How do I get my band's cd reviewed?!?

[The*Ataris]

The problem is, most press outlets won't cover you unless you have an album or ep out. I feel there's this kind of unsaid or covert pressure to release albums and eps...simply because it allows one to gain attention in the press and media.

Again, absolutely!

All media outlets cover things that are newsworthy, period. Otherwise, they're not worth reading, you know? And unfortunately for music groups, only a few things we do are truly newsworthy.

--Album Releases
--Video Releases (though the big ones are having much less of an impact)
--Label Deals
--Licensing Opportunities
--Big Shows
--Tours

...and deaths, arrests, breakups, and other unfortunate events, sadly. Bottom line: bands that do well in the media are the ones that are consistently making themselves newsworthy.

To tell you the truth? The only reason we released this EP was so that we could get a little more press around the summer "award" season here, locally. Recorded and mixed it over a month in our basements, drew up some artwork, mailed it out to some people, and stayed fresh on the brain of some local writers--that's all.

Future marketing projects? "Side" projects (folky acoustic release by the singer and a big beat/jungle release by the drummer and I), dabble with some video equipment (time to make a Youtube presence), drummer has an art opening in a couple of months (more write ups mentioning connections), and on and on and on.

Hopefully all this superfluous crap will build enough steam to release an album and do small a tour by early next year

[Instrospection]

1) You need physical product. Digital cds aren't going to be enough for the major places to get reviewed at, and even the minor major places to be reviewed at. Most places will take a look at your cd and your bio and you'll be lucky if they don't just chuck it in the trash. Think of it from their perspective--cds are almost like junk mail to them. They're unsolicited. How much attention do you pay to junk mail flyers? To them, that's their livelihood, but to you, that's just someone else trying to flog their stuff.

The good stuff finds its way to reviewers' ears. Even the good stuff sees the trash bin sometimes; however, it just finds it's way to the trash bin less than the other cds that reviewers get.

2) A great bio. Not a decent one, a phenomenal one. A great bio is your cover letter on your job application--it explains who you are, what you do, what you're aiming for, and everything else. The bio is your 5 w's and one h....who, what, when, where, why, how. And as many as you can appropriately cram into the first sentence or two.

If you don't have a bio, and if you don't have an effective one, it serves to introduce your recording poorly and ineffectively. If you can't do it yourself (most can't), get someone that you respect to write something. This is so deep in itself that I could go into a ten thousand word essay on what to do and what not to do, but Google "how to write a music bio" or some phrase like that, and many places will tell you how to write an effective one.

3) Network with reviewers with similar musical taste. If you play jazz, sending your cd to a heavy metal reviewer doesn't make much sense. Do your homework--personalize the experience. If you don't know of any reviewers that would be remotely interested in your music, how can you expect anyone else to read that writer's work? It really starts with you. The typical thing these days is to try to do everything right away, but you need to slowly build up a rapport and connection and network with likeminded people....including journalists.

Emails help--sometimes you have to send things into the blue and see if they get reviewed (i've had my band's releases reviewed as late as a half a year after I sent them out), but sometimes, it doesn't hurt to pre-ask the reviewer via a phone call or email, if they'd be interested in reviewing your work, since you play a style that they generally review and like. Keep in mind that they're more likely to give you a better review, because let's face it, music, itself, accounts for less than who you know and who you've befriended. Great music alone won't necessarily get you reviews....it's hard to even get listened to these days, when there's so much competition.

[DrKorey]

marked for later search

[not_unbored]

3) Network with reviewers with similar musical taste. If you play jazz, sending your cd to a heavy metal reviewer doesn't make much sense. Do your homework--personalize the experience. If you don't know of any reviewers that would be remotely interested in your music, how can you expect anyone else to read that writer's work? It really starts with you. The typical thing these days is to try to do everything right away, but you need to slowly build up a rapport and connection and network with likeminded people....including journalists. Emails help--sometimes you have to send things into the blue and see if they get reviewed (i've had my band's releases reviewed as late as a half a year after I sent them out), but sometimes, it doesn't hurt to pre-ask the reviewer via a phone call or email, if they'd be interested in reviewing your work, since you play a style that they generally review and like. Keep in mind that they're more likely to give you a better review, because let's face it, music, itself, accounts for less than who you know and who you've befriended. Great music alone won't necessarily get you reviews....it's hard to even get listened to these days, when there's so much competition.

 

 

IMO, this has been the only useful information the OP has received regarding tips to getting reviews.

 

aside from that kunaki link. that place is great. shut up and do it.

