Perfectionism when recording.

Skitch

Pioneer Member
Bermuda, if you want to make money - I have no issue with that. But in my view, money and art should co-incide rather than be directed at one another. Part of the reason that chart music now sounds identical to chart music ten years ago (with some exceptions) is the 'playing safe to make money' mentality.

Look at the art World. Art is a rarified commodity compared to music. A few individuals hold the money, a few more hold the art and it is so, so corrupt. A few months ago there was an investigative TV programme about business practice in the art World. One law states that any company in commodities trading (e.g. oil, coal, etc - but not including art works) cannot own more than a certain percentage of that commodity; that percentage being decided by whether or not their ownership directly affects the retail price. All of these gallery owners (and that's how they got around the rules, incidentally) bid on their own items at auction and artificially inflated the prices. Practices that in most other Worlds would be utterly illegal.
Art isn't deemed a necessary commodity like oil or coal. And, because of technology, art is even more expendable; case in point - digital camera versus a pen and ink well. Yes, the craft has been lost.....but you can't expect someone who hasn't devoted as much time as you have to have the same emotional attachment to your craft. You can't have all of the convenience that technology and progress has created without having the ill-effects. Utopia doesn't exist.

I feel that music has been the same way now for decades. Essentially three major labels with monopolies over artists and commodities, determining their own terms for success and screwing artists for all they're worth.
Then there is a choice isn't there; do it the way the label says do it or do it yourself. No one is holding a gun to the heads of the artists who sign with a label. Record labels are just like the artists; they want a return on their investment or they don't get to stay in business for long! Let's see, it is called the music BUSINESS, right? Or does that only apply when it is convenient? How many people get into playing music these days because of the image of being millionaires and not having to be responsible - thousands and they are in schools across the world. And every original band I have ever played in, that has been their goal - to become millionaires by playing their own music. So does this make them a sellout?

It always comes down to making more money back than what they spent. The broader the appeal, the more likely you will have success - sorry to disappoint you, but much of life (and success) is like a bell curve. I think of the guy who invented a machine which he could sell for 1 million dollars. Problem was that no one wanted to spend a million dollars on his machine. Later in life, he invented a fishing lure which he sold for less than ten dollars. He eventually became a millionaire because what he had, had a broader appeal.


My old college tutor (quite a successful songwriter, at least in UK terms) used to work for record companies as an A&R man and told us the average breakdown of percentage pay. The retail outlets get the most, followed by the record company/distributor (often the same thing...) and right down at the bottom of the pile are the people that make the whole endeavour possible. Now this has been re-addressed with concepts like self-release. Radiohead made more individually as a band despite payment being voluntary on an album. They wouldn't have got there without major-label backing for ten years (their contract eventually expired after 'Hail to the Thief') but I am confident that there is nearly always a market for music - we just don't know it yet. Look at the success of death metal and grindcore in the last fifteen/twenty years. Twenty years before that the very concept was unpalatable and then it reaches (I would argue) fairly mainstream success.
I haven't seen the success of the genres you are talking about. Metal tends to be more self-gratifying than pop music. When you are asking someone to pay you for your art, they, in effect, become your boss! The word commercial comes from the word commerce which means money is changing hands.....If you want to deny the commerce aspect of art and choose to be a starving artist, go for it. But don't get upset when you become a self-fulfilling prophecy just because you decided that money wasn't important to you. If you spend your time pigeon-holing your music and promote it to be for only the most discriminating, elite (which there are less of) taste, why should you be suprised and bitter when mainstream (which there are more of) doesn't care?

True, some artists become a success in spite of the way things are, but they tend to be the exception rather than the norm.

