What do new bands have to do?

rcaz

So what do new bands actually have to do?

Everyone has a mate in a band. And all those bands are 'savage'. They all have a MySpace page, and maybe even some good quality recordings. But I get the feeling that a lot of bands stop at that.

The way the music industry is at the moment, people are going to have to step up and do it a new way. Does anyone know what that new way is yet? Surely there isn't just one way.

This thread is partly a 'I don't know what to do next' thread, but I don't mean it as a selfish 'help me out here' kind of gesture. This stuff really interests me. I love watching bands' movements. I keep getting the feeling there's gonna be some sort of musical overhaul in the near future. Things can't keep going the way they are, right? Or does that sound too pessimistic?

El Pr0n

El Pr0n wrote: »

So what do new bands actually have to do?

Practice

Practice

Practice

Practice some more

Perfect their practice

THEN

Get off their ar$es and gig.

\edited to add: and fcuking keep talking to each other. Too many bands fall apart as they bottle $hit up when dealing with each other, being too sensitive about each others feelings etc. You have to learn how to communicate effectively with each other. That is the biggest hurdle any (and I mean ANY) band will have.

Zombienosh

yeha just keep gigging, play as many places as you can with as many bands as you can, make contacts blah blah.

But +1 on the communication point above, too many bands get to that point and start falling apart.

rcaz

All great advice. But the practice bit is a no-brainer (for me anyway). I mean, once your band has all the tunes, can play them all, don't have any rusty bits. Once your band is worth its salt.

It's all well and good to say 'gig'. But does the trawl-MySpace-and-ask-for-support-slots approach really work anymore?

Zombienosh

El Pr0n wrote: »

All great advice. But the practice bit is a no-brainer (for me anyway). I mean, once your band has all the tunes, can play them all, don't have any rusty bits. Once your band is worth its salt.

It's all well and good to say 'gig'. But does the trawl-MySpace-and-ask-for-support-slots approach really work anymore?

I wouldn't trawl myspace, get into the "scene" as it is and physically go to shows and talk to other bands, do shows together etc

Yeah, talk to other bands that would be in the same genre as you. Marketing people call it networking, I prefer the term, "Making mates and meeting people"

But seriously, go to gigs. When I was playing, we never gave/nor got gigs to people from "the internet". It was always real people that we had a somewhat tenuous connection to. And of course, when you meet people, the golden number one rule...


...DON'T BE AN AR$EHOLE! You might not know who you're talking to and you never know who can help you out in some regard!

waltersobchak

Great thread lads, have to say Myspace does get you so far, but only as far as you want it too tbh(are all the hours spent adding people worth it reallly?) at the end of the day a following is created by going out there and playing gigs, even in this day and age of digital music and downloads..

Fandango

On getting gigs from the internet, very true! Every band knows at least one or two other bands personally, so why would they give a support to some random band who contact them on myspace instead of people they have met and know? They give supports to bands they like both musically and as people so the only way is to go and meet them.

As for what to do, you could be the best band in the world but if nobody hears you, it wont go anywhere. Play every gig you can. It could be in a club stinking of pi$$ with only 5 people watching, but one of them could be someone who could further your career. My first band met our managers playing a pretty crappy gig in a small venue but it led to bigger things that wouldnt have happened without that gig (then collapsed but we wont go there hehe). Point is, you never know who is at the gig, small or big so play everything you can and treat it like its your biggest gig ever.

Fandango

waltersobchak wrote: »

are all the hours spent adding people worth it reallly?

Not at all! Love to see a stat of people on myspace to see how many of the bands they have added that they have gone to live/got their CD? Id say 1 band in about 20 at best!

MilanPan!c

Can I just say that toooo much gigging Is a bad thing.

Most of the hard work can be done with out gigging. If you're playing to noone or have nothing to flog at the gig then it's just a glorified practice.

Nothing wrong with practice, but a LOT of band I personally know implode, because of gigging.

Gigging is not necessarily gonna do thats much for most bands and most bands do not get signed cause o gigs, they get signed because someone hears their songs and thinks they can sell them and make some money.. And gigging is prolly the worst way to really hear a bands songs for the first time (read that carefully before you get offended please).

waltersobchak

Fandango wrote: »

Not at all! Love to see a stat of people on myspace to see how many of the bands they have added that they have gone to live/got their CD? Id say 1 band in about 20 at best!

And how many bands/people judge success on how many "fans" or views they have on myspace too.

drumdrum

In my experience, the whole "get really tight then gig your hole off to get noticed" simply does not work in this country. The scene for anything outside of radio-indie is too small to generate enough prolonged interest. Also, this coupled with not only the lack of places to play, but more importantly, the lack of places WITH DECENT SOUND CAPABILITIES are even less. I mean, if the sound is crap with too much drums or whatever, then how are punters ever going to hear the song itself?

