What do new bands have to do?

maccored

MilanPan!c wrote: »

"how do i suceed financially"

To be fair, thats not in the same ballpark as 'how do i succeed musically'. Two different goals with two different driving outlooks, and sometimes when you boil it for a while, you end up with two different kinds of musicians

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You can't be successful without some arrogance, that's just a fact (why bother making music if it's not "special" to at least you?).

Ah now - confidence is one thing, arrogance is again, something completely different.

maccored

MilanPan!c wrote: »

@WD

So if "good" can be agreed on, broadly, it's not AS subjective as you're making it out to be.

'good" is subjective, mainly because a lot of people like music because of the social factors and not because of the music itself. In popular music culture, this can be seen in the rise of many bands of the day, as much to do with the musical fashion of the time and people not wanting to be left behind when it comes to being 'cool' and 'hip' as it does great music. Again, just because something is popular, does not necessarily mean its actually artistically brilliant. Im not referring to the Beatles, but in music in general. The likes of Jedward I think would be a perfect example. "Good" can be quite subjective.

raindog.promo

"As a musician, how do I suceed financially?"



"Sell out early, sell out often." - Ancient Chinese Proverb

MilanPan!c

maccored wrote: »

To be fair, thats not in the same ballpark as 'how do i succeed musically'. Two different goals with two different driving outlooks, and sometimes when you boil it for a while, you end up with two different kinds of musicians



Ah now - confidence is one thing, arrogance is again, something completely different.

I think I disagree with the first sentiment.

If you go down that path you're essentially saying NO good musicians or songs are successful... I can't believe you believe that.

And I goes I also disagree with the confidence thing.

Arrogance is what it takes.

Which works as a sales pitch:

I'm confident this is good

vs

I'm sure this is the best

Most people would prefer to think they're getting the best, even people fully concious of the subject nature of taste, etc.

I think you need that extra touch of self-belief that only comes with a mild delusion (yes you read that correctly) to really put in the illogical amount of effort it takes to succeed.

It's a ridiculous balancing act:

You have to know when you're own stuff sucks
You have to know how good it is compared to your competition
You have to know your audience
You have to humbly approach the huge task ahead of you
But
You ALSO have to believe that what you're doing is special enough that you're willing to sacrifice a LOT for it, because you believe in what you're doing.

Confidence just won't cut it against these odds.

maccored

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I think I disagree with the first sentiment.

If you go down that path you're essentially saying NO good musicians or songs are successful... I can't believe you believe that.

No - when and how did i say that? I said the idea of how do i succeed financially at music isnt the same question as how do I succeed musically. Plenty of people write **** music and make money. You dont need to have made money to write good music. As I said, financial success and musicial success are two different things.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

And I goes I also disagree with the confidence thing.

Arrogance is what it takes.

Which works as a sales pitch:

I'm confident this is good

vs

I'm sure this is the best

Most people would prefer to think they're getting the best, even people fully concious of the subject nature of taste, etc.

I think you need that extra touch of self-belief that only comes with a mild delusion (yes you read that correctly) to really put in the illogical amount of effort it takes to succeed.

It's a ridiculous balancing act:

You have to know when you're own stuff sucks
You have to know how good it is compared to your competition
You have to know your audience
You have to humbly approach the huge task ahead of you
But
You ALSO have to believe that what you're doing is special enough that you're willing to sacrifice a LOT for it, because you believe in what you're doing.

Confidence just won't cut it against these odds.

Each to their own, but I can tell the difference between a confident person and an arrogant one. I wouldnt give the arrogant one the time of day.

"You also have to believe ..." - you're describing confidence there, not arrogance. Arrogance is what gives us the spolit brat musician sound engineers despise.

MilanPan!c

Hey maccored, this is probably one of those instances where, if we actually had a conversation in person we'd find we essentially agreed.

e.g. Believing you're the best, for no reason, is an awful trait. Thr alone won't help you succeed. So I think we agree there.


As for what you said, "you said a musician that trys to suceed financially and a musician that tries to suceed musically are two different types of musician.

My contention is that there's plenty of examples, a huge number even, that suceed in both ways, simultaniously.

Aiming to do both isn't bizaare or impossible.

raindog.promo

MilanPan!c wrote: »

As for what you said, "you said a musician that trys to suceed financially and a musician that tries to suceed musically are two different types of musician.

I think what he was saying is there's a difference between someone who is playing music for the sake of financial gain and one for the sake of the music.

As in, do you think Britney Spears would be putting out records if there was feck all cash in it?

MilanPan!c

maccored wrote: »

'good" is subjective, mainly because a lot of people like music because of the social factors and not because of the music itself. In popular music culture, this can be seen in the rise of many bands of the day, as much to do with the musical fashion of the time and people not wanting to be left behind when it comes to being 'cool' and 'hip' as it does great music. Again, just because something is popular, does not necessarily mean its actually artistically brilliant. Im not referring to the Beatles, but in music in general. The likes of Jedward I think would be a perfect example. "Good" can be quite subjective.