 

you guys make it sound like having an internet only release is going to keep him from getting reviews. isn't that sort of thinking a bit....traditional?:poke:

 

my two cents,

hit the proverbial pavement. go to the review sites and find writers you like and email them a polite letter asking if they'd be interested in listening. nine times out of ten this works. some of them even prefer downloading the music to snail mailed physical copies.

 

regarding the bias opinions of internet review sites and blogs...isn't that what a review is? the opinion of some jerkoff who listened to your tunes?

[WrdsNmuzik]

there are services that can do a blast press-release for you with an EPK (electronic press kit) that inclues a couple of songs. the people on their mailing list can hear a song or two, scan your bio, and then click a link that sends a request for a full CD to your email box. I did that and probably sent out about 70 or so, and I know that led to a few webzine reviews.

 

another way to target publications is to go to the website of a band you like and (think is in your general genre) and see who's reviewed THEM. then send your stuff.

 

That said,

1) I agree that local press is extremely important, but it can also be extremely difficult to get. I live in baltimore and have gotten NO help from the big local college radio station nor from the city paper and its ilk. I've gotten more reviews in frickin ENGLAND than I have in the states.

 

2) one of the online 'zines that reviewed my album wrote: "I need a little something more than acoustic guitar" (an actual quote). I'm baffled why they'd give an album described as folk-rocky blues to such a reviewer, but . . . them's the breaks.

 

there's too much volume out there, webzines are still getting legs, and print magazines are dying the death (look at no depression) because they can't get ad revenue . . . can you say t-r-a-n-s-i-t-i-o-n?

[BlueStrat]

 

IMO, this has been the only useful information the OP has received regarding tips to getting reviews. aside from that kunaki link. that place is great. shut up and do it. you guys make it sound like having an internet only release is going to keep him from getting reviews. isn't that sort of thinking a bit....traditional?:poke: my two cents, hit the proverbial pavement. go to the review sites and find writers you like and email them a polite letter asking if they'd be interested in listening. nine times out of ten this works. some of them even prefer downloading the music to snail mailed physical copies. regarding the bias opinions of internet review sites and blogs...isn't that what a review is? the opinion of some jerkoff who listened to your tunes?

 

 

Good luck getting reviewed by a national mag. Most of the reviewers won't even listen to CDs that still have shrink wrap on them. What makes you think they have any motivation to go look up your links if they've never heard of you?

 

And there is a huge difference between getting reviewed by "some jerkoff who listened to your tunes" and a reviewer for

Rolling Stone, Circus, Maxim, ET Weekly, etc. I play mostly blues. I sent my stuff all over, but the reviews that opened the most doors for me were Blues Access and Blues Revue, both national mags. No one gave a flying crap what the guy from some blues blog had to say. For all the promoters and producers know, it's my cousin Bob who blogs from his basement on weekends. When they can put a national mag quote on their posters and newspaper ads for their shows, it helps you and them.

 

Print media may be in decline, but it ain't dead yet, and so far print reviews carry infinitely more weight than some blog or webzine no one reads.

[sabriel9v]

 

No one gave a flying crap what the guy from some blues blog had to say. For all the promoters and producers know, it's my cousin Bob who blogs from his basement on weekends. When they can put a national mag quote on their posters and newspaper ads for their shows, it helps you and them.

 

 

This may be true, but you have to think about the weight that blogs carry within the blues genre or realm. Blogs and other websites of the like are rather inconsequential to blues artists and fans. But in the indie world (indie rock, post rock, punk, etc.), blogs are HUGE. Many blogs or blog like sites such as Pitchfork Media and Stereogum are often more influential than the Rolling Stones and Blender magazines out there. As an emerging artist, manager, or pr person, it's almost mandatory to contact these people.

[not_unbored]

i'm not arguing that a small webzine is no different from a national print mag.
that would be silly.

just arguing thats its possible to get reviews of an internet only release.

[BlueStrat]

This may be true, but you have to think about the weight that blogs carry within the blues genre or realm. Blogs and other websites of the like are rather inconsequential to blues artists and fans. But in the indie world (indie rock, post rock, punk, etc.), blogs are HUGE. Many blogs or blog like sites such as Pitchfork Media and Stereogum are often more influential than the Rolling Stones and Blender magazines out there. As an emerging artist, manager, or pr person, it's almost mandatory to contact these people.

 

This is probably true.

