Demos

PaulBrewer · 21-07-2010 1:09pm

PMI wrote: »

Lads did my 1st battle of the bands last night.... (honestly never ever done one)

it was rigged for us not to win, how weird is that then....

Idiot !:rolleyes:

TelePaul · 21-07-2010 1:35pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

It sucked all the way to millions of units sold.

I guess we can close the thread so? QED and all that?

all the stars · 21-07-2010 2:46pm

PMI wrote: »

Lads did my 1st battle of the bands last night.... (honestly never ever done one)

it was rigged for us not to win, how weird is that then....

I applied for the same one funny enough - and my confirmation email was never received so i wasn't put down to participate.... Rigged for me not to be there also..
:pac:

Rockshamrover · 21-07-2010 2:58pm

PMI wrote: »

Lads did my 1st battle of the bands last night.... (honestly never ever done one)

it was rigged for us not to win, how weird is that then....

What was the prize? Surely your band are past this stage?

PMI · 21-07-2010 3:53pm

Yeah we are well passed that ****e (which is why we have never done it) we were asked to do it for a reason which will be made clear in september on RTE

but when we turned up to a packed place at 8:45, with a set slot at 9pm with camera crew in tow, and then left at 9:15 i guess the judges frowned on us

thought we were cocky ****ers

haha

Was pretty funny though...

MilanPan!c · 21-07-2010 4:09pm

PMI wrote: »

Yeah we are well passed that ****e (which is why we have never done it) we were asked to do it for a reason which will be made clear in september on RTE

but when we turned up to a packed place at 8:45, with a set slot at 9pm with camera crew in tow, and then left at 9:15 i guess the judges frowned on us thought we were cocky ****ers haha

Was pretty funny though...

ahhhh... that's pretty funny...

Now if only I watch RTE...

Rockshamrover · 21-07-2010 4:31pm

PMI wrote: »

Yeah we are well passed that ****e (which is why we have never done it) we were asked to do it for a reason which will be made clear in september on RTE

but when we turned up to a packed place at 8:45, with a set slot at 9pm with camera crew in tow, and then left at 9:15 i guess the judges frowned on us thought we were cocky ****ers haha

Was pretty funny though...

I is confused. Did you actually take part in a battle of the bands and win?

How's the single going and will there be a follow up soon?

PMI · 21-07-2010 4:56pm

We took part only for filming reasons, and then when we finished we walked off stage and left the building

Single went 24 - 30 - 42 and is only top 60 now this week so basically dissapearing.... its done exactly what we wanted and caused a noise to the powers that be...

Its stayed No:1 in download chart for 4 weeks though so happy enough

follow up will be in october but we have to possibly re-record etc.. in sept

will let ya know

thanks for the interest bud

Rockshamrover · 21-07-2010 5:27pm

PMI wrote: »

We took part only for filming reasons, and then when we finished we walked off stage and left the building

Single went 24 - 30 - 42 and is only top 60 now this week so basically dissapearing.... its done exactly what we wanted and caused a noise to the powers that be...

Its stayed No:1 in download chart for 4 weeks though so happy enough

follow up will be in october but we have to possibly re-record etc.. in sept

will let ya know thanks for the interest bud

Fair play PMI,

Yeah the song got a fair bit of play.

So you performed in the competition but weren't officially a part of it?

And you won:D

That's cool.

krd · 21-07-2010 6:23pm

TelePaul wrote: »

Yeah but it kind of sucks...is that drum intro in 'About a Girl' out of time?

Just listening back to About a Girl. The drums are better than I remembered them.

Ok, there may be a little scratchiness. It doesn't sound as polished as Boyzone - or Phil Collins.

To me it sounds really good. The playing is more interesting because it isn't spot on.

An the 30 hr billing, I believe, was to cover the recording session and mixing.

I still think it stands up against any amount of autotuned pap.

TelePaul · 21-07-2010 8:29pm

krd wrote: »

Just listening back to About a Girl. The drums are better than I remembered them.

Ok, there may be a little scratchiness. It doesn't sound as polished as Boyzone - or Phil Collins.

To me it sounds really good. The playing is more interesting because it isn't spot on.

An the 30 hr billing, I believe, was to cover the recording session and mixing.

I still think it stands up against any amount of autotuned pap.

