What do new bands have to do?

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

Papa Smut wrote: »

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

No you didn't.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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

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?

Papa Smut wrote: »

What the hell does SOL mean?

**** out of luck.

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.

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 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.

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.

maccored

A Primal Nut wrote: »

You have to keep trying harder to write better music than everybody else. And never rest on your laurels.

I wouldnt be too sure of that - certainly keep trying to write better music, but not necessarily 'better music than anyone else'. You are your own critic, in my mind, so (imo) one should primarily write music for oneself.

drumdrum

A Primal Nut wrote: »

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.

Its all well and good to say "you've got to keep writing better songs" and all that, and its true, but the problem is that music is too subjective to say what is and isn't a good song. A good song to me is not necessarily a good song to the next person. Sure you could rate a song in terms of commercial potential, but thats not the same thing as if a song is good or not.

I mean, if you talk to any band and ask them if they like their own music they will tell you that they like their own tunes because they wouldnt play them if they didnt. Its all subjective and one must keep an open mind when listening to music....especially when listening to genres that you're usually not familiar with or that you usually dont like.
That said, usually a good song will shine through to most people regardless of genre, but no band in history or that there ever will be will write great songs all the time. The contrast between their great songs and their ok songs is what makes the great songs even better.

Lastly, a good band must also know when to STOP working on a song and to let a song be. Ive known bands (and Ive done it meself!) to take a great song back to the writing stage a few months later because they are bored of playing it. Rarely does the song get improved upon with hindsight!

Waking-Dreams

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

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If there was some kind of hidden formula for writing the perfect, most likeable song, don't you think it would have been discovered by now? All innovation is based on what came beforehand but some people do it better than others. However, it's hard to define until it comes along. Again, we notice its brilliance after the fact, which seems only natural. Correctly prediciting what will be popular has been the bane of many musicians, producers, labels, advertisers, the list goes on. It's kind of cool that it's so esoteric and hard to pinpoint; gives musicians a real sense of adventure and creative expression. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Everyone here has some degree of experience when it comes to debating musical taste, where people rate their favourite bands against others as being 'better', why this artist is a more sophisticated songwriter than that one, why such and such guitarist has no 'feel' or 'authenticity'. But it's all very subjective; quite a circular argument.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]'Good' or 'bad', all music is a vehicle for social bonding. Music is organised sound and communicates to us emotionally through systematic violations and expectations. Typically, its perceived as too tedious when overly predictable and too discordant and unpleasant when it's not. But there's a whole lot of grey area in there, and musicians and reviewers often live behind a wall of terms that can at times sound pretentious.
[/FONT]

WD said "music is organised sound"

You have no idea how many times I've used that exact same turn of phrase.

But on to songs...

Most people I know either don't know how to write melodies or they write music that is way too complex then get frustrated that people don't "get it".

Either that or their band is SO derivitive that you spend the entire time thinking of the band they've cloned.

There's a band, a popular enough band here in Dublin, that sounds like a poor Weezer clone. I can't watch/listen to them without thinking of Weezer. A band like that can't break through.

There's another Irish band that released a "single" a while back that went nowhere. Guess what, it was dull, deriitive and uninspired.

Both of those bands have a LOT of help (and have talented musicians involved) but don't have the material.

Then you run into folks, people you've never hear of really, with songs on US tv etc. and guess what, killer tunes.

Good songs create opportunity.

Good bands are able to take advantage of that opportunity.

Sucessful bands can sustain that little formula.

Waking-Dreams

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Either that or their band is SO derivative that you spend the entire time thinking of the band they've cloned.

And yet, many a group have jumped on the bandwagon of a popular trend and been signed because it's in vogue. Their longevity never sustains I'll admit but for a little while, they appear to be in the charts or on radio, playing shows and everything else that popular bands seem to do. So derivative bands still get signed and achieve a level of success.

I think the issue is that everyone has their own ideas about what is a good melody, a derivative song, etc. Hence the word subjective. It's worth repeating again: The uncertainty in measurement is very problematic when the quantity being measured is subjective.

How do we measure 'good' material? Do we compare it to past music? Yes, of course we do. Do we base it on what the majority of people say is 'good' as well? That seems to be the case, although to throw a spanner in the works, by that logic we can reason that Britney Spears has 'good' material because it sells like hot cakes; a so called majority have decided it has value. I'm not commenting on her music but there you'll find a rift of musicians who have their own values as to what is good material, and would consider such music anything but good.