Of course it can, but that's not my point.

Let's look at a real example - Elbow - The Seldom Seen Kid

I don't know anyone that thinks it's, "bad" I know a ton of folks that think it's, "good" and a few people that don't like it, but understand why everyone does.

Now, I have no scientifically reasonable way to measure it's goodness, but reasonable people must see that record, it's reception and sucess and go, "well, there's an example of a 'good' record, apparently".

Now, that record wasn't made by teens for teens, or especially handsome people. It's not used to sell sneakers.

But it is full of, "good songs".

You think that record sold because of industry blow jobs? Image management consultants?

C'mon.

And guess what, music history is FULL of these types of records.

MilanPan!c

raindog.promo wrote: »

I think what he was saying is there's a difference between someone who is playing music for the sake of financial gain and one for the sake of the music.

As in, do you think Britney Spears would be putting out records if there was feck all cash in it?

Is this thread about how to be the next teenybopper icon?

Anyone here trying to find advice on starting a boy band?

That's a weak counter argument.

We're talking about bands and songs. My point has nothing to do with pop idol or weird exceptions, it's about the most reasonable way to TRY and suceed, IMO.

The first step is good songs that business folks want to sell.

There's exceptions, but they're a waste of time to discuss, becuase a) they don't invalidate the basic principle and b) I your an exception this advice isn't for you.

Waking-Dreams

Maccored said it for me; social factors play a role too and 'good' is always going to be subjective. Have a read of Popular Music & Society.

Damn right The Beatles were good but they were also thrust into the spotlight at a time when a cultural revolution was going on, and televisions were becoming a new phenomenon which served as a brilliant promotional tool for music. Of course, their songs still win fans now and that is because compared to a lot of pap there is today, those old songs do stand out. But you can't just take one example, you have to look at the mean, the average.

Did you get around to reading Million Dollar Mistakes by any chance?

MilanPan!c wrote: »

And guess what, music history is FULL of these types of records.

No one is doubting records that do well are full of 'good' songs, because somebody thinks they are good. However, for every success there will be an even, or possibly greater number of failures. There's no magic formula for a winning song, there just isn't. How do you explain the fact that only 20% of signed bands are successful? Surely during the pre-production and recording stages they were produced to include 'good' songs? Brought it some famous producer and even some established song-writers (with a good track record) to help out.

It's easy to look back in hindsight and say, "they weren't good songs" but a whole team of record label staff and business men (whose job it is to source hits) thought so and were proved wrong.

The movie business is the same too. Good movies followed by flops. We all say to ourselves, "no wonder it flopped, it wasn't good" but that is after the fact. Trying to predict what will be popular is an illusory skill.

When we get it right though, our brain interprets it as being down to our ability, when we don't get it right, we try our best to pass the buck onto mitigating factors "wasn't promoted enough, too much competition at the time, there's a new trend in vogue".

A Primal Nut

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

When we get it right though, our brain interprets it as being down to our ability, when we don't get it right, we try our best to pass the buck onto mitigating factors "wasn't promoted enough, too much competition at the time, there's a new trend in vogue".

I agree with that point; I think most people if they don't make blame it on factors other than their music.

I don't know why some people in this thread keep bringing up Jedward and other manufactured artists to prove their point. I don't think anyone here wants to be part of a manufactured act - discussions about credible artists and manufactured artists are completely seperate. This discussion is clearly about credible artists, therefore bringing up Britney and Jedward is pointless.

raindog.promo

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Is this thread about how to be the next teenybopper icon?

Anyone here trying to find advice on starting a boy band?

That's a weak counter argument.

I wasn't giving a counter argument. Your interpretation of Maccored's post wasn't (according to himself) what he meant. I gave my interpretation of what I thought he meant. And this isn't a personal attack on you either.

We're talking about bands and songs. My point has nothing to do with pop idol or weird exceptions, it's about the most reasonable way to TRY and suceed, IMO.

The first step is good songs that business folks want to sell.

There's exceptions, but they're a waste of time to discuss, becuase a) they don't invalidate the basic principle and b) I your an exception this advice isn't for you.

This thread has had very interesting posts that have meandered from the practical to the philosophical. I don't think any of it was a waste of time.


When I asked El Pron what do new bands have to do, to do what?
He replied with this:

El Pr0n wrote: »

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.

Which is still fairly ambiguous and open to a wide scope of interpretation.

MilanPan!c

@WD I get ALL of that.

My point is that a band as good as the Beatles will ALWAYS have more opportunities to suceed then a band like say, The Villagers.

The Villagers are fine and all but their music is far less universally appealing. That is, in simple terms, fewer people think the Villagers are "good," relative to The Beatles.

Let me put this a different way: I HATE te Pixies. HATE.

