Jump to content

Freaking depressing article


Lurko

Recommended Posts

  • Members

At least the article gave the band free publicity. It seems as if they work their asses off on myspace, but I wonder if they've taken the extra step to hire an independent pr firm to pitch their stuff to the radio and press. You're not guaranteed overall "success" , but I used to intern at a pr firm and you're bound to get some recognition by hiring one of them...that is if you're willing to pay the price ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members


The biggest thing to me of the whole Internet boom has been the selling of {censored}ty quality music in the form of MP3s. I hate MP3s. Listening to classical music as an MP3 file is vile. We're deluged right now by digital television, cable high-definition, plasma screens, all these new options for watching pictures yet the sound boom hasn't been Surround Sound, it's been {censored}ty quality MP3s. Nobody in their right mind would buy a product that squashed 100 DVD films onto a small hard drive that you could carry in your pocket on the proviso that those films would be shown in a reduced quality that flung out certain colours or brightness levels. Yet the repackaging of a new format that is worse than the format that preceeded it... that's genius. It's evil genius but it's still genius. Maybe one day people will start to turn against it but I doubt it.

 

 

 

You are 100% correct. I debated weather or not to put my music on myspace because MP3 sounds so bad. What is the point of spending all this time/effort/money mixing in a studio when I see people take my music, rip it onto their computer and listen to it through their cheap laptops speakers. It drives me nuts.

 

/rant over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As far as the large labels are concerned, I found this very interesting as to what they are looking for now with bands.

There was a large "battle of the bands" contest at my nephews high school on the east coast that's now out on DVD. This one attracts a lot of A&R/label people to it. Probably since its close proximity to NYC and this battle has a good rep.

Seniors only bands are allowed to play, but my nephew's band (freshmen) are so good, they were made an exception for and allowed to close the show. One of the bands was signed from it.

But, as I watched my nephew's band (he is an incredible drummer, playing since he was 4 or 5 - I was really stunned watching him on this DVD), I was blown away, because they were the last band to play, the headliner and they had hundreds of kids going nuts in front of them and - this is key here - the girls were screaming nonstop. Screaming - like they used to do with the Beatles. It was fascinating to watch.

When it was over, my brother (his father) told me the Atlantic A&R was so impressed with them, he wants all their new CDs when they record them (most of their set was covers with a couple of great originals) and if they continue to grow, he will sign them upon graduation from high school.

So, I only bring this up because, it almost seems that the criteria the labels are still looking for is - can a band make the girls scream and boys bang their heads - at the same time.

I think bands at this point who get signed to major labels will be a band that a label has been watching since high school. They will be very young.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The average punter who is going to be buying and listening to your music doesn't care about whether the quality is that of mp3 or CD unless they're a pedantic muso who probably won't buy it in the first place anyway. Face it, times are changing and we have to move with these times. Great records that are being released and which people want to buy and steal are those that have a high calibre of songwriting and which create a buzz in todays audience. The Arctic Monkeys shifted around 350,000 CD's last year in the UK - in one week - which goes to show it ain't the end of the road having something tangible out there. Myspace is great in that it has given people more power and choice in what they listen to.

 

I suggest to those who are so worried about the quality the sound of mp3 should be more concerned with their songwriting/vibe on record. I can go listen to Black Flag and love the fact it sounds like it's been recorded through a tin can. If the songs are great, there's a great vibe on record, then you have nothing to worry about if it's mp3 quality. People like marcher5877 are missing the point and are never gonna be able to move with the times if you think with that attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
As far as the large labels are concerned, I found this very interesting as to what they are looking for now with bands.


There was a large "battle of the bands" contest at my nephews high school on the east coast that's now out on DVD. This one attracts a lot of A&R/label people to it. Probably since its close proximity to NYC and this battle has a good rep.


Seniors only bands are allowed to play, but my nephew's band (freshmen) are so good, they were made an exception for and allowed to close the show. One of the bands was signed from it.


But, as I watched my nephew's band (he is an incredible drummer, playing since he was 4 or 5 - I was really stunned watching him on this DVD), I was blown away, because they were the last band to play, the headliner and they had hundreds of kids going nuts in front of them and - this is key here - the girls were screaming nonstop. Screaming - like they used to do with the Beatles. It was fascinating to watch.


When it was over, my brother (his father) told me the Atlantic A&R was so impressed with them, he wants all their new CDs when they record them (most of their set was covers with a couple of great originals) and if they continue to grow, he will sign them upon graduation from high school.


So, I only bring this up because, it almost seems that the criteria the labels are still looking for is - can a band make the girls scream and boys bang their heads - at the same time.


