Jump to content

Why bother with a band?


richardmac

Recommended Posts

  • Members

An interesting blog about the pros and cons of trying to gain commercial success (i.e. money) as a solo artist vs. band member.

 

http://www.musicthinktank.com/blog/one-for-all-or-all-for-one-solo-artistry-versus-the-band-in.html

 

I'm with the solo approach - bands don't make sense any more. A duo can still make sense, but you'd better be real close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

The trend does seem to be going more towards someone's name than a band name. Actually, in the 50s, it was pretty uncommon to just go by a band name, as far as rock and roll goes. It was usually someone's name first, followed by the band name (Bill Haley & His Comets, Buddy Holly & The Crickets, etc.). I could be wrong, but I believe it was The Beatles that popularized the idea that *everyone* is important in the unit, not just the lead singer. I think the fact that they had two primary lead singers also drove that point home.

 

I think it's a personality as well as a cultural thing. In this *I*pod, *MY*space, *YOU*tube world, it's skewed towards the individual as the star, rather than a group of people. People can see themselves more in a solo artist than a band of nameless, faceless people, like the so-called 'corporate rock' of the 70s (critics' term) with bands like STYX, Boston, Electric Light Orchestra, etc. where no one really knew who was in the band (or maybe even cared). No personality.

 

While having a band was still a very strong thing in the '90s (obviously with Nirvana), it might just be easier to market a single person with the backing band having no identity. From a marketing standpoint, it's certainly a lot easier to feature just one person rather than three, four or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"Personalities' rather than bands seem to hold sway right now with regards to what's commercially successful. Personally I'd rather be in a band that operates as a unit, & is known as a unit, rather than be in someone's disposable backup band.

That situation seems pretty evident in the pop field.

 

I saw both Lady Gaga (underwhelming) and Katy Perry (actually pretty entertaining) within the last year or so & their respective backup bands could've easily been replaced w/ a lone synth w/ built-in drum machine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, as the article talks about, a person who wants to achieve commercial success seems more likely to succeed. When you expect 5 guys to make all the same sacrifices that one guy would be willing to make, um... you just reduced your odds by 80%, and your odds sucked to begin with.

 

Additionally, I think Tim_7string has a good point about the I/You/Me thing.

 

Of course, that's for the serious people who do their research. There will still be plenty of teenagers who learn to play a few chords and want to "be in a band," and that won't change. Not too many of those will go on and achieve commercial success. Some might.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I used to love the idea of a band that would stick together through thick and thin for years and years to come. I have come to find that this is extremely rare.

 

The idea of a band identity as opposed to one dude/chick and a bunch of hired guns is nice, but more likely than not, the band will lose one or two members along the way. So, the band identity changes and is different anyway. Depending on your point of view, the band could almost be interchangable too (peoplewise) as long as the basic sound of the group is the same. So, really, it's all the same in the end.

 

People still focused on Kurt Cobain back then and now they focus on Dave Grohl, because they are the 'face' of the band as lead singers. I think it's too hard for critics and others to acknowledge all the people in a band, because it takes too much work. I always wanted to know about the keyboardists in different bands like The Cars, Loverboy, Duran Duran, etc. With some magazines, you would hear from Greg Hawkes (The Cars) and Nick Rhodes (Duran Duran), but never hear much of anything about Doug Johnson (Loverboy), so he was always a mystery to me, which was a shame for me, as he is a primary influence on keyboards for me.

 

With Paramore, it's almost like the Blondie thing all over again, with guys who are frustrated that they are seen as interchangable and disposable compared to the lead singer. The singer herself knew the record deal rested on her shoulders, but she still wanted to feel like she was in a band. However, the public image is that she IS Paramore and that it doesn't really matter who else is in the band. I'm not talking about the true fans of Paramore, but everyone else that knows they exist, but only sees pictures of an attractive girl with pinkish/reddish hair fronting a band. Two of the original members couldn't handle that blow to their ego and recently left the group over it.

