Heston and Marky's Friday Top 5

[Kory]

No, I'm not that idealistic, but I think when somebody comes in with a new song where we all say very confidently "that sounds very much like [band x]" we should work a little harder to cover our theft. I get enormous amounts of pushback on this small preference.

only one band you need to be trying to sound like, imho:

We did last night.

[Dr. Medulla]

I'll tell you one thing—since I've joined this band, I've really discovered how bad other people's ears are in terms of being able to identify what bands actually sound like. We had a huge argument the other month because the guitarist had written a song that sounded exactly as if it was a new Cure song, and the singer kept harping on and on about how much it sounded like The Smiths. I couldn't believe it.

[insert joke about Hoy, REM, the Cure]

Either way, I was trying to argue "why are we ok with sounding like either of these bands?" This band is stressful.

I assume your argument is to not sound like anyone else? It's a great ideal, but the vast degree of sub-genres makes it pretty much impossible now.

No, I'm not that idealistic, but I think when somebody comes in with a new song where we all say very confidently "that sounds very much like [band x]" we should work a little harder to cover our theft. I get enormous amounts of pushback on this small preference.

Well, assuming there is a desire in the band to sell records, the only thing that matters is finding a market. Crass as it is, that's all that matters—not whether it's good or meaningful or original, but whether it can be effectively marketed to the kind of people who might want to buy it. So coming up with a song that sounds like [Famous Artist] is cutting to the chase—this can be marketed to fans of [Famous Artist]. Now, the x-factor in it all might be what you're hinting at—fans of [Famous Artist] might reject it because it sounds too similar. Depends on the fans. To me, it's pretty much a crapshoot. Lots of distinct bands get nowhere, lots of copycat bands get nowhere commercially, a few distinct ones and a few copycats find success. But I don't necessarily think your bandmates are wrong in trying to sound like a particular band as a way of getting at that audience.

[Flex]

Well, assuming there is a desire in the band to sell records, the only thing that matters is finding a market. Crass as it is, that's all that matters—not whether it's good or meaningful or original, but whether it can be effectively marketed to the kind of people who might want to buy it.

Maybe I'm misreading here, but this seems like this dismisses the possibility of competing motivations. We may exist within capitalism, but driving exclusively to maximize consumer sales need not be the only meaningful motivation even if we recognize marketability as a driving factor (among potentially many) in creating music.

Assuming there is a desire to sell records doesn't necessarily lead to effective marketing as all that matters, I guess is my take.

[Kory]

[insert joke about Hoy, REM, the Cure]

Either way, I was trying to argue "why are we ok with sounding like either of these bands?" This band is stressful.

I assume your argument is to not sound like anyone else? It's a great ideal, but the vast degree of sub-genres makes it pretty much impossible now.

No, I'm not that idealistic, but I think when somebody comes in with a new song where we all say very confidently "that sounds very much like [band x]" we should work a little harder to cover our theft. I get enormous amounts of pushback on this small preference.

Well, assuming there is a desire in the band to sell records, the only thing that matters is finding a market. Crass as it is, that's all that matters—not whether it's good or meaningful or original, but whether it can be effectively marketed to the kind of people who might want to buy it. So coming up with a song that sounds like [Famous Artist] is cutting to the chase—this can be marketed to fans of [Famous Artist]. Now, the x-factor in it all might be what you're hinting at—fans of [Famous Artist] might reject it because it sounds too similar. Depends on the fans. To me, it's pretty much a crapshoot. Lots of distinct bands get nowhere, lots of copycat bands get nowhere commercially, a few distinct ones and a few copycats find success. But I don't necessarily think your bandmates are wrong in trying to sound like a particular band as a way of getting at that audience.

I guess that's the biggest difference between me and these guys—they want to be big and I want to explore different styles of music.

[Dr. Medulla]

Well, assuming there is a desire in the band to sell records, the only thing that matters is finding a market. Crass as it is, that's all that matters—not whether it's good or meaningful or original, but whether it can be effectively marketed to the kind of people who might want to buy it.

Maybe I'm misreading here, but this seems like this dismisses the possibility of competing motivations. We may exist within capitalism, but driving exclusively to maximize consumer sales need not be the only meaningful motivation even if we recognize marketability as a driving factor (among potentially many) in creating music.

Assuming there is a desire to sell records doesn't necessarily lead to effective marketing as all that matters, I guess is my take.

