Getting noticed when you're a bedroom studio band...

[ermghoti II]

 

The key word in the above post on this thread is "currently"... "The artistic level of music currently demanded by the public is very low." I am always hopeful that the public will one day eventually desire music of higher artistic quality in the future. That is why I continue to try and create better and better songs. Hopefully, in the future, everybody will desire music that actually takes imaginative creativity and genuine musical talent and ability to produce. That is why I gave a "thumbs up" in the link that you provided above. If we all continue to improve ourselves, then maybe one day in the not-so-distant future, the public will crave actual musical ability, instead of merely desiring a drumbeat to dance to. In addition, the post above was also referring specifically to royalty free music that is currently demanded by customers. The post that you linked to was about music in general. There is quite a distinction between the two.

 

 

I guess, still seems to be a disconnect between agreeing with a guy who can't understand why people are talking about marketing their music, then stating that marketing one's music is a primary survival skill.

 

Improving one's music is of no value if nobody hears it.

[Lee Fitzsimmons]

Agreeing with a guy who can't understand why people are marketing their music is referring to the music business in general.

 

Got it?

 

It is an idealistic hope that one day marketing will not be so important in the regular world of the music business. Unrealistic... yes it is. Call me crazy but that's how I am.

 

Stating that marketing one's music is a primary survival skill for actually making money (you know, real digits in the account) with royalty-free music is a completely different matter entirely. The two are very unrelated. The former is driven by vocal music, the latter by instrumental music.

 

Got it?

 

I hope so, because I'm not gonna explain it again...

[BlueStrat]

I think Em's disconnect is where you seem to be agreeing with this:

 

So yeah. I just think people should go back to focusing on making awesome music and stop worrying about how to market it and charge every which way to make some money.

And then agreeing with this:

 

I don't understand how anyone can grow up in America and not realize the importance of promotion, marketing, sales and distribution. These four distinct practices are far more responsible for success in music than the relative merits of the music itself, as defined by value judgments, expert consensus, etc.

 

These two posts are opposites in what they're saying but you agreed with both. Your last explanation as to point one makes no sense at all.

 

 

So which is it you're agreeing with? I don't see how you can have it both ways.

[Lee Fitzsimmons]

BlueStrat,

 

Your assertion that these two posts are opposite is incorrect. They are not. Not even close. In fact, they are complimentary in every way.

 

Let us begin with the later:

 

"I don't understand how anyone can grow up in America and not realize the importance of promotion, marketing, sales and distribution. These four distinct practices are far more responsible for success in music than the relative merits of the music itself, as defined by value judgments, expert consensus, etc."

 

I agree with this because marketing is far more important for success in the music industry than any other single factor, including the music itself.

 

Now let us analyse the former:

 

"So yeah. I just think people should go back to focusing on making awesome music and stop worrying about how to market it and charge every which way to make some money."

 

The former is clearly stating that the latter is true, but wants the reality of the latter to be changed so that marketing is not the most important factor.

 

Yes, marketing is the most important factor, but one can always hope that this will change.

 

 

I can have it both ways...

 

I understand the importance of marketing, yet I desire the focus to be on making awesome music.

 

I do hope that clears everything up

[BlueStrat]

Ok, so...one says don't worry about marketing, just make decent music and it'll happen, the other says it won't happen with out marketing no matter how good it is, and you claim they're both saying the same thing? Got it.

 

 

You have a brilliant future in politics.

[Pomerlaw]

hahahaha funny {censored}

[Lee Fitzsimmons]

I never said that they are saying the same thing,

 

I am saying that they are complimentary, that is, they respect each other.

 

I never said that they are identical or the same.

 

You are twisting the definitions of my terminology in order to fit your preconceived notions of what I am saying.

 

Secondly, the first one asserts that one should not have to worry about marketing, not that one doesn't have to worry, but one should not have to worry about marketing.

 

The first statement NEVER asserted that one DOES not have to worry about marketing. The whole point of the first statement is that one SHOULD not have to worry about marketing.

 

The difference between the two concepts is huge.

