Please Self-Release Me, Let Me Go
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Blogs
Forum Description: Blogs, Editorials, Original articles posted by members
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=64725
Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 04:54
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Please Self-Release Me, Let Me Go
Posted By: Dean
Subject: Please Self-Release Me, Let Me Go
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 14:11
|
One of the technological revolutions of the Internet age has been the marked increase in Self-Release and Self-Publishing of all creative arts. Fine-art, the written word and music have all been caught-up in this flurry of activity that promises to banish the corrupt self-serving corporate monster moguls to the annals of history and allow "the artist" the freedom to connect directly with the art-loving public.
But is this Utopian idyll an egalitarian dream or a self-delusional nightmare?
I have ventured into this world on many occasions, from the early beginnings of the World Wide Web and the look-at-me progenitors of social networking where I could create a "Home Page" to publish my confused rantings and musings on all manner of subjects and to present a primitive form of the eNovel for all the world to read or ignore at their leisure. Later I had several attempts to releasing my home-made music via numerous means from an AOL home-page, the original version of mp3.com, MySpace and LastFM to (finally) giving some of it away under Music and Musicians Exchange here at the PA. And more recently I have used a web-based vanity press to produce an actual printed paper novel replete with glossy paperback cover. What these experiences have taught me is that this is not a simple process, that the skills required are more than just being good at what you do. Of course my relative success or failure in these endeavours could be seen as jading my personal view of the whole process, but simply dipping a hand into these waters and plucking a self-released product at random will show even the most optimistic of "purchasers" that this is a far from perfect solution.
For all these one-man table-top ventures suffer from a number of failings that immediately mark them as being substandard and amateurish (in the worse possible connotation of that word) - they lack the judicious hand of the experts - the editors, the producers, the graphic artists and layout specialists and the management agents, the A&R men and the marketing teams who stand up to "the artist" and say that the product is not good enough, that the packaging is in need of refinement, that the work needs more work to be in any way, shape or form saleable ... While it is fashionable to cheer at the demise of all these industry middle-men and corporate hanger-oners under the assumption (though not completely without foundation) that they have corrupted the very nature of the business they draw their substantial salaries from, they do actually perform a valid and worthwhile role in the furtherance of the art as an art-form and therefore are a vital part of the creative process. While on the surface their job-functions ensure that the product will give a return on investment, it has the underlying responsibility of maintaining a level of quality that filters the worthy from the also-rans. This does not imply that they sort out the commercial from the unsellable, or even the professional from the amateur, but that they provide some necessary critical feedback to the artist prior to unleashing their prized creation onto the public, to ensure that what is heard or read is the best that the artist can produce.
Quality Control is not something that can be bolted on at the end, it has to be prevalent through the entire process, from the moment that *someone* says that a particular phrase is clichéd and should be re-written or discarded all the way through to the final presentation in its packaging and overall look, so that the product placed on the virtual shop shelves not only stands out against the plethora of other items from all the other dreamers, but is of equal quality to the best of what is on offer. So for a book not only does it have to be of the right readable standard, or if it is an album of music it has to be of a given listenable standard, but it has to be of the same professional standard as those produced by the established publishing houses and record labels.
Without this the music world (and by that I mean the music world at all levels – the underground and the specialist markets and not just the commercial pop and rock world) will be reduced to the lowest common denominator (if it hasn’t already), that all product will be as bad as each other rather than being as good as each other. Once we, as the buying/downloading/listening public, accept the limitations of what the artist deemed was good enough and take into account his excuses for the known faults of his work then we have bought into this myth and will have acknowledged sub-standard production methods (of content, packaging and promotion) as being the norm. The question then becomes how will be recognise a masterpiece in all the flotsam and jetsam that passes through our media players and hi-fi systems and by what means will the crème de al crème rise to the surface when all that is produced is produced by all that can produce?
Now, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that any single artist can possess all the talents to raise the level of what they create to an acceptable standard, or that a single band can contain individuals within their number with a share of theses skills, but in many ways they are complimentary and even counter to the creative process and would ideally be divorced from it. Artists often say that they are their own worse critic, but are they really? In reality are they any worse than their immediate friends and family, who to a man (and woman) will invariably be supportive rather than honestly (and brutally) analytical?
------------- What? |
Replies:
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 14:39
|
Exceptional post and spot on. The "new way" of doing things present the hugest chasm of contradiction. On the one hand, as Martin Orford noted here recently, the "new way" creates an ocean of "musicians" the world over who fancy themselves "artists" because they can now release their "albums" to the world without "the man" being involved, a process we help aid here by our new guidelines allowing such releases. The fact is that so many of these projects are of sub-standard quality in terms of writing, recording, and final product. You have what in the past would be weekend-hobby musicians now deeming themselves recording artists. You have reviewers who should know better willing to outrageously overrate some of these albums without much context (sorry, but I'm not one of those people opposed to the use of the word "overrate", it's a very legitimate concept.) I admit, I've been guilty of doing this myself sometimes though I try to keep my emotions in check and often adjust ratings later when I've had time to consider the larger picture. However, on the flip side, I'm not actually opposed entirely. First off, the truly quality musicians will gravitate to the top and get noticed, perhaps eventually getting an official label release. Second, for the majority that do not, I have been more than pleased on many occasions by the lovely work of hobby musicians and web-only bands whose myspace page serves as their main point of contact with the world. There IS good stuff in this ocean. One simply has to approach such releases with honestly in termsn of how good the quality is overall when compared to those "real" bands who have grinded it out for years, kissed all the arses, and sold their souls to the devil. This long process sucks of course, and is no guarentee of quality, but it is a process that does force out a lot of sub-standard product from reaching your living room. The whole "new way" of approaching the music landscape just requires one to scoop the water from the ocean one cupfull at a time, throwing most on the beach and discovering the magic maybe one time over the course of one's day at the beach. It is something I welcome, because I am a person who enjoys the search for new music and the pleasure of writing about it for people. Again, I'm not opposed or afraid of the new world order, just sayin' its a very mixed bag and takes a lot of time to wade through the weak to find the awesome. Have fun with the hunt!  |
Posted By: Pekka
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 15:53
A very interesting post, Dean  For me this "new way" of releasing music is a great blessing, or at least so it feels at the moment. I'm a complete amateur in every positive and negative sense of the word, just doing my stuff slowly as a hobby realizing the very home-made production quality I'm capable of with my humble skill and equipment, and as long as that stands I have absolutely no intention to try and charge anyone money for listening to my stuff. But I love being able to get it out there as soon as I finish anything and get direct feedback. Mostly it's all positive since most people, like me, don't really like to give negative comments to beginners, but I've got a couple of friends who can say to me if they don't like something. And of course I enjoy when someone says they like my music. That little amount of feedback I get from this is much more valuable than the no feedback I'd get just messing around by myself with nobody else hearing my music. That's some stream of consciousness babble I have from this subject. Every single piece of music I've finished in my life is up for free download, so far it's working great for me but give it a couple of years and perhaps it'll lead to great embarrassment
 ------------- http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=42652" rel="nofollow - It's on PA! 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 18:06
As you know, I do have an issue with the over-use and misuse of "overrate", however in this particular instance I do agree and indeed aprove of its use. Rating some of these self-releases on equal terms with other releases is rating them higher than they have any valid cause to be - that is judging the intention and ambition of one artist while over-looking its shortcomings against the actual achievement of another.
This is one thought process where I didn't quite get my words in order before posting... I do not believe that the quality musicians will rise to the surface, they will be lost in the miasma of mediocrity because the Internet is not a point source. As Momus said in 1991 (paraphrasing Andy Warhol) - in the future everyone will be famous for fifteen people - and the interet and self-releasing is making that future a reality.
I'm still discovering artists from 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago that I hadn't heard of - and those are from the days when the record labels did this filtering for us - now it will take a lifetime to sift through the self-releases from just this month alone. ------------- What? |
Finnforest wrote:Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 18:16
|
^ I'm still discovering artists from 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago that I hadn't heard of - and those are from the days when the record labels did this filtering for us - now it will take a lifetime to sift through the self-releases from just this month alone. Truer words have never been spoken...
|
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 18:20
|
Why does self-releasing inherently cater to the lowest common denominator? Wouldn't the freedom of not being confined by label executives let them do whatever they want?
