PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

I've come to the conclusion that you can become a big name in the music production industry by deliberately making shit sounding music as long as it sounds 'different'.

Any thoughts?

Well, what I'm getting at obviously doesn't apply to every producer or band (and I should have said that in the initial post), but at the end of the day, yes, producers are searching for something different.

Case in point in terms of looking for something different are the Chemical Brothers. Their last album included a completely dancehall vibed track, which tbo is not exactly new, but was new in the form they produced it.

It seems that it's more about your profile & whether you manage to actually get it out there that's important.

I`m with shit.

I think you can make whatever sound you like, as long as you can talk the talk, and climb the network ladder. Same as in any business I think. Business is not so much about the product, it's about making rich friends who give you money, to make money with. And once you get there you can spend lots of money making shit, sound and look like gold. Before you know it, you beging to think you're making gold, and so does everyone else. Then you meet a friend who you think is capable of turning shit into gold.. And so the system perpetuates itself.

I know what you're saying to an extent Ken & I guess nobody really has the right to say what's crap & what's not. I still don't think I've properly explained my train of thought either though. I'm not just thinking about electronic music, but rather many areas of the industry. It's not just necessarily formula-driven electronic music. It could be a crappy manufactured pop band (boy band, girl band or even guitar band) which millions of people actually adore. But the main issue there isn't the fact that someone made it big by making crap music, it's that millions of people enjoy & go out and buy the crap music.

Everyone's definition of crap is completely different, as I'm sure it should be.

I am totally with Ken on this one. I mean just look at Madonna, she made it humongous by producing crap all the way from the beginning and she is being worshiped by millions and millions of people. Personally i think everyone has a right to say something is crap, it just doesn't amount to much. Music can be viewed as crap in terms of artistry, craftsmanship or the motivation behind a piece of work- and that's where Madonna IMO utterly fails, she is a go getter from the very start and her craving for admiration(she is filthy rich by now so maybe she is passed that now) hasn't diminished one little bit in decades of her stage presence. But as Elvis once said, can't argue with a million sold records

Peace

and Elvis couldn't be wrong.

I see what you mean.. so you're talking about the recieving side to a degree. I agree with you on that... What's marketed obviously isn't always worth gold, and people know that.. it seems people are easier to fall prey to a social obligation, as in, "everyone's checked this album out", or "everyone talks about it", and the fact can be that every one talks shit about it.. But still, a sale is a sale, and if the social obligation is strong enough, the sales will show. It's a sad mechanism, totally different from creating good things, or any sort of art. There can be good ones far in between, but who's got the intellect to appreciate it? Dunno...

Bottom line is tho, I've come to terms with the whole marketing thing, and that's if I don't want to market it, then I won't. It's not a clear conscious decision really, more like a tangible, kinesthesic feeling. And when I make something I think is worth marketing, then I won't hesitate to use all the rules in the book. I did that with the finland project, and that went well for while it lasted. Although it wasn't marketed towards the masses (just people who hang around contemporary museums), the right crowd appreciated it for the right reasons, and in the end, I think that's all that matters from an artist's perspective.

I have to admit tho, my marketing skills aren't that good, partially because I'm very judgemental about my own work, and also because I have a high ideal of what artistic music "should" be, and so I lack the confidence required in good marketing. I do admire people who can market the hell out of rubbish, especially those who really believe they are making gold. That sort of ignorance and self indulgence is hard to attain. There is a business lesson to learn from that.

Elvis was a lot of things but he wasn't crap . Perhaps try bending over
Btw I came a long time after the the Pres and it took me a while to see

one man's crap....

everything that's made has a purpose, even stuff who's main purpose is to make money has a thought behind it. people are not as stupid as we like to think(after all, the idiots around here are people!), there has to be some sort of substance in the trick, to make enough people fall for it. in the case of the emperors new clothes, it was the fear of being ridiculed that made everyone hold their tongue while they pretended to not see.

in the case of the emperor's clothes, the obvious could only be supressed for a short while, as soon as someone blurted out what everyone was thinking, it was over. this is how some crap never even takes off. it's like George in "hard day's night" when asked about what he thought about the latest teen rage plans, "grotty". usually, there's first class production, arrangement, and a catchy hook, at least some substance to sell the garbage, just like food from McDonalds(there is SOME food in there).....

the question always is, "why do they want to spend so much to bring us crap when quality costs the same amount of money to produce and promote?" and "what is the real purpose of culture?".