 

It may swing around again where bands are the focus, but I kind of doubt it. People have become more and more selfish and self-absorbed as time has gone on since I was a kid in the '70s. If anything, it's going to get worse rather than better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, not to sound egotistical here, but I write everything and I really don't need anyone else to help me create music, so I have no reason to be in a band except on stage for the sake of stage presence. People are hard to trust and you never know just how fast you'll want to strangle them when you're on tour. I'm going to take the side musician route because there's no way I'm about to give someone a piece of the pie that I've been cooking up for half of my life. Usually, other band mates are free loaders and don't have the same drive and work ethnic (or creative ability) as one or two members, and that's not a situation I want to deal with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Well, not to sound egotistical here, but I write everything and I really don't need anyone else to help me create music, so I have no reason to be in a band except on stage for the sake of stage presence. People are hard to trust and you never know just how fast you'll want to strangle them when you're on tour. I'm going to take the side musician route because there's no way I'm about to give someone a piece of the pie that I've been cooking up for half of my life. Usually, other band mates are free loaders and don't have the same drive and work ethnic (or creative ability) as one or two members, and that's not a situation I want to deal with.

 

 

Absolutely, 100% YES. I agree completely.

 

I went the band route for a few years, and it was the same thing: I'd write everything, arrange, record, produce... and my bandmembers were completely useless. It got to the point where I realized, "Why am I even bothering with a band? This isn't 1990. Bands don't matter."

 

So I release music under a band-sounding name, and my music sounds like a full-on band playing (though it's just me). I don't play shows, obviously, but again, playing shows as an original rock band is 100% useless. I know people will want to disagree, but here's how it is:

 

1. Play shows: put in massive amounts of time, energy, and money. Put together a band, rehearse, rent out rehearsal space, beat the bandmates over their heads so they actually {censored}ing LEARN the songs properly, hustle for gigs, and end up playing shows to rooms full of ONLY the people you invited. And this is in NYC. And you wanna tour? Fine, quit your job, lose your apartment, have no life at all, and go play to empty rooms all over the country. But hey, YOU'RE ON TOUR!!!

 

2. Don't play shows: record music as professionally as possible and use the internet to propagate it. And holy {censored}, look, you can now get exposure all over the entire planet, for free, and if the music is good, holy {censored}, look at that, people are sharing it with their friends, you're building a fanbase, and you're selling downloads (and getting ad money from youtube videos).

 

I've been doing option 2, and it's working so well for me. Of course I'd like to play shows again, but it'll have to be worth the time, energy, and expense involved. This is a business. The childish daydream of "look, we're gonna DO THIS, man! We're gonna have chicks and tunes and roll around in a VAN, man!" is over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Don't play shows: record music as professionally as possible and use the internet to propagate it. And holy {censored}, look, you can now get exposure all over the entire planet, for free, and if the music is good, holy {censored}, look at that, people are sharing it with their friends, you're building a fanbase, and you're selling downloads (and getting ad money from youtube videos).


I've been doing option 2, and it's working so well for me.

 

 

OK, this thread just got really interesting. However you are achieving this, please share. I don't mean this to sound cynical, like "yeah right"...I'm actually curious to know. Conventional wisdom around here is that this method just doesn't work--will never work. Not talking about becoming an internet superstar, but any kind of following at all solely through the internet, I think is a pretty impressive achievement.

 

Though personally, I do enjoy performing, so I wouldn't eschew that aspect completely, but it would be nice to play shows because and when you feel like it, and not because you're relying on it to eat, or for gas money to get you to the next town. Not that I've ever done that...I have a day job I don't intend to give up anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Pretty much the only thing I disagree with in your post niceguy is the concept of one person doing all the music. I mostly do exactly the same thing so I know where you're coming from, but I feel that it rarely works quite as well as having an ensemble playing. Much as I fancy myself a multi-instrumentalist, if I'm honest the only instruments with which I'm really comfortable expressing myself are my guitar and voice. I'm planning on getting a couple of really talented and experienced session guys into a studio to re-record some of my "greatest hits" :lol: and I'm betting the results will be noticeably better than the tracks I created on my own. Of course it does depend on striking a balance between a) getting the hired hands to share your vision of the song whilst b) allowing them to put their own twist on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

...OK, this thread just got really interesting. However you are achieving this, please share. I don't mean this to sound cynical, like "yeah right"...I'm actually curious to know. Conventional wisdom around here is that this method just doesn't work--will never work. Not talking about becoming an internet superstar, but any kind of following at all solely through the internet, I think is a pretty impressive achievement.

 

I know this question was aimed at niceguy but I have some experience of this. I don't think it's large enough to call "a following" but I have managed to make a few sales and pick up some fans from places I've never even heard of, let alone performed in. Have to say though that this does seem to be on a downward curve over the past few years. With my latest album I think I've only (so far) sold to people who'd bought my earlier stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Anyone else see the comedy in this thread? No? Never mind, then...

