Twigman

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340213750' post='1701230'] And if I'm to be entirely honest, I well remember your band from the first time around [/quote] [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340205633' post='1701035'] Even when I worked on a specialist music station and had a commercially neutral playlist meet, we'd listen to the first 30 secs and / or the hook. That's all. [/quote] So did we ever get airtime?

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340213325' post='1701222'] Not required in the least. Good thread once we got past the whole moral thing. [/quote] i must admit I've enjoyed it more than any other thread on BC ever.....and now I've got sh*t loads of work that I should've done

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340211897' post='1701194'] Ok, it's the push model again. But I would guess that because you are an established artist with back catalogue people feel it's ok to like you, you have elevated status, you are not like THEM. People need that sh*t. But nevertheless, good response from a few new listeners for you on the shout box. [/quote] Maybe true. A colleague of mine is in a new band (psych rock/stoner/ metal) called Stubb. They have no back catalogue to speak of - just released album #1 - but they are using the interweb to build a followin. successfully and independently - the interweb is the new punk. They get gigs all over europe. Of course they're not making a living at it (yet) and probably never will be but they are still managing to gain exposure and sell records.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340211057' post='1701176'] But only because they were LOOKING for you! They didn't magically DISCOVER you. [/quote] No they weren't. Many, particularly via Last.fm (which we have never sanctioned) just get us played to them because we are 'similar' to what they like to listen to......many had never heard of us before accidentally discovering us by clicking on a youtube vid that was thrust at them while they watched something else or was played to them on some streaming site even reading some of the 'Shouts' on our Last.fm page suggests some folk discovering us for the 1st time [url="http://www.last.fm/music/Sad+Lovers+and+Giants/+shoutbox"]http://www.last.fm/music/Sad+Lovers+and+Giants/+shoutbox[/url]

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1340210269' post='1701157'] Different thing him featuring bands - he wasn't responsible for their success/fame; he always did it from the start of his time on air. He championed Roxy Music & Slade in the early 70's too. It helped - but it didn't cause their success. Tho' everyone knows about him & The Undertones. Just sayin'. You can carry right on into Page 16 of "I said, you said" now - [b]not[/b] you personally, just the whole topic. [/quote] I am not saying that Peel was responsible for their success. My band did a peel session but it got us nowhere....what I am saying is that why did the programmers leave the likes of U2/Smiths/Cure/NewOrder to only be played on Peel or Janis Long when a few years later they were all over Steve Wright or Peter Powell? I suspect it's because the programmers had an agenda and were empowered to decide what was 'good' and what was not. And they got it wrong. I imagine that many more artists that only ever got air on Peel or Janis Long would have had just as good a chance of success had it not been for the blinkered programmers at radio one.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340210211' post='1701155'] In theory yes, in practice no. The people who pick up on something on the internet and share it and think it's OMFG this is awsome!!!!! are many, but those who OMFG you are so right!!!!! and reshare only tend to like pap with a massive marketing angle, cute kittens balancing plates, good cleavage, or stuff that's already popular. Even then it's the video getting shared and the music seems to be incidental. There is a massive load of sh*t to wade through before the good stuff hits your search results, and I think people are fatigued with that and prefer the push model, hence the sharing revolution. [/quote] I disagree. The feedback we've had from folk who have discovered us on the interweb bears testament to the fact that the interweb works

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340209253' post='1701126'] Look, in this particular debate your band is outstanding in a field of one. [/quote] There are plenty of other bands that have been revived due to the internet. We play a lot of the same vanues as many of them. Balaam and the Angel And Also The Trees Alien Sex Fiend are 3 bands from our era that we've found are still working after years of having their material unavailable........ As I said before we are being exposed now to a whole new audience of people who were not even born first time around. Does that not make us more akin to a new band? OK so maybe we play on the legacy a little but in all seriousness it isn't much. Our original record company never spent anything on marketing in the first place. that's probably why so few people have ever heard of us. That and we are sh*te.... The difference between us and a new band is that we have a catalogue of material to market. Recording a catalogue of material is nowhere near as expensive as it used to be. The playing field is far more level with new bands than you are implying.

[quote name='4000' timestamp='1340209172' post='1701122'] Did I say anything about illegal downloading? [/quote] oh I'm sorry I thought that was the topic being debated here. My bad.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340205633' post='1701035'] Plenty of great music [i]didn't[/i] get played, not because programmers are tasteless (in fact most I knew were passionate about the subject) but because it was the [i]commercial [/i]side that mattered. Why d'ya think Peel went out at nights rather than breakfast? Low demand, low support, niche interest. . [/quote] And yet many bands that started life on Peel moved to the 'mainstream'....U2,Smiths, Cure, New Order to name but 4.... Who assessed what was [i]commercially viable[/i]? They obviously felt that those 4 bands were unmarketable or why would they need Peel to break them?

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340204712' post='1701007'] But I [i]am[/i] saying the internet has made marketing bands a far more complicated and expensive exercise. [/quote] really? File sharing is free. It kept my band 'alive' for years. Can't get better vaslue for money than that.

[quote name='4000' timestamp='1340207703' post='1701087'] Oops! Missed the point entirely! [/quote] How have I missed the point? The point is one is no more likely to make a living now as one ever was.....illegal downloading just is not a factor in this.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340203441' post='1700975'] It is far more expedient that power be in the hands of few. And a bit of quality control might ensure that most of the crap would never reach an audience's ears. [color=#ffffff].[/color] [/quote] Let me be the judge of that - not the commercially minded record company exec whose only interest is the bottom line. Who is he to decide what I like or should be listening to?

