Name a Good Irish Recording

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 4:28pm

Aridstarling wrote: »

There are loads of bands making great sounding records in Ireland, always have been really. To say theres a huge problem with Irish music in such general terms is demeaning and narrow minded. For evidence listen to Adebisi Shank, The Cast of Cheers, The Redneck Manifesto, Halves, Katie Kim, Logik Party, Enemies, Adrian Crowley, Valerie Francis, Catscars, Hunter-Gatherer, Jape, R.S.A.G., Super Extra Bonus Party, The Ambience Affair or Twin Kranes. They've all released great sounding records in the last two or three years. Pretty much all self-funded.

I havn't heard of any of these bands, ergo, they suck.

MilanPan!c · 22-06-2010 4:35pm

TelePaul wrote: »

I havn't heard of any of these bands, ergo, they suck.

I've heard of almost all of them, ergo, you're out of touch.

Seriously though, SEBP put out a great record, if you take out all the rap tracks, and the new Ambience Affair stuff is fantastically recorded... I actually sent yer man a mail a while back congratulating them on the quality of the recordings... (Now if only he'd shave his head...they'd be HUGE!)

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 4:39pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I've heard of almost all of them, ergo, you're out of touch.

Well I've heard of the Beatles. And the Stones. And Bowie. They sold millions of records. And they did this because they're great artists. It's very easy to say that labels aren't willing to take risks, but the reality is that alot of the acts listed as self-financed just weren't 'good' enough to make the grade, label wise. Not like the Beatles or the Stones. Or Bowie.

krd · 22-06-2010 4:40pm

TelePaul wrote: »

I havn't heard of any of these bands, ergo, they suck.

TelePaul, I've heard of some of them. But it isn't really like any of them has had a killer hit. Nothing like the Stunning, who had sweaty rural discotheque going wild to Brewing up a storm for over a decade.

Dant dan na nant dan dah na nant Dant dan na nant dan dah na nant Dant dan na nant dan dah na nant Dant dan na nant dan dah na nant

No logic, pro tools or Ableton when those boys were doing it. All recorded into a tape player with a single mike in a milking parlour, in a single take, somewhere in Tuam. That's how they got the reverb - it's a milking parlour.

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 4:44pm

krd wrote: »

TelePaul, I've heard of some of them. But it isn't really like any of them has had a killer hit. Nothing like the Stunning, who had sweaty rural discotheque going wild to Brewing up a storm for over a decade.

Dant dan na nant dan dah na nant Dant dan na nant dan dah na nant Dant dan na nant dan dah na nant Dant dan na nant dan dah na nant

No logic, pro tools or Ableton when those boys were doing it. All recorded into a tape player with a single mike in a milking parlour, in a single take, somewhere in Tuam. That's how they got the reverb - it's a milking parlour.

You need to post more man! We're on the same wave-length (albeit in perfect phase!). Stunning had a rake of quality tunes - Romeo's On Fire, Heads, Mr Ginger...

You raise an interesting point too regarding 'hits'. I think certain Irish acts have so fully embraced this comparatively new indie scene that they'd rather shun any would-be hit purely because it might appeal to the masses (heaven forbid!).

MilanPan!c · 22-06-2010 4:49pm

TelePaul wrote: »

Well I've heard of the Beatles. And the Stones. And Bowie. They sold millions of records. And they did this because they're great artists. It's very easy to say that labels aren't willing to take risks, but the reality is that alot of the acts listed as self-financed just weren't 'good' enough to make the grade, label wise. Not like the Beatles or the Stones. Or Bowie.

I think that's two different arguments.

There's TONS of artists that sells millions of records that I haven't really listened to, and tons that are worth listening to that hardly anyone has heard.

The industry isn't that clever after all.

I know what you mean in one sense, most artists will never attain the creative and popular height of the greats, but that's not really surprising is it?

And for the record, The Stones put out MUCH MUCH more crap than good material. I mean, 10/1 ratio, at least.

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 4:55pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

And for the record, The Stones put out MUCH MUCH more crap than good material. I mean, 10/1 ratio, at least.

Yet they've out-sold "Dart Station Loneliness" (or whoever) by a factor of several-hundred thousand. Let's turn that around - even the Rolling Stones' worst material has outsold (and, let's be honest, will always outsell) the best indie offerings by the truck-load. That doesn't inspire me with much confidence in the alt scene.