But I KNOW that's ME, not them. That, when people say the Pixies are "good" I will been seen as "wrong" by the majority of music fans if I disagree.

There's philosophy and there's reality. Often they coexist peacefully an inform each other accurately, but in this case the very real "truth" that everyhing os subjective is meaningless.

Because.

Popular taste is what drives record sales and creative financial success.

Knowing and accepting that is essential to trying to suceed, but that is NOT the same as believing all art music must be a streamlined commidity to suceed.

Music can be good, the music can have artistic integrity and the business people can be happy, all at the same time.

raindog.promo

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I don't know why some people in this thread keep bringing up Jedward and other manufactured artists to prove their point. I don't think anyone here wants to be part of a manufactured act - discussions about credible artists and manufactured artists are completely seperate. This discussion is clearly about credible artists, therefore bringing up Britney and Jedward is pointless.

A new Godwin's Law in the making?

MilanPan!c

@Everyone

I'm not taking anything personally nor am I upset or likely to be upset by what anyone says or thinks, even things I really disagree with. That's just not who I am.

But I am trying to make sure everyone understands the context within which I am stating my opinions.

maccored

I don't know why some people in this thread keep bringing up Jedward and other manufactured artists to prove their point. I don't think anyone here wants to be part of a manufactured act - discussions about credible artists and manufactured artists are completely seperate. This discussion is clearly about credible artists, therefore bringing up Britney and Jedward is pointless.

well then lets move on from the idea music success is measured financially - which was the context in which I brought up the word jedward. its not.

maccored

MilanPan!c wrote: »

My contention is that there's plenty of examples, a huge number even, that suceed in both ways, simultaniously.

Aiming to do both isn't bizaare or impossible.

totally agree, though essentially they are two opposing factors. Its not easy to do something for the love of it and to try and make sure you get paid for the same thing. 'love' and 'pay' have two different instruction manuals.

MilanPan!c

maccored wrote: »

totally agree, though essentially they are two opposing factors. Its not easy to do something for the love of it and to try and make sure you get paid for the same thing. 'love' and 'pay' have two different instruction manuals.

I still think I disagree.

If the thing you love to do is write good songs, why should part of your plan not be getting paid?

I mean, if I told an architect he shouldn't be paid for his work, if it made him happy, he'd think I was insane.

There's a huge differnce between cynically creating a product and trying to find a way to donwuat you love, for a living.

I think it's naive to think that you can make music on a certain level without being willing to occasionally compromise, but that's not me being cynical and manipulative, it's me trying to run a successful small business.

raindog.promo

MilanPan!c wrote: »

The Villagers are fine and all but........

the Pixies....... .


But I KNOW that's ME, not them. That, when people say the Pixies are "good" I will been seen as "wrong" by the majority of music fans if I disagree.

Ok. So take The villagers or The Pixies.

I haven't heard The Villagers but I am a fan of The Pixies. I would say the Pixies is an aquired (non mainstream) taste.

So going back to El Porns' question, perhaps the first thing you need to do is have a good look at your band and evaluate yourselves. You don't want to change your music just to make money.

So evaluate realistically how far you think the type of music you play can go. How big a crowd (best expectations, say you're widely known) could you pull? How much cash would that pull in. Is it worth it in your eyes?

I think this point sounded better in my head and I haven't done it justice, but I'm knackered at the moment.

MilanPan!c

@R.P

This is part of what I've been saying - you have to be able to honestly appraise your own music - part of being HAPPY playing music is having appropriate expectations.

but part of success is knowing that, "my audience won't dig this one bizaare idea I have".

That's NOT being cynical, it's putting the project before your own selfish desires, which isn't easy.

raindog.promo

Well, a lot of people were extremely pissed off with Radiohead when they brought out Kid A. People complained that this wasn't what their audience wanted and they did alienate a lot of fans, but they had the confidence to do it.

That's not an anomoly either. There's constant complaints from bands that they didn't want to make a carbon copy of their last album which was relatively successful. However, their record company was pushing them to do so.

The OP's question is actually a bloody hard one to answer.

If you want to make enough money to keep going on and creating your art, play it safe for the sake of the money coming in which enables you to keep going.

Or take a chance, if your confident enough in it and that enough people will support you in the endevour.

I suppose at the end of the day, if you want security become a doctor, lawyer or accountant.
Where art and music is concerned, it's a very risky business and nothing is garaunteed.

Edit *No wonder there's so much drug abuse going on, they're probably constantly on the edge of a nervous breakdown.


Where's my NAMA?

MilanPan!c

raindog.promo wrote: »

Well, a lot of people were extremely pissed off with Radiohead when they brought out Kid A. People complained that this wasn't what their audience wanted and they did alienate a lot of fans, but they had the confidence to do it.

That's not an anomoly either. There's constant complaints from bands that they didn't want to make a carbon copy of their last album which was relatively successful. However, their record company was pushing them to do so.

