my so called music career, i need to hear from you

[Guvnor]

You cant parse the difference between someone who is already at your show, getting a demo from you, and someone sitting at a computer downloading an mp3?

 

 

Not sure I (nor you) know what you're saying... My argument is this: everyone talks about EXPOSURE, EXPOSURE... DO FREE SHOWS, GIVE AWAY FREE CDS... as if the mere act of someone hearing your music will result in an income stream and demand for your music. It doesn't make any sense... As Bluestrat and others have pointed out, if they're at your show-- they've heard you... they don't need a free cd... On the flip side, someone who gets one of your myspace bot friend adds may add you and hear your tune blaring at them... doesn't mean they're going to purchase from you or come to your show...

[sabriel9v]

 

In contrast, I started a new band whose first, #1 goal, is to have fun. Everyone in the band knows this. Whether we play small shows or big shows, put out an EP or just throw practice recordings up online, we don't care, as long as we're having fun. And actually, the result has been that we are getting more offers to play shows, are generating more excitement around our music, and are going further, all because we really care about having fun rather than "making it."

 

 

I want to bounce off of one of Scafeet's earlier comments and also this comment. I agree with Scafeets when he says that artists need to receive tangible benefits from their promotional schemes and strategies. That can involve giving away free music samplers or lowering the price of the show...whatever it takes to increase awareness about the artist's product...as long as one's actions do not harm the artist in the long term. Nonetheless, I also feel the key is to just have fun. If you don't truly enjoy writing, performing, and learning about music, then what are you in it for?

[richardmac]

My argument is this: everyone talks about EXPOSURE, EXPOSURE... DO FREE SHOWS, GIVE AWAY FREE CDS... as if the mere act of someone hearing your music will result in an income stream and demand for your music. It doesn't make any sense... As Bluestrat and others have pointed out, if they're at your show-- they've heard you... they don't need a free cd...

 

 

Yeah, but how did you GET them to your show? How do you get to the point where you have a following? How do you get an audience? That's where the "exposure exposure" thing comes in. Sounds like the title to an Erasure CD.

 

I think that for someone just starting out, the need to develop a fan base is greater than the need to make money, so therefore all ideas that might work ought to be on the table. You can't hope for high paying gigs if no one knows who the hell you are. You NEED really good exposure, and playing some free gigs or low paying gigs for exposure should be considered.

 

However I agree that it doesn't make sense to give away CD's at gigs - if you're good, people will be willing to buy them. And yes, the ultimate goal ought to be to play at PAYING gigs, whether you're a big smoke and amp metal band or a solo singer/songwriter.

 

As for the myspace thing, I don't know too many people that it's actually worked for. I've made much better musical connections just hanging out at open mic nights and doing singer/songwriter nights and meeting and networking with other artists.

[MartinC]

It's complicated. For some, maybe getting a fan base should take priority. For others, it's a way to get used to making no money. I agree with Scafeets about the old days. We'd pay 10.00 for an ounce (I guess I'm older than you, or you smoked better herb:)) 5.00 for a ticket to Winterland, and buy albums, and listen to the whole thing. We used to sit around, four or five of us, put on Band of Gypsies live at the fillmore and listen to the whole thing, then put on an Allman Bros live record, Jeff Beck, Zep, Clapton, BB, Freddie, and just groove on it. That was before any of us even played an instrument. By the time I picked up a guitar, all those great records were in my head.

We drove crap cars, took the bus, bummed rides. No one had a video game-they hadn't been invented. No kid had a tv in their room even. But you had a record player. You played sports and/or were into music and girls. I feel bad for young guys coming up now-it's like sex and aids-there was no aids in those days. And no pay to play either. You sure got to love to play to get into it today. Is it harder than ever?

Yeah, but how did you GET them to your show? How do you get to the point where you have a following? How do you get an audience? That's where the "exposure exposure" thing comes in. Sounds like the title to an Erasure CD. I think that for someone just starting out, the need to develop a fan base is greater than the need to make money, so therefore all ideas that might work ought to be on the table. You can't hope for high paying gigs if no one knows who the hell you are. You NEED really good exposure, and playing some free gigs or low paying gigs for exposure should be considered. However I agree that it doesn't make sense to give away CD's at gigs - if you're good, people will be willing to buy them. And yes, the ultimate goal ought to be to play at PAYING gigs, whether you're a big smoke and amp metal band or a solo singer/songwriter. As for the myspace thing, I don't know too many people that it's actually worked for. I've made much better musical connections just hanging out at open mic nights and doing singer/songwriter nights and meeting and networking with other artists.