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 5:03pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I know what you mean in one sense, most artists will never attain the creative and popular height of the greats, but that's not really surprising is it?

I find it very surprising.

MilanPan!c · 22-06-2010 5:08pm

TelePaul wrote: »

Yet they've out-sold "Dart Station Loneliness" (or whoever) by a factor of several-hundred thousand. Let's turn that around - even the Rolling Stones' worst material has outsold (and, let's be honest, will always outsell) the best indie offerings by the truck-load. That doesn't inspire me with much confidence in the alt scene.

Could you explain what you mean by this?

If you mean that trying to "make it" without a proper label is at best astonishingly daunting, if not essentially impossible, then we agree.

If your point is that selling more = better then we don't agree.

I'm pretty sure that's not your point though.

Personally, we've already told some small labels that we aren't interested, for this very reason... I mean, small, even med sized labels, can serve a huge purpose in the industry, but until we develop our value, there's NO point... it'd just be a shady bank loan

MilanPan!c · 22-06-2010 5:10pm

TelePaul wrote: »

I find it very surprising.

really?

seannash · 22-06-2010 5:20pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

this is awesome and one of the best irish releases in the last few years.

orphan code - last dance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DYjzXkovQ0

is this an example of a good song and video?

im very underwhelmed by that one to be honest.

even if the sound of the track is great its not a great track in my opinion.
Video is dull beyond belief,nothing happens and its been done before a fair few times

Aridstarling · 22-06-2010 5:26pm

Well I've heard of the Beatles. And the Stones. And Bowie. They sold millions of records

Have you thought maybe that's why you heard of them?

I'm sorry but your argument makes no sense. If you haven't sold millions of records and you haven't breached the consciousness of someone who admits to not having bought an Irish CD in 15 years then you're a failure who's not worth listening to? Jesus I'm glad you have absolutely no pull in the music industry, there would be no music left in about ten minutes except for the latest offering from aging or dead rock legends. Christ I'm sorry but those posts really piss me off. If you're looking for a problem in Irish music then I think you've found it, too concerned with the Stunning to give any of the twenty odd bands named in this thread a go. Wake the hell up man.

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 5:33pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

really?

Yeah. Why is that so surprising? They made some incredible music.

MilanPan!c · 22-06-2010 5:40pm

TelePaul wrote: »

Yeah. Why is that so surprising? They made some incredible music.

No, I I think I misunderstood you..

I thought you were saying you were surprised that no one else had achieved what they had (esp in the case of the Beatles).

I would find that surprise, well... surprising.

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 5:48pm

Aridstarling wrote: »

Have you thought maybe that's why you heard of them?

That's my point. They wouldn't have sold millions of records - ergo, I wouldn't have heard of them - if they weren't good enough to warrant label interest, sales, an established fan base paying to see them play, and, par consequence, heavy radio rotation.

Aridstarling wrote: »

I'm sorry but your argument makes no sense. If you haven't sold millions of records and you haven't breached the consciousness of someone who admits to not having bought an Irish CD in 15 years then you're a failure who's not worth listening to?

Nobody said 'failure'. I havn't bought a U2 CD in the last fifteen years, I don't like their music, but I'm extremely aware of them on account of their massive radio rotation, sell out shows and the hype that goes with them. The bands you've listed, by contrast, have sold comparatively few albums, have had comparatively little radio play and have yet to sell out Croke Park. It doesn't mean they wont, it just shows that their product has not been deemed viable enough to warrant this kind of attention just yet. Probably because people like me aren't buying their albums.

Aridstarling wrote: »

Jesus I'm glad you have absolutely no pull in the music industry,

Me too, everything would sound like 'The Human League'.

Aridstarling wrote: »

there would be no music left in about ten minutes except for the latest offering from aging or dead rock legends.

You could do alot worse than ageing rock legends, of which the Stunning sadly are not

Aridstarling wrote: »

Christ I'm sorry but those posts really piss me off. If you're looking for a problem in Irish music then I think you've found it, too concerned with the Stunning to give any of the twenty odd bands named in this thread a go. Wake the hell up man.

I think you're taking this the wrong way. But the music industry is just that, an industry. I'm sorry if you're pissed off, maybe you're in the music business and are trying to make a go of it. I work for a company. We make products. If nobody likes our products, they wont sell, we don't get paid, I don't eat. Why should the music industry be any different? If I'm gonna shell out twenty bills for your music, you're going to have to impress me - why should it be any other way?

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 5:50pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

No, I I think I misunderstood you..

