Heartland

*cough*

sorry?

As has probably been said before in this thread..

Just how much of all this "internet is killing the CD" s**t actually hype?

I have a distinct feeling that these supposedly "unknown" acts are actually receiving considerable record company support in an efforto move consumers towards the new medium and start downloading from official sources. I mean, how many indie artists would actually be able to handle 100,000 downloads?

Another great example of this has to be Sandi Thom.. an "unknown" singer,songwriter who somehow is able to make live concert broadcasts via the net to 100,000 people.. and is now - surprise, surprise, signed by RCA

Bugger off, how many struggling singer/songwriters can afford the server space and bandwidth to make such a show..

All this reeks... badly..

Yeah but.....at some point if you are selling your music or entering the musical arena you are 'new'. EVERYONE has to start somewhere and is by definition a new artist. Or unknown. Whatever term you wish to use.
Corrine Bailley Rae is new.
Elvis was 'new' to most folks before he swung his hips on TV. To millions.
So were the Sisters before they put a single out and did the leg work to press it up, find a distro, send a copy to Peel, get it on the radio, in shops etc etc. It's all ..... relative
If you sign to a major label or indie or do it yourself at some point you 'present' youself to the market and hope folks like what you do.
All this is again - marketing. Whether you're DIY or signed to EVIL MAJOR CORPS RECORDS or 48 Crash.
Marketing is not the sole domain of the 'evil' majors. We all do it....This Sandi Thorn probably has a manager. He/She has done the ground work like managers are SUPPOSED to and got the artist noticed and signed. You've heard of her and taken notice (I have NOW) - job done!

A record companys M.O. is to sell music. To make money for their shareholders and their artists. Doesn't matter if it's CDs, Wax Cylinders, Digital Downloads or sheet music. Whats the difference? They're all formats and they all cost to buy.

No one has a God given right to be heard musically. A struggling artist is just someone who hasn't been signed yet. If ones music is worthy it will find it's audience. There's no conspiracy to keep good music down.

Like I've said before it's not about 'bandwith' - you SELL your song/album whatever to iTunes/Napster etc.
Look at MySpace - it's all there!
Music has MORE chance these days to be heard by a WIDE audience. and bloody quikcly. If anything it is almost like a utopian free for all.
The internet is not killing music. The opposite is true; its EMPOWERING!
All this majors/indies stuff is a smoke screen.

Google this. My Space Love Minus Zero.
There you are I've just told you about a band I heard about t'other day.
I've just viral marketed y'all

Smallstone wrote: Music has MORE chance these days to be heard by a WIDE audience. and bloody quikcly. If anything it is almost like a utopian free for all.
The internet is not killing music. The opposite is true; its EMPOWERING!
All this majors/indies stuff is a smoke screen.

You're being overoptimistic. Due to the evolution of the music business over the course of the last 25 or so years, music is much less likely to be properly distributed and promoted than it was say in the 70s. Mainly because back in the day record companies executives used to have a musical background. Quality was a factor. Now that these executives are but businessman, all that matters is market value. They don't give a damn about quality as such.
You win some, you lose some. But the majors are far from powerless. It's now much easier to produce music, but much more difficult to be distributed and promoted on a large scale.

Eldo should follow in the vootschteps of neubauten.org. supporters (via subscription) gain access to exclusive CDs/DVDs, live webcasts, etc., which raises money for the band without the interference of a label.

plus subscribers get their own email @neubauten.org. how many of you would pay for an @sisters-of-mercy.com address?

davedecay wrote:plus subscribers get their own email @neubauten.org. how many of you would pay for an @sisters-of-mercy.com address?

If you'd become a nun, you'd get one for free, so that's another choice made?

davedecay wrote: plus subscribers get their own email @neubauten.org. how many of you would pay for an @sisters-of-mercy.com address?

Heartlanders getting @tsom.com address.

davedecay wrote:Eldo should follow in the vootschteps of neubauten.org. supporters (via subscription) gain access to exclusive CDs/DVDs, live webcasts, etc., which raises money for the band without the interference of a label.

plus subscribers get their own email @neubauten.org. how many of you would pay for an @sisters-of-mercy.com address?

.. and how much Eldo would like to have some nerds watching him working in the studio via webcast and telling him, what he should better do...

davedecay wrote: how many of you would pay for an @sisters-of-mercy.com address?

I certainly wouldn't. It's not like I'm in the band or something.

he wouldn't have to webcast, but it's a way to get money directly from fans, thereby bypassing labels.

i'd become a nun, but my penis might be a problem with the Mother Superior.

davedecay wrote:he wouldn't have to webcast, but it's a way to get money directly from fans, thereby bypassing labels.

i'd become a nun, but my penis might be a problem with the Mother Superior.

but the idea behind the Neubauten 'supporters' is that they are allowed to democratically decide with the band which songs should be worked on, what sounds, etc. by paying a certain amount each month. They kind of 'own' a share of the band.

