Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Tekla,

In another thread you posted, "Every band, if they exist long enough will do two records.  One, a very popular deal, that when examined is not really that good, and one that sank without a trace that in fact, is very good - though often very different."

Metallica has been working for about 27 years. The Grateful Dead lasted for 30. U2 formed in 1976; they've been working for 32 years. REM's been going since 1980. Rush is 40 (1 year older than me).

I consider myself to be a fan of Metallica, U2, REM, and Rush. Yet, I cannot say that I've enjoyed all of their records. It seems to me that these bands went through phases when I didn't enjoy their work, and then later I would again.

If any given band produces two records, what can a band do to stay exciting? Is it best for them to try to keep producing copies of that exciting record? Or, should they try to continue to evolve?

Well, I can start with what Pink Floyd said, because few people ever learned it better than they did.

Come in here, Dear boy, have a cigar.
You're gonna go far,
You're gonna fly high,
You're never gonna die,
You're gonna make it, if you try;
They're gonna love you.
Well I've always had a deep respect,
And I mean that most sincerely.
The band is just fantastic,
that is really what I think.
Oh by the way, which one's Pink?

And did we tell you the name of the game, boy?
We call it Riding the Gravy Train.

We're just knocked out.
We heard about the sell out.
You gotta get an album out.
You owe it to the people.
We're so happy we can hardly count.
Everybody else is just green,
Have you seen the chart?
It's a hell of a start,
It could be made into a monster
If we all pull together as a team.

And did we tell you the name of the game, boy?
We call it Riding the Gravy Train.

Once you have a 'hit' the pressure to do the same - which is pretty much pressure to release a record just like the last one - formula is everything - is huge.  And it comes from both the company as well as your mates, who are now spending money like there is no tomorrow, like the Eagles said: They threw outrageous parties, They paid heavenly bills.  And those bills, even when you don't see them right away, are being charged to you, so its possible - if not likely - that you have a hit only to wind up in more debt then when you started.

The Dead really don't figure into much of this, as they didn't have a real 'hit' till some 20 years into their gig, and among the fans its was the live records that sold, so much so, that really the Dead fans didn't buy the dead records, they just traded the live tapes back and forth. 

The bands that do a bunch of stuff, different stuff, are ones that have either enough clout to pull it off, like Tom Petty.  After three huge records, he could tell people to back off, or Neil Young, whose catalog is pretty diverse, even though most people never listed to stuff like "Trans", he was way out ahead of the curve there.  And, again, had enough sales to be able to tell people to back off, ditto U2.  Frank Zappa never sold enough to get into that problem, so they just let him be.

And, its not just the record companies.  Its the other people in your organization, and in your band, and your fans, who really, really, don't want you to change.

tekla!!

You and Roger Waters a combined cynicism unmatched.

You guys should work together!! :laugh: :laugh:

Nikki

I figured the Dead were a different beast. They seemed to be more of a concert band rather than a record band.

Oh yeah, they made most of their money by touring.  Kind of the old fashioned way.  It didn't help that most of the studio records they made were not all that good.

I'd also like to point out what a friend of mine says all the time, and though I try hard not to listen to him, he's most right about this.  What he says is:
Most bands only have two songs. 

Writing across a wide range of music, like say a Zappa could and did, is very hard.  Results will be very uneven.  But most people have something, a chord change, a key, a structure that they like, and everything they write kind of sounds like that.  Take James Blunt, a nice guy, had a huge hit, but I've listened to his shows twice now, and I can't tell the difference between any of his songs.  They are all more or less the same tune.

You are who you are in the end, and you can only play that so many ways.  Patty Smith is still Patty Smith, and no matter what she does, even Feels Like Teen Spirit, is still very Patty Smith.

What made Metallica, I think, is that like only perhaps Zep, they understood the dynamic range and had softy spots, quite spots that showcased the huge boom.  Most Metal bands try to live up to the Motorhead image which is "Everything louder than everything else" and create a constant wash of racket that's hard to pick things out of.

Quote from: tekla on November 07, 2008, 11:22:36 AM
What made Metallica, I think, is that like only perhaps Zep, they understood the dynamic range and had softy spots, quite spots that showcased the huge boom.  Most Metal bands try to live up to the Motorhead image which is "Everything louder than everything else" and create a constant wash of racket that's hard to pick things out of.

I think that Queensryche also understood/understands the use of dynamics. That said, I like Motorhead, too.

LEMMY RULES.  A hero to roadies and stagehands everywhere.  We love Motorhead.  Everything louder than everything else is a guide we can follow.  That being said, there is only one Motorhead, and few others can pull it off.

