nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What do new bands have to do?

rcaz

So what do new bands actually have to do?

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

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

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

PMI

Only read 1st page so far but follow papa smuts lead hes onto it

Practice as much as you can, but again all the practice in the world wont do as much as 7 gigs a week will

gig gig gig gig and gig, mingle with crowd so they like you as people as well as a band and chat/network with other bands, create gigs dont approach/rely on venues all the time, create a double head gig in a college somewhere put hand in pocket, dont worry about promotors and that crap do it yourself.

also if the crowd isnt building look at why and be honest, ive said it many times, just because some people own a guitar etc.. doesnt mean you should use it

almost 8 out of 10 bands i see are pretty crap and have no real direction or any songs that hit a chord.

dont think about industries and stuff if you make enough noise without them, they will approach you

Trust me theres nothing like having the word independent next to your name in charts, and BMG, Sony etc.. all around ya

makes them wonder how your doing it !!!!

we've been lucky this week to be holding in the official top30 for 2 weeks with a few thousand sales, and totally independent

its a nice feeling so it can be done, and it can be done in ireland.

Now 3-2-1 Go !!!!

MilanPan!c

@WK

I'll restate my positions again.

The main thing musicians can do to increase their chances is to have "good" material. Good meaning music that appeals to their chosen audience. They shouldn't be so naive as to think that that attitude is cynical.

My other point to you WD is that good is not purely subjective. Some music is considered good by so many people and across different eras of music that it being good is not a matter of individual taste.

It can not be said the Pixes can in any way actually suck, just because I don like them. In fact, I have some hang up with disliking Frank Black and it means I hate the Pixies.

Here's a better example. A band I totally despise, will walk out of a room to not listen to is, The Smashing Pumpkins. Imagine my great annoyance at the fact that some people have, through the years, compared some of my songs to The Smashing Pumkins, in a complimentary way.

I either have to accept I'm wrong about my ABSOLUTE hatred of TSP or I have to think my songs suck, because they remind some of TSP.

At the end of the day, people actually like what they like, they may have broadly similar taste, but at some point eveyone that actually likes music will have their own taste. They will choose what to spend heir money on.

Good songs, more than anything else give musicians and bands an edge.

Now, you've said repeatedly that good bands get passed over and that that somehow underlines the random nature of success, but really that's not the case at all.

Bands with good songs, that are markertable and that business feels like they work with almost always get chances. Most of them that fail cannot take advantage of their chance(s).

This is reality.

Now, business can give oppotunity and then screw it up themselves, but many many many musicians survive that. In fact many many musicians that are successful have been through that exact thing.

In fact, if you actually talk to successful musicians and learn how they did it, you'll find it's rarely random.

They had better songs, were more marketable and worked harder than their competition.

maccored

Bands with good songs, that are markertable and that business feels like they work with almost always get chances. Most of them that fail cannot take advantage of their chance(s).

just wondering if you can back up that last sentence, or should you have put 'imo' after it? Bands with crap songs can also see success - as mentioned, the whole idea of what a good song is varies from person to person. Theres many reason why bands fail commercially and usually its got nothing to do with the music. A friend of mine who use to drum with the damned told me of how they went through the most popular phase of their career when they started releasing crap music (Eloise etc etc). Some of their best stuff was from their Strawberries album and they could barely buy groceries from that. Kinda shows good music isnt always important if you are after the money.

PMI

if you chase money it wont happen as even with a top10 hit your gonna make jack even with radio plays here but it will give you/your management a bit more muscle to approach management / pluggers in other countries.

money doesnt always bring success but success always bring money

the bill gates theory

maccored

its always important to remember than if you do want to follow the money, then it'll take quite a lot of moderate success before you will earn anything worthwhile. many pop stars of the past now work as plumbers, builders etc.

Waking-Dreams

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

The main thing musicians can do to increase their chances is to have "good" material. Good meaning music that appeals to their chosen audience.

That has never been in question. It is stating the obvious though. “Buy low, sell high”.

My other point to you WD is that good is not purely subjective. Some music is considered good by so many people and across different eras of music that it being good is not a matter of individual taste.

OK, and you'll state because lots of people enjoy Queen or The Beatles, their songs are a textbook example of good music. Don't get me wrong, I love their music too, but does that mean all one has to do is copy that formula a little, to make a good song of their own? People have tried and it just didn't work. They got called out for ripping them off, or not being original enough. We can all agree on what good music is after the fact, but when a songwriter is at home in his bedroom trying to come up with a good tune, he has only an idea of what he thinks will make a good song that people will like.