[Next Direct]

 

I am always hopeful that the public will one day eventually desire music of higher artistic quality in the future. That is why I continue to try and create better and better songs. Hopefully, in the future, everybody will desire music that actually takes imaginative creativity and genuine musical talent and ability to produce. That is why I gave a "thumbs up" in the link that you provided above. If we all continue to improve ourselves, then maybe one day in the not-so-distant future, the public will crave actual musical ability, instead of merely desiring a drumbeat to dance to.

 

 

Don't take this as an attack, but what's wrong if most people just want something basic to dance to? If you don't like what mass society consumes that's fine, but to imply it'd be better for everyone if they consumed more artistic tastes is absurd. If it were to happen say, how long before that whole arms race would fizzle out, where musicians run out of ways to out-do one another with artistic splendour? Sometimes musicians need something to set their own style against, to distinguish it from the rest, and right now the commercial mainstream is providing just that.

 

It sounds as though some musicians are more interested in the sanctity of the past than accepting that trends change and people's tastes change too. Back in the 1920's it was jazz music that was lampooned for being the cause of degenerative behaviour, and then later, it was punk and metal. So what if people enjoy American Idol and basic drum beats? If that happens to be what sells the most, then so be it. It's just old hat for indie musicians to write-off the commercial mainstream as being musically inferior. Fair enough, have your say but there were indie musicians back in the 1970's saying the same thing too.

 

I've read a lot of opinions from musicians on how the music scenes are changing and people don't appreciate music as much as they used to, but many of their rants just end up turning into diatribes of vitriolic contempt mixed with a hefty dose of narcissistic entitlement. And it is quite elitist to write off other forms of popular entertainment as somehow being objectively inferior. That whole notion about art being subjective must have got lost on some musicians.

 

I'm sure many hold dear the claims that unpopular (not for the masses) music is more authentic or represents “freedom” but what they might have failed to consider is that maybe it's an illusion. That when you look at the big picture, there really is no intrinsic sense of mainstream, no alternative, no relationship between music and freedom, and no such thing as “selling-out” (N.B. unless you make the record you're told to make, not the one you wanted to make).

 

At the end of the day, it's all just different forms of entertainment, which everyone has their own subjective tastes about. There are people who make music, and people who listen to said music. And if you happen to make great music, lots of people will want to listen to it. We all may disagree about what is 'great' music but that's the beauty of subjective taste, innit? If everyone in the world starting listening to these underground bands, they would then become mainstream by definition, and I'll bet some other underground band would use that as a stick to beat them with.

[Lee Fitzsimmons]

Next Direct,

 

You make some good points. There is nothing wrong if people just want dance beats to dance to. I am merely hopeful that one day they will desire music that has more substance, like melody and complex chord structures. If tastes do not change, then they do not change, if they do, then they do. I also agree with the fact that everything is subjective, that's why one can't be too serious about musical tastes, because they can change in a matter of moments.

 

In the meantime, I must be pragmatic and admit to the reality of the current situation, where marketing rules and the artistic quality of music usually takes a backseat.

 

 

BTW - Pat, I checked out your site. You have a nice guitar tone, a tight band, a lot of SRV influence, and the production is great. Well done

[Poker99]

NextDirect,

 

I understand the point you are trying to make... I agree somehow with it, but...

 

 

And it is quite elitist to write off other forms of popular entertainment as somehow being objectively inferior. That whole notion about art being subjective must have got lost on some musicians.

 

 

I think there is a place for a legitimate debate on art. Art is subjective in part, but to me, to deny that some of it have more value than the rest is based in ignorance or naive acceptance. Don't care if that makes me an elitist. There ARE works of art that are just better, wheter because people worked harder on them or have more talent. People will have different opinions/tastes of course, but a trained ear/mind will be able to see/ear the difference. IMO, more and more popular music is total crap - easy to digest, easily forggotten, which only makes the general public musical taste deteriorate. Its more important to have nice boobs than being good to be recognized and popular in the media, which brings my 2nd point...

 

 

We all may disagree about what is 'great' music but that's the beauty of subjective taste, innit?

 

 

Yes, but there is also a difference between art and entertainment. That's where I think you guys aren't going to agree, there is art, and there is entertainment, and quite often they crossover. I understand most people are happy with songs they can dance too, that music is just entertainment for them... But I don't think people who think music is more than that should just accept the crap as being as good as great art.

