It's very freeing to not give a shit, if someone offers criticism and it is helpful in some way then that is good, but not giving a shit is saving me right now after many years of giving too much of a shit, know what I mean???

so....... you guys like to jack off then right?





i kid.... i kid.....

nick92675 wrote:so....... you guys like to jack off then right?

It's a healthy release.

DrAwkward wrote:I can see how recording and pressing music to vinyl can be inherently rewarding in a "man, this is my music and it's something i made and it looks soooo cool" sense. When we put out our first vinyl ever, i didn't care if anybody ever bought it because holy shit! It's a wax disc! And if you put it on a record player, the noise sounds like us! Holy crap! Exciting!

This sort of novelty wears off after the first few records. What I mean is that the process of being in a band is rewarding, and that process is aimed at doing something, either a public outing or making a recording. whether anybody but us in the band appreciates it is of only minor interest. It's nice when people enjoy the show, it's nice to have the record appreciated, but when it doesn't happen, nobody in the band feels any less enthusiastic about the effort or the thing done.

Being in a band is (or ought to be) an almost purely selfish enterprise. I think almost all great art is made with a degree of indifference toward its audience's reaction.

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:By not knowing me personally (or not knowing me as well as my bandmates), such folks are often in a better position to interpret the songs without resorting to any biographical baggage--they can respond to them simply as songs, and I've learned a lot about what I have and haven't done well by carefully considering the opinions of other people.

This exposes the difference between our perspectives. You think the songs and the music have some value as entities, and that's what you're working on, using the band. I think the band is the thing of value, and that's what I'm working on, using the music.

steve wrote: What I mean is that the process of being in a band is rewarding, and that process is aimed at doing something, either a public outing or making a recording. whether anybody but us in the band appreciates it is of only minor interest. It's nice when people enjoy the show, it's nice to have the record appreciated, but when it doesn't happen, nobody in the band feels any less enthusiastic about the effort or the thing done.

Do you think that your notoriety as an engineer allows you to have this indifference about the reception that a Shellac record gets? You have fewer ego chips riding on Shellac than many do with their bands, maybe?

steve wrote:Being in a band is (or ought to be) an almost purely selfish enterprise.

It does seem to be risky to even think about your audience, but then, once a band *has* an audience, whatever their next step is, it's scrutinized through the eyes of their audience. Take Sonic Youth, for example: they go through this ( what seems to me ) to be an inwardly-driven artistic progression from Evol through Daydream Nation. Daydream Nation gets them a wider audience. Then SY follows that with Goo and Dirty, which seemed to be records either designed to expand their audience further or to shake up their remaining fans from their more atonal era. Goo and Dirty may well have been a continuation of their 'selfish enterprise', but it's hard not to hear those records today as a self-conscious reaction to their new popularity.

steve wrote:I think almost all great art is made with a degree of indifference toward its audience's reaction.

I think you can find examples of great art produced by those who accepted their role as 'crowd pleasers', too; Beethoven and Shakespeare, to name two. But as you say, it's a matter of degree. Beethoven and Shakespeare surely knew they made great art without popular confirmation.

I (and most of my closest friends) make music for a variety of reasons, most of which are personal, whether it's cathartic at times, satisfying creatively, or even a rare endeavor that was something that we/I've always wanted to do.

I've collaborated with friends knowing that I would never perform the track(s) live, but I have a document of that collaboration...and when it's released on vinyl with beautiful artwork, hey, that's even better.

Some of my favorite bands have played so long ago, or so few shows that they might as well have played zero, as far as I'm concerned.

I missed out, and now it would never be the same as they were on that one special recording, because it's years if not decades later, and things have changed...the people, the context, the aesthetic of which they were a part has been bastardized and sold back to the general populace as bullshit 10 times over...

I've worked in many record stores, was the indie buyer at a couple...saw so many bands come and go (for me this was between (89-93) that I can truly understand why the guy from the record store(s) had such a cynical take on what I wrote, and it being posted, never mind the "don't you know who..." part of it...

It doesn't matter who I am nor what I've done. I can only strive to be better (or what I perceive as better) than my last endeavor. I don't want them to be the same...I'm not interested in a project's longevity, just that the group made the best music together that they could make given its context and restrictions, whatever they may be.

I played heavy music in a scene that was appropriately described in this thread. Boston has churned out ignorant toughguy hardcore, again and again. In Only Living Witness, one of the main reasons we split up is because I was vocal about my distaste for bloodshed at shows...my disdain for that mentality...for the sheep masquerading as bulls.

I have no tattoos, I am a complete dork who likes research and noise more than crowd participation and testosterone.

I love many forms of aggressive music, but I don't buy in to the culture of entitlement that parallels organized sports institutions and the associated rhetoric.

Re: the question "why do it then?"

after you've been in a few different projects of any kind, you tend to realize that nothing we do matters, so if we are not enjoying it, it's a waste of time. If you sit around waiting (or even work your ass off) for approval, you're squandering time and energy...because you're bound to hear as much negative feedback as (if not more than) the positive.

BadComrade wrote:If I was in a band (and not just occasionally playing bass for people I know), I think I'd want to play a ton of shows, and if there was a TON of interest, only then would I release a record. I've met lots of people in bands who can't wait to put a record out, even when they don't have any fans yet. I always wonder why they're willing to press 500 or 1000 CDs, in hopes that people are going to want to buy them some day. Seems sorta backwards to me.

But what if the band is a volatile one, and the organization, the money and the opportuinities to make the recordings were non-existant?

What if all the band had were a bunch of great songs, and then potentially a great recording?

And how would you expect to leave the audience with anything beyond a fragile memory if there was no recorded, tangible record of your existence.

Also, how would you get your music to promoters and/or other touring bands without a recording?

Most bands can only play so many shows locally...and won't get booked elsewhere (unless they have friends in relatively high places) without music available on the web at the very least.

I'm not sure what kinds of music you like, so please don't be offended by this next part...you may choose to swap in your own examples...

But what would have happened to bands like Rorshach, Corrupted, Noothgrush, Urinals, Mission of Burma, or even Big Black, for that matter, who all made recordings and pressed them, or had friends press them before their popularity, never mind influence, was evident?

"Being in a band is (or ought to be) an almost purely selfish enterprise. I think almost all great art is made with a degree of indifference toward its audience's reaction."


agreed 100%

even stuff like touring, that practically revolves around having an audience. you should just do to hang out with your friends. if a bunch of people want to pay $10 to gather around you and your friends and some instruments, that's their perogative

Less talk, more rock.