You recognize the masterpiece by listening to it. ;-)
I almost never listen to self-released artists, because as you said, if in this era they can't get anybody to sign them, they probably are terrible. But I can't see the ability to self-release as a bad thing in any way. If you'd rather only listen to music that other people think is good, there will still be plenty of label releases this year... ------------- if you own a sodastream i hate you |
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 18:46
|
Good post, one that makes you think. Indeed, it's a new era of artistic freedom - bordering on anarchy - but at the same time following (more or less) strict rules of sociology, or its rendering on a virtual plane. The reflections of this 'movement' were (and still are) felt here at ProgArchives - in trying to determine what un/signed status means for an artist nowadays; it's more than hazy. While putting all the pros and cons on the scales, it's necessary to observer an increased number of artist -and music in general - suitable for a music consumer. Before internet, there was a plethora of amateur musicians, and a fraction of ones who actually released something. Today, even if standards are set strict - and there's no allowance for below par recording that doesn't meet a professional level, let alone quality music, it's inevitable some cracks will appear in our virtual dam; one way or another there will be bigger number of artists then ever - and that is already happening, regardless of filtering. The next issue is the actual quality that pops out from the crowd occasionally, and that is actually worth listening. It's questionable will those artist sink into obscurity or be pushed forward to recognition, perhaps even stardom. In a primordial soup - ocean - of amateurish artists recording their idea badly - some will stand out of the crowd; one in 100 or one in 1000, creating something worth investigating. This is already happening, and some artist already have minuscule but present cult followers. I really doubt they will be propelled to the higher level of recognition and media; there are plenty of forgotten 70's records (mostly forgotten) which widened a circle of admirers, but most likely that is their threshold; they perhaps had a small base of followers back in their heyday (and they were released on a real, physical media), a few more that stumbled upon them in years to come (in a forgotten attic),but before internet, and a sphere of web surfers craving for obscurities - and that's about it. Not bad considering a short lived band from a 'small' country that released 500 copies in the 70's; 500 more CD reissues and 2000 downloads, be it legal or not. There are just too many names. Perhaps they will became a global phenomenon out of the blue in 2031, but that's less than likely. The same applies to the new names recording and 'releasing' ints on their own, on internet. But in this case, chances they will be recognized are even slimmer - they don't have 20 or 30 years of history and a small fanbase for jump-start, Internet-wise; there is no avalanche (no matter how small it might be) to push them forward. What is left is the quality of a product as an advertising for the product itself; or at least its very existence - the domino effect of hyperlinks, forum recommendations and various audio/video samples will be smaller. But the feedback will exist, irrelevant of how far (or not) its branches are protruding. Basically, we're back to the word-of-mouth in the era of sophistocated communications technology. Blogosphere, social networking sites will do the job of mouths. It does rely on quality of the music - and perhaps that's the bast part. The things will crystalize, in a way - before, we had thousands of amateurish bands, and selected ones that released something. Nowadays, determination will be in hands of an average surfer; if a surfer want's to turn the thing off just a few seconds after the music starts, it will get lost in digital vasteland. If it's interesting, it will get recognition among fans - perhaps fast, perhaps slow and tedious, and most likely non-profitable, but it could be measured by various traffic counters and a sheer number of references. New genres, styles and movements will emerge - one that would never happen under the dictatorship of labels - the price of that is wallowing in an ocean of junk. It's not necessary a bad thing, but each of us has to do our own, personal filtering before group and/or global filterings will occur. And outside, in the real world, bands who care will be playing live. ------------- |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 18:55
(Note I said reduced to not cater to). Doing whatever they want is not necessarily for the good. I don't mean in an excessive self indulgent way, but in a not learning by experience way. Most of everything is fashion driven, including literature and music, regardless of how experimental and futuristic people think they are being, the bulk of what they create is essentially derivative and influenced by whatever is fashionable at the time - that's how genres form, how a new album or novel becomes popular - by appealing to people who like similar material within that genre. In the worse case scenario that I depict here, (and I admit that it is a deliberately melodramatic and exaggerated worse case dystopia), the system is self-feeding and self-perpetuating - once poor quality becomes the accepted norm then people will automatically produce to that level. It is also limited by capital resource - and even though there are plenty of budding and aspiring artists out there who will try and convince us that $500 of home recording software and reading a book on sound engineering and music production can produce the same quality as a $500,000 studio, a $200/day sound engineer and a top-flight producer the reality is somewhat different.
And how, from the thousands of self-released albums let loose on the internet each week, do you find this masterpiece to get to listen to it in the first place? :-Þ
And with that the concept of self-release is doomed to inevitable failure and will never spark the revolution that many hope it will. ------------- What? |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 18:55
|
A very thought provoking opening post certainly and knowing just how much of a gentleman the original poster is, he manages to raise a lot of very unpalatable issues in a typically non-confrontational way. Enough praise already, time to irritate some hippies. What you are describing strikes my caffeine addled brain as tantamount to a democratization of the arts driven by dilettantes. I've always believed that democracy has no place in the arts whatsoever as let's face it, only scarcity confers a value on anything surely ? I agree also that much as we might profess to disapprove of those business professionals who massage the artist's creations into a viable and fit for it's purpose form for the marketplace, without the latter's intervention, we would be drowning in 'Acoustic Ladyland' demos sheathed in comic sans typefaced covers depicting the creator's pets and/or holiday snaps. Similarly, I think you nailed that sucker re the invaluable filtering process that conventional music enterprises provide. I too have availed myself of such internet outlets for my own works of fiction and would have to agree that without a steady dose of corporate 'tough love', it seems unlikely that sublime artistic expression would ever be able to extricate itself from the deluge of mediocrity that surrounds it should this burgeoning internet phenomenon hold sway. (I'm happy to concede my fiction ain't viable so probably won't get published, but ain't resentful about it and like you suggest, vanity publishers are aptly named) It's interesting that one of the many regrettable effects of seizing the 'means of production' from the hitherto reviled entrepreneurs, invariably leads us from Formula One to the Lada hatchback. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 19:26
While this thread was not intended to be a critique of the amateur or aspiring musician per sey (for that would be the ultimate in self criticism
 ) I should at least emphasise the difference between sharing a few tracks between friends and trying to promote a self-released album.For myself, I have fallen guilty of "releasing" everything I ever recorded (though back then it wasn't possible or practical to upload everything to the internet - it was on request by snail-mail only) - on reflection it's probably a bad idea to do that and the quality control I spoke of in the OP should have been applied - it's one thing to subject your friends and contacts to a couple of tracks or perhaps a CDs worth - but in my case it was over 200 tracks (many of which were over a hour long  )------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 20:12
I was partly the instigator behind PA accepting self-release as being equivalent to being signed based on subjective assessment of the "professional" quality of the release and then later proposed expanding that to include free-downloads and free-releases, the final decision is still at the discretion of the genre teams: ("Recorded and mixed in a professional manner, such that it meets commercial sound quality as found on average CDs released by commercial record companies") - so by that releases that fail this subjective quality control can legitimately be discarded.
Of course that is still a wishy-washy defintion with enough holes in it to drive a London bus through, especially if the standards of commercial recordings are no longer a valid benchmark.
While that will undoubtedly work on the wider scale in filtering the some of the good from all the good, all the bad and all the mediocre, it does not benefit the individual artist or help develop their potential. The skill of the record label A&R man was/is in recognising that potential in a band's live performance or demo recording and then realising that as a final product. The situation with many self-released albums is that they are still at the demo stage (all be it slightly polished, but their potential is not fully realised). ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 20:35
It is one of the contradictions of the world-wide-web that for all its levelling egalitarian idealism, it is not democratic or even socialist in reality, what we have is elitist oligarchies - there is only one book store, search engine, social networking site, infopedia, etc. Given time this idealised concept of music for the masses by the masses will evaporate or at least congeal into a single point.
What I have said for the music business applies equally to the literary world and that for vanity or self-publishing you have to be your own editor, proof-reader, compositor and layout artist, and having mastered that you have to become versed in the art of self-promotion and marketing, all without the aid of a publishing house, their years of experience, list of contacts and promotional budget.
 ------------- What? |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 21:11
|
You either like the music, or you don't. Being professionally promoted or 'refined' by an external influence has nothing to do with it in my opinion. The best music holds its own no matter what method is used to get it out there in the public eye initially. If we are to assume that the 'lowest-common denominator' is all that can benefit from the modern methods of self-promotion, couldn't that perspective just as easily be spun on its head to appeal to the opposite viewpoint? I personally discover more and more unsigned music all the time I fall in love with, and the only reason many of these guys aren't signed up to a label is because they have chosen not to be. In fact, many well-known artists who once released music this 'old-fashioned' way are now doing it entirely on their own, anyway. Nine Inch Nails is no less successful than the next artist in the similar vein, and they now do it all 'from home', as it were. Of course, you could argue that in NIN's case, it is different, because they were already established before making the decision to self-promote, but consider this, also: even now, you Dean are preparing to add yet another successful indie band to the archives. I know this because I recently sent you their bio for inclusion. Now, these guys are living very comfortably off of their self-made fame, and did nothing different than what you have described in you initial post. In my opinion, the reason why we haven't seen more independent artists hitting it big is simply because there still aren't enough artists going that route to begin to make a statistical mark when help up against all the past success traditional record labels have built for musicians. I guarantee you that once this tradition becomes more and more common among recoding artists, the amount of successes in this particular approach will begin to slowly but surely outweigh the failures. Now, since I'm quite tired, I may have possibly missed your point entirely, in which case I am sorry for wasting you time with blather. But if indeed I did address the very subject you were introducing, then I hope my own perspective on the situation proves as useful food for though. At this point it's really too early to say for sure how successful self-promotion in entertainment is going to be, but in the long run, I believe it is a positive thing, frankly. The music makes the music, not the production or company name behind it. That will always be true, and as long as people truly use their ears, they'll be able to tell the difference between the two-- record contract attached, or not.