With the Internet, bands are not going to have to pander to markets. If they do their research properly, work hard enough and know what they are doing, there is no need for the middle-man to determine what is commercial and what is not.
This is doubtful.....Yes, they can take control but they are always going to need a middleman of some sort just to help them from not going broke. Merch doesn't sell itself nor does it do its own accounting. More importantly, there is going to be someone who knows how to get the band in on a opening slot on a tour! This is the "who you know not what you know" aspect of the business. If you don't have a label behind you, radio play, television the TV talk show circuit will remain a dream (how many times was Rush on Leno?) - and these are still the top outlets for music. As far as the internet goes, breaking into "THE BIG TIME" will be just like trying to find a grain of salt on Santa Monica beach. Markets do have their purpose and that is finding the potential buyers for potential sellers. As far as pandering to a market, every band does it....ever hear the phrase of our sound is band x meets band y meets band z? The band in question is trying to find a sound that their potential consumer already knows and is comfortable with - i.e. their market!

Do you think 'Music For Airports' was touted as a commercial release? Absolutely not. But it was a breakthrough performance and has changed the very scope of electronic music and the effects are still obvious. The same is true Eno again with David Bryne on 'My Life in the Bush of Ghosts' - one of the most influential albums ever released, but released largely independently (Eno had made enough money from Roxy music to fund his endeavours) and without artistic compromise. Independent releases CAN and HAVE broken through even with no commercial pretensions. It's just damn good music and now these avenues are more open than they were when Eno was doing this kind of work.
You just blew up your entire argument - Eno already had made a name with Roxy Music and therefore had the connections and network to help. Here again - who you know and not what you know. You are comparing apples to oranges here when you are comparing two long-established artists to a struggling artist.
The good people now have the means to succeed without having to compromise their music. Self-indulgence? Absolutely. That's what artists have always done. But now there's no need to worry about a guy in a suit telling you what you can and can't do. A lot of rubbish will be made and released under this system - I have little doubt - but the genius that I am convinced is there will eventually make itself apparent - without the need for massive finances. The big money will go; the millionaire musicians will probably disappear, but they will be replaced by a larger field of new artists who earn a good living. And that is a far healthier state to be in.
I think you are being a bit too simplistic here; there will always be millionaire musicans - they will be appealing to an audience not holding them in contempt. They may be playing in cover bands which can break the bank more easily than a successful original act. You also seem to have a contemptuous attitude towards anyone in a suit - and I am guessing that this is a metaphor for business doing what it is supposed to do - make money.

Money is a necessary evil in this world.



EDIT: Skitch and Bermuda, I can see where our difference lies. I am convinced that a lot of the commercially successful music is that way because record companies promote what they think will sell, and it does - but only as a self-fulfilling prophecy and not because it is any good. People are practically being told what to like. I'm a little less business-orientated and perhaps more cynical and I believe that the public can decide for themselves without the need to be told what is good and what is not. If you had a car dealer in the UK with adverts everywhere, but they made crap cars, they'd sell far better than a dealer who doesn't have adverts everywhere who makes great cars at the same price point. I see record companies as those adverts and nothing more.
Here again, you are being a bit too simplistic in your rational. To quote a Paiste ad (here is that commerce philosophy again - ads are commercials and generate revenue - commerce), yes any cymbal company can produce a cymbal model in which every duplicate will sound exactly the same. But such high tolerances require the use of highly specialized machines, the type of which are used in other industries and costs exceed the benefit. I.e. - yes that cymbal can be made, but it is going to cost the customer $36,000 for 16" crash cymbal (and I think that is in 1991 dollars). So let's all get in line and get our wallets our for that perfect, 16" crash!

Maybe the public can decide for themselves and maybe they can't. I mean, maybe the public is busy trying to other menial tasks like trying to stay employed in this crazy economy, got a bad report form the doctor, or just trying to make it through college before the pell grant runs out instead of trying to being up to snuff on being musically educated!


The leg up a record label is going to give band A who is signed on their label over band B who isn't signed on a label is a higher platform to stand over all of the other artists on the level below them.


Mike

http://www.mikemccraw.com
http://www.dominoretroplate.com
http://www.patentcoachmike.com
http://www.youtube.com/drummermikemccraw
http://www.myspace.com/drummermikemccraw
http://www.facebook.com/mike.mccraw
 

Skitch

Pioneer Member
Last night I watched a movie called "Standing In The Shadows Of Motown." It's a film about the "Funk Brothers," the musicians who played on all those Motown hit records.
I own this DVD and it is excellent!