I thought you were saying you were surprised that no one else had achieved what they had (esp in the case of the Beatles).

I would find that surprise, well... surprising.

No, that is exactly what I meant. I think it's only a matter of time. Certain acts have achieved levels of fame and appeal comparable to The Beatles. I'm going to hate myself for saying this, but U2 are the biggest band on the planet...and they'll probably still be selling millions of records in ten or twenty years time.

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 5:54pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

If your point is that selling more = better then we don't agree.

I'm pretty sure that's not your point though.

That's exactly my point. Music is a product. If you make the jump to amateur to professional, the same rules apply as to those of any product.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Personally, we've already told some small labels that we aren't interested, for this very reason... I mean, small, even med sized labels, can serve a huge purpose in the industry, but until we develop our value, there's NO point... it'd just be a shady bank loan

I think that's a smart call. The attrition rates in the industry seem shocking, even with the larger labels. Remember 'The Thrills'? They were dropped by EMI.

krd · 22-06-2010 6:11pm

TelePaul wrote: »

You need to post more man! We're on the same wave-length (albeit in perfect phase!). Stunning had a rake of quality tunes - Romeo's On Fire, Heads, Mr Ginger...

You raise an interesting point too regarding 'hits'. I think certain Irish acts have so fully embraced this comparatively new indie scene that they'd rather shun any would-be hit purely because it might appeal to the masses (heaven forbid!).

Something tells me those indie boys would cut off a left bollock for a hit.

The stunning were at their best when they were doing their weird ska/Galway fusion thing.

Had they stuck at that, they would have eventually broken through as a big act.

Trying to fit in and sound like everyone else just doesn't work.

Had they clung on - and just paddled along on their surf board, by the time that American Ska wave came (late 90s I think) - they would've been riding the big one.

Now, they're one of the great might have beens. 20 years from now, one of their songs will be used in a film or beer ad and millions will go,"WhoTF were these guys"

All these years I never asked why. All the tears I never could cry. You don't miss the water till the well runs dry. And you've nothing left to show.

I can even play that sh1t on Kazzoo

MilanPan!c · 22-06-2010 6:28pm

TelePaul wrote: »

That's exactly my point. Music is a product. If you make the jump to amateur to professional, the same rules apply as to those of any product.

This is logically wrong in so many ways though.

Many many many superior products fail. Many.

Business folks, such as yerself, are often as much to blame for a record failing as the artist or the song.

The success of a product ALSO depends on

the compotence of the label
the compotence of the promotion
the compotence of the management
the compotence of the booking agency
the compotence of the producer

to name just a few.

To have this discussion properly you have to seperate out all the bits and look at them individually.

You can't, or at least it's wildly illogical IMO, to say commercial failure = bad music or the inverse.

PaulBrewer · 22-06-2010 6:34pm

Aridstarling wrote: »

The amount of sweeping generalisations in this thread is staggering. And all ye educated men...

I don't think you can fairly criticise Lisa Hannigan like that. If she had been from London chances are you'd be fawning over it.

No you're right - I was being unfair to both Lisa and Mick.

I suppose the real point I was trying to make about their likes, Frames etc etc is the constant refernces (musically) to Americana which I find wearing as it's not really a genre that interests me. (unlike actual country from whence it came) ...

Americana moved on to be REM and the Pixies (and that was 25 years ago) and now Arcade Fire (yes I know ... but you see my point?) so referencing to it seems so old fashioned and last century really, to me.

It's the 'Whelan's Sound' thing ....

MilanPan!c · 22-06-2010 6:38pm

PaulBrewer wrote: »

No your right - I was being unfair to both Lisa and Mick.

I suppose the real point I was trying to make about them, Frames etc etc is the constant refernces (musically) to Americana which I find wearing as it's not really a genre that interests me. (unlike actual country from whence it came) ...

Americana moved on to be REM and the Pixies (and that was 25 years ago) and now Arcade Fire (yes I know ... but you see my point?) so referencing to it seems so old fashioned and last century really, to me.

It's the 'Whelan's Sound' thing ....

I agree with most of this, but of course scenes are always a lot less homogenus than they appear to someone casually looking in.

krd · 22-06-2010 6:51pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

This is logically wrong in so many ways though.

Many many many superior products fail. Many.

Business folks, such as yerself, are often as much to blame for a record failing as the artist or the song.

