General Music Chat

This ought to piss some people off, and educate others more wise.

1) Your music sucks
2) Your sound isn't current
3) You don't have a story

http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2016/08 ... ent-274213




Of these, I think reason #3 may be the most important. If you don't have a backstory, then you have paid no dues and can depend on at least 10 years of work/practice before you deserve to be heard above the noise.

I think reason #2 is less important than the other reasons, if you can identify and find the audience you're relevant to.

Reason #1 can be addressed by test marketing but even that can't really tell the story of a song's value, only it's appeal to a mass audience. For example, I might buy an album for the "massive hit" but I continue listening to that album only if the deep cuts are also of high quality. Otherwise, that band is a one-hit wonder and will not last more than 2 albums tops.

I'm a big fan of narrow marketing. Instead of trying to please everyone, I write only for the people who would appreciate what I do. In terms of marketing, its a very very very small slice of the buying public, but in terms of sales they have few songwriters addressing their needs so they buy whatever comes out.

If it's good, you have a customer for life so the key success is to continually be producing a product for them.




.

Good thing most of us here are not in it for the money.

#1 - paying for reviews of your songs? talk about throwing your money away ...
#2 - listen to commercial radio. there's nothing new for sound there anymore. EVERY song can be linked back to a sound in the past that's similar. Even the lo-fi repeating-repeating-repeating stuff can be traced back to garage-recorded Seattle grunge.
#3 - 'back stories' of today's popular artists? all crap. if the mindless masses want to feast on that crap, let 'em...

I think quality of recording can't be left out...
yeah quality of recording is part of the equation if you're shopping your music. Hard to take someone serious if they aren't investing in their own quality.

Good thing most of us here are not in it for the money.

#1 - paying for reviews of your songs? talk about throwing your money away ...
#2 - listen to commercial radio. there's nothing new for sound there anymore. EVERY song can be linked back to a sound in the past that's similar. Even the lo-fi repeating-repeating-repeating stuff can be traced back to garage-recorded Seattle grunge.
#3 - 'back stories' of today's popular artists? all crap. if the mindless masses want to feast on that crap, let 'em...

The article was for those who think they legitimately have something to offer the world through the arts of songwriting, performance, or musicianship. It was posted for discussion and made some valid points (though one size does not fit all) which you can ignore if it doesn't apply to you.

But your response is instructional, so I'm going respond point-by-point to any/all musicians who would say what you just said....not personal to you necessarily.

I don't expect to hear an amateur bitching about how much they (don't) get paid...ever. And IF you are not "in it for the money" there is no reason to continue reading or responding to this thread, because it is meant for people who are serious about a career in music and makes no attempt to address those who are not.





#1 Market research - No matter what your business, it's smart to know your potential customers. ALL successful companies do this. It would be stupid to do market research in an area you are not serving, but if you could find a way to target the most likely customers, it's good business to know what most appeals to them. For the record, I've done this a few times when trying to figure out if what works in my genre applies to other genres.


#2 - this is only an expansion of #1, since it is still market research. If you are competing in the marketplace of art and ideas, it's helpful to know what those other "ideas" are. This should be genre specific. In other words, it makes little sense to keep up with what is happening in country music if you play blues. But it would be stupid to not know anything about the blues artists that are successful today, if that is one's chosen genre.

Know what you're aiming for.


#3. backstory -

What you said about "backstory" sounds more like envy than a legitimate response to the point; which is that anyone who has paid their dues will have a story that fans of their music want to hear. In other words, if you don't have an interesting bio it's because there is nothing worth mentioning.

Led Zeppelin was almost instantly famous because they had a backstory in the Yardbirds that drew in those fans immediately. Elvis had a backstory of singing black gospel tunes. The Beatles had a backstory of playing smoky bars in Hamburg and Liverpool.

Everyone who has overcome obstacles has a story that matters to people who like them. The story might be what separates you from the noise of a billion other artists who are equally qualified musically.





.

Too many people quit the game prematurely.

OK, again, let's limit this to those who are actually ambitious about a career in music, which is an extremely small number of those who call themselves "musician".

In my opinion, that's only about 15% of the answer. Many of us have worked hard in a band only to have it all fall apart because the bass player screwed the drummer's girl, or the guitarist was busted selling cocaine, or whatever external reason that was out of our control caused it to fall apart. It gets a little harder to start over again with every new band, until many will simply drop out and focus on a more profitable lifestyle in a different career.

That is certainly a factor, but in my experience it seems that most musicians simply have no plan for professional success, because they don't actually have faith in their ability to succeed.

Some think that their personal awesomeness will be enough to be noticed...and that non-plan works sometimes for the ones who have worked hard in rehearsal. They could succeed with just a little dumb luck; like being based in a major music center and scouted by a hungry A&R person, or some airplay on the right radio station, etc.

