Tragic major label dealings....

[jonahTraktor7]

I'm a huge fan of MoB, but I think their ability to make unique music was to their detriment,

:?:

they broke up long before they could play in front of their actual fan base.

they've been one of precious few bands that have had a remotely succesful reunion.

I'd assert their recordings are far more influential than their live shows were, just on the simple logic that most people that have been influenced by them never saw them until the reunion.

[jonahTraktor7]

A recording is certainly cheap now, but not many bands can travel to Chicago, though they might have an opportunity to record locally. In Boston, most bands have plenty of chances to get great, cheap recordings...but in more remote areas, both shows and studios are less plentiful, never mind engineers that understand the music that is being made.

I don't understand these comments. If a band's budget is low, then they need to have realistic expectations about what their demo will sound like, and they ought to be able to find a competent engineer and studio to deliver that record, even if they're in some remote area ( and how 'remote' is anywhere in New England? Everywhere is 200 miles from a city in NE ). If the band has a larger budget and bigger ambitions for their demo, then they go to Boston, Providence, NYC, even Hartford.

A band can now make a recording and influence others around the world without ever playing live.

Unless you're betting on pure luck, what band is going to put their recording up on the web and 'influence people around the world' if they've never played live? Talk about a pipe dream. A band needs to get out there and get people talking about it, in public and in print and on-line. What Bad Comrade said about a band making the audience for a record before the record was wise. This process is the sensible one, but for some reason, bands think that they can do an end around this process with myspace and some richly-layered demo? 99.9% of them will just be absorbed into the glut. Do you like those odds?

If you're determined to document your 'lightning in a bottle', do the best job your budget will permit, but don't think you can make a demo stand in for good old fashioned tires and feet on the ground.

I wasn't talking about New England bands...I'm talking about bands from remote areas of the world without immediate access to venues, never mind a large live audience. Whether it's remote canada, EBF, Wyoming, or anywhere in the world, people are now hearing music that they wouldn't have heard before.

You hear tales of influence from famous shows...some variation on the "24-Hour party people" Sex Pistols scene....40 people were there, but it changed their lives...

OK, so how many people in the world that were influenced by the Sex Pistols ever saw them? And how did their "feet on the ground" serve them better than a ridiculous hype machine?

Not every amount of influence has to be at that level...I'm not talking about global movements...people are influenced by what they experience.

If a band in a basement records something new, they don't ever have to play live to influence others.

But, if you want to talk about huge amounts of influence...The entire black metal "scene" developed around bands that never played live at all...and that was when physical tape trading was the network. There was a time when some idiots from that scene were saying that if you released an actual album, never mind had listenable production, you had sold out.

I did a rock/punk/metal/hardcore zine when that scene was forming, and we received countless awful demos from people with questionable politics, and even more questionable "talent"...but these people developed rabid fanbases, without ever playing live.

And what about RRRecords, or any other noise scene...are the live performances the ultimate expression, a chance to reach your audience? Hell no. Just like most hip hop (or folk for that matter) shows, the performace is often boring and/or anticlimactic compared to the recordings. Sure, some artists are better than others live, but often, rap, power electronics or ambient noise is best experienced alone, with some headphones...or on a car stereo.

I like to know how the sounds are made, but that's where direct correspondence comes in.

The web allows people to share the sounds and way more information than a standard rock band's rock concert format...no matter how esoteric the label.

[Sebastian J.]

"Being in a band is (or ought to be) an almost purely selfish enterprise. I think almost all great art is made with a degree of indifference toward its audience's reaction."


agreed 100%

even stuff like touring, that practically revolves around having an audience. you should just do to hang out with your friends. if a bunch of people want to pay $10 to gather around you and your friends and some instruments, that's their perogative

that's the spirit!

[WoundedFoot]

I look at playing live and making a record as two seperate worlds. jonahTraktor7 brought up some great points about the influence of certain music. Black Metal, especially.

Bathory never played a show in their whole career after being around for 15 years or so. Bathory are a very influential BM band that released many records which inspired many people.