The success of a product ALSO depends on

the compotence of the label
the compotence of the promotion
the compotence of the management
the compotence of the booking agency
the compotence of the producer

to name just a few.

To have this discussion properly you have to seperate out all the bits and look at them individually.

You can't, or at least it's wildly illogical IMO, to say commercial failure = bad music or the inverse.

Why bands fail? The eternal question.

I believe if the Stunning were starting out again, with the same band and same songs - as long as the "production" didn't destroy what they were doing - the current set up would be to their advantage - their songs would be circulated through the internet. They'd play shows and build a big following - they were a great live band - and had great songs for playing live.

I used to - happens far less these days - hear great music by a friend coming along, really excited, saying you have to hear this. If you have music that is as good as, people going around, without getting paid, or on another "how to promote your lame band, through your friends - text book shoestring crap indie promotion" thing.

If you're music is as good as people saying "you've got to hear this" it would really take a lot to Fcuk up. You can't kill something like that - and now it's easier than ever - apart from the financing problems - but if you have something that excites people like that, there's nothing to stop it.

That should be the bench mark

You've got to hear this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETh0Kfxk2BY

PaulBrewer · 22-06-2010 6:55pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I agree with most of this, but of course scenes are always a lot less homogenus than they appear to someone casually looking in.

Or they're less homogenous looking from inside ?

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 7:08pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Many many many superior products fail. Many.

If a product fails, it's lacking in one or more critical aspects. This makes it inferior, at least in my book. Some of these critical aspects may be support services like marketing and distribution (the 'label').

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Business folks, such as yerself, are often as much to blame for a record failing as the artist or the song.

Oh dear. You take the pragmatic approach and you get held accountable for the failures of artists and their endeavours. I don't think I've ever described myself as the business type, but it's fine by me so long as you give us 'business types' credit for the success stories. Of which there are many.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

The success of a product ALSO depends on

the compotence of the label
the compotence of the promotion
the compotence of the management
the compotence of the booking agency
the compotence of the producer

to name just a few.

You know the driving forces behind these competences are invariably the 'business type', right?

MilanPan!c wrote: »

To have this discussion properly you have to seperate out all the bits and look at them individually. You can't, or at least it's wildly illogical IMO, to say commercial failure = bad music or the inverse.

I'm going to put it to you that music isn't sacred. If it was, you wouldn't care whether or not you made so much as a cent out of it, you'd do it because it satisfies some desire in the people that play it and those that listen to it. Once you undertake anything - anything - for monetary gain, you're subject to the scrutiny of the market. I'm curious though - how will you fare if your music isn't well received publicly, or if you get a bad review in the Ticket?

DamagedTrax · 22-06-2010 7:13pm

im gonna disagree with you 100% here telepaul.

success has nothing to do with quality. success is more based on luck and marketability than actual talent. look at those idiots jedward.. you gonna tell us because they're selling records they're better than someone who isnt signed yet?

and i ran myu label at a loss, made little to nothing from releases on other labels and had many a night were ive told a promoter not to worry about paying me because a turn out wasnt great.. ive even insisted support artists get paid before me as long as my travel and costs are covered... does that mean im not serious about my music and dont look at it as sacred? or does it mean i love it so much that its beyond being just a career?

seriously dude, if thats how you think then im really really shocked.

MilanPan!c · 22-06-2010 7:17pm

TelePaul wrote: »

If a product fails, it's lacking in one or more critical aspects. This makes it inferior, at least in my book. Some of these critical aspects may be support services like marketing and distribution (the 'label').

Oh dear. You take the pragmatic approach and you get held accountable for the failures of artists and their endeavours. I don't think I've ever described myself as the business type, but it's fine by me so long as you give us 'business types' credit for the success stories. Of which there are many.

You know the driving forces behind these competences are invariably the 'business type', right?

I'm going to put it to you that music isn't sacred. If it was, you wouldn't care whether or not you made so much as a cent out of it, you'd do it because it satisfies some desire in the people that play it and those that listen to it. Once you undertake anything - anything - for monetary gain, you're subject to the scrutiny of the market. I'm curious though - how will you fare if your music isn't well received publicly, or if you get a bad review in the Ticket?

Man, I'm not sure you can say that a great band, with a great recording is a musical failure as a product, because someone in the marketing dept ****ed up...

In the same way that Crazy Frog, while a good product, isn't good music. But it was a hell of a marketing coup.

I think this is all just wildly oversimplified.

