(On some browsers you'll need to refresh this page in order to see the comment you just left.)
Greg - 2007-03-03 07:23:14
Holy Crap!!!! I was SERIOUSLY underpaid in my previous career as a porn actor. This SUCKS!
-------------------------------
Greg - 2007-03-03 08:11:58
Monkey Cops? Lancelot Link Secret Chimp? Mixed feelings on that... but okay--recording live in the studio: Is there some reason that more pop/rock bands don't do this? I know that some of my favorite jazz records were recorded live right in Rudy Van Gelder's living room/studio. I was reading that a lot of great Chess records were recorded "essentially" live. So what's the deal? Is it purely about sound quality and getting things "just so?"
-------------------------------
Philip - 2007-03-03 11:31:33
I was trying to think of rock band records that were recorded live (ones people might have actually heard of). The Cowboy Junkies first album was recorded live without overdubs in a church somewhere, right? And I have this vague recollection that John Mellancamp recorded an album at the height of his '80s fame direct to two-track. I can even picture the sleeve, which actually had the time of day & date each song was recorded next to the titles. Although maybe I dreamed this?
-------------------------------
Greg - 2007-03-03 11:57:01
The Trinity Sessions is the perfect "middle of the night play it really loud and disappear into it" recording. Good for late night driving also. I believe you're right about the church--you can hear highway traffic in the recording too which just lends to the ambiance of the room sounds. I believe Clapton's From the Cradle was live with minimal overdubs. Whether or not you like his covers, the album has a lot of energy and a very natural groove and swing. (I like this album a lot.) I'm not sure about J.M.'s album. I'm just curious about why more "pop" artists don't do it.
-------------------------------
grigorss - 2007-03-03 13:24:36
...pornographic film actor (average salary: $63,275)
On the other hand, my understanding is that pornographic film actresses can make considerably more, something in the range of $5000 to $10,000 per film and up. So, feminists everywhere, just regard this as one male-dominated field where the contribution of women is not undervalued...
-------------------------------
Greg - 2007-03-03 13:35:37
I'm glad the Simian Swat story was debunked. Hard to explain but it gave me the same queasy feeling as discussions of draft.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2007-03-03 14:40:04
So, feminists everywhere, just regard this as one male-dominated field where the contribution of women is not undervalued...
It's also my understanding that pornographic film rabbi's can make a killing.
-------------------------------
Paula - 2007-03-03 14:45:38
Live in studio albums: Frank Black prefers this method, although I'm pretty sure his last two (with the famous session guys) were done the ol' fashioned way, with overdubs.
-------------------------------
Greg - 2007-03-03 17:12:47
>>>It's also my understanding that pornographic film rabbi's can make a killing.<<< Wasn't Ron Jeremy a rabbinical student?
-------------------------------
2fs - 2007-03-04 01:21:27
I believe porn actors are paid by the inch.
On the "recorded live in studio" thing: that Joe Jackson album that was originally three LP sides (the fourth side said something like "don't play this": it was blank) - Big World maybe?
Also, that's the name of male porn actors' trade magazine.
-------------------------------
Jenna Jameson - 2007-03-04 22:46:13
As you know it's not just the salary we get paid per movie but also the endoresements, events, public appearances, and so on and so forth that build our careers. Being paid per movie is only for the pee-wees of the field, but a market leader like me has ALL SORTS of income contributing to the revenue of my empire.
Now go stroke yourselves, y'all!
-------------------------------
add your comment:
back to the entry - Diaryland