The way they tell it the charts were passed out, charts the players had never seen, then the players got their parts together and the tape started rolling. They churned out song after song that way, and they could do it because they knew what they were doing.
Listening to those records today it seems incredible that so little preparation went into those sessions, but that's how they did it, and they did it that way because they could.
There was discussion of what was going on; sorry but this implies that everything was left to chance! Don't forget, Berry Gordy was there being the producer - doing his job which is to turn the good stuff up and the bad stuff down. Don't forget from this movie that each drummer had a fill they were supposed to play.
It's probably the main reason that those recordings sound so alive and energetic compared to today's cut-and-paste approach to recording.
Perfectionism in recording? Not there, not then.
Actually, those parts were spot on and the DVD doesn't state how many takes were involved. Everyone in the room knew what their role was and, yes, there was a formula which they wore out! This is the reason that Motown is known as Hitsville USA.
It was the funk, the soul in those recordings, the immediacy of manifesting the music, and the musicianship needed to be able to do that.
And the knowledge of what the producer would and would not tolerate. They didn't try to turn it into a jazz session, although most of those guys were jazz players at night. And they always worked together, whether during the day, in the studio, or at night in the clubs. They were very familier with each other.

Three days to record one song? Those guys would record three, four songs in one day, most of which made it to the top of the charts. There were no safety nets back then, the tape rolled and they laid down the tracks, and those records are classics by anyone's standards, mistakes and all.
There are still guys doing this. They know how to read, what their role in the process is and can be people-pleasers (people other than themselves) and couldn't care less about double bass drums.

I am not arguing the greatness of these musicans, just the implication that everything was left up to spontenaety and chance; it wasn't! There were charts and a sound objective was the goal, just like when Steve Gadd played on Aja. By Steve's own admission, there was a chart and there were at least two takes. Steve also knew what the objective was. The objective wasn't "Hey....it's Steve Gadd! Let's roll tape and let him just go at it with NO direction whatsoever!" I am sorry but this self-perputating type of lore has to end somewhere and it ended with Steve answering a question about Aja in a drum clinic in Richardson, Texas in 2005.


The main argument on perfectionism in recording isn't necessarily the high degree of musicianship; it is what is going to stick out like a sore thumb for time eternal and really doesn't belong.


Mike

http://www.mikemccraw.com
http://www.dominoretroplate.com
http://www.patentcoachmike.com
http://www.youtube.com/drummermikemccraw
http://www.myspace.com/drummermikemccraw
http://www.facebook.com/mike.mccraw
 
M

Mediocrefunkybeat

Guest
You just blew up your entire argument - Eno already had made a name with Roxy Music and therefore had the connections and network to help. Here again - who you know and not what you know. You are comparing apples to oranges here when you are comparing two long-established artists to a struggling artist.
Sorry, but no.

Eno's self-released material was possible because of the money he had made with Roxy music, but not because of the exposure. If you look at his list of albums in the 70's - starting with 'Here Come The Warm Jets' there is a radical shift around '75/'76 where he starts heading into heavily experimental territory. Not mass-market consumerism. 'Music for Airports' (arguably his most lauded of these releases) never sold massively, it just became an underground and influential success and largely by word-of-mouth. And this is where we get into that word 'Profile'.

The crux of my argument comes down to artist profile. Now, it is far, far easier to have a large international profile online (which is a massive market) than it has ever been to have an international profile before. Ten years ago even, you relied on advertising from labels and tours. Posters up in every town, long tour routes half way across the Earth and now that is all almost completely irrelevant. None of that hurts, sure, but there are a thousand other free ways in which bands can make themselves known and here's the killer without any industry connections if they know what they are doing.

Ever heard of viral marketing? Yeah, that's what music is down to these days on the Internet. And that doesn't require a massive financial pot that the record labels own.

As for the statement about people getting into music to become millionaires? Those musicians can take a running jump for all I care. They're in for what I would deem 'The Wrong Reasons'. Like Bermuda, I think that money and music can co-incide, but to direct them at each other is just a joyless, soulless exercise. I think we tend to call that 'the charts' these days - although it's getting better.