The OP's question is actually a bloody hard one to answer.

If you want to make enough money to keep going on and creating your art, play it safe for the sake of the money coming in which enables you to keep going.

Or take a chance, if your confident enough in it and that enough people will support you in the endevour.

I suppose at the end of the day, if you want security become a doctor, lawyer or accountant.
Where art and music is concerned, it's a very risky business and nothing is garaunteed.

Where's my NAMA?

Classic stuff.

It's so true.

That's why I said, "if anyone reading this thinks anyone has the answers then they're ****ed".

There's no "answers" but there is good advice, which is weird.

IMO the best advice is simple. Write good songs that appeal to a wide range of people.

Easy enough... Suprisingly no.

maccored

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I still think I disagree.

If the thing you love to do is write good songs, why should part of your plan not be getting paid?

I mean, if I told an architect he shouldn't be paid for his work, if it made him happy, he'd think I was insane.

There's a huge differnce between cynically creating a product and trying to find a way to donwuat you love, for a living.

I think it's naive to think that you can make music on a certain level without being willing to occasionally compromise, but that's not me being cynical and manipulative, it's me trying to run a successful small business.

I think its wiser if I just say nothing - youve a tendancy to quote me, and then give an completely inaccurate comparison. No-one said "that you can make music on a certain level without being willing to occasionally compromise" (well I certainly didnt anyway), so I dont know where you're going on that front.

IMO the best advice is simple. Write good songs that appeal to a wide range of people.

write songs that appeal to yourself, or just dont bother. You cant have it both ways. You cant try to appeal to the general public and write music speciaifically for public sales while at the same time write music for your own enjoyment. Maybe you think its important to sarcrifice the enjoyment aspect of music in return for money, but personally I dont.

Still, as mentioned, this is all very subjective and theres no right or wrong answers.

Waking-Dreams

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I don't know why some people in this thread keep bringing up Jedward and other manufactured artists to prove their point. I don't think anyone here wants to be part of a manufactured act - discussions about credible artists and manufactured artists are completely seperate. This discussion is clearly about credible artists, therefore bringing up Britney and Jedward is pointless.

Millions of people buy Britney Spears' albums because, in their opinion, her music is 'good'. And who are we to tell them otherwise? What gives my opinion any more authority over theirs when it comes to musical taste? Yet, people are doing that to each other every day because they're so convinced they 'know' what is 'good'. Now, I don't particularly like her music either, but some people obviously do. People often say, "to each, their own" when defending a favourite band of theirs from criticism, yet we sometimes find ourselves in the role of musical taste-makers too, dishing out the same kind of criticism. Where is the "to each, their own" sentiment there?

Would you consider Michael Jackson's album Thriller credible? I would, but you can bet your bottom dollar you'll find people who wouldn't. Thriller has some good songs on there, but if that album came out today, would the people who listen to pop music like it over Lady Gaga, or what not? We'd like to think so, but you can never say with any certainty. The same man who thought 'Bad' was full of great songs and would eclipse the sale of Thriller (25 million copies at the time) by selling 100 million was dead wrong. It only sold a quarter of what Thriller did at the time, yet I think Bad is a great record and would choose it over alot of pop music these days.

Music is subject to the whims of cultural changes, right time and place, etc. Heck, even record companies acknowledge this which is why they try so damn hard to influence it in favour of their artists.

But more importantly, music also doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Imagine, if we could take 1,000 people, have them write down their 10 favourites records, and then isolate each person and hit them with an amnesia ray, wiping away their memories of their favourite music. Then we play each subject their 10 favourite records mixed with 10 other records. No introduction, just the music, no names, no pictures; a bit like a music-tasting experiment.

Now, I know this kind of test is impossible, but I think it would be interesting to see what kind of results we got. Would each of the participants favour their previously chosen albums, or would they select some of the random records as being more to their liking?

Music, good music even, is never the only reason people decide to like bands. It can also be the image, the politics, what our friends are listening to, etc. However, we perceive these choices as having to do with just the music. If you doubt this I don't know what to say to you. Humans are social animals and we are quite influenced by those around us.

To take another well-know scientific example:

A subject was invited to solve a maths sum on a blackboard in a classroom along with 9 other volunteers. Unbeknownst to the subject, each of the other 9 volunteers were stooges and had been instructed to give the same incorrect answer when asked by the professor.

The 10 candidates are all seated apart and do not discuss their answers with each other (they are strangers after all).

So, the professor finally gets around to asking 4 or 5 of the candidates around the room what answer they got - upon which they announce aloud the instructed wrong answer.

And what does the test subject do in most cases of this experiment? Checks over their answer again, and assumes they must be incorrect. Only a small minority of subjects stick with their original answer. Most when asked by the professor either lie and say they got the same answer as everyone else so as not stick out, or admit they got the sum wrong and shrug at their own bad judgement.