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 22:11
Ears, and finding enough of them, make the music. -------------
|
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 22:19
|
I am in my cups tonight, so I'll keep this short. Nursery Cryme. An album regarded by many as a masterpiece of symphonic rock music (and rightly so) has some of the crappiest production I've ever heard, and it was recorded at Trident studios- a state of the art facility at the time- and yet still sounds awful, comparatively speaking. This was not the band's first OR second attempt. Fast forward to 2002. Vapor Trails. Rush is no stranger to the game, and yet, even under the guidance of veteran Paul Northfield, they managed to release an album that clips so awfully many critics slammed it for the production alone. However: 1. I love them in spite of (maybe even because of?) their production (I gave Nursery Cryme four stars and Vapor Trails five). 2. They were produced with the leading technology at the time and competent people at the helm. You see, I get bored with the shiny production modern symphonic bands employ, such to the extent that they all sound the same. The Flower Kings, Simon Says, Transatlantic, Discipline, Spock's Beard, Neal Morse...hell, they're excellent acts, but they all sound the friggin same! Not to say I don't like them (on the contrary), but the production is so polished it gives my ears the aural equivalent of a toothache. Give me some grit. Give me a little static. Give me some breaths between lines. Let me know there's real people behind those guitars and mics. I don't mean be incompetent or lazy or noisy- I just mean play your music and have a good time and just do your best to make it sound decent. Besides, there's always been people promoting their sh*t even if most people (including their friends and family) think it sucks. The Internet is simply a faster conduit of the best and the worst of everything, so no reason we should be surprised that music is included in this. I personally would not have found some amazing bands that I love were it not for their self-promotion on the Net and their "nuts to the man" attitude. If I find crap I don't like, I don't have to listen to it. Simple as that. Same way it was in the old system really. No one is forcing me to hear anything. I personally am far more interested in the compositions anyway, and if those are excellent, then the production qualities will likely only endear the music further (which is precisely what has happened for me with the above albums I mentioned). Besides, if you don't start somewhere, you have pretty much no chance of getting a record deal anyway. So who cares? As a wise man once said, "Get out there and rock- and roll the bones. Get busy." Well damn that wasn't brief at all. Time for another beer. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: January 30 2010 at 23:57
ah, if only; the disappointing reality - especially with a smaller press - is they barely have the time or manpower to 'edit' or 'produce' much, and expect the writer to do most of it including format, graphics and images. And then they still might not actually print or distribute the book you poured your heart&soul into, rewrote and rewrote again till it barely resembles what you envisioned. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 31 2010 at 06:04
To quote the MySpace blog of the band referred to in the next para, "The downside of all this is the scope of our reach." What they mean in that context is that while they can reach a wide virtual audience, they are limited to a geographically restrict live audience - without a label to bankrole a coast to coast tour they are confined to playing the West Coast. This strapped for cash situation that they find themselves in is limiting the amount of self-promotion they can do, and with that the size of the market they can reach.
Firstly the fact that NIИ, Radiohead and Smashing Pumpkins were/are established bands is the only reason they can be mega-successful following this route. Unfortunately this has inspired is a seemingly unmoveable group-think that this is the future and this will work for each and every band or artist who can record sounds onto a PC. Those three bands have pots full of cash to fund their endevours and they can pretty much guarantee a fixed number of bankable sales with whatever they do that will at last cover their costs. To do this they still employ an army of behind the scenes experts to realise their dreams - just because they are self-funding independant releases does not mean they are not doing all the things a real label would do.
The point I am making is that all those other bands and artists who think they are following the same self-release path as NIИ, Radiohead and Smashing Pumpkins are not, they are attempting to go from point "A" to point "Z" without all the very necessary intermediate steps.
As to Rishloo - having read a little more about them I seriously doubt that they are living very comfortably off their self-made fame, I suspect they are not even making a living off their self made fame, another quote from their blog: "The bands who are left, with or without labels, still have to make money. One of the ways that they do this is by charging other bands to tour with them (usually to the tune of at least $10,000-$20,000 minimum) by the time you add in travel expenses, the bill gets very steep for four guys, 2 of whom are in school full-time and 2 of whom work jobs that keep them right around the poverty level. The point I'm trying to make is that it's not as simple as just, "emailing such and such band and telling them they should let us go on tour with them to Kalamazoo or Tanzanianoligergorgiastan." Whether they like our music or not, they need to keep making money too, and even the biggest ones are businesses, not philanthrotropic charities." .... Now I don;t know the personal circumstances of the four guys in Rishloo to know whether they were referring to themselves in that quote, or some hyperthetical unsigned band, but it is a fair assumption that they would not have written the words unless they had personal experience of it.
It is a sobering reality of the music industry that very very few can afford to make a living solely from the music they sell and the gigs they play - and this includes many signed bands.
I agree with Iain - I think the unsigned, self-released independant artists reach market saturation very quickly and that saturation-point is very small when compared to the markets achieved by the least successful of the signed bands - we are talking orders of magnitudes here - sales of 100s and 1000s compared to sales of 10,000s and 100,000s. The pool is fixed and the maths is the same - 1000 self-released bands selling 1000 albums each, or 100 bands selling 10,000 albums or 10 bands selling 100,000 each.
Even within the realms of self-released, self-promoted, self-funded, independent and unsigned there is a a hierarchy - from established bands and once-signed bands who have "gone it alone" for whatever reason through single-band-only independent labels who perhaps could be signed, across to the out-of-fashion underground bands who can only self-release all the way down to the haven't a hope in hell of every being signed dreamers and bedroom studio musicians who just want to share their music with anybody who will listen. And it is the lower two or three echelons I am addressing here.
As I said to Pekka, I'm not criticising these artists for what they do. I am being hyper critical of how they do it and what they produce as a finished product - that they firmly believe that what they have made stands any comparison to a professional product. It is easy(ish) at the moment to carefully select a few choice examples and state that they are typical of the rest, but it is simply not true in what I have listened to since this phenomenon first appeared. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: January 31 2010 at 11:31
|
I'm not overly concerned with how poorly a few bands produced their albums in the past within the system when similar bands managed to produce exemplary albums using the same tools and the same resources within the same system. With Genesis it is clear that their aspirations were in excess of what they could technically achieve with their expertise at the time - that they learnt from that and went on to perfect those techniques on later albums is a mater of record, With Rush the situation was slightly different, but in some ways very much the same - they were using technology and recording methods that were new to them at the time and they made mistakes which they have admitted to.
That is an issue with the perfectionist approach enabled by modern production tools in that everything gets the same vanilla flavoured production that results in a homogenised generic sound. Unfortunately it is not just Symphonic that gets this treatment, although the faux-orchestral symphonic "sound" that permeates all subgenres of music (including Alt/Indie pop) is probably the most noticeable. That this technology is available at all levels means that not even on-a-budget self-released albums are immune, although many cannot even achieve that level of polish.
Unfortunately I am forced to hear what people put in my Crossover In-tray to evaluate, which means I do not have the luxury of picking and choosing everything I listen to. What I am not forced to do is to like everything I hear, but I still have to listen to it with a critical ear.
I am referring to more than just the Technical Production of the record, but to its composition, arrangement, packaging, presentation and marketting - in other words the whole kit and kaboodle and not just the notes on the stave. If we have to accept the limitations of any single album in order to appreciate it then we have lowered the bar too far in my opinion. If artists want to "stick it to the man" and take control of their own work then they should do the work that "the man" did and give us something of equal value. Taking control should not imply releasing any old rubbish, but actually being in control of what they produce from beginning to end. It seems to me that the one thing control freaks have little control over is themselves. While we all know of countless horror stories of "the man" interfering with the compositional stage and cries of Artistic Control are most common justification for going the self-release route, taking a little constructive criticism before an album is released can be beneficial and actually help the artist get the best out of what they produce and may even improve on the composition. Because at the end of the day that is what we do when we review the final product - we assess the whole thing - the composition, the lyric, the arrangement, the production and the performance - if we don't like a particular section or part of the tune we say so, if many of us agree then perhaps it would have been better if someone had pointed that out to the artist before we got our hands on it.
I care. And it is my contention that the artist should care too. Self-release is not a starting point, it is a finishing point. If an artist is not interested in a recording contract (as many many of them claim) then self-release is the finished article.
When artists start being honest with themselves and with their potential public then it shows that they care enough for me to want to care more. When they stop (self) releasing demos on the pretext that they are on a par with a CD I can buy in any normal retail outlet and actually take real ownership of what they produce; when they record, mix, EQ, master and release albums of an acceptable quality to the best of their ability; when it is combined with artwork that is commensurate with the artistry they are trying to sell; when that "packaging" is designed and fabricated to the same care and standard as the music and not thrown together in 5 minutes using Paintshop Pro by someone who couldn't draw water from a well let alone a half-decent band logo; when they can promote and market themselves in a proactive way without recourse to spamming and pretending that friends, family or band members are "fans" who have just discovered this amazing album; when they can take the time and trouble to use every (free) promotional tool available to them and use those tools to the same professional standard of serious artists; when they can show that level of intent then perhaps I can look at them and cannot tell immediately whether they are signed or not then I'll care even more.