Here's a quote from a UK Industry Insider (called 'Big George' he writes for Sound on Sound)

The music industry is in free-fall and the way things have always been done will soon no longer apply. The only constant will be an unquenchable desire for new and relevant music. Where that music comes from, how it's delivered and the size of its audience is is not just open to question, it's there for the taking!
He's absolutely right. They'll be more utter, utter rubbish around but if you can tread yourself over that...

...there is one process that can make the machine accelerate to turbo-nutter speed in your favour. And, try as they might, the powers that be can't control it, they don't own it, and frankly they're losing their edge on it after decades of misjudgment and moronic monotony. In the quest for sales, market share, notoriety and fame, there's nothing to touch this single, most important factor for success, in every genre. And we'll be looking at it in great detail next month. D'you know what it is yet? One word... PROFILE.
And nowadays, profile has almost nothing to do with record labels.
 

Thaard

Platinum Member
Anyway, if anyone wanna listen/critique/give feedback on the track, PM me or write it here. I'll send it to ya.
 

Skitch

Pioneer Member
Sorry, but no.

Eno's self-released material was possible because of the money he had made with Roxy music, but not because of the exposure. If you look at his list of albums in the 70's - starting with 'Here Come The Warm Jets' there is a radical shift around '75/'76 where he starts heading into heavily experimental territory. Not mass-market consumerism. 'Music for Airports' (arguably his most lauded of these releases) never sold massively, it just became an underground and influential success and largely by word-of-mouth. And this is where we get into that word 'Profile'.

The crux of my argument comes down to artist profile. Now, it is far, far easier to have a large international profile online (which is a massive market) than it has ever been to have an international profile before. Ten years ago even, you relied on advertising from labels and tours. Posters up in every town, long tour routes half way across the Earth and now that is all almost completely irrelevant. None of that hurts, sure, but there are a thousand other free ways in which bands can make themselves known and here's the killer without any industry connections if they know what they are doing.

Ever heard of viral marketing? Yeah, that's what music is down to these days on the Internet. And that doesn't require a massive financial pot that the record labels own.

As for the statement about people getting into music to become millionaires? Those musicians can take a running jump for all I care. They're in for what I would deem 'The Wrong Reasons'. Like Bermuda, I think that money and music can co-incide, but to direct them at each other is just a joyless, soulless exercise. I think we tend to call that 'the charts' these days - although it's getting better.

Here's a quote from a UK Industry Insider (called 'Big George' he writes for Sound on Sound)



He's absolutely right. They'll be more utter, utter rubbish around but if you can tread yourself over that...



And nowadays, profile has almost nothing to do with record labels.
MFB,

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I am not going to deny the internet's power (after all I am taking advantage of it) but you are dead wrong when you discount Eno's connections in the music business as not being relevant - and I wasn't referring to his exposure. Out of all of the bands clamoring for "their fifteen minutes of fame" will come choas and as you quotes more rubbish around. But I doubt that you will see the day of the masses clamoring for songs in 21/16 or self-indulgent musicians playing only for themselves.

Band slike Hinder will still produce hit songs, much to your chagrin, and the record labels will still sign them and put horsepower of the money behind them.

Still at the end of the day, even playing "Sweet Home Alabama" for the masses beats the daylights out of punch a clock, making money for someone else.

I am pretty much done with this topic as nobody wins an argument.



Mike

http://www.mikemccraw.com
http://www.dominoretroplate.com
http://www.patentcoachmike.com
http://www.youtube.com/drummermikemccraw
http://www.myspace.com/drummermikemccraw
http://www.facebook.com/mike.mccraw
 

JPW

Silver Member
I think most of the industrial music today actually are more like 'applied arts'. To make a selling product. It's a type of art but not art for arts sake. Music like Britney Spears for example could be analogic to furniture in Ikea. Both are applied arts, and both are made for the sole purpose of getting money from people as efficiently as possible. And when the corporations behind the designs are huge and/or have sort of monopoly in the indrustry it all becomes a 'self-fulfilling prophecy'.