BTW: I'm not holding YOU personally responsible for ANYTHING, it's just you lumped yourself in with the suits so I added you to their ranks when discussing suits.... nothing even vaguely personal.

I completely agree that you need a label to be actually successful, but I don't agree that having a **** label means your product is flawed.

A lot of any business venture (and you KNOW this) comes down to luck. You can try to plan for everything, etc., but if you had an amazing feel-good comedy released on 9/11 you got screwed.

Not every thing is within artists control, businessmen's control or anyone's control... If you can separate out quality BEFORE you invest money than you actually HELP the business.

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 7:17pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

im gonna disagree with you 100% here telepaul.

success has nothing to do with quality. success is more based on luck and marketability than actual talent. look at those idiots jedward.. you gonna tell us because tvey're selling records they're better than someone who isnt signed yet?

seriously dude, if thats how you think then im really really shocked.

If you have a more appropriate metric, I'd like to hear it. I agree that the 'success' of Jedward is attributable to shrewd marketing, but still, someone is buying their records. It's going to take brass balls for you to come out and say that your opinion matters more than anyone else when it comes to quantifying what music should be.

MilanPan!c · 22-06-2010 7:25pm

TelePaul wrote: »

If you have a more appropriate metric, I'd like to hear it. I agree that the 'success' of Jedward is attributable to shrewd marketing, but still, someone is buying their records. It's going to take brass balls for you to come out and say that your opinion matters more than anyone else when it comes to quantifying what music should be.

I think this is where this becomes difficult.

A better metric depends on who you're asking...right?

Do music critics review records based on these criteria?

I understand your frustration at trying to distil this business into a model so that success can be manufactured, like widgets, but art ALWAYS has more intangibles. And pretending that success = 100% of the time quality, is pretty either wilfully ignorant or naive.

I mean, god bless all the people invested in boy bands when Grunge 2 comes along.

DamagedTrax · 22-06-2010 7:27pm

TelePaul wrote: »

If you have a more appropriate metric, I'd like to hear it. I agree that the 'success' of Jedward is attributable to shrewd marketing, but still, someone is buying their records. It's going to take brass balls for you to come out and say that your opinion matters more than anyone else when it comes to quantifying what music should be.

this has nothing to do with opinions. people like what they like. but claiming that you measure quality on success is ridiculous and a horrible symptom of a failing industry.

as music is all compartentalised how can you say the stones are better than "insert indie/punk/metal name"? the stones have a bigger following purely because the music they make is safe and viewed as ok to listen to by the masses leaving the indie/punk/metal band with a smaller following. what we COULD use to measure quality is the ratio of fans to sales.
having 5000 fans and all of them buying your record would be real quality to me.

i remember when getting into the charts was a success.. now anything but number 1 is nearly a failure. if thats what success means then give me an ounce of credibility anyday of the week.

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 7:28pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Man, I'm not sure you can say that a great band, with a great recording is a musical failure as a product, because someone in the marketing dept ****ed up...

I think if you're good enough, the propensity for mishandling is greatly reduced - better product, further opportunities for bigger and more experienced labels, and thus, less propensity for mishandling.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

In the same way that Crazy Frog, while a good product, isn't good music. But it was a hell of a marketing coup.

Good timing I think - does anyone download ring-tones anymore?

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I think this is all just wildly oversimplified.

Perhaps. I think people who love music - and I love music - sometimes tend to over-complicate it. There might be majesty in rock but there is no mystery ion roll. Except during Springsteen gigs

MilanPan!c wrote: »

BTW: I'm not holding YOU personally responsible for ANYTHING, it's just you lumped yourself in with the suits so I added you to their ranks when discussing suits.... nothing even vaguely personal.

No harm done whatsoever mate. Likewise, I wont hold you personally responsible for the Indie Crusade launched by Damien Rice (currently residing in the 'where are they now?' category)

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I completely agree that you need a label to be actually successful, but I don't agree that having a **** label means your product is flawed.

I don't actually think you NEED a label to be successful - I just think it vastly improves your chances and signals that people who have been in this game a long time are taking your product and your potential seriously enough to invest in it.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

A lot of any business venture (and you KNOW this) comes down to luck. You can try to plan for everything, etc., but if you had an amazing feel-good comedy released on 9/11 you got screwed.

Luck, sure. And a desirable end-product. And the wherewithal to deploy it to market. And the confidence and backing of your investors. And constant refining.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Not every thing is within artists control, businessmen's control or anyone's control... If you can separate out quality BEFORE you invest money than you actually HELP the business.