[BlueStrat]

 

I never said that they are saying the same thing, I am saying that they are complimentary , that is, they respect each other. I never said that they are identical or the same. You are twisting the definitions of my terminology in order to fit your preconceived notions of what I am saying. Secondly, the first one asserts that one should not have to worry about marketing, not that one doesn't have to worry, but one should not have to worry about marketing. The first statement NEVER asserted that one DOES not have to worry about marketing. The whole point of the first statement is that one SHOULD not have to worry about marketing. The difference between the two concepts is huge.

 

 

 

I'm not twisting anything you said. I'm contrasting two contradictory statements you said you agreed with. I really for the life of me can't get why you seem to think this is saying other that what it says:

 

 

So yeah. I just think people should go back to focusing on making awesome music and stop worrying about how to market it and charge every which way to make some money. If you write it, and its good, people will start to follow and income will appear .

 

 

Is he not saying marketing isn't necessary and "income will appear" if you just write good stuff? That's what I'm getting, especially in context of his entire post. I didn't see anywhere in his original post where he said anything good about promotion. Maybe I'm missing it. Wouldn't be the first time!

 

It's obvious you believe in promotion and marketing, as do I. I'm not saying you don't. You're seem to be very good at it. I just couldn't find anything in that statement to agree with at all, and am surprised you did.

 

Thanks for the kind words, by the way. I'm humbled.

[Lee Fitzsimmons]

Dude, let's drop it...

 

Okay?

 

Let's just agree to disagree...

 

I'm getting tired of this discussion, so let's just shake hands and walk away.

 

Okay?

 

I've got a bad back and sciatic nerve and have been bedridden for the better part a year now, which is why this thread with "bedroom" in the title caught my attention.

 

I can't play live gigs anymore, and this whole argument is giving me unneccesary stress...

 

So for God's sake, man...

 

Let's just drop it?

 

Okay?

[BlueStrat]

 

Dude, let's drop it... Okay? Let's just agree to disagree... I'm getting tired of this discussion, so let's just shake hands and walk away. Okay? I've got a bad back and sciatic nerve and have been bedridden for the better part a year now, which is why this thread with "bedroom" in the title caught my attention. I can't play live gigs anymore, and this whole argument is giving me unneccesary stress... So for God's sake, man... Let's just drop it? Okay?

 

 

No one's forcing you to reply, are they? But you're right, so consider it dropped.

Sorry to hear about your back. I had a knee replacement a few years ago that didn't work out, and they want to redo it but I can't afford 3 months off work. Chronic pain is a way of life for me, so I don't envy you.

[Next Direct]

Good points Poker99,

 

‘Art’ and ‘entertainment’ aren’t synonymous, and the amount of effort and work that goes into a piece can certainly be a testament to its perceived “greatness” in the eye of the beholder, so I would always make an allowance for that. But then again, I’ve never spoken to any of those songwriters who provide the hits these stars use. If it were just as easy as slapping together a few tunes, how come there is an 80% rate of failure? There are lots of variables to account for (who the artists is; their persona; promotion, etc.) but no one has discovered a ‘tried and tested’ song structure that will win over people’s ears every time. Maybe it’s more difficult to create these songs (that become popular) than we think because even if you do write more in-depth music, that alone doesn't mean people will like it either.

 

I myself think that much of music is subjective and can only be graded using a reference group. But I was reading a piece about how some sociologists tried to argue that Britney Spears and Beethoven are equally valid because value is in the eye of the beholder. But what this author was saying is that while you could probably find many female vocalists and songwriters who could do what Spears can do (how many people can sing and dance like Spears? -- in a world of billions of people, the answer is, many) whereas not very many people can do what Beethoven could. How many people can write what Beethoven wrote? Not many. But how many professional songwriters could you find to write one of Spears' tunes? Much more people. It's not really an argument over the musical merits of classical to pop but more about the labour and rarity of innate abilities involved.

 

I’ve taken part in many debates about taste, and why piece of work this is better than that, but I never once thought I was “right” about any of it, just giving my opinion. Subjective discussions have their place, but I suppose you can only go so far until you realise what they are… subjective. One man’s wine is another’s plonk and so forth. If people utter these phrases then they have to be prepared to take them to their logical conclusion, especially when it applies to tastes they don’t like.