"why can't i make a living off of my work?" is also a valid question. obviously, just "making crap" is not enough.....

not possible. it's a mafia, no one succeeds without approval.

I agree with the mafia metaphor, and I couldn't agree more with the thought that everything has an underlying intention, even if it sometimes is very far away from the actual object, or piece in question. There's a war going on, remember?

If you make your own music, and if you are capable of delivering a finished, quality product by yourself, then you are a sort of a threat to the establishment, because you just did it without their help, and so, they won't help you at all in distributing, and promoting - sometimes not even selling it, even considering that there's some profit to be made.

There are "lineages" of producers, promoters, label owners, opinion makers, etc. and they all work together. One person cannot publicly support or manifest a positive opinion on something unless he has the OK from the person above him. This I have seen with my own eyes. It's like the news on TV - it doesn't matter what happened, they will tell you only what is in line with their editorial stance, which is most of the time determined by obscure (corporate) political and economical interests.

If you make your own music, and consider only your own experience, sensibility and interests, then you have to find your own audience, and work with them (finding out "who cares"). But if you make music for which there already is an audience, setting aside the obsession with being unique and working only with "your own ideas" (something which is rarely, if ever, true), then it will be a lot easier to start a "career", or at least a dialog with the audience and the industry, and once you get your foot in, you can start doing it your own way.

I make many songs that reflect my feelings and ideas, and my experiments wih sound. But, although I can be happy with them as they are (few sounds, just the basic structures and movements), I know I have to work them in such a way that they can be useful to the listener, something that a group of people (whoever they are) can enjoy and make it their own. Take, for example, a dj, one of those old skool techno djs: when he plays a record, it's his record, and when you dance to it, it's your dance. Nobody wants to look bad by playing a record that doesn't work with the people, even if it's done by some mega-star-ultra-virtuoso producer. What you want is music that works with the people, and since everyone's out to have a good time, there's a narrow band of sounds and tricks one can do - but if it's beyond that limit, it'll take a special occasion or a special crowd to work with it.

I have been making music since I was a pre-teen, and have some experience in this field. I've had good friends, who want to support my music, but can't because it's out of their "territory", while the people who currently run the same territory simply ignore it, because I did it without them. After much bitterness and angry words, I decided to release a cd on my own, and although every single PERSON that has heard it has something good to say about it (even though taste is a personal thing), even though I've had people around the globe, people I don't know and never met, posting about it, and asking for copies, I couldn't get a single record shop to sell ONE copy, I couldn't get a distributor, and I'm still working without a label. BUT I have made a good album, working with very little gear and the smallest monitors imaginable - and that makes me proud. They can ignore it, but when it plays, it still sounds good. And when PEOPLE listen to it, they know what I'm talking about. So it didn't bring me any money, but hopefully there's time for that. I'm only saddened that I wasn't able to distribute it as widely as I wished, as I know there are many people that would appreciate it.

Just one last thought: making records is hard and expensive work, and you will need a marketing / distributing machine in order to get it out to the people. On the other hand, playing live in bars and venues, or even in self-organized friends-only events, even if it doesn't pay much, will allow you to meet an audience and have some immediate feedback on your work - which will then translate into more "audience -friendly" recordings, that will make better-selling records.

To finish up, I'd like to post a link to an interview with Robert Rich, in which he addresses the question "Can a musician make a living with 1000 dedicated fans?". This seemed to me like a very down to earth, lucid point of view. A musician is, in many ways, like a "brand" - you have to develop your product without making your audience run away. But to make a long story short, he claims that if he makes a new album every year that fully sells 1000 copies, and manages to get at least 30 gigs, he can make between 10.000 to 20.000 USD a year, including download fees and copyright fees from films, etc... Not much considering the cost of equipment, and considering this is a relatively well-known composer, that benefited from once having a major label standing behind him and promoting his music.

You can read it here, if you like: http://robertrich.com/1000-true-fans-an-answer/


Let's keep on making music then, shall we?



Cheers,

T