None of what I am saying here is difficult to do, it just takes a little more time and care, it perhaps may require asking for a little help, but none of it is beyond the reach of the self-released artist. ------------- What? |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: January 31 2010 at 23:49
I never said Rishloo were filthy rich; I said they could sustain a living off of their music without needed day jobs. As far as I know, that is true. They made a music video that plays on MTV, have an entire European-based fanclub, etc. They ain't hurtin' for the bucks, at least not enough to be living on the street. The poinr you brought up about Radiohead and their ilk already being established is something I already touched upon in my initial post. You needn't have brought it up again, since I already made my point that besides that fact. Your attitude toward 'production', Dean, is something I will never be able to understand, and I'm not sure I want to. I will never base my enjoyment of music on whether or not the musicians recorded in a sleek studio or not. It has no effect whatsoever on my listening experience, and to think that anybody can disregard or think less of an artist simply because they don't have the same resources as the big boys in the biz . . . well, it's insane. But in this particular case, Rishloo do pay for studio time and produce their record professionally with the help of others. I'm sure plenty of other indie bands do the same as well, so the poor production argument doesn't always apply, even though I don't think it should to begin with.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 01 2010 at 18:18
 And no one else said they were filthy rich either You said "Now, these guys are living very comfortably off of their self-made fame". I said "Now I don't know the personal circumstances of the four guys in Rishloo" I think you are guessing, I made no such guess, but doubted they made a living (comfortable or not) - I could make a calculated estimate as to how much they need to sell to make a living, but it would still be a guess since I don't know how many albums they sell in a year. The only way to know is to ask them, assuming they'll want anyone to know the answer.
For low-selling artists (<15K units per year) Self-release is the only way to make money because sure as eggs are eggs, they'll never make money as a signed artist with that turnover, but to shift that number they have to produce something that is comparable to a label released album and they have to work their butts off selling them. (which Rishloo certainly have, but more of that later).
I was continuing your example to make a completely different point... wasted my time there then
I am quite insane of course, so that is beside the point.
 I do think that you do understand my attitude and simply don't agree with it. It has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the music and it's not just about the music production. I quite enjoy lo-fi production in the right circumstance; I've heard some professional 4-track recordings that are very good and some 32-track ones that are dreadful; I think that done properly the "live-in-the-studio" approach favoured by bands like Neurosis works remarkably well for the right kind of music and conversely breaking each element of a tune down into hundreds of takes and hundreds of tracks works for others; like Rob I grow tired of the homogeneous polish afforded by digital technology that prevails in many of the modern recordings (not just Symphonic and Neo prog, but everywhere), yet other times using that same technology and applying a similar attention to detail (for example by Steven Wilson, David Gilmour or Francis Lickerish) is absolutely perfect. All of these examples can be produced well or they can be done badly, and done badly it does distract from the listening experience.
Yet still this does not cover the scope what I am discussing here and misses the point a little.
I'm not against self-releases - I just want them to be done properly and to the best of the abilities of those releasing them because I don't like the alternative and the possible future of music that they represent. Rishloo are a shinning example of a self-released unsigned band doing the job properly. If they ship enough albums each year to keep 4 people off the breadline and without having to take mundane part-time jobs to fund their music then it proves my point to the letter, it dots all the i's, crosses all the t's and places the final exclamation point at the end(!)
As I have tried (and evidently failed  ) to emphasise the actual music production is not the overriding factor here, but along with the production of the finshed "product", its cover, presentation, packaging, how it is promoted, the band's website, their MySpace page and how they conduct themselves are all pretty good indicators of the band's own attitude to the music they produce. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: February 01 2010 at 19:03
|
I think what we're disagreeing on is what exactly "properly" constitutes. Quick question: Would you have a problem with a person who just wanted to release music professionally? I mean record and mix things himself and sell them as individual mp3s, but have no packaging, no artwork, no liner notes, no bells and whistles, and other than a website, no other means of promotion? Could such an act be taken seriously? Why or why not? And who is this JLocke fellow?  ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: February 01 2010 at 19:31
Sorry, Dean.  I guess I sometimes take arguments like yours a little too closely to heart, mainly because I am one of these self-made musicians you speak of (or am trying to be, at least, and not without the help of other talents). So sometimes, justly or unjustly, I take personal offense when somebody speaks of independent artists as less-than their contracted peers.However, you have clarified some key points, and seem to be more on my side than i initially thought, so please forgive me for my initial reaction. I still hope that at some point in the future, you will be willing to scathe my own music production via a brutally honest review.
 |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: February 01 2010 at 19:38
| JL, I don't think anyone here is against independent musicians at all, certainly I'm not. I spend a GREAT DEAL of my free time helping these people get noticed, reviewed, and heard by an audience. I certainly do not believe they are any "less than their contracted peers" in any personal way. But it is fair to judge the final product on its merits or lack of them, just as we would a contracted artist. |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: February 01 2010 at 19:45
Indeed, but we must also take into account what hinderances almost always become a part of the independent musician's journey right from the start, and give them their due despite them. So while I think it is of course fair to judge an album on its own merits despite status, other elements should additionally be considered that perhaps the independent artist cannot help. I'm not suggesting to give such a person a 'free pass', as it were, but certainly nothing could be wrong with looking at this situation through slightly more forgiving eyes depending upon the situation behind the recording. Perhaps I'm expecting too much or being unfair, even.
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 01 2010 at 19:48
|
Then we also disagree on what "professionally" means too
My quick question would be "Why?" What is this artist trying to achieve in doing this? They obviously aren't trying to reach any potential listeners, make money or even cover/recover costs. They are not making any effort to sell anything so why even bother trying to sell it at all? Why not burn it to CDR, delete the master, put the CDR in a box, seal it in Duck Tape and put it in the back of the wardrobe? Because that is exactly the same as putting it on a nondescript webpage on some random website somewhere in the WWW without any bells and whistles to announce its presence. Unless people know where to find it, what it is and why they should bother looking for it then they aren't going to try. Regardless of how wonderful the music is, people need a reason to want to hear it, with thousands of releases each week idle curiosity is not enough. If that artist is assuming that their music stands of falls on its own merits, that the music speaks for itself and hasn't the need for fancy packaging and promotion, then they need to prove that. Sitting waiting for the world to flock to their door is going going to do the trick. Could such an act be take seriously? *shrug* Who knows? As you can deduce from the hundreds of words I've drivelled into this thread, I probably wouldn't without some pretty good reason to want to.
Now, as an dadaist example of anti-packaging I can see some mileage in this if they then contrived to make a big issue out of it and use that as subvert-overt-obvert-covert marketing ploy, but frankly that idea has been done to death several times over (and I didn't believe it then either).
Search me ------------- What? |
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: February 01 2010 at 19:56
Forgiving eyes eh? Yes and No, for me, as a listener and reviewer. A good reviewer will point out both, not one or the other. The music and the quality are two separate issues. I can certainly enjoy music that is "homemade" in the sound quality department, and I often do, and I will say so. But as a reviewer I also have to point out if the sound is cheesy, because this matters to many listeners, and if they are going to buy something, they deserve to have someone tell them. There are so many variables in quality, in sound and songwriting. I think most people are willing to accept some flaws if they genuinely like the music. I certainly am as a listener, but as a reviewer i have a duty to readers to point out all the particulars. |
Posted By: Nakatira
Date Posted: February 01 2010 at 20:29
|
I think as an self-releasing artist, that one can get lots of help from the web on self releasing a record. All from artwork to musical production, you might even be lucky enough to find someone who does the layout, mixing job for you and by this making it more professional. There are tons of good offers on the web to make ones music available and if you do a lot of work and a lot of giggin you will get sucsess (if the talent is there in the first place). But allmost all new bands that self release will face the brand amateur on one more aspects of theire record as in most cases the pro's usually know what theire doing. But as I said if the artist use forums and trade knowlegde with other artist, enthusiasts I think they can get far on theire own productions. just my 2 cents ------------- http://daccord-music.com/home.cfm |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: February 01 2010 at 20:36
|
in essence, the crap to so-so to mediocre to good to great to genius ratios are still the same. The problem is that there is just much much more in each category. Strangely, for me anyway, is the way that I now believe that many local scenes, even in the smaller places, they often have bands in any number of genres that are as good as anything outside the top ranks. I.E. why buy Hedley when i can buy Fear of Lipstick ? And while this is not related to prog, I picked up the latest Megadeth album - Endgame, and Iron Giant's (from here in Moncton) debut - No Longer Sleeping . I like the Iron Giant album better. And the few albums I have from Les Paiens are the only jazz or jazz rock albums that I listen to outside the big names like Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck etc ... ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: February 01 2010 at 20:36
Why should an artist feel obligated to share his work with the world? Perhaps he's content simply knowing he's created, and is content that only some people would witness his creation. Not everyone is interested in all the exposure. Perhaps he fancies his work a humble treasure that only a few find and even fewer delight in. And perhaps the ten dollars he earns from some mp3 sales goes toward a small and simple- perhaps even potable- reward. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: stefolof
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 02:33
|
> |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 03:05
|
Then such an artist has no cause to be concerned about whatever I think, or by anything I've said thus far since evidently the subject of this thread does not apply to them. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 03:18
I admit I've been trying to sidestep the issue of "Money" as that would exclude the (legal) free-downloads offered by aspiring and established artists from the argument when I believe they are becoming a significant part of the ocean. Of course it could be argued that they are still motivated by reward (rather than just money alone) as their 15-minutes of fame is a reward for their talent. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 03:20
 ------------- What? |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 03:32
|
Also we are in a new era, where dimensionally we need to find that " special" artist. And it need not be a commercial message but just a cacophany of sounds that connects that innerself with it.
Nursery Cryme was mentioned and this like Tubular Bells can be deeply flawed but therin lies the perfection, by design or otherwise.