I think bands at this point who get signed to major labels will be a band that a label has been watching since high school. They will be very young.



There is one or two bands like that in every school in America.

We have girls screaming at our shows too. Nothing special.

There are too much {censored}ing bands. :D

I don't know, man. There's a lot of stuff that gets massive promotion and still doesn't hit. Most stuff, in fact. In contrast, bands like Arcade Fire, Clap Your Hands and even the White Stripes all got to the top without a major label buzz machine behind them. Personally, I really like the WS, can't stand Clap and think Arcade is boring. But they're playing stuff that people want to hear, for whatever reason.



Arcade had recognition from David Bowie and other big guns in the industry. I don't know for the WS, but they got a lot of help too, if it wasn't for the fact they play on the radio and TV shows, I wouldn't know about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The problem in this thread is you guys keep debating opinions:

 

Just because a 128kbs and below MP3 sounds crappy to me (and any MP3 to some of you) doesnt mean it sounds crappy to everyone else...Its like debating weather vanilla tastes better than chocolate no matter how many factoids you can think of to support it...

 

The fact is that a lot of the record-listening public doesnt care. If your listening tastes have evolved since the 60s and early 70,s listening to your 45s on a single little speaker on your mono record player (which sounded GREAT to some of you back then), doesnt mean everyone shares your standards of current audio excellence......

 

...Case and point: The trunk-rattling disaster that just drove by my house.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I debated weather or not to put my music on myspace because MP3 sounds so bad.

 

 

I tried to explain this in a post on the previous page... A lot of MP3s are encoded at low bit-rates ( like 64kbs - 128kbs). An anaolgy would be using 28khz to record digital in-board instead of 44.1 khz.

 

MySpace is a bad example: The reason why so many MP3s on MySpace are encoded at lower bit-rates is because they load faster - way faster as a matter of fact - and give the visitor ample enough time to catch a tidbit of music .....The higher-quality MP3s on MySpace take forever to load and may make a visitor miss the oppurtunity to hear because ADD has kicked in and that person didnt want to wait around for the (hi-res) MP3 to load and has moved on......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Arcade had recognition from David Bowie and other big guns in the industry. I don't know for the WS, but they got a lot of help too, if it wasn't for the fact they play on the radio and TV shows, I wouldn't know about them.

 

 

From Wikipedia's AF entry: David Bowie heard the band while on tour and brought them to the attention of label owners. Still without a major label backing, the success of the band and the album Funeral has been acclaimed as an Internet phenomenon. After a 9.7 rating from Pitchfork, Merge Records sold out their inventory of Funeral and it became the label's first album in the Billboard 200 chart.[3] The band booked small clubs for their 2004 tour but growing interest forced many venue changes, far beyond the band's expectations, and continued internationally into mid-2005 throughout the United States, Canada, Europe, and the SummerSonic Festival in Japan.

 

And the WS entry: Their second release, De Stijl (2000), was named after the De Stijl (The Style) Dutch art movement, which they cited as a source for the approach to their musical image. De Stijl art is on the album cover. The work was recorded on an 8-track analog tape in Jack's living room; he said that, because of the many interruptions during the recording, he would never use that technique again.

 

The article goes on to say that White Blood Cells was released on Sympathy for the Record Industry in '01 and then re-released on a major in '02. I remember reading an interview with Jack White, and he mentioned that they didn't have a manager, lawyer or booking agent as of the release of WBC.

 

And Clap: They are notable for achieving their initial fame and commercial success via the Internet rather than through a record label. Shortly after the release of their first album, they received attention from numerous MP3 blogs and a favorable review from Pitchfork Media, who gave the band a "Best New Music" commendation. The ensuing demand for the album was so great that the band was forced to repress the CD, as the initial production run was too small. They garnered even more press after David Bowie and David Byrne were spotted at some of the band's shows in 2005. [2] [3]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

People like marcher5877 are missing the point and are never gonna be able to move with the times if you think with that attitude.

 

 

 

 

I have absolutly zero interest in being able to 'move with the times.' You can tell by the music I play that popularity is not my goal. Sounding good is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Worked for the major labels in NY. Gotta tell you one of the best kept secrets...They have no idea what makes a hit song or the next sensation. The dudes at the top scatch their heads on a regular basis.


That is why they started inventing people like Billy Ray Cyrus, New Kids on the Block and who was it?? Millie Vanillie? Some talentless kids trying to lip sych their way to pop fame. From the ground up. Pure marketing. His first concert in Radio City, he had to sing the Star Spangled Banner 4 times because he didn't have enough songs to do a concert.

American Idol is simply a public version of what they can do now, create a star. Makes no dif. if they have talent.