Lots of musicians thought they had a winning song or album and were simply proven wrong. It's all well and good for us to look back at them in hindsight and say, “those weren't good songs”, but that's the beauty of hindsight. We humans behave as if we control choice events and when a stroke of good fortune comes our way, the pattern-seeking primate brain connects the dots and attributes the result to ourselves. It is so easy to concoct stories explaining the past or to become confident about dubious scenarios for the future.

If a label knew what a hit song was going to be do you not they'd be placing bets with one another to see how right they are? Can you honestly predict what the next trend in music will be? Why aren't you trying to work in A&R if you know what good music is?

We believe we know why an album did well, or a movie flopped, or someone won an election, a soccer team lost a match, or a new product failed but such expertise is empty in the sense that it is of little use predicting when an album will do well, or a movie will flop, or someone will win an election, a soccer team will lose, or a new product will fail.

Now, you've said repeatedly that good bands get passed over and that that somehow underlines the random nature of success, but really that's not the case at all.

Not the case at all? Why, because you simply believe it to be that way? Then what did you mean when you said good bands go unrecognised? And can you demonstrate how random factors don't occur? That means looking at the entire spectrum, not a few success stories.

You state a belief in bands controlling their own destiny (to a large degree) and then negate it by saying, “I never said it guaranteed success, but increases it”. So, where the band succeeds, the material was key, where they fail, “well, it's not a guarantee”. You're cancelling yourself out. Mitigating factors. You should be writing horoscopes.

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

Bands with good songs, that are marketable and that business feels like they work with almost always get chances. Most of them that fail cannot take advantage of their chance(s).

They cannot tale advantage of their chances? And you have evidence to back this up with? Or is it because you want to believe this? So if you never get a promotion in your job, it's because you failed to take advantage of your chance(s)? It couldn't be because there are a vast number of employees and a limited number of options for advancement outside of your control? It's not as simple as saying one didn't take advantage. Though, Tony Robbins and other motivational speakers often cite similar esoteric, vague advice which can mean all kinds of things to people.

In fact, if you actually talk to successful musicians and learn how they did it, you'll find it's rarely random. They had better songs, were more marketable and worked harder than their competition.

If you talk to nobody but successful people of course it will all sound great and the narrative of their success makes for an unplifting tale. Your lack of acknowledgement about the bands/authors/filmmakers who had good material and yet still didn't become successful is just baffling. You'll say they weren't good enough which sadly, is not something I can't convince you otherwise. But the fact that Rowling and Kosinsky were rejected when they had greatness seems to be lost on you. Did they fail to take advantage of their opportunities? Or did some humans simply make an error of judgment which was outside the control of either author? How many bands have been rejected in a similar fashion?

People rarely admit that they got lucky when they do well in life, they like to take full credit because it makes them feel good about themselves. But time and time again, when people screw up, make a bad decision, or just happen to fail for whatever reason, they hardly ever take full responsibility and offload the burden onto someone else's lack of effort or interest. Defence mechanisms and motivated reasoning coming to the rescue.
[/FONT]

DrFroggies

MilanPan!c wrote: »

In fact, if you actually talk to successful musicians and learn how they did it, you'll find it's rarely random.

They had better songs, were more marketable and worked harder than their competition.

I think this gets to the nuts and bolts of what MP has been trying to say here guys...and it seems logical and reasonable.

A few people seem irked that he's saying this. Why so?

If your plan is to succeed in the business end of music then its as much an entreprenurial endevour as an artistic one (and if your good/prolific enough they can be good bedfellows.

Better product and a better campaign from more committed, aware and hard working people has a much better chance of success than a campaign relying soley on one of those aspects. It's common sense.

As i've said elsewhere it doesn't change the fact that the odds are still firmly stacked against you in this industry. But i'd imagine the rate of small/start-up business failing in any industry is fairly high, that doesn't mean the logic behind starting a business and applying a realistic plan with goals and expectations (including confidence in your product) is unwise.

I don't think he's claiming that chance doesn't play a part - he seems to be just saying that the better prepared and organised your set up is the better your odds of benefiting from those chances when they come along are. (I very much regert that that final sentence makes me sound like The Divil Winfrey...next thing i'll turn to my imaginary audience to patronisingly explain things they already understand)

On the issue of good songs...there are a few rules of thumb in terms of writing good, solid pop culture songs, which i'll get back to if i think of it later as good songs and good music are different concerns in business terms.

Yes sweet chislers there are song formulas

On the question of subjectivity...yes all art is subjective but compare a painting of a family picnicing by a lake by award winning local artisit Fionulla McSpud to a Caravaggio or Casper David Fredrich...or 1992's award winning novel by Flannel O'Craneshaw Smuthering 'Be Good To Prunty's Eyes' to something by Camus or Heller there is a difference in quality interms of craftsmanship, execution, expression and....yes genius!