 

I disagree about things getting worse and the whole self absorbed thing - I think it's both self empowered and self absorbed. A long long time ago, guys like Mozart wrote all the music, too. The composers from the baroque, classical, and romantic eras wrote for everything from solo piano to string quartet to harpsichord and voice to full symphony orchestra. And no one was telling them "Hey, slow down, wait a minute Mozart, you don't play trumpet so you don't really have the 'vibe' to write a good trumpet part!"

 

I'm not saying anyone is Mozart. I'm saying that if you can't write a decent bass line for a rock or blues song, then you're an idiot. Go back and put some more CD's/Records/Mp3 files on and study some more. It ain't rocket science.

 

BUT. But here is the solid truth of the matter - many, many people are lazy about some parts of the song, especially drums and bass. I will raise my hand and freely admit that I am one of them. I can write decent drum parts and bass lines. But instead of writing GREAT drum parts and bass lines, I settle for decent, and it hurts my music, and I know it does. And I know it does because when I do record a great bass line I'm like "DAMN, where did THAT come from? That sounds good!"

 

One way to distinguish yourself from all of the other bedroom Howard Jones clones is to... Howard Jones? He was a synth rock guy in the 80's who did all of his own parts. One of the first guys to do it. Prince did it too, on his early recordings. Now I'm off track.

 

One way to distinguish yourself is to record killer bass lines and drum parts. For my next CD, this is exactly what I'm going to do. And it will take forever. But since I'm not putting food on the table with music, I can take as long as I want.

 

SIDE NOTE - I have the ability to use almost unlimited audio tracks, though I'll probably only use about 24. I have every synth and keyboard sound I could ever want at my fingertips. I have tons of guitars and I can simulate any amp I want. I have virtually unlimited time to write and record music. My software is so good I can fix wrong notes. And when I'm done I can share it with the entire world for free. I probably won't make much money but I do it for fun and love of music anyway. And I might make a little money. Despite all of my complaining, I'd have to say that I have it pretty good. Unfortunately I don't have the drive of the 20 year old version of me. If I'd had all this gear at 20, I would have never left the house. EVER. Education is wasted on the young, but high quality music equipment is wasted on the old, maybe? :)

 

And Surrealistic, I'm with you. I've had the exact same experience. I sold a copy of my second CD a few days ago via CDBaby. Out of the blue. No one I know. It was weird. Every CD I've made has been better than the last and has not sold as well. Back in like 2004 people were more likely to buy CD's of unknown artists over the net. Now, not so much. For me, personally, I've seen a decrease in sales and an increase in streams, and I've gone from making a little money to making pretty much no money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
... I've gone from making a little money to making pretty much no money.

Apart from performing, I think the only thing close to real money I've made this past year was from PRS (for the Americans here, PRS is the UK organisation loosely equivalent to BMI/ASCAP etc) based on being played on a few radio stations. Album sales are hugely down, almost to none at all and I have only a few dollars worth of streaming revenue. Actually, come to think of it, I haven't checked my Tunecore account for a while. Wonder if it's made it into double-figures? I'll check and report back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 




OK, this thread just got really interesting. However you are achieving this, please share. I don't mean this to sound cynical, like "yeah right"...I'm actually curious to know. Conventional wisdom around here is that this method just doesn't work--will never work. Not talking about becoming an internet superstar, but any kind of following at all solely through the internet, I think is a pretty impressive achievement.


 

 

I'd love to share! The key point, though, is there is NO trickery or gimmick involved. I've dallied with tricks and gimmicks in the past, and they don't matter. It's all about putting your music where it gets heard, and if it connects with people, it grows.

 

1. Last.fm- Great international audience, though not as huge in the US. That's fine, though, because Europeans are more apt to purchase music than Americans (IME).

2. YouTube- This has been the best route for me. I just put up my songs with static images of cover art and artist pics. It took a little while, but people started sharing, subscribing, making their own videos with my songs, and posting the videos to their Facebook pages.

3. Facebook- It's just a hub, but very important, because this is where people share. I don't post any more than three times a month, so I don't bother people. It's mostly for fans to use, not for me to use.