I was speaking from the perspective of a record label—its goal is to sell records. Even if it makes a boutique signing where the people in charge truly believe in the artist with limited commercial appeal, the goal is to find the market for that record, even if it's tiny. Records don't just get thrown out of the nest with the hope they can fly. The artist can have competing motivations, and most of us here would hope there's a desire to do more than shift units. But for an indie band competing in a vast marketplace these days with a desire to find a market, the band itself has to think more like what the labels once did for artists. If a band isn't thinking about their target audience—i.e., thinking solely about their own artistic interests—they're setting themselves up to be unheard.

[Dr. Medulla]

I guess that's the biggest difference between me and these guys—they want to be big and I want to explore different styles of music.

And that's simultaneously admirable and selfish. But not necessarily in a pejorative sense. If at the end of the day you don't care that only a handful of people ever hear your music—or even none—that's legit, very high modernist. But if you have some notion of a certain kind of listener in mind, that's where you end up shaping your work with that person in mind—a meeting point in the form of your music. Ideally the clashing interests in the band produce something that work for everyone, but it's more likely the cliched “artistic differences.”

[101Walterton]

It’s all eggs bacon beans and a friiiiied slice!!!!

Don’t Quote Me On That - Madness
The Leader - The Clash
Scandal - Dusty Springfield
Did You See His Name - The Kinks
In The Middle Of The Night - Madness

(I had to go with both Madness tracks as not sure which is on Marky’s predictor list).

[Marky Dread]

No, I'm not that idealistic, but I think when somebody comes in with a new song where we all say very confidently "that sounds very much like [band x]" we should work a little harder to cover our theft. I get enormous amounts of pushback on this small preference.

only one band you need to be trying to dress like, imho:

[Kory]

I guess that's the biggest difference between me and these guys—they want to be big and I want to explore different styles of music.

And that's simultaneously admirable and selfish. But not necessarily in a pejorative sense. If at the end of the day you don't care that only a handful of people ever hear your music—or even none—that's legit, very high modernist. But if you have some notion of a certain kind of listener in mind, that's where you end up shaping your work with that person in mind—a meeting point in the form of your music. Ideally the clashing interests in the band produce something that work for everyone, but it's more likely the cliched “artistic differences.”

So far, yes. In fact the ONE song I thought we had that didn't need any work wound up getting completely overhauled by the singer, going from our strongest song to one of our weakest. I've always only made music for myself, as I enjoy it as a hobby and stress reliever. Whether or not anyone listens to it doesn't affect me much (the fact that nobody does probably solidified that standpoint in me over the years), since my purpose is basically to make music that I would want to listen to. I would prefer that was our method, and if other people like it, that would be cool, but if they don't, I don't see any reason to start doing things to chase them. But again, that's where the split in the band is.

[Dr. Medulla]

I guess that's the biggest difference between me and these guys—they want to be big and I want to explore different styles of music.

And that's simultaneously admirable and selfish. But not necessarily in a pejorative sense. If at the end of the day you don't care that only a handful of people ever hear your music—or even none—that's legit, very high modernist. But if you have some notion of a certain kind of listener in mind, that's where you end up shaping your work with that person in mind—a meeting point in the form of your music. Ideally the clashing interests in the band produce something that work for everyone, but it's more likely the cliched “artistic differences.”

So far, yes. In fact the ONE song I thought we had that didn't need any work wound up getting completely overhauled by the singer, going from our strongest song to one of our weakest. I've always only made music for myself, as I enjoy it as a hobby and stress reliever. Whether or not anyone listens to it doesn't affect me much (the fact that nobody does probably solidified that standpoint in me over the years), since my purpose is basically to make music that I would want to listen to. I would prefer that was our method, and if other people like it, that would be cool, but if they don't, I don't see any reason to start doing things to chase them. But again, that's where the split in the band is.

Once again, I share your perspective completely with my own "work." I have zero interest in publishing unless I actually feel good about it—which hasn't happened yet and I'm doubtful that I ever will. So my research and writing is pretty much for me alone, satisfying my own intellectual curiosities. I kind of envy people who don't give a fuck and want to throw their work into the public, that they want the audience, but I've never gotten to the point where I've written something that I think is worthwhile to others. So, definitely, I understand where you're coming from and sincerely hope that you can get to a point where you're happy with something and your bandmates also find it meets their own interests.

[Kory]

I guess that's the biggest difference between me and these guys—they want to be big and I want to explore different styles of music.

