| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| peewee_zz |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 9:50:54 PM
I know that nobody here is going to care about the show but I can name 4 here that have a good shot at it:
Ben Pezzner
Eric Brightfield (spelling?)
Row Boat Cops
Wabi Sabi
Seriously just enter. The other entries are all going to be washed up "grunge" wannabies, fake english accent "punk" bands, and carbon copies of Creed who sucked to start with anyway. |
| 21 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/22/2007 : 02:20:32 AM
One interesting thing he said was that he had recorded an album as a side project with a great young female vocalist that he thought was a great album and all that. So they took it and did a focus group to see if high schoolers would buy it (which I must say it's a sad day when the major promotion of the market goes to young kids, but then again I guess that's the way it's been for a while and it's the same in other industries). So anyway all these kids love the music and they ask them if they would buy it and they all just say no I would download it, and none of them said from iTunes either.
So in an over saturated market of music it becomes challenging to create a buzz around your work and get it going to a point where you can make money. It says something when even bigger bands like the Flecktones see some money up front on the records which isn't much and then nothing for probably at least 20 years till the label has made back what they spent. Which can also be viewed in a positive light when you consider that music to me is a performance art and it gets it back in a live setting where it's at it's best for me.
However then you have to consider that not many people like live music all that much and support it. Especially local music. For me it's really too bad people hate jazz. I spend all this time practicing and I will eventually make it to a point where I can play to survive and even then it's playing less than probably one really good gig a week, while digital crap makes people rich. I put so much into music and I'm telling you digital music can not convey the emotion of a human across the room. Anyway, that's the business and I like playing so much I'm doing it. |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 05/22/2007 : 01:57:50 AM
I still prefer CD's.
Actually, for quality sound I prefer vinyl. It has such a warm sound that you can't get from a CD or an MP3. I have my anniversary Dark Side Of The Moon on vinyl, and it kicks the ass out of the CD version, any day. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/21/2007 : 02:45:09 AM
that's actually a fantastic point, and you're absolutely right. the ability to make decent recordings isn't as exclusive as it used to be. ditto publicity. you don't need a ton of money to make a promote a cd. you can see this is in the uproar caused by file sharing. labels, bands, and companies try to scare us into stopping it because, as zach said, they're losing money. their efforts would be much better spent adapting to emerging technologies and trends. but these companies don't really realize what's actually causing them to lose money is the fact that cds are overpriced, a lot of the music is uninspired, uninteresting bullshit that people are sick of buying, and that there is no need for cds anymore. people pretty much come out of the womb with an ipod now.
the question is, will the record companies adapt to all of these changes, or will they render themselves obsolete. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 10:01:28 PM
You know I was reading everybody's comments and I thought that I would share that I got to talk with a guy who does serious sound engineer work for studios in LA and he does the Family guy American dad stuff and has worked with Clay Aiken etc. Let me tell you what he said. The recording industry is basically dead in the form it once was. You have to realize that we are the music industry now because anyone can record an album because the equipment and technology is there now. So he basically said create your own content and be your own industry because even Sony is loosing money on from CD's and such. No one buys them now. So you literally have to be your own industry. This means that once again artists can control their content and output completely.
I could go on but it was just an interesting chat. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 05/20/2007 : 5:06:49 PM
Probably nothing intelligent. AHAHA |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 01:12:20 AM
What The Fuck Does That Mean ? |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 10:28:10 PM
what? |
| peewee_zz |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 10:10:35 AM
Etreme Negativity loves Emerald Nuts |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 10:54:44 PM
as far as not making money goes, i don't know. it's too bad, i guess. if you're that concerned about the money, maybe art music isn't the place for you. my policy has been if you're not ok with being poor for the sake of your music, you probably should either a) suck it up, b)whore yourself and write music that makes money, or c) quit. it's not fair, i know. in fact, it seems ass backwards, when we didn't sign up for fairness when we came into the world.
i never take any money for the music i play, and if somehow i do, i spend it at the place if i can. i will take food and drink, though, because i'm a fat slob. also, it makes me feel like a bard from the middle ages, and bards are awesome! |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 10:39:03 PM
it appears i have misinterpreted you.
