What's the plan for 2010 ?

PaulBrewer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqznGcH92IE&feature=player_embedded

These mofos have it going on too ...

Seziertisch

Sustainable success requires a lot more than talent or luck or dedication or whatever.

It means being a team player in every sense of the word. You become part of an ecosystem for lack of a better description and appreciating your role within the system is very important. Ignoring your/the bands relationship with management and record companies or whatever, even within the band this exists.

It might be the case that you are in a band with another songwriter. You like their stuff, but the music the band is producing isn't 100% exactly what you would do on your own. The band are having some not inconsiderable success, you start thinking, you know what I could do this on my own, I don't need them ... Maybe, the difference between their style and your style is part of what makes things so appealing. Would the Beatles have been the force that they were if John or Paul had decided that the others style was compromising their own artistic vision, if John had said "I write darker material like Happiness is a warm gun while Paul is in to sunnier stuff like Hey Jude, we shouldn't work together anymore"? (although they did stop working together, but for personal and not artistic reasons it would seem) I know, its crazy talk, but bands starting out do it all the time, only to discover that when they do decided to go their separate ways the interest from all sides evaporates quite quickly. The record companies (and probably the public at large) were interested in the full package, not the solo projects of a number of former members. It is also the case that the chemistry that existed will never be recaptured again, so a year later instead of being in a band with a record deal that is successful playing music that isn't 100% you, you find yourself working some sh1tty job and playing music that is 100% you and not having any success. Artistic integrity gone too far.

The bassist, although not one of the main songwriters or a necessarily brilliant musician, might play a role far more important than you would think on first glance. They might be an excellent communicator, keeping things sweet between band/management or within the band itself. The simplicity of their playing might be one of the key contributing factors to the sound of the band, balancing out the arrangement or whatever. They might be the heart of the band, creatively music is as much about the collaboration of personalities and interpersonal chemistry as anything else a lot of the time. This does not just apply to the music, but also to the general relationships between the members. On a more utilitarian level, they might be the one providing the means of transport to get everyones instruments to/from gigs etc. (practicalites like this should never be overlooked) They might be the one who has/had the contacts that got/gets the ball rolling in the first place. Now should some bright spark, for whatever reason, decide that the bassist is dispensible, it could be the beginning of the end. Even if this doesn't involve actually getting rid of the bassist, but just having the attitude that because they are not a musical heavyweight, you "could" replace them, it is only a matter of time before things fall apart. Nobody who has invested so much of their time and effort into something wants to be treated like a spare wheel, if they are they will just as likely leave of their own accord sooner or later. What repercussions is the loss of a member going to have for everyone else on a musical or interpersonal level? It might be that some other (less "dispensible") members decide that they have had enough too.

Any/all of the above, or indeed a similar but different version, could be true for any other member in the band. It could also be true of the bands relationship with management or record labels or producers or whatever. You are producing great music, but for whatever reason have managed to piss off the record company person responsible for plugging you to radio in the city you are playing in next week. This person is probably going to do their job, because that is what they get paid for. They won't go the extra mile, though, and sometimes that is what counts. Or they might genuinely be an asshole and not do their job. Either way this complete unknown has the power to exert a considerable influence, resulting in a lower profile and possibly a lower attendence at said concert. There are any number of backroom people involved with you that have a similar degree of latent influence. You might be the star of the show, but the show doesn't happen of its own accord.

iamhunted

I find the bassist usually is one of the main songwriters and usually a brilliant musician in many good bands. I lost you at 'sustainable success'.

iamhunted

PaulBrewer wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqznGcH92IE&feature=player_embedded

These mofos have it going on too ...

my god - how does Steve Jobs (that is the singer right?) still manage to look like he did 20 years ago?

Seziertisch

iamhunted wrote: »

I find the bassist usually is one of the main songwriters and usually a brilliant musician in many good bands. I lost you at 'sustainable success'.

I don't think its that difficult a concept. The problem with most musicians is that they think that the whole thing revolves around them, which it does to a certain extent, but only insofar as other people facilitate what is happening. Bands/musicians that fail to realise this inevitably don't succeed long term. With the initial flush of success, their sense of self importance grows and this causes them to make decisions that inevitably bring the house of cards down.

I personally know of examples of all the stuff I mentioned. One band had its first taste of success which emboldened a couple of members to decide to try it alone, convinced that individually they had what it took. They didn't. The record company and press interest dried up fairly immediately.

I know of another band where certain members decided that other members were dispensible. In this case the dispensible members were excellent musicians, and more importantly the very much part of the core of the sound and the dynamic of what made the band function as a group of people. Regardless, the magic was gone, never to be recaptured. The record labels that had been courting them said thanks but no thanks to the new sound/line up. One of the guys that got kicked out was also the guy organising gigs, rehersals etc. So he was essentially managing the band as well. I don't think the others appreciated how much work this involved and how much his efforts kept things moving forward.