Now, what does that tell you about how human nature works? And that's concerning a maths sum which is either 'correct' or 'wrong', there's no grey area for personal taste.

MilanPan!c

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Millions of people buy Britney Spears' albums because, in their opinion, her music is 'good'. And who are we to tell them otherwise? What gives my opinion any more authority over theirs when it comes to musical taste? Yet, people are doing that to each other every day because they're so convinced they 'know' what is 'good'. Now, I don't particularly like her music either, but some people obviously do. People often say, "to each, their own" when defending a favourite band of theirs from criticism, yet we sometimes find ourselves in the role of musical taste-makers too dishing out the same kind of criticism. Where is the "to each, their own" sentiment there?

Would you consier Michael Jackson's album Thriller credible? I would, but you can bet your bottom dollar you'll find people who wouldn't. Thriller has some good songs on there, but if that album came out today, would the people who listen to pop music like it over Lady Gaga, or what not? We'd like to think so, but you can never say with any certainty. The same man who thought 'Bad' was full of great songs and would eclipse the sale of Thriller (25 million copies at the time) by selling 100 million was dead wrong. It only sold a quarter of what Thriller did at the time, yet I think Bad is a great record and would choose it over alot of pop music these days.

Music is subject to the whims of cultural changes, right time and place, etc. Heck, even record companies acknowledge this which is why they try so damn hard to influence it in favour of their artists.

But more importantly, music also doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Imagine, if we could take 1,000 people, have them write down their 10 favourites records, and then isolate each person and hit them with an amnesia ray, wiping away their memories of their favourite music. Then we play each subject their 10 favourite records mixed with 10 other records. No introduction, just the music, no names, no pictures; a bit like a music-tasting experiment.

Now, I know this kind of test is impossible, but I think it would be interesting to see what kind of results we got. Would each of the participants favour their previously chosen albums, or would they select some of the random records as being more to their liking?

Music, good music even, is never the only reason people decide to like bands. It can also be the image, the politics, what our friends are listening to, etc. However, we perceive these choices as having to do with just the music. If you doubt this I don't know what to say to you. Humans are social animals and we are quite influenced by those around us.

To take another well-know scientific example:

A subject was invited to solve a maths sum on a blackboard in a classroom along with 9 other volunteers. Unbeknownst to the subject, each of the other 9 volunteers were stooges and had been instructed to give the same incorrect answer when asked by the professor.

The 10 candidates are all seated apart and do not discuss their answers with each other (they are strangers after all).

So, the professor finally gets around to asking 4 or 5 of the candidates around the room what answer they got - upon which they announce aloud the instructed wrong answer.

And what does the test subject do in most cases of this experiment? Checks over their answer again, and assumes they must be incorrect. Only a small minority of subjects stick with their original answer. Most when asked by the professor either lie and say they got the same answer as everyone else so as not stick out, or admit they got the sum wrong and shrug at their own bad judgement.

Now, what does that tell you about how human nature? And that's concerning a maths sum which is either 'correct' or 'wrong', there's no grey area for personal taste.

Man, this can't be what you really think, that there's no such thing as good music... that is all music has the potential to be as good as all other music.

That just seems like an insane conclusion, even based on your understanding of group psychology.

The thing is, I understand group behaviour as well (go google my band's name if you don't believe me) and I know that while people, in general, are highly susceptible to influence and that marketers and salespeople have been living off of Bernay's extremely toxic legacy for decades that lot's of bad music is popular and I know that lots of good music is unrecognised...

BUT

Absolutely none of that can take away the connection many many people feel when they hear a good song.

And no I don't mean, "good" I mean good.

A good song can be a lot of things to a lot of people, but if the sales geniuses really could simply turn on a magic marketing machine two things would happen:

-People would only buy popular stuff (right now the music market is hugely segmented, not monolithic, so that hasn't happened)

-All other music would disappear, because music would become soda, i.e. a pure commodity that no one could be passionate about, but that most people buy.

Now, neither of things have happened for a variety of reasons:

Psychology doesn't create absolutes, it creates averages. It strives to understand the outliers, but at the end of the day marketing folks use these methods to simply get the "biggest subsections" of humanity, not all of it. One size can never fit all.

Put it another way, did you buy Britney Spears CDs?

The other reason is even more obvious: Many people that work in the industry actually love good music, and are trying to make money with their passion, just like many of the musicians who hope to be signed.

So.

What this means to most folks is that there's a small, but real opportunity to make art that that they're passionate about, and to find someone that cares about music, but has connections and business sense to be successful who can help them reach a bigger audience who will connect with their passion.

The best advice, IMO, to find these people, is to bust your hump writing songs. To be honest with yourself about the quality of your songs. And to have realistic expectations for your material. And that realism could mean working hard to chase a dream.