 

I just think there is an element of elitism involved because what tends to be the most popular is often shrugged by a certain group of audiophiles who pride themselves as having “better” taste than other people. I guess this is human nature.

 

I certainly don’t have much time for the latest American Idol winner, but obviously lots of people do. These entertainers are providing a service to millions of people, so it’s a little insensitive to label them all idiots who have no taste whatsoever. It’s very tempting to label today’s Joe public as some meandering ignoramus who doesn’t know good music when they hear it but when you look back to the “golden years” of music, there was an awful lot of crap then too. You only need to watch one of those “Where Are They Now?” TV shows full of one hit wonders and bands that were predicted as being the next big thing, but flopped.

[BlueStrat]

 

It’s very tempting to label today’s Joe public as some meandering ignoramus who doesn’t know good music when they hear it but when you look back to the “golden years” of music, there was an awful lot of crap then too. You only need to watch one of those “Where Are They Now?” TV shows full of one hit wonders and bands that were predicted as being the next big thing, but flopped.

 

 

Too true. When I was a kid, we had great songs like "Sugar Sugar" by the Archies, "The Night Chicago Died", "Winchester Cathedral", "I'm Henry The 8th", "Snoopy and the Red Baron", "Disco Duck", "Yummy Yummy Yummy", "Sometimes When We Touch", "Indian Lake," the list goes on and on and on.

[marketgarden]

Longtime lurker, first-time poster. What better topic to lose my virginity on?

 

As struggling musician and highly successful cynic, there is much in this thread I identify with. To the discussion, I can add this: there is no way to "get noticed." No one can facilitate having something happen to them. Whether anyone notices you or me depends on variables beyond our control. It's like asking "how do I get better luck?" All any of us can do is place ourselves in the path of people who might like the music we make and hope for the best. And even if you brilliantly market your work, there is always the possibility that people will still fail to notice it for reasons passing description or explanation. And I don't say that as a knock on the shifting and often inexplicable tastes of the music-listening public. There is a great deal of music that didn't speak to me the first time I heard it, but then I fell madly in love with it several years later. In that sense, nothing's changed in the music biz. Countless great musicians were completely overlooked in their own times. Hell, J S Bach's music was regarded as passe by many of his contemporaries while he was alive. His "Brandenburg Concertos" (as they were titled only later) were effectively a job application to the Margrave of Brandenburg for a court composer position. He not only didn't get the job, but the Margrave never even acknowledged receipt and the scores sat in his possession for 13 years until the Margrave's death before being rediscovered. (Nice to know I share something in common with Bach.) Some speculate that the Margrave ignored the scores because they were too technically demanding and complex for his court musicians to handle. Still think things have changed? I suppose it is natural to assume that in the modern age, technology should help speed up and simplify the process of discovering new music, but in many ways it is just as hard as it was for Bach. So I guess I go into the music game with this in mind: if it was hard for Bach to get noticed, how hard will it be for some dope like me?

 

Also, I agree about playing live. There is a personal connection associated with playing in front of people on a stage that really helps music find its audience. People are bombarded with music constantly (commercials, background music in stores, the radio, Internet, etc.) -- what all that music lacks is something that helps connect a person with the music. Being onstage in front of an audience (some of whom might actually be listening) can help tear down the technology barrier. I've had people ignore music I've put online, hear the same song live and suddenly connect with it and download the track. Buzzed in a bar on a Friday night often finds the listener in a better mood than surfing the Internet during a lunch break at work.

 

Just my two cents....

[Next Direct]

On the subject of prediciting what will be popular based on good material...

 

It may suprise many of you to learn that Jerzy Kosinsky's bestselling novel 'Steps' was rejected by all 27 publishers it was sent to under a different name and title (by some practical joker), including Random House who originally published it! It was a proven hit, and even the publishing house who originally published it sent a rejection letter. It's a good example on how randomness and bad judgements are as common, maybe even more so, than successful ones whether or not good material was present.