Nowadays instead of releasing material to many, you can have an audience of one, yet the same situation applies. Which makes it a 1000 times harder to reach that 1000 x 1. Hope the math explains it. Don't give up because the themes you create help forge the music of angels. ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 04:09
|
The biggest problem with music is that you cannot tell what it is that people like, and you cannot tell what is going to be fashionable until after the event. It's a very fluid thing.
Most people don't want really talented musicians, fantastic songwriting or even amazing production.
They want something that they like listening to at this point in time.
The Internet has given everyone a huge amount of choice, and crowds always attract bigger crowds until it's apparent that there's nothing left to see, we all get bored and go home.
It's only "connoisseurs" who trawl endlessly, looking for something of that almost undefinable quality that will take the next pride of place in their collection - and write the books and articles that spread the word more slowly about the "truly great" music.
In other words, it simply takes longer for the better music to bubble up.
Cream rises to the top.
Unfortunately, scum gets there quicker.
Just random thoughts really... ------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: stefolof
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 04:15
| > |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 04:43
------------- What? |
Posted By: Nakatira
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 06:12
|
Btw one more cent; due to the fact that people are doing more "DIY" albums, many of the pro's have slashed theire prices.
Its no secrect that due to the "pirated" software many new "Sound engineers" have appeared.
And while the old school producers learnt how to use every single tool they had available, these new "engineers" just start using the presets on these 1000$ software apps.
So this makes a lot of the pro's more accsesable due to the fact when everyone think they can do it themselves theire market is very small and to get the customers intrest they need to do budget deals.
Same go's for a cd printing and publishing, you can get a a glassmaster cd produced for as low as 1.70$ today, sure its not the same company that prints the big artists but it is sufficiant for new artist and getting a glassmaster cd for that price was not an option a 5 years ago.
As for distrubution there are tons of big marketplaces such as Itunes and cd Baby, if used right one can get pretty good result.
Last is sending cd's around (advertising, reviews, ect) this will also spread the word.+++ having a proper website that is updated often, myspace and ect is good and should be used, but a .com may seem more pro.
So as the self releases sure will continue to increase, the quality will improve as more learn the trade and swap ideas.
And I heard in an interview with this big record company guru that has run many indie labels, that the artists of today need to poscess many qualities, not only make good music (to sell records), and the artists that do this work well will most likely get picked up.
Allthough I have friends (black Metal scene) who just threw a few songs up on myspace and not much later they got offers of a record deal,
------------- http://daccord-music.com/home.cfm |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 08:15
|
I tried to read through the gist of this, I think Dean is on a very good and thoughtful track here. If you have been on this forum for a while you'll know that we don't always agree and we can gladly fill 15 pages almost instantly arguing about trivial nonsense, ha ha, but I think Dean's put a lot of thought into this and is being very thorough here.
I'm a pro musician from way back and have seen major changes in the 'industry' since I started, some bad, some good. I really think it boils down to doing what I try to do, POLICE YOURSELF. I have been self-producing my own music since the early 90s. I stopped a couple years ago because, due to financial problems, I could no longer afford the latest technology. Although I'll gladly throw my music up on myspace and use it as demos to get gigs or attract other musicians, I never felt like my music should be presented as the same as those who I really admire. It's not because of any lack in playing technique or skills, or lack of musical vision, or even production values, although at this point a lot of my work lacks that modern state of the art sound. There is something I admire about those artists who are not constantly shouting, 'look at me'. Self promotion takes on an ugliness after a while that I can not be a part of. In the punk rock days it was flyers that would cover a whole neighborhood, with DJs it was literally mountains of self-produced mix tapes, and now it's everybody and their sister with a band on myspace. I know a band here in Memphis that has this elaborate web page, but the guitarist really can't play, it's sad really. My advice, don't be the guy at the party who has to tell all the jokes and not give anyone else a chance. Give a hard look at your music, compare it to people you really like, play them back to back. Do you really need to push your music on the world and say look at me, when really what you have done is made a nice demo for you and loved ones to enjoy and possibly score some gigs at the local dive. |
Posted By: Nakatira
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 08:46
Allthough I agree full heartedly with you.
I can say from my experience from Musical instruments sales and as a Sound man at small local events.
That a huge percentage of the people I encounter dont do that (Police themselves) there are so many who finaly got to record a track and want to show it to the whole world.
I dont know how many who have come in to my store grabbed a guitar and gone; Listen I'm gonna play you a song that I wrote.
And with no embarrasment started singing theire heart out, and yes 98% of the time it sounds crap.
------------- http://daccord-music.com/home.cfm |
Posted By: TheGazzardian
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 09:29
|
Love the OP Dean ... haven't had a chance to read through the whole topic myself yet but I agree with you fully ont he difficulty of maintaining quality and getting your name known without the experts in those fields. I'm starting to think that the system is still going to demand such things, but (for example) instead of record labels owning artists, artists will hire the record experts as consultants to help them master their craft.
|
Posted By: stefolof
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 10:02
| > |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 10:44
Consider it a desperate cry in the wilderness of 'achievement', ha ha. And yes, I used to shop my music furiously to electronica/acid jazz labels and had several very close calls with some very big labels, but I always tried to avoid the more 'let it all hang out' and 'go every where and shout your name', type of self-promoting I see these days. Here is a litmus test for any home recording guy. Take your demo to any club in your area, if a really large club expresses interest in giving you a high profile and paying gig, or at least a shot at earning your way to one, then you might have something worth promoting. There is an insightful and funny movie about self-promotion in the world of NYC punk called Smithereens, check it out. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 10:51
|
I think the situation is fine and the new developments are for the
better. A lot of self-released music is flooding the internet but there
are also filters: recommendation sites, forums, blogs, archive sites,
etc. If you're part of a community of any kind, it is going to filter
the information that reaches you. Myself I am satisfied if one of three
or four self-released albums I listen to are what I'd call a
"discovery". For the moment I am quite happy, the ratio is
satisfactory. The filtering works. For example, 7 of my top 40 albums
of 2009 (see the list here: http://rateyourmusic.com/list/alexandru_mircea/2009_albums - http://rateyourmusic.com/list/alexandru_mircea/2009_albums )are self-released albums, the numbers: 5 - I don't know about the production, only that it was financially supported by fans; there was no physical release, only a free download; there was no marketing; this is the typical case when self-releasing is the end of a process not the beginning (as Dean nicely put it). Note that this album occupies the second place in the PA 2009 top. The band is a high profile band in our niche. 11 - a well established band in its local scene, producing the music without a musical producer, and releasing it through their own "label", which meant that the artwork was designed by a friend, the production costs of the music, of the physical package and of the video were covered by the band's own funds. (All those services were provided by professionals). There is no marketing, just internet buzz. Again this is the case of the self-release strategy as an end of the road. The buying cost of the CD is cheap, probably the equivalent of maximum 10 dollars. 17 - a new band's debut album. The band members have been working for this album for many years, and they were very professional about it; the songs and playing are top notch, the production is wonderful, the package was designed by a friend which is a professional in this field. There is also a free download version. There is no marketing. I couldn't say this release belongs to any of the types - the self-released album as an end or as a beginning of the road to self-management. 18 & 38 - two very young bands which are produced and released by a 21 year old producer. He plays with both bands, produces and mixes the music, releases the music as free downloads on his "internet label" and also obtains funds to release a few hundreds of CDs with a minimal package but with stunning artwork. The CDs (I have both) look better then many "proper" CDs I have. Needless to say there is no marketing other than online "mouth-to-mouth". This double case is that of the self-release as a beginning of the career. I think it worked. 19 - I don't know anything about this band, yet, someone I trust recommended them to me, and since then I've submitted them for PA, they were accepted and many people here like them more or less. I don't know if there was a CD, I only have a free download. There is probably no marketing. I'd say this is also a success of the "self-release as a beginning". 33 - a band known in the local scene but which didn't make it "big" because the scene is too small for it to generate a real market. The album was self-produced/mastered/mixed (one of the members is a sound designer too), and the release was done as a free download. This probably happened because there is no interest from sponsors and there was no reason for the band itself to invest as they're not going to give concerts (the singer is giving birth in a few months so they'll take a sabbatical period). There is probably no marketing. This is more like the "self-release as an end" strategy. Myself I am happy with the results and I will definitely go see these bands playing when I have the occasion, or buy stuff they release. The question is - how good was this strategy for them? How many of them will be successfully active in a few years' time? (By success I am referring to what they would call success - maybe some of these bands only want to have fun in their spare time and not to make a career. One of them doesn't even exist any more, the album was "post-mortem" ) |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 14:12
| Sorry but this is a bit nonsensical in my opinion. I would've thought that the very definition of a talented musician is one who is able to produce a high quality product without calling in the label support team. It's true that much self-published stuff is rubbish but when wasn't that true of major label releases too? Yes, a support team can polish a turd but they can also wreck or even shelve a great album. I refer you to one of the all-time great hip-hop albums, The Best Part by J Live which is a stone cold classic of mature, musical, intelligent rap which literally sat in the vault for years because Raw Shack Records felt it didn't have any singles. I would rather have an environment where people can freely publish rubbish rather than one where releases need approval from "them"- word of mouth on the internet is a fairly accurate and reliable barometer of making sure that the diamonds in the rough will be identified and found by those who care. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 14:28
No, they are highly developed and polished product made by the best paid professionals in the business. They are created and produced to sell in huge numbers, which they do. You're confusing your tastes with that of the target customers of these enterprises. |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 14:38
| Well the argument still comes off as silly because I think most of that stuff, whether or not it sells, is bad art and am not interested in maintaining an atmosphere where it thrives. I also find it odd that you would use the fact that these guys are paid well as some sort of indication of their authority in music. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 15:11
Why is it bad art? Because you don't like it? That argument is just as silly. I agree there is high culture and popular culture, but saying popular culture is bad is just elitist and not true. If you visit museums you notice that they exhibit, along the masterpieces of the era, modest artifacts of the popular culture, with their own kind of artistic qualities. They never imply that the later are bad.