I think that the number one thing for any band should be a product in the form of a professional sellable CD/download of a very high production quality. How this is achieved is up to the bands (invest in some equipment for themselves, or invest in studio time). No label is going to touch you these days without you having a product to promote. Being great live is obviously a great bonus, but it is the product that will get people in the doors in the first place. People that listen to a well recorded product are more likely to be able to like the song (or not!) but at least the songs potential is given a fair shot. Ive heard some great songs recorded badly and really ruin what should of been a great listening experience.

Dont get me wrong, gigging is very important too. Live energy is essential to sell your music to the masses at your shows. Its what will keep them coming back. When coupled with a great product behind you, this will help you to shift units of you product (either sell them or give them away) and help the word-of-mouth press spread quickly about your band, which is always well worth it in the long run.

In simple words, having a great product will get people in the doors to your shows, but being great live will keep them coming back to your shows.

My two cents anyways....

MilanPan!c

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Can I just say that toooo much gigging Is a bad thing.

Most of the hard work can be done with out gigging. If you're playing to noone or have nothing to flog at the gig then it's just a glorified practice.

Nothing wrong with practice, but a LOT of band I personally know implode, because of gigging.

Gigging is not necessarily gonna do thats much for most bands and most bands do not get signed cause o gigs, they get signed because someone hears their songs and thinks they can sell them and make some money.. And gigging is prolly the worst way to really hear a bands songs for the first time (read that carefully before you get offended please).

Hope that's not directed at me!

Ok, lets not derail this thread into a "gigging is everything/gigging is a waste of time" argument. You allude to "Most of the hard work can be done with out gigging" I believe the purpose of this thread is to find out what that hard work is. In my opinion, it's gigging everywhere, (with a forced smile if needs be!) and in your's, it's not. So what would you suggest?

Fandango

waltersobchak wrote: »

And how many bands/people judge success on how many "fans" or views they have on myspace too.

absolutely! We all fall victim to that at some stage, thinking the 1,000 or 100,000 views or whatever means were a great band but at the end of the day, it means nothing. If we add tens of thousands of fans on it, most of them will visit the page at least once to see who you are.

drumdrum

drumdrum wrote: »

In my experience, the whole "get really tight then gig your hole off to get noticed" simply does not work in this country. The scene for anything outside of radio-indie is too small to generate enough prolonged interest. Also, this coupled with not only the lack of places to play, but more importantly, the lack of places WITH DECENT SOUND CAPABILITIES are even less. I mean, if the sound is crap with too much drums or whatever, then how are punters ever going to hear the song itself?

I think that the number one thing for any band should be a product in the form of a professional sellable CD/download of a very high production quality. How this is achieved is up to the bands (invest in some equipment for themselves, or invest in studio time). No label is going to touch you these days without you having a product to promote. Being great live is obviously a great bonus, but it is the product that will get people in the doors in the first place. People that listen to a well recorded product are more likely to be able to like the song (or not!) but at least the songs potential is given a fair shot. Ive heard some great songs recorded badly and really ruin what should of been a great listening experience.

Dont get me wrong, gigging is very important too. Live energy is essential to sell your music to the masses at your shows. Its what will keep them coming back. When coupled with a great product behind you, this will help you to shift units of you product (either sell them or give them away) and help the word-of-mouth press spread quickly about your band, which is always well worth it in the long run.

In simple words, having a great product will get people in the doors to your shows, but being great live will keep them coming back to your shows.

My two cents anyways....

This is a great post.

To add to that. Gig outside Ireland. Make contacts through myspace, crash on a couch if needs be, but the more travel you put in, the better it looks as well.

Oh, and always have something to sell. and get stuff to give away to. You wouldn't believe how much people want badges/stickers/posters as well!

Fandango

drumdrum wrote: »

In my experience, the whole "get really tight then gig your hole off to get noticed" simply does not work in this country. The scene for anything outside of radio-indie is too small to generate enough prolonged interest. Also, this coupled with not only the lack of places to play, but more importantly, the lack of places WITH DECENT SOUND CAPABILITIES are even less. I mean, if the sound is crap with too much drums or whatever, then how are punters ever going to hear the song itself?

I think that the number one thing for any band should be a product in the form of a professional sellable CD/download of a very high production quality. How this is achieved is up to the bands (invest in some equipment for themselves, or invest in studio time). No label is going to touch you these days without you having a product to promote. Being great live is obviously a great bonus, but it is the product that will get people in the doors in the first place. People that listen to a well recorded product are more likely to be able to like the song (or not!) but at least the songs potential is given a fair shot. Ive heard some great songs recorded badly and really ruin what should of been a great listening experience.