i'll agree with this. america has been "dumbed down" towards music, in that they largely no longer treat music as an art, and more as entertainment. i think it's to be expected that music as entertainment is treated as a business, and that the resulting product isn't exactly good from an educated standpoint. perhaps we should make a distinction between music as an art and music as an entertainment. such a distinction would allow us to discuss either art music or entertainment music in their own terms. as far as music as entertainment goes, it's only natural for it to lack depth or sophistication; it isn't meant for deep listening and analysis. it would be fruitless, and ultimately pointless, to approach entertainment music in that fashion. certainly i don't approach the "entertainment music" i listen to that way. that would be like buying a chocolate cake and them complaining that it doesn't bark. of course not. it's chocolate cake.
and honestly, i would be concerned for the state of art music of entertainment music started sounding like it. |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 9:44:02 PM
Dan you're taking what I said too far or maybe I didn't convey my thoughts well enough. I said understand or appreciate it. I didn't specify on what level you understand it though. Look I understand most music and can analyze the hell out of it through traditional analytical process. However you can still understand music without understanding it all. It's not an either or thing. It's not either you understand it all or you don't. I also would put a heaviness on the word appreciate.
Like I was trying to say I'm not going to go against anyone's personal tastes because I have my own. However people have been dumbed down musically to the point that the marketing and business of music has turned into a formula. Like how they basically take the lowest common denominator of what people will like and sell it like it's gold. Thus people who work their asses off practicing and dedicating their lives to music such as any good jazz musicians make almost nothing and barely stay above water. Not only is it a thing where people dislike jazz, but they don't understand it. Same goes for legit music. I personally don't like that our government doesn't fund art as an educational necessity and hate that things are the way they are. I can't wait till I get good enough to play with the masters in my area only to make $50 a night while electronic music dominates the club scene and some douche that can't even play his instrument worth a damn, but looks good and has emo lyrics can make... well probably only a little more actually.
I think it would be a nice way to get discovered if you're trying to make it big other than as stated you just signed over yourself to their producers and now your band is basically the musical bitch of the industry. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 5:21:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fluffy
Who's to say they won't help discover the next[. . .]Rage Against the Machine.
because we already have a band to tell us what's wrong with the world and who to throw bottles at to fix it. |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 4:16:51 PM
but the winners of American Idol have signed their life as an artist over to American Idol. you don't really have the freedom to write your own songs or to go in the direction you want to, you are just a cookie cut singer. |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 3:22:17 PM
First let me say I am not really a fan of American Idol but I have to admit that as I travel the land discoving bands I consider worth hearing I feel it is sad that there is little opportunity for them to get out to a mass audience to be discovered.(IE: Marcus Eaton)
I also have to admit that a little while back I actually considered contacting the folks at American Idol and suggesting a show similar to what it sounds like they have come up with. From what I have read the last episode of American Idol had like 45 million votes. You can't deny how much exposure this would offer a band. Whether they win or not think of how many NEW fans they could make and would visit their myspace page and possibly discover them for themselves thru appearing on the show. I don't really see the downside for a band other than the label of "American Idol performer" which really doesn't much matter once you start selling millions of records.
Most musicians are about getting their music out to the public. This appears to be quite an opportunity for bands trying to make it. It remains to be seen what KIND of bands they will have but I still think it's a great opportunity for exposure for any bands that participate. Who's to say they won't help discover the next Tool or Rage Against the Machine. Every band who ever made it starting by getting exposure somewhere then their success depends on CD sales and getting your music out there to as many people as a show like American Idol has paying attention could really help a band find a "nationwide" audience instead of just a local audience. If I was in a band and couldn't get a nationwide tour in front of some major band that would give my band exposure to a potential, new audience I would jump at the chance to get my band on a huge TV show like American Idol just for the exposure alone. Then if the poplulace likes the music and proceeds to buy my music the opportunities start to open up ten-fold. The bottom line is at that point you have "made it" despite the route taken. Bands want exposure and I see this as a great way of doing that. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/11/2007 : 01:27:36 AM
i agree to an extent. that is, when there is a discussion of the merits of any music, the people with training, knowledge, and experience should do the talking and everyone else should be taking notes. wow, that sounded snobbish and elitist. but i stand by it.