That is why they are freakin' about the internet, indi labels, myspace and all that can be done without them. Great music has to climb out of the clubs in Boston, Seattle and the like.

Thank God for the internet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 


There was no such thing as a rock star before the '60s.

 

 

Au contraire, mon frere.

 

Buddy Holly, Elvis, Richie Valens, the Big Bopper, Bill Hailey and the Comets, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, and yes, even guys like Pat Boone and Ricky Nelson were considered Rock Stars, all before 1960.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I went and listened to their songs on myspace. I find it odd that other people didn't at least give them a listen. My conclusion was that they don't really have any shot of making it. Very forgettable/generic songs which are covered in over-the-top modern production. Nothing at all to make them stand out from the pack. That isn't to say they'd be awful if you saw them at a bar, just that it wouldn't be anything great.

As to the broader point, I think it's really just the case that musicians haven't yet figured out how to adapt and use the internet completely to their benefit. Eventually it may happen. I recently read a biography of Dizzy Gillespie which talked about how at the end of 1940s, social changes brought about the end of the big band era. With the advent of the post WWII suburbs and TV there just weren't enough crowds for touring big bands. The musicians of the day adapted and formed smaller groups. They also started focusing more on recordings. Eventually, some people are going to find a new formula that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


I suggest to those who are so worried about the quality the sound of mp3 should be more concerned with their songwriting/vibe on record. I can go listen to Black Flag and
love
the fact it sounds like it's been recorded through a tin can. If the songs are great, there's a great vibe on record, then you have nothing to worry about if it's mp3 quality. People like marcher5877 are missing the point and are never gonna be able to move with the times if you think with that attitude.

 

 

+1

 

I only listen to MP3s now on my iPod. It's the only time I have to listen to music, and you know what? The quality is fine. It's a damn sight better than cassettes and scratchy vinyl, that's for sure. I mean, who sits in their "listening room" with $1,000 headphones and a $3000 tube stereo/turntable these days?

 

This ain't rocket science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

+1


I only listen to MP3s now on my iPod. It's the only time I have to listen to music, and you know what? The quality is fine. It's a damn sight better than cassettes and scratchy vinyl, that's for sure. I mean, who sits in their "listening room" with $1,000 headphones and a $3000 tube stereo/turntable these days?


This ain't rocket science.

 

 

I agree.

 

It's just a shame production is slipping backwards instead of forwards. I think that's the problem the naysayers have.

We hit our peak in the late 70's. Vinyl was the best sounding, but most inconvenient medium. Cassettes were noisy, but simple enough and very convenient by comparison. I held off getting into CD's until the 90's, actually, and think they're damn convenient and plenty decent enough sounding. But then again, I'm a BIG fan of the more traditional 'album.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I agree.


It's just a shame production is slipping backwards instead of forwards. I think that's the problem the naysayers have.

We hit our peak in the late 70's. Vinyl was the best sounding, but most inconvenient medium. Cassettes were noisy, but simple enough and very convenient by comparison. I held off getting into CD's until the 90's, actually, and think they're damn convenient and plenty decent enough sounding. But then again, I'm a BIG fan of the more traditional 'album.'

 

 

 

+1000

 

I was listening to a radio station while on a long drive a week ago, and they were playing mostly stuff from the early to late 70s. I was amazed at how great it sounded even over the radio, song after song, how fat the bass was, how cool the highs sounded, and how great the production was. The instrumentation was separated nicely and the 'imaging', or placement of things in the mix, was generally quite good. Then I lost that station, and found a modern rock station. Holy crap, it sounds likse ass in comparison. The cymbals are all hissy, the bottom end is mushy, and the guitars all sound like they're in the next room, because everything is so compressed to make it sound loud. Everything sounds on the verge of clipping.

 

I have MP3s of stuff from the 70s and they don't sound nearly as bad as the mp3s of the newer stuff I have from the mid-90s on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I found some hotspur music on youtube. The band sucks. Extremely poppy generic crap. The band isn't that tight and like someone said a while back the keyboard player is a little over the top. How did they get on the warped tour? I thought that was a punk concert.



i think 'getting on the warped tour' sounds a little more impressive than it is. my band got on the warped tour back in '03. we were alright but not *that* great. :thu:
http://www.myspace.com/minimaleffortpunk

we won a contest to get a spot. but at least it was punk rock! i don't know what's happened to warped tour since then. but hey, that's the 'music biz', things evolve i guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I do agree with what all you guys are saying about production and do sympathise with you. Even when listening to songs on our band iPod in the van on the way to gigs, it is only the songs from the 60/70/80s and occasionally early 90's which you can play loud through our {censored}ty stereo. All modern stuff just distorts at such low volumes and this is all on mp3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I found some hotspur music on youtube. The band sucks. Extremely poppy generic crap. The band isn't that tight and like someone said a while back the keyboard player is a little over the top. How did they get on the warped tour? I thought that was a punk concert.