I'll post more if i remember to get back to this thread later as i know that the OP's question was not about specifically 'making it' in just that sense.

maccored

i wouldnt say anyone is 'irked' about it tbh. Im sure if you asked successful bands, some will say it was due to better songs and hard work, but some would tell you it was luck, while others would tell you its got little to do with the actual music and more to knowing how to navigate the music industry. Success in music is probably more than likely a mixture of many many factor - songs just being part of it.

Waking-Dreams

DrFroggies wrote: »

I think this gets to the nuts and bolts of what MP has been trying to say here guys...and it seems logical and reasonable.

A few people seem irked that he's saying this. Why so?

If your plan is to succeed in the business end of music then its as much an entrepreneurial endeavour as an artistic one and if you're good/prolific enough they can be good bedfellows.

Better product and a better campaign from more committed, aware and hard working people has a much better chance of success than a campaign relying solely on one of those aspects. It's common sense.

I don't think anyone ever said otherwise. Where there is some disparity is in gauging what kind of increase in odds come solely from having all of the above. Because as had been pointed out, lots of bands had all of the above, and yet, it still did not work out.

That's where MP swings on the side of optimistic confidence, whereas others, myself included would look at the big picture, the overall statistics and understand how probabilities really work. The fact that one can't predict the future, or what will be popular should have stopped this debate dead in its tracks.

Yes having good material and the rest will help you, just like buying 100,000 lotto tickets will help you more than having just 1, or by having a more diverse combination of numbers as opposed to say 1,2,3,4,5,6 but the blind process of probability can't be diminished.

DrFroggies wrote: »

As I've said elsewhere it doesn't change the fact that the odds are still firmly stacked against you in this industry. But I'd imagine the rate of a small/start-up business failing in any industry is fairly high, that doesn't mean the logic behind starting a business and applying a realistic plan with goals and expectations (including confidence in your product) is unwise.

No one has suggested it unwise either. Rather, one should take stock of the myriad factors involved, and not let desire influence their actions too much. Of course, even people who are too optimistic will still agree with this sentiment yet their behaviour might betray their words. Pointing out the unlikelihood of success suddenly deems one a negative cynic. It doesn't have to be so black and white. But when you do challenge someone's beliefs they sometimes can get very defensive.

DrFroggies

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I don't think anyone ever said otherwise. Where there is some disparity is in gauging what kind of increase in odds come solely from having all of the above. Because as had been pointed out, lots of bands had all of the above, and yet, it still did not work out.

But there's no no way for either of you to gauge that properly (so maybe its an unneccessarily distracting debate) and as the casual reader it doesn't come across as two opposite points trying to find a possible answer to that (seemingly unanswerable question) for the potential benefit of the original poster...how would you (or anyone else reading this) gauge the disparity as a matter of interest?

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

That's where MP swings on the side of optimistic confidence, whereas others, myself included would look at the big picture, the overall statistics and understand how probabilities really work. The fact that one can't predict the future, or what will be popular should have stopped this debate dead in its tracks.

But is the implication here that MP is somehow a hopless optimist reading horoscopes and trusting the crystal ball as much as any practical approach...What has he said to imply that kind of woolly mindset. I'm not sure i see (in any of his posts) where the evidence for that slightly condescending presumption comes from.

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Pointing out the unlikelihood of success suddenly deems one a negative cynic. It doesn't have to be so black and white. But when you do challenge someone's beliefs they sometimes can get very defensive.

The reverse is also true and from what i've seen on this thread the defensiveness seems apparent on both sides - that's how its reads to me anyway.

DrFroggies

Now just to keep on thread...

El Pr0n wrote: »

So what do new bands actually have to do?...

...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.

Hi El Pr0n - judging by your later post below is the question possibly 'I don't know what i want to do next'? rather than 'i don't know what to do next'? In which case my advice is probably to decide what you want out of it all before doing anything.

El Pr0n wrote: »

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?

Doesn't sound pessimistic at all...everything needs an overhaul from time to time to stay alive and music is a particularly wiley and resilliant beast.

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.

As i mentioned in another thread on this issue there are many tiers in terms of music so again the answer to your question would be very dependent on you knowing what it is you want. You could earn a living in a cover band if just playing music is your main goal, supplement it with guitar lessons etc and in time you've a sustainable existence (insofar as anything can be in this life). As an original band (again success would be dependent on which tier your aiming for) but if you're not aiming too high there have always been acts making a living off music a la Aslan...might be a fair auld whack of work for minimal reward though and the scope for musical style or experimentation would be limited by the auld supply/demand.

raindog.promo

MilanPan!c wrote: »

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

Just reading back through the thread and on this point... "failing for a decade"
highlights the view (I don't want to say "fact", but imho it is a fact except in a small number of cases) big corporations will just view your band as a money making device and couldn't give a flying f**k about your band one way or the other.