So really it's a circular debate and not worth repeating because it doesn't go anywhere. It's also a debate which has been employed by musicians throughout history. The classical players undermined the style of blues and jazz; the jazz and blues players did likewise with commercial pop and so forth. There's in-groups and out-groups within the entire music world, where to identify with one group means having to dissociate yourself with certain others to establish credibility and 'good taste'.

Thankfully, lots of people are very open-minded when it comes to music and will listen to almost any genre but that still doesn't get around deciding what's 'good' within that genre.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Good songs create opportunity.

Good bands are able to take advantage of that opportunity.

Successful bands can sustain that little formula.

Absolutely, but what are 'good' songs? It's not something we can all agree on given that tonight millions of people will have been arguing online about musical tastes and why this band deserves to be recognised over another band. Who is right?

The last suggestion, about good songs creating opportunity, though given with all the good intentions in the world (and I would include my own advice in such words so don't take this as an insult MP) can sound unbelievably trivial, on par with the most useless advice concerning the stock market, “buy low, sell high” - theoretically sound, yet utterly useless. Of course, everyone knows good songs are a key component but no one can define what a good song is and that's kinda the point. It's all a game of trial and error. Randomness plays just as big a role as ability, except musicians like to think of themselves as great songwriters. A bit like when people read a horoscope and discard all the stuff they don't feel applies to them. Pattern-seeking primates.

Whereas with sport, you are either the fastest runner or not, but musical prowess cannot be defined so easily and measured so objectively. It does involve our emotions after all.

Howjadoo

I'm really enjoying reading this thread.

So what DO new bands have to do?

I'm going to allude to previous posts that highlighted the importance of 1) a quality product and 2) networking.

Take Dara Quilty's band, Fox Avenue, for example. For anyone that doesn't know, he is a presenter on the Dublin radio station Spin 103.8. They are a brand new, 1 year old band. And IN MY OPINION, they are rubbish. Crap. However, they have some excellent, high-quality, professional recordings. Dara Quilty also has many many contacts in the music business. He also has unlimited promoting power on that radio programme of his. That's why they have played the O2 Dublin (supporting 30 seconds to Mars) and Oxegen, all within 1 year of forming. They make bad music, and are even worse live, in my opinion. But they have the high-quality product and the contacts.

It seems to me that being good at your instrument and writing intelligent music has, sadly, become less and less important these days. It's all about who you know.

That's my 2 cents anyways..

thelastpartizan

Papa Smut wrote: »

\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.

Agree with that but a lot of musicians are fragile little flowers aswell and can't take any sort of criticism. And another thing that ends a lot of bands is when 1 or 2 members of the band end up doing everything while the others simply show up.

@WD

I think you're being a bit too black and white with your every Everything Is Subjective argument. Here's why.

Take a room full of indie rock fans.

Play them 3 random records.

The chances are if one of the bands has a good singer, memorable/moving songs (as far as the majority are concerned) and a quality presentation, they will be the one the majority like the most.

You can there's something for everyone and nothing is universal, but if you try to claim that there's not some music that stands out to a majority of people as being better, then you're flying in thr face of 50+ years of popular music.

The Beatles weren't just LUCKY, a LOT of people thought they were very good. In fact, 40 years later they're still makin new fans... Based on their songs.

There's tons of bands like that as well... You may not like them, but a lot of people, critics, fans, etc., find them to be GOOD.

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

Some music is good, people know it immediately and they have opportnities because of the quality of their material.

A Primal Nut

drumdrum wrote: »

Its all well and good to say "you've got to keep writing better songs" and all that, and its true, but the problem is that music is too subjective to say what is and isn't a good song. A good song to me is not necessarily a good song to the next person. Sure you could rate a song in terms of commercial potential, but thats not the same thing as if a song is good or not.

I mean, if you talk to any band and ask them if they like their own music they will tell you that they like their own tunes because they wouldnt play them if they didnt. Its all subjective and one must keep an open mind when listening to music....especially when listening to genres that you're usually not familiar with or that you usually dont like.
That said, usually a good song will shine through to most people regardless of genre, but no band in history or that there ever will be will write great songs all the time. The contrast between their great songs and their ok songs is what makes the great songs even better.

Lastly, a good band must also know when to STOP working on a song and to let a song be. Ive known bands (and Ive done it meself!) to take a great song back to the writing stage a few months later because they are bored of playing it. Rarely does the song get improved upon with hindsight!

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.

Music is subjective, but if the author of a song doesn't genuinely believe he is doing something better than everyone else from his subjective point of view, nobody else will either.