These are the same kinds of odds the elites (and the rest of us) of any industry has fought their way through. Music is no different.

Waking-Dreams

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Man, this can't be what you really think, that there's no such thing as good music... that is all music has the potential to be as good as all other music.

Where are you getting that idea from, that I think there's no such thing as good music? I'm just highlighting how musical taste really varies from person to person, to encompass their age group, their immediate social circle, to what is trendy and to what came before that music (a reference group for comparison). You might think your music is good but other people will vote with their wallets, their time, their feedback. I mean, why is it that you upload rough versions of your songs to get anonymous feedback? If you were so convinced you knew what a 'good' song was, then why engage in such an endeavour? I'll hazard a guess and say it's because you're testing the water in case you might be wrong. You want to ensure enough people also share your taste and then make changes accordingly. Nothing wrong with that either.

But what's going to happen when you release your album and nobody likes it as much as you hoped? You're either going to have to admit it's just not as 'good' or as valuable to other people and return to first principles; or you can claim it is good, and that people just don't get it, aren't ready for you, or don't know what good music is when they hear it. I know you have every bit of confidence in your ability, and I'm not wishing you bad luck, but how do you know you have a winning combination of songs? Because you do? That sounds like a belief based on desire. Presumably every single band that gets a record deal thinks likewise. But the maths don't add up when the results come in I'm afraid. In a survey of adult drivers, when asked how they would rate their own driving skills, most state good, or above the average. But this is impossible; they all can't be above average, there has to be people who are below average. Only those drivers happen to think otherwise. Go figure.

The first Harry Potter novel was rejected by several publishing houses before it was eventually taken up by Bloomsbury. Yet, the manuscript remained the same for each. What led all those other publishers to see no value in it? We can clearly see today, it was a big hit and I'm sure some of those other publishers are kicking themselves now that they passed on it. Such is life. But how many other good novels are rejected in the same fashion? And what does that say about the randomness of what makes the cut even when it comes to having good material?

EDIT: In fact, Jerzy Kosinsky's bestselling novel Steps was rejected by all 27 publishers it was sent to (by some joker) under a different name and title, including Random House who originally published it! How can that be? It was a proven hit, and even the publishing house who originally published it sent a rejection letter!

I'm just pointing out how randomness and bad judgements are as common, maybe even more so, than successful ones whether or not good material was present. Good material increases one chances alright, I never said otherwise, but to what degree can we calculate such odds without involving our wishes and desires? Do you not think you're over-stretching it a bit because you yourself are a songwriter and have ambitions to write good material and make some money?

The lotto numbers 7, 13, 14, 23, 35, 40 might increase my chances of winning over your selection of say, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 (has such a selection ever won?) but isn't this to do with human perception over what we think is more likely to win than what is not? My selection is just as unlikely to win, in theory. Or to put it another way, when chance is involved, people's thought processes are seriously flawed.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I know that lots of good music is unrecognised.

So then, why are we even having this debate? If we all agree (and I think everyone here does) that good music goes unrecognised, surely saying you need to have good material to succeed is stating the obvious? Like the stock market advice, “buy low, sell high”. The debate got sidetracked because everyone's definition of good is different, and is also subject to what other people consider good as well. Musical taste is always going to be relative.

Out of curiosity, what in your opinion makes for a 'good' song? Give me the anatomy of a good song in no less than 200 words if you have the time. I guarantee you, whatever description you give, there is an infinite number of other 'good' songs out there that would challenge your definition of what is good, based on both sales and the testimony of others. Unless of course, you give a very vague, over-generalisation (much like a horoscope does) which is completely useless to anyone and so we're back to square one. Hence, why I said, this is all a circular argument.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

A good song can be a lot of things to a lot of people, but if the sales geniuses really could simply turn on a magic marketing machine two things would happen:

-People would only buy popular stuff (right now the music market is hugely segmented, not monolithic, so that hasn't happened)

-All other music would disappear, because music would become soda, i.e. a pure commodity that no one could be passionate about, but that most people buy.

You don't think they've tried? It's because they can't, since humans are emotional creatures whose tastes are subject to change all the time. Wow, haha when I think back to all the crap I used to listen to 10-15 years ago which I thought was good music, it wouldn't last two seconds of my time now. What happened? My tastes changed is what happened.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Psychology doesn't create absolutes, it creates averages. It strives to understand the outliers, but at the end of the day marketing folks use these methods to simply get the "biggest subsections" of humanity, not all of it. One size can never fit all.

No one suggested absolutes, again that was all you. What I'm noticing is that people make a point which you then misinterpret or decide to attack another point altogether, which they weren't even making, in order to make a valid argument – an argument which people happen to agree with. It's a bit like straw-manning someone's position. I'll admit, I'm guilty of this sometimes too but I do try my best to avoid it, and we're only human after all.