 

Lots of musicians thought they had a winning song or album and were simply proven wrong. It's all well and good for us to look back at them in hindsight and say, “those just weren't good songs”, but that's why they say hindsight is always 20-20. We humans often behave as if we can control choice events and when a stroke of good fortune comes our way, the pattern-seeking primate brain connects the dots and attributes the result to ourselves. It is so easy to concoct stories explaining the past or to become confident about dubious scenarios for the future.

 

I have seen people give advice to aspiring musicians to the tune of, if you believe in yourself, you can achieve your dreams, etc, etc. It's too New Age for my liking.

 

Can anyone here honestly predict what the next trend in music will be? As Leonard Mlodinow says, we believe we know why an album did well, or a movie flopped, or someone won an election, a soccer team lost a match, or a new product failed but such expertise is empty in the sense that it is of little use predicting when an album will do well, or a movie will flop, or someone will win an election, a soccer team will lose, or a new product will fail.

[Poker99]

 

I certainly don’t have much time for the latest American Idol winner, but obviously lots of people do. These entertainers are providing a service to millions of people, so it’s a little insensitive to label them all idiots who have no taste whatsoever.

 

 

I would never do that though, but I would be ready to debate. I think there is a difference between being a douche and being confident enough in our knowledge of music to form an opinion about it. I wouldn't say I'm a big expert in music, but I'm clearly more "informed" and have been exposed to more music than the average dude. I think this still have value.

 

I will always respect the knowledge of someone who studied/worked in something more than I have. When I hear and see great musicians, or people who know more about music than I do, I don't feel threatened. I feel humbled. When you think about it, what is really stupid and arrogant is some average music fan telling a long time musician that he doesn't know {censored} about music and that everything is about taste. THAT is stupid imo, and encouraging mediocrity.

[Next Direct]

I might respect someone who has spent years in college learning about the various great composers but that only makes their knowledge base of said music vast, it doesn’t make their taste more ‘correct’ or superior. How many of us would grow weary of listening to some film student buff waffling on about some foreign art house flick that was “masterfully compelling, poignant and utterly extravagant” when we just want to sit through Inception and enjoy the movie? Yes, the learned student may have been exposed to more art/film/music, but what they think of that media doesn’t necessarily trump someone else’s thoughts on something else. It’s just a different frame of reference.

 

 

IWhen you think about it, what is really stupid and arrogant is some average music fan telling a long time musician that he doesn't know {censored} about music and that everything is about taste. THAT is stupid imo, and encouraging mediocrity.

 

 

I think putting “doesn’t know {censored} about music” alongside “everything is about taste” is a false dichotomy. Obviously, people can know a lot of the many pieces of music that are considered great and at the same time, can still appreciate that it’s subjective taste at the end of the day. For every complex, intricate and in-depth piece of music which showcases brilliance, there are probably just as many which display simplistic and emotive patterns. Case in point: Mozart’s ‘Requiem’ and John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’.

 

The other thing is that the public tend not to like overly complex music. The more intricate it gets the less numbers of people who listen to it. I don't think that's ever going to change.

[Poker99]

Beethoven was way hip back then. Now we have Justin Bieber.

[daddymack]

In 300 years, no one will write a song titled 'Roll Over, Bieber'...

[Next Direct]

Exactly.

 

Beethoven and all the other greats will be remembered through ages. JB will one day become just another blip on the pop culture landscape, relegated to the “where are they now?” category. It’s like you say; there’s art, and then there’s entertainment.

 

Beethoven was no doubt, great ‘entertainment’ for the bourgeoisie but culture has changed over the years and tastes do not exist in a vacuum. The fact that there are so many styles of music emerging, and at such a frantic pace due to the democratisation of technology, might also explain a few things regarding the current state of music and its value.

 

I’m finally getting to finish off Bourdieu’s ‘Distinction’, which has certainly been a tough, but humbling read. From an amazon review:

 

 

'Distinction' is the product of several studies and is an attempt to trace the links between a person's position in social space and their judgement of 'taste', what is 'tasteful' and 'desirable' and so on; but, in addition to this, it is an examination of how different groups in society try to define their particular styles and aesthetics and promote them as 'legitimate'. Bourdieu draws on data pertaining to many areas of life: eating and drinking, choices in clothing, music, holidays, and all sorts of other lifestyle practices - even down to the way people interact and comport themselves (he speaks, for example, of 'the slow, measured, confident delivery of the old bourgeoisie'). He shows how different groups engage in different practices - so that, for example, one class fraction might attend a football match while another would prefer to visit an art gallery, and explains why this is so. Another part of the book deals with the development of the refined sense of aesthetics possessed by those who claim to be 'cultured'.