Dont get me wrong, gigging is very important too. Live energy is essential to sell your music to the masses at your shows. Its what will keep them coming back. When coupled with a great product behind you, this will help you to shift units of you product (either sell them or give them away) and help the word-of-mouth press spread quickly about your band, which is always well worth it in the long run.

In simple words, having a great product will get people in the doors to your shows, but being great live will keep them coming back to your shows.

My two cents anyways....

Fully agree with you. Sending a bad recording of a great song to a radio station means it wont be played, no matter how good the song is. Its like that show The Dragons Den or whatever. A badly presented yet good idea will be dismissed by them as its easier to see the negatives than it is to see the positives. Weird comparison to make but it makes sense in my head anyway hehe.

raindog.promo

Things that can kill a band:

1) Members stop putting in as much time as others:
Not working by themselves at home and a lacsadaisy approach to jamming (showing up late, leaving early, everything else taking a preference over jamming - "can't make it, there's a match on I want to watch" etc) Builds up resentment with other band members.

2) Power struggles within band:
All of a sudden, someone wants to be the face of the band and band decisions now become power politics and again builds up resentment with other band members.

3) No income.
A thankless chore, personally, I think gigging gives you the impetus to go on and is its own reward. Seeing no money come in can seriously harm members commitment to the band.


I think it's a rule of thumb that band life is usually 3 years in length. Imagine how hard a marraige can be and then multiply that between 3-5 or (god help ye) up to 16!


Basically, respect the individuals in the band and unless you're paying them to be playing don't be arrogant enough to presume they're there for your benefit.


* On a sidenote, what with homerecording and easier to use/afford/steal software for programming and whatnot, I'm seeing a new form of band emerging, the "project" which seems to be suiting a fair few musicians at the moment. Cuts out having to deal with/rely on other people and has a less "total commitment" approach to a band.

rcaz

raindog.promo wrote: »

* On a sidenote, what with homerecording and easier to use/afford/steal software for programming and whatnot, I'm seeing a new form of band emerging, the "project" which seems to be suiting a fair few musicians at the moment. Cuts out having to deal with/rely on other people and has a less "total commitment" approach to a band.

Great post overall raindog.promo, but that bit jumped out at me. I don't really like the idea (all of my favourite bands are defined groups of people, and I love being able to track how they developed), but you're bang on. Broken Social Scene spring to mind.

This thread is better than I thought it'd be. Really interesting posts all round

raindog.promo

raindog.promo wrote: »

Things that can kill a band:

1) Members stop putting in as much time as others:
Not working by themselves at home and a lacsadaisy approach to jamming (showing up late, leaving early, everything else taking a preference over jamming - "can't make it, there's a match on I want to watch" etc) Builds up resentment with other band members.

2) Power struggles within band:
All of a sudden, someone wants to be the face of the band and band decisions now become power politics and again builds up resentment with other band members.

3) No income.
A thankless chore, personally, I think gigging gives you the impetus to go on and is its own reward. Seeing no money come in can seriously harm members commitment to the band.


I think it's a rule of thumb that band life is usually 3 years in length. Imagine how hard a marraige can be and then multiply that between 3-5 or (god help ye) up to 16!


Basically, respect the individuals in the band and unless you're paying them to be playing don't be arrogant enough to presume they're there for your benefit.


* On a sidenote, what with homerecording and easier to use/afford/steal software for programming and whatnot, I'm seeing a new form of band emerging, the "project" which seems to be suiting a fair few musicians at the moment. Cuts out having to deal with/rely on other people and has a less "total commitment" approach to a band.

Jesus Raindog, thats a bleak outlook!

Doesn't 1) and 2) get covered under the "fcuking keep talking to each other. Too many bands fall apart as they bottle $hit up when dealing with each other, being too sensitive about each others feelings etc. You have to learn how to communicate effectively with each other."?

I agree wholeheartedly with no. 3. I can't remember the exact quote, but I'll paraphrase... "With both eyes fixed on the destination, there is no eye to look where you're going, so you might trip"* Too many bands are fixated with "making it big" or "getting a record deal" that they forget to enjoy the journey.



*Yeah, I know I messed it up, but I'm trying my best not to look cool by using Google when using boards

MilanPan!c

IMO and IME gigging is at best a fun way to sell some crap.

People like gigs sure, but we ALL know bands that bust their hump playing shows for years an get absolutely nowhere.

Why?

Well, the most common culprit is crappy/unmarketable songs.

If you want success, that is if that's your goal, then you need good songs. Period.

Now, most record folks realise at this point that it's quite hard to REALLY tell if a band is any good by seeing them live. Being able to make drunk punters happy is no way to judge songs.

What business folks want is decent quality recordings of good songs or better yet PRO recordings of amazing songs.

That's the market we're all competing in.