I didn't really want to get in a debate about this particular album - though as I've mentioned before, I'm of the belief that you can't mask sloppiness by simply labelling it as creative or innovative. Although Milan Panic pointed to its sales, the huge take-up occurred retrospectively after Nevermind (which was a great album with tight performances across the board). Take what you will from that.

PaulBrewer · 21-07-2010 8:32pm

TelePaul wrote: »

I didn't really want to get in a debate about this particular album - though as I've mentioned before, I'm of the belief that you can't mask sloppiness by simply labelling it as creative or innovative. Although Milan Panic pointed to its sales, the huge take-up occurred retrospectively after Nevermind (which was a great album with tight performances across the board). Take what you will from that.

Was Grohl on Bleach ?

Rockshamrover · 21-07-2010 8:36pm

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Was Grohl on Bleach ?

I don't think so.

TelePaul · 21-07-2010 8:37pm

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Was Grohl on Bleach ?

Most certainly not. Chad Channing.

johnnylakes · 21-07-2010 9:23pm

Since xmas we have played 4 gigs I think, to a combined audience of about 550/600. We have close to 50,000 plays of our self-recorded material on myspace ...Surely its all about getting your music heard..with the lack of venues in our beautiful country that are willing to have an original band, it makes sense to concentrate on our sites etc. You can get your music heard by more people in an evening sitting at your laptop than a year 'gigging; in this country.

IMO (of course)

MilanPan!c · 21-07-2010 9:27pm

TelePaul wrote: »

I didn't really want to get in a debate about this particular album - though as I've mentioned before, I'm of the belief that you can't mask sloppiness by simply labelling it as creative or innovative. Although Milan Panic pointed to its sales, the huge take-up occurred retrospectively after Nevermind (which was a great album with tight performances across the board). Take what you will from that.

That's a bit of a minimization of what Bleach is.

Bleach got them a huge deal with a major label.
Bleach was good enough, that it COULD be sold, in almost every record shop in America.

Yes, Nevermind made them famous, but it didn't magically re-record Bleach.

People say things like, "rough around the edges," but no one says, "so poorly produced and recorded it's unlistenable".

AllMusic gives it a 3.5/5.
NME 8/10
Rolling Stone 4/5

Total cost to the band: $600

Number sold: 4 million

Not to shabby.

TelePaul · 21-07-2010 9:33pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

That's a bit of a minimization of what Bleach is.

You made this a numbers game

As Cobain says upon introducing 'About a Girl' in the unplugged sessions, 'This is from our first record. Most people don't own it'. That was what, four years after Bleach?

TelePaul · 21-07-2010 9:34pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

People say things like, "rough around the edges," but no one says, "so poorly produced and recorded it's unlistenable".

If I recall correctly, that was the initial verdict on 'In Utero'!

Rockshamrover · 21-07-2010 9:36pm

johnnylakes wrote: »

Since xmas we have played 4 gigs I think, to a combined audience of about 550/600. We have close to 50,000 plays of our self-recorded material on myspace ...Surely its all about getting your music heard..with the lack of venues in our beautiful country that are willing to have an original band, it makes sense to concentrate on our sites etc. You can get your music heard by more people in an evening sitting at your laptop than a year 'gigging; in this country.

IMO (of course)

Very true. 50000 plays, that's brilliant. What's your band called?

PaulBrewer · 21-07-2010 9:37pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Number sold: 4 million

Before or after Nevermind ?

TelePaul · 21-07-2010 9:37pm

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Before or after Nevermind ?

MilanPan!c · 21-07-2010 9:51pm

TelePaul wrote: »

You made this a numbers game As Cobain says upon introducing 'About a Girl' in the unplugged sessions, 'This is from our first record. Most people don't own it'. That was what, four years after Bleach?

4 million is not "most people".

MilanPan!c · 21-07-2010 9:54pm

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Before or after Nevermind ?

Sorry, but how'd it get good reviews?

I know that MOST records cost a **** load of money to make, and some of that money is even well spent, but it's fairly daft to pretend that, by any standard, a record that cost $600 an sold 4 million copies is in any way a failure.

krd · 21-07-2010 9:59pm

TelePaul wrote: »

I didn't really want to get in a debate about this particular album - though as I've mentioned before, I'm of the belief that you can't mask sloppiness by simply labelling it as creative or innovative. Although Milan Panic pointed to its sales, the huge take-up occurred retrospectively after Nevermind (which was a great album with tight performances across the board). Take what you will from that.

Bleach, as well as many other records of the same time were made in that way as a reaction to music being so over produced and processed at the time.

