In your trial with bands......

who's_pearljam? wrote:

Haha, well, someone just told me I look like Jan Michael Vincent. I have to look that one up to see what the hell that means. Maybe we could do a tour! Nobody's buying houses for me to inspect, might as well go for the buck! You've got the Tele for Elvis. Do you have a black suit?.

i'd need a jazzmaster i guess. i do have the suit but i look more like current day elvis than young elvis.

but, it appears i still have my job (for at least a few more months) so i guess the world tour's off.

who's_pearljam? wrote:

I think the last few years are a turning point in the world of music. The independent musician DOES have the capacity to make a good sounding CD and make a living without a record company, but they need the creativity and business acumen to figure out a way to do it...

I think for the most part, the major labels never were HUGELY interested in the music, but more making a profit from it. I don't begrudge them that because that's what business is, but there is a nostalgic memory that record companies were this nurturing entity to help out bands in the old days...

I think that the indie musician has to use to use the same creativity that they use to make music to make a living if that's what they want to do.
You CAN do it yourself. Whoever figures out a way to harness the internet to work their art is at a great advantage.

I actually wrote a paper on this for one of my post-grad business classes in college. The basic gist of my paper was that major labels would suffer because they're being absorbed by mass-media conglomerates who don't really know anything about music. One of the reasons that labels in the late 60's to early 90's were more profitable was that labels were run by music geeks. Same with old promoters... Bill Graham wasn't always necessarily a big fan of the music he promoted, but he made it his breathing purpose to scout real talent. These old guys lived their business, and poured every bit of their acumen into finding real talent, not hollow faces.

These new corporate label structures have some MBA picking the acts based on numbers. The movie company bought out the tv company, and later on they bought the record label, and now they're running all of them. It gives them some advantages in cross-promotion, etc., but it means that you've got the movie guy running the label. Look at Wilco's YHF album debacle... one guy who couldn't understand genius if it was pissing down his throat decided to cut the band from the label; the band walks away from their contract with the album paid for, then sells it again to a subsidiary label of the company that cut them; the album goes on to be the most buzz-worthy album of the year, and sells incredibly well.

It's like the corporation that owns Olive Garden buys a chain of sushi restaurants, and assuming that the CEO who knows shitty Italian restaurants will do great at sushi. It's an obvious fallacy.

The reason that independant bands and independant labels will succeed, and the majors will be seriously hurt, is that the indies know their subject. Dischord, Vagrant, Secretly Canadian... they all know what is subjectively "good" within their genres, and they continue to have success within their niches. They're also learning how to tailor their business to internet commerce as well as independant retailers, which is the only way they can compete with Walmart / Target / Borders as music retailers.

The majors are still stuck on the idea that a band needs to push 100,000 copies of an album to break even, and 500,000 to be a success. I think we could all name successful bands or artists who never saw an album break 500,000 copies. I mean, what's the total copies sold of Pavement's Crooked Rain? And that's a legendary record.

The small labels and indie artists will be able to survive in the same way that mammals survived when dinosaurs died off... they're more agile, more adaptable, and more self-sufficient with less waste. The only thing that sucks is when a successful indie artist has a breakout album on an indie, then signs with a major, a la Modest Mouse, Death Cab, even Nirvana... But so long as the indie label gets a good settlement from the major, they'll still be finding new, real, talented acts.

ianvomsaal wrote:

I'm a big "LIVE" performance type guy because just like my Vai recording, anything can be done in the studio, but shabby musicianship
can't really be covered up live.

Agree with the comment regarding the studio. Reasonably good can be turned into wow so easily.

Just one thing on your comment about the shabby musicianship, not being able to be covered up live. I hear what you are saying here, but honestly, from my experience, the general crowd are just looking for the wow factor. A lot of them wouldn't know shabby musicianship if it bit them on the butt. I've been to shows where people are going zomg he is teh awesome one, at some sucky guitarist who's just a show off poser, spending half the night pretending to play an 18-string guitar behind his back and creating the "J" chord...

and then i've seen some of the best, and people say oh yeah that was ok, or he is boring....

Makes me smile.

Pj_Gurl wrote:

Agree with the comment regarding the studio. Reasonably good can be turned into wow so easily.