Nah, you're just interpreting my ideas to sound "bad" The point is that if you own a business of any kind, and especially a very competitive one, you're going to hire the best workers by paying them the best salaries, no matter complex and refined or basic is your product. That's logical. |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 16:04
|
I personally believe there is absolutely no essential causal relationship between success and talent so being well paid doesn't mean you're the best at all. And yes, as far as my own experience of the world is concerned, art is bad because I don't like it. I'm speaking for myself, not the universe. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 16:15
That has nothing to do with our little debate.
I agree, and I didn't say that.
I sympathize with this statement |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 16:29
WAT ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 17:02
I really wanted to avoid getting involved in this thread, but I'll just say I agree with this and the viewpoint shared by Robert and Micah. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 18:43
------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 19:17
However, the point you are making is exactly the point I am making - a talented musician can produce a high quality product without calling in the label support team. He does this by doing all those tiny little mundane but very critical jobs that those people at the label would have done for him if he had been signed. Unfortunately many self-released artists are not and many of them may be super-duper musicians/songwriters/singers but it does not follow that they are naturally good at all the other skills needed. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 19:26
| I guess the point here is that there may be people who would make incredible albums if they weren't self-released, those who do need the paint job a good label can provide, and that in this environment they may never receive it and be all they can be. But people are always going to slip through the cracks- bringing back the labels will mean we'll miss out on people who would make great albums if only they didn't have to deal with label politics. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 19:59
You've missed the whole point of this thread by quite a wide margin. It's not about bring back the labels, although they've not actually gone anywhere just yet, (and since this is Prog Rock "the man" forgot about us years ago anyway), nor is it about allowing semi-talented people the chance to make incredible albums - this is Prog Rock - you cannot bluff it. This is about the desire to maintain a level of quality in what we listen to regardless of where it comes from, who made it or how it was released. I don't believe I am expecting too much, or asking for the moon on a stick, or demanding that the self-released artist do anything extra special or anything that is beyond their reach. I know self-released artists haven't a bottomless pit of money to draw on, but as Nakatira said on the previous page, producing an album doesn't cost the earth anymore - all it takes is something the self-released artist has plenty of ... time. Time to put just a little more care, thought and work into what they are presenting to the world as the sum total of their talents. Because whether they like it or not, that is all there is to judge them on. ------------- What? |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 20:03
|
From what I have seen through a couple decades of experience in the world of making music is that it boils down to this:
If your music is really good then people will flock to it, promotion will be easy. In the late 80s I worked with a band that was so powerful and creative that the good vibes from this band just oozed from the demo. The calls from clubs insisting that this band play on high profile nights were endless, Even up to over a year after the band broke up. If your music isn't all that good you will find yourself having to promote yourself endlessly, jumping up and down and saying 'listen to me, listen to me', while those around you would probably rather talk about something else. It's not a lifestyle of much dignity. |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 20:18
| Dean: So you're asking people to make better albums? |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 21:26
I've got to disagree. People are morons. They flock to lots of things that are terrible. The music industry kind of depends on this. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 21:55
| OK, let me re-phrase that. If your demo is no good it will not get you any gigs or much attention no matter how much you try to shove it in people's faces. |
Posted By: Textbook
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 21:57
| Rubbish. I know from my own experience in rap that persistence counts more than talent. Trash rappers who won't take no for an answer end up signed a lot more than interesting ones who are laid-back about it. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 22:07
well yes but the reality is that they flock to things they like.. people may have bad taste, some may even be dumb, but they aren't sheep (evidence to the contrary) |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 22:12
Well, from my own experience good demos always got me better gigs than bad demos. Otherwise, why even bother making a good demo since making a bad one is so much easier. |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: February 02 2010 at 22:37
I think that's pretty much scripture. ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: stefolof
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 01:25
| > |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 01:46
I don't see it-- the assumption that people don't really like what in fact they do is a bit bizarre: pop music is what it is because it most suits popular tastes, like it or not. I occasionally enjoy fine dining but I much prefer a real, good old fashioned meal. Does that mean I have an unsophisticated palate? No, I've been cooking my whole life, had unbelievably great meals that cost $100 per person and grilled cheese sandwiches that were far better. People consume what they enjoy most until they no longer enjoy it. |
Posted By: stefolof
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 02:01
| > |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 02:10
I think you're talking about a situation where there is little or no choice or diversity from birth, whereas David is obviously choosing between $100 avant-garde and grilled cheese pop. Your described situation has no choice. It would be an interesting experiment to raise some kids on nothing but Xennakis and Stockhausen, they would be super-humans who would enslave us all, ha. |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 02:12
Do you genuinely believe that if avant-garde rock was played on the radio - let's say for, what, a year - that magically the music-listening world would somehow 'see the light'? That in a fit of wisdom and sophistication they'd throw out their Sting, Alanis Morissette, Pink, Van Halen, and Stevie Nicks, converted to some new Bohemianism that rejects all that has - or had - wide appeal? I doubt it. And besides, who is anyone to say they're wrong. It takes a certain talent to songsmith, something most prog musicians wouldn't know if it bit them on their pale, bony asses. |
Posted By: stefolof
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 02:26
| > |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 02:30
 ------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 02:40
|
------------- What? |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 02:44
------------- What? |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 02:49
|
^ I would say that personal taste can define what group one finds themself in |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 03:00
I've never believed in this line of reasoning re the fledgling listener. You might get say, 1 in a 100 kids who respond positively to hearing nothing but avant-garde music but you're left with 99 little pups who never want to hear any music ever again if it all sounds like daddy strangling a balloon animal . The core elements (in the west) that make certain musical effects satisfying to the untrained ear, are not arbitrary i.e. they are all contained and reinforced heavily in mainstream pop music: A steady pulse Short melodic phrases that are easy to remember (erm...catchiness ?) Repetition simple harmonies that resolve quickly to the tonic The damn stuff is usually heavily compressed so that even the quieter dynamics are loud etc I'm not qualified to say if any of the above phenomena are culturally or socially defined but such 'hooks' have been around far longer than any particular musical genre and despite the best efforts of progressive musicians since Robert Fripp was in short pants, will surely outlast them all. -------------
|
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 03:37
------------- What? |
Posted By: halabalushindigus
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 03:39
|
I think that artists, any artist, should be able to promote their music through theses channels. To believe that you are good, to want acceptance is good,. It makes the artist believe that their dream is real. I am an artist, but I fear rejection and therefore I don't subject myself to that rejection. Take Epignosis for example, his music is him. If I don't give it a five-star rating on the music, I sure would give it high marks because he produced the whole thing and I know He has taken some ribbing for it, but it IS beautiful to hear. That progarchives can do this for any artist is, for the first time, righteous. People have their humanlike tendencies> They'll do whatever they think they can get away with and, yeah its all avain, to the extent that we ENJOY our recreations and we want to be told we are good. The members of Progarchives are all extremely gifted and this is a GOOD website. Thanks Max,etc
The Library of Progressive Archives reminds us, or should anyone, that great great talents are out there, not "In Here'.
But, by all means, Let the children Play ------------- assume the power 1586/14.3 |
Posted By: stefolof
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 03:42
| > |
Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 03:54
What constitutes "good", and what constitutes "bad"?