Instead of spending your time playing for nobodies who can't help you at all find ways to record and promote and create a presence for yourself.

That's my advice anyway.

I never ever knew a band to suceed on the back of playing live. Ever.

raindog.promo

Papa Smut wrote: »

Jesus Raindog, thats a bleak outlook!

Doesn't 1) and 2) get covered under the "fcuking keep talking to each other. Too many bands fall apart as they bottle $hit up when dealing with each other, being too sensitive about each others feelings etc. You have to learn how to communicate effectively with each other."?

I agree wholeheartedly with no. 3. I can't remember the exact quote, but I'll paraphrase... "With both eyes fixed on the destination, there is no eye to look where you're going, so you might trip"* Too many bands are fixated with "making it big" or "getting a record deal" that they forget to enjoy the journey.

Well, I'd say 1 and 2 are the main things to look out for both in others and in yourself, as the most common things that will grow into a problem that may break up a band.

You could easily have said "don't be a dick" but "fcuking keep talking to each other. Too many bands fall apart as they bottle $hit up when dealing with each other, being too sensitive about each others feelings etc. You have to learn how to communicate effectively with each other."? is a more detailed/specific way of saying it and 1 and 2 from my post would be expanding on that into specifics which imo would be the main causes of bands breaking up.

"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - Hunter S Thompson

(That should be number 1 on the forum charter)


And yes, I probably am getting (more) bleak and cynical in my old age.

MilanPan!c

MilanPan!c wrote: »

IMO and IME gigging is at best a fun way to sell some crap.

People like gigs sure, but we ALL know bands that bust their hump playing shows for years an get absolutely nowhere.

Why?

Well, the most common culprit is crappy/unmarketable songs.

If you want success, that is if that's your goal, then you need good songs. Period.

Now, most record folks realise at this point that it's quite hard to REALLY tell if a band is any good by seeing them live. Being able to make drunk punters happy is no way to judge songs.

What business folks want is decent quality recordings of good songs or better yet PRO recordings of amazing songs.

That's the market we're all competing in.

Instead of spending your time playing for nobodies who can't help you at all find ways to record and promote and create a presence for yourself.

That's my advice anyway.

I never ever knew a band to suceed on the back of playing live. Ever.

I agree with 90% of your post, except the bit in bold. Still to this day, if you play in a band (so it's fair to say a rock/indie/organic musical instruments band) before you sign any contract, the label will be following you live and will expect a showcase. If you don't have the practice in front of a live crowd, or you make great recordings, but can't actually play your songs live, the label will have no interest.

raindog.promo

MilanPan!c wrote: »

People like gigs sure, but we ALL know bands that bust their hump playing shows for years an get absolutely nowhere.

I never ever knew a band to suceed on the back of playing live. Ever.

Not that I'm totally disagreeing with you , there's always going to be examples that contradict your point. But, I'm pretty sure (though not 100%) that Republic of Loose financd their English tours from the money made gigging in the Olympia/Academy over here and may have also paid for the recording of their second album.

Seasick Steve, Thin Lizzy and plenty of others made it on the back of playing live for years before getting noticed. It just depends how good your tunes are and how committed you are to touring them and for how long. And a shedload of luck too.

MilanPan!c

Papa Smut wrote: »

I agree with 90% of your post, except the bit in bold. Still to this day, if you play in a band (so it's fair to say a rock/indie/organic musical instruments band) before you sign any contract, the label will be following you live and will expect a showcase. If you don't have the practice in front of a live crowd, or you make great recordings, but can't actually play your songs live, the label will have no interest.

I think you just misunderstood me. I prolly wasn't clear.

I don't mean you can be a successful band without playing live, but that playing live isn't the key to success.

Yes, playing live is important, but it's much MORE important AFTER you're signed, as a way to make mony/promote your product in new areas.

I hope that cleared up my point.

Go look at the bands you like and try and find years of rave reviews of those bands BEFORE they were signed. You won't.

Bands with good songs get plenty of attention and quickly, no matter how much they play live.

rcaz

I know The Flaming Lips were touring for something like 10 years before they got to 'making it'. And then there's Anvil.

MilanPan!c

raindog.promo wrote: »

Not that I'm totally disagreeing with you , there's always going to be examples that contradict your point. But, I'm pretty sure (though not 100%) that Republic of Loose financd their English tours from the money made gigging in the Olympia/Academy over here and may have also paid for the recording of their second album.

Seasick Steve, Thin Lizzy and plenty of others made it on the back of playing live for years before getting noticed. It just depends how good your tunes are and how committed you are to touring them and for how long. And a shedload of luck too.

Of course there will always be exceptions, but smart money plays good odds.

The odds are that MOST bands that ever are formed in the world will not get famous/signed because they rock live or connect emotionally live or whatever.