I think this might be why I hadn't heard of any of those bands mentioned.

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 7:34pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I think this is where this becomes difficult.

A better metric depends on who you're asking...right?

Do music critics review records based on these criteria?

I understand your frustration at trying to distil this business into a model so that success can be manufactured, like widgets, but art ALWAYS has more intangibles. And pretending that success = 100% of the time quality, is pretty either wilfully ignorant or naive.

I mean, god bless all the people invested in boy bands when Grunge 2 comes along.

I think success comes down to units shifted. You're going to balk at that but, again, can you really say that your take on what constitutes good music is somehow more relevant than the next person? So in that sense, the public at large determine success, once again demonstrating the parallels between music as a product and any other output, tangible or intangible.

I have no interest in music as a model, as I said, I don't think I'd ever want to rely on it to put food on the table, because it's a fickle industry. But at the same time, there's more at play than just luck or timing. I imagine you know that if you've already piqued the interest of labels.

You can say that linking quality to success is naive...but you still havn't given me an alternative.

DamagedTrax · 22-06-2010 7:40pm

label X has lots of cash for promotion and sweetners to radio stations. the album they've just released goes gold.

label Y has just enough cash to get the release out and a little indie style promotion. the album they've just released sells 10,000 units.

in both cases the bands are over the moon that they've sold records.

how exactly does that make label X's product better when you've not even heard the music? :eek:

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 7:43pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

this has nothing to do with opinions

It has everything to do with an opinion. People form an opinion of a particular artist or song, an opinion which culminates in either like or dislike. Opinion is fundamental. Sushi, is, in my opinion, disgusting. Therefore, I don't eat it.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

people like what they like.

People buy what they like.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

but claiming that you measure quality on success is ridiculous and a horrible symptom of a failing industry.

And the alternative is...what? Should we defer to the opinion of someone on a message board? A council of elders? Is that how you'd like to see the industry develop?

DamagedTrax wrote: »

as music is all compartentalised how can you say the stones are better than "insert indie/punk/metal name"? the stones have a bigger following purely because the music they make is safe and viewed as ok to listen to by the masses leaving the indie/punk/metal band with a smaller following. what we COULD use to measure quality is the ratio of fans to sales.
having 5000 fans and all of them buying your record would be real quality to me.

The music they make is 'safe'? And the music made by Indie bands is, what, unsafe? Words on a page mate. I was off this same opinion when I was 15 or 16. I liked Dylan or hated rap. Then I realised that if Rick Rubin can produce acclaimed albums for Slayer (heavy metal group), RHCP (funk rock), Jay Z (rap), Tom Petty (folk rock) and Neil Diamond (pop) then phrases like 'safe', and 'mainstream' mean nothing, particularly in the derogatory sense.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

If thats what success means then give me an ounce of credibility anyday of the week.

Grand, just don't try to use it to pay off a mortgage!

MilanPan!c · 22-06-2010 7:44pm

TelePaul wrote: »

I think success comes down to units shifted. You're going to balk at that but, again, can you really say that your take on what constitutes good music is somehow more relevant than the next person? So in that sense, the public at large determine success, once again demonstrating the parallels between music as a product and any other output, tangible or intangible.

I have no interest in music as a model, as I said, I don't think I'd ever want to rely on it to put food on the table, because it's a fickle industry. But at the same time, there's more at play than just luck or timing. I imagine you know that if you've already piqued the interest of labels.

You can say that linking quality to success is naive...but you still havn't given me an alternative.

Answer me this:

Is ALL successful music, quality?

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 7:46pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

label X has lots of cash for promotion and sweetners to radio stations. the album they've just released goes gold.

label Y has just enough cash to get the release out and a little indie style promotion. the album they've just released sells 10,000 units.

in both cases the bands are over the moon that they've sold records.

how exactly does that make label X's product better when you've not even heard the music? :eek:

Band A has a stellar product. They attract the interest of Label X.

OR

Band A have a stellar product. They attract the interest of Label Y. Their product is so good that it stands up on its own merits. It too goes gold.

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 7:48pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Answer me this:

Is ALL successful music, quality?

Based on the only criterion espoused here, and given that the 'man on the street' determines who is successful...then yes.

DamagedTrax · 22-06-2010 7:48pm

TelePaul wrote: »

It has everything to do with an opinion. People form an opinion of a particular artist or song, an opinion which culminates in either like or dislike. Opinion is fundamental. Sushi, is, in my opinion, disgusting. Therefore, I don't eat it.