Did you even try to find some examples that would prove you wrong? Maybe instead of just engaging in confirmation bias by listing anecdotes and positive examples which confirm your beliefs, maybe acknowledge that it's a little more complex than you make it out and that randomness and lady luck have proven themselves to be the biggest contributors in the success rates of artists.

No one will argue with you that a band needs good music to do well, but everyone's perception of good and bad can be leagues apart.

To round up, I think as musicians, we like to have a degree of certainty in our lives; playing music gives us a sense of control and we take pride in writing songs we think are good. Somehow, acknowledging that our actions and great music aren't always as tied to certain outcomes as much as we'd like them to be, is anathema to us. We find patterns were none exist, and reject evidence which disconfirms our cherished beliefs (often on an unconscious level), sometimes employing defence mechanisms and motivated reasoning if the truth doesn't co-operate.

When we get selected for a job interview and get the job over 100 people, we pat ourselves on the back and put it down to our own abilities winning the day and beating the competition. Yet, what if a month into the job our new employer confessed saying he didn't actually look at your CV much and in a way randomly selected you from the bunch, or based it on you living in his hometime, how would that make you feel?

It's all well and good pointing the finger at successful artists who release a follow-up record that flops and exclaiming, “of course it flopped, sure it's crap” while categorically ignoring that the artist in question and their whole team of business affiliates didn't think so, and had every hope of it being a winning record. These affiliates have a track record of backing hits and have a bunch of framed records in their offices to prove it. Yet, previous achievements do not indicate future success.

Maybe you should consult as many A&R guys out there, whose job it is to find good songs and ask them what their success ratio is? These people are obviously only interested in what's good (or what they think is good) and so any failures are either evidence that they were wrong, or that mitigating factors occurred. I guarantee you that with every case where they were right and the band went on to be a success, the term mitigating factors will not be applied. That's the power of the human brain which evolved to find meaning in patterns.

MilanPan!c

@WD

I'm not trying to confront you because I'm upset.

I do think though that's there deep flaws in how you understand the industry, human nature and creativity.

That's not an attack; that's my opinion.

For one thing, you have repeatedly said that good is completely subjective. You just said, if I outlined what I thought made a good song, it wouldn't fit everyone ideal of good. Again, good is always subjective.

But you also just said that I was outing words in your mouth when I said that you thought good was subjective. That's the first couple sentences of your last post.

You also said that music is essentially the lotto, but you ALSO have said that people are easy to lead around en masse.

If people are capable of using psychology to sell then it's not the lotto at all.

In fact, a pretty girl with good songs a good voice and lots of connections can't claim to have any edge in the lotto, that's not the same with music.

There are many many many things which people can control. It's not a guarantee of success but it helps them increase their odds.

Now, you asked me what will I do if I put out the record and it flops.

Well, that would depend on a few things, but essentially I would try and figure out to better next time. If I tried things and they worked I would take that on board, same if they failed.

I have very little ego about my songs, but I have good taste. Give me suggstions and if they're good , I'll change the songs to make them better.

It's all about the songs.

So, as usual we should just call this a stalemate and move on.

We're both feeling a bit of tension here, which is silly, right?

Hopefully, people will take the best bits from both of our many posts and it'll help someone think about their goals and strategy.

Like many people online WD I feel like if we had a pint or two we'd vet on quite well.

maccored

i have to say waking-dreams makes good points there. I see things much the same way.

I do think though that's there deep flaws in how you understand the industry, human nature and creativity.

I doubt any of us actually really understand "the industry, human nature and creativity."

drumdrum

maccored wrote: »

i have to say waking-dreams makes good points there. I see things much the same way.



I doubt any of us actually really understand "the industry, human nature and creativity."

+1 maccored!!


To Milan Panic, there is no such thing as an unbiased approach by a musician / band towards their own music. Every musician will have some pre-concept notion about their own music whether it is that they think that their music os great or crap. Ive met friends who have written great songs but they think that it is crap.
For example, in professional football there is a reason that they get referees of a different nationality than the playing teams at soccer matches. It lessens the likelihood of bias. Call it 'human nature / element / whatever', if you think that any musician has the ability to rate their own music without rose tinted glasses (earplugs?!) is a bit naive on your part. Every musician does it...its just that we aren't always aware that we are doing it.

The only true judge of a musicians music is (IMO) a strangers opinion. Not a friend or family member who will often tell you what they think you want to hear, but a compete stranger because it will have a higher chance of being more honest, clear and decisive. It shouldn't be taken as a word of God or anything, just that if you start to hear the same few niggles from different people, then chances are that the criticism/compliment has merit.
Ive written songs before that I thought were great, but when I played them for people, I was often surprised that their favourite tune was one that I considered as more filler than killer!

Also my last point, is that A Primal Nut wrote:

"Thats what I'm talking about - if they are getting bored playing the song it itsn't going to have long-lasting appeal for other people either."