Bands spend WAY to much time trying to play out when they have no fans, no product and have to PAY to play to no one for no money.

raindog.promo

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Of course there will always be exceptions, but smart money plays good odds.

The odds are that MOST bands that ever are formed in the world will not get famous/signed because they rock live or connect emotionally live or whatever.

Bands spend WAY to much time trying to play out when they have no fans, no product and have to PAY to play to no one for no money.

In your opinion.

And it also depends what the bands goals are.
I think the days of having oodles of money are gone unless you want to go the xfactor way.

Fame isn't the only reason to get into music.

MilanPan!c

El Pr0n wrote: »

I know The Flaming Lips were touring for something like 10 years before they got to 'making it'. And then there's Anvil.

Like I said, there's always gonna be exceptions. But businesses don't go, "let's base our business model on failing for a decade, then finally suceeding".

Bands are businesses, small poorly run businesses whose employees are all musicians.

The other key is finding help. Be open to help, ask for help and don't be too precious with your ideas.

And finally, if no one is interested and you aren't having any luck, have a think. Your band could just suck.

Don't stop trying, but try and figure out why youre not connecting to people.

Fandango

Papa Smut wrote: »

I agree with 90% of your post, except the bit in bold. Still to this day, if you play in a band (so it's fair to say a rock/indie/organic musical instruments band) before you sign any contract, the label will be following you live and will expect a showcase. If you don't have the practice in front of a live crowd, or you make great recordings, but can't actually play your songs live, the label will have no interest.

Agree! First band i was in got signed on the back of a live gig, both by a manager and a label. Both ended badly i might ad but it doesnt change the fact they heard something live that brought them in. Who gets signed by a label listening to a CD? They throw most of em in the bin as they get so many. The first thing most A&R guys hear from a band is a gig, then the CD which of course has to be a decent quality for it to go further.

MilanPan!c

raindog.promo wrote: »

In your opinion.

And it also depends what the bands goals are.
I think the days of having oodles of money are gone unless you want to go the xfactor way.

Fame isn't the only reason to get into music.

In your opinion.

Jesus.

Of course it's not the ONLY reason, but what's this thread about? Advice on being happy playing music?

It's good to play music for fun, but most people don't want advice on that.

Drodan

From what I've seen going to mates gigs and seeing them and a load of other bands play in and around Dublin, the main thing is to NOT SUCK. I see loads of trying to fit into what ever genre they're a fan of, to a point where I know a guy with a pretty damn good voice but because he's into (personal opinion please don't slate me) crappy boring "I mumble to myself and milk my accent" indie bands it totally takes away from they're songs.

So many people go into a band thinking "we want to sound like King of Leon/Blink 182/U2/whoever the fudge" instead of developing they're own styles which results in them sucking, balls.

Sorry wee rant.

MilanPan!c

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I think you just misunderstood me. I prolly wasn't clear.

I don't mean you can be a successful band without playing live, but that playing live isn't the key to success.

Yes, playing live is important, but it's much MORE important AFTER you're signed, as a way to make mony/promote your product in new areas.

I hope that cleared up my point.

Go look at the bands you like and try and find years of rave reviews of those bands BEFORE they were signed. You won't.

Bands with good songs get plenty of attention and quickly, no matter how much they play live.

Ok, now we're at opposing ends. A label will not be interested in you unless you already have a solid base to sell to. That is a fact. Record labels (especially in this day and age) do not like taking risks.

I hear your point point about the rave reviews, but EVERY band that you know and love (rock/indie/OMI*) perfected their act live before a label took any interest in them.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

In your opinion.

Jesus.

Of course it's not the ONLY reason, but what's this thread about? Advice on being happy playing music?

It's good to play music for fun, but most people don't want advice on that.

Raindog, dude has a point. This thread is about advice on the next step and pitfalls.

*OMI=Organic Musical Instruments - yes, I just made THE ACRONYM* up



*Happy raindog? :P

raindog.promo

Papa Smut wrote: »

*OMI=Organic Musical Instruments - yes, I just made it up

No you didn't.

MilanPan!c

Fandango wrote: »

Agree! First band i was in got signed on the back of a live gig, both by a manager and a label. Both ended badly i might ad but it doesnt change the fact they heard something live that brought them in. Who gets signed by a label listening to a CD? They throw most of em in the bin as they get so many. The first thing most A&R guys hear from a band is a gig, then the CD which of course has to be a decent quality for it to go further.

I was talking to some a&r folks recently and they said they hadn't been to a random gig in a long time. Like I said, bands need to play live, but did you watch Glasto? Most famous bands aren't incredible live. They just aren't. But they have sellable songs.

I've seen sooo many good live bands that sucked when you actually got a real listen to the singer/songs and conversely seen sooooo many famous bands, bands we ALL know, that are not good live.