 

 

The book describes how a person's taste is a product not just of their own innate desires, but is something that comes from that person's position in the social field. I very much doubt millionaires listen to techno or rave music, and instead, tend to enjoy classical, jazz and more refined styles. There's a reason why country music is more popular in certain US states too and so forth.

 

That said, with more access to music today, young people are certainly more open-minded.

[ermghoti II]

In 300 years, no one will write a song titled 'Roll Over, Bieber'...

 

No, some middle aged guy with a windowless van is penning that one right now.

[Poker99]

 

That said, with more access to music today, young people are certainly more open-minded.

 

 

Not sure about that. Young people now have the option to listen to stuff they like 100% of the time on their iPods, and avoid everything else. There is a challenge involved in music discovery. Most people are too lazy to take that challenge. They take the easy part, they listen to stuff they know, to styles they know.

 

Radio made me discover lots of bands that I didn't like at first. Same thing with albums ; After a few listen I quite often ditched the singles to fall in love with the more obscure stuff. Also my parents made me listen to music I wouldn't have by myself, and after a while, I started to like it.

 

Most kids today are not listening to radio as much and they download hit singles...

[BlueStrat]

 

Not sure about that. Young people now have the option to listen to stuff they like 100% of the time on their iPods, and avoid everything else. There is a challenge involved in music discovery. Most people are too lazy to take that challenge. They take the easy part, they listen to stuff they know, to styles they know. Radio made me discover lots of bands that I didn't like at first. Same thing with albums ; After a few listen I quite often ditched the singles to fall in love with the more obscure stuff. Also my parents made me listen to music I wouldn't have by myself, and after a while, I started to like it. Most kids today are not listening to radio as much and they download hit singles...

 

 

Truth. I have said this so many times I sound like a broken record (that's one of those flat vinyl thingies with grooves in it, kids, that we used to drop a needle into on a turntable....oh, never mind). IT is now for the first time in modern history possible for a young person to never have to be exposed to any music they don't want to hear for longer than the few seconds it takes for them to hear a sample of it and dismiss it. As a kid, my parents had the color tv/stereo console unit as the centerpiece of the living room. They listened to country and big band records. I didn't much care for it, but they played it a lot, so I listened to it a lot. There were 3 channels on TV, so we watched a lot of variety shows like Ed Sullivan, Johnny Cash, Red Skelton, Glenn Campbell Show, Smothers Brothers, etc. They all had musical gusts that I watched. There was nothing else on.

 

Radio? We had two 'rock' stations, one AM and one FM. They played everything from Aretha Franklin and the Supremes to Black Sabbath and Deep Purple, Hendrix, Zep, Cream, Allman Bros, and pop stuff as well. In short, it covered a wide variety of genres on one station, and we listened to it a lot because, again, it's all there was.

 

The irony of today is that we have more choices and more availability of music than ever before, with more people not having to hear it than ever before.

 

My theory (and it's only that) is that the sheer volume of stuff out is overwhelming and people can't keep up with it, and quit trying. Back in the early 70s when I started high school, there was a prevailing theory in education that boundaries were confining to the imagination and freedom of expression, so schools started experimenting with removing them. Our new high school was built with no back walls on the classrooms, so the backs of the students faced the open hallway, and in elementary schools playground fences were removed to make the kids feel less penned in. Sounds good in theory, but what happened was th opposite. Elementary school kids started using less of the playground, huddling more toward the middle, being unsure where the boundaries were. Likewise, in the high school, we were easily distracted by sounds, movement, and so on in the halls, and some kids just were not comfortable without that back wall. They ended up a few years later walling the rooms in and putting fences back on the playgrounds.

 

The point is, too much freedom of choice is at some point overwhelming to most people. When I go shopping, I almost hate to go anymore, whether it's sorting through CDs at a pawn shop or buying mayonnaise at the grocery store, because there is just so much of it to sort through it becomes a mind numbing chore.