THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: Thrillho on 25 Mar 2009, 04:30
-
Bear with me here, because I'm kind of... saying two opposite things at the same time.
It seems to me that these days bands aren't allowed enough time to mature before they really get a shot at the big time. These days, bands will routinely take three or four years between albums without it even counting as a hiatus. If you look at the 1960s, bands were releasing two or even three albums a year in that time. A band could have an eight-album career in the time it took, say, Linkin Park to write and release their third album.
Whilst I am in mourning for the era when bands released a record every six months plus extraneous singles, that's not what this thread is about. Is it me, or are bands not allowed as much time (and by time, I mean in music released, not in literal months and years) to mature and stand on their own two feet?
Bands these days, if their first album flops, they tend to get dropped. End of. Not that I miss them at all, but bands like The Bravery and The Others had flop debut albums and subsequently were gone. On the other hand, if you look at a band like Pink Floyd, their first album was successful, but then they pretty much were hit and miss commercially until Dark Side Of The Moon; that's a whole six albums between their debut and the album when they finally started making money outside of England.
Also, a lot of groups or artists with abbreviated catalogues, either by death or being dropped, seem to be evolving into something totally different if you listen to their demos from after that. Take Jeff Buckley's demos from the later nineties before he died, which are at times quite unlike Grace.
Should bands be allowed more time to mature? I don't mean The Bravery and The Others specifically because they're both fucking terrible, but I think some other less successful groups deserve at least one more album to stand on their own two feet before they get dropped.
-
Oddly enough, there's a collaboration between Rivers Cuomo and Sloan on Rivers' first solo compilation.
-
If you get dropped and you quit releasing music then perhaps you should have never been releasing music in the first place. The only person who can stop you from writing and releasing music is you.
-
In truth, this post might have made more sense in a time when everyone didn't have a computer mic and a myspace account.
-
I'm sorry?
I'm not exactly sure I understand what you're getting at with your last post.
-
If you get dropped and you quit releasing music then perhaps you should have never been releasing music in the first place. The only person who can stop you from writing and releasing music is you.
this was exactly what i thought when i read the first post. there's a whole range of indie labels that would jump at the chance to sign bands who've just come off a major label deal. for example, SideOneDummy are jokingly known as "the place where old punk bands go to die," but several bands have left major labels and carried on successfully as SideOneDummy artists, two examples being The Mighty Mighty Bosstones and The Suicide Machines.
-
this also ties in well with a short-lived thread i started a while back about whether or not bands should release one or more EPs before recording a debut full-length. i reckon if more bands started with an EP (and i mean a full on 5 or 6 track one, not a short one that could be dismissed as a glorified single) or two, not only would their debut album be riding on more publicity and reputation, but if the EPs flop a bit, it's less of a big deal and less likely to cause them to be dropped by their label.
-
I saw the death of the majors written in a 1999 Billboard article that talked about this very thing.
The thrust of the article was that the majors were sick of supporting an artist through 3 or 4 albums while they built a following, only to have them bolt for another label when big money was offered. Carefully not mentioning of course was that they ALL did this to each other so the bidding wars were their own fault, and of course, that means they succeeded in creating a multimillion-dollar band -- they just wanted to keep paying the journeyman rates for that act.
Their solution? More manufactured pop like Spice Girls. Instant hits with big money, and when people got sick of them (or they started asking for too much money), just create a new act to take their place.
Move ahead 10 years now, and these same record companies are whining that catalog sales are a large part of the lost market in the past few years. Well DUH! Who the fuck is going to buy Britney Spears' first album 5 years after it comes out? But if you have that band with 4 or 5 solid albums from their paying dues era in the wings when they hit it big, all those are going to move again as well.
The doom surrounding the utter sincerity in what they were saying seemed so obvious to me. Fortunately, as others are saying, there are alternatives for musicians and fans.
-
I'm sorry?
I'm not exactly sure I understand what you're getting at with your last post.
Of course bands that get dropped will often continue to make music, but until a decade or so ago, without a major label (and I'm aware of indie labels, but let's face it, the majority of them didn't have much circulation) nobody would fucking hear it.
These days you can record a crappy demo on your computer and put it on the internet, and presto-change-o you have a shit-ton of fans.
-
who cares how many people listen to it
-
I think what Gaz is saying is that even if you continue to make amazing music, if awesome things don't reach people's ears and start influencing them, you're not really gonna have much to show for your efforts, whatever you're aiming for. Every musician writes in order to satisfy themselves in some way. It might be just personal enjoyment of the writing process or the performing. It might, of course, be money. It might be a game to see how much music you can write that is not only satisfying for you, but also for a massive group of people.
Whatever way you slice the above options, massive amounts of exposure is the best strategy, and I think that's what Gaz is getting at.
-
if your music is truly awesome, it will eventually get heard.
-
I think what Gaz is saying is that even if you continue to make amazing music, if awesome things don't reach people's ears and start influencing them, you're not really gonna have much to show for your efforts, whatever you're aiming for.
Unless your goal is, you know. Making awesome music.
Dude Jens let's be serious here. If you are making music with the intent of it being heard (as performing bands typically do!), there has to be some reason you want people to hear it. You also have to have a reason to think it's awesome. Is it awesome because you like it? Or because your fans like it and are having a good time, and/or giving you money because of it?