QR was always too theatrical for my tastes.  Too busy.  Like Frank said, shut up and play your guitar.

Quote from: tekla on November 07, 2008, 11:32:44 AM
LEMMY RULES.  A hero to roadies and stagehands everywhere.  We love Motorhead.  Everything louder than everything else is a guide we can follow.  That being said, there is only one Motorhead, and few others can pull it off.

QR was always too theatrical for my tastes.  Too busy.  Like Frank said, shut up and play your guitar.

I like the theatrics.

I know, lots of people do.  I have kind of a soft spot of Alice Cooper.  And it gives me work, the more junk they set up, the more of us they need.  But, it's rock, you season to taste and all, that's why there are so many bands so we can all find ones we like, and ones we don't like so much too.

Quote from: tekla on November 07, 2008, 11:22:36 AM
Take James Blunt, a nice guy, had a huge hit, but I've listened to his shows twice now, and I can't tell the difference between any of his songs.  They are all more or less the same tune.

So, it seems that bands have 2 choices.

1. Do what's necessary to stay successful. This means record and ticket sales, which means income and a loyal, if somewhat ovine, fan base.

2. Do what pleases them as artists. It could record and ticket sales, but it could also mean alienating the fan base.

Well.... you don't want to go back to 'nights and weekends' at the hardware store do you?

You don't want to give up the limos, the real nice hotel rooms and all else that comes with it?

I don't think that its that easy a choice. Like my friend says about 'they only have two songs' there may not be a huge wide area that you - or your band - could explore, or would want to explore.  Jerry and Bob always wanted to do a lot more acoustic folk stuff, but the drummers were all about the NO WAY on that one.  No one who drums for a rock band ever want's to be told to 'lay back.'  And though the Dead fans merrily converse about the 'country dead' and the 'rock dead' 'jazz dead' and the 'blues dead' and the even 'pop dead' to people who aren't big fans, it all sounds the same to them.  So despite 'what' they might be doing, I only have to listen to a few notes to know its them.

You can shift a bit, Carlos Santana became much less 'rock' and more salsa jazz as he went.  But that was not unexpected, that salsa jazz stuff was very much at the heart of his sound.  And it took a lot of time, 30 years almost to really do away with most of the rock stuff.

And Joni Mitchell changed from a folk to jazz person, but she's pretty much an exception.  And ask her how hard it is to find a second fanbase.

And I think you want to please the fans, its basic human nature, but its a big time deal in show biz where the end goal is 'love me.'  So if the people like songs like A, B and C, and not X, Y and Z - well you have to be crazy not to play more ABC songs and fewer XYZ songs.  It would take a unique drive to failure to do it any other way.

Quote from: tekla on November 07, 2008, 02:34:14 PM
Well.... you don't want to go back to 'nights and weekends' at the hardware store do you?

An excellent point, indeed

I think that "Lifes Rich Pageant" was probably my favorite REM record. There were those before it that were very good, and some decent ones after that. As far as U2, goes, "The Joshua Tree" was my favorite with the 2 or 3 after that pretty much, in my mind, being suckadelic.

Yet, both bands have had interesting offerings over the years. Michael Hedges works had definitely varied during his all too brief life. Again, I really loved his early stuff, thought the middling things were OK, and really loved his last ablum, "Torched."

Maybe there are more than just 2 options. I guess it depends on one's goals, and what they're willing to sacrifice.

Or what they feel compelled to do.  While I'm sure that Hedges was not exactly flying pink floyd style, I'm sure he wasn't working at a Burger King either.  I'd call him successful, because he made his living doing what he loved, and found others who loved it.

Quote from: tekla on November 07, 2008, 03:02:12 PM
Or what they feel compelled to do.  While I'm sure that Hedges was not exactly flying pink floyd style, I'm sure he wasn't working at a Burger King either.  I'd call him successful, because he made his living doing what he loved, and found others who loved it.

It was a real shame when he died.

Quote from: Shades O'Grey on November 07, 2008, 02:46:38 PM
Yet, both bands have had interesting offerings over the years. Michael Hedges works had definitely varied during his all too brief life. Again, I really loved his early stuff, thought the middling things were OK, and really loved his last ablum, "Torched."

I remember when Michael released his first vocal album, sales were considerably lower for it than his instrumental albums, since his initial success was as a guitarist. But over time he was able to build an audience for that too.

I believe in being true to one's artistic vision as opposed to repeating what made one popular, but I can also attest that I've paid a price for that. Then again, I wasn't ever playing in a commercially viable style that would make lots of money.