A reaction to all the Muzak being produced.

Some people love Muzak. They enjoy listening to Phil Collin's records.

Would the Troggs' Wild Thing have sounded better if done by Phil Collins?

krd · 21-07-2010 10:10pm

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Before or after Nevermind ?

It would have sold decently any how - not 4 million, but a few 100,000 over time. It was on Sub Pop, which had its' own sound and following. Like 4AD or pre-Sony Creation.

By Sub Pop standards, Bleach was virtually Liberace in terms of production values.

The way record companies like Sub Pop used to work. They'd make a record, distribute hundreds of copies. The record might take several years to sell. A bit of exposure and over a few years it would sell a few hundred thousand copies across the entire world.

TelePaul · 22-07-2010 9:14am

MilanPan!c wrote: »

4 million is not "most people".

I think you're missing my point here. Or maybe I'm missing yours...something is being missed at any rate!

If 4 million equates total sales, then I, along with Cobain himself in a sense, are of the opinion that these numbers don't reflect the initial popularity of the album, but rather, reflect both the band's popularity post-Nevermind and the enduring (though oft-inexplicable) legacy of Nirvana post Cobain's suicide.

Or as PB put it, did they sell four million copies of Bleach before or after Nevermind?

TelePaul · 22-07-2010 9:17am

krd wrote: »

Bleach, as well as many other records of the same time were made in that way as a reaction to music being so over produced and processed at the time.

A reaction to all the Muzak being produced.

Some people love Muzak. They enjoy listening to Phil Collin's records.

Would the Troggs' Wild Thing have sounded better if done by Phil Collins?

Okay, stop the Phil Collins hatred!

As I said, I didn't want to get into a debate about the merits of Bleach as an album in and off itself. The point was made that Bleach was recorded for a paltry $600. I conjectured that this might be the reason for it's 'inconsistencies', shall we say. Whatever the avant garde leabings of Sub Pop, I doubt they encouraged bands to play out of time.

MilanPan!c · 22-07-2010 9:36am

TelePaul wrote: »

I think you're missing my point here. Or maybe I'm missing yours...something is being missed at any rate! If 4 million equates total sales, then I, along with Cobain himself in a sense, are of the opinion that these numbers don't reflect the initial popularity of the album, but rather, reflect both the band's popularity post-Nevermind and the enduring (though oft-inexplicable) legacy of Nirvana post Cobain's suicide.

Or as PB put it, did they sell four million copies of Bleach before or after Nevermind?

I think you may be missing mine.

That quote is from post bleach, post-Nevermind, post-In Utero Cobain.

Relative to every known metric, 4 million is not "most people". It's not even most Nirvana fans.

But!

What are we talking about?

The quality of Bleach vs. Nevermind?

Or.

Are we talking about a larger issue, namely, can a band record something good enough to get them noticed by a label, good enough to sell nation-wide, good enough to get radio play, good enough to be re-released in a lavish special edition, for less than a grand?

We often talk on here about things like taking 3 days to get a drum sound, and hey, give me the money/time and I'll spend a month choosing a snare, but that's not realistic. Most bands don't have the luxury of 10s of thousands of Euro to record.

What Bleach PROVES is that, in the right context, with the right material, a band can accomplish a lot with a little.

That's my only point.

I KNOW it's nowhere near perfect. D'uh. DGC didn't care, the fans by and large don't care, the millions that bought it aren't swamping the internet with bad reviews, and the mainstream press more or less like it more than MANY records cost 10X as much to make.

So it is meaningful.

But of course, it's an exception, as I said.

You can't plan for this, but that doesn't mean it's not good, especially for $600.

TelePaul · 22-07-2010 9:54am

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I think you may be missing mine.

That quote is from post bleach, post-Nevermind, post-In Utero Cobain.

Relative to every known metric, 4 million is not "most people". It's not even most Nirvana fans.

Still not too sure where you're going with this...are you now saying that four million sales is unimpressive?

MilanPan!c wrote: »

But!

What are we talking about?

The quality of Bleach vs. Nevermind?

No...

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Or.

Are we talking about a larger issue, namely, can a band record something good enough to get them noticed by a label, good enough to sell nation-wide, good enough to get radio play, good enough to be re-released in a lavish special edition, for less than a grand?

