Reality check about a life in music...

[brandonbass]

 

Originally posted by cooterbrown I would take Billy Joe Armstrong's songwriting talent over Doug Pinnick's skill as a bassist and vocalist, any day...no questions asked. I saw a couple of comments from "serious musicians" in this thread, slamming Green Day as basically disposable music, while lauding the unappreciated talents of King's X. The "serious musicians" will guffaw, point fingers, and claim insanity or sacriledge (all the more ironic that when I was a pretentious teen, I was one of "them"), but the reality of the way the music biz works is this: It is the *truly gifted* that can write a three - to - four minute hit that speaks to millions as opposed to the *talent* it takes to write a twelve-minute technological nightmare with dime-turning time signature changes and hypersonic wank-a-rama musical masturbation in the vein of Dream Theater's "Glass Prison". That's all it is...songwriting ability. I like a good bit of King's X, but I have the patience to listen to them. Most people don't. They traded a lot in the Zeppelin/Rush form of rock music (plus the cool factor of being great harmony singers), but Ty and Doug *never* wrote a guitar riff with a hook like "Black Dog", or "Limelight", and that was their disconnect with a wider audience.

 

 

I agree with you man. I hate how people bash greenday just cause they're mainstream,catchy and doesnt play complex stuff non-musicians couldnt understand anyway. So by your logic dream theater would be a much better band than Led Zep, Aerosmith etc.

 

And about the music industry, alot of it is based on image. Do you think motley crue would sell records if nikki sixx and tommy lee were dorks and never got drunk once in their life?

 

Another thing you have to know, these bands are trying to sell their albums to the general public. And I can tell you not a huge percentage of them are muscians....so they wouldnt listen to those 'deep' music. Thats the reality, sad but true.

[ConcertPhotoZin]

Originally posted by cooterbrown ..... but Ty and Doug *never* wrote a guitar riff with a hook like "Black Dog", or "Limelight", and that was their disconnect with a wider audience.

 

and green day, hoobastank, etc. have

 

i'd still take gretchen goes to nebraska over all of green day's albums and consider it a must have in any rock collection as led zep iv and moving pictures.

 

the real fact is that king's x never did get the video push on mtv that green day and other's did.

 

if led zep and rush started today - how much vid and radio exposure would they get. i wonder if they would be nothing more than just getting by bands with passionate cult followings and live shows?

 

p.s. as far as "seriously gifted" writing mass music - you're sounding quite haughty and self-important as the full of themselves 'serious musicians' your overgeneralized remark is meant to spite.

 

you write as if you want to be reasonable. then please consider it reasonable that the truth is in the middle - it takes some talent but not necessarily gifted talent. though indeed, some of the mass stars do inject and do have artistic talent.

 

and artistic talent is not the same as commercial talent [ability to just know what a mass will go for].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ConcertPhotoZin]

 

Originally posted by Comic_God Spoken like a true Musician... Problem is people like us are not the buying power of the music industry. The average Joe cannot digest complex or out of the box music. ..... .

 

 

average joes? you mean 10 to 20 year olds?

 

what we need to see is the demographics behind certain artists and if heavily swayed to the young, as i suspect, figure out why older - 30 pluses aren't buying and supporting new artists, despite having strong numbers themselves.

[ConcertPhotoZin]

 

Originally posted by brandonbass So by your logic dream theater would be a much better band than Led Zep, Aerosmith etc.

 

 

whether or not they're a better band, green day would still likely outsell them and get more of a push from radio and video, if led zep and aerosmith started today.

 

led zep, aerosmith would likely be like dream theater - not getting much radio play and no video play - but having a passionate live and cult following.

[Delle_Rose]

 

Originally posted by shredfit Firstly, compairing King's X to Green Day is like compairing Albert Einstein, Linus Pauling, or Stephen Hawking to the flunky's that do work at Burger King.

 

 

etc... everyone knows the post by now.

 

And I have to disagree. First of all, EVERYONE knows who Albert Einstein, Linus Pauling, and Stephen Hawking are. Everyone respects them, few doubt their intelligence, and even people who don't know what the hell they actually do/did know their names. How many mediocre scientists sitting in a university lab can you say that about?