Also, the tape trading. Having listenable production and releasing your album by traditional means meant you 'sold out'. This still happens today. Some BM guy named "Nog-Mys-Tium" (I'm not sure how to spell his moniker), thew his guitarist out of the band for wearing a Dark Funeral t-shirt while they performed live. He Claimed Dark Funeral wasn't "Cult Enough". Black Metal guys are funny, arent they?

With the advent of the internet, playing live music is no longer necessary. However, I do not believe it is a dying art. In any case, It should be kept alive.

Major labels are no longer needed to expose ones music to a potential fanbase and this should be embraced. Touring is also another means by which major labels financially cripple their 'talent'.

[jonahTraktor7]

I agree with this, wholeheartedly:

"Major labels are no longer needed to expose ones music to a potential fanbase and this should be embraced. Touring is also another means by which major labels financially cripple their 'talent'."

In my experience with Warner Brothers, they seemed to want their bands to spend money without rationale, not on things thaat were useful.

Our contract stipulated an east coast tour, to be FREE to the audience, paid for by the label. The goal was to gain much needed exerience for the band before we went into the studio, and get the opportunity to play with our friends down the coast, hand out free music and shirts and stickers to whomeeer showed up, and generally get an idea what the touring life would be like, as we expected to do a lot to promote the album. Though I had toured, most of the rest of the band hadn't, at least not playing the same instruments that they were playing this time around.

Once the contract was signed, the label convinced the younger members of the band that it would be a waste of time, and that we should hurry up and record our major label debut for 1600 dollars a day. For some reason, no matter how much I tried to remind them that it was a good decision to tour first, to gain the experience, and spend time together, I was outvoted...about something that had already been written into the contract. the label capitalized on egos and immaturity to exploit and/or create divisions in the band.

[the$inmusicisallmine]

I'm a huge fan of MoB, but I think their ability to make unique music was to their detriment,

:?:

they broke up long before they could play in front of their actual fan base.

neither of these statments is entirely true. Burma had fans, they had a llot of fans. "Revolver" was a local hit in boston, and the band had no trouble playing to good crowds in boston most of the time.

I'd assert their recordings are far more influential than their live shows were, just on the simple logic that most people that have been influenced by them never saw them until the reunion.

It depends on what you thing "influential" means. sure, lots more people have heard their records than have seen them. OK. perhaps those that saw them before they broke up, or since they got back together have been more profoundly moved than those people who just listen to the records?

are you offering Burma as an example of a band that played for themselves, since, as you argue, they never had a big fan base? I disagree with the premise and the conclusion. Or are you arguing that recording and releasing records is more important than playing live, because of the influence that records can have?

why make the distinction. Some folks are in bands to play music. Some are in bands to play music in front of people. Some are in bands to make money. Some are in bands to get laid. Many times people are in the same band for different reasons, as you clearly found out.

It is clearly interesting to learn why you, steve, yaledelay, bradley and others are in bands. This is a great discussion. But don't go presuming other people's intentions if you haven't heard from them.

And if Slint or Burma or the Fall or some other band wants to be a band to make money to pay their mortgages, fine. I'll make up my mind based on the music.

[BadComrade]

Jonah,

Mission of Burma had a pretty decent local fan base before they broke up. If they hadn't broken up, I'm sure it would have grown across this country like wildfire. They played a lot of shows in their time. They also did something similar to what you suggest, by putting together what are referred to as the "radio tapes". Back then, that was a great alternative way to get lots of exposure without playing a show, because there were probably no more than 2 or 3 college stations that would play their music. Once again, there's that "focus" I was talking about. People interested in that type of music could seek out that handful of college stations, tune in, and hear things that appealed to them. You can't equate myspace music pages to this, because there are just sooooooo, so many of them. Finding out about a band you've never heard of in the sea of myspace music pages is like finding the proverbial needle in the haystack. Playing as many shows as you can get in the handful of clubs in your nearest metropolitan area that cater to your style of music (there's that focus thing again) will gain you more fans than a one-of-a-million myspace page that random people might trip across when they're bored.

Do you know of any bands that have "made it" by having a myspace page? The only band I can think of that "blew up" thanks to throwing their music on the internet before they had an album out is the band Arctic Monkeys. I mean, sure, it worked well for them (they had the fastest selling debut album in UK chart history. More than Led Zeppelin, more than Pink Floyd, more than The Rolling Stones, more than The Beatles), but who else has that worked for? I honestly can't think one other band it's worked for. I can think of lots of bands who "made it" thanks to their reputation for putting on great live shows.