 

[sabriel9v]

We'd pay 10.00 for an ounce (I guess I'm older than you, or you smoked better herb) 5.00 for a ticket to Winterland, and buy albums, and listen to the whole thing. We used to sit around, four or five of us, put on Band of Gypsies live at the fillmore and listen to the whole thing, then put on an Allman Bros live record, Jeff Beck, Zep, Clapton, BB, Freddie, and just groove on it. That was before any of us even played an instrument. By the time I picked up a guitar, all those great records were in my head.

$10 for ounce and $5 to see a popular rock band Sounds like you were living in Never Never Land.

[richardmac]

When I was in high school a nickel bag was 5 bucks. For those who aren't into that culture, it was essentially enough weed for about 5 joints. Um, not that I did anything like that in my youth, but I, uh, knew people who did. And concert tickets were about $12. I paid $12 to see Foreigner in 1979.

 

I do think that in some ways it was a better time for musicians, but in some ways not. Music was certainly more important to young people then, due to less competition from other entertainment options. And there probably were more places to play.

 

But forget about making a recording in the early 80's - you'd book yourself into some small 8 track studio and pay $20 an hour and come away with something that sounded nowhere near what a pro record did. That barrier is totally gone. And to have cool synth sounds, you were looking at a grand for a CHEAP synth. ONE cheap synth. Those days are gone, too. Home recording was in the dark ages. If you owned a digital reverb you were like a God. Now you can have an entire studio with virtually unlimited fx and tracks on a thousand dollar laptop - the cost of a DX9 back in the day. So for techno-nerds like me, this day and age is much better.

 

And yet I can't help but put on my "I'm getting old" hat every time I walk into Guitar Center... when I was 17, I'd walk into a music store and there'd be four kids there trying out different guitars and amps, playing AC/DC or Led Zep, badly. Now it's more than 20 years later and I walk into Guitar Center and I hear... four kids playing AC/DC and Led Zep, badly. Weird.

 

Someone made a comment about kids not having the patience to take lessons and master their instruments... I'd agree that more kids are like that than back in the day. But there are still tons of kids who are very serious about learning their instrument. Good thing. Otherwise music would essentially die within a few generations.

[sabriel9v]

When I was in high school a nickel bag was 5 bucks. For those who aren't into that culture, it was essentially enough weed for about 5 joints.

A nick still costs $5. And if you know how to stretch a bag, you might be able to get 3 joints out of it. But not 5

[Drew5887]

People into music in the 60s and 70s didn't blow their money on cars. They blew it on music and weed. Granted, both were pretty cheap back then ($3 for a ticket to the Fillmore, $20 for an ounce) but that left some money for a decent stereo and other "priorities." I'm just saying that, by and large, that demographic has more disposable income now -- but chooses to spend it on non-music related stuff. Oh -- there were some famously horrible bands. But if you were going to the Fillmore (three bands - three bucks) you knew you were going to hear great music. If you were going to the Agora in Cleveland, the Whiskey in LA, the Max's KC in NYC, the Greyhound in London, etc. there was an excellent chance you were going to hear something new, original and GOOD. Likewise, there were thousands of clubs all over the place that catered to local bands. These clubs generally had standards that kept the garage bands out. And that's the difference. Back in the day, if you were a suck-ass garage band, you played the garage and maybe a friend's party. No one "hired" you to play for gas money, sharing the stage in a club with five other bands that can't put together three hour-long sets of music people want to hear. Today, bands that don't know an hour's worth of material have a CD, a website and "gig" for no money. They also tend to eschew the old-school (and presumably quaint) dues-paying steps of taking music lessons, practicing and generally learning the craft before they foist their sound-alike "originals" on the not-too-impressed public. Agreed...

This sounds like my rants against my own generation. Lets hear it for the woodshed!

[germs]

Well, it's the truth. But do you know the common meaning of the word "woodshed"? It's the practice of going into a room, away from everything else, and doing something repeatedly over a relatively short period of time in order to get better at it. In the context of this conversation, I think (not necessarily you, but...) you have already discounted your generation because by logic, they would have to be "good" at doing it when the process is over.

That's exactly how we got into the jam we're in now. Even between myself (mid 20's) and the guys opening for us (early 20's) I find there to be a generation gap. I think it has to do a lot with the mentality of parents and how they raised their kids.

If you want to be really deep, here's my opinion:

Our grandparents (the greatest generation) who served in WWII and Korea, came back and essentially took out any PTS they had on their family. That resulted in a rough life for a lot of our parents. I feel that some of them (even 25% of our parents' generation number in the millions) over-compensated for their "difficult" upbringng by making sure their kids (my generation) didn't experience any of the "discomforts" the parents had growing up. This could be done by any number of ways...I'm sure you get the idea.