 

The basics of music still exist... melody is universal, to most everyone's taste (some exceptions, yes - the early 1900s were nuts). Given I'm not too familiar with King's X (only heard a few songs), but from my experience, Green Day has a FAR stronger sense of melody.

 

Everything else is an acquired taste. Personally, I don't like metal, and rarely do I like bonafide hard rock, no matter how melodic (for the record, I actually despise Led Zeppelin, who seem to be an example of "good music that wouldn't have mass appeal today" in this thread). Nothing against it - just a matter of taste. Green Day obviously has a more universal appeal - whether they're better or not isn't important... the simple fact is the lines are blurred a lot more and you don't really have to be into one particular type of music to like them. And that's not shallow or superficial - it's just accessible. Your joke about the US turning into China was a bit ironic, since it's actually the opposite (well - in this case, anyway). You can't impose Draconian taste/standards on people, and since King's X obviously would only appeal to a specific set, you'd basically have to say "everyone must like hard rock" and voila! King's X would be huge. The fact that Green Day is more popular actually shows a freedom and grace and ease (and fickleness) which isn't possible under any strict laws (of music, or whatever else), since implementing such restrictions generally prevents a quick turnaround of any sort (and America's pop culture has the quickest turnaround there is).

 

I personally love The Church. One of the greatest bands ever. Everything that comes out of Steve Kilbey's mouth and mind and hands is gorgeous. However, I admit it's quite obvious why they never became huge. Their music just doesn't have that wide of an appeal - more than it's gotten maybe, but then you also have to factor in the band's work-ethic (ie: being stoned 24/7, bitching about everything, basic laziness and lack of consideration for promoting their music including an aversion to videos during the MTV boom). But talent alone won't make a band famous, and it's not because the buying market is stupid or shallow or even that they lack taste (it's the case sometimes, but not always)... it's because, with a million different genres and subgenres out there, and every person having individual taste and biases, etc... certain bands are just able to cut to the soul of those tastes and find something that bridges them and reaches far more people.

 

Non-musicians don't care about great musicianship, and so many musicians don't care about anything else. Just because something's complex doesn't make it genius or grant it any depth/substance. It never has and it never will. And just because something's simple doesn't mean it's not worthy of a status along with Dante, Ponce de Leon, and Mozart. Assigning depth based on complexity would be shallow and missing the bigger picture - feeling, grace, what's real and absolutely unreal, what's true and what should be true, etc... (insert long Wilde-wanking aesthetic rant).

 

Fin.

[gtrbass]

I think everything is getting far off track from where I was going when I started this thread. This isn't about commercial accessibility or why Joe Schmo likes Green Day over Dream Theatre. It's about the financial viability of having a career as a professional musician.

 

Let's limit this strictly to Rock music and ignore straight pop, Country, jazz, etc. 20 or 30 years ago, there was room for everyone. You had the Aerosmith, Foreigner, Peter Frampton, Kiss, or whoever selling lots of records, and you also had King Krimson, Rush, UK, or whoever. (OK Let's NOT derail this by quibbling over my choice of examples.) The point is you had artists with distinct popular appeal to Joe Normal, AND you had artists who performed more adventurous music to a smaller audience. Obviously then as now, the artist(s) with mass popular appeal will do far better financially.

 

The difference right now which is what Doug is pointing out is that the middle class in professional music is GONE. You are either making substantial revenue or virtually nothing at all. I know this to be absolutely true because of the circles I travel in.

Every act has a period of financial growth and later of recession. This is always how it has been. An act that is mis-managed, failing to recognize their recession period and not scaling back expenses appropriately will go bust. King's X did that. They went from a Prevost to an econoline. They went from the Hilton to Motel 6. They have gotten as lean and mean as you can get to stay economically viable.

 

My primary reason to initate this thread is to point out the realities of a career in music. King's X whether you like them or not, had a unique sound. They had a real major label push and it never took hold on the scale that many had hoped. They are now at the sunset of their existence due to the financial inability to continue. This is the reality. Everyone thinks they "have what it takes". The truth is that there are so many factors which the musican does not control that will influence whether you can actually make a living at this. In the past it was possible for many to survive on the periphery of fame and that is no longer an option. IMHO that is not healthy for growth of the art of making music.