I'd prefer to work with someone who saw it as "developing a project for a decade" as opposed to "failing" ie where's the quick buck?

"The singer's suicidal? Great!! we can highlight the issue for column inches and if they kill themselves, probably a bump in sales!"

To go back on topic. I would also suggest to the OP to seriously look into the possibilities of self financing and self releasing an album. Look at Fight Like Apes for example. I was told by an industry person that more Irish albums were financed by the credit union in the last few years than by record companies. If you can do that and then have a promotion company to do your marketing (again, look at Fight Like Apes who uses Entertainment Architects, who also do publicity/marketing for a rake of other Irish acts) the gains are much higher stacked in your favour and if a record company does come looking to sign you, you are in a much better position to bargain for a better deal.

That would lead me to another suggestion. Look into the business side of the music industry because you will be screwed over if you want to only deal with the music side and let other people look after the business side, which while it's great to think other people will have your best interests at hearts, it's been proved time and again that this is not the case.

Waking-Dreams

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

But there's no no way for either of you to gauge that properly (so maybe its an unnecessarily distracting debate) and as the casual reader it doesn't come across as two opposite points trying to find a possible answer to that (seemingly unanswerable question) for the potential benefit of the original poster...how would you (or anyone else reading this) gauge the disparity as a matter of interest?

My point has always been there's no way to gauge such odds because that is the true nature of randomness. But MP seems to keep implying that having the good material, the connections and the belief, will increase the odds of success manifold, whereas these odds are down to subjective perceptions which I would argue are at odds with the overall statistics of success to fail ratio and the random nature of probability. I can't calculate exactly what the increased odds are (and never claimed to) but I can certainly acknowledge that they are present and are subject to the unpredicatbility of human affairs and good/bad decisions. A band needs the cooperation of a lot of people in order to be a success and you can plan all you want for success, but sometimes it can be down to factors which you have no control over.

I mean, everyone openly admits (it's common knowledge) that the odds of being a successful musician are vast, especially today, yet can still fall into the trap of thinking they have more control over the results than they do. 'A Mind Of Its Own' is full of examples of where people believed they were in control of outcomes which had little to do with their input. And even when this was pointed out to them by the experimenters afterwards, the subjects still believed they had tipped it in the winning favour. :eek:

Derren Brown has publicly demonstrated (with entertainment value) all kinds of quirks in human thinking and belief patterns, and as spectators we watch just how susceptible people's thinking can be in different situations. Yet, if we found ourselves in one of these scenarios we might like to pretend we'd be unfazed and would know better, but how can one be that confident and self-assured? [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I do agree it's been a circular argument and should have ended a page or two back but what the heck, I don't mind indulging the guy in debate. Sure it's a good laugh, never any hard feelings, and we've all learned something as a result, right? -- If only to further convince ourselves of our own arguments ha ha ha [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

But is the implication here that MP is somehow a hopeless optimist reading horoscopes and trusting the crystal ball as much as any practical approach...What has he said to imply that kind of woolly mindset. I'm not sure i see (in any of his posts) where the evidence for that slightly condescending presumption comes from.

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I have to disagree with you there. That might be your interpretation but I'm not, and have never implied he's a pie in the sky dreamer (I thought I already pointed this out in another thread). I only question his interpretation of success patterns as being more meaningful when they are just one among many, many examples. We often notice the 'hits' and tend to forget the 'misses'. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

The reverse is also true and from what I've seen on this thread the defensiveness seems apparent on both sides - that's how its reads to me anyway.

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
Well, that's just how you read it. I engage in these debates not to try and convince the other person (because that is sometimes impossible) but for the benefit of others who may be sitting on the fence or have never thought about these things before.

I have often lurked on other message boards where a few people were debating, and they will never agree with one another, but there is much value to be gained from the whole ordeal. It's not about “winning” or being “right” either. We humans carry around all kinds of conflicting views and try and seek validation for them from people who think otherwise. It's an unsolvable situation.