This sort of basic democracy isnt a feature I would associate with AE.

davedecay wrote:i'd become a nun, but my penis might be a problem with the Mother Superior.

Well, nowadays they can do a very good job I'm told (only joking obviously )

plus subscribers get their own email @neubauten.org. how many of you would pay for an @sisters-of-mercy.com address?

You can get the same at the Gaye Bykers site if you make a donation of a quid or more - Bargain !

Anyone for a bit of .....@gayebykersonacid.com action

canon docre wrote: This sort of basic democracy isnt a feature I would associate with AE.

You can look at it from another angle and call that a board of directors. We'd be shareholders. Definitely not my idea of a rock'n'roll band.

canon docre wrote:but the idea behind the Neubauten 'supporters' is that they are allowed to democratically decide with the band which songs should be worked on, what sounds, etc. by paying a certain amount each month. They kind of 'own' a share of the band.

Cool. Voting on which of Eldo's 200 vocal takes of a song to use.

mugabe wrote:

canon docre wrote:but the idea behind the Neubauten 'supporters' is that they are allowed to democratically decide with the band which songs should be worked on, what sounds, etc. by paying a certain amount each month. They kind of 'own' a share of the band.

Cool. Voting on which of Eldo's 200 vocal takes of a song to use.

even better. we, the people should decide what von's sings about. Maybe we could suggest some agendas we always wanted to be thrashed Eldo-style.

canon docre wrote:

mugabe wrote:

canon docre wrote:but the idea behind the Neubauten 'supporters' is that they are allowed to democratically decide with the band which songs should be worked on, what sounds, etc. by paying a certain amount each month. They kind of 'own' a share of the band.

Cool. Voting on which of Eldo's 200 vocal takes of a song to use.

even better. we, the people should decide what von's sings about. Maybe we could suggest some agendas we always wanted to be thrashed Eldo-style.

I don't think that's entirely what all this "web 2.0" thang is about, but then again I read too much

You're being overoptimistic. Due to the evolution of the music business over the course of the last 25 or so years, music is much less likely to be properly distributed and promoted than it was say in the 70s. Mainly because back in the day record companies executives used to have a musical background. Quality was a factor. Now that these executives are but businessman, all that matters is market value. They don't give a damn about quality as such.
You win some, you lose some. But the majors are [i]far[/i] from powerless. It's now much easier to produce music, but much more difficult to be distributed and promoted on a large scale.[/quote]

I'm not being over optimistic at all. I'm the biggest pessimist you could possibly hope to meet
Explain to the what the evolution in the music business is over the past 25 years you speak of? I mean I kind of know what you mean but... people who run the music business don't like music like the used to in the 'golden age'? Hmmm. I think thats a pretty simple way of looking at it.
Yeah it's kind of runa bit more about bottom line - but the money isn't there to be made quite as much as it was. Too much other stuff for the average punters hard earned Yen. The majors aren't powerless at all. I don't make that assumption or come to that conclusion at all. They're still hugely powerful. My initial point was that these bands DON'T come from the ether. They're nurtured and worked on. Planning. Marketing. Time. Effort. Of course the BIGGER the company the more planning (not all of it good at all) the more money for marketing. The more time spent. More effort EXPENDED.

I wasn't around in the 70s buying records. Well I sort of was, if you count Wombles singles at my local Woolworth's and Abba albums through my Mums Marshall Ward catalogue.
This is all gonna get a bit UK - centric - apologies.
Music is easier to get hold of than it was even 5 years ago. Buying stuff off the internet, simply hearing new bands or even old bands is so accessible it's untrue!
Ok here's how it used to be in the golden age of buying music - 'alternative music'.
You tuned your radio into Peel or Annie Nightingale or Janice Long (what would later become the Evening Session) and you heard new music. Maybe you'd read about it in the NME or Melody Maker a week before. Or seen a band support someone. Maybe you'd then go out to your local store (if you had one) who probably didn't stock the record you'd heard on the aforementioned show. Maybe you'd have to make a trip to the nearest big town to get the record. Perhaps you mailed off to a shop to get it. A cheque. Which would have to clear before you got the record mailed to you. Or carefully concealed cash.
Remember this is pre-credit card sales. My point is the effort and time. Easier then to get music? No it wasn't.

Imagine if Mr Hussey put forward the money...

"Left On m*****n And Revenge" anyone?

two pages in and still no one has mentioned Marshall McLuhan. That's got to be a record.

Some thoughts

- Eldritch has been on a major, he knows what they're capable of (the good, the bad, and the totall useless). At best they give you cash to go film some videos which might even get on MTV which can't hurt (okay, that was back in the late 80s/early 90s when MTV played videos before they became the portal to Satan's anus they are today). They can give you more promotion, yes, the marketing marketing marketing.

At worst....East/West....no promotion, no clue what to do with the band, blah blah blah. Incompetence.

Eldritch isn't doing any kind of Neubauten democratic studio membership for fans, he's not going to take fan money for an album, and he probably won't produce DIY albums or bootlegs.

