Music Industry / A&R priorities when assessing a band website?

Denalihighway

Hi lads

Looking to get your perspective on something. Hope you don’t mind me posting here, I thought of posting in the bands and musicians forum but I think you guys would have more interesting opinions given your experience in the industry. I think I’ll get a lot of opinions over there, but it won’t necessarily be based on experience

I have an album recorded and are going to promote it to industry folk on the QT to see if there’s any interest before we release it ourselves (which is the likelihood, I know…). Its indie rock/pop, very melodic and catchy with a good edge and dark-ish lyrically. I think a lot of it is very commercial but needless to say I know how difficult/impossible it is for rock music to get noticed at the moment. Not completely impossible though – the breakthrough of bands like Two Door Cinema Club etc gives me hope.

As a band we were going about 5 years with lots of demos/EPs recorded gigs played etc. Since we recorded the album we changed the name and have basically rebranded I suppose you could say. The album quality (songs and production) is hugely superior to all the stuff we’ve done before.
My question is about our website. Obviously we hope that folks will check it out after receiving tunepaks etc or listening to a CD.

My initial thoughts were to abandon any previous history of the band, songs, gigs etc and focus on people hearing songs from the album as a ‘new band’. I felt the ‘tiredness’ of our story might detract from the appeal and I just wanted to have new songs on the website (links would be provided to industry folk – if we get to them) plus a simple bio and a lucid/sensible appeal to anyone who may want to invest in me and the music.

Maybe I’m naïve but I just want it to be all about the music. I think there’d be more mystery and appeal that way but I could be wrong. I realise industry folk seek a ‘ready-made’ band as far as fanbase goes etc but I don’t think its as important as people make out. I think good industry people will know an opportunity when they see it and understand how to make it work. (I’m not saying that’s how they’ll see us…but you know what I mean)

Opinion seems to be right down the middle on this – some agree with this and others think its more advantageous to show the track record, have all the old stuff up as mp3s to show the progress, the work ethic etc and to go into our history a bit more. But at this stage I need a bit more than opinion.

What are these folks more interested in?

Are they just interested in where the music is now? Does our past matter at all?

Be very interested and appreciative of your thoughts…cheers

Neurojazz

Denalihighway wrote: »

Hi lads

Looking to get your perspective on something. Hope you don’t mind me posting here, I thought of posting in the bands and musicians forum but I think you guys would have more interesting opinions given your experience in the industry. I think I’ll get a lot of opinions over there, but it won’t necessarily be based on experience

I have an album recorded and are going to promote it to industry folk on the QT to see if there’s any interest before we release it ourselves (which is the likelihood, I know…). Its indie rock/pop, very melodic and catchy with a good edge and dark-ish lyrically. I think a lot of it is very commercial but needless to say I know how difficult/impossible it is for rock music to get noticed at the moment. Not completely impossible though – the breakthrough of bands like Two Door Cinema Club etc gives me hope.

As a band we were going about 5 years with lots of demos/EPs recorded gigs played etc. Since we recorded the album we changed the name and have basically rebranded I suppose you could say. The album quality (songs and production) is hugely superior to all the stuff we’ve done before.
My question is about our website. Obviously we hope that folks will check it out after receiving tunepaks etc or listening to a CD.

My initial thoughts were to abandon any previous history of the band, songs, gigs etc and focus on people hearing songs from the album as a ‘new band’. I felt the ‘tiredness’ of our story might detract from the appeal and I just wanted to have new songs on the website (links would be provided to industry folk – if we get to them) plus a simple bio and a lucid/sensible appeal to anyone who may want to invest in me and the music.

Maybe I’m naïve but I just want it to be all about the music. I think there’d be more mystery and appeal that way but I could be wrong. I realise industry folk seek a ‘ready-made’ band as far as fanbase goes etc but I don’t think its as important as people make out. I think good industry people will know an opportunity when they see it and understand how to make it work. (I’m not saying that’s how they’ll see us…but you know what I mean)

Opinion seems to be right down the middle on this – some agree with this and others think its more advantageous to show the track record, have all the old stuff up as mp3s to show the progress, the work ethic etc and to go into our history a bit more. But at this stage I need a bit more than opinion.

What are these folks more interested in?

Are they just interested in where the music is now? Does our past matter at all?

Be very interested and appreciative of your thoughts…cheers

Have found recently that they like well made music - and your music doesn't 'age' as such, so don't worry about that either imo.

PaulBrewer

Anything we can hear ?

Why would anyone care about your past ?

Tunes are the only things that count.

Denalihighway

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Anything we can hear ?

Why would anyone care about your past ?

Tunes are the only things that count.

thats what i'm hoping.

but is what you're saying, that i SHOULD include the previous songs/history etc and it shouldn't matter?

or that I should just not bother referring to it at all and go with the 'new band' approach?

will PM you some links

tweeky

Paul is spot on, the past only counts if you were in another band of note ie;

"Paul Weller was in the Jam now he's....."

Or you were a model/actor?daughter of Charlie Chaplin etc.
If you weren't signed in your previous incarnation start afresh.
The first questions i always hear from a label are;
"How old are they and what do they look like" and "who do they sound like"
If the biog states that the band was around for 5 years and have nothing to show for it's usually a black mark.
As you talk to an A&R guy these days you can hear him surfing the site and has probably made up his mind with a flick thru the first 15 secs of the tunes.
Will only travel if he needs a night in the Clarence Hotel on the piss.

Denalihighway

tweeky wrote: »

Paul is spot on, the past only counts if you were in another band of note ie;

"Paul Weller was in the Jam now he's....."

Or you were a model/actor?daughter of Charlie Chaplin etc.
If you weren't signed in your previous incarnation start afresh.
The first questions i always hear from a label are;
"How old are they and what do they look like" and "who do they sound like"
If the biog states that the band was around for 5 years and have nothing to show for it's usually a black mark.
As you talk to an A&R guy these days you can hear him surfing the site and has probably made up his mind with a flick thru the first 15 secs of the tunes.
Will only travel if he needs a night in the Clarence Hotel on the piss.

I'm with you on this. Its good to hear it from you guys though.

I figure less is more info wise and let the songs speak for themselves. then if they're interested they'll delve deeper and you put on your best clobber and charm the pants off them David Brent style..

nothing i hate more than reading mindnumbing band biographies which seem to exist in a different dimension to the quality of the music...

how many songs is too much to put up off the album on website/tunepak via email/promo CD? are we still doing the "gimme your best 3 songs" dance? i can see merit in it for obvious reasons. but i wonder is it advsiable to put up a couple to show some consistency if they want to listen some more?

madtheory

Put up all the songs, and use bandcamp.

Neurojazz

madtheory wrote: »

Put up all the songs, and use bandcamp.

I like the part about Bandcamp where they pay you instantly

krd

Denalihighway wrote: »

nothing i hate more than reading mindnumbing band biographies which seem to exist in a different dimension to the quality of the music...

Anything you think is sh1te, probably is.

Think of album covers. Only the absolutely most cheesy album covers would have biogs.

And if the record company guys are asking stupid questions like; what age are they? what do they look like? what do they sound like? Then they're stupid - stoo pid. The next big thing could literally be a bunch of 55 year-olds playing bouncy ska.

It's 20 years since the release of Nevermind. These are the same guys who were turning their noses up at Nirvana. "Hey, they're dressed like homeless people, look none of them even has a perm - this just isn't rock"

It's easy to say why something was successful after the fact - but you look at nearly everything that ever has been successful, it's the oddest stuff, no one would have ever thought would have worked.

And that runs right the way from Bill Hailey to Mumford & sons.