I'll admit, I used to think a lot like MP a few years ago. Near identical. But my views have changed. What happened? That's just a part of life. We all go through periods of personal evolution and through experience and conversing with other people we filter information and forge a new lens for looking at the world.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I have every bit of respect for MP and his music, I just don't agree with everything he says, but that doesn't mean I am being condescending just because I think he's way off on certain points.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, sans-serif] Don't misinterpret what I am saying about the issue, to being a hidden dig.[/FONT]

DrFroggies

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]
Well, that's just how you read it. I engage in these debates not to try and convince the other person (because that is sometimes impossible) but for the benefit of others who may be sitting on the fence or have never thought about these things before.
... Don't misinterpret what I am saying about the issue, to being a hidden dig.[/FONT]

Hhhmmm...i'm not so sure you're being honest with yourself there WD - as someone who could be sitting on the fence on this (in so far as the opposing arguments of yourself and MP are concerned) I would say reading your last couple of posts (as an impartial observer) they certainly come across as being...less than objective or impersonal engagement. You're aboslutely right in saying it could be just the way i'm reading it. But it might be worth you browsing back over some of your posts to see where i could be getting that impression, if your desire is for people to properly benefit from your comments (which i think many people would).

What i'm saying there is that if someone with no vested interest in highlighting this issue feels it neccessary to comment it might be worth your while to consider that your not being as objective or impersonal as you like to think??

I'm not sure that repeated efforts at overlong monologues on human nature or the human condition (which i do find genuinely interesting if a little tangent) are as beneficial as you hope they are, they do tend to drag things a little off topic. Your points generally stand up quite well, you don't need the crutches of reference and over-elucidation...they drown out your original and salient points.

It kind of reminds me of a comment some journalist once made about a certain bands tendency to over-indulge (think it was the Frames or some Irish band) "When i start listening to their songs i think 'oh my God this is the greatest band in the world' and by the time i'm finished thinking 'oh my God this is the worst band in the world"

Obviously its not my place to tell you what or how much to post so feel free to disregard all i've just said. Thought it worth mentioning though

OP and anyone in a similar situation. Raindog.promo's suggestion on self financing is worth considering as even aside from helping you in your career it would at least give you something tangible for all your effort instead of waiting around for some seperate body to become your beneficiary. And if you're not 100% sure how serious you want to get with it you at least have something to focus your mind on, plan toward and build up to.

Waking-Dreams

I see what you mean Dr., your point is taken. Objectivity is always the ideal but most humans have a tendency to lean slightly one way or another on some issues. I'd never be so full of hubris as to imply I'm totally immune to the same kind of lapses in reason which I've pointed out in other humans. The scientific community constantly argue with one another and they deal with statistical data and empirical evidence. Heated debates ensue and accusations of being strident often get thrown around. But it's impassioned stuff, wouldn't you say? On an Internet forum where we have no tone of voice, no expressions or body language to call upon, one's writing style is their only form of communication.

I agree with MP, that if we were chatting in person down the pub it would be a more smoother engagement. Hence, why I don't ever take much offence to what's brought up in online debates because any misunderstandings can be as much my fault as well, or a result of reading into it a little too much.

Maybe some will perceive me as lavishing myself in a kind of pessimistic pride.

But is that because I simply don't happen to share their rosy outlook? And if I don't share it, why does that mean I have to be the polar opposite? Can't it just be a scaled down version? My approach to music and the industry started out in idealistic optimism (like most teenagers) and evolved into what I would now call a healthy dose of realism, not pessimism as some would label it. I'd never tell a band, “forget trying kid, you don't stand a chance out there in this business” but encourage them to ask some deep questions about what they think their chances are, and how they arrived at those odds; what are they based on? What evidence?

Some people will identify with my sentiments based on their experiences and some will not based on their experiences. And that's just life.

DrFroggies wrote: »

Obviously it's not my place to tell you what or how much to post so feel free to disregard all I've just said. Thought it worth mentioning though.

Nah, it's cool, I appreciate your input. I'll admit, my posts are quite bloated in comparison to everyone else's and could probably use the keen eye of a good editor. The OP did send a PM thanking me for my original post but since then this debate has gone off course, so apologies to El Pr0n for 'high-jacking' your thread.

Here's two brilliant books EP you might consider reading up in the near future which could help your band out: 'The Future of Music' by Kusek and Leonard, and 'All you need to know about the music business' by Passman.

maccored

the only problem with self financing is not only does it cost money, but it also costs a massive amount of time and effort, which anyone doing that would have to be ready for. Plus you;d also need to have a marketing plan otherwise you'll end up with a nice CD which probably would have cost in the region of 10 grand to produce, but no-one to send it to. Once you make your own proper CD, you need to know what to do with it.

MilanPan!c

And listen, people that can really open doors from you get thousands of CDs from people they don't know. If you don't have an introduction to these people they WILL NOT CARE about your CD.

Self-financing is a horrible option in most cases.

Learn how to record and do it yourself. That way, when the musician thing fails, you'll have a fall-back position.

Seriously though. Unless you know how to get radio play, etc., in your region/genre why bother making a pro CD, UNLESS you're trying to get industry help?