A&R folks use the intenet. Most of 'em don't bother going to random shows. Even if they did see you and like you, if you can't stand up to scrutiny, they can't sell you.

It's brutal stuff.

Exceptions are great and all, but most bands get signed because the friend if some guy told someone that they were great. Then that guy hears the band usually initially on the Internet these days, and decides almost immediately if try sound like money.

That's the majority.

raindog.promo

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Of course it's not the ONLY reason, but what's this thread about? Advice on being happy playing music?

Good point. El Pron, What have bands got to do.......to achieve what?

It's good to play music for fun, but most people don't want advice on that.

I don't see why not. Though I didn't say that was the goal. There's a difference between making a living from music and achieving fame. Plenty of people do it and they probably have less psychological meltdowns than famous people.

MilanPan!c

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I was talking to some a&r folks recently and they said they hadn't been to a random gig in a long time. Like I said, bands need to play live, but did you watch Glasto? Most famous bands aren't incredible live. They just aren't. But they have sellable songs.

I've seen sooo many good live bands that sucked when you actually got a real listen to the singer/songs and conversely seen sooooo many famous bands, bands we ALL know, that are not good live.

A&R folks use the intenet. Most of 'em don't bother going to random shows. Even if they did see you and like you, if you can't stand up to scrutiny, they can't sell you.

It's brutal stuff.

Exceptions are great and all, but most bands get signed because the friend if some guy told someone that they were great. Then that guy hears the band usually initially on the Internet these days, and decides almost immediately if try sound like money.

That's the majority.

We're not talking about random gigs. We're talking about showcases/industry events. You need to be able to play your tunes really well. And you can't compare Glasto, where you don't even get a soundcheck! But how many bum notes did they hit? How many of the band were out of tune? How many were out of time with each other?

raindog.promo

MilanPan!c wrote: »

if [they] sound like money.

That's your outlook, not everyones. You're telling everyone what is what, but that's from your perspective.Plenty of bands now are doing it their own way, releasing their own albums and getting by. It's certainly a step up from the position the OP has the bands in.

rcaz

raindog.promo wrote: »

Good point. El Pron, What have bands got to do.......to achieve what?

Hahah, you've got me now

I play in a band, and I guess we're just starting to take ourselves seriously (in a 'we really think we're good' rather than a 'we want to make it' kind of way). So I was looking at all these other bands and seeing what they're doing and what stages they're at. Most people have gigs all over the place, some people have professional recordings, some people have really original ideas and some people are just doing the old reliable stuff well. We're sort of on the outside of all of this (no gigs, amateur recordings, and still learning/finding our craft [we don't think we do the old reliable stuff, but we haven't found a trademark or a signature yet either]).

And there always seems to be the same answer - get to know bands, play gigs, get people to know your band, play gigs, get some money, record in a studio, send your recordings out to blogs/radio stations/labels/whatever, play more gigs (now with music to sell)... The beaten track.

So what do new bands have to do to stand up on their own? Sustain themselves? Make it a career? I don't mean 'make it' and I don't mean 'be happy playing music'. I suppose, I mean, how do bands get to sustain themselves as artists, making their money from their art in order to make more art.

Such a broad question, I know. Maybe this thread is doomed because of that. Lots of great discussion though.

MilanPan!c

Papa Smut wrote: »

We're not talking about random gigs. We're talking about showcases/industry events. You need to be able to play your tunes really well. And you can't compare Glasto, where you don't even get a soundcheck! But how many bum notes did they hit? How many of the band were out of tune? How many were out of time with each other?

Actually, I'm always surprised at the amount of crap singing and playing at something like Glasto.


And like I said, I don't disagree with showcases, etc., but if you don't have good songs and if you don't have decent recording of those good songs your chances of being asked to play showcase/industry **** is pretty significantly lowered.

It's gotta go hand in hand.

Look at my original post. I don't think you should NEVER play live or SUCK live, but that you won't get famous/successful (if that's your thing) by ONLY gigging. OR even by putting MOST of your energy into gigging.

Gigging is necessary, and it's good for raising money, if you already have fans, but why would A&R folks randomly go out to Whelans on a Tuesday night when they can sit in the comfort of their own home, finding good bands with good songs?

they can OBVIOUSLY choose to go see the bands they find online, but c'mon... Go to ANY record label that's actively looking for acts they want MP3s or links to websites, not lists of shows.

If they like your songs, they'll go see you live.

MilanPan!c

raindog.promo wrote: »

That's your outlook, not everyones. You're telling everyone what is what, but that's from your perspective.Plenty of bands now are doing it their own way, releasing their own albums and getting by. It's certainly a step up from the position the OP has the bands in.

dood.

I can only say my own opinion based on my experience.

If you'd like me to start expressing your opinion you're SOL.