 

Say, you're a pretty fart smeller....er, I mean, smart feller!:poke:

 

 

 

[BlueStrat]

i'm not arguing that a small webzine is no different from a national print mag. that would be silly. just arguing thats its possible to get reviews of an internet only release.

 

This is true also.

 

See above reference to "smart fellers."

 

[sabriel9v]

This is probably true. Say, you're a pretty fart smeller....er, I mean, smart feller!:poke:

LOL. You're a smart fella too Bluestrat

[Instrospection]

IMO, this has been the only useful information the OP has received regarding tips to getting reviews.... my two cents, hit the proverbial pavement. go to the review sites and find writers you like and email them a polite letter asking if they'd be interested in listening. nine times out of ten this works. some of them even prefer downloading the music to snail mailed physical copies.

 

 

Thanks--and yeah, I agree. That's the only thing that's worked......i'm glad you realized that, too.

 

 

regarding the bias opinions of internet review sites and blogs...isn't that what a review is? the opinion of some jerkoff who listened to your tunes?

 

 

Heh, yeah, ultimately that's true. It just depends on whether it's a "cool guy" (translation: gave a review, got back to you) or "asshole" (translation: bad review or ignored you).

 

In our case, we finally got online distribution through a respected place in our genre, which started out as a review at their website. Since it's been there, sales have been surprisingly good. Getting distro is difficult as {censored}, but if you can prove that you can sell and make them money, it starts to become easier. It's getting over that first hump of proving that you can sell some copies and creating enough of a buzz.

[Instrospection]

 

That said, 1) I agree that local press is extremely important, but it can also be extremely difficult to get. I live in baltimore and have gotten NO help from the big local college radio station nor from the city paper and its ilk. I've gotten more reviews in frickin ENGLAND than I have in the states.

 

 

Really? Hmm. I've found that locally, I hit the radio and charts fairly easily, but I also did my homework and let the people who like that sort of music the heads up. A cover letter addressed to the campus music director is a great idea, and few more bios included with the cd help, too--they're probably at least impressed that you took the time to find out who they are (even if they don't necessarily like your style of music or the music, itself), so they're more likely to get those bios to their individual show hosts.

 

Never underestimate the value of a music director getting the word out to their hosts....they receive TONS of recordings (I used to DJ at campus radio, they get hundreds of discs a week sometimes). I hit the top 30 at quite a few stations, and even hit #1 and got more airplay than some major artists. Mind you, it baffles me a bit how it can go to #1 on one station and hitting high at others and not even register with others, but that's the way the promo juggernaut rolls--sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

 

 

there's too much volume out there, webzines are still getting legs, and print magazines are dying the death (look at no depression) because they can't get ad revenue . . . can you say t-r-a-n-s-i-t-i-o-n?

 

 

Yeah, there's a few transitional things right now until the dust clears. But I think that, in alot of ways, the bands that go above and beyond will stand out even more, if they keep at it every day. Right now, this is a killing frost--a cold winter where alot is sure to die off. I also think that there's a struggle to become a part of that small fraction of artists that can sell or survive. The way that I look at it, there's always been struggles--life vs. death, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, Bubonic Plague, scurvy on ships, Irish potato famine, etc....yet there's always been survivors in small pockets that were either lucky or just very well prepared to squirrel their nuts away until the cold winter subsides. When I think of all the hardship and struggle that other people have had in various things, I think, "i'm {censored}ing lucky to even be well enough to create". In the end, I think that no matter how bad the industry may be, really, the mindset should be that we're lucky that we're able and safe to create and do what we do.

 

For me, it's perennially working a dayjob to support this, but I also have complete creative control and can walk into places and do what I want, and can find places to accomodate budgets or what I need. The liberation of being able to say "no" when I think it's fit and appropriate in order to offer quality, and to offer 100 percent complete artistry to an audience moves me immensely. When I think of it, being able to walk into a place and do what I want and be struggling, as opposed to having mass money but having everyone else make my decisions for me, it makes me often wonder what the true meaning of success is. Plus, there's a hardcore stable of fans that I know dig the music and have made their own choice, not because it was a trend or because the media or someone else told them to like it and force it down their throat.

[sabriel9v]

 

Yeah, there's a few transitional things right now until the dust clears. But I think that, in alot of ways, the bands that go above and beyond will stand out even more, if they keep at it every day. Right now, this is a killing frost--a cold winter where alot is sure to die off. I also think that there's a struggle to become a part of that small fraction of artists that can sell or survive. The way that I look at it, there's always been struggles--life vs. death, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornados, Bubonic Plague, scurvy on ships, Irish potato famine, etc....yet there's always been survivors in small pockets that were either lucky or just very well prepared to squirrel their nuts away until the cold winter subsides. When I think of all the hardship and struggle that other people have had in various things, I think, "i'm {censored}ing lucky to even be well enough to create". In the end, I think that no matter how bad the industry may be, really, the mindset should be that we're lucky that we're able and safe to create and do what we do.