Unfortunately, my parents didn't exactly prescribe to that practice of sparing the rod...but I don't feel "lost" for it. I'm just a bit more appreciative for earning what I've achieved, instead of demanding that I be rewarded for showing an effort.

But enough of my rant.

[sabriel9v]

 

Our grandparents (the greatest generation) who served in WWII and Korea, came back and essentially took out any PTS they had on their family. That resulted in a rough life for a lot of our parents. I feel that some of them (even 25% of our parents' generation number in the millions) over-compensated for their "difficult" upbringng by making sure their kids (my generation) didn't experience any of the "discomforts" the parents had growing up. This could be done by any number of ways...I'm sure you get the idea.

 

 

I feel that the reasons and implications behind the protective shield or bubble that the baby boomers placed over the current generation exceeds simple PTS problems. It's more complex than that.

[richardmac]

I feel that the reasons and implications behind the protective shield or bubble that the baby boomers placed over the current generation exceeds simple PTS problems. It's more complex than that.

 

 

Yeah, agreed - way more complicated. A huge factor is women in the workplace. The 1950's model where the husband came home from work and the wife was there waiting with a drink for him are long long gone, and with both parents working, that's had an impact.

 

The rise in the divorce rate is also a big factor.

 

My grandfather fought in WW2 and came back home. I'm fairly certain he drank too much and from time to time may have knocked his wife around. She was a small, frail woman, but she did knock him out cold one time with a cast iron skillet. Different times. They didn't have hardly any money. My dad grew up in this environment, with an alcoholic dad. He and my mom got married, and I was born in 1965, so I really grew up in the 70's and early 80's. My mom had to work for our family to make it, but my mom had learned all the old fashioned cooking/cleaning stuff from her mom.

 

My parents both grew up with not a lot of money. And they didn't make a lot of money either. So I grew up with frugal parents - inexpensive food for dinner, turn the heat down, shut the door, turn out the light, we're not made of money, all that. In reality, we lived slightly below what we could actually afford. I never liked that.

 

As a result, I am the one who spends too much on groceries. My family lives a lifestyle slightly beyond our income, because I can't stand the thought of eating inexpensive low budget dinners because I'm forced to, or drive a crappy car, or whatever. I'm rebelling against that. I'm living the lifestyle I want. The end game for me will be when I drop dead behind my desk because I never retire.

 

My wife is 36 and she does not know how to cook. This is another trend - women who don't know how to cook any more. However, I do know how to cook. Another trend - men who know how to cook married to women who don't.

 

Side note - We have idealized the 50's in American culture. I asked my dad about it once, because he grew up in the 50's. He said, "The 50's were a great time, unless you were a woman or you were black." As we lament the passing of "good wholesome family values" and all that, let's also recognize how far we've come in other areas. We've got a long ways to go but we've made progress.

 

I think women SHOULD know how to cook. But I think men should know how to cook, too.

 

I'll stop now.

[sabriel9v]

Yeah, agreed - way more complicated. A huge factor is women in the workplace. The 1950's model where the husband came home from work and the wife was there waiting with a drink for him are long long gone, and with both parents working, that's had an impact. The rise in the divorce rate is also a big factor. My grandfather fought in WW2 and came back home. I'm fairly certain he drank too much and from time to time may have knocked his wife around. She was a small, frail woman, but she did knock him out cold one time with a cast iron skillet. Different times. They didn't have hardly any money. My dad grew up in this environment, with an alcoholic dad. He and my mom got married, and I was born in 1965, so I really grew up in the 70's and early 80's. My mom had to work for our family to make it, but my mom had learned all the old fashioned cooking/cleaning stuff from her mom. My parents both grew up with not a lot of money. And they didn't make a lot of money either. So I grew up with frugal parents - inexpensive food for dinner, turn the heat down, shut the door, turn out the light, we're not made of money, all that. In reality, we lived slightly below what we could actually afford. I never liked that. As a result, I am the one who spends too much on groceries. My family lives a lifestyle slightly beyond our income, because I can't stand the thought of eating inexpensive low budget dinners because I'm forced to, or drive a crappy car, or whatever. I'm rebelling against that. I'm living the lifestyle I want. The end game for me will be when I drop dead behind my desk because I never retire. My wife is 36 and she does not know how to cook. This is another trend - women who don't know how to cook any more. However, I do know how to cook. Another trend - men who know how to cook married to women who don't. Side note - We have idealized the 50's in American culture. I asked my dad about it once, because he grew up in the 50's. He said, "The 50's were a great time, unless you were a woman or you were black." As we lament the passing of "good wholesome family values" and all that, let's also recognize how far we've come in other areas. We've got a long ways to go but we've made progress. I think women SHOULD know how to cook. But I think men should know how to cook, too. I'll stop now.