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340200534' post='1700920'] My point is that that things have got worse not better. Had the internet had any benefit we would be enjoying it. But I think the majority here would agree we are not. [/quote] I strongly disagree. The internet is the greatest markrting tool ever given to the artist

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1340199401' post='1700891'] Have you any evidence for these assertions? [/quote] I work in an industry supporting the touring industry. We are as busy as ever. While some venues close (Astoria others open to take their place O2 Academy) We're certainly finding it easier to get gigs than we did 20 years ago More music is being made - music is much cheaper to make - whether any of it is good could be debated but if it is true that a certain percentage of the music is 'good' then it follows that more 'good' music id being made.

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340198365' post='1700853'] For one thing, all those medium sized gigs are gone. Basically, live music is either Enormodrome gigs by dreadful old dinosaurs / simpering pop kids. Or it's a bunch of no hopers down the Frog and Dog. Nothing in the middle, see. In my day you could see name bands in 1000 cap venues. Where are they now, the likes of ... [/quote] they still exist: O2 academy Loads of venues in Europe smaller 300-400 I'd say there are as many of too: eg Purple Turtle OK so we have lost The Astoria/The Marquee and the Mean Fiddler but there are still plenty of venues

[quote name='4000' timestamp='1340196258' post='1700778'] that the possibility of developing your art or craft without the distractions of a full-time job, is no longer something to aspire to. [/quote] It may still be something to aspire to but one is no less likely to succeed now than one was 30 years ago

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340196175' post='1700773'] Since the internet came in, are more bands touring or fewer? Are there more 'stepping-stone' mid-level venues or fewer? Is it easier to get a gig or more difficult? Is more good music being made or less? [/quote] Since the internet came in, are more bands touring or fewer? More Are there more 'stepping-stone' mid-level venues or fewer? About the same number Is it easier to get a gig or more difficult? Easier Is more good music being made or less? More What's your point?

Reason is very simple

All this talk of making a living from being in an originals band makes me laugh. It is and always has been extremely difficult to make a living from writing, recording and performing music. A very small percentage of those who embark down that road succeed. This is no different today than it has always been. Many artists back in the day maintained other full time employment after signing possibly lucrative recording contracts. Things are little different today. It's not the illegal distribution that is preventing artists from making a living from music. It's probably more to do with the poor marketing behind the music. To get a hit takes pots of cash in marketing. Many artists don't have that support. This is no different now than it was back in the day. Our record company spent next to nothing on promotion. We were lucky: John Peel liked us. Some radiojocks in Spain,Italy and Greece liked us. We have never been in a position to give up our day jobs. We're recording our 7th studio album at the moment. Even if this was to 'do an Elbow' and go platinum, I think only one or two of us would give up our day jobs - I don't think I would. To earn a living from original material is an unrealistic expectation.

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1340193484' post='1700709'] It's more of a Warm Rod really ... [/quote] without a V5 it could well be a Hot rod

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340193113' post='1700692'] But as you keep conveniently ignoring when I point it out AFAICS your current musical activities are pretty much founded on what you did as a band back in the 80s when you had record company support and the kind of time and money put into the band that most of us these days can only dream about. You wouldn't be getting to play the gigs that you do and command the fees that you do without that legacy. [/quote] Our audience now has very little to do with the promo in the 80s. Yes the material was recorded back then but a lot of our punters weren't even born back then. Would any of them know about us if we had relied solely on legitimate channels? No It is years since our records were played on the BBC. Without the illegal distribution network we would have no audience.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340192819' post='1700680'] And what happens when the old bastards are too old to tour? Or get ill? Where's their income going to come from? [/quote] Folk buying the catalogue. Those folk who are reached through the illegal distribution networks because the pluggers are no longer being paid to get the records on radio playlists.. Just because some DL illegally does not mean all do. A downloaded album is probably not a 'lost sale' - those who DL everything the own from free sites probably would not pay for the music if the freebie option was not available. If anything a downloaded album is a bit of free marketing which may result in somebody spending some money which most definitely would not have been spent without access to the free stuff.

[quote name='4000' timestamp='1340192089' post='1700649'] All absolutely true, but not necessarily helpful to the growth of an artist or the development of talent. How many classic albums would not have been made had the artist in question been working 10 hours a day at Tescos? Or if they had been made, how long would they have taken and what would the quality of the results been like? How many people who do a full-time job can either employ skilled sound engineers or afford to spend the time to learn Protools etc back to front, even assuming their ears are up to it? These days once I get home from work I hardly have the energy to pick my bass up, let alone come up with the next Dark Side of the Moon. Maybe that's just me.[/quote] That may just be you....we're a 5 piece. three of us have home studios. One of us works full time in the music industry and owns his own record label. We all have quite senior roles for the companies that we work for. We still find time to write, rehearse and record our songs - yes it takes longer than it did in the 80s when we had fewer other commitments but we believe the quality is better now than it was. [quote name='4000' timestamp='1340192089' post='1700649'] On the subject of making your money from gigs, has anybody playing originals tried this recently? Lets just say I'd be on bread & water for the forseeable future...if that.[/quote] Every gig we play (albeit that's not many) we make a reasonable profit. We never play cover versions. Make of that what you will.

no V5 oh dear

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340188969' post='1700567'] But to sustain a career in music is not then easily possible is it. To make the best music you can make and really represent yourself at your best, you need to dedicate a lot of time to it, practising, writing, refining, learning, touring, promotion .. giving yourself the best chance at a sustainable career. You can't do all this and have a day job to pay the rent and eat and fund the next musical project. [/quote] We all have day jobs. We probably break even these days. Recording is far far far cheaper now than it was. Back in the 80s you'd be lucky to get change from £20k when recording an album. These days you can record an album for a fraction of that cost.