 

Those are the essentials, for me. I've tried other routes, which haven't been as good for me:

 

1. Bandcamp- My style of music isn't really welcome there.

2. Grooveshark- Sorta OK. You get zero payment from them, though, so for me, it's not worth it.

3. Rdio, emusic, Rhapsody, Napster, etc etc- Absolutely zero plays from any of them.

 

That's it. Works for me!

 

And the best part: not having to deal with idiots. I always hated having to make compromises with morons, the whole "Dude, we're IN A BAND!!! The drummer is just as important as the bassist!!!" No. Not for me. It always ended up sounding like a childish version of what was in my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

An interesting blog about the pros and cons of trying to gain commercial success (i.e. money) as a solo artist vs. band member.




I'm with the solo approach - bands don't make sense any more. A duo can still make sense, but you'd better be real close.

 

A band can be successful with less than exceptional talent- they become the sum total of their parts and their strengths combined can often outweigh their weaknesses. Tom Petty, for instance, would never have made it as a solo artist without the Heartbreakers. Ditto Lindsay Buckingham and Fleetwood Mac. Dave Grohl and Nirvana. And so on. Bands have produced a lot of successful solo artists who wouldn't have made it without a band first. I don't think it's a one size fits all approach. Some people don't need a band and some couldn't get by or be successful without one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is all very simple & obvious.

 

You want to make some extra dough as a G 'n R cover band or doing corporate or wedding gigs? Start a band. You want big time commercial success in popular music? Be young, good looking, sing or rap good - and go it alone with dance or hip tunes composed on your iPod and LapTop. Or be a solo DJ or DJ Duo. Ideally find someone to help you compose them - but if you have a knack for writing good & performing good: You may be sitting on a lotto ticket baby.

 

And this is because Guitar-and-Drum music doesn't hold much interest for teenagers. That sound belong to Baby Boomers and Gen Exers. If you're trying to make dollars in that genre - that's where you're gonna find the em: As a legacy act selling songs these people liked when they were teenagers.

 

The shape & Nature of new popular acts in music is almost always determined by the simple question of: What are the tools young or poor people without means can most easily get their hands onto make noise with? The first substantial nail in the coffin for rock came in the 80s when some dudes in the Bronx figured out how to get the party started by doing reggea calls through a {censored}ty PA playing disco records - you got an all-in-one band right there, baby. And I know this is awful to say - but the last 60s years have shown us that: whatever music poor black people are making up on the fly? That is the music most people everywhere will be loving soon enough. They just have the best and most passionate ideas about making raw music people connect with. Who knows why.

 

Right now its a helluva lot easier for kids to come up with raw music with an iPod and LapTop than it is with guitars and a drum kit. This is why band acts are on the outs. When kids see Kanye rocking a stadium - they think: HOly {censored} - that can be me. I can rhyme words over some canned beats in my bedroom!!!! And they will.

 

This is the same thing Tom Petty & Bruce Springsteen thought when they saw the Beatles on Ed Sullivan when they were kids: Holy {censored}! I can come up with some tunes and play em with my buddies!!! Sweet sweetness. And they did.

 

The only people looking at Tom Petty and Bruce Springsteen and pretending to be them these days are .... older dudes with pot bellies and bald spots.....Rock is dying people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Things have certainly changed, but it's a little premature to hold some kind of mass funeral for bands with typical rock band instrumentation. I see a decent amount of live music, and a lot of it is being played by mostly 20-something bands playing for mostly 20-something crowds. I think what's changed is that it's not the default configuration anymore. It's one of several choices.

 

The "one guy playing everything" route has it's appeals, but playing shows is just kinda fun. And while total control has its charms, I find that many times my songs gain something from the chemistry a band brings to the table. The trick is finding people with the skills and tastes to make it work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

A band can be successful with less than exceptional talent- they become the sum total of their parts and their strengths combined can often outweigh their weaknesses. Tom Petty, for instance, would never have made it as a solo artist without the Heartbreakers. Ditto Lindsay Buckingham and Fleetwood Mac. Dave Grohl and Nirvana. And so on. Bands have produced a lot of successful solo artists who wouldn't have made it without a band first. I don't think it's a one size fits all approach. Some people don't need a band and some couldn't get by or be successful without one.

 

 

Yeah, but Pat, all of those acts are from yesteryear, when the rules were different. Go look at the Billboard charts right now - it's 70 to 80% individual artists. The only holdout in Billboard for bands is Rock. And in Rock it's pretty much ALL bands. But Rock does not dominate the Top 100. Far from it.