 

 

Good points richard. My parents are actually just shy of being a part of the baby boomer generation (50 and 46). However, I've also had a bit of bubble placed over me. Times were different back then. There was Vietnam, protests, heavy stagflation, lots of drugs, sex, etc. My dad grew up in a {censored}ty part of south side Chicago in the Robert Taylor projects. He's told me stories about how his neighbors would call the cops just so they could shoot at them. It was just different back then. You can look at the old meat packing district and Chelsea neighborhoods of NYC and they were much more gritty and rough. Those same districts are super trendy and expensive places now to live due to gentrification.

 

Nonetheless, I also feel that the steady and quick progression of technology has greatly affected everyone worldwide. Back in the 60's and 70's you had to literally get off your ass to spark a movement. Now you can sit at home on your computer and sign online petitions about the green movement. Totally different experience.

[germs]

I feel that the reasons and implications behind the protective shield or bubble that the baby boomers placed over the current generation exceeds simple PTS problems. It's more complex than that.

Before I ask you to expound, did you graduate with a B.S. in Psych? I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say about this, but I want to be prepared to take what you say as either factual or bullcraptual.

By the way, ever have to deal with PTS firsthand? I honestly have. It's far from a "simple" matter.

EDIT: Are you suggesting that the "gimmie gimmie" generation of kids are simply looking to external forces as a source of self-validation they never received at home? That's a bleeding-heart thesis title if I ever heard one...

[sabriel9v]

Before I ask you to expound, did you graduate with a B.S. in Psych? I'm genuinely interested in what you have to say about this, but I want to be prepared to take what you say as either factual or bullcraptual. By the way, ever have to deal with PTS firsthand? I honestly have. It's far from a "simple" matter. EDIT: Are you suggesting that the "gimmie gimmie" generation of kids are simply looking to external forces as a source of self-validation they never received at home? That's a bleeding-heart thesis title if I ever heard one...

No, I graduated with a bachelors in international affairs. But I've had a doctorate degree in realworldology since I was born. And sir, your thesis about PTS being the prime factor in why baby boomer parents can be overprotective is bull{censored}.
And define this "gimmie gimmie" generation of kids? Germs, don't even try to climb into an ivory tower on this one. If you do, I'm gonna make it look like ivory ladder.

[germs]

No, I graduated with a bachelors in international affairs. But I've had a doctorate degree in realworldology since I was born. And sir, your thesis about PTS being the prime factor in why baby boomer parents can be overprotective is bull{censored}. And define this "gimmie gimmie" generation of kids? Germs, don't even try to climb into an ivory tower on this one. If you do, I'm gonna make it look like ivory ladder.

Wow...and here I was getting lonely at the top. Sorry you're having a bad day...

Care to explain to me your non-bull{censored}? Or should I just take it at face value that what you say is golden?

To indulge your whims: I define "gimmie gimmies" as a the demographic in America between the ages of about 22-26 who can be defined by their lackluster work ethic AND contradictorial attitude of complete expectancy in life. They have been taught their entire lives that the world is a nice place to live and that everyone cares about how your feelings are impacted when someone upsets you. This transcends race, sex, social "clique". Now, does this apply to everyone in that age group? No, of course not.

There you have it, can't wait until your next response

[sabriel9v]

 

To indulge your whims: I define "gimmie gimmies" as a the demographic in America between the ages of about 22-26 who can be defined by their lackluster work ethic AND contradictorial attitude of complete expectancy in life. They have been taught their entire lives that the world is a nice place to live and that everyone cares about how your feelings are impacted when someone upsets you. This transcends race, sex, social "clique". Now, does this apply to everyone in that age group? No, of course not.

 

 

What you have defined is what many call "Generation Y" or what I like to call the "ipod generation." The ipod generation is more between the ages of 12-25. You said that this "gimme gimme" generation has a lackluster work ethic and that this transcends race, ethnicity, gender, and class. How so? When has one's race, gender, and class never shaped how they view life and their surrounding atmosphere. Never. We can't assume that all people within the age range of 22-26 were raised to believe that everything in life is nice and working in their favor. I know plenty of people, younger than me, who have been told all their lives that they won't amount anything. Social class and race definitely played a part in that.

 

But back to the original point. PTS, as you call it or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, is not the sole reason as to why baby boomers protect their children. It can be one reason amongst a myriad of other factors, but it's not the sole factor. Many countries worldwide have been ravaged by war, but the following generations did not display rampant "gimme gimme" behavior. So it can't be just PTSD.