I think another part of the problem with a lot of bands is that they don't know (or refuse to admit to themselves) that they just plain suck. It's great getting together and playing with people, writing songs, etc. You put a lot of time and "hard work" in to it, so of course you'd like for it to work out, but once a band has done all of these things, they sometimes tend to overlook the fact that they're just not any good as a band. They dig themselves a deeper hole when they start paying to have CDs pressed, etc, and then wonder why no one comes to their shows and no one's buying their CD on cdbaby.com. I played bass for a guy who writes some of the worst music I've ever heard. Music so bad that a group of 13 year old boys 3 months in to their first ever band would laugh at it. He is one of these people. He once asked me why "Touch & Go" wouldn't want to put his "album" out, since it's already recorded, etc. He's one of the many delusional people who think they're gonna "make it", or that some day more people will show up to his shows besides the guys in the other bands that play with him. He's got a myspace music page...

[jonahTraktor7]

I didn't mention MySpace, but obviously that's one way of getting one's music heard when there are no other options. I'm just referring to file sharing in general...any recording can be shared without a manufactured CD now...it's happening at an increasing rate, and it's resulting in the building of fan bases, record "deal" offers (probably just a P&D, and that's preferable anyway, right?) ...and if the band wants, it helps with booking.

Please remember, I was responding to assumptions made about me and my music, and my motivations.

My comments about Burma were with specific regard to the claim that a band should play some certain number of successful shows before they should make an album, and I think that's totally incorrect.

I'll hazard a guess that MoB didn't make their first album because they felt validated by a huge number of successful shows...it's more likely that they believed in their own music, knew how to increase their exposure, and wanted to take a chance with independent distribution. They are brilliant guys, and I think it's safe to say that they had/have admirable and realistic intentions.

They were successful because of college radio, not because they were playing huge shows in non-Boston clubs before they shipped records there. Successful shows in Boston rarely mean successful shows too far outside of Boston. there are plenty of examples of bands that have been huge here, and failed
(relatively speaking) at the national and/or international level.

Boston is a fickle town because the student population cycles through...it can work well, when the students export their Boston experiences and word spreads...but often bands don't last long here because of many reasons, with the fickle crowds being right up there.

I agree that we've all got different goals with our music, and I do not presume that other people share mine. But, mine were questioned, if not ridiculed, by people without any knowledge of who I am or how I approach music in general.

I think it boils down to what someone's idea of success is.

Chris Hall, I think you feel justified in judging whether or not a band sucks, while I feel that most bands that are self-conscious have already failed. I have opinions about them, but whether or not I think they should continue is irrelevant. It's (too) easy to release music now. The Minutemen got their wish for a band on every corner, and I don't think that's a bad thing.

And, suckiness is relative.


There was a great sloppy proto-noise rock Boston band called Hullaballoo and they had an album called

"It's Not Enough To be Loud, You Have To Suck, To"

I think the misspelling of "too" was intentional, but who am I to judge? It's all art, and it's meant to be interpreted, right?

[the$inmusicisallmine]

There was a great sloppy proto-noise rock Boston band called Hullaballoo and they had an album called

"It's Not Enough To be Loud, You Have To Suck, To"

Hullaballoo was a great loft party - drunk at the rat - basement of a dorm at MIT kind of band. fuckin' Sluggo! those guys rocked. don't forget about Left Nut!

[jonahTraktor7]

I never got to see Left Nut, but I have the 7"...Slughog took over the crown for blasting noise, IMO...they never seemed to catch on anywhere else for some reason.

They are probably good examples of bands with great live shows that didn't translate to the recorded format....where tours could have helped immensely, if they were exposed to the right crowds.

[numberthirty]

I'm feeling the need to throw a hogwash flag on that line about hip hop and folk concerts being anticlimatic vs. recordings. As for black metal, I'm fairly sure that Venom played the Aragon with Slayer opening on Christmas day when I was a kid.

