This funny and nasty album title pretty much sums it up for me.

Ok, my next point.

What about all those bands whose biography reads "They formed in 94, signed to <whatever> in 95 and released their first album later that year."

Read through a few biographys of your favourite bands on AMG and I bet a lot of them say that. And these are bands that go on lenghty tours too.

I just cant believe it's really as hard as it's made out to be, once you're on a label.

It's the <whatever> field that you have to pay attention to.

If the <whatever> is Atlantic, or Sony or any of the big ones, then it's pretty much the "some of your friends" story.

If the <whatever> is Skin Graft, or K or something like that, then you're going to see a band who makes it's own way basically. A band in that situation realizes that it needs to tour to get the word out and sell a few more records, so it does. Go on tour, I mean. Quite a bit, if they're smart. Either way, they're probably working a day job. Most profits from a record or touring will most likely go into the band fund for the next record or T-shirts or paying for the vinyl version because the label doesn't have enough recouped from the last record.

I just cant believe it's really as hard as it's made out to be, once you're on a label.

it is

i say this from personal experience and from watching many, many other people either scratch out enough money to live off or work temp jobs in between tours. or use their vacation time to rock.

any way you cut it, it's not easy to do it and keep doing it over a long period of time, short of selling 75,000 records every time out. things become easier at that point. but you still have to play out a lot and make a record every year. and keep selling records, and keep getting people to go to your shows.

ugh. it's a lot easier to make music when you don't think about such things, whether by force of will or b/c you have gotten rich one way or another and have the luxury of not concerning yourself with $.

Rotten Tanx wrote:I just cant believe it's really as hard as it's made out to be, once you're on a label.

Having a job isn't all that hard. I guess it depends on the job, but I don't think of it as such a major sacrifice. It'd be nice to live a life of leisure & drunken revelry... but I kind of do that anyway. I just have to get up in the morning.

I don't think it's appropriate to focus on the lack of a day job as being an intrinsic part of rock success. Some bands who you've heard of forever, bands who are quite successful, may sell well under, say, 20,000 records. This is nowhere near enough for a three- or four-piece band to survive on even remotely; but it's alot of records. I'd never say such a band's lack of record-label-generated income indicated a lack of success, or some sort of hardship.

Did you ever hear the Philip Glass cab driver story? (He was still driving a cab in NYC when Einstein on the Beach, his umpteenth recording, was released.) A woman got in the back of his cab, saw the name on his license & said, "you know, you share the name of a very famous composer."

johnnyshape wrote:

run joe, run wrote:Johnnyshape's, I mean.

i am richey manic

Are you aware that you're 'dead'?

Angry_Dragon wrote:

johnnyshape wrote:

run joe, run wrote:Johnnyshape's, I mean.

i am richey manic

Are you awre that you're 'dead'?

That's what some people say....

Here's the worst advice/scenario, and could probably prevent me from taking a gov't job:

Go to school, use student loan $ to put out records and live in your van on the road during breaks and summer.

Did that for several years. It worked great! I was blessed with a job that let me take time off during my undergrad, and then in grad school I just lived off of student loan money and my pittance of a stipend.


Or, don't be a lazy cuss and actually work for a living. That's what millions of us do.

USA USA USA!!!

Ike

re: mogwai. i believe the 'label' they were on was their own; chemikal underground... i'm not 100% sure, but certainly if it wasn't owned by them then it was certainly run by friends of theirs.
i think the fact that they book their own tours too simply serves to prove that the less people you have sticking their grubby fingers in your pie, then a.) the more control you have, and (perhaps, from the looks of this discussion, more importantly), b.) the more money you have at the end (i.e less people to divide it up amongst!)
re: touring europe. well, i've never done it, nor have i toured the usa! but from talking to friends who have, europe certainly seems a lot more relaxed and band-friendly: bands will always get fed, free beer, petrol money etc; sometimes you don't even get that in the uk, and i've heard worse from the usa...

Chemikal Underground isn't Mogwai's label. Perhaps you are mixing them up with the Delgados.

Also, for whatever it is worth, it has been a long time since Mogwai booked a tour of their own. Though they can hold their heads high in the knowledge that their were self-managed inbetween their last manager quitting and their new manager being hired, the band have a booking agent.