People buy what they like.

And the alternative is...what? Should we defer to the opinion of someone on a message board? A council of elders? Is that how you'd like to see the industry develop?

The music they make is 'safe'? And the music made by Indie bands is, what, unsafe? Words on a page mate. I was off this same opinion when I was 15 or 16. I liked Dylan or hated rap. Then I realised that if Rick Rubin can produce acclaimed albums for Slayer (heavy metal group), RHCP (funk rock), Jay Z (rap), Tom Petty (folk rock) and Neil Diamond (pop) then phrases like 'safe', and 'mainstream' mean nothing, particularly in the derogatory sense.

Grand, just don't try to use it to pay off a mortgage!

but it does pay the mortgage and luckily, ive never had to resort to working with artists i dont consider quality, go figure...

anyway, you're obviously looking at it thru a differant window than i am so lets agree to disagree

DamagedTrax · 22-06-2010 7:51pm

TelePaul wrote: »

Band A have a stellar product. They attract the interest of Label Y. Their product is so good that it stands up on its own merits. It too goes gold.

unfortunatly it turns out that label Y only had a budget for a run of 10,000. all sold out but by the time distributers paid up (IF they paid up) the release had lost momentum and another brilliant band gets butt fuked by the industry.

krd · 22-06-2010 7:51pm

Milan

Music being great or not is not going to be a basis for it to sell or support itself. It's a **** lot easier these days - if you make niche music that's good - you can get it to your audience as easy as "click here to upload" - promote it to the bulletin boards and chat sites where there are people waiting for the stuff.

In the old days - getting a CD or Vinyl pressed and promoted in another market was torturous. Now there's no real excuse.

And Orphan sonic, or whatever their called, have had only three thousand youtube views in 3 years for their flash looking video - there's a video on youtube of me, with a friend, with stockings over our heads waving about hairdryers as guns, that's had more views than that.

My badly recorded Youtube clip of me fcuking about with my Roland MC 505 while drunk - has got around 2000 views.

But

It's like this

Status Quo, were a very very very very poor man's Pink Floyd, until they discovered the Quo chord.

And I'm not going to say they were ****, they were not Rachmaninov

But, where would you rather be - Rachmaninov recital or With the Quo?

Even the Stones ripped the Quo off.

Milan, Rachmaninov or the Quo - I've got tickets to both and beer - you've just got five seconds to decide.

I say the Quo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-8K8Hj8bxE

Milan, we're going to see the fcuking Quo

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 7:55pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

unfortunatly it turns out that label Y only had a budget for a run of 10,000. all sold out but by the time distributers paid up (IF they paid up) the release had lost momentum and another brilliant band gets butt fuked by the industry.

Then we go back to the first scenario: Band A has a stellar product. They attract the interest of Label X.

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 8:00pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

but it does pay the mortgage and luckily, ive never had to resort to working with artists i dont consider quality, go figure...

anyway, you're obviously looking at it thru a differant window than i am so lets agree to disagree

Totally man, I'm all about promoting an interesting discussion here. I love music. I'll listen to pretty much anything. Some days I just put on a CD and sit there and listen to it and appreciate it and other times I'll immerse myself in it it to try and pick out on all the little complexities. Listening to music, playing music, talking about music...these are my favourite things to do. I'm trying to walk the fine line between pragmatist and philistine here though, that's all. And if you're loving music and loving working with music, power to you too man.

DamagedTrax · 22-06-2010 8:01pm

TelePaul wrote: »

Then we go back to the first scenario: Band A has a stellar product. They attract the interest of Label X.

unfortunatly band B were from dublin and the only large labels were too interested in stuffin the bolivian stuff up their nose and finding the next jedward, so they signed with the smaller indie label who they felt that while they may not be able to shift as many units, at least they wouldnt be butt fuked by some sleaze in an armani suit and gold chain

band A were from london and got picked up by EMI who tried to sell a studio to promote them because... wait for it... they ARE jedward!!!!!!!!

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 8:01pm

krd wrote: »

Milan
My badly recorded Youtube clip of me fcuking about with my Roland MC 505 while drunk - has got around 2000 views.