To sell at shows?

How many will you have to sell to recoup your money? 1000? 3000?

How long will that take with no radio play and no help from the industry?

How many people do we all know with boxes of merch from old bands, just hanging out in their attics?

I know at least 10... more.

raindog.promo

maccored wrote: »

the only problem with self financing is not only does it cost money, but it also costs a massive amount of time and effort,

Where you expecting it to be handed to you on a plate?

which anyone doing that would have to be ready for. Plus you;d also need to have a marketing plan otherwise you'll end up with a nice CD which probably would have cost in the region of 10 grand to produce, but no-one to send it to. Once you make your own proper CD, you need to know what to do with it.

Which is why you would employ the services of a marketing/promotion company.
They have the contacts, and the business plans and will advise you on the best way to achieve your goals.

Entertainment Architects

And listen, people that can really open doors from you get thousands of CDs from people they don't know. If you don't have an introduction to these people they WILL NOT CARE about your CD.

Self-financing is a horrible option in most cases.

Again, this is your opinion which you state as fact. The majority of your posts have dismissed someone elses post offhand and then received a reply stating you've missed or misunderstood the point completely.

A marketing/promotion company can do pretty much the same job a record company will do without being in debt to them. How many cd's will you have to recoup before you start getting a cent from the record company?

There's an interesting essay from Steve Albini called "The Problem with Music" that may be of use to some people.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

The way the industry is at the moment with record companies business models going under massive change, they're not the behemoths they once were.

MilanPan!c

raindog.promo wrote: »

Where you expecting it to be handed to you on a plate?

Which is why you would employ the services of a marketing/promotion company.
They have the contacts, and the business plans and will advise you on the best way to achieve your goals.

Entertainment Architects

Again, this is your opinion which you state as fact. The majority of your posts have dismissed someone elses post offhand and then received a reply stating you've missed or misunderstood the point completely.

A marketing/promotion company can do pretty much the same job a record company will do without being in debt to them. How many cd's will you have to recoup before you start getting a cent from the record company?

There's an interesting essay from Steve Albini called "The Problem with Music" that may be of use to some people.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

The way the industry is at the moment with record companies business models going under massive change, they're not the behemoths they once were.

Jesus man.. Do you really need me to stick IMO at the end of every sentence? Cause that would be stupid IMO. I mean, IMO, it's pretty obvious we're all expressing our opinions, IMO. And IMO, if you need that kind of constant reminder that these are opinions, then you're not massively bright, IMO. Or you're, IMO, just being rude, because, IMO, no one here thinks that there is a real answer to these questions, IMO. I mean, IMO, there's many ways to suceed, IMO, but all people on this thread, IMO, can really do, IMO, is express their opinions and explain why they have their opinions, IMO.

And let me fix your post so it adhere's to your rigorous standards:

raindog.promo wrote:

Where you expecting it to be handed to you on a plate? Because, IMO, that seems to be what you're implying.

Which is why you would employ the services of a marketing/promotion company, IMO.
They have the contacts IMO, and the business plans, IMO, and will advise you on the best way to achieve your goals, IMO.

Entertainment Architects <- A worthwhile link IMO.

Again, this is your opinion which you state as fact, IMO. The majority of your posts have dismissed someone elses post offhand, IMO, and then received a reply stating you've missed or misunderstood the point completely, IMO.

A marketing/promotion company can do pretty much the same job a record company, IMO, will do without being in debt to them, IMO. How many cd's will you have to recoup before you start getting a cent from the record company?

There's an interesting essay, IMO, from Steve Albini called "The Problem with Music" that may be of use to some people, IMO.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

The way the industry is at the moment, with record companies business models going under massive change, IMO, they're not the behemoths they once were, IMO.

Is that enough? Can you chill with that **** please?

In my opinion in my opinion in my opinion in my opinion.

You're doing my head in.

raindog.promo

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Jesus man.. Do you really need me to stick IMO at the end of every sentence? Cause that would be stupid IMO. I mean, IMO, it's pretty obvious we're all expressing our opinions, IMO. And IMO, if you need that kind of constant reminder that these are opinions, then you're not massively bright, IMO. Or you're, IMO, just being rude, because, IMO, no one here thinks that there is a real answer to these questions, IMO. I mean, IMO, there's many ways to suceed, IMO, but all people on this thread, IMO, can really do, IMO, is express their opinions and explain why they have their opinions, IMO.

Is that enough? Can you chill with that **** please?

In my opinion in my opinion in my opinion in my opinion.

You're doing my head in.

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.

When I read someone state something as fact, that's the first thought that occurs to me.
Other people reading the thread may assume you have some insider knowledge. You tend not to back your statements up, just a blanket statement. If I disagree with this, why shouldn't I voice that?