[Meatball Fulton]

Originally posted by Comic_God what they have that Kings X doesn't have is music that Hooks REALLY hard, age, and advertising

 

Well, actually just AGE. Have you guys actually heard King's X? They have a heavy sound, good melodies, strong vocals with harmonies and plenty of hooks.

 

Why are they not making it?

 

----> NO HIT SONGS ON THE RADIO

 

Period.

 

Rock acts that are financially successful long-term must have a string of popular songs. Even Steely Dan had a half dozen top 40 hits and they're hardly a bunch of punk posers.

 

As far as all this BS about why KX should be expecting success, I can tell you I gig with a number of full-time pros who have recordings out on major labels, have toured Europe and Japan, get radio airplay and press coverage, etc. and STILL do $30 a man pickup gigs, weddings and whatever else they can scare up when they are back in town to help pay the bills. If you're lucky maybe you'll die before you go bankrupt.

 

It's a real eye opener to be standing on stage with a guy whose records you've listened to for decades and realize he's getting the same $50 as you are at the end of the night.

 

Musicians are expected to pay for all the expenses, take all the risks so that OTHERS can profit from the music they create. Welcome to capitalism

[gtrbass]

 

Originally posted by Meatball Fulton Musicians are expected to pay for all the expenses, take all the risks so that OTHERS can profit from the music they create.

 

 

Amen.

 

Well said.

[Delle_Rose]

Originally posted by Meatball Fulton Rock acts that are financially successful long-term must have a string of popular songs. Even Steely Dan had a half dozen top 40 hits and they're hardly a bunch of punk posers. Musicians are expected to pay for all the expenses, take all the risks so that OTHERS can profit from the music they create. Welcome to capitalism

 

Not every major act has a string of hit songs. Most, yeah... but there are exceptions.

 

And yes, musicians are expected to pay the expenses and take risks while someone else profits - and in most ways, capitalism blows. However, the flipside of that is it's all tax deductable (from instruments to recording equipment to phone bills to rent to gas money and miles to hotel bills - anything used for music/business, even if not exclusively, is deductable). So with a few tricks it can about even out.

[BlueStrat]

Originally posted by Delle_Rose etc... everyone knows the post by now. And I have to disagree. First of all, EVERYONE knows who Albert Einstein, Linus Pauling, and Stephen Hawking are. Everyone respects them, few doubt their intelligence, and even people who don't know what the hell they actually do/did know their names. How many mediocre scientists sitting in a university lab can you say that about? The basics of music still exist... melody is universal, to most everyone's taste (some exceptions, yes - the early 1900s were nuts). Given I'm not too familiar with King's X (only heard a few songs), but from my experience, Green Day has a FAR stronger sense of melody. Everything else is an acquired taste. Personally, I don't like metal, and rarely do I like bonafide hard rock, no matter how melodic (for the record, I actually despise Led Zeppelin, who seem to be an example of "good music that wouldn't have mass appeal today" in this thread). Nothing against it - just a matter of taste. Green Day obviously has a more universal appeal - whether they're better or not isn't important... the simple fact is the lines are blurred a lot more and you don't really have to be into one particular type of music to like them. And that's not shallow or superficial - it's just accessible. Your joke about the US turning into China was a bit ironic, since it's actually the opposite (well - in this case, anyway). You can't impose Draconian taste/standards on people, and since King's X obviously would only appeal to a specific set, you'd basically have to say "everyone must like hard rock" and voila! King's X would be huge. The fact that Green Day is more popular actually shows a freedom and grace and ease (and fickleness) which isn't possible under any strict laws (of music, or whatever else), since implementing such restrictions generally prevents a quick turnaround of any sort (and America's pop culture has the quickest turnaround there is). I personally love The Church. One of the greatest bands ever. Everything that comes out of Steve Kilbey's mouth and mind and hands is gorgeous. However, I admit it's quite obvious why they never became huge. Their music just doesn't have that wide of an appeal - more than it's gotten maybe, but then you also have to factor in the band's work-ethic (ie: being stoned 24/7, bitching about everything, basic laziness and lack of consideration for promoting their music including an aversion to videos during the MTV boom). But talent alone won't make a band famous, and it's not because the buying market is stupid or shallow or even that they lack taste (it's the case sometimes, but not always)... it's because, with a million different genres and subgenres out there, and every person having individual taste and biases, etc... certain bands are just able to cut to the soul of those tastes and find something that bridges them and reaches far more people. Non-musicians don't care about great musicianship, and so many musicians don't care about anything else. Just because something's complex doesn't make it genius or grant it any depth/substance. It never has and it never will. And just because something's simple doesn't mean it's not worthy of a status along with Dante, Ponce de Leon, and Mozart. Assigning depth based on complexity would be shallow and missing the bigger picture - feeling, grace, what's real and absolutely unreal, what's true and what should be true, etc... (insert long Wilde-wanking aesthetic rant). Fin.