 

 

Generic crap is what is selling. Simple Plan are much worse than them, but sold millions of albums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

+1


I only listen to MP3s now on my iPod. It's the only time I have to listen to music, and you know what? The quality is fine. It's a damn sight better than cassettes and scratchy vinyl, that's for sure. I mean, who sits in their "listening room" with $1,000 headphones and a $3000 tube stereo/turntable these days?


This ain't rocket science.

 

 

 

A set of decent studio quality cans will set you back $200. A decent stereo cost me $200. My vinyl ain't scratched. Sounds better at home than an iPod.

 

But this is part of the thing. Life speeds up. People work more now. They're willing to accept lower music quality for convenience, no different in my mind to accepting a lower standard of food in the name of convenience (hello McDonalds).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The problem in this thread is you guys keep debating opinions:


Just because a 128kbs and below MP3 sounds crappy to me (and
any
MP3 to some of you) doesnt mean it sounds crappy to everyone else...Its like debating weather vanilla tastes better than chocolate no matter how many factoids you can think of to support it...


The fact is that a lot of the record-listening public doesnt care. If your listening tastes have evolved since the 60s and early 70,s listening to your 45s on a single little speaker on your mono record player (which sounded GREAT to some of you back then), doesnt mean everyone shares your standards of current audio excellence......


 

 

 

 

The records back in the day on one-speaker record players were mixed in mono. Go and read the production notes in the Pet Sounds box set and you'll find out. The Beach Boys tracks were designed to sound good on a {censored}ty car stereo. So it's therefore safe to say that those records were mixed for the majority of systems at the time and to the max capability of those systems. There's no regression of audio quality there. With MP3s and iPods, we do have a regression of audio quality. It's marketed as a convenience product. Carry around your record collection but you'll lose some quality.

 

The visual world is different. We're encouraged to go digital, buy cable, the UK goes digital this year I think. Blu-ray is about, high definition TV is the new thing. We're encouraged to upgrade and enjoy better quality pictures. Why is the visual medium getting better but the audio medium is getting {censored}ter? Surround Sound was never really going to work in the home because of speaker location problems. The current top of the line Sony Bravia HD television set has two front speakers for full surround sound. Hmm. Sounds like stereo but slightly messed with to me.

 

If you have a music industry that sells degraded music, that's going to have an effect on how people view music. Free downloads! 99 cent downloads! It's as cheap as a candy bar and just as disposable. Record companies buy into that, they have to have things that sell and so the artistic stagnation begins.

 

My hope is that the live music scene keeps building. In the UK, more gigs go on every year despite some really {censored}ty government regulations that came in a few years ago.

 

Here's the ultimate theory: record companies sell everything on MP3. CDs become secondnature. Then in 20 years time, when our ears are all dulled by listening to too much music that lacks top end frequencies through {censored}ty headphones with toss-awful bass response, the record labels will come out with a new promotion: music that sounds better. Behold! The CD! It sounds better than your iTunes singles!

 

Some people say the average punter doesn't care about what the music sounds like. Arse. The average punter can be made to care if it's promoted properly.

 

Everything evolves though. I read somewhere this week that a single is being released in the UK with a specific mix designed for iPods. I can't remember who or what but it's a start. Maybe it'll mean an evolution in mixing techniques and recording techniques. Someone mentioned the {censored}ty compression put over records now. Amen brother. Ban the limiters, ban the overcompressed bull{censored}, let the music brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrreathe.

 

Y'know, this weekend I'm going to a gig. I haven't been this excited about a gig in ages. I'm going to see a production of Bizet's Carmen with a full orchestra. Rich, powerful sound. I'm really looking forward to that aural treat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I hate to say this becasue the article raises some good points and I dont really want to say its the bands fault, but Im llistening to their myspace and If I was at a show and they were playing I would be at the bar so fast you would not believe. Maybe nodding my head a few times becasue its not bad, but its the least engaging music I've heard in a while.

Its kind of bland enough to be mistaken for commercially viable but I cant imagine anyone getting excited about it at all. You can say "oh, but people like to hear generic inoffensive rock, thats what sells" but even Fallout Boy have at least a little punch to their hooks.

I keep hearing bands like this with the kind of philosophy that if they make it slick and polished and poppy enough the labels will be beating down their door but at the end of the day theres no cure for boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...