Z

i think it's terribly unusual for almost all artists not to suck terribly at some point in their careers.

the band Throwing Muses sucked for years on end, then suddenly produced the University cd, which was just awesome.

even great writers (such as Pynchon and Faulkner) suck sometimes. the hard (but essential) thing, i think, is to keep on creating, beyond your suckiness.

the disgustingly nauseating band Jethro Tull had 4 or 5 really excellent albums in their early years. how many bands can say they have 4 or 5 freaking great albums? but because of their later catalog, the consensus is, they suck.

-ell

Quote from: Tasha Elizabeth on November 20, 2008, 10:17:25 PM

Quote from: ell on November 20, 2008, 08:35:06 PM
i think it's terribly unusual for almost all artists not to suck terribly at some point in their careers.

the band Throwing Muses sucked for years on end, then suddenly produced the University cd, which was just awesome.

even great writers (such as Pynchon and Faulkner) suck sometimes. the hard (but essential) thing, i think, is to keep on creating, beyond your suckiness.

the disgustingly nauseating band Jethro Tull had 4 or 5 really excellent albums in their early years. how many bands can say they have 4 or 5 freaking great albums? but because of their later catalog, the consensus is, they suck.

-ell

ian anderson once bummed a smoke from me.  go figure.

*figures for a while, tapping finger on chin*  that is cool.

Quote from: ell on November 20, 2008, 08:35:06 PM
even great writers (such as Pynchon and Faulkner) suck sometimes. the hard (but essential) thing, i think, is to keep on creating, beyond your suckiness.

I will try to remember that.

Well play a game with me here.  Think of real good bands that have some real catalog (like more than five or six) and put them in order of greatness and 9 times out of ten, its almost goes in straight chronolgical order.  Tower of Power has made some mighty fine records.  But the whole charm and uniquness of East Bay Grease was never matched.  It set a standard that even they never quite lived up to again. 

Quote from: tekla on November 22, 2008, 12:48:15 PM
Well play a game with me here.  Think of real good bands that have some real catalog (like more than five or six) and put them in order of greatness and 9 times out of ten, its almost goes in straight chronolgical order.  Tower of Power has made some mighty fine records.  But the whole charm and uniquness of East Bay Grease was never matched.  It set a standard that even they never quite lived up to again.

i hated what happened to Steely Dan once they released the Aja album. like many rock bands, they had really gone soft. however, i actually liked when Led Zeppelin finally went soft, and In Through the Out Door was the only album of theirs i ever bought.

Funny, I  thought In Through the Out Door was the end of a near perfect run.  From Zep I through Zoso to Physical Grafitti perhaps the foundation of most that came after.

Quote from: ell on November 21, 2008, 09:19:13 AM

i think it's terribly unusual for almost all artists not to suck terribly at some point in their careers.

I think that rule only applies to the mainstream commercial artists. The less successful ones who are putting their own money into it and doing things at their own pace churn out better product every time IMO (with the exception of the greats as Tekla mentioned, Zappa and Young are my all time favourites).

Quote from: tekla on November 07, 2008, 02:34:14 PM
  It would take a unique drive to failure to do it any other way.

I dunno how unique that drive is, I thought it was the foundation of indie music ;P  (Anyone wanna buy my E.P? )

I went to Lollapaloza II with some of my students.  I had gone to number one with my friends.  I was looking at a big glossy mag that told me more than everything I've ever wanted to know about the bands while some little girl is trying to explain 'alternative' to me.  So I ask her about a band, "perfect example" she says, 'they are not as addicted to success as bands before them were'  Right, as I try to point out that being on Reprise Records (Founded by Frank Sinatra) and having William Morris as your agency, was pretty much everyone's of  success.

Quote from: Imadique on November 23, 2008, 06:37:11 AM

Quote from: ell on November 21, 2008, 09:19:13 AM
i think it's terribly unusual for almost all artists not to suck terribly at some point in their careers.

I think that rule only applies to the mainstream commercial artists. The less successful ones who are putting their own money into it and doing things at their own pace churn out better product every time IMO (with the exception of the greats as Tekla mentioned, Zappa and Young are my all time favourites).

uh, i wasn't trying make a point, i hope. just an observation. btw, Throwing Muses was not at all a main stream band. in fact, they broke up because they couldn't make enough money.

oh, and jfyi, both Zappa and Neil Young have sucked Big Time at various points in their careers.

-ell

Quote from: ell on November 24, 2008, 10:30:56 AM
both Zappa and Neil Young have sucked Big Time at various points in their careers.

That I have to agree with.