------------- The important thing is not to stop questioning. |
Posted By: halabalushindigus
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 03:56
|
Ok Lets try this
Your'e not gonna like the song you once liked if YOU ARE HUNGRY ------------- assume the power 1586/14.3 |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 04:26
The Cretan ? music was actually OK (not a single creepy crawlie in bondage to my ears )However, apart from the alien textures of the instrumentation and ethnic scales it employs, it also obeys to the letter, all the 'hooks' I alluded to before (although it hardly ever bothers to move from the tonic at all) Sorry to be so contrary but I'm always suspicious of direct comparisons between an abstract aesthetic phenomenon (instrumental music) and one which codifies sounds to signify concepts (language) Perhaps I should have stated that something like the 'steady pulse' or 'resolution to the tonic' are somehow psychologically satisfying to we human critters (and yes agreed, this unanimity would manifest itself as a convention or standard in the culture) -------------
|
Posted By: stefolof
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 05:16
| > |
Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 08:33
Present company excluded.  All I meant by that comment was that the lowest common denominated is very often what is catered to. It is what sells. The Bachelor is in its fourteen season for crying out loud.  Or movies: Did you get a chance to see the Mike Myers live-action rendition of Cat in the Hat? I didn't know Dr. Suess's work needed farts, pee, and double-entendres about "hoes" to make it work. Even Giesel's widow, owner of the rights to his work, won't allow any other live action films to be made due to this. I think in some respects, the DIY prog artists who do not have all of the criteria you've described in your original post are gaining more currency for me than much of the major label stuff, and I partly think it is because they are not trying to figure what is going to sell the most units or try to achieve some unestablished standard. And wait...we're not people? ------------- https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays" rel="nofollow - https://epignosis.bandcamp.com/album/a-month-of-sundays |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 08:39
Both words can be found in the dictionary in case there is any confusion.
|
Posted By: redorchid
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 11:52
|
Wonderful post!! And I have to agree 100% with the author. It may sound odd coming from another independent artist but what Dean mentioned up front is the brutal truth of the industry. You really need to cover all your basis in order to go anywhere. Unfortunately a product does not end when it is created, it is how its delivered. I am learning a lot myself, specially the internet ways which is new to me. In process you do some dumb f**k things Now in support of such bands, there is the other side to it i.e. the lack of means, finances and support structure to deliver this product. So what do you do? The question they need to ask is why are they creating music in the first place. And I am pretty confident most do it for pleasure and love of it, the monetary gains if any may come later, specially for a prog artist otherwise you would be busy making radio friendly hits and dream to be another Nickleback. Let's face it, the money from sales would probably not even cover the most basic equipment cost, forget about living a decent living. The moment you start otherwise, you are all messed up...seriously.
------------- http://www.redorchidbloom.com |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 13:09
Well put, and to that I would add that some of us like to stay busy and will play creative stuff for less money and/or less creative stuff for more money, or sometimes something in between or any combination of the two. Likewise there is no garuntee that playing something creative is definitely going to mean no money, sometimes you can have it both ways. What I personally find almost impossible to do is play something I really don't like just for money, I'd rather do some other work entirely. Likewise I also find it impossible to work in a musical situation where certain standards aren't being met, I just can't do it. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 15:27
|
I don't know of many Prog artist who are trying to figure out what is going to sell the most units, even those few who are signed to a major label (ie Roadrunner, given that they are owned by WMG) - but what of Cuneiform, Musea, ReR, Tzadik, Inside/Out, Mellow, BTF, Black Widow, Lizard, Burning Shed, Cherry Red, Magna Carta, Intact, ProgRock and all the other small independent labels that feed our selective market? Are any of those labels releasing commercially oriented albums, or albums that haven't achieved this I'll say it again - Self Release is great and if you sell less than 15K, or even 20K, albums in a lifetime (let alone a year) it is certainly the best way and probably the only way to make any money in this "business". And even if an artist is not interested in making money or dislikes the uncomfortable reality that peddling their art is a business, then they still must want some recognition and desire to reach as many people who would like their music as they possibly can or they wouldn't waste time energy and effort pushing their self-released material out into the world. And if that is not true either then don't call it Self-released.
------------- What? |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 20:00
|
another bunch of words of wisdom from my favourite music writer ( and B S detector) Bob Lefsetz as quoted in full from his Feb 3 email "ALBUMS vs SINGLES There was a space in my bookcase where I kept my cash, waiting for four bucks to accumulate...then I went and bought an album, which I played again and again until I knew every cut, until I accumulated enough money to buy another, when I repeated the process. You see, music was scarce. Now it's plentiful. Albums didn't always rule. Actually, I was one of the few people addicted to the long player back in the early sixties, most people bought singles. Why buy the album? You really only wanted the hit. But somewhere in the Beatles' ascendance, that changed. Maybe with the single-less "Rubber Soul", certainly with "Sgt. Pepper". The album was a statement. Suddenly everyone was buying albums, listening to FM radio to find out what to purchase, to experiment with. And then when these acts came to town, you went to see them. Tickets were cheaper, it was little more expensive than seeing a movie...but that's a whole 'nother issue. No, it's not. Let's ask that question, what makes someone go to the show? Assuming it's not a has-been, not a classic rock act, what motivates the average person to overpay to go to the extravaganza? The hit. People didn't know much more than the Spice Girls' "Wannabe", they were caught up in the hoopla. And hoopla still exists, especially if you're like GaGa and put together a string of hits, but how about everybody else? How many people can have that many hits? How many can have hits at all? The listening experience is completely different from the sixties. Today, there's too much choice. I'm not starving for music at home, I've got a plethora of services, but anyone can listen to everything via MySpace/YouTube/LaLa. What are they going to listen to? Are they going to listen to the album? Ever marvel at how a youngster multitasks, appears not to be overwhelmed by media? That's because kids today are only interested in great. They'll dig deep on something that fascinates them, otherwise they're just interested in the headlines. There's too much information. And the way today's youngsters deal with it is to separate the wheat from the chaff. They're interested in the hit single, but they're not about to pay ten plus bucks for an album and play it over and over again to get it, that paradigm is THROUGH! Really, don't see the album/single debate from the perspective of the artist, certainly don't look at it from the perspective of the record label, look at it from the perspective of the listener. The listener wants great music. He's building a library, a playlist, it's akin to the early sixties, when singles ruled. Why buy the album? What are the odds the rest of the tracks are great? Very low. Furthermore, the album's not a deal. At least in the sixties there was an economic incentive to purchase the long player, that doesn't exist in the digital world. Maybe if the album were five bucks instead of ten plus. But then people still wouldn't listen to anything but the hit anyway. In other words, the game we've been playing has died. Almost completely. And it's only going to get worse. And if you're playing the old way and bitching, you're missing the point. If you're satisfied with the audience you've got and you want to satiate this small coterie with a collection of ten tracks, be my guest. But those not fans will ignore your long player, they don't care, it's too much music to penetrate, they're not convinced it's worth dedicating the TIME, if a single cut bubbles to the surface they're interested, but they're not going on a fruitless hunt. So, if you're making an album as an economic vehicle, a product that can blow up and rain coin into your pocketbook, you're screwed, it just doesn't happen like that anymore, because almost no one has got the time to listen to anything but your best work. A head-scratcher, I know. I'll give you an example. I love One eskimO's "Kandi". I've listened to it at least fifty times, the same way we wore out singles in the days of yore. But have I played the entire album? Oh, I gave it a shot. But it doesn't sound anything like "Kandi". What I mean is it doesn't have that sly R&B sound, and with thousands of other cuts on my iPod, I gravitate to them. In other words, our collections today are not albums, but a playlist of singles. Now this has huge impact on the business, everything from acts to labels to concert promoters. Acts are going to inherently make less money, after all, people want less of their music. And those who are interested in a complete album are very few. Those days of ten million people buying the album just to get the single are done, they died with Napster, they're never coming back, the cherry-picking world of iTunes rules. If you want to last, you've got to super-serve a small coterie of fans. Don't tour the world, don't go for world domination, just satisfy your fans, because a fan will come see you live, will buy your merch. Record labels... Suddenly, they've lost most of their revenue, and it's never coming back. You may be selling many more of one, but no one cares about the other nine cuts on the album. You shouldn't even make them, shouldn't even bother. Maximize revenue from the single. And scale back, knowing that the glory days are done. Concert promoters? Who's going to come see the acts? In quantity? That's one reason festivals rule. You get to graze. Most of these acts can play to very few solo, aggregate them and people get to sample, immediately giving a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. Your festival appearance is crucial, you must kill, this is where you convince people to come see you again, but odds are most people won't. But none of this is bad for music. In the aggregate, people are listening to more music than ever before. It's just that rather than being limited to three networks, there are five hundred channels. Rather than being limited to what's in the theatre, they've got Netflix. And when the CD dies? And no matter what you read, it's on its way out, there's not going to be anywhere to buy it, sure there will be some indie stores, but so many of those have died, people will start wondering why you ever aggregated ten tracks together, the same way a kid today doesn't understand an 8-track or a cassette. Once the physical format dies, the whole construct is kaput. So what's a new act to do? First question its dedication. Do you want to play in this new world? Where a few beat-infused tracks can get airplay on Top Forty and succeed but people don't have to listen to Top Forty? Are you willing to work really hard for far less, knowing that mass success is not in the offing? If so, woodshed until you create that one listen track. That's your main hope of your music spreading. A cut so good people will tell others about it. Will put it in their playlist and keep it in rotation. Then you've got to come up with another. And another. And chances are, you can't. Which is why you read about scenes in Brooklyn and the bands never reach ubiquity, because the average joe just doesn't care, doesn't get it. But people like Owl City's "Fireflies". As for the rest of the album, do you even need it? This isn't about Apple. This isn't about the labels. It's not about the acts. It's about the audience. We've got incredible sh*t detectors. More music at our fingertips than we can ever listen to. And believe me, we want to listen. But only to what's great. Can you blame us? ------------- "Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case. |
Posted By: harmonium.ro
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 20:06
|
Your man got at least something right - the way young people filter information. I started reading in diagonal before I got to the middle of the text.
