Can we at least acknowledge that the barriers to entry have been lowered?

Technology has made it easier to book tours, record music, distribute music, get your music heard.

Anytime the barriers to entry get lowered, you get an influx of people who wouldn't have bothered if it were more difficult.

Consequently, I see a lot of bands that are really just a few hastily recorded songs and a stupid myspace page.

I also see a lot of people in bands who have multiple who-cares side projects. They are bored, and it's not as much of a pain in the ass as it once was to be in three bands. Because two of those three are the who-cares side project variety.

I don't begrudge anyone's right to make music. At the same time, the glut of half-assed crapola isn't helping anything.

lars wrote:I don't begrudge anyone's right to make music. At the same time, the glut of half-assed crapola isn't helping anything.

agreed.

that damned fly wrote:

ipitcher wrote:

that damned fly wrote:another thing to consider is that every bands start at the bottom.

The bottom of what?

clubs, labels, attention.

man, that notion sure is false. if you've ever been in a band that had any fans, you should have no problem booking shows at those same clubs with your new bands. I used to be able to get weekend shows for new bands, with no demo, at a really decent club here in town just because of the relationship I had established with the owner. that changed when he sold it. and hell, I've never been in a band that drew big crowds. i'll attribute that in part to the fact that after the highschool cover band era, almost every band I've been in has sought to find our own sound (i.e. not trying the cop Greenday or The Jesus Lizard or whoever else's sound) and that automatically makes it harder to hook up with the people who like that sort of music unless "your sound" happens to be generic, common, accessible stuff, or you're unfuckingbelievable and lotsa people's jaws drop when they behold the spectacle that is you.

the "too many bands" thing is probably about the same as ever, maybe there are more today per capita, who knows. the key things about being in a band haven't changed though.

write the music that best expresses whatever you as a person have to express, and you as a group of people (i.e. "a band") have to express. it can be art, it can be cheesy goofy music intended purely as entertainment, whatever the hell you want, so long as it's *you*

learn how to maintain interpersonal relationships well enough to function as a band

build ongoing and evolving relationships with other folks in music. other like-minded or aesthetically similar bands; people who do the booking at clubs you're interested in; people who have house parties or loft parties or etc; people who like going to shows...

you're not doing that stuff because you're a whore or a douche or something, you're doing it because that's what gets you shows and gets your band to the point where you can play shows, and (this is important) if there are too many douchebag bands stealing all your opportunities, it's probably because they're working harder at it, or their music is just intrinsically more appealing to people than yours is.

it all might come down to one idea though... it doesn't mean shit what anybody else is doing. all that means anything is what opportunities *you* can find, to do what *you* want, and what you make of them.

tommydski wrote:A lot of people started making music to stand out from the crowd. When they were growing up in a small town (or at least what seemed to be a small town) it would get people a certain amount of attention if you played in a band. That was certainly the reason I started playing music but is distinctly not the reason I play music today.

Now with mass media and the internet, people are fully aware that bands exist absolutely everywhere and your band is not special. I guess this will inevitably change the sort of people making music but I think it might be for the better in many ways. I don't get this whole 'music is sacred' vibe that seems to exist around certain factions within music. Music is inclusive, I thought that was the point of Punk Rock and loosely, Rock 'n' Roll. Everyone that wants to play music should play music.

okay,how about this then:

people don't just play music. They have the narrative already written out: they have to play gigs, release something and then attempt to tour and have a career. Or something like that, some kind of rock narrative. They kind of have to do all that on top of playing - and this can be a hugely good thing for people but it's not just playing music.

recently, I spent a great day listening to a field recording box set my friend who is going through a Blues kick bought. It was a great listen, but I was intriuged by the nature of the approach to music as documented in the liner notes as there was a theme that appeared in discussion with the people featured on the recordings, that their music was traditional and occupied a space that to do with family or cultural traditions, not a career or a particular path or objective or something like that. The narrative was entirely different. They were just singing songs their families knew in many cases. it was amazingly beautiful stuff, and it's total removal from ideas of career, commerce or anything like that made it feel quite different. It really got me thinking about what music's for, culturally, and what it was for a century ago. I can only guess what it was like before recording.

oh and yeah music should be inclusive for certain but so then should criticism of it. That should include heckling idiots playing derivative crap.

lars,

good post.