 

 

Well put Instro +20

[Deeprig9]

One of these posts reminds me of that line in PCU: "So, if you are nice to them, they bring you things?"

 

Guess which one?

[MusicIsTheTruth]

Give me a link to some of the music and I'll review it here, then you can call it a "hamony central user review". But be careful what you wish for, I might hate it and I'll say horrible horrible things.

 

 

Our myspace is in the sig. If you like what you hear, I can give you the rest of the CD. If you hate it, then no : )

[WrdsNmuzik]

 

For me, it's perennially working a dayjob to support this, but I also have complete creative control and can walk into places and do what I want, and can find places to accomodate budgets or what I need. The liberation of being able to say "no" when I think it's fit and appropriate in order to offer quality, and to offer 100 percent complete artistry to an audience moves me immensely. When I think of it, being able to walk into a place and do what I want and be struggling, as opposed to having mass money but having everyone else make my decisions for me, it makes me often wonder what the true meaning of success is. Plus, there's a hardcore stable of fans that I know dig the music and have made their own choice, not because it was a trend or because the media or someone else told them to like it and force it down their throat.

 

 

Good post, dude.

[BlueStrat]

 

When I think of it, being able to walk into a place and do what I want and be struggling, as opposed to having mass money but having everyone else make my decisions for me, it makes me often wonder what the true meaning of success is. Plus, there's a hardcore stable of fans that I know dig the music and have made their own choice, not because it was a trend or because the media or someone else told them to like it and force it down their throat.

This is nothing new, though. I remember as a kid of 16, my dad telling me "You want to do things your way? Be prepared to starve for as long time!"

 

That's always the tension between art and commerce, between complete freedom in self expression and making at least some kind of living doing it.

 

The trouble with this philosophy (IMO) is not that guys are doing it, it is that they are doing it too soon. Mark Twain once made the point 130 years ago in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" that in order to break rules effectively, one must first learn how the game is played and to play by the rules. He likened it to a basketball game, where everyone made up their own rules as they went along. What transpired was not a basketball game, it was chaos where no one really benefited. Successful artists who make a living from art have learned how the game is played, and have gotten themselves into a position where they can produce art and make a living from it. Today, artists are trying to carve out a niche with their art when they have no leverage as artists and no demand for their art. Ironically, it is they who seem intent on ramming their art down peoples throats, and then bemoan the public as being mindless sheep when no one seems interested. Why else would anyone completely ignore the way the market works and keep producing stuff for which no demand exists and market it anyway?

 

The second problem with the philosophy you expressed is the notion that it is an either/or proposition-either you are a complete artist and you suffer for it but at least you have your integrity, or you are a commercial success but you are only successful because you are producing pablum that is manipulated and packaged by someone else with ulterior motives. I reject that notion, and believe there is a middle ground where art and commerce merge.

 

But the biggest hindrance to success is a cultural notion I've seen develop in the young (under 30) over recent years: that commercial success automatically = cultural crap. Their favorite bands are 'hip' and 'cool' as long as they're starving like every other unknown. But as soon as they break a hit and start becoming popular, they're 'sellouts', they're producing 'crap for the masses', etc etc. No wonder so many musicians are starving. Profiting from art has gone beyond being a dirty word and is now seen as sin.

[sabriel9v]

