Thanks to Shaun for this link.
I think this could easily qualify as part three of Why Local Bands Stay Local.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Why local bands stay local (part three)
Thanks to Shaun for this link.
I think this could easily qualify as part three of Why Local Bands Stay Local.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
(From Facebook)
ReplyDeleteEverett True
hang on. is no one interested in why local bands stay local? is it a bit of a self-defeating title for a string of blog posts?
Andrew Mueller at 9:27pm June 16
Possibly because the phrase "because they suck" generally about covers it.
Joanna Nilson at 9:43pm June 16
Okay I'm going to "Engage" because ET is obviously frothing at the mouth (unbecomingly so) for someone to comment here. They stay local because
a. the radio(TRIPLE J) doesn't play anything even slightly challenging which rules 90 percent of us out thus it becomes harder to reach an audience interstate to play to
B. because in Australia it is extremely expensive to tour because the country is so large
c. Record companies have no money to promote or back anyone anymore
d. it has nothing to do with street press which is what you seem (ET) to be implying thus i do not understand the intent of this article.
and they don't suck here Andrew.
Everett True at 9:50pm June 16
Andrew's Australian. He knows.
Joanna Nilson at 9:51pm June 16
No he doesn't.
Joanna Nilson at 9:51pm June 16
define "local"
Everett True at 9:51pm June 16
Ah.
Everett True at 9:52pm June 16
'local' as in parochialocal
Bianca Valentino at 9:52pm June 16
they don't have the za-za-zou perhaps?! ;) lol
Ady Vpop at 9:53pm June 16
Havn't had a chance to read yet Everett but will do soon. There are generally two types of local band though...
Everett True at 9:53pm June 16
anyway. quit defending the enemy!
(More from Facebook)
ReplyDeleteJoanna Nilson at 9:55pm June 16
what are you talking about? what enemy? parochialocal isn't a word.
Everett True at 9:57pm June 16
i was being smart. parochial = local
and there's ALWAYS an enemy
Bianca Valentino at 9:58pm June 16
you just love a good engagement don't you e?! ha! you make me giggle :)
Joanna Nilson at 10:00pm June 16
oh he's just an old attention whore.
Adele Nozedar at 10:04pm June 16
ok, when does a band STOP becoming 'local'? When it starts to clamber out of the 'local' circuit and experiences the bigger picture? There are so many bands that think they should have made it but never did/never will because they get stuck playing to the same group of chums that don't tell them the truth; see andrew's comment above. Once they get out to a wider audience, they will either realise the dread truth (i refer again to the evidence of Muller QC) OR stop being 'local' because they actually DO have a whisper. Joanna, interesting points. 'challenging' doesn't necessarily mean 'good', though.
Ouragan Matthieu Jacquier at 10:04pm June 16
it s the most relevant title you could have found
Meg White at 10:07pm June 16
it is a basic matter of resources and doesn't have much to do with talent. see: the bands that have made it big if you disagree.
press isn't the be all and end all of local exposure. people don't engage with street press to be given analytical criticism, they do it for information on the what and where of their local scene, and to be given a heads up on the aural context of releases.
Joanna Nilson at 10:08pm June 16
challenging compared to say. operator please.
Meg White at 10:08pm June 16
who are just challenged.
(even more from Facebook)
ReplyDeleteJoanna Nilson at 10:10pm June 16
oh SNAP
Ady Vpop at 10:10pm June 16
but the enemy are shit!
Meg White at 10:11pm June 16
the NME won't take this lying down.
Everett True at 10:13pm June 16
Jo, you need to see the street press in a wider context.
Joanna Nilson at 10:18pm June 16
oh please stop trying to dredge this up again ET, it's cringe-worthy. Find something else to stir shit up about, this is boring. We all know what you think.
Everett True at 10:21pm June 16
dude. you're right. it is cringe-worthy. mediocrity is always cringe-worthy.
Everett True at 10:26pm June 16
going back to Meg's point about the press not being the be all and end all of local exposure. of course she's right.
however, words written about musicians do influence musicians (if no one else); and if those words fail to engage with even the most rudimentary notions of criticism then... well, jeez. That's why local bands stay local.
Despite what Jo said, I found these series of posts (and comments) very interesting, seeing as I fall into most of the catagories mentioned here. That Overland article has some real truth to it. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI think I might stick this up above my computer:
"distinction lies in the critic’s ability to assess a release in its context - to judge what an album means rather than what it sounds like. Australian critics seem wary of anything approaching literary analysis. ‘It’s all about sound,’ he says, ‘what it sounds like, not what it says.’"
Hey Alex, I can't access yr blog off the link on yr name. Can you send me the link please?
ReplyDeletehttp://alexandeveryone.wordpress.com
ReplyDeletebut I warn you. Whatever is on there would easily be "rejected by Mess and Noise".
"You’re looking at an industry, a system, where the entry level, the street press, doesn’t pay."
ReplyDeleteI hope the guy who cuts my cheques doesn't read that.
I don't believe that criticism has the potential to be the saviour of any local band, no matter how good the criticism, nor how good the local act.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, it's disingenuous -- and significantly over-stating the impact that reviewers have -- to pretend this.
Because words are an inherently limited way to try and convince someone to listen to music.
Personally, I've never in my life bought a CD off the basis of a written review that I've read.
Thing is, most advertising is ineffectual. Historically, even the best advertising has an almost insignificant success rate, and a review is merely another form of advertising for a band.
The best way to sell someone on your act is to /show/ them what you've got. The best advertisement for your music /is/ your music.
Someone waffling out 300 words about it is a pale imitation at best.
Short of showing people, you aim for a recommendation from a centre of influence. But for most people, the crucial centres of influence are their friends.
That's because they don't have a /relationship/ with music critics/reviewers. So that makes those opinions only slightly more important than that of the milkman. IMHO, the best you can expect from this sort of situation is confirmation bias -- "Aha! Just like I expected: the new U2 album sucks dick!" Or "Ah, that reminds me, really ought to pick up the new Coldplay!"
It's just not conducive to breaking new acts.
Which tells me that local acts ought to be directing their fiercest efforts to evangelise (or outright bribe) their fan base to help them become more successful.
And especially to get them more radio airplay -- because the best advertisement for your music is your music.
Good reviews are nice. But to steal some maths logic, they're not necessary, and they're certainly not a sufficient pre-condition to success.
By the by, I also strongly disagree with the statement that Australian critics must strive to find "the greater meaning" in the work.
FFS, it's sound, and I know I can find joy and pleasure in an arrangement of soundscapes and textures purely /because/ of the way it the artist arranged it without feeling compelled to subject it to some deep but ultimately artificial literary analysis.
Maybe I'm strange. But I love the sound of sounds, just as they are.
And because that's what I really respond to, that's what I try to write about and describe. If people don't get that, tough.