 

What an eloquent and well-thought out post. Awesome!

 

(and I agree with your assesment of 'the Church'.)

[albert visick]

this isn't exactly relevant to the discussion, but here's the sales chart from RIAA:

 

http://www.riaa.com/gp/bestsellers/topartists.asp

 

each can read this chart and draw their own conclusions, but my personal take on it is that many rock bands like the beatles, zep, floyd and the stones ranked high are also known to have a very long shelf life (i heard a few years back that zep actually has continued selling one million each year in their back catalogues alone, ever since the 80s. i'm pretty sure that's the same with the beatles).

 

it is also interesting that many recent chart toppers are ranking surprisingly low. sure they haven't gotten 30 years to accumulate the number, but i somehow doubt that, for instance, Creed's sales will have steadily gone up 10 years from now.

 

i personally believe that there's no single defining factor in the aforementioned highest ranked artists' music itself, other than the simple fact that them old big names get help from the media. which is also why i don't necessarily buy that the "public" are only interested in hooks and catchy melodies (there are too many exceptions to that rule seen on this chart alone).

 

[edited to fix a sentense; "there's NO single defining factor")

[Kingnome]

Who is Linus Pawling?

[Blackwatch]

 

 

Is your Google broken? Geesh...get someone else to do all the work......

[Subby33]

I would like to add something from another perspective.

 

I have been a music lover ever since I can remember. I love so many different kinds of music, so many styles. I love popular music, and I love music that is not so popular. That being said I think there are a few things that make a band or an artist "unsuccesful".

 

I think the biggest mistake bands make is thinking they can be extremely succesful without making any compromises. Sometimes compromising is a good thing if you think about it. It can open up creative doors that you never thought about before.

 

If you are a guitar wanker and some record exec says "You know, kids are listening to more of an electronic type of sound today, maybe you should try mixing in this type of sound with your music. I think it would work"

 

Well maybe you should listen. Maybe it will work. I hate country music, but if someone told me "I think if you put some twang in your sound it would make things more accesible". Maybe it would. Would it hurt to try? People compromise all the time. You compromise yourself with people you talk to everyday, and you do it to get ahead. People do it to get what they want. I dont go to a job interview and show up in my jeans and put my feet on the table, and thats because I'm trying to make an impression. I think music is the same way. You have to make an impression upon people to make them listen. That includes creating a look, and a sound, and an atmosphere that you might not be comfortable with.

 

When you are in a band, you are already compromising your sound. You cannot play with several different sets of people and expect to sound the same. You work together to come up with something that sounds the best with what you have.

 

I would also like to add, that Kings X although very good, never really has that "hook" to bring a casual listener in. They have great vocal harmonies and they are all great players, but nothing sucks me in. Now go listen to The Beatles. They are not my favorite, but an example everyone can associate with.

 

The beatles were not very good players, their live singing was not very good at all. Their records sound very unpolished (except for sgt peppers) and they are filled with mistakes. Why are they so loved? The hooks. The songs. You can relate to what they are saying, and you can feel the emotion from the songwriting.

 

I heard a new band recently called "Dragonsforce" or something like that I think. Those {censored}ers could PLAY!!! Amazing amazing amazing players. I couldn't beleive what I was hearing. Unforutnately, I will never buy their albums or see their shows, because they did nothing for my "heart".