And that's simultaneously admirable and selfish. But not necessarily in a pejorative sense. If at the end of the day you don't care that only a handful of people ever hear your music—or even none—that's legit, very high modernist. But if you have some notion of a certain kind of listener in mind, that's where you end up shaping your work with that person in mind—a meeting point in the form of your music. Ideally the clashing interests in the band produce something that work for everyone, but it's more likely the cliched “artistic differences.”

So far, yes. In fact the ONE song I thought we had that didn't need any work wound up getting completely overhauled by the singer, going from our strongest song to one of our weakest. I've always only made music for myself, as I enjoy it as a hobby and stress reliever. Whether or not anyone listens to it doesn't affect me much (the fact that nobody does probably solidified that standpoint in me over the years), since my purpose is basically to make music that I would want to listen to. I would prefer that was our method, and if other people like it, that would be cool, but if they don't, I don't see any reason to start doing things to chase them. But again, that's where the split in the band is.

Once again, I share your perspective completely with my own "work." I have zero interest in publishing unless I actually feel good about it—which hasn't happened yet and I'm doubtful that I ever will. So my research and writing is pretty much for me alone, satisfying my own intellectual curiosities. I kind of envy people who don't give a fuck and want to throw their work into the public, that they want the audience, but I've never gotten to the point where I've written something that I think is worthwhile to others. So, definitely, I understand where you're coming from and sincerely hope that you can get to a point where you're happy with something and your bandmates also find it meets their own interests.

You should write a book for me.

[Dr. Medulla]

I guess that's the biggest difference between me and these guys—they want to be big and I want to explore different styles of music.

And that's simultaneously admirable and selfish. But not necessarily in a pejorative sense. If at the end of the day you don't care that only a handful of people ever hear your music—or even none—that's legit, very high modernist. But if you have some notion of a certain kind of listener in mind, that's where you end up shaping your work with that person in mind—a meeting point in the form of your music. Ideally the clashing interests in the band produce something that work for everyone, but it's more likely the cliched “artistic differences.”

So far, yes. In fact the ONE song I thought we had that didn't need any work wound up getting completely overhauled by the singer, going from our strongest song to one of our weakest. I've always only made music for myself, as I enjoy it as a hobby and stress reliever. Whether or not anyone listens to it doesn't affect me much (the fact that nobody does probably solidified that standpoint in me over the years), since my purpose is basically to make music that I would want to listen to. I would prefer that was our method, and if other people like it, that would be cool, but if they don't, I don't see any reason to start doing things to chase them. But again, that's where the split in the band is.

Once again, I share your perspective completely with my own "work." I have zero interest in publishing unless I actually feel good about it—which hasn't happened yet and I'm doubtful that I ever will. So my research and writing is pretty much for me alone, satisfying my own intellectual curiosities. I kind of envy people who don't give a fuck and want to throw their work into the public, that they want the audience, but I've never gotten to the point where I've written something that I think is worthwhile to others. So, definitely, I understand where you're coming from and sincerely hope that you can get to a point where you're happy with something and your bandmates also find it meets their own interests.

You should write a book for me.

Only if it's good.

[revbob]

I'm drawing blanks on this one...

[drowninghere]

Carbon Silicon - The News
Wire - Field Day for the Sundays
Manic Street Preachers - Kevin Carter
The Clash - Sean Flynn
Public Enemy - Don't Believe the Hype

[Marky Dread]

Either way, I was trying to argue "why are we ok with sounding like either of these bands?" This band is stressful.

I assume your argument is to not sound like anyone else? It's a great ideal, but the vast degree of sub-genres makes it pretty much impossible now.

No, I'm not that idealistic, but I think when somebody comes in with a new song where we all say very confidently "that sounds very much like [band x]" we should work a little harder to cover our theft. I get enormous amounts of pushback on this small preference.

Well, assuming there is a desire in the band to sell records, the only thing that matters is finding a market. Crass as it is, that's all that matters—not whether it's good or meaningful or original, but whether it can be effectively marketed to the kind of people who might want to buy it. So coming up with a song that sounds like [Famous Artist] is cutting to the chase—this can be marketed to fans of [Famous Artist]. Now, the x-factor in it all might be what you're hinting at—fans of [Famous Artist] might reject it because it sounds too similar. Depends on the fans. To me, it's pretty much a crapshoot. Lots of distinct bands get nowhere, lots of copycat bands get nowhere commercially, a few distinct ones and a few copycats find success. But I don't necessarily think your bandmates are wrong in trying to sound like a particular band as a way of getting at that audience.

I guess that's the biggest difference between me and these guys—they want to be big and I want to explore different styles of music.

Right guy, wrong band.