But I don't like some of the attitudes here that those who wan't to make less compromises with their art are somehow inferior to those who make more money and compromises. Not all of us live for the sole purpose of making the most money possible. Not every musician want's to play at a stadium. Some actually have very opposite ideologies and you just can't label them as 'self-indulgent'. Maybe their crowd is just very small since their ideology / way of life / world view is very different from the majority.

I watched a finnish heavy metal documentary on the TV couple of days ago. It's strange that globally a very underground thing became a mainstream thing in a small country (most of radio stations here proadcast metall music these days). So if every artist would have just stopped 'being self-indulgent' I don't know where would the finnish metal scene be these days.
 
M

Mediocrefunkybeat

Guest
MFB,

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I am not going to deny the internet's power (after all I am taking advantage of it) but you are dead wrong when you discount Eno's connections in the music business as not being relevant - and I wasn't referring to his exposure. Out of all of the bands clamoring for "their fifteen minutes of fame" will come choas and as you quotes more rubbish around. But I doubt that you will see the day of the masses clamoring for songs in 21/16 or self-indulgent musicians playing only for themselves.

Band slike Hinder will still produce hit songs, much to your chagrin, and the record labels will still sign them and put horsepower of the money behind them.

Still at the end of the day, even playing "Sweet Home Alabama" for the masses beats the daylights out of punch a clock, making money for someone else.

I am pretty much done with this topic as nobody wins an argument.



Mike
My point is that you can make these kind of connections now without a record label using the Internet. I've seen it happen. I know a lady who got into management and within about a month had hundreds of names on her Blackberry - most of whom she'd never met and most of whom she'd garnered from the Internet and called herself to make contact with. After that she's managed to secure some very good venues for what are relatively local bands and put together launch parties and the like for bands that have been trying for this kind of exposure - but with the help of one motivated individual who knows what they're doing, the entire infrastructure of the business changes. You don't need labels to make contacts any more and the kind of exposure you can make for yourself on the Internet for practically nothing makes their business model obsolete.

As for having more crap around? I embrace that. Because with more crap, the occasional glimmer of genius is much more likely to shine. The industry has been controlled by a small selection of artists who - albeit with a few exceptions - have hardly pushed anything forward in the last twenty years. Listen to a mainstream pop single now and a mainstream pop single from 1996 and I can barely hear any difference. Listen to a mainstream pop single from 1996 and one from 1986. Not much difference there either, except for the production itself. That's twenty-three years of no progress. It's a small wonder bands are beginning to go back even further for sounds they clamour for - but that doesn't help matters either.

The more artists you have, the more competition you have and the better you have to be. That will spur a few to do some really, really good work and hopefully break the power of the millionaire artists who have been holding us in limbo for twenty years. Money is no longer the limiting factor.
 

Skitch

Pioneer Member
My point is that you can make these kind of connections now without a record label using the Internet. I've seen it happen. I know a lady who got into management and within about a month had hundreds of names on her Blackberry - most of whom she'd never met and most of whom she'd garnered from the Internet and called herself to make contact with. After that she's managed to secure some very good venues for what are relatively local bands and put together launch parties and the like for bands that have been trying for this kind of exposure - but with the help of one motivated individual who knows what they're doing, the entire infrastructure of the business changes. You don't need labels to make contacts any more and the kind of exposure you can make for yourself on the Internet for practically nothing makes their business model obsolete.

As for having more crap around? I embrace that. Because with more crap, the occasional glimmer of genius is much more likely to shine. The industry has been controlled by a small selection of artists who - albeit with a few exceptions - have hardly pushed anything forward in the last twenty years. Listen to a mainstream pop single now and a mainstream pop single from 1996 and I can barely hear any difference. Listen to a mainstream pop single from 1996 and one from 1986. Not much difference there either, except for the production itself. That's twenty-three years of no progress. It's a small wonder bands are beginning to go back even further for sounds they clamour for - but that doesn't help matters either.

