What's the plan for 2010 ?

iamhunted wrote: »

You dont need to spend a fortune to do some music. Plus whats more important? Writing the music or living off it? If its writing the music, then get a day job, if its living off the money then a band is in the wrong business.

That's the key to the whole thing, having realistic goals and expectations.

Do the music for the sake of the music to the very best of your ability. Enjoy it for as long as you can. If you connect with the public, fantastic.

PaulBrewer wrote: »

No one gives a shyte about supports !
Do YOU go to a gig to see the support?
No they're the annoying noise going on whilst you're trying to have a chat/drink with your mates.

:eek:
yikes!
Im actually wondering who is supporting Alicia keys... coz i hope to be up there as support act soon. Why? bloody good experience is a factor.
I know of some SENSATIONAL acts who are supporting others at the moment internationally and its been great for them. Have amassed huge interest which you can see splashed all over any of their internet pages.
And when i was at horselips- to say the support act was noise would be blasphemy! They were excellent.
I genuionely like to hear the support acts - as usually there are an up & coming artist and i like to know

all the stars wrote: »

Indeed... but they see 3 goes of judges prior to cowell & co, and the producers AND a&r guy from Record company views them and says YES .. hence the "im amazing" thing.

Dont forget, mammy and daddy and granny too.

all the stars wrote: »

Indeed... but they see 3 goes of judges prior to cowell & co, and the producers AND a&r guy from Record company views them and says YES .. hence the "im amazing" thing.

I take your point, but I think by now most people realise that some are put through for their entertainment factor i.e. they are so bad it could be seen as humerous.

I still find it amazing that the families of some people going into these talent competitions don't stop them. I mean how many times have we seen would be pop stars butchering Mariah Carey or Whitney Huston and getting indignant when they are told that they aren't good enough.

LOL but actually very true. Persistence and self belief can go a long way.

PaulBrewer wrote: »

These can also be the hallmarks of the untalented.

Yes I have seen the over persistent wearing tattoos saying things like 'listen to me'. Someone give this guy a reality check!! :pac:

Sustainable success requires a lot more than talent or luck or dedication or whatever.

It means being a team player in every sense of the word. You become part of an ecosystem for lack of a better description and appreciating your role within the system is very important. Ignoring your/the bands relationship with management and record companies or whatever, even within the band this exists.

It might be the case that you are in a band with another songwriter. You like their stuff, but the music the band is producing isn't 100% exactly what you would do on your own. The band are having some not inconsiderable success, you start thinking, you know what I could do this on my own, I don't need them ... Maybe, the difference between their style and your style is part of what makes things so appealing. Would the Beatles have been the force that they were if John or Paul had decided that the others style was compromising their own artistic vision, if John had said "I write darker material like Happiness is a warm gun while Paul is in to sunnier stuff like Hey Jude, we shouldn't work together anymore"? (although they did stop working together, but for personal and not artistic reasons it would seem) I know, its crazy talk, but bands starting out do it all the time, only to discover that when they do decided to go their separate ways the interest from all sides evaporates quite quickly. The record companies (and probably the public at large) were interested in the full package, not the solo projects of a number of former members. It is also the case that the chemistry that existed will never be recaptured again, so a year later instead of being in a band with a record deal that is successful playing music that isn't 100% you, you find yourself working some sh1tty job and playing music that is 100% you and not having any success. Artistic integrity gone too far.