[jonahTraktor7]

I'm feeling the need to throw a hogwash flag on that line about hip hop and folk concerts being anticlimatic vs. recordings. As for black metal, I'm fairly sure that Venom played the Aragon with Slayer opening on Christmas day when I was a kid.

Venom were essentially a rock band compared to what is generally considered to be black metal. Influential, certainly, but, again, less because of their live shows than their recordings.

And if you've seen great hip hop shows, I think you are very lucky. In my experience, they are poor approximations of the albums.

[wowow]

Your existence on this earth will not be in vain once you become rich and "world famous" like...

http://www.afrodisiacs.net/bandprofile.html

... and just by "playin' that funky music white boy!" You may laugh at the "Afrodisiacs" - but are you in the same boat?

Many of the posts seem concerned with starting bands to make money, not music. And starting a rock band is not a good way to invest your money if you're looking for a return in dollars.

Actually, I'm not being fair to the Afrodisiacs who may have a great love for the music they play and actually have a great time performing it.

Hopefully you do as well!

[DrAwkward]

What a load of crap. Everyone knows the Afrodesiac is a member of The Hawaii Show, Minneapolis' best lip-sync act.

[Boombats]

You hear tales of influence from famous shows...some variation on the "24-Hour party people" Sex Pistols scene....40 people were there, but it changed their lives...

Wrong band sonion. 24Hr PP was about Joy Division/New Order and the Manchester club scene.

[rocker654]

You hear tales of influence from famous shows...some variation on the "24-Hour party people" Sex Pistols scene....40 people were there, but it changed their lives...

Wrong band sonion. 24Hr PP was about Joy Division/New Order and the Manchester club scene.

Yes, but he was referring to the scene in that movie of the gig the Pistols did in Manchester that had all the future Joy Division, Buzzcocks, producers, record label owners who were in the audience that night, and were inspired by the Sex Pistols to do as much to create the Manchester scene.

[windowlicker]

My band is attracting some A&R activity at the moment from a couple of major labels...

Wish I had a dollar everytime...

If money is your main reason for being involved in music, there's always the cover band route. Between corporate events, weddings and bar gigs, "The Afrodisiacs" have probably made more money than 75% of "label signed" bands.

Nah, money is not even a tiny reason for me being involved in music. We've been playing and recording (usually separately) in bedrooms and garages for nobody but ourselves for over 10 years and it's only in the last year that we decided to get together and "go public". It just happens that people (including "industry" types) seem to like what we do. Money has never come into it. The band has us all broke, in fact.

[Minotaur029]

I think another part of the problem with a lot of bands is that they don't know (or refuse to admit to themselves) that they just plain suck. It's great getting together and playing with people, writing songs, etc. You put a lot of time and "hard work" in to it, so of course you'd like for it to work out, but once a band has done all of these things, they sometimes tend to overlook the fact that they're just not any good as a band. They dig themselves a deeper hole when they start paying to have CDs pressed, etc, and then wonder why no one comes to their shows and no one's buying their CD on cdbaby.com. I played bass for a guy who writes some of the worst music I've ever heard. Music so bad that a group of 13 year old boys 3 months in to their first ever band would laugh at it. He is one of these people. He once asked me why "Touch & Go" wouldn't want to put his "album" out, since it's already recorded, etc. He's one of the many delusional people who think they're gonna "make it", or that some day more people will show up to his shows besides the guys in the other bands that play with him. He's got a myspace music page...

Can you post a link to this music?

[jonahTraktor7]

You hear tales of influence from famous shows...some variation on the "24-Hour party people" Sex Pistols scene....40 people were there, but it changed their lives...

Wrong band sonion. 24Hr PP was about Joy Division/New Order and the Manchester club scene.

thanks for the bulletin, Brokaw.

[Boombats]

You hear tales of influence from famous shows...some variation on the "24-Hour party people" Sex Pistols scene....40 people were there, but it changed their lives...

Wrong band sonion. 24Hr PP was about Joy Division/New Order and the Manchester club scene.

thanks for the bulletin, Brokaw.

Yeah we figured that out...

Yes, but he was referring to the scene in that movie of the gig the Pistols did in Manchester that had all the future Joy Division, Buzzcocks, producers, record label owners who were in the audience that night, and were inspired by the Sex Pistols to do as much to create the Manchester scene.