Nope I don't think we're talking about that either...maybe KRD is. I said from a techncial standpoint, Bleach is flawed. I'm of the belief that it's an average album. You said it was good enough to sell four million copies. I made the point that those numbers reflect the latter-day popularity of the a band who released comparatively very little material, and not necessarily the popularity of the actual album itself. That's all.

MilanPan!c · 22-07-2010 10:03am

TelePaul wrote: »

Still not too sure where you're going with this...are you now saying that four million sales is unimpressive?

No...

Nope I don't think we're talking about that either...maybe KRD is. I said from a techncial standpoint, Bleach is flawed. I'm of the belief that it's an average album. You said it was good enough to sell four million copies. I made the point that those numbers reflect the latter-day popularity of the a band who released comparatively very little material, and not necessarily the popularity of the actual album itself. That's all.

I'm not sure that's hugely accurate though.

MANY bands have early records that don't sell millions once they get famous.

My only point is that, while it's flawed, it's certainly not horrible, unlistenable or unsellable.

And for $600 it's pretty damn amazing.

Of course, a lot of this goes back to the fact that they knew their songs inside and out, and basically played a live show, recorded it and over-dubbed vocals and some guitars.

It's kinda a testament to the fact that they were a decent band...

It's funny, because when they did record In Utero and had a ton of money (to spend on recording at least) they still only spent about 2 weeks recording.

The other thing is that, pre-Nevermind, Bleach sold about 30K copies, which is STILL pretty good for $600.

TelePaul · 22-07-2010 10:15am

MilanPan!c wrote: »

The other thing is that, pre-Nevermind, Bleach sold about 30K copies, which is STILL pretty good for $600.

Maybe so. But it's a far cry from four million.

MilanPan!c · 22-07-2010 10:38am

TelePaul wrote: »

Maybe so. But it's a far cry from four million.

sure, but no one ever claimed it sold four million pre-Nevermind.

I only said that it's good enough TO sell four million, even after Nevermind.

And tht couldn't be said for MANY popular artist's early records.

TelePaul · 22-07-2010 10:58am

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I only said that it's good enough TO sell four million, even after Nevermind.

Again, I think this is where we differ. I think it's more fair to say that Nevermind was good enough to sell four million copies of Bleach.

ClutchIt · 22-07-2010 12:19pm

MilanPan!c wrote: »

sure, but no one ever claimed it sold four million pre-Nevermind.

I only said that it's good enough TO sell four million, even after Nevermind.

And tht couldn't be said for MANY popular artist's early records.

Any super-famous band, like Nirvana, that only had 3 studio albums, no matter how bad the first one was it would prob sell that much.

johnnylakes · 22-07-2010 3:33pm

Rockshamrover wrote: »

Very true. 50000 plays, that's brilliant. What's your band called?

The Government

www.myspace.com/governmentmusic

i57dwun4yb1pt8 · 22-07-2010 11:22pm

lot of pointless talking going on here ,
not a lot of music being made I gather ...

Rockshamrover · 22-07-2010 11:32pm

johnnylakes wrote: »

The Government

www.myspace.com/governmentmusic

Thanks Johnny,

Some good tunes on there. It's no wonder your getting so many plays.

Rock.

rcaz · 23-07-2010 12:05am

Is a demo expected to be of good quality? My band are working on 'demos' at the moment, and it's DIY all the way. Everything recorded with dynamic mics through a dodgy interface into Ableton, mixed by the seat of our pants. It's satisfying, fun, and it gives people a chance to hear what we're doing. I don't really like saying I'm in a band and trying to conduct an internet presence without having music to show for it. But at the same time, when I was in a band who had no name or internet presence, it didn't feel like we were achieving something. Is doing your best to make something to show for your efforts, regardless of quality, not better than waiting around for ages?

I understand the point of the thread, but I'd rather have a band with a low-quality, barely acceptable (I don't think they sound too bad for our equipment and experience) example of a DIY recording, than a band who have nothing to show for their ambition.

It seems to me, that a band with no evidence of their work is hurting themselves more than a band with shoddy recordings. At least they're trying.

Rockshamrover · 23-07-2010 12:57am

El Pr0n wrote: »

Is a demo expected to be of good quality? My band are working on 'demos' at the moment, and it's DIY all the way. Everything recorded with dynamic mics through a dodgy interface into Ableton, mixed by the seat of our pants. It's satisfying, fun, and it gives people a chance to hear what we're doing. I don't really like saying I'm in a band and trying to conduct an internet presence without having music to show for it. But at the same time, when I was in a band who had no name or internet presence, it didn't feel like we were achieving something. Is doing your best to make something to show for your efforts, regardless of quality, not better than waiting around for ages?

