instant_zen wrote:

the Classical wrote:there are already three Jesus Lizard myspace pages

a part of me just died, the Classical. just as a part of me died when i found out there are "Shellac" pages on myspace.

would it be safe to say that someone who "promotes" these bands in this way does not "fucking get it?"

(doing my best not to seethe here.)

I hear ya, but these pages are most likely harmless fan pages, my only real quibble w/ them is they should make pains to identify themselves as such.

However, are they using the band idenities to spam their "friends"? No clue.

I think most fan pages identify themselves as such, the jesus lizard one does and its not bad either, loads of nice photos.

instant_zen wrote:

the Classical wrote:there are already three Jesus Lizard myspace pages

a part of me just died, the Classical. just as a part of me died when i found out there are "Shellac" pages on myspace.

would it be safe to say that someone who "promotes" these bands in this way does not "fucking get it?"

(doing my best not to seethe here.)

i dunno. i remember an internet time when the fansites were more accurate or complete than the record labels. in the late 90s looking for info on anything on touch & go or homestead or something, your outlets were pretty much the grunnen rocks site, that petdance/shellac/bigblack thing... and then once billions got online it was like a fountain of info - i remember being so amazed i could find out about these "crazy obscure" bands back then. these same fansites are the same people that typed up forced exposure articles and noone's complaining about being able to access them now at the drop of a hat.

and that TJL myspace site is actually pretty good, they used a 3rd party flash player to stream the music so it's way better quality than standard myspace.

maybe you should give these guys some grief for making thier music avail to a larger audience too.

nick92675 wrote:i dunno. i remember an internet time when the fansites were more accurate or complete than the record labels. in the late 90s looking for info on anything on touch & go or homestead or something, your outlets were pretty much the grunnen rocks site, that petdance/shellac/bigblack thing... and then once billions got online it was like a fountain of info - i remember being so amazed i could find out about these "crazy obscure" bands back then. these same fansites are the same people that typed up forced exposure articles and noone's complaining about being able to access them now at the drop of a hat.

and that TJL myspace site is actually pretty good, they used a 3rd party flash player to stream the music so it's way better quality than standard myspace.

while i can see where you're coming from as far as expanding an audience (the same argument could have been made for recorded music, radio, tapes, and so on, a la the Albini-Lecture), i've always been a firm believer that it's more important to have a dedicated audience than a broad audience. if you're in a band that plays shows once a month, and two hundred peopl come to every single show, i'd argue that your band would be a much more powerful artistic force in the lives of those people than a band whose "single" they have on their myspace profile.

the way i've always seen it, there's always a certain percentage of people who follow a band that don't understand what the band is trying to do, and are at the shows and buying the records solely on pretense. i don't see any advantage to increasing the number of those people in a given band's audience.

an example: i have a black "punker jacket" with pins and paint all over it. the boldest graphic on this jacket is the Naked Raygun logo painted across the shoulders. it's there not because Naked Raygun is my favorite band, or because i wanna be a pretentious dick and have this obscure Chicago band's logo on my jacket. instead, it's there because it takes a certain type of person to have heard Naked Raygun, and generally speaking i really enjoy talking to that type of person.

i think most people have no taste in music. by that, i mean that they have no discretion when it comes to discerning whether a band is "good" or "bad." i would rather have such people limited to ruining the environment at concerts of bad, commercial bands than good underground bands.

oh yeah, and about this:

maybe you should give these guys some grief for making thier music avail to a larger audience too.

[see above argument]

and if anyone is having any cognative dissonance that i have a myspace page for my acoustic songs, you can stop having it at any point. the reason i do that is not because it's the "hot new marketing tool" that my super-trendy "indie" label is persuing to broaden my audience. i'm using it so i can tell my friends "here, go to this page and listen to it so i don't have to tie up my computer sending you an mp3."

i remember when i added Mission of Burma, i sent them a message and got a wonderfully apologetic response from an intern.

independent rock my ass. i fucking love that band, but stuff like this really bugs me.

instant_zen wrote:
i've always been a firm believer that it's more important to have a dedicated audience than a broad audience. if you're in a band that plays shows once a month, and two hundred peopl come to every single show, i'd argue that your band would be a much more powerful artistic force in the lives of those people than a band whose "single" they have on their myspace profile.

You talk like the two are mutually exclusive. A friend's band have trolled the depths of Myspace to add any person they can to bolster their friend tally (over 5000 last count, music plays: about a quarter of that) - but they do have a dedicated fanbase, and regularly hit towns where they can guarantee 150/200 - but they use Myspace as a sidearm, so to speak. I think what they're doing is slightly gauche, but it works for them.

This post will add nothing to the converstion.

I love it when people post comments on those fan pages like, "You guys are awesome, can you come play my town soon?"