But almost every band I've known that started with a plan went on to be successful (as they defined it), mainly because they were goal oriented in the first place.



.

I think quality of recording can't be left out...
yeah quality of recording is part of the equation if you're shopping your music. Hard to take someone serious if they aren't investing in their own quality.

Completely agree!

But this seems like an extension of market research because "quality" of song is a subjective term that makes a comparison with other recordings.

In other words, you'll have to know what else is available to be able to judge whether your recording is "good" or not.

Nowhere in that article did it say the advice given was for "professionals" only. The only thing that separates a professional from an amateur is that the professional claims to do it for his living. An amateur only does it for the love of the music (at least that should be the only reason).

It seems reasonable to assume that anyone who has music for others to hear is attempting to be professional.

I don't think someone has to be (currently) making a living from music to be a professional, but they do have to approach the craft professionally. They would have more goals than just for the fun of it.

My great-grandfather was a professional, and his son (my grandpa) was pretty good...taught George Jones his first chords. My great uncle went on to be extremely successful as the violin player for Webb Pierce, who still owns the record for most consecutive #1 hits (13) way back in 1953. But grandpa had no ambition to be a musician so he doesn't count as a professional.

On the other hand, my cousin Tony Castie is famously the blues-master of Beaumont TX and that is saying something in the land of Johnny Winter, Janis Joplin, and Gatemouth Brown. His goals/ambition is limited because he doesn't want to travel, but he is still a professional whether he's playing every weekend or not. He needs to know (1) what his customers (venues & fans) want to hear (2) what is popular in his genre and (3) have a bio that separates him from everyone else that would presume to be a great blues guitarist.

So no matter what level a person is at right now, the implementation of an intentional plan is what separates them from the noise of a billion other bands. Even if that plan is nothing more than "I want to work locally".



.

A lot of players bounce back and forth between professional and 'amateur.' Amateur can mean (as Ted suggests) folks that don't view music as their primary income.

To me it means, a player who doesn't take their music seriously and responds to any invitation to play with a sob story to mitigate in advance the sloppy playing that will be a result of them not keeping their chops up.

Jahva is quite correct about recording quality and that has always been my Achilles heel. Always seemed to be somebody to handle that and now there is only a dummy, me!

Talbot

Jahva is quite correct about recording quality and that has always been my Achilles heel. Always seemed to be somebody to handle that and now there is only a dummy, me!

Talbot

yea, but money can fix that. You can put lipstick on a pig and make them squeel real good in the studio with enough cash to hire the right producer/engineer/musicians.

I have had 2 replies disappear from this thread. One last time.

'Professional' and 'amateur' only mean something in how you define them. To me, 'professional' means you make your living at music. 'Amateur' means you don't. Either one can be good, sloppy, meaningless or current.
As Jimmy said, there was nothing in the article that said it was aimed at only the 'professional'. Ted's comments would indicate he is trying to draw the line (here) - when he is well aware that he is the only one on this forum drawing his income only/primarily from music.

Recording 'quality'? Have you guys listened to the stuff that is played on indie radio stations these days? Have you listened to Adele's "Hello"? The piano on that sounds like crap.

"Led Zeppelin was almost instantly famous because they had a backstory in the Yardbirds that drew in those fans immediately. Elvis had a backstory of singing black gospel tunes. The Beatles had a backstory of playing smoky bars in Hamburg and Liverpool. "
I disagree. Yardbirds hardly made a dent in the US scene, with one moderate hit (For Your Love) and one barely-known radio song (Happenings) from when Page joined the group. When 'Whole Lotta Love' started getting airplay no DJs werer promoting it as the 'latest song form Yardbirds guitarist Jimmy Page'. Same thing on the Beatles - no one was talking about their Hamburg club history when Beatlemania started.

Someone can play at a pro level as a musician and be an amateur( in they're not working)... not everyone who writes plays creates does this with the goal of making $$ from it. But as JD said for the love of it. I know a few.

Mike... Adele's tune may not be to your liking but there is no way someone in her position is going to have some crappy piano sound on what was probably her biggest (over a billion views) (holy-crap 1,685,656,169 youtube views to be exact) songs.

I listen to lots of Indie music... can't think of one example where there is a hit/heavy played or big sales involved and it sounds crappy...
Not saying I haven't heard good music with low quality recordings (plenty of that to be heard) but not on the radio...

The article was for those who think they legitimately have something to offer the world through the arts of songwriting, performance, or musicianship. It was posted for discussion and made some valid points (though one size does not fit all) which you can ignore if it doesn't apply to you.

What am I suppose to ignore...