess if your list is long enough, any song can be one of the greatest, but it starts to feel strained past 25th (eg "what's the 38th greatest meal you've ever had?"), and I could list 50 greater rock songs (than "Brown Sugar") just from the Beatles, David Bowie, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, the Rolling Stones, Queen, the Kinks, the Who, Jimi Hendrix, Cream, and Clapton off the top of my head.
To be fair it's quite difficult to make out the words when listening to the song. I must have heard it dozens of times and somehow I got the idea that "brown sugar" must have been some American slang I just didn't know for some drug, because I couldn't tell the words apart.
Jagger was 26 years old in Alabama making light of almost every serious issue of the time. Thats really not that absurd or different than what “okurrs” now. A reference to Cardi B’s chart topping songs about personally being a scamming sex worker and general misandry. The people have always had the power to create consequences and simply did not on these topics, and now do so arbitrarily on some predictable topics.
Even with inflation, seems pretty cheap in comparison to other stories you hear about groups being given hundreds of thousands of dollars upfront to record and then having these groups bitch about how they blew through their money and didn't get their record done OR they got their record done and it was shit and sold like shit.
Sticky fingers has sold like ~20 million copies (last I checked) and is regarded as one of the best Rolling Stones albums and one of the best '70s albums altogether.
Not bad ROI on two songs.
Also, even though everyone seems to know 'Brown Sugar', 'Wild Horses', and 'Can't You Hear Me Knocking', IMHO: 'Sway' and 'Moonlight Mile' are some of the best songs but, honestly, I can always put this record on and listen to the whole thing start to finish. Certainly one of my faves while driving for long periods.
To me it actually seem more on the higher end from todays perspective. Assuming that the "13 1/2 Studio Time" is in hours not days.
What I have seen usually being quoted by professional studios in Switzerland is around $150-250 per hour for studio+engineer with discounts if you book days.
But the recording sessions are only a small part of the process from writing to publication of music. And what really racks up the cost if one starts adding big names to any part of the production. If you just stick with professionals that charge for their services, not their brand, you can actually get great productions for not too much money.
>> seems pretty cheap in comparison to other stories you hear about groups
I remember hearing stories about how Nirvana recorded "Bleach" for $600. The story goes Chris Novoselic went to the founder of Sub Pop records and demanded they be under contract. The founder basically took a stock contract that he copied at the local library for .10 and had them sign it - giving them royalties on Bleach and Nevermind.
Turns out when all the grunge bands were going to the big labels, those Nirvana royalties effectively allowed them to stay in business during their lean times.
But you're right. I heard many, many stories of the hair bands getting signed, then going on a drug and spending binge and then never being able to complete their contractual obligations to the label.
>Even with inflation, seems pretty cheap in comparison to other stories you hear about groups being given hundreds of thousands of dollars upfront to record and then having these groups bitch about how they blew through their money and didn't get their record done
Those stories are about the total budget to produce an album, this is just the cost of the studio time and tapes. I'd bet the producer alone made more than $1000 for this song, and there would be many other people getting similar amounts.
My menory is faded on this one, but IIRC there's an interview with 50 Cent where he talks about recording his first song. The producer wanted something like $50k but 50 Cent asked if instead he wanted royalties instead.
The producer was undecided but eventually said royalties, and ended up getting millions
They say the key to innovation (i.e., creativity) is scarcity. Low budget is obviously a form of scarcity.
It certainly would be interesting to see a sample of albums, the studio bill, the marketing bill, and then the sales / revenue. I'm sure there are exceptions but I bet big bets correlate with big busts :)
According to https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/, $1,009.75 in 1969 is equivalent to $7,547.26 in 2021.
My guess for the cost of recording two studio songs these days would be about an order of magnitude higher than that. (If you tell me it costs ~$40k to record a studio song, I would not be even slightly surprised.)
The answer is it depends. A lot of pre-production early recording can be done outside of the studio or at a home studio these days. Certain styles of music have little need for a 'professional' studio anymore. Unless you are an established and or well funded musician that depends on good playing and acoustics for your sound most records can be made on the cheap.
In the Houston area where I live there are few studios that can and do record professional and big names. Most of those have rates around 150-250 bucks per hour. Recording to tape is rarely done anymore but these days 2" tape will run between 100-300 a reel. Depending on tape speed that will capture around 10-15 minutes of multi track music. If the band is tight and arrangements are worked out you can fit 2 songs on that.
Big name producers can range from a percentage of pre-recoup sales, to a flat fee to a mix of both. In the early 2000s I think Dr Dre quoted a friends and family price as a flat fee of 50k per song. I think that would balloon to 150k for those outside his circle.
Also note- this receipt for the Rolling Stones is only for studio time and materials. That may include engineering time and producer fees, but I would hazard a guess that it does not. I would also bet that Jimmy Miller(the producer of Sticky Fingers) had a separate fee so the 1000 bucks was not really the all in cost.
A band I used to play with recorded/mixed five songs with a fairly reputable producer (he produced Avenged Sevenfold and several other national US acts), and the cost came out to be about $2,000/song (2015). We also had all of our songs fully written out, and everyone knew their part, so the procuder really only tweaked things. However, for the amount of time we got with the producer/studio, it seemed like a bargain to me.