[germs]

Okay, last comment on this, then I'll let it die.

1. Never influence? Are we like pre-programmed from birth, or do we learn from our everyday experiences? Nature vs. Nurture anyone?

2. I didn't assume anything about everyone. See my last two sentences in your quote for evidence.

3. Life sucks and is hard. You're just reinforcing my point.

PTSD is everywhere that humans are incapable of emotionally dealing with stress of any kind and have to externalize it through whatever blah blah blah...Look, it's been around a long time, and is all over the world. Child Soldiers in Africa? PTSD candidates if I ever saw one. Recognizing and attempting to correct the problem while unintentionally over-correcting the problem is what's landed America in the current state. And yes, the "iPod" generation is pretty much an American phoenomenon.

But that's just my .02.

Final words and then we let this get back on track?

[sabriel9v]

 

Recognizing and attempting to correct the problem while unintentionally over-correcting the problem is what's landed America in the current state.

 

 

No final words just yet bud. I'm confused by this statement. Is the problem you're referring to PTSD? Also what is this current state you speak of? Is it the lackadaisical and lofty attitude that many Americans have taken towards politics and social life?

[soundwave106]

I'm not sure what evidence one exists for a slacker work ethic in the iPod generation -- I doubt any, myself. Using rock band attitude as evidence is a pretty poor approach... the pay and business opportunities are so much less now, it flat out simply isn't worth the time for many people to be super serious.

[richardmac]

Every single generation has looked at the next as being lazy, unmotivated slackers. And judging by what I see around me, I'd like to suggest that every generation has been wrong. "Hey you kids, get off my lawn!" Bah.

 

My grandparents probably felt the same way, but the next generation after them created the Internet.

[daddymack]

Every single generation has looked at the next as being lazy, unmotivated slackers. And judging by what I see around me, I'd like to suggest that every generation has been wrong. "Hey you kids, get off my lawn!" Bah. My grandparents probably felt the same way, but the next generation after them created the Internet.

you say that like it was a good thing...

[BlueStrat]

My grandparents probably felt the same way, but the next generation after them created the Internet.

Actually, only a handful of them did. The rest of them are just lazy schmucks.

 

:poke:

 

 

[richardmac]

Actually, only a handful of them did. The rest of them are just lazy schmucks.

 

 

We're all lazy... until we find something we love to do. Then we're obsessed.

 

I just get tired of hearing about how generation (fill in the blank) is lazy and wants everything handed to them. We're ALL lazy and want everything handed to us. I mean, really, who'd turn that down? Every generation thinks the next one isn't as good, and the next one ends up being more innovative and doing better work than the previous. It's not because one generation is smarter than the other, it's because each generation builds on the work done by the last.

 

Well... in most areas. Definitely in science, medicine, technology, etc. Maybe not in education. We know more about education than we ever did before, but nothing really changes. There are other anti-examples. But in general, the human race marches forward.

 

The current generation is the first to really grow up with the Internet, ie the sum of man's knowledge at your fingertips (an exaggeration for effect.) They're going to be really good at finding and sharing information... and porn.

[sabriel9v]

We're all lazy... until we find something we love to do. Then we're obsessed. I just get tired of hearing about how generation (fill in the blank) is lazy and wants everything handed to them. We're ALL lazy and want everything handed to us. I mean, really, who'd turn that down? Every generation thinks the next one isn't as good, and the next one ends up being more innovative and doing better work than the previous. It's not because one generation is smarter than the other, it's because each generation builds on the work done by the last. Well... in most areas. Definitely in science, medicine, technology, etc. Maybe not in education. We know more about education than we ever did before, but nothing really changes. There are other anti-examples. But in general, the human race marches forward. The current generation is the first to really grow up with the Internet, ie the sum of man's knowledge at your fingertips (an exaggeration for effect.) They're going to be really good at finding and sharing information... and porn.

Good points richard. However, I honestly feel the current generation (my generation ) is a tad bit more lazy and quicker to sit on our laurels than our parents generation. Technology and a speedy drive thru lifestyle has comforted us our entire lives. I don't feel we're incapable of arousing change or sparking new ideas...but we're still spoiled.

[BlueStrat]

I don't know if they're lazier, but I do think their sense of entitlement is deeper. My own kids seem to think they should have all the things it took my wife and I 25 years to amass. My oldest son (now 23) was willing to go into debt to get it (against my counsel) and now he's defaulted on a credit card and is upside down on his truck, which he is struggling to make payments on. And he isn't alone. Nearly all of his friends are in the same boat-unable and unwilling to defer gratification.