"If you can't understand or appreciate the masters of the craft then why do you think your opinion has any substance."
because, despite what i just typed above, i'm not that much of an arrogant asshole. as far as understanding the masters, that group of people does not include me, and it probably doesn't include you, either. and if you do "understand the masters," i'd probably ask you where you got your doctorates (yes, plural) from, and why you're typing on a message board when you should be correcting the work of your grad students. also, you can't realistically expect most people to have that sort of musical knowledge. by your reasoning, the only people allowed to have opinions are people who studied music in college.
that aside, i've met some tin-eared assholes with the most philistine tastes ever, but they largely understand that the composers of yore are the basis of all that is western music today and that they wrote really great stuff that they don't like. the only thing people need to understand is that these composers are the basis for western music, and that the music is well crafted and are to be respected. that's all. their opinion on why they like what they like, and why they don't like what you like, doesn't need substance, because opinions of taste are bullshit anyway. this stance my seem to stand contrary to my little rant at the beginning of the thread, but it doesn't. because while i meant every word of that, it's bullshit, really. i could argue why most bands described there aren't good at their craft, but that's a shitty reason to say "you shouldn't like it." |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 6:55:11 PM
Granted all listener's are equal in their opinion at least that's what Ornette Coleman said. I'm talking about someone who can listen to say, Contrapunctus 3 by Bach and have no appreciation of it regardless of whether it's something they really like or not. Even Chopin said he couldn't write Fugues like Bach and it boggled his mind Bach could do that. However most people who like top 40ish stuff can't even appreciate it.
If you can't understand or appreciate the masters of the craft then why do you think your opinion has any substance. I'm sure if I painted something in a class of little kids or drew something and it became obvious that I was really good in comparison to them at painting a realistic painting, and that's all they ever got introduced to as far as painting goes, they'd probably buy my paintings. However once they saw the masters paint they would probably think I was a tool. Which of course I am. So the same goes for people who think homogenized pop music which is made solely to make money is good. Although I know people who get music and sometimes for fun enjoy that music. I don't dig it but I understand why people like it at least. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 5:02:01 PM
this is true, but i would ask both of you for your definition of "good music" and "music with actual substance." the objectivity of well crafted art and subjectivity of taste are often confused.
for instance, you can't rightly say "stravinsky sucks." it's an objective fact that he was a great composer. you can argue against that, but you'd be wrong. his ability to craft art is undeniable. however, that doesn't mean you must like him or you're wrong. that's stupid. you simply don't like the art he made. that's subjective. there are some great composers i don't like. that doesn't mean they suck, and it doesn't mean i'm wrong. i also like some bands that maybe aren't the best as far as craft goes. me liking them doesn't make them "good," and it doesn't make me wrong.
so you really should be careful with terms like "good music" and music of substance." i get the feeling, infant eyes, that you're a music major, or were. i was, too, for a couple years, and now it's my minor. so i can sort of relate to what you're saying. but i don't think the our knowledge of the objective aspects of music and performance necessarily have anything to do with the subjectivity of taste. at least for me, it made me like some things i didn't bother with before, but it never made me stop liking an artist. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 2:39:46 PM
Giant waste of time...think about it...if you win...do you really want to be "the band who won American Idol"..
American Idol is the biggest joke. I am glad it exists though. it keep shalf of America busy wasting their time. I mean think about if all those people were actualyl talented, then it would be really hard to get heard.
I am so glad not everyone likes good music. |
| Infant Eyes |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 2:12:37 PM
The thing is that, even if any of the mentioned people were to win, they'd probably want to kill themselves for having been selected by people dumb enough to A) watch the show and B) actually vote. People who are not directly involved in studying music or have been surrounded by music with actual substance usually have the worst understanding of music ever. |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 05/10/2007 : 12:59:56 AM
*thinks about himself and a band doing that*
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
*runs off a cliff*
. . . I think Nickleback will win . . . maybe creed. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 05/09/2007 : 10:12:11 PM
so who will win? the sensitive acoustic guitar singer/songwriter or the indie band of scruffy unemployables that sound just like the shins? maybe it will be some greasy black haired singer with tight jeans and the t-shirt of a semi-obscure band, and his music will sound faintly dangerous and underground to the uninitiated because no one fucking realizes the cesspool called metalcore, from which such shitty bands have crawled, dried out years ago. the band's name will be like "paper heart tearing" or something such bullshit.
great. now i'm angry.
i can tell you who won't win: a band that sounds like real rock and roll, and band with bitchin' guitar solos, anyone who plays an instrumental song, and ugly people. |
|
|
