windowlicker wrote:My band is attracting some A&R activity at the moment from a couple of major labels...

Wish I had a dollar everytime...

If money is your main reason for being involved in music, there's always the cover band route. Between corporate events, weddings and bar gigs, "The Afrodisiacs" have probably made more money than 75% of "label signed" bands.

wowow wrote:

windowlicker wrote:My band is attracting some A&R activity at the moment from a couple of major labels...

Wish I had a dollar everytime...

If money is your main reason for being involved in music, there's always the cover band route. Between corporate events, weddings and bar gigs, "The Afrodisiacs" have probably made more money than 75% of "label signed" bands.

This is factually correct. You shouldn't expect the music business to support you unless you are supplying what is demanded. Artistic principles are limited to those who don't need a steady income, or have a dayjob. And in this way, I am saying "this is the way it is, kid". Anyone who says different is on a different plane of existance, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

steve wrote:

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.

I think this is the finest elucidation yet--definitive even--of this longstanding philosophical difference.

Salut!

A couple of points that are along the same line as the previous post.

First: Okay, a band is looking to put out a recording. Let's say the songs that would make up the record aren't just good they're so good Lemmy's been calling asking if he could maybe get one of those P-Diddy guest bits on one of them. All that said, just what should the band be willing to compromise or sacrifice to get said record made? Before coming up with an answer, I'd suggest bands read a few Bob Pollard interviews and take in Ian Mackaye's ice cream slinging section of Another State of Mind.

Second: Ashlee Simpson thinks she has real musical talent and songs that have something to say. However, she seems totally unwilling to practice. You do the math.

Third: The Beatles spent quite a bit of time playing live well before they went in to record their records. Quite a bit of the work on the Beatles recordings took advantage of the bands ability to play together as a band as a means to get the largest amount of what they had in mind onto the limited amount of tracks available at the time. I think will always work in a bands favor if they are capable of pulling off ideas even to a lesser degree than the Beatles could.

BadComrade wrote:

kevinhidden wrote:What the hell are you idiots ranting about? I posted his essay because it's relevant information if you are involved in music in any way.

Us "idiots" are already well aware of situations like this, since the guy that owns this message board sorta already tipped the entire "indie rock" community off to these kinds of situations years ago, so excuse us for "ranting" about your posting of a near-endless rant about something we're already all caught up on.

Right.

Exactly why I posted it here. It reinforces his (Steve's) previously posited ideas. It is relevant to all of us, and a well-put essay from someone who has actually been through the ringer and happily made it out again.

For the few of you who have tried to hijack the thread and turn it into a mudslinging hipster-knowledge-olympics, a hipper-than-thou handjob fest, congrats. You've succeeded in detouring a thread attempting to reinforce the sad truth of the record industry and hopefully reeducate even one person reading who wasn't as impossibly cool and informed as you.

If you could possibly listen to a Milligram or Raw Radar War song and accuse either band of trying to cater to current trends and cash in then I would love to hear your arguments for that.

I am still awaiting some sort of defence of the claim that any of this is related to the FSU or Boston Beatdown DVDs. That was an extremely ignorant and baseless allegation.

BadComrade wrote:

kevinhidden wrote:For the few of you who have tried to hijack the thread and turn it into a mudslinging hipster-knowledge-olympics, a hipper-than-thou handjob fest, congrats. You've succeeded in detouring a thread attempting to reinforce the sad truth of the record industry and hopefully reeducate even one person reading who wasn't as impossibly cool and informed as you.

You have terribly hurt my feelings. Please apologize.

BadComrade wrote:

kevinhidden wrote:For the few of you who have tried to hijack the thread and turn it into a mudslinging hipster-knowledge-olympics, a hipper-than-thou handjob fest, congrats. You've succeeded in detouring a thread attempting to reinforce the sad truth of the record industry and hopefully reeducate even one person reading who wasn't as impossibly cool and informed as you.

I'll give you one dollar if you're man enough to apologize to me.

BadComrade wrote:

You are a terribly not-nice person. I am putting your apology dollar into my "whiskey-money cabinet".

My thoughts,

I have been in a half dozen projects or so. The first was a highschool band, the drummer was mature beyond his years and had no desire to "make it." He was more concerned about writing and recording. BRILLIANT, but at the time the rest of us were thinkin about the fame and $ that rock and roll could bring, no matter how punk rock we tried to pretend to be. Through the last 15 years I have worked with a fair amount of musicians, and the motives have always been off the mark. Usually 1 asshole to ruin the fun. While there might be a couple bandmembers that want to write and express ourselves, someone else would be more worried about the quality of guitar they were playing, even if they could barely play it. One project I was in for awhile progressed to the point were we had a half decent set of music. Unfortunatly that was were it stopped, while I believed we were on a roll creativly and our songwriting was starting to gel, the majority of the band was insistant on spending our efforts on marketing ourselves. We played a show at a police ball.......we were an art rock band!! That pretty much did it for me, fuck that. After which I took a lengthy break from playing, I just couldn't find some like minded musicians to relate with.

Then I started using the internet, after a couple answers to some classifieds, I have finally found some guys that feel the same as I. We write freely, and practice aggressivly. At least to me, the satisfaction is playing the music and expressing the "inspirations" accuratelythrough the instruments, continueing to challenge myself to become a better musician. When we practice I am foaming at the mouth into it, could care less if it is ever played in front of people.
If word gets out that our music is good and some other people may want to here it, that would be swell. This is not a concern of mine.

Chris Hall,

I don't disagree with your assertions, but I do think that plenty of great bands have reached their point of brilliance in the practice space, regardless of live experience.

Playing shows is certainly helpful if you are interested in the longevity of the project, and if you want to appeal to an audience.

I'm talking about a different kind of success, I think, than you are.

I'm talking about a creatively successful project...a group of players who may or may not already have live experience, but who write well togetheer, and have complimentary sounds that result in a unique whole.

Your scenario for playing live ofteen assumes that the band
A) has opportunities to play live
B) has players that all can physically play live and/or want to play live
C) cares what an audience thinks about the music that they create.

If you honestly think that nobody is creating mussic that is as potentially influential (if not contextually unique) as Mission of Burma was when they existed, then I think you have a limited scope . I'm a huge fan of MoB, but I think their ability to make unique music was to their detriment, and obviously playing live didn't help them, their album did.

And to most people now, a demo that you would sell at a show is not very diferent than a proper album. It's just files to be ripped from the CD, unless it is on vinyl.

A recording is certainly cheap now, but not many bands can travel to Chicago, though they might have an opportunity to record locally. In Boston, most bands have plenty of chances to get great, cheap recordings...but in more remote areas, both shows and studios are less plentiful, never mind engineers that understand the music that is being made.

Whether you think it's a good or a bad thing...

A band can now make a recording and influence others around the world without ever playing live. File sharing and the increasingly rapid recombination of sounds and styles are making proper(ly pressed, released and promoted) albums, never mind strict genres, things of the past.