I know of another band who couldn't/wouldn't make up their minds. Yes/no to managers, committments etc. A lack of unanimity in their decision making and an attitude of they need us more than we need them. This was tolerated for a while because there was a bit of a buzz around them. Word got around that they didn't know what they wanted and the management/pr companies and record label people who had shown an interest backed off.

I would say that at least one of these bands would have had what it took musically to achieve some considerable success. All of them had the potential to at least get signed. Regardless, they all managed to **** it up for themselves by either failing to see that it was the music that they made collectively which was what people were interested in or realising that just because they were the main attraction didn't mean they could just do what they wanted.

What's more I don't think any of their stories are necessarily exceptions. I've talked with a number of other people who have played in bands/worked with bands/known bands and they have encountered the same thing.

Rockshamrover

Seziertisch wrote: »

I don't think its that difficult a concept. The problem with most musicians is that they think that the whole thing revolves around them, which it does to a certain extent, but only insofar as other people facilitate what is happening. Bands/musicians that fail to realise this inevitably don't succeed long term. With the initial flush of success, their sense of self importance grows and this causes them to make decisions that inevitably bring the house of cards down.

I personally know of examples of all the stuff I mentioned. One band had its first taste of success which emboldened a couple of members to decide to try it alone, convinced that individually they had what it took. They didn't. The record company and press interest dried up fairly immediately.

I know of another band where certain members decided that other members were dispensible. In this case the dispensible members were excellent musicians, and more importantly the very much part of the core of the sound and the dynamic of what made the band function as a group of people. Regardless, the magic was gone, never to be recaptured. The record labels that had been courting them said thanks but no thanks to the new sound/line up. One of the guys that got kicked out was also the guy organising gigs, rehersals etc. So he was essentially managing the band as well. I don't think the others appreciated how much work this involved and how much his efforts kept things moving forward.

I know of another band who couldn't/wouldn't make up their minds. Yes/no to managers, committments etc. A lack of unanimity in their decision making and an attitude of they need us more than we need them. This was tolerated for a while because there was a bit of a buzz around them. Word got around that they didn't know what they wanted and the management/pr companies and record label people who had shown an interest backed off.

I would say that at least one of these bands would have had what it took musically to achieve some considerable success. All of them had the potential to at least get signed. Regardless, they all managed to **** it up for themselves by either failing to see that it was the music that they made collectively which was what people were interested in or realising that just because they were the main attraction didn't mean they could just do what they wanted.

What's more I don't think any of their stories are necessarily exceptions. I've talked with a number of other people who have played in bands/worked with bands/known bands and they have encountered the same thing.

The sum of the parts is greater than the whole.

I've seen it myself. But then again music creation is a very volatile environment to be in and musicians tend to be more volatile and self centred than your average Joe.

Most "successful" bands have members who were in other bands.

The BBC had a whole documentary series done on this kind of thing "Rock family trees". It was excellent.

bedbugs

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Mumford and Sons ...

Heard them on BBC Radio 6 and though 'Yup, they'll crack it ok'

Unfortunate, but true. Really, truly awful band. Terrible songs, but they seem to have a mass appeal. Oh well.

PaulBrewer

bedbugs wrote: »

Unfortunate, but true. Really, truly awful band. Terrible songs, but they seem to have a mass appeal. Oh well.

Ah well ...

PaulBrewer

Rockshamrover wrote: »

The sum of the parts is greater than the whole.

.

U2 ?

BumbleB

PaulBrewer wrote: »

U2 ?

i work with an older guy band and he remembered seeing u2 years back in mullingar and he thought they were ****e ,a year later, he saw them them on tv headlining some huge gig.

ZV Yoda

It’s the “sum of the parts thing” combined with all the other factors already mentioned. Anybody who thinks otherwise is completely missing the bigger picture.

You don’t have to be a fan of their music to appreciate the point that Take That/Robbie Williams are a great example of how all of these things (egos, personalities, musical ability, image, style, management etc.) combine to make/break an act.

After Robbie left TT, he released 4 singles (with varying success)… but then along came Angels (which according to folklore was overheard at a party one night & bought from the writer there & then). The rest, as they say…

Robbie’s most successful period was when writing with Guy Chambers. Take That had split up by then & the other solo careers didn’t really do much. Then Robbie decided he wants to break the US, doesn’t need Guy Chambers any more… and the Robster disappears from the scene. Enter the Take That reunion in 2005… the public goes mad for them & all of a sudden its “Robbie who?”

Look at the parallels between the careers of Simple Minds & U2. Who’d have said back in 1984 that U2 would be the biggest act on the planet in 2010… while Simple Minds couldn’t even fill the O2 in Dublin a few weeks ago?