 

To be succesful I think you have to have a mix of good talent, luck, songwriting skills, charisma, and compromise. If you dont have those things it will just not work. I would say my fave era of music would probably be the 80s, but I know for sure that sound wouldn't sell now. So what do you do? You compromise. Look at what the Smashing Pumpkins did with their 80s influences. They made the song 1979 and sold 8 million records that year.

 

One of the best albums I've heard in a long time is Arcade Fire's Funeral. They never play a guitar solo, the lead singer can barely sing a note, and they are completely amateur at their instruments. But they have the emotional grasp and the hooks that reach out to you immediately.

 

Sorry for the rant. I just wanted to show my point of view. I am not in the music industry and I work in the healthcare field, but I just wanted to state why I feel that Kings X and so many other talented bands will never become rich and famous.

[mdurrie]

I've read most of this fascinating thread, and here are my thoughts: The entertainment business is like no other, and the music part of the business is its weirdest element. Success seems almost random in the way it happens to some and not to others. The one common element in musical artists who reach the high levels is hard, hard, HARD work. This includes long hours and single-minded dedication often to the detriment of other aspects of their lives. And most of this hard work doesn't involve practising their craft. It involves marketing, gigging relentlessly, working a day job so they can get CDs pressed and posters made, putting up those posters and flogging those CDs, updating their websites, and on and on. But even those who do all that and have the gift of talent and put on a great show usually do not make it onto the Billboard charts. There are so many other factors. Maybe you're the wrong age, maybe your style of music was popular three years ago (or will be three years FROM now), maybe you're just not good-looking enough (do not underestimate the power of sex appeal in the video/Internet era). And perhaps the most important is plain old dumb luck -- what else, after all, determines who gets looked at and who gets ignored? Spend an hour or two surfing around MySpace and listen to a couple dozen of the unsigned artists there. There is so much wonderful, amazing music out there it's no wonder most of us have no chance of being heard in a way that could lead to financial success.

As someone else already mentioned, we need to examine how we define "success." I think it's being able to play what we want, when we want. And a day job, folks, REALLY gets in the way of that!

Finally, I have to register my mild disagreement with the poster above who said the Beatles were mediocre musicians. True, they were not virtuosi, but Paul McCartney's bass playing sounds cutting-edge to this day. It's really not yet been equalled in a rock 'n' roll band. George Harrison was too obsessed with playing exactly the correct notes to ever really rip, but he brought a jazz sensibility to the plate that moved rock music away from the blues formula to which it had previously been limited. As for John and Ringo, well, they provided the band with a unique rhythm, a backbeat that never quit. I agree, though, that it was actually the songs themselves, not the playing, that brought the Beatles to the top. And. lest we forget -- luck, looks, age, and hard work.

[goosonique]

But the question is >>are those people turning in big bucks really 'happy' with their lifes ??

 

two question's here ....Who am i ? Why am i here for ?

 

If you can't answer that ..honestly... no matter where (height or dimension) you are at ...start choosing you crashsite.

 

I have known some extremely succesfull people just give and end up in some poor third world country feeding the poor...why???

 

Have a purpose in life and use your talents wisely and money is NOT the measure of success.

 

For me ...father of three and a big dog living in country where you pay for almost everything ....i make enough just to crawl through the month...but i am happy

 

But if you still believe big bucks and fame gonna make you day ....you are right...i wish you all the best..

 

my 2c ..

 

My recommendation for KX...try differant venues ....schools, prison, rehabs.....you will get paid in differant currency:thu:

[gazzer]

 

Originally posted by shredfit What burns me to the core IS, King's X is one of the most musical, talented, artistic, and articulate bands of the past 25 years... and they were chewed up and spit out by the labels... Likely for some young Auto-tuned, Pro Tools, talentless, power chord, pop punk band. The music industry should be ashamed.

 

 

I believe it's the gaggle of consumers who buy cookie cutter music who ought to be ashamed...but then they are just ignorant, and are just following blindly all the media hype, aren't they? Or maybe we ought just to feel sorry for them and start a new civilization, online...