There's a difference between telling someone else they're wrong or that you think they're wrong. That does my head in.
Excuse me if you think I'm being rude, I'm not. I'll point to the pint references already uttered.

Anyway, I don't want to drag the thread off topic again so I won't mention it further. I just think by not saying it, consent is assumed.

MilanPan!c

raindog.promo wrote: »

When I read someone state something as fact, that's the first thought that occurs to me.
Other people reading the thread may assume you have some insider knowledge. You tend not to back your statements up, just a blanket statement. If I disagree with this, why shouldn't I voice that?

There's a difference between telling someone else they're wrong or that you think they're wrong. That does my head in.
Excuse me if you think I'm being rude, I'm not. I'll point to the pint references already uttered.

Anyway, I don't want to drag the thread off topic again so I won't mention it further. I just think by not saying it, consent is assumed.

All of your posts are stated as fact. I guess your own posts don't occur to you.

And btw., I wasn't taking it personally until you made it personal.

There's many many many posts on this thread which don't say IMO and you've chosen to ignore them.

But not mine.

Thus, personal.

maccored

raindog.promo wrote: »

Where you expecting it to be handed to you on a plate?

having done it myself, no - why where you? what kind of bassackward question are you asking me here? Other people might not realise the kind of work that goes in to it - hence why I typed "but it also costs a massive amount of time and effort" .

Which is why you would employ the services of a marketing/promotion company.
They have the contacts, and the business plans and will advise you on the best way to achieve your goals.

Entertainment Architects

These things A) takes control out of your hands and

costs a small fortune unless C) the promotion company likes you enough to cut a better deal on costs. Plus D) - its no point in having 'contacts' if you dont have the contacts. Its better making your own contacts as you will always have them. Again though, thats extra work, but worth it.

Most people going the independant route put their money into making the product. All a 'marketing/promotion company' does it takes your money and does the legwork that you could be doing yourself. Grand if you have a customer base and just need to get the info out there. Fine if you have the cash to do it too. Most musicians dont unfortunately.

raindog.promo

maccored wrote: »

the only problem with self financing is not only does it cost money, but it also costs a massive amount of time and effort, which anyone doing that would have to be ready for.

My apologies, I didn't pick up on that part of the sentence.

I stand by my comments about the promotion company though. I've provided a link to one which people can check out and make their own decisions. As with all decisions, there's pro's and cons to each.

maccored

if you have money, promotion companies do make sense - though you do have to sift through them (same as anything, theres good and bad)

MilanPan!c

maccored wrote: »

if you have money, promotion companies do make sense - though you do have to sift through them (same as anything, theres good and bad)

Def true.

But if you have the money, then a lot of this conversation is pretty pointless.

You can simply book venues, pay to record in posh studios, pay for gorgeous CDs and pay to be on the radio.

It's not hard with the money. In fact, that's what the labels do with their money anyway.

But... if you had that much money, why do you need a label, or any advice?

Let me put it a different way, if you have that much money, PM me and I can help you spend your money to get on the radio and play shows and record an AMAZING (sounding) record... for a fee of course.

Whoops I almost forgot:

IMO

Waking-Dreams

maccored wrote: »

the only problem with self financing is not only does it cost money, but it also costs a massive amount of time and effort, which anyone doing that would have to be ready for. Plus you;d also need to have a marketing plan otherwise you'll end up with a nice CD which probably would have cost in the region of 10 grand to produce, but no-one to send it to. Once you make your own proper CD, you need to know what to do with it.

Wouldn't a massive amount of time and effort be involved anyways, regardless of who was footing the bill? Unless the band aim to self-finance it themselves by recording their parts on the weekends stretched over 4 months or something. Funnily enough, I spoke to a band from Norway who recorded their debut album in this manner. And their record label only gave them 2,000 sterling as an advance! The producer/engineer gave the band a big discount because they were friends. The band moved to another label for their 2nd album.

Self-financing seems to be more common these days, and is almost expected by indie labels who just don't have the budgets to waste on developing talent; their funds are reserved for manufacture/distro only.

Like I said earlier, as a band/artist you will in most cases need to prove you can make a label money, and that means demonstrating you can make money on your own first.

MilanPan!c

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Like I said earlier, as a band/artist you will in most cases need to prove you can make a label money, and that means demonstrating you can make money on your own first.

This is both untrue and essentially impossible.

how do bands make money?

Selling records/playing shows/licensing music

Lets look at them seperately:

1. Selling record. How do bands do that? Radio play/media exposure/selling records at shows. Can bands do that in any meaningful way without paying a promo company/being on a lable? No.