This is not necessarily true. Bands have often said that they have grown to hate a particular fan favourite over time, for example, Radiohead and Creep. Now they do play it to keep fans happy but Thom Yorke has said that he pretty much hates playing that song. It doesn't mean that the song is crap, it just means that the man knew to leave the song alone more for the fans sake rather than for his.

Waking-Dreams

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I'm not trying to confront you because I'm upset.

Of course not, and I don't take any offence or read too much into online debates; it's good for us all to challenge our ideas and so forth. And when I said attack, which might have been a poor choice of wording, I'm acknowledging you're just stating your opinion. Don't worry, no one's accusing you of being irate and yelling at your computer screen.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

But you also just said that I was outing words in your mouth when I said that you thought good was subjective. That's the first couple sentences of your last post.

Stating repeatedly that music is subjective and everyone has their differences of opinions -- to then asking me how can I believe there's no such thing as good music is missing the point, though I'll concede it might be a bit of muddled mess; splitting hairs.

You'll notice I listed some of my personal 'good' musical tastes in this thread, but I am always careful to state that those just happen to be my tastes, and have no authority over the tastes of someone else. You and I might agree on what bands are good and we'll disagree on others. Does that mean our tastes are subjective? Yes it does. Does it mean good music doesn't exist? Er, do you now see where the confusion is in this line of questioning? Of course good music exists, but everyone has their own idea of what that is. Sometimes many people agree and a pattern can be found but amongst the millions of songs that exist, can we really read into these patterns that heavily? If you asked people tomorrow what makes a great song you'd get so many different answers that they'd probably cancel each other out.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

You also said that music is essentially the lotto, but you ALSO have said that people are easy to lead around en masse. If people are capable of using psychology to sell then it's not the lotto at all.

You really hate that lottery example don't you? To be fair, I'm actually making an analogy with success in the music industry and the lottery, not a direct comparison. The analogy does not have to be the same as the target but rather, it requires the aspect of one to illuminate the point you're making about the other. Not for one to be the exact same as the other or to be strictly comparable right down to the level.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

In fact, a pretty girl with good songs a good voice and lots of connections can't claim to have any edge in the lotto, that's not the same with music.

A pretty girl with good songs, a good voice, and lots of connections can also fail in the music industry too because of factors which had nothing to do with her music. Just like we have the 80% of label artists who fail to meet their targets. They might have had the 'edge' too but it seems to have done damn all. You'll say the material could have been lacking, but what gives your opinion more authority over the A&R, the producer, the label bosses who had every bit of confidence in her appeal? It's why they signed her after all, right? They may have even used psychology to try and sell her to the music fans but it just didn't work that particular time. Selling records is not an exact science. I've simply highlighted the many factors which play a role, not one all-encompassing truth because there is none.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

There are many many many things which people can control. It's not a guarantee of success but it helps them increase their odds.

I think you'll find I already agree with that. Indeed it does increase the odds, but how much of an increase is another thing. The fact that J.K. Rowling was turned down by many publishers at first and Jerzy Kosinsky's (I remembered the name) bestseller Steps was rejected by all 27 publishers it was sent to (by some joker) under a different name and title - including Random House who originally published it - speaks volumes and seems to indicate, even with good material on your side, it's no indicator of getting a warm reception and a foot in the door of the commercial industry. Why is this? Because it's run by humans, and humans are somewhat irrational.

We all except that our bodies have flaws; a blind spot in our eyes, the design of our backs which often cause many problems for 80-90% of the population at some point in their life but we tend to forget that our brains have flaws too. The process of evolution has left us with some functional but flawed systems of operation. People make silly mistakes, fall prey to confirmation bias, attribution bias, cognitive dissonance in their thinking patterns and all sorts of other mental quirks.

Here's a list of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

How many musicians out there trying to make a career even know and understand what three or four of those biases are? And yet, they might think they have a realistic understanding of the industry, based on some anecdotal evidence, or what they watched on an VH1 'behind the music' documentary, or in some artist's hyped-up biography, or based on some conversations they had with other bands trying to make it too.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

So, as usual we should just call this a stalemate and move on.

I don't think it has to be a stalemate since we do agree on lots of points. The only difference is where we think odds and randomness come into play and how much of a difference good songs really make. You've stated that good music often goes unrecognised and music that lacks credibility gets into the charts and is commercially successful. Would I be correct there? If so, then what is your overall message? What are you trying to communicate here? What are you arguing over? That some of us don't have an optimistic approach and should think differently?

Vague, over-generalisations of “write good songs, network and make contacts, never give up, and believe in yourself” are all well and good but they're wide open to interpretation, much like the daily horoscopes.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

We're both feeling a bit of tension here, which is silly, right?

Not on my end chief, speak for yourself. This is a topic I find fascinating and worthy of stimulating conversation and debate, and I'm delighted there's a number of people all taking part.

There's nothing worse than an echo chamber.