[fetishfrog]

The reality (unfortunately) is that most people have never really learned to listen to music. Therefore, the easy to digest, consumer friendly pop stuff gets the gold. Sound elitest? Perhaps but let's do a little reality check. We are all taught to read from an early age and as a result, we can enjoy the great works of literature from the ages. No 4th grader is working their way through Poe, Dostoyevsky, etc. because they simply lack the education to do so. Same with music. No one who never learned anything about music is going to sit down and absorb a Beethoven symphony the same way as someone who's studied and learned how to listen. Sorry, but it's true, the same way it's true for all arts and their relationship to uneduacted folks. My brother, a brilliant and struggling painter, has it much worse than we musicians. At least we can jam with friends. Arts education has been on the way back burner for a long time and until that changes (which is basically never going to happen...too many things to buy), complex artistic forms will be appreciated by those who have the passion to seek them out. The rest will be for the rest.

[Delle_Rose]

 

Originally posted by goosonique But the question is >>are those people turning in big bucks really 'happy' with their lifes ?? two question's here ....Who am i ? Why am i here for ? If you can't answer that ..honestly... no matter where (height or dimension) you are at ...start choosing you crashsite.

 

 

This actually is brought up a lot, I noticed (and for good reason). One thing I have to say, which doesn't necessarily apply only to music, but really any entrepreneurial endeavor (kinda off-topic, by the way)...

 

There are a lot of different reasons people strive to become rich... it's not just all fame and HUGE but ugly houses in gross upper-class suburban gated communities...

 

That's what attracts some people, yes. The material things the money can buy are definately an attraction to some people (of course, those people usually forget that once you spend the money on those things, you don't have the money anymore, so you better hope the cash-flow that bought those things keeps coming in)

 

Another thing that attracts people is power... the clout and status that comes with money - the crux of politics and most big-business investing.

 

The other, that's often overlooked, is just the security that money brings... the knowledge that once you have it, you never have to worry about it again. If you work your ass off when you're younger and spend just enough to get by (and have a job/venture that pulls in boatloads)... after a few years of that, you don't have to work. You can spend the time and energy on other aspects of your life without having to worry about holding down a job. You can play with your kids and garden and do whatever without worrying how you're gonna eat or how you're going to afford it if someone close to you comes down with a major illness.

 

My mom had a friend in the 80s who was a hairdresser... not some hugely paying job, by any means (unless you're huge, but...). But, from about the age of 20 onward, he saved ALL of his money... he lived in the Tenderloin (possibly the cheapest neighborhood in San Francisco, which at the time was actually slightly dangerous, as opposed to just being seedy now) in the smallest, cheapest apartment he could get. He ate the cheapest food he could buy, bought all thrifted clothes, etc, etc, etc... With the money he saved from being a hairdresser, combined with a little investing, retired by his mid-30s. Obviously that was his goal, and it wasn't so he could buy a mansion (which he doesn't have THAT much money - it was so he could spend the rest of his life not worrying about how he was gonna make ends meet.

 

Everyone needs money... so the argument of choosing between having a life and tons of money always seemed weird to me... because once you have tons of money, you're in a better position to have a life.

[BlueStrat]

 

Originally posted by gazzer I believe it's the gaggle of consumers who buy cookie cutter music who ought to be ashamed...but then they are just ignorant, and are just following blindly all the media hype, aren't they? Or maybe we ought just to feel sorry for them and start a new civilization, online...

 

 

it's a weak artist who blames the consumer for his lack of success.

 

Anyone who enters the arts ought to know that here is a commercial aspect and a creative one. No one is stopping anyone from being as creative and outrageous as they want to be. But once they enter the marketplace, they ought not be surprised that no one is buying if what they are producing isn't what's selling.