-
Jesus Christ guys, I can accept that maybe this thread is a tad redundant in the internet age, but pull your heads out of your asses. Bully for you if your main goal with making music is that... you listen to your own music. But some of us want other people to hear it too.
if your music is truly awesome, it will eventually get heard.
Yeah, that's kinda... bullshit, really. On several levels.
-
how so?
-
Is it strange that I actually like a waiting period for a new album? It takes me at least a week to fully listen and understand most albums for what they are, so instinctively I appreciate the period between that gets everyone hyped. Of course there's always a possibility of an album completely flopping after a long time in the making but, that's not the point, the point is that if let's say Billy Bobby Doopy Poopy makes a fantastic album in January, which is perfectly put together and flows like, well, like a river I suppose, I don't think I'd be as excited for an album three months after, as I'd end up looking through new stuff anyway.
-
how so?
Write the best goddamn song the world has ever known. Then seal it in a Swiss bank vault with like 30 different 64-character combinations, none of which you have written down. Then, having also ensured that there is a clause in your little Swiss bank's agreement that you are not allowed to withdraw from the vault for at least 10 years after any deposit activity, you're good to go.
There is no way in holy fuck that anybody is ever going to hear that song no matter how awesome it is.
-
for example, SideOneDummy are jokingly known as "the place where old punk bands go to die,"
Well that explains why they signed the Casualties.
-
really make music who cares if anyone hears it.
really make music who cares if anyone hears it.
really make music who cares if anyone hears it.
really make music who cares if anyone hears it.
really make music who cares if anyone hears it.
-
If you want a non-humor circlejerk, the pointless thread is in I Like Fish/Infinite Pony Debates/whatever the fuck it's called this week.
-
there is a difference between A) making music for an imagined audience that does or does not exist and B) craving the approval of an audience. you can do one without the other.
most people make music for audiences similar to themselves but a few aren't happy with that and turn into rivers cuomo circa now. guess which one is better to be. yeah it's the first one.
-
There's also a difference between a) making music for an imagined audience and b) not caring whatsoever if no-one else in the whole world hears it.
-
I agree with War Machine here, really. If you post that song on the internet and/or you have friends to play the song to, the song's popularity will grow. If it's an amazing song, its popularity will snowball. There are way too many people on the internet to believe that a truly great song will not be heard by anybody. And, since music is a very social art-form, it's hard to believe that the few people who hear this incredible song will not tell anybody about it.
The music-posting medium on the internet I'm thinking of is MySpace, which has more people in it than the phone book. Obviously, there are smaller websites with much less exposure than MySpace, but logic dictates that if someone wants to post their song on the internet, they want some form of exposure, so they'll choose a site with a lot of exposure. MySpace, Last.fm, iMeem, etc.
-
If you don't care whether or not anyone listens to your music you are probably making pretty terrible music anyway so who cares about those people.
-
There's also a difference between a) making music for an imagined audience and b) not caring whatsoever if no-one else in the whole world hears it.
And also a difference between a) making music professionally and full time and b) making music on the side while everyone works part time jobs because they cant get any form of financing for the band and who the fuck wants to be a starving musician or starving anything for that matter.
-
What I am saying is, its not ignoble to want to receive compensation for your music. If someone loves teaching, and becomes a teacher, they get paid for it, if someone loves wood working and becomes a carpenter, they get paid for it. See what I am getting at.
Not to mention the non monetary gains, like appreciation, which does matter to people. I just dont think its realistic to expect that someone who loves making music and was the type to have a record deal at one time shouldnt be expected to want these other things.
-
When did anyone say anything about entitlement?
I wasn't trying to say all musicians should EXPECT success, I'm just saying that a lot of them will want it, and that acting like there is some kind of greater artistic integrity in making your music regardless of whether only 1 person ever hears it is ridiculous.
-
Basically, that level of elitism is for dicks no matter which end of the market you are on.
-
I'm just saying that a lot of them will want it
They should accept that definitions of success vary, and that achieving it can be very difficult if their definitions of success is financial solvency through their music.
-
I agree with the sentiment that it is possible to create great music, be in a band, and still work a regular job while you are doing it. One of my favorite post-metal bands, Rosetta, is full of guys who work full-time jobs while making their music. Hell, the lead vocalist is an elementary school teacher. They even work around making time to tour. That said, it is always a goal to try to receive compensation for what you do. I don't think failing to reach that financial goal should keep you from making music, though. There are other ways to support your art if the ideal doesn't work out. Just my 2cc. :-D
-
We're just going round in circles here, and nobody is listening to anybody else.
-
How about this: Making good music is cool. If you can live off it, that is cool too. But if you can't, that is still cool, cause its not about the money its about the music.
Eh?
-
^ and the money can be made in other ways.
-
Quoting Dynamite Kid and I
I think we agree that expecting anything is unrealistic but wanting recognition isnt.
-
Maybe I am just not reading this thread closely enough (I am not) but are people really saying that it is wrong or impure to want people to hear your music and perhaps even to pay to do so? Have we really reached that level of self-parody?
-
I think a few people made the mistake of making them mutually exclusive. In reality you want a part of both recognition (including financial) and the simple joy of making music.
-
I think a few people made the mistake of making them mutually exclusive. In reality you want a part of both recognition (including financial) and the simple joy of making music.
QFT
I mean really, this isn't that hard to grasp.
-
^ and the money can be made in other ways.
I think there are plenty of bands that hold 9to5 jobs or do other things to make money.