There's a Melt-Banana page on there. They had a picture of Blonde Redhead in their photos for awhile. I called them on it and they took it down (I rule).

instant_zen wrote: i've always been a firm believer that it's more important to have a dedicated audience than a broad audience.

ive always thought it was about the music. if a jock happens to hear a fugazi song and gets into it (which he probably would if someone took the time to play it for him and not make him feel like an outsider) - he'd probably buy a fugazi record. the fact that a jock now owns a fugazi record has nothing to do with fugazi.

instant_zen wrote:i think most people have no taste in music. by that, i mean that they have no discretion when it comes to discerning whether a band is "good" or "bad." i would rather have such people limited to ruining the environment at concerts of bad, commercial bands than good underground bands.

so, your tastes and aesthetics trump everyone elses? these bands owe something to you because you were one of the first people to catch on to them because of whatever reason? this is just the "band X was pretty cool back when i got thier first 7" and saw them at X, but now i dunno..." classic hipper than thou stance! get over it. some dudes like blondes, others brunettes. there's no absolute here and it's stupid to get bent out of shape about someone elses aesthetic choices.

clearly you've lived your life in whatever manner brought you to where you are, as i have mine. i can tell you it is awesome when you play bumfuck the middle of nowhere to 5 people and the next day you see some kids picture on your myspace page telling you that they had an awesome time last night and were really into your band even though there were only 5 people there and it really meant something to them - and they are telling thier friends all about how they missed an awesome show - and then they continue to keep in touch and you remember they are actual people out there that you are connecting with.

it's the "hot new marketing tool" that my super-trendy "indie" label is persuing to broaden my audience. i'm using it so i can tell my friends "here, go to this page and listen to it so i don't have to tie up my computer sending you an mp3."

wait, uh - that's what bands and labels are doing too.

I just found a Steve Albini group on MySpace - http://groups.myspace.com/stevealbini - which led to this picture page: http://www.meilewis.com/shellacscala.html

I think you have to be signed in to look at the Steve Albini group. (Yes, my band is on MySpace. I've met lots of like minded bands and have been able to trade some shows, etc., and have also "discovered" some great bands that I never would have heard of otherwise, so I give MySpace a THUMBS UP! I've also met lots of scantily clad women and consider them among my closest friends.)

nick92675 wrote:

instant_zen wrote: i've always been a firm believer that it's more important to have a dedicated audience than a broad audience.

i've always thought it was about the music. if a jock happens to hear a fugazi song and gets into it (which he probably would if someone took the time to play it for him and not make him feel like an outsider) - he'd probably buy a fugazi record. the fact that a jock now owns a fugazi record has nothing to do with fugazi.

i'm going to look like a real fuckin' loser here, but sobeit. those motherfuckers were the same pricks that picked on me in high school. i fucking hate those kind of people. i'd go to punk rock shows and feel some sort of validity that i didn't feel in mainstream culture. i don't know about you, but i need that. i need to have something they don't have to feel like anything i'm doing is valid. if i can't succeed by someone else's yardstick, i'll find one that suits me (or make my own), and the people who had formerly used the yardstick i had denounced are sure as hell not getting anywhere near my new one if i can help it.

instant_zen wrote:i think most people have no taste in music. by that, i mean that they have no discretion when it comes to discerning whether a band is "good" or "bad." i would rather have such people limited to ruining the environment at concerts of bad, commercial bands than good underground bands.

so, your tastes and aesthetics trump everyone elses? these bands owe something to you because you were one of the first people to catch on to them because of whatever reason? this is just the "band X was pretty cool back when i got thier first 7" and saw them at X, but now i dunno..." classic hipper than thou stance! get over it. some dudes like blondes, others brunettes. there's no absolute here and it's stupid to get bent out of shape about someone elses aesthetic choices.

that's not the point. i didn't say "most people have *bad* taste in music," i said "most people have *no* taste in music." there's a big difference. when i say that most people have *no* taste in music, i'm saying that they don't take any time to make an independent decision whether they do or do not like something. plenty of people don't like what i listen to. that's fine with me. at least i'm willing to be honest and say i don't like something if i don't like it.

and generally speaking, i try really hard to avoid the "early stuff" argument. if i like a band and they come out with a bad record a few years down the road, i try to give them the benefit of the doubt. i hate it when people say, as you said, "i liked their first record." that's crap.

clearly you've lived your life in whatever manner brought you to where you are, as i have mine. i can tell you it is awesome when you play bumfuck the middle of nowhere to 5 people and the next day you see some kids picture on your myspace page telling you that they had an awesome time last night and were really into your band even though there were only 5 people there and it really meant something to them - and they are telling thier friends all about how they missed an awesome show - and then they continue to keep in touch and you remember they are actual people out there that you are connecting with.

i can agree with you on this. but couldn't they just as easily send you an email? or written you a letter? or written a letter to your record label when they ordered your record?

my point is, myspace isn't the only means of networking, and i really prefer not to use it. i prefer to really talk to people.

it's the "hot new marketing tool" that my super-trendy "indie" label is persuing to broaden my audience. i'm using it so i can tell my friends "here, go to this page and listen to it so i don't have to tie up my computer sending you an mp3."

wait, uh - that's what bands and labels are doing too.

they can't spend an hour posting mp3s on these bands actual websites, or on the websites of the labels? i'm doing it because i can't justify spending money to host a webpage. if it means that much to you (moreover, if it would bolster my argument), i'd be more than happy to stop using it. i realize you think i'm missing the point, but i want to make it clear that i am not at all using it as a marketing tool. most bands on myspace most certainly use it as a marketing tool. i realize this opens me up for the whole "everyone's a sellout on some level" argument. whatever. someone needs to say this shit to keep some balance if nothing else.

lastly, i return to my Mission of Burma example: if the band just has this page as an offhand reference, why do they have an intern dedicated to its upkeep? i maintain that this is rockstar bullshit.