The more artists you have, the more competition you have and the better you have to be. That will spur a few to do some really, really good work and hopefully break the power of the millionaire artists who have been holding us in limbo for twenty years. Money is no longer the limiting factor.
Sure money isn't the only factor and it never has been BUT having the money to spend tends to move people to the front of the line - like Taylor Swift. The lady you mention is now much like the record label in that she is the decision maker . Eventually, she will migrate and push the bands which are an easy sell or she will be out of business as an agent of any kind. The venues no longer exist purely for the art's sake; they exist to make money - ooops, there's that obscene word again much like the word profit! I know that those are evil words to you, but money makes the world go around!

Bottom line, MFB, much to your chagrin, money is still going to make a difference whether you and I like it or not. It does push people over the top in terms of media exposure. An easy sell sell is an easy sell; a Top 40 dance band is always going to be an easier sell than an obscure, all originals band because the venue KNOWS that they will make money because the appeal is very broad and it is all a numbers game when it comes to making money.

In terms you may identify with, it is the natural selection of the those who are fit to survive and those who aren't. Those who can (or who are willing) adapt will still be the guys making money; the people who can't (or who aren't willing) will be doing something else to survive - simple darwinsim. And the ones who refuse to adapt will always be the ones complaining about life not being fair, everything's rigged against them - they were born in lotus land - to quote a line from a famous drummer/lyricist.

Sometime, you really ought to read Gene Simmon's book, Kiss and Make-up. In this book, the phrase "I am the greatest, most talented, virtuoso bass player of all time" never comes up! Gene doesn't care about the mythical trophy of "THE BEST"; he just wanted to be more successful than the Beatles and he didn't care how he got there!

Mike

http://www.mikemccraw.com
http://www.dominoretroplate.com
http://www.patentcoachmike.com
http://www.youtube.com/drummermikemccraw
http://www.myspace.com/drummermikemccraw
http://www.facebook.com/mike.mccraw
 

four crossed wands

Junior Member
There was discussion of what was going on; sorry but this implies that everything was left to chance! Don't forget, Berry Gordy was there being the producer - doing his job which is to turn the good stuff up and the bad stuff down. Don't forget from this movie that each drummer had a fill they were supposed to play.
The way I read it, this was part of con struct's point -- there might have been minor imperfections, but the producer was there to make sure it didn't affect the track, not to scold the drummer and have them produce an (IMHO unattainable without quantization and triggering) "perfect" take, and the mix has a lot to do with that. I don't think we're talking about going into the studio and just doing whatever.

To bring it back to the original topic, I am always surprised how much a good mix hides things that, with the drums alone, I thought were total cock-ups. I'm not talking about major errors like coming out of a fill late, I'm talking about hitting the kick a little soft once, or even hitting the rim on the snare (can't remember what I was listening to the other night, but it was a song I've heard many times and just then noticed that the drummer plays several glaringly inconsistent snare hits)... sometimes even dropping a stick in mid-performance is unnoticible in the final mix (I love that part in Pink Floyd's Live in Pompeii where Nick Mason drops a stick and plays a great fill with one stick while he grabs another!).

So unless you're recording an album of just drums, I think there is some elasticity in what is acceptable, more and more as the arrangements get denser. It behooves a drummer (or, rather, a producer, because it's the producer who should be telling you whether you need to do another take or not) to remember that they're part of a band.
 

Skitch

Pioneer Member
The way I read it, this was part of con struct's point -- there might have been minor imperfections, but the producer was there to make sure it didn't affect the track, not to scold the drummer and have them produce an (IMHO unattainable without quantization and triggering) "perfect" take, and the mix has a lot to do with that. I don't think we're talking about going into the studio and just doing whatever.

To bring it back to the original topic, I am always surprised how much a good mix hides things that, with the drums alone, I thought were total cock-ups. I'm not talking about major errors like coming out of a fill late, I'm talking about hitting the kick a little soft once, or even hitting the rim on the snare (can't remember what I was listening to the other night, but it was a song I've heard many times and just then noticed that the drummer plays several glaringly inconsistent snare hits)... sometimes even dropping a stick in mid-performance is unnoticible in the final mix (I love that part in Pink Floyd's Live in Pompeii where Nick Mason drops a stick and plays a great fill with one stick while he grabs another!).