 

I have chosen the road less traveled. I once was in a fairly successful cover/original band that made an album in the 80s and toured 6 states and 3 Canadian provinces full time for a few years. I chucked it to do an original and obscure cover blues, funk and R&B horn band. I live in North Idaho, not exactly the hotbed of uptown blues. But I knew that going in. Still, I managed to get a decent rep, do some high profile gigs at festivals and concerts, win some regional awards, and get siome national press. But I'm never going to get rich, or even be able to make any kind of living at all off my music. That's cool. I chose it, and for me to blame the public for not rewarding me for something I, not they, decided they ought to have is juvenile, egotistical, and counter productive. The first rule in any business, music or otherwise, is that if you aren't producing what's selling, you won't sell. Whose fault is that?

 

 

[Brite Eyes]

Originally posted by gtrbass

 

 

Here goes...we never fit in, no matter what we do we can’t get the masses on board, and we’ve done everything there is, I now you all have suggestions of what we could do to get more successful, but we have done everything there is to do! or at least inquired about it all...we just can’t get the folks on board...

 

You can't force things into peoples ears, some music is called commercial because thats what it is "commercially viable". In what other industry is a product successful if it doesn't appeal to the required number of people. Unfortunately not everyone is well educated in music and relates to the simple stuff. The luckiest bands are the ones that have a good balance. If you are in music for the money you have to satisfy the masses and let go of some cred, if you are that passionate about it, accept being a struggling artist and enjoy experiences very few have the opportunity to enjoy.

[Poker]

Originally posted by Subby33 I would like to add something from another perspective. I have been a music lover ever since I can remember. I love so many different kinds of music, so many styles. I love popular music, and I love music that is not so popular. That being said I think there are a few things that make a band or an artist "unsuccesful". I think the biggest mistake bands make is thinking they can be extremely succesful without making any compromises. Sometimes compromising is a good thing if you think about it. It can open up creative doors that you never thought about before. If you are a guitar wanker and some record exec says "You know, kids are listening to more of an electronic type of sound today, maybe you should try mixing in this type of sound with your music. I think it would work" Well maybe you should listen. Maybe it will work. I hate country music, but if someone told me "I think if you put some twang in your sound it would make things more accesible". Maybe it would. Would it hurt to try? People compromise all the time. You compromise yourself with people you talk to everyday, and you do it to get ahead. People do it to get what they want. I dont go to a job interview and show up in my jeans and put my feet on the table, and thats because I'm trying to make an impression. I think music is the same way. You have to make an impression upon people to make them listen. That includes creating a look, and a sound, and an atmosphere that you might not be comfortable with. When you are in a band, you are already compromising your sound. You cannot play with several different sets of people and expect to sound the same. You work together to come up with something that sounds the best with what you have. I would also like to add, that Kings X although very good, never really has that "hook" to bring a casual listener in. They have great vocal harmonies and they are all great players, but nothing sucks me in. Now go listen to The Beatles. They are not my favorite, but an example everyone can associate with. The beatles were not very good players, their live singing was not very good at all. Their records sound very unpolished (except for sgt peppers) and they are filled with mistakes. Why are they so loved? The hooks. The songs. You can relate to what they are saying, and you can feel the emotion from the songwriting. I heard a new band recently called "Dragonsforce" or something like that I think. Those {censored}ers could PLAY!!! Amazing amazing amazing players. I couldn't beleive what I was hearing. Unforutnately, I will never buy their albums or see their shows, because they did nothing for my "heart". To be succesful I think you have to have a mix of good talent, luck, songwriting skills, charisma, and compromise. If you dont have those things it will just not work. I would say my fave era of music would probably be the 80s, but I know for sure that sound wouldn't sell now. So what do you do? You compromise. Look at what the Smashing Pumpkins did with their 80s influences. They made the song 1979 and sold 8 million records that year. One of the best albums I've heard in a long time is Arcade Fire's Funeral. They never play a guitar solo, the lead singer can barely sing a note, and they are completely amateur at their instruments. But they have the emotional grasp and the hooks that reach out to you immediately. Sorry for the rant. I just wanted to show my point of view. I am not in the music industry and I work in the healthcare field, but I just wanted to state why I feel that Kings X and so many other talented bands will never become rich and famous.

 

You're a {censored}ing sellout

 

 

 

[The Dog Boy]

I love King's X....and it has always seemed to me that they are the right band at the wrong time in history. If they had formed in the 70's, I think they would have been HUGE.