Recording/mixing just varies incredibly widely, and it varies by reputation of the producer, how much time, effort they put into your song, time in studio, things like that. That being said, ~$40k seems REALLY high to me (but I suppose if you are an act like the Rolling Stones, that is comparitively low).
I played with a regionally popular band around the same time and we were able to record a 5-song EP for $7500; it sounds like we got a similar level of attention from our producer (who had a few "oh yeah I know them" acts on his resume but none as popular as Avenged Sevenfold).
$40k would be extortionate for what we got, but there are producers out there who are worth it. The Beatles got a good deal no matter what they paid George Martin.
$40k a song would be for a full orchestra from a smaller state college or conservatory recorded in a million dollar venue.
I'm making this up obviously, my point is recording technology has increased vastly in quality and decreased vastly in cost, so for a single song to cost $40k just to record (assuming that mixing and mastering is done elsewhere) there has to be a LOT of moving parts and unique considerations ramping up the cost.
$40k should be enough for your average band to record a full medium to high quality album and have it mixed and roughly mastered. Not necessarily by the best in the business at any level, but you should still have a high quality, release worthy result at that price if you are not being taken advantage of.
I’d say the opposite is true. These days studio quality equipment is affordable so often when you pay for studio time what you’re paying for is more the producers talent. So it really depends on the style of music and how prepared you are going into the studio / how much work the produce needs to do. I see can’t the cost running into tens of thousands unless your basically using the studio time to compose your track.
On the other hand these days you can record a number 1 single at home with a laptop for pretty much no cost. That wasn’t a possibility at all back then.
Yep, but that was only really possible because Scholz was an MIT-trained engineer. Without that (or equivalent knowledge from other sources) it would have been tough.
Nowadays you can buy the technology off the shelf.
The band Boston and their debut album "Boston" is famous for having been recorded in Tom Scholz' basement. (Paul?) McCartney was not involved as far as I know.
Depends on the studio and staff (recording engineers, producer, etc). If either or both are famous -- instead of merely excellent -- you will pay a much higher rate.
But the most important question is time. You can pay less than $1k for a full studio day with great equipment and great staff, but it adds up if you're slow, or your players are learning the song (or even writing it!) in the studio.
And of course, you can do a lot at home with a couple thousand dollars of hardware today.
Asking Google, a studio runs "30-200+" an hour, which doesn't say a lot, but says that todays prices easily undercut what The Rolling Stones chose to pay.
Then and now, studio time varies wildly depending on production approach, arrangement, the number of takes required to get a "keeper", and the opinions of stakeholders who may wish to keep working. So estimates are hard to make.
Many artists basically craft tracks in the studio these days. That really started in earnest with Sgt. Pepper's but it's much more common because of democratizing technological changes.
You can spend unbounded amounts of time in the studio if you have the budget.
I checked several calculators and it seems about right. To be completely honest I would have imagined that the price would have been much higher. Then again the Rolling Stones are at the top of my list so I am likely incredibly biased.
Music studios are often quite small and unimpressive from the outside. Inside they can be quite ratty & smelly. The value of a studio is often the people who work there and the equipment they have on site and that's the attraction for musicians.
Did some recording there a couple of years back. Not a bad room but the studio itself is mostly a museum these days and our engineer had to do a bit of work to get it functioning well enough for our purposes. In the area there are a number of great studios, e.g. Fame, Nutthouse but MSS is closer to a really, really good fried chicken place!
The interesting thing about the Muscle Shoals studio band is: everyone assumed from their sound that they had to be all black. In fact, they were all white, AFAIK.
The Aretha Franklin legend began in Muscle Shoals, it's where she got her first hit. But the recording session ended very badly while recording the second song.
Same area, many of the same people, but at a different studio, FAME. MSS was a spin off due to various "fights". I did some recording, with Spooner and David Hood, at both places, a few years back. I really liked FAME, the room is fantastic but MSS has a great vibe.
Not directly related to the post, but I have seen theories online that suggest that Gram Parsons actually wrote Wild Horses (not just recorded it first). Or at least that he was heavily involved. Maybe there are some big Stones fans in here that could share their impression.
Fun fact: Australians might be interested to know "Brown Sugar" was written in a field near Canberra (outside Braidwood).
Mick Jagger wrote it whilst on the film set for Ned Kelly.
Boy am I glad we did, because we ran into Steve Melton who worked as the chief engineer at sound studios for most of those seminal years. I don't remember if he worked on these songs, but boy did he have stories to tell about the studio! He was there on his own little pilgrimage, making a return to sound studios for the first time in however many years. Meeting him was this wonderfully serendipitous moment, and I'm immensely grateful to him for taking the time to chat with us and share his stories. One of my buddies later recorded an interview with the man, for a documentary about our road trip. If anyone's interested I can see if it's online somewhere.
Anyway, muscle shoal sound studio is a wonderful place, with very friendly and knowledgeable staff. There are so many cool stories from that place and it was like I could feel the history of it all, it was really quite inspiring and moving to me.
If you're in the area I highly recommend a visit. The nearby town of Florence had some great food and wonderful people as well.