If people are reading this stuff and don't realise that NO ONE has the answers then they're ****ed.

I simply say what I think based on what I've seen.

IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO

We're kind of in agreement...


...odd

MilanPan!c

Papa Smut wrote: »

We're kind of in agreement...


...odd

It's funny, in person I'm not contentious at all. And once people know me they don't find my online persona horribly annoying.

Maybe I should just invite the entire internet over to my house for beers.

What the hell does SOL mean?

MilanPan!c

Papa Smut wrote: »

What the hell does SOL mean?

**** out of luck.

raindog.promo

El Pr0n wrote: »

Hahah, you've got me now

I play in a band, and I guess we're just starting to take ourselves seriously (in a 'we really think we're good' rather than a 'we want to make it' kind of way). So I was looking at all these other bands and seeing what they're doing and what stages they're at. Most people have gigs all over the place, some people have professional recordings, some people have really original ideas and some people are just doing the old reliable stuff well. We're sort of on the outside of all of this (no gigs, amateur recordings, and still learning/finding our craft [we don't think we do the old reliable stuff, but we haven't found a trademark or a signature yet either]).

And there always seems to be the same answer - get to know bands, play gigs, get people to know your band, play gigs, get some money, record in a studio, send your recordings out to blogs/radio stations/labels/whatever, play more gigs (now with music to sell)... The beaten track.

So what do new bands have to do to stand up on their own? Sustain themselves? Make it a career? I don't mean 'make it' and I don't mean 'be happy playing music'. I suppose, I mean, how do bands get to sustain themselves as artists, making their money from their art in order to make more art.

Such a broad question, I know. Maybe this thread is doomed because of that. Lots of great discussion though.

ADVICE I WOULD GIVE TO YOU:
Purely going by you saying "you're starting to take yourselves seriously"....

1) If you're not already doing so, get a fulltime rehearsal room where you can keep your gear and jam a number of times a week. There's a few around, usually a band sharing deal (5 evenings and split weekends) this works out cheaper in the long run, is better than renting rehearsal rooms, commits yourselves to regular jams and also has the bonus of starting to network with the other bands who share the room and getting in on their scenes too.

2) get a laptop and a copy of cubase/protools/reason, soundcard and a decent dynamic microphone and condensor microphone, and cheap drum microphone kit. Then start recording yourselves, try out different techniques and ideas, you can record demos and also prepares yourselves for recording in a studio.

raindog.promo

MilanPan!c wrote: »

dood.

I can only say my own opinion based on my experience.

If you'd like me to start expressing your opinion you're SOL.

If people are reading this stuff and don't realise that NO ONE has the answers then they're ****ed.

I simply say what I think based on what I've seen.

IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO

I'm enough of a loudmouth as it is without you also expressing my opinion.

raindog.promo

raindog.promo wrote: »

I'm enough of a loudmouth as it is without you also expressing my opinion.

I can vouch for that!

Waking-Dreams

El Pr0n wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I suppose, I mean, how do bands get to sustain themselves as artists, making their money from their art in order to make more art?

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If you want to make money* from music, the kind of music you create will typically need to have widespread appeal. That means, not over-estimating your appeal and looking at what kind of genres are banking in the music economy. Sadly, most of this music is shunned by the artistic community because it appeals to the lowest common denominator.

---

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]* How much money are we talking about? Enough to share a house with 3 other people and pay bills; rent your own house and do likewise; own your own house?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

---

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]But remember, random influences are just as important as our qualities. The connection between action and results is not as direct as we'd like to think. Our human need to control is at odds with the way the world works. For example, brilliance is usually attributed to the person's ability, never randomness. Yet, commercial failure is almost always attributed to the market, or not being “good enough” (to protect the self esteem of the artist). So, we take full credit for a hit and cast aside responsibility for a miss as much as possible; mitigating factors.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
We all know why a certain album we love did well and sold millions but it is no use in predicting its success beforehand. Lots of predictions have been made and were way off. The industry has a history of failure. And 20% of the roster brings in 80% of the gross income too. Randomness plays a huge role here except we tend not to acknowledge it so much. We are pattern-seeking primates. The uncertainty in measurement is very problematic when the quantity being measured is subjective. And all music as you know is subjective, therein lies the issue. So ability does not guarantee achievement. It can increase the chances but randomness is still the largest factor.

I am tempted to say that a lot of bands think of success with their music in relative terms; what everyone else has done before them or is currently doing. And bands often copy one another (not just musically) out of some illusory tactical strategy that will aid them, or because they couldn't think of anything better to do. Imitation before creation.

The Internet is the new-wave of the future for most bands who wouldn't have enough commercial appeal to try and get signed. There, it's all about self-made music, audience and author becoming one, not rock icons who are held up in high esteem by the media and cultural taste-makers, performing to an audience of couch-potato consumers in awe of such figures because they want or admire the lifestyle the artist has. Why is music less valuable to people because it's made by some blue collar employee on the other side of the world? The answer: it's not.