I understand the point of the thread, but I'd rather have a band with a low-quality, barely acceptable (I don't think they sound too bad for our equipment and experience) example of a DIY recording, than a band who have nothing to show for their ambition.

It seems to me, that a band with no evidence of their work is hurting themselves more than a band with shoddy recordings. At least they're trying.

Interesting question:D

I post my unfinished stuff as a way of getting feedback from those who know better than me how to write music and produce. Those that care to give feedback are benefiting me (and future generations of music lovers:D)

However, if I was putting out something for the general public to judge me on, I would want it to be as good as is possible.

It's all about timing I suppose. If you feel your band are ready and you feel your songs are decent enough then get yourself some decent demos and go for it.

maccored · 23-07-2010 1:02am

El Pr0n wrote: »

Is a demo expected to be of good quality? My band are working on 'demos' at the moment, and it's DIY all the way. Everything recorded with dynamic mics through a dodgy interface into Ableton, mixed by the seat of our pants. It's satisfying, fun, and it gives people a chance to hear what we're doing. I don't really like saying I'm in a band and trying to conduct an internet presence without having music to show for it. But at the same time, when I was in a band who had no name or internet presence, it didn't feel like we were achieving something. Is doing your best to make something to show for your efforts, regardless of quality, not better than waiting around for ages?

I understand the point of the thread, but I'd rather have a band with a low-quality, barely acceptable (I don't think they sound too bad for our equipment and experience) example of a DIY recording, than a band who have nothing to show for their ambition.

It seems to me, that a band with no evidence of their work is hurting themselves more than a band with shoddy recordings. At least they're trying.

I'd class a demo as the easiest way to half decently record an idea - enough that its reasonably listenable enough for you to work out how you can make it better when you go to make the 'proper' recording of it. A demo I think is really what it is .. not for sale, presents your band in a decent light and is a demonstration of the kind of music you write.

PaulBrewer · 23-07-2010 8:36am

El Pr0n wrote: »

Is a demo expected to be of good quality? My band are working on 'demos' at the moment, and it's DIY all the way. Everything recorded with dynamic mics through a dodgy interface into Ableton, mixed by the seat of our pants. It's satisfying, fun, and it gives people a chance to hear what we're doing. I don't really like saying I'm in a band and trying to conduct an internet presence without having music to show for it. But at the same time, when I was in a band who had no name or internet presence, it didn't feel like we were achieving something. Is doing your best to make something to show for your efforts, regardless of quality, not better than waiting around for ages?

I understand the point of the thread, but I'd rather have a band with a low-quality, barely acceptable (I don't think they sound too bad for our equipment and experience) example of a DIY recording, than a band who have nothing to show for their ambition.

It seems to me, that a band with no evidence of their work is hurting themselves more than a band with shoddy recordings. At least they're trying.

Good Post El Pron.

However, to counter your points, if a band had more 'chutzpah' about them they'd have a longer term goal and be careful what they put out.
After all, your music is what a band 'is' - if that's sub standard or unfinished so is the band, as far as the public is concerned.

eviltimeban · 23-07-2010 8:49am

As some of you know, I've been working on some mono recordings recently, as a project more or less that's turned into an album. They are pretty lofi recordings (they're mono fer christsakes!) but I just love them. I love the sound. Now, you could say they SOUND like demos, in the sense that they sound like they could be improved quality-wise, but then I think the spirit of the music would be lost. Its also important that I don't think of them as "demos", as think of them as finished tracks, flaws and all.

I've worked with producers who've hit the button marked "studio polish" and I've hated the results. I guess its down to what people expect and what they like.

But then again this thread is about demos themselves rather than demo sound quality! But sometimes that's all that distinguishes the two. I've never been a man for spending a week getting a snare sound (unless its Steve Albini's snare sound!), I'd rather just go for it and see what comes out. Similarly I worked with another producer once on some demos, and at one point I made a comment "its only a demo", and he said "its never ONLY a demo!", ie. every recording you do should be done like its a finished track.

all the stars · 23-07-2010 9:19am

El Pr0n wrote: »

It seems to me, that a band with no evidence of their work is hurting themselves more than a band with shoddy recordings. At least they're trying.