The bassist, although not one of the main songwriters or a necessarily brilliant musician, might play a role far more important than you would think on first glance. They might be an excellent communicator, keeping things sweet between band/management or within the band itself. The simplicity of their playing might be one of the key contributing factors to the sound of the band, balancing out the arrangement or whatever. They might be the heart of the band, creatively music is as much about the collaboration of personalities and interpersonal chemistry as anything else a lot of the time. This does not just apply to the music, but also to the general relationships between the members. On a more utilitarian level, they might be the one providing the means of transport to get everyones instruments to/from gigs etc. (practicalites like this should never be overlooked) They might be the one who has/had the contacts that got/gets the ball rolling in the first place. Now should some bright spark, for whatever reason, decide that the bassist is dispensible, it could be the beginning of the end. Even if this doesn't involve actually getting rid of the bassist, but just having the attitude that because they are not a musical heavyweight, you "could" replace them, it is only a matter of time before things fall apart. Nobody who has invested so much of their time and effort into something wants to be treated like a spare wheel, if they are they will just as likely leave of their own accord sooner or later. What repercussions is the loss of a member going to have for everyone else on a musical or interpersonal level? It might be that some other (less "dispensible") members decide that they have had enough too.

Any/all of the above, or indeed a similar but different version, could be true for any other member in the band. It could also be true of the bands relationship with management or record labels or producers or whatever. You are producing great music, but for whatever reason have managed to piss off the record company person responsible for plugging you to radio in the city you are playing in next week. This person is probably going to do their job, because that is what they get paid for. They won't go the extra mile, though, and sometimes that is what counts. Or they might genuinely be an asshole and not do their job. Either way this complete unknown has the power to exert a considerable influence, resulting in a lower profile and possibly a lower attendence at said concert. There are any number of backroom people involved with you that have a similar degree of latent influence. You might be the star of the show, but the show doesn't happen of its own accord.

Seziertisch wrote: »

I don't think its that difficult a concept. The problem with most musicians is that they think that the whole thing revolves around them, which it does to a certain extent, but only insofar as other people facilitate what is happening. Bands/musicians that fail to realise this inevitably don't succeed long term. With the initial flush of success, their sense of self importance grows and this causes them to make decisions that inevitably bring the house of cards down.

I personally know of examples of all the stuff I mentioned. One band had its first taste of success which emboldened a couple of members to decide to try it alone, convinced that individually they had what it took. They didn't. The record company and press interest dried up fairly immediately.

I know of another band where certain members decided that other members were dispensible. In this case the dispensible members were excellent musicians, and more importantly the very much part of the core of the sound and the dynamic of what made the band function as a group of people. Regardless, the magic was gone, never to be recaptured. The record labels that had been courting them said thanks but no thanks to the new sound/line up. One of the guys that got kicked out was also the guy organising gigs, rehersals etc. So he was essentially managing the band as well. I don't think the others appreciated how much work this involved and how much his efforts kept things moving forward.

I know of another band who couldn't/wouldn't make up their minds. Yes/no to managers, committments etc. A lack of unanimity in their decision making and an attitude of they need us more than we need them. This was tolerated for a while because there was a bit of a buzz around them. Word got around that they didn't know what they wanted and the management/pr companies and record label people who had shown an interest backed off.

I would say that at least one of these bands would have had what it took musically to achieve some considerable success. All of them had the potential to at least get signed. Regardless, they all managed to **** it up for themselves by either failing to see that it was the music that they made collectively which was what people were interested in or realising that just because they were the main attraction didn't mean they could just do what they wanted.

What's more I don't think any of their stories are necessarily exceptions. I've talked with a number of other people who have played in bands/worked with bands/known bands and they have encountered the same thing.

The sum of the parts is greater than the whole.

I've seen it myself. But then again music creation is a very volatile environment to be in and musicians tend to be more volatile and self centred than your average Joe.

Most "successful" bands have members who were in other bands.

The BBC had a whole documentary series done on this kind of thing "Rock family trees". It was excellent.

PaulBrewer wrote: »

U2 ?

i work with an older guy band and he remembered seeing u2 years back in mullingar and he thought they were ****e ,a year later, he saw them them on tv headlining some huge gig.

kfoltman wrote: »

Paul, can you explain the reference? I totally don't get it!

Hi Kfoltman,


Being dogged and persistent and believing in something when everyone else has given up.

Or thinking you're the future of music when everyone else around you knows that you're shyte.:D