2. Playing shows. How do bands play financially meaningful shows? Label interest is a START, but really you need a booking agency to represnt you and guess what, most of them, the meaningful ones, work almost exclusively with bands on labels.

3. Licensing music. Bands CAN do this on their own, but very very few actually suceed without the help of a label/agent/mgmt.

So, unless you're paying a promo company through the nose, which doesn't prove ANYTHING to a label, except that you have enough money to pay a promo company, you're not getting anywhere.

And labels know all of this. They ARE not expecting you to be making money really, they want you to be a stable orginization, capable of making the most of opportunities and capable of producing a stream of saleable material.

[Deleted User]

[MOD HAT ON]

Can everyone calm down and behave like rational adults? Take a big breath in and let it out before typing. MP, you picked up a warning.
To everyone: have a look at the charter. If you cannot discuss things reasonably and rationally, you will be banned from this thread.

[/MOD HAT OFF]

Thoroughly enjoying this little tête-à-tête we have going on. I have to see my new nephew,
(baby Bruce - named after Bruce Campbell - Yes my sister is that cool

) So I'll be back on later.

If anyone posts something you have a problem with or feels break our charter please use the report button (

)

maccored

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Wouldn't a massive amount of time and effort be involved anyways, regardless of who was footing the bill? Unless the band aim to self-finance it themselves by recording their parts on the weekends stretched over 4 months or something. Funnily enough, I spoke to a band from Norway who recorded their debut album in this manner. And their record label only gave them 2,000 sterling as an advance! The producer/engineer gave the band a big discount because they were friends. The band moved to another label for their 2nd album.

Self-financing seems to be more common these days, and is almost expected by indie labels who just don't have the budgets to waste on developing talent; their funds are reserved for manufacture/distro only.

Like I said earlier, as a band/artist you will in most cases need to prove you can make a label money, and that means demonstrating you can make money on your own first.

exactly. it depends on what you want to do. You need to properly organise the recording, the mix, master, promotion, build email and contact lists for DJs, newspapers, mp3 bloggers, promote the release, get some ins with tv etc (unless of course you pay someone else to do that).

we made a reasonable album a few years back, got it airplay, got some pretty decent reviews (and some horrible ones) and sold enough of them to break even. The best thing we learned though after doing it all was that the band just wasnt going to work as working at that level had brought out some home truths about all of us to each other. I'd say we could have actually made a small bit of money but instead we just knocked the whole thing on the head a year later, while still halfway through promoting the release.

Its a lesson learned as I'd never do the whole self release thing again. I aged about a million years. These days I find using internet, building a mailing list of people who *actually* listen, giving away free tunes and doing webgigs much more satisfying. Granted, one doesnt make any money but its a great way of making yourself get in there and write tunes.

maccored

MilanPan!c wrote: »

1. Selling record. How do bands do that? Radio play/media exposure/selling records at shows. Can bands do that in any meaningful way without paying a promo company/being on a lable? No.

many bands do. Havent Ham Sandwich their own indepentent label? Didnt (or do they still) Delorentos have their own label? Paying a promo company is a different story as essentially you CAN get access to the same kind of contacts if you do the networking and research.

2. Playing shows. How do bands play financially meaningful shows? Label interest is a START, but really you need a booking agency to represnt you and guess what, most of them, the meaningful ones, work almost exclusively with bands on labels.

Promotion. Get airplay, play good shows, have people like your gigs. Many many many bands play gigs for no money for years. I ran gigs a few years back where bands like GAMAK, Flapes, Delorentos, Ham Sandwich etc were playing for 150 euro a night. You get to play 'financially meaningful shows' by working from the ground up, like every other band.

3. Licensing music. Bands CAN do this on their own, but very very few actually suceed without the help of a label/agent/mgmt.

If your music is good enough to license, a publisher will pick it up regardless if it comes from a label or not. Plus you dont have the label taking the guts of the percentage on you either. Again, you need to actually go find the publisher.

So, unless you're paying a promo company through the nose, which doesn't prove ANYTHING to a label, except that you have enough money to pay a promo company, you're not getting anywhere.

How come? Why do you *need* to use a promo company? Yes use one when the ball is rolling a bit, but no band starts off by hiring a promo company. In gernal are musicians so afriad of hard slog in researching and making contacts and pushing their band that they need to pay someone else to do essentially the same thing?

And labels know all of this. They ARE not expecting you to be making money really, they want you to be a stable orginization, capable of making the most of opportunities and capable of producing a stream of saleable material.

things have changed. labels are not making the investment in bands and the good indies, like fierce panda etc, DO expect you to work away and not wait for a mystery man with a cheque to land up. nothing wrong with using initiative.