 

There exists another possibility......maybe its not the band's fault for being so good....it's the record buying public's fault for being too stupid, shallow and gullible to have even the slightest clue what good rock and roll is all about anymore....they will "digest" whatever mind-numbing pablum the record "Industry" says is good...and the suits have more advertising dollars than they have ever had to shove their vision of "good" music down the public's throat.

 

The great dumbing down of the general public and the overall numbing of the moral sense has destroyed what was once original and exciting about rock and roll....just like Daltrey said in "The Kids are Alright" movie..."Rock and roll ain't got no future....it don't mattah".......

[BlueStrat]

 

Originally posted by The Dog Boy I love King's X....and it has always seemed to me that they are the right band at the wrong time in history. If they had formed in the 70's, I think they would have been HUGE. There exists another possibility......maybe its not the band's fault for being so good....it's the record buying public's fault for being too stupid, shallow and gullible to have even the slightest clue what good rock and roll is all about anymore....they will "digest" whatever mind-numbing pablum the record "Industry" says is good...and the suits have more advertising dollars than they have ever had to shove their vision of "good" music down the public's throat. The great dumbing down of the general public and the overall numbing of the moral sense has destroyed what was once original and exciting about rock and roll....just like Daltrey said in "The Kids are Alright" movie..."Rock and roll ain't got no future....it don't mattah".......

 

 

That's the delusion of every artist who doesn't sell: "Hey, it's not me, it's THEM. " It's pretty egotistical to think that the vast majority of the public are stupid sheep because they aren't buying something someone produces and decides to put up for sale. Maybe no one wants to buy it because it's {censored}, or it's boring, or not very well done, or done to death... just a thought.

[Timothy Scags]

First of all, I am not a professional musician as some of you are. I used to play a bit back when but I gave it up because I was not progressing further in my own abilities. I turned to music journalism instead. Much easier and the pays the same. Terrible.

 

It isn't that Green Day is better than King's X, Hoobastank is better than Nickelback, Band A better than Band B... it is about the ability to change when the market changes. I hear so many musicians say " I only want to play what I like." That gets you absolutely nowhere but playing "your music" to people that only like your style and genre.

 

You have to adapt to the times as some large bands have. A few that come to mind are Green Day that started off strictly as a punk band and moved on to pop, The Rolling Stones who were a blues band and reinvented themselves numerous times and Led Zeppelin, a band that played so many styles of music within an album that they never got classified as only a metal band. One of their biggest songs commercially was Dyer Maker and that was a kind of a blues/country song. Van Halen played different styles because they could and were willing to experiment with different grooves. Ice Cream Man?????? Get my drift?

 

I get so sick of bands playing the same old catchy metal riffs and nothing else. It makes me want to leave the venue with minutes...especially when the warmup bands sound exactly the same as the headliners. I find most musicians are either too afraid to get out of their comfort zone and try new and innovative things or just too pigheaded to adapt to the music world around them. Maybe that is why they are always broke and complaining about never "making" it.

 

Alan Holdsworth's name has been brought up a couple of times on this thread. Truly a virtuoso on the guitar. Look at how many different bands and styles this man has encompassed. Soft Machine, Jean Luc Ponty, The Tony Williams Project in jazz plus the prog rock of UK. He influenced Edward Van Halen, Joe Satriani, Pat Metheny, and John McLaughlin. He played with

Stanley Clarke, Carl Verheyen, Chad Wackerman, Gary Willis, David Hines, K2, Riptyde and Gongzilla. He was willing and able to expand his horizons from one style to the next.

 

He never became a household name in music and I'll bet that half of the young musicians out there right now haven't even heard of this guys name. For the "older" musicians, he has the reputation as a guitar god, but how many of those people have purchased an album that he was on? Why did none of the bands listed ever make it "big"? Maybe the answer is because he never got the breaks he deserved, maybe it was because jazz is not a popular style of music, maybe it is because an instrumentalist as he is just doesn't fit into the category of sell-able music. Could be one of those or a combination of all.

 

He didn't adapt to what the general public wanted. He adapted but not into different styles that were more popular. That was a shame because if he had, more consumers may have heard him play with the technical fervor he exhibited.