 

I'm not going to say that Rock is irrelevant. But far more people listen to Adele than The Black Keys or Foo Fighters.

 

Hmm. You know, looking at the Top 10 Rock songs right now, I'd have to take back at least part of what I said. It appears that if you want to be successful in the Rock genre, you need a band, whereas in any other genre, you don't. Based on just the hits of right now. Which I know is flimsy logic, but it's an Internet music forum. C'mon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Hmm. You know, looking at the Top 10 Rock songs right now, I'd have to take back at least part of what I said. It appears that if you want to be successful in the Rock genre, you need a band, whereas in any other genre, you don't. Based on just the hits of right now. Which I know is flimsy logic, but it's an Internet music forum. C'mon.

 

 

I'm not sure that's anything new. I don't have any statistics in front of me, but hasn't pop long been dominated by solo acts, and rock more about bands? The exception perhaps being vocal groups (such as boy bands, etc.), which typically just sing and dance, and don't play instruments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I'm not sure that's anything new. I don't have any statistics in front of me, but hasn't pop long been dominated by solo acts, and rock more about bands? The exception perhaps being vocal groups (such as boy bands, etc.), which typically just sing and dance, and don't play instruments.

 

 

It's not anything new. What's new is that Rock is not dominating the Top 100. Back in the 80's it seemed like big hair metal dominated everything. Even the 90's seemed real big on grunge rock bands. Now the kids would rather listen to rap than rock. Except the kids who go to Guitar Center - they all seem to listen to classic rock. I guess if you're a guitar player, there's not actually all that much guitar IN the Top 100 right now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

It's not anything new. What's new is that Rock is not dominating the Top 100. Back in the 80's it seemed like big hair metal dominated everything. Even the 90's seemed real big on grunge rock bands. Now the kids would rather listen to rap than rock. Except the kids who go to Guitar Center - they all seem to listen to classic rock. I guess if you're a guitar player, there's not actually all that much guitar IN the Top 100 right now...

 

 

Well, the top 100 is a singles chart, and rock has long been an album-oriented format. There wasn't a lot of rock on that chart in the '90s either...back then, unlike today, a song had to be officially released as a single to qualify for the top 100. Bands' record companies wouldn't release any singles from an album, thinking it cannibalized album sales. So by default, the top 100 in the '90s was dominated by pop, rap and R&B, with maybe the occasional rock song. The album chart was a different story, though...rock bands would regularly top that chart. Still do...although one could argue it's because only old people buy CD's anymore, though I don't think it's quite that simple.

 

I think the trend hasn't ever really gone away...rock bands are still expected to make grand statements via albums--on the pop/rap side, it's all about coming up with that one hot single that gets played at parties and in the clubs. The only difference is, today no one is selling gargantuan amounts of records like they used to, so the more singles-oriented genre wins out. Lets face it...it's highly doubtful many people care to sit through an entire LMFAO CD, but they will pay 99 cents on iTunes for the one or two hits off it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I'd love to share! The key point, though, is there is NO trickery or gimmick involved. I've dallied with tricks and gimmicks in the past, and they don't matter. It's all about putting your music where it gets heard, and if it connects with people, it grows.


1. Last.fm- Great international audience, though not as huge in the US. That's fine, though, because Europeans are more apt to purchase music than Americans (IME).

2. YouTube- This has been the best route for me. I just put up my songs with static images of cover art and artist pics. It took a little while, but people started sharing, subscribing, making their own videos with my songs, and posting the videos to their Facebook pages.

3. Facebook- It's just a hub, but very important, because this is where people share. I don't post any more than three times a month, so I don't bother people. It's mostly for fans to use, not for me to use.

 

 

Thanks for the tips! Actually, with the exception of Last.fm, these are things I've tried. I think it's a matter of putting in the effort, which admittedly, I haven't been doing. I have a YouTube channel that hasn't been active for several years. (Got a bit intimidated when YouTube switched to the wide-screen format, in effect making my videos all look outdated.) I really should start getting back into it again. I received quite a bit of positive feedback when I was regularly posting videos. I still receive comments on my videos about three years on. One person said they'd buy a CD of mine if I had one. So it will probably become more useful to me when I have a proper album available (I hope to release something by this year).

 

One more question, if you don't mind me asking...do you release your music as full albums, or just make the tracks available as you go along?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...