Moral of the story… there are no certainties. It isn’t just about talent, luck, personalities, money, image, management… it’s all of that… and then some.

PaulBrewer

ZV Yoda wrote: »

It’s the “sum of the parts thing” combined with all the other factors already mentioned. Anybody who thinks otherwise is completely missing the bigger picture.

You don’t have to be a fan of their music to appreciate the point that Take That/Robbie Williams are a great example of how all of these things (egos, personalities, musical ability, image, style, management etc.) combine to make/break an act.

After Robbie left TT, he released 4 singles (with varying success)… but then along came Angels (which according to folklore was overheard at a party one night & bought from the writer there & then). The rest, as they say…

Robbie’s most successful period was when writing with Guy Chambers. Take That had split up by then & the other solo careers didn’t really do much. Then Robbie decided he wants to break the US, doesn’t need Guy Chambers any more… and the Robster disappears from the scene. Enter the Take That reunion in 2005… the public goes mad for them & all of a sudden its “Robbie who?”

Look at the parallels between the careers of Simple Minds & U2. Who’d have said back in 1984 that U2 would be the biggest act on the planet in 2010… while Simple Minds couldn’t even fill the O2 in Dublin a few weeks ago?

Moral of the story… there are no certainties. It isn’t just about talent, luck, personalities, money, image, management… it’s all of that… and then some.

... and Neck ...

kfoltman

PaulBrewer wrote: »

... and Neck ...

Paul, can you explain the reference? I totally don't get it!

Rockshamrover

kfoltman wrote: »

Paul, can you explain the reference? I totally don't get it!

Hi Kfoltman,


Being dogged and persistent and believing in something when everyone else has given up.

Or thinking you're the future of music when everyone else around you knows that you're shyte.:D

PaulBrewer

kfoltman wrote: »

Paul, can you explain the reference? I totally don't get it!

It's a trait shared traditionally by Politicians, Used Car Salesmen, DJs, Country and Irish Singers, the Clergy and Recording Equipment Suppliers ....

Tomohawk

It's a young mans game, if you're over 25 I don't think you will make it.

Fashion has a lot to do with it, trends in street style, film and graphic design and what's going on in a culture at the time. Remember the late 1980s and the whole sixties thing going on...

Knowing your Pop history can give a new artist a great advantage. Pet Shop Boys, Lady Gaga.

Being a solo or duo will keep costs way down, less mouths to feed. Think Autechre, Air.

Brand your band like feck, get branded into films, clothes, ringtones anything really.

The old models really are dead.

TelePaul

iamhunted wrote: »

I lost you at 'sustainable success'.

Ask yore mah about me sustainable success!

...
......
........

I'll get my coat

PaulBrewer

TelePaul wrote: »

Ask yore mah about me sustainable success!

...
......
........

I'll get my coat

The first Yore Ma of 2010 !

krd

SeanHurley wrote: »

Any advice on how to get the music to the Promoter/Radio guy/Journalist's/Photographer's/PR man/Label Guy in the first place?

Very few people have ever said no to a blowjob.

If you're art is worth that much to you.....I'm sure you're cable of swallowing some bitter loads - to get a 'head'

krd

SeanHurley wrote: »

This is something we were/are looking at. But it isn't as easy as paying someone to get you on the inside track. There really is only three PR companies in Ireland that deal with musicians/bands and all have quite a few acts on their books. You really need to wow the PR company or else all they will do is send a few newsletter-like press releases to a few people (along with similar press releases for the other 150 acts they represent) and charge you quite a bit for this.

As Paul has said, really in order to get where you are going you first need to start out with a good product to sell i.e. you have to be good.

No. There are a lot of PR companies in Ireland. Like those two dick bitches I can't remember the name of who do some work for MCD - They'll take anyone's money and suck anyone's cock...For cash - and these people are desperate for cash.

And how PR works - if press releases coming from reputable sources - and bull****.

You pay them by the turd - that's what these people do - you can arrange in advance the result you're looking for - pay the price they'll put your name about.

krd

i'd like to apologise for my snarky remarks.

I agree will Paul Brewer on nearly everything - if you've got the songs,,, and even if you haven't - if people want to see you and get excited that's more important then anything else.

Paul can give you sound eng advice... But as a hairstylist - he's lacking. And face it - Bono's bad hairstyles were as much a part of U2's success as anything else.

If it wasn't for a failure in mouse technology - there would have been no flock of seagulls (And if you didn't know - flock of seagulls were a noname punk bank until one night the singers hairtechnology failed and a new wave was born)

PaulBrewer

krd wrote: »

i
Paul can give you sound eng advice... But as a hairstylist - he's lacking.