Just one thing on your comment about the shabby musicianship, not being able to be covered up live. I hear what you are saying here, but honestly, from my experience, the general crowd are just looking for the wow factor. A lot of them wouldn't know shabby musicianship if it bit them on the butt. I've been to shows where people are going zomg he is teh awesome one, at some sucky guitarist who's just a show off poser, spending half the night pretending to play an 18-string guitar behind his back and creating the "J" chord...
and then i've seen some of the best, and people say oh yeah that was ok, or he is boring....
Makes me smile.

of coarse i'm referring to the more experienced musicians being able to pick up on shabby
musicianship (not the average musically inept public) - and i'd sure hope that most of the
m&g regulars are somewhat educated on "decent-musicianship" by now (hopefully, lol).

Pj_Gurl wrote:

I'm guessing he's talking about the vai cover? yeah that's very cool.
I love you and tony and your ''one'' cover. Damn that's so awesome.

yeah he loves singing - i think we did maybe 3 covers total that night - i was soo sick.
even if i have to play a cover once in a while, at least i try to make it a little different.
with his level of spinal injury he doesn't get out much, so when i can help him out i do.
i've known tony for about 8-years now (one of my best friends, and a really great guy).
if you liked that tune you should hear some of the originals, if only i had some recorded.
actually tony does have a few recordings that he did years ago on his website - he was
awarded an art grant through the arts council to produce, market, & distribute pro copies
of the ep 'under no flag' http://www.anthonyrainstarez.com. i played electric & acoustic
on a few songs - also played acoustic for him in the "more songs (mp3s)" area (3-tunes).

mccreadyisgod wrote:

I actually wrote a paper on this for one of my post-grad business classes in college. The basic gist of my paper was that major labels would suffer because they're being absorbed by mass-media conglomerates who don't really know anything about music. One of the reasons that labels in the late 60's to early 90's were more profitable was that labels were run by music geeks. Same with old promoters... Bill Graham wasn't always necessarily a big fan of the music he promoted, but he made it his breathing purpose to scout real talent. These old guys lived their business, and poured every bit of their acumen into finding real talent, not hollow faces.

These new corporate label structures have some MBA picking the acts based on numbers. The movie company bought out the tv company, and later on they bought the record label, and now they're running all of them. It gives them some advantages in cross-promotion, etc., but it means that you've got the movie guy running the label. Look at Wilco's YHF album debacle... one guy who couldn't understand genius if it was pissing down his throat decided to cut the band from the label; the band walks away from their contract with the album paid for, then sells it again to a subsidiary label of the company that cut them; the album goes on to be the most buzz-worthy album of the year, and sells incredibly well.

It's like the corporation that owns Olive Garden buys a chain of sushi restaurants, and assuming that the CEO who knows shitty Italian restaurants will do great at sushi. It's an obvious fallacy.

The reason that independant bands and independant labels will succeed, and the majors will be seriously hurt, is that the indies know their subject. Dischord, Vagrant, Secretly Canadian... they all know what is subjectively "good" within their genres, and they continue to have success within their niches. They're also learning how to tailor their business to internet commerce as well as independant retailers, which is the only way they can compete with Walmart / Target / Borders as music retailers.

The majors are still stuck on the idea that a band needs to push 100,000 copies of an album to break even, and 500,000 to be a success. I think we could all name successful bands or artists who never saw an album break 500,000 copies. I mean, what's the total copies sold of Pavement's Crooked Rain? And that's a legendary record.

The small labels and indie artists will be able to survive in the same way that mammals survived when dinosaurs died off... they're more agile, more adaptable, and more self-sufficient with less waste. The only thing that sucks is when a successful indie artist has a breakout album on an indie, then signs with a major, a la Modest Mouse, Death Cab, even Nirvana... But so long as the indie label gets a good settlement from the major, they'll still be finding new, real, talented acts.

All very true and a great subject to write about!

Bill Graham was more of a concert promoter than a record company exec, but they go hand in hand. Talk about someone who helped bands find a place to play! He's responsible for half the great bands of the 60's and 70's!
What version of "

---

- Live at the Fillmore" is not a great album and how much music got launched by him!
I guess we can forgive him for the fact that he also started the ticket agency in Frisco that eventually became Ticketmaster. That's business and he was great at bringing great shows to people and getting bands out there.


I think more bands are internet savvy now, too, and I see a lot of artists booking their own tours and finding innovative ways to make a living.
House shows are a growing thing, now too. A few people hold them around my area. Some are free shows and the band can sell their own CD's and merch at the house and have a place to sleep or eat between cities if they have a night off. The owner of the house has a great party!

There are a lot of great small labels, and flexibility is key now.

(check out Sublime Frequencies for some off the wall music from all around the most remote corners of the world. THat's what I want to do next)