So unless you're recording an album of just drums, I think there is some elasticity in what is acceptable, more and more as the arrangements get denser. It behooves a drummer (or, rather, a producer, because it's the producer who should be telling you whether you need to do another take or not) to remember that they're part of a band.
Sure....and this thread was hijacked about commercialism and the like.

So back to the perfectionism thing. This is where having good engineering comes into play as things like compression can help out on that kick being a little too soft. Mastering is something of an art as well. This is why guys like David Zee can command so much for their craft not to mention that the mastering process is time consuming.

Also, as I said somewhere else in this thread, you can't replace having experience with the same musicians day in and day out. Even with the guys I work with all of the time, I have learnd to read body language and I can start to tell what is coming and the like.


With all of the nasty things said about a producer, a producer's job is to see the project thru to the project's end, with the least amount of time and cost involved. While this may come across to the artist or band as the producer being a taskmaster, when it comes time for a recoup to the record label from the band, that is less money that the band has to pay back.

And beyond that is helping the artist realize their vision and having something that is worth listening to (and is competitve for the listeners' time and attention).


Mike

http://www.mikemccraw.com
http://www.dominoretroplate.com
http://www.patentcoachmike.com
http://www.youtube.com/drummermikemccraw
http://www.myspace.com/drummermikemccraw
http://www.facebook.com/mike.mccraw
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mikemccraw
http://twitter.com/mikemccraw
 

Skitch

Pioneer Member
Thank Christ he failed!
He failed at what? I think that Gene and Paul did really well for themselves! They may not be more popular than the Beatles but they did change music and the industry in substantial ways.

From early on Gene realized that the Beatles were packaged in a very subtle way. KISS was the first band to make not only a double album successful but a double live album at that, even at a time when most record labels were predominantly against it. All of the sudden you had other bands trying it out, like RUSH. They were extremely smart - they put postage paid questionaires in their albums for the buyer to fill out. Questions like "What magazines do you read most frequently" because they didn't want to waste their marketing budget advertising in magazines their fans and potentials fans didn't ever read! They didn't start out with gobs of money to waste (which uliminates MFB's point); they just did everything smarter and when they got their chance(s), they were ready to make the most of it!

KISS was image conscious and their concerts were way ahead of their time and would influence and challenge everyone to take their visual presentation to a higher level. Without KISS, you don't have Van Halen, David Lee Roth's band, Missing Persons, Motley Crue, Ozzy Osbourne, Iron Maiden, hair metal (I could go on and on) much like without Ringo, you don't have Bonham or the many drummers after.

I would love to have Gene's kind of failure then!


Mike

http://www.mikemccraw.com
http://www.dominoretroplate.com
http://www.patentcoachmike.com
http://www.youtube.com/drummermikemccraw
http://www.myspace.com/drummermikemccraw
http://www.facebook.com/mike.mccraw
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mikemccraw
http://twitter.com/mikemccraw
 

mrchattr

Gold Member
From early on Gene realized that the Beatles were packaged in a very subtle way. KISS was the first band to make not only a double album successful but a double live album at that, even at a time when most record labels were predominantly against it.
I agree completely with the rest of your point, so forgive me for nitpicking, but it's hard to argue that KISS was the first band to make a double album successful. The first successful double album (which was also a double live album) goes all the way back to 1950, when Benny Goodman released Live at Carnegie Hall, which was a huge hit. The first successful rock double album was Dylan's Blonde on Blonde, in 1966, which was also a major success. That was followed quickly by a double album by Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention. Also, the Beatles White Album came out before KISS formed, and it's one of the top selling double albums of all time.
 

jonescrusher

Pioneer Member

No doubt, KISS are masters of commercialism, but they don't stand up to the Beatles, or any other of the all time legends, in wider terms of 'success'. That's not a bash, they're a lot of fun, and have doubtless influenced a lot of american groups particularly, just more a matter of style over substance perhaps.
 

nickg

Silver Member
don't worry. if you guys suck there is always "pro tools" and "auto tune" isn't that what it's all about today?
 
Top