It's coz you're hot dude! :eek:

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 8:04pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

unfortunatly band B were from dublin and the only large labels were too interested in stuffin the bolivian stuff up their nose and finding the next jedward, so they signed with the smaller indie label who they felt that while they may not be able to shift as many units, at least they wouldnt be butt fuked by some sleaze in an armani suit and gold chain

band A were from london and got picked up by EMI who tried to sell a studio to promote them because... wait for it... they ARE jedward!!!!!!!!

Band A were so good the label moved them not to London, but to Nashville, and made Jedward their whipping boys while they partied with Kris Kristofferson and Steve Earle, the latter of which spent most of his time fighting.

DamagedTrax · 22-06-2010 8:05pm

TelePaul wrote: »

Band A were so good the label moved them not to London, but to Nashville, and made Jedward their whipping boys while they partied with Kris Kristofferson and Steve Earle, the latter of which spent most of his time fighting.

wow.. my entire music career gets laid out in public... the shame

krd · 22-06-2010 8:11pm

I would actually like to Paul defend himself.

Is Paul Brewer the godfather of generic Irish indie?

He may say no.

But if brought before a court - something like the Nurembourg trials - would he be able to say in all conciousness he was not responsible - that he was only following orders, and fixing the eq etc - he couldn't have stopped even if he had wanted to. Do you think the Brewer defence would fly in an international court of music lovers.

Paul, how many sessions have you sat in upon where you could have said stop, but you didn't?

Thank god, I only make music, badly, for my own pleasure. If I depended on it for a living I'd be in the dock with Paul. (Maybe they'd cut me a plea bargain - if I'd turned the big fish in)

MilanPan!c · 22-06-2010 8:14pm

TelePaul wrote: »

Based on the only criterion espoused here, and given that the 'man on the street' determines who is successful...then yes.

That's crazy.

I've never met an A&R or label guy that didn't know of a 'good' record that got screwed.

I honestly believe that your demand that there be a single criteria that can be uses to define quality is wildly over simplistic.

It leaves you open to constructs like:

telepaul believes that Hootie and the Blowfish is better than Shostakovich.

There's just endless variations of that crap that'll make you look clueless to 99.9% of people, including your peers.

Quality has to be more than sales, and it can't be defined by a single criteria.

MilanPan!c · 22-06-2010 8:21pm

krd wrote: »

Milan

Music being great or not is not going to be a basis for it to sell or support itself. It's a **** lot easier these days - if you make niche music that's good - you can get it to your audience as easy as "click here to upload" - promote it to the bulletin boards and chat sites where there are people waiting for the stuff.

In the old days - getting a CD or Vinyl pressed and promoted in another market was torturous. Now there's no real excuse.

And Orphan sonic, or whatever their called, have had only three thousand youtube views in 3 years for their flash looking video - there's a video on youtube of me, with a friend, with stockings over our heads waving about hairdryers as guns, that's had more views than that.

My badly recorded Youtube clip of me fcuking about with my Roland MC 505 while drunk - has got around 2000 views.

But

It's like this

Status Quo, were a very very very very poor man's Pink Floyd, until they discovered the Quo chord.

And I'm not going to say they were ****, they were not Rachmaninov

But, where would you rather be - Rachmaninov recital or With the Quo?

Even the Stones ripped the Quo off.

Milan, Rachmaninov or the Quo - I've got tickets to both and beer - you've just got five seconds to decide.

I say the Quo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-8K8Hj8bxE

Milan, we're going to see the fcuking Quo

Hahaha... I suppose I should have read this BEFORE I made the Shostakovich comparison.

still, if you got that ticket, I'm down!

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 8:26pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

That's crazy.

I've never met an A&R or label guy that didn't know of a 'good' record that got screwed.

I honestly believe that your demand that there be a single criteria that can be uses to define quality is wildly over simplistic.

It leaves you open to constructs like:

telepaul believes that Hootie and the Blowfish is better than Shostakovich.

There's just endless variations of that crap that'll make you look clueless to 99.9% of people, including your peers.

Quality has to be more than sales, and it can't be defined by a single criteria.

Are you going to present a better or alternative? Because for all the disbelief, not one of you has suggested a different means of measuring success. Also, with success being contingent on volume, I'd actually be in the majority, and you in the minority.

Honestly, I'd love for music to be viewed as something sacred with the opinions of the masses ignored as ill-founded and misguided...but that's not real life.

TelePaul · 22-06-2010 8:29pm

krd wrote: »

Thank god, I only make music, badly, for my own pleasure

You and me both mate!

Name a Good Irish Recording

Comments