why do some bands get overlooked?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Is it just a simple matter of less promotion and less airplay, or something else altogether?

electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 04:47 (twenty-three years ago)

perhaps they're just shit. face it, the VAST majority of bands are shit.

Charlie (Charlie), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 04:53 (twenty-three years ago)

well maybe, but it's a bit of an unsatisfying explanation in both directions (shit popular bands, bafflingly good but bafflingly unpopular bands...)

electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 04:55 (twenty-three years ago)

it's all about promotion and connections and the drive to succeed no matter who is trampled.

jack cole (jackcole), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 05:06 (twenty-three years ago)

there are many many reasons

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)

I hear everything that's been said, bust stand by my initial comment: most bands are just shit.

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)

With all respect, I think that's a pretty simplistic and not entirely sensible view to hold, but that's just my opinion.

electric sound of jim (electricsound), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 07:46 (twenty-three years ago)

Poor distribution, label incompetencies, etc. are usually to blame

James Blount, Tuesday, 14 January 2003 07:50 (twenty-three years ago)

"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." - ohmigod is this not true! have you ever met anyone who had to settle for cult legend status? bitter bitter bitter

James Blount, Tuesday, 14 January 2003 07:57 (twenty-three years ago)

I think it's impossible to answer this qn in a non-specific way really.

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.

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.

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)

Cuz the singers act like fuckin' shit-asses all the time and anybody who possibly could've helped them gave up in disgust long ago, not that I can think of any bands like that

dave q, Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:47 (twenty-three years ago)

Singers are SUPPOSED to act like fucking shit-asses, that is their JOB.

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)

''What's the difference between a singer and a puppy?
A puppy quits whining after about six months!''

well at least it wasn't a lightbulb joke :-)

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 15:07 (twenty-three years ago)

I want Dave Q and Kate to form a duo. They'd kick the White Stripes' asses any ol' day (they already do that individually, of course).

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 15:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Statistically, MOST bands are overlooked!

matt riedl (veal), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 22:11 (twenty-three years ago)

"Why do some bands get overlooked?"

`Cos they suck, of course. Bahahahahahahahahahaha.

Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 22:12 (twenty-three years ago)

There's not enough music critics. blek

christoff (christoff), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 22:14 (twenty-three years ago)

(misread it as)
"why do some bands bet overcooked?"
(am slightly disappointed)

t\'\'t (t\'\'t), Tuesday, 14 January 2003 22:35 (twenty-three years ago)

The trick is being interesting enough to get noticed by the early adopters but omnipresent/inoffensive/sonically 'easy' enough for the rest of the people. I hope that makes sense...to go into further detail: 'early adopters' generally are not people like us who totally obsess over music, but the people in between us and 12-CD people. They're like the 100-CD people, who will tell their friends about music and maybe pick up the CD.

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)

you only get a major deal and all the press/airplay that comes with it if label is positive you'll do exactly what they say. Like Travis will dress up as Dad's Army on the front cover of Time Out if they're asked to, and probably let their A&R man mix their records / script their videos. Any sign of a troublesome nature and you won't get signed.

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)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.