This is nothing new, though. I remember as a kid of 16, my dad telling me "You want to do things your way? Be prepared to starve for as long time!" That's always the tension between art and commerce, between complete freedom in self expression and making at least some kind of living doing it. The trouble with this philosophy (IMO) is not that guys are doing it, it is that they are doing it too soon. Mark Twain once made the point 130 years ago in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" that in order to break rules effectively, one must first learn how the game is played and to play by the rules. He likened it to a basketball game, where everyone made up their own rules as they went along. What transpired was not a basketball game, it was chaos where no one really benefited. Successful artists who make a living from art have learned how the game is played, and have gotten themselves into a position where they can produce art and make a living from it. Today, artists are trying to carve out a niche with their art when they have no leverage as artists and no demand for their art. Ironically, it is they who seem intent on ramming their art down peoples throats, and then bemoan the public as being mindless sheep when no one seems interested. Why else would anyone completely ignore the way the market works and keep producing stuff for which no demand exists and market it anyway? The second problem with the philosophy you expressed is the notion that it is an either/or proposition-either you are a complete artist and you suffer for it but at least you have your integrity, or you are a commercial success but you are only successful because you are producing pablum that is manipulated and packaged by someone else with ulterior motives. I reject that notion, and believe there is a middle ground where art and commerce merge. But the biggest hindrance to success is a cultural notion I've seen develop in the young (under 30) over recent years: that commercial success automatically = cultural crap. Their favorite bands are 'hip' and 'cool' as long as they're starving like every other unknown. But as soon as they break a hit and start becoming popular, they're 'sellouts', they're producing 'crap for the masses', etc etc. No wonder so many musicians are starving. Profiting from art has gone beyond being a dirty word and is now seen as sin.

The words of a genius. +2349 Bluestrat

[sabriel9v]

 

But the biggest hindrance to success is a cultural notion I've seen develop in the young (under 30) over recent years: that commercial success automatically = cultural crap. Their favorite bands are 'hip' and 'cool' as long as they're starving like every other unknown. But as soon as they break a hit and start becoming popular, they're 'sellouts', they're producing 'crap for the masses', etc etc. No wonder so many musicians are starving. Profiting from art has gone beyond being a dirty word and is now seen as sin.

 

 

I'm not sure if this is a recent phenomenon. Because of all the hoopla surrounding Woodstock, I've been watching some of the old footage from that festival...the young adults and teens there were no different. They strived to be a part of this "hip and cool" scene, but were just as likely to bash or degrade their favorite artists as soon they got a whiff of fame and fortune. Ultimately, I feel that attitude is rooted in an anti-establishment mentality...but over time it can evolve into a shallow scenester mindset, which is really concerned with looking cool and just another facet of consumerism.

[Li10]

The words of a genius. +2349 Bluestrat

+4948

[MartinC]

But the biggest hindrance to success is a cultural notion I've seen develop in the young (under 30) over recent years: that commercial success automatically = cultural crap. Their favorite bands are 'hip' and 'cool' as long as they're starving like every other unknown. But as soon as they break a hit and start becoming popular, they're 'sellouts', they're producing 'crap for the masses', etc etc. No wonder so many musicians are starving. Profiting from art has gone beyond being a dirty word and is now seen as sin.

 

 

You can thank the punk scene for that. They were the ones who cried sellout as soon as their favorites started to make money. Perhaps that mindset started then in a widespread fashion. No zep or jimi fans were bummed that they made money, at least in my circle. It is true that some jimi fans thought his hits were sellouts though, but that was not the prevailing view, IMO. The hits came early for him, then he moved further away from commerciality.

[BlueStrat]

 

You can thank the punk scene for that. They were the ones who cried sellout as soon as their favorites started to make money. Perhaps that mindset started then in a widespread fashion. No zep or jimi fans were bummed that they made money, at least in my circle. It is true that some jimi fans thought his hits were sellouts though, but that was not the prevailing view, IMO. The hits came early for him, then he moved further away from commerciality.

 

 

Likewise with Cream (and every band Clapton was in back then, come to think of it), CSNY, the Who, and lots of others...I remember me and all my friends wanting them to become successful, wanting them to take over the music world, and us wanting to be just like them. You probably remember it too.

 

Gawd, we're getting old...

[Poker99]

But the biggest hindrance to success is a cultural notion I've seen develop in the young (under 30) over recent years: that commercial success automatically = cultural crap. Their favorite bands are 'hip' and 'cool' as long as they're starving like every other unknown. But as soon as they break a hit and start becoming popular, they're 'sellouts', they're producing 'crap for the masses', etc etc. No wonder so many musicians are starving. Profiting from art has gone beyond being a dirty word and is now seen as sin.

 

 

Can you blame them with all the crappy Nickelback clones that put out pre-digested singles?

[sabriel9v]

Can you blame them with all the crappy Nickelback clones that put out pre-digested singles?

 

+1000

To Bluestrat and MartinC, what about the people that turned on Bob Dylan when he pursued a more raw and electric sound? Or the fans that hated Zeppelin III (largely an acoustic album) and wanted Led Zeppelin to turn the gain back up? I feel the "sell-out" phrase and mentality is more a direct rejection of corporate driven or establishment like movements and actions. But it has slowly degenerated into a mindset that revolves around a shallow scenester ideal and ultimately consumerism...am I making sense?