My motto is: enjoy your music, and create the kind of original sounds you think people will love, not the music you think will sell enough units to sustain yourself. Get a normal job for that. Plus, chances are it will sustain you better and have more financial security. However, with such an ambiguous endeavour, many creators tend to want to believe lots of people will really like their stuff. A belief, no matter how comforting, which usually bumps up against solid reality sooner or later (when no one acknowledges the artist's greatness).

Only a small handful of people make enough money to live off just their music, and that means they have to exercise even more control over what they put out there in case in does not sell and jepordises their future earnings/career.[/FONT] Sometimes, they are pushed into that position. A relationship with a record label is like one with your boss. You both get on good, but sometimes they ask you to work harder, up your productivity, etc. All bosses have a corporate responsibility to increase sales or whatever, and they're fallible human beings who will make bad decisions and hassle their employees for silly reasons. A record label is no different.[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

The bottom line is that most famous people were drawn to the entertainment business partly out of a desire to be liked and admired. They will often admit this openly, which is creditably honest of them, as there is nothing worse than having to listen to a three-chord generic band professing, “it's all about the music!”[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]And so music is often the means, not the ends. The ends is usually esteem, respect, affection, adulation, love, etc. Our own sense of self-esteem is tied to the views of others; our peers. Even the pursuit of fame and wealth is the means to an ends; love. Without that what good is fame and wealth? Plenty of depressed millionaires out there, in fact there's even a support group in New York for such wealthy people. Imagine that!

We all wear our admirable traits on our sleeves to project a certain image of ourselves in wider society. Not just through our clothes and fancy accessories, but through our personalities, kindness, conscientiousness, sense of humour, etc, y'know, the stuff we really want to find out about someone when we think of them as a potential friend.[/FONT]

El Pr0n wrote: »

So what do new bands actually have to do?

Everyone has a mate in a band. And all those bands are 'savage'. They all have a MySpace page, and maybe even some good quality recordings. But I get the feeling that a lot of bands stop at that.

The way the music industry is at the moment, people are going to have to step up and do it a new way. Does anyone know what that new way is yet? Surely there isn't just one way.

This thread is partly a 'I don't know what to do next' thread, but I don't mean it as a selfish 'help me out here' kind of gesture. This stuff really interests me. I love watching bands' movements. I keep getting the feeling there's gonna be some sort of musical overhaul in the near future. Things can't keep going the way they are, right? Or does that sound too pessimistic?

If you're looking for a quick-fix, or a new technique that will get instant results, it doesn't exist. The long slow burn is the reality, just like training to become an athlete doesn't occur overnight. Funnily enough, what myth is constantly projected at people in society?

"Rock tight Abs in 2 weeks!" / "Lose those love handles in 30 days" / "get the body you want with the 5 min workout"

Notice the pattern? Instant results with little work. It's a myth, yet it's saleable and attractive to humans because we evolved to value instant gratification. Understand that the approach to music can be equally unrealistic and a constant source of frustration if you're not getting the desired results.

The reason is because evolution selected for beings who lived in the moment, and this is something we all have to struggle with everyday. We're not designed for this version of the modern world at all. It's why much of what makes us happy doesn't last long. We enjoy it for a while, then discount it and go seeking the next thing, and the next, and on and on.

You know the old joke about married couples doing it less in the 2nd year, and then even less in the 3rd? It's because those euphoric chemicals the brain releases when you first start going out with someone eventually subside after 3 years or so and you're left with attachment as opposed to the overwhelming infatuation that brought you together.

Anyways, I've steered off topic here. But it's all part of the big picture. As was already said, work on your songs. I thought the songs I was playing 7 years ago were great and didn't need work. I think much differently now.

Have you got a link to your music? Wouldn't mind having a listen.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif][/FONT]

maccored

record stuff, put it online, make cheap videos for youtube/blip.tv etc and play gigs online. bands should look more closely at the web considering that web radio is coming of age and its easier to get people to tune in to a live video cast of your band playing than the hassle of paying for and organising a gig and then trying to get people to the venue.

raindog.promo

Fantastic post Waking-Dreams.

I doff my hat to you.

A Primal Nut

raindog.promo wrote: »

Fantastic post Waking-Dreams.

I doff my hat to you.

Everyone is leaving out the most important point - you have to keep trying to write better and better music. I know plenty of people who will never make it because although they are proud of their music, I'm almost certain the vast majority of people on here would never have bought their own albums had they been made by another artist. If thats the case then chances are nobody else is going to buy it either. You have to keep trying harder to write better music than everybody else. And never rest on your laurels.