Premier Rock Forum

jonahTraktor7 wrote:I'm a huge fan of MoB, but I think their ability to make unique music was to their detriment,

jonahTraktor7 wrote: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.

I don't understand these comments. If a band's budget is low, then they need to have realistic expectations about what their demo will sound like, and they ought to be able to find a competent engineer and studio to deliver that record, even if they're in some remote area ( and how 'remote' is anywhere in New England? Everywhere is 200 miles from a city in NE ). If the band has a larger budget and bigger ambitions for their demo, then they go to Boston, Providence, NYC, even Hartford.

jonah wrote:A band can now make a recording and influence others around the world without ever playing live.

Unless you're betting on pure luck, what band is going to put their recording up on the web and 'influence people around the world' if they've never played live? Talk about a pipe dream. A band needs to get out there and get people talking about it, in public and in print and on-line. What Bad Comrade said about a band making the audience for a record before the record was wise. This process is the sensible one, but for some reason, bands think that they can do an end around this process with myspace and some richly-layered demo? 99.9% of them will just be absorbed into the glut. Do you like those odds?

If you're determined to document your 'lightning in a bottle', do the best job your budget will permit, but don't think you can make a demo stand in for good old fashioned tires and feet on the ground.

DrAwkward wrote:

jonahTraktor7 wrote:I'm a huge fan of MoB, but I think their ability to make unique music was to their detriment,

:?:

they broke up long before they could play in front of their actual fan base.

they've been one of precious few bands that have had a remotely succesful reunion.

I'd assert their recordings are far more influential than their live shows were, just on the simple logic that most people that have been influenced by them never saw them until the reunion.

clocker bob wrote:

jonahTraktor7 wrote: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.

I don't understand these comments. If a band's budget is low, then they need to have realistic expectations about what their demo will sound like, and they ought to be able to find a competent engineer and studio to deliver that record, even if they're in some remote area ( and how 'remote' is anywhere in New England? Everywhere is 200 miles from a city in NE ). If the band has a larger budget and bigger ambitions for their demo, then they go to Boston, Providence, NYC, even Hartford.

jonah wrote:A band can now make a recording and influence others around the world without ever playing live.

Unless you're betting on pure luck, what band is going to put their recording up on the web and 'influence people around the world' if they've never played live? Talk about a pipe dream. A band needs to get out there and get people talking about it, in public and in print and on-line. What Bad Comrade said about a band making the audience for a record before the record was wise. This process is the sensible one, but for some reason, bands think that they can do an end around this process with myspace and some richly-layered demo? 99.9% of them will just be absorbed into the glut. Do you like those odds?

If you're determined to document your 'lightning in a bottle', do the best job your budget will permit, but don't think you can make a demo stand in for good old fashioned tires and feet on the ground.

I wasn't talking about New England bands...I'm talking about bands from remote areas of the world without immediate access to venues, never mind a large live audience. Whether it's remote canada, EBF, Wyoming, or anywhere in the world, people are now hearing music that they wouldn't have heard before.

You hear tales of influence from famous shows...some variation on the "24-Hour party people" Sex Pistols scene....40 people were there, but it changed their lives...

OK, so how many people in the world that were influenced by the Sex Pistols ever saw them? And how did their "feet on the ground" serve them better than a ridiculous hype machine?

Not every amount of influence has to be at that level...I'm not talking about global movements...people are influenced by what they experience.

If a band in a basement records something new, they don't ever have to play live to influence others.

But, if you want to talk about huge amounts of influence...The entire black metal "scene" developed around bands that never played live at all...and that was when physical tape trading was the network. There was a time when some idiots from that scene were saying that if you released an actual album, never mind had listenable production, you had sold out.

I did a rock/punk/metal/hardcore zine when that scene was forming, and we received countless awful demos from people with questionable politics, and even more questionable "talent"...but these people developed rabid fanbases, without ever playing live.

And what about RRRecords, or any other noise scene...are the live performances the ultimate expression, a chance to reach your audience? Hell no. Just like most hip hop (or folk for that matter) shows, the performace is often boring and/or anticlimactic compared to the recordings. Sure, some artists are better than others live, but often, rap, power electronics or ambient noise is best experienced alone, with some headphones...or on a car stereo.

I like to know how the sounds are made, but that's where direct correspondence comes in.

The web allows people to share the sounds and way more information than a standard rock band's rock concert format...no matter how esoteric the label.

davesec wrote:"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

that's the spirit!

I look at playing live and making a record as two seperate worlds. jonahTraktor7 brought up some great points about the influence of certain music. Black Metal, especially.

Bathory never played a show in their whole career after being around for 15 years or so. Bathory are a very influential BM band that released many records which inspired many people.

Also, the tape trading. Having listenable production and releasing your album by traditional means meant you 'sold out'. This still happens today. Some BM guy named "Nog-Mys-Tium" (I'm not sure how to spell his moniker), thew his guitarist out of the band for wearing a Dark Funeral t-shirt while they performed live. He Claimed Dark Funeral wasn't "Cult Enough". Black Metal guys are funny, arent they?

