― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 04:47 (twenty-three years ago)
― Charlie (Charlie), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 04:53 (twenty-three years ago)
― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 04:55 (twenty-three years ago)
― jack cole (jackcole), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 05:06 (twenty-three years ago)
because the bands that are dumb appeal to everyone cuz even smart people have a dumb level in them. but dumb people don't have the smartnmess in them(its like you can enjoy anyhting in the spectrum of your mind, those with small spectrums can only enjoy a few) so bands that appeal to more people are going to get airplay cuz they get more ads for the radio. the promotion and drive to succeed is also very important. marketing is more important then art. its really sad because i want the world to be different.
― martok code, Tuesday, 14 January 2003 05:13 (twenty-three years ago)
The only bands you hear moaning about not being famous and blaming the superior marketing of some other contemporary band are the shit ones who should spend more time learning not to be shit and less time pissing and moaning.
The great and talented and splendid and marvellous bands who don't get famous, very seldom moan about it; they might allude to how odd it is that the world hasn't caught up yet, but they'll never whinge like spoilt children.
And if they do? Then they're obviously a lot more shit than they think they are.
― Charlie (Charlie), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 06:51 (twenty-three years ago)
― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 07:46 (twenty-three years ago)
― James Blount, Tuesday, 14 January 2003 07:50 (twenty-three years ago)
― James Blount, Tuesday, 14 January 2003 07:57 (twenty-three years ago)
For whatever reason some bands have appeal to committed fans of a particular genre and not to a wider public. I dont think this is because the general public are stupid, more that the general public buy less records. This is the problem with marek's argt - it follows that those bands where only 1 or 2 people in the whole world 'get' them are surely the smartest of all!
I have no idea why some bands get a sustainable level of indie fame and some are utterly obscure and end up breaking up due to lack of interest.
― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 08:44 (twenty-three years ago)
Charlie, as usual, is totally wrong. I've found that tthe better a band is, and I mean, the more mind-meltingly amazing to me, the more likely they are to be overlooked. What it takes to succeed in the music industry is overwhelming mediocrity, and offending the least amount of people.
Sometimes you have two people within the same band viewing things in these two ways, one is quite happy to keep working and playing at the Metro and the Casbah until someone bloody up and notices eventually, and one is spoiled and thinks that they've failed and have no interest cause they're not staying in posh hotels and having money thrown at them like her major label mates... not that THAT descibes any band's situation that I know.
The more likely a band is to whinge, the more likely they are to hate hard work. (Is that the opposite of hating fun?)
― kate, Tuesday, 14 January 2003 10:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― dave q, Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:47 (twenty-three years ago)
What's the difference between a singer and a puppy?A puppy quits whining after about six months!
― kate, Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:51 (twenty-three years ago)
well at least it wasn't a lightbulb joke :-)
― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 15:07 (twenty-three years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 15:53 (twenty-three years ago)
― matt riedl (veal), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 22:11 (twenty-three years ago)
`Cos they suck, of course. Bahahahahahahahahahaha.
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 22:12 (twenty-three years ago)
― christoff (christoff), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 22:14 (twenty-three years ago)
― t\'\'t (t\'\'t), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 22:35 (twenty-three years ago)
12-CD people need those three elements I mention: omnipresence (through marketing, press, radio play, etc), inoffensiveness (the DMB factor, formally known as the Hootie factor), and I don't really have a good word for the third element. It's gotta have a hook, basically; you don't have to work too hard to 'get' the song. That's what I mean by sonic easiness above and beyond inoffensiveness.
They always say the first 100,000 records are the hardest to sell. Reaching those early adopters is the key, and radio play is usually how it's done. (The other path is constant touring, and a third path starting to emerge is the interweb.)
All of this assumes the band is worth a shit and has a killer work ethic.
Arguments? Counterexamples?
― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 22:42 (twenty-three years ago)
On the hipster obessed indie level it just boils down to right place/right time, which really doesn't seem fair but there you go.
― pulpo, Wednesday, 15 January 2003 12:52 (twenty-three years ago)