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 23:25
|
^^ The Lefsetz article is certainly a very perceptive analysis of what a particular demographic is looking for with regards to 'value' from music. (i.e. young people, and no I'm not going to define that as the author hasn't bothered to either) However, as plausible as the many ramifications are that he outlines for the music industry driven by this very large market, let's not confuse the general with the particular shall we ? Although a relatively smaller niche market, Crusties have a lot of spending power and thus considerable leverage as consumers. Their idea of great music (as evidenced by this site) can at least be defined albeit very fuzzily. What exactly (or even vaguely, I'm not greedy) does Bob the Peripheral Visionary think constitutes 'great music ?' I suspect your hero Mr L fancies himself as a soothsayer of cutting edge but comes across as a rather glib McLuhan wannabe. We have a mandate for bitchin, it's called consumer sovereignty and any business that ignores such will be missing the point and disappear faster than its products. The Golden Rule: Those who have the gold make the rules -------------
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: February 03 2010 at 23:54
agreed, and I think our writers here - both the genuine ones and our glib McLuhan wannabes - are as good or better ..plus I can't tell if he's angry about the album disappearing or musicians who don't accept the album disappearing |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 04 2010 at 02:11
|
...casual viewin', head buried in the sand.
Lefsetz hasn't described anything that hasn't been happening since the album was "invented" - in general popular artists have always staggered from hit single to nearly-hit single until the hits dry-up and the artist disappears onto the cabaret circuit singing renditions of their former glories to punters eating their chicken a la king. Greatest Hits albums and Now XX ... compilations have always been big sellers - the difference now is that the public can collect these in instalments and compile their own compilations a little easier and a little cheaper than before. That's probably fine for the pop artists, the R&B artists, the rappers and the hip-hoppers, the x-factor factory artists and the teenybopper Disney artists but that doesn't work for the indie artists, the metal artists, the jazz artists, the AOR rock artists and the prog artists - those artists are never going to release hit singles, they'll just be releasing albums in instalments that we'll collect like Panini stickers to gum into our virtual albums. ------------- What? |
Posted By: halabalushindigus
Date Posted: February 04 2010 at 03:21
|
Thats why I recorded a Charger Victory song. Because of the propaganda value. An idiotic invention. Funny how L.T.'s dance video got prime-time air time. Bunch of B.S. marketing, that is what its all about. You know what I DARE anyone to make another crass statement about what talent is. Talent, nowadays, is not as much about talent, as it is about being IN YOUR FACE. ------------- assume the power 1586/14.3 |
Posted By: halabalushindigus
Date Posted: February 04 2010 at 04:19
|
http://www.progarchives.com - www.progarchives.com ALERT!! ( 3-1/2 swigs of Vodka later) IVE DECIDED TO SELF RELEASE
....from the many excerpts of halabalushindigus
so I'm sittin in Denny's one night, by myself, having a ROOT BEER float. And im studying the maps of the globe Bulgaria Taiwan China etc trying to memorize towns. Trying to work my BRAIN. so all at once i quickly think of a mathmatical qustion. And at random, out of the air, I say "OK whats 1586/14.3" I take the napkin cuz I am at Dennerinos, and a pencil and tell myself that I really should do this long hand By Division. On paper USING my mind . so i work it out on paper and i come to 110.9..something not easy..so i stop there. then i get the CALC 1586/14.3 came out pretty close to what I had figured out on paper . MY MIND ACTUALLY WORKS!.
I got the answer right.
but then i got something else. An infintesimal fraction that 909 forever. Baby say your'e driving on the one after 909? Is there no one after 909? how did i find this and is this the only way to come to this number?
So i dug that and I STILL DO cuz it represents my appreciation for the BRAIN that I have.
I thought this would come out sounding more, you know, better, but I just enjoy the ever lovin fun I get from this great great website. By the way, its late and no one is reading this and one more thing. DEAN you rock ------------- assume the power 1586/14.3 |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 04 2010 at 04:22
|
^ I know, but I prefer your version ------------- What? |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: February 04 2010 at 04:23
|
Weighing in my perspective as a self-released artist: I agree that with the internet we are now inundated with music, and much of it really is crap. But you have to choose your resources, and not subject yourself to the direct barrage of independently-released music on, let's say, Myspace, CD Baby, etc...If one doesn't have the time to go listening to hundreds of samples and pick out the quality ones themselves, they can certainly turn to the many reviewers, bloggers, dj's, and (ahem) forums that cater to similar tastes. Look for recommendations on Last.fm or Jango - there are lots of ways of finding music that filters through the natural chain of listeners, rather than record company executives. The biggest positive side to all of this is that a few corporations are no longer in charge of what is popular. I believe that what record companies always feared about Napster and the like, is not that people would have an alternative to buying, but an alternative to whatever was being pushed on the radio and popular media. Sure, you still have big bands like U2 and Bruce Springsteen filling arenas, but they established themselves under the "old guard". Newer bands have to work extremely hard to get noticed in the crowd, and niches such as prog will now never be developed by major labels, and indie labels are lost in the midst of self-released artists as well. Note that some of the most talked-about prog acts are now self-released (Izz, Phideaux, Spock's Beard) - I'm talking about the staples of the prog festivals, not complete unknowns. When my band's first album was released on a respectable indie label, we discovered that at some point along the way, distribution was controlled, in part, by a major label (Warner). So, you try to post clips of your music to Last.fm and Myspace, and you end up receiving a notice that you are a copyright infringer! I would have no problem if they were putting us on tour with Muse, but they're not. It was still up to us to promote ourselves. So, we now fit into the category of self-released, but it is by choice. This is how we are able to stream the entire CD from our website for free, and give away sales revenues to charity without any hassle. I can freely put CDs in the hands of people who will appreciate the music and talk about it. When people buy our CD's through our site or CD Baby, we can invite them to join our mailing list, develop a relationship with our listeners. You can't do this while being on an indie label, as their main concern is still selling CD's. But a band acting on its own can develop a longer-term strategy to raise awareness before monetizing a product nobody knows about. ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: stefolof
Date Posted: February 04 2010 at 04:54
| > |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 07:11
Before I continue, I'd like to thank all the Self-Released artists who have contributed so far to this discussion (John of Shadow Circus, Stefan of Dynamo Bliss, Stig of D'AccorD, Rob of Epignosis and San of Red Orchid, and apologies to anyone I've missed) - I've certainly learnt and benefited from their thoughts, insights and experiences.
I have to admit I expected to get ripped to bits over my OP and (as Iain put it) the unpalatable issues it raised, I have been both surprised and encouraged by the responses from all sides. While I deliberately painted a gloomy picture to emphasise the worse-case future we can expect if standards slide these artists, and many others like them, have ably demonstrated what can be achieved if it is approached with the right attitude, dedication and work ethic: that Self-Release can not only match what signed-artists can produce, they can actually exceed and succeed where many of them fail. There is little doubt that this is the future for non-mainstream music, that the labels will have to eventually follow this model or disappear from the niche markets.
Nothing I can add here, other than this (in bold text) is the message I've been pushing since Page 1.
As a one-time band manager my personal experiences of Indie labels ranges from good to not so good (aside from a box-file full of rejection slips
 ). As with any business deal, you go into it with your eyes and ears open (and your mouth shut) - you listen to their BS, go away and think, discuss and argue about what is best for you and your band before signing on the dotted line. The general rule of thumb is the smaller the label, the smaller the pot of cash they have to play with and the more work you will have to do in return - but you will be handing over some control to them in return for the work/cash that they provide. Unfortunately, what that means may not be obvious at the time of signing. We played a 5,000 seat gig a week before the album launch and the label wouldn't let the band sell any copies at the gig because it would affect the release-day sales figures, but on the plus side they paid up-front for the remix, remaster, repackaging, fabrication and distribution of the album. On balance it was the right call and I'm happy to have that version of the album alongside the self-release and the demo-cut in my CD rack and I am as pleased as Punch that the band then went on to sell 20 times more copies than the self-release and reached an even wider audience because of what the label did in enabling them to further promote themselves.
... much kudos and the very best of luck to you.  ------------- What? |
Posted By: jplanet
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 15:41
|
Thanks, Dean! I think that Stefan put it very elegantly and succinctly when he described the stndard indie label deal: "artist takes all risk, company cashes in on any profit and has full exclusivity." BTW, much of my marketing philosophy with Shadow Circus comes from what I've learned reading the Leftsetz blog. Come to think of it, I believe I got that advice form someone on this board, I forget who it was, but I owe them a big thank-you! ------------- https://www.facebook.com/ShadowCircus/" rel="nofollow - ..::welcome to the shadow circus::.. |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: February 05 2010 at 15:41
Kind of makes me wonder why a lot of bands didn't make it back in the seventies. One example might be Gnidrolog who were on the RCA label in the early seventies. Elvis, David Bowie and Lou Reed were also on the same label. Who's going to get the backing. A rinky dink experimental band that plays medieval rock or the heavy hitters? I have a cousin who was in the music biz and was involved with promoting bands and he just couldn't do it anymore because there was no heart. One of the bands he was involved with was the Jeff Healey Band who couldn't get a deal here in Canada literally had to self-manage themselves and go banging on doors with demos down in the States before they got a deal with Sony Music back in `87 or `88. As much as I detest computers and the internet  I've discovered music that I would have otherwise been oblivious to. I would have probably never have heard of Shadow Circus or any of the other freaked out bands that I listen to from the Russian Federation even though I've always been the one to keep my ears open. I think in the long haul it's getting better for both but time will tell. I'm glad to see that vinyl is coming back. I just ordered Hamburger Concerto on 180 g vinyl! Would like to see the day return when bands can say that they are literally going into the studio to cut" a record------------- |