I just think he strongly believes The Sisters are a major label band and deserve the proper resources and exploitation only a major can provide (in his mind). Maybe a minor will do. But until there is a decent amount of cash to ensure he can finish the album in proper style, and cash to promote a full tour (well, he can tour without promotion), and in general, something worse his grief, then we'll be travelling to see his roadshow till whenever.

Would be a goddamn shame if the 'new' songs NEVER got an official release, just a pity and shame and unnecessary, blah blah blah.

His name must be mud in some circles, and there's probably not much incentive to sign The Sisters in terms of money, or what's cool, etc, etc. If the majors have even heard of them anymore in the midst of signing s**t bands.

*&#@ the majors and the industry, I wanna go see some more shows before they are gone forever.

If only Quiffy could persuade Choque to give Andrew a kick up the arse and put out "the next one" on 48 Crash.

But that's probably been tried with little success

Smallstone wrote: Explain to the what the evolution in the music business is over the past 25 years you speak of? I mean I kind of know what you mean but... people who run the music business don't like music like the used to in the 'golden age'? Hmmm. I think thats a pretty simple way of looking at it.

Up until the 60s, 70s, record companies executives generally had some kind of musical training/background. As a result, quality and market value were considered quite synonymous. At least quality was a factor, whereas now the two can be totally separated. Remember it's an overall perspective. Nowadays it's very common for such executives not to have any kind of artistic knowledge. I've even been told very recently that in a quite comparable area (comic books), some companies deliberately hire people who know nothing about the product, so that they're able to sell anything (i.e. any kind of s**t with no trace of remorse). Artistic taste must no longer interfere with sales.

What's the result of all that ? There was a time when an artist was given time to develop his skills, maybe blow it a couple of times before he got a hit record. Bruce Springsteen was on the verge of being dropped by his record company when he released Born to run, his third album, now commonly regarded as one of the best rock albums of all times. Now he'd be dropped right away after the first failure/album, if he was lucky enough to get signed in the first place. And you have David Bowie and Bob Dylan getting fired for not being profitable enough. Not my idea of progress.

Oh yes, developing talent. What's that?

Pink Floyd took, oh, six, seven or so tries before a Dark Side appeared. U2 needed a good four albums before blowing up with The Joshua Tree. And so it went...

The Sisters never struck me as a band for a label to 'develop'....I think the key is promotion and resources, but who knows? What to develop now?

Laugh if you will...for the love of Dog, Gary Numan released an album recently on Metropolis, he's doing a big tour, he's getting some promotion, I would imagine. Don't see why Metropolis is not a good Sisters fit.

Yeah yeah yeah...I can hear Eldritch (and many fans now): "You got a 52-bleeping date tour, what do you want from the man's Saturday job?"

We all live in hope, inside a 'stretch limbo'.

Up until the 60s, 70s, record companies executives generally had some kind of musical training/background. As a result, quality and market value were considered quite synonymous. At least quality was a factor, whereas now the two can be totally separated. Remember it's an overall perspective. Nowadays it's very common for such executives [b]not[/b] to have any kind of artistic knowledge. I've even been told very recently that in a quite comparable area (comic books), some companies deliberately hire people who know [b]nothing[/b] about the product, so that they're able to sell [b]anything[/b] (i.e. any kind of s**t with no trace of remorse). Artistic taste must no longer interfere with sales.

What's the result of all that ? There was a time when an artist was given time to develop his skills, maybe blow it a couple of times before he got a hit record. Bruce Springsteen was on the verge of being dropped by his record company when he released Born to run, his [b]third[/b] album, now commonly regarded as one of the best rock albums of all times. Now he'd be dropped right away after the first failure/album, if he was lucky enough to get signed in the first place. And you have David Bowie and Bob Dylan getting fired for not being profitable enough. Not my idea of progress. [/quote]

I agree about the time to develop 'skills' stuff. In general it does seem the majors have shorter attention spans and thus the turn over of bands is a bit quicker than say 10-20 years ago. The indies do seem to stick with their acts a bit longer ..... but so what if it's all bean counters at the majors in charge (and big indies) its an expensive business to run music.
People aren't forced to buy Pink or James Blunt. I think they kinda may like it.

Personally I think (and feel free to disagree with me the music 'scene' now is great! MUCH better than say 10 years ago. Ok theres a lot of dross but there ALWAYS is. The mid 90s were an awful time for music. So was 1973. Not too keen on 1984 either. I don't particularly care about 99% of music be it on a major/indie or released by someone from their garage. It's the 1% I like. Last year all of my 10 albums of the year were on indies..... I can think (off the top of my head) of only 2 'major label' CDs I've been bothered about in the last few years and they're Sonic Youths last one and Johnny Cash's final release... Couple of artists who were/have been given time to develop:)

Von may believe he is a 'Major Label Artist' (if he bothers at all about things like this - doubt he does) but I don't think any major label in the UK would touch him with a barge pole now.. or anytime in the future.
48 Crash. Yup he should sign to them. Get the Ivories as his backing band