Absolutely.... If nothing it might showcase a natural ability than can be devoloped ... If your sounding half decent with a rubbish set up, imagine how well you'd do in a professional set up. I get the concept- dont put up poorly produced stuff, wait til you have the better sounding stuff, but if i hadn't put the Poorly produced stuff up, i possibly wouldn't have the chance to work away and record the new well produced stuff.

It can't hurt to try.

PaulBrewer · 23-07-2010 9:28am

There's only one chance to make a first impression.

That's like going to meet a lady and not having a wash beforehand

"Oh, she'll like me when I'm clean"

It's important to remember that initially no-one cares about a band except the band members.

People don't even care enough to dislike you !

So to change that one must give them something they want.

We've all seen a scenario where a band is loved by an audience one minute then an album later they're forgotten.

Audiences are, by definition, selfish with a short attention span.

Give them a reason to love you, not a feckin half cooked idea that suggests to a potential audience 'we don't care enough to finish this'

PaulBrewer · 23-07-2010 9:31am

eviltimeban wrote: »

"its never ONLY a demo!"

In fairness it can be 'only a demo' ...

But, I think, it shouldn't be if you're putting it 'out'.

eviltimeban · 23-07-2010 9:55am

PaulBrewer wrote: »

In fairness it can be 'only a demo' ...

But, I think, it shouldn't be if you're putting it 'out'.

Agreed. I think his point was more "put your all into every recording you do". I've had cases where all my guitar parts on the "demo" were brought over into the master with new drum and vocal parts. So my guitar parts, as recorded for the demo, were actually good enough for the master.

I think the key message is, play everything well!

novarock · 23-07-2010 9:59am

eviltimeban wrote: »

Agreed. I think his point was more "put your all into every recording you do". I've had cases where all my guitar parts on the "demo" were brought over into the master with new drum and vocal parts. So my guitar parts, as recorded for the demo, were actually good enough for the master.

I think the key message is, play everything well!

Live drums rarely sound good unless properly recorded, you could probably get away with tracking everything else at home with the right equipment. But for a pro mix you need to be in a studio.

PMI · 23-07-2010 12:56pm

PaulBrewer wrote: »

There's only one chance to make a first impression.

That's like going to meet a lady and not having a wash beforehand "Oh, she'll like me when I'm clean"

It's important to remember that initially no-one cares about a band except the band members.

People don't even care enough to dislike you !

So to change that one must give them something they want.

We've all seen a scenario where a band is loved by an audience one minute then an album later they're forgotten.

Audiences are, by definition, selfish with a short attention span.

Give them a reason to love you, not a feckin half cooked idea that suggests to a potential audience 'we don't care enough to finish this'

The End. Full Stop. Period. Exclamation Point!

Demo is for you to take in van and listen to and embelish on and for no one outside to hear to be honest

We (if i have to use it) Demo'd/recorded our last song 3 times....

1: did it alone in one day in jealoustown (used this to approach mannix)
2: did it with gareth mannix at joes (paul said re-record it again)
3: did the final record n release with paul and joe at joes

That is what demo'ing is for but problems can arrise if you demo/stay on a song to long, you lose sight of what the goal is and end up disliking the song and barely being able to record it anymore or put effort in.

doing a so called demo passing it around and designing it for what people say to you isnt capturing the band your in.

We had comments on here which i loved ie: some 80's vibe in there and not in a good way... loved that one as it meant we are not pleasing everyone so it had something that would niggle people

We didnt care what anyone outside the band liked we just wanted it to be hard poptastic (new genre)

all the stars · 23-07-2010 1:19pm

indeed.
Glad my first impression went well....

My own idea of Demo(now) is that its not for release.
Record a decent EP or whatever, but a Demo is only for your own use really... Wouldn't be something to sell to the masses.And i do agree Paul, now i have the Luxury of a decent recording, however, it is on occassion something that you have to do - allow some 'not perfect' material out into the world..

Indeed, many moons ago you even commented on my super poor self produced track which happened to have a friend cough in the background

However, your other comments were quite encouraging given i attempted to mix down myself - and i am hopeless with technology. So, it did serve its purpose to some good end. (someone else got my point and we now work together musically)

maccored · 23-07-2010 1:50pm

in reality though, this is old terminology from an old music world. thigns are changing, and that goes on how people percieve musicians and bands. many people these days want to hear rough demos and sketches from bands. things are changing, thats all I'll say

Demos

Comments