With the advent of the internet, playing live music is no longer necessary. However, I do not believe it is a dying art. In any case, It should be kept alive.

Major labels are no longer needed to expose ones music to a potential fanbase and this should be embraced. Touring is also another means by which major labels financially cripple their 'talent'.

I agree with this, wholeheartedly:

"Major labels are no longer needed to expose ones music to a potential fanbase and this should be embraced. Touring is also another means by which major labels financially cripple their 'talent'."

In my experience with Warner Brothers, they seemed to want their bands to spend money without rationale, not on things thaat were useful.

Our contract stipulated an east coast tour, to be FREE to the audience, paid for by the label. The goal was to gain much needed exerience for the band before we went into the studio, and get the opportunity to play with our friends down the coast, hand out free music and shirts and stickers to whomeeer showed up, and generally get an idea what the touring life would be like, as we expected to do a lot to promote the album. Though I had toured, most of the rest of the band hadn't, at least not playing the same instruments that they were playing this time around.

Once the contract was signed, the label convinced the younger members of the band that it would be a waste of time, and that we should hurry up and record our major label debut for 1600 dollars a day. For some reason, no matter how much I tried to remind them that it was a good decision to tour first, to gain the experience, and spend time together, I was outvoted...about something that had already been written into the contract. the label capitalized on egos and immaturity to exploit and/or create divisions in the band.

jonahTraktor7 wrote:

DrAwkward wrote:

jonahTraktor7 wrote:I'm a huge fan of MoB, but I think their ability to make unique music was to their detriment,

:?:

they broke up long before they could play in front of their actual fan base.

neither of these statments is entirely true. Burma had fans, they had a llot of fans. "Revolver" was a local hit in boston, and the band had no trouble playing to good crowds in boston most of the time.

I'd assert their recordings are far more influential than their live shows were, just on the simple logic that most people that have been influenced by them never saw them until the reunion.

It depends on what you thing "influential" means. sure, lots more people have heard their records than have seen them. OK. perhaps those that saw them before they broke up, or since they got back together have been more profoundly moved than those people who just listen to the records?

are you offering Burma as an example of a band that played for themselves, since, as you argue, they never had a big fan base? I disagree with the premise and the conclusion. Or are you arguing that recording and releasing records is more important than playing live, because of the influence that records can have?

why make the distinction. Some folks are in bands to play music. Some are in bands to play music in front of people. Some are in bands to make money. Some are in bands to get laid. Many times people are in the same band for different reasons, as you clearly found out.

It is clearly interesting to learn why you, steve, yaledelay, bradley and others are in bands. This is a great discussion. But don't go presuming other people's intentions if you haven't heard from them.

And if Slint or Burma or the Fall or some other band wants to be a band to make money to pay their mortgages, fine. I'll make up my mind based on the music.

I didn't mention MySpace, but obviously that's one way of getting one's music heard when there are no other options. I'm just referring to file sharing in general...any recording can be shared without a manufactured CD now...it's happening at an increasing rate, and it's resulting in the building of fan bases, record "deal" offers (probably just a P&D, and that's preferable anyway, right?) ...and if the band wants, it helps with booking.

Please remember, I was responding to assumptions made about me and my music, and my motivations.

My comments about Burma were with specific regard to the claim that a band should play some certain number of successful shows before they should make an album, and I think that's totally incorrect.

I'll hazard a guess that MoB didn't make their first album because they felt validated by a huge number of successful shows...it's more likely that they believed in their own music, knew how to increase their exposure, and wanted to take a chance with independent distribution. They are brilliant guys, and I think it's safe to say that they had/have admirable and realistic intentions.

They were successful because of college radio, not because they were playing huge shows in non-Boston clubs before they shipped records there. Successful shows in Boston rarely mean successful shows too far outside of Boston. there are plenty of examples of bands that have been huge here, and failed
(relatively speaking) at the national and/or international level.

Boston is a fickle town because the student population cycles through...it can work well, when the students export their Boston experiences and word spreads...but often bands don't last long here because of many reasons, with the fickle crowds being right up there.

I agree that we've all got different goals with our music, and I do not presume that other people share mine. But, mine were questioned, if not ridiculed, by people without any knowledge of who I am or how I approach music in general.

I think it boils down to what someone's idea of success is.

Chris Hall, I think you feel justified in judging whether or not a band sucks, while I feel that most bands that are self-conscious have already failed. I have opinions about them, but whether or not I think they should continue is irrelevant. It's (too) easy to release music now. The Minutemen got their wish for a band on every corner, and I don't think that's a bad thing.

And, suckiness is relative.


There was a great sloppy proto-noise rock Boston band called Hullaballoo and they had an album called

"It's Not Enough To be Loud, You Have To Suck, To"

I think the misspelling of "too" was intentional, but who am I to judge? It's all art, and it's meant to be interpreted, right?

jonahTraktor7 wrote:
There was a great sloppy proto-noise rock Boston band called Hullaballoo and they had an album called

"It's Not Enough To be Loud, You Have To Suck, To"

Hullaballoo was a great loft party - drunk at the rat - basement of a dorm at MIT kind of band. fuckin' Sluggo! those guys rocked. don't forget about Left Nut!