Goddamnit. Well f that idea. I guess that's not all that surprising.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
Below-the-radar bands deny themselves mainstream success purposefully because, as I said, they equate financial benefits with selling out.

I don't think that's necessarily true Pax. I think most of the time it's music snobs like us that equate finicial benefits with selling out. I hear that crap all the time in these forums. I think most bands would welcome success as long as they weren't comprimising their artistic integrity to get it.

Dubs is also right that most artists make their money touring. Unless your selling albums in the millions, you're probably at best breaking even. Yeah you can get better royalties from an indie label, but the trade-off again is visibility. Places like Wal-Mart (which I believe is the #1 seller of CDs in the country) don't stock a lot of indie labels. Good luck finding the new Liars album there.

Hmm..I would say Pax is more half-right about that.

I don't think bands specifically think "I don't want to sell out and make money, so I'm not going to try to get on a big label."

But, they do avoid big labels because they don't like feeling like a commodity, and because they're worried about losing full creative control of their music.

But, I think if any indie band was big enough to really feel like a sure thing to a record company, the record company would approach them and offer them a deal they could be happy with. Death Cab For Cutie, for instance, I believe has full control over their music written into their contract a dozen times over. A major label deal isn't like some rubber stamp, take it or leave it. Major labels want their business, and will give them the deal they need to get them to sign.

Now, of course, American Idol winners have to sign over naming rights to their first born child, but that's different.

Two thoughts...

1) I'm sure you are right that most artists today don't make much money off selling CD's, but that's my point! Why not make the money off the CD's if you can do it? Sell a CD online for 10 bucks, skip Best Buy entirely, and make increased profits.

2) As I said, all you have to do is listen to some of the stuff that bands like Wilco and the Flaming Lips and the Arcade Fire make, and you know that if marketed well, it could be just as, if not more, successful than American Idol people. So what is the reason this marketing is not being done? I think it is because the indie bands don't have any desire to make it big and be on MTV. I doubt it is because there is some executive in a glass tower listening to Wilco, saying "This is a piece of shit, get it out of my office." That's what some of us would like to believe, but the truth is probably that Wilco doesn't want their music in the exec's hands in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
Two thoughts...

1) I'm sure you are right that most artists today don't make much money off selling CD's, but that's my point! Why not make the money off the CD's if you can do it? Sell a CD online for 10 bucks, skip Best Buy entirely, and make increased profits.

That's exactly what thousands of unknown bands across America already do. They don't make any money.

quote:

2) As I said, all you have to do is listen to some of the stuff that bands like Wilco and the Flaming Lips and the Arcade Fire make, and you know that if marketed well, it could be just as, if not more, successful than American Idol people. So what is the reason this marketing is not being done? I think it is because the indie bands don't have any desire to make it big and be on MTV. I doubt it is because there is some executive in a glass tower listening to Wilco, saying "This is a piece of shit, get it out of my office." That's what some of us would like to believe, but the truth is probably that Wilco doesn't want their music in the exec's hands in the first place.

I actually doubt that the Flaming Lips or Wilco or whoever would be quite as popular as most of the stuff on MTV. There's a reason that the big record execs choose to promote the most watered down, generic music out there. It's because they've found that it's easier to market it to people. Are you trying to say, Pax, that there are no original, indie-type bands that would embrace MTV fame? I find that hard to believe. Modest Mouse did it. So have others. Still, they don't usually rise to the very top because their music alienates too many people.

If you advertise it enough, you can make people listen to and like really generic, unremarkable music, but you'll have a harder time getting them to listen to The Soft Bulletin.

I actually heard an NPR interview with Jeff Tweedy once where the interviewer asked him if he could just sit down and write a #1 hit if he wanted to. Tweedy replied that that's exactly what he's been trying to do for years.

I really do believe that if there was an alt-rock trend, Wilco could go multi-platinum.

And the reason they don't is, why take a risk on something that *might* be the next big thing, when you can manufacture yet another mimicry of what's already selling? Why try to start a new trend when you can piggyback an existing trend?

I believe most indie bands, if given the chance, would sign on a major label. Getting people to listen to Wilco or the Flaming Lips isn't any more out there than getting people to listen to Nirvana. But, record companies are better off in the short term spending their money on the safe bet -- the flash and the pan carbon copy that will sell millions of copies and that nobody will remember in five years.

It's a matter of short term benefit taking precedence over long term benefit -- unwillingness fo the record companies to take risks to strike gold.

Hmm, I guess what we have here is a fundamental difference in philosophy. I have always believed that what is popular is popular because people want it, not simply because it is being spoon-fed to them. Marketing is about finding new ways to get people what they want, not telling people what they want.

As for Modest Mouse's brief moment in the limelight...can you really see Isaac Brock on TRL screaming out to hordes of teenagers with "I *heart* Modest Mouse" signs? I can't picture it. That's because Isaac Brock is an anti-social alcoholic, which leads to his not being marketable. Wilco? Wasn't the whole YHF controversy because Jeff Tweedy didn't want to do a "commercial" record? Does "I am Trying to Break Your Heart" sound like any number one hit you've ever heard? It takes an artist who WANTS to move merchandise in order to hit it big.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
I really do believe that if there was an alt-rock trend, Wilco could go multi-platinum.

At last count, I think YHF had sold in the range of 600,000 copies and got as high as 12 on the Billboard chart. That's not multi-platinum, but for a band that isn't as accessible (read: poppy) as, say, the Killers, that's pretty impressive. And that was with no radio airplay on major alternative or AAA stations! It was mainly, I'd guess, the record label fiasco hype...

I'm not sure which version of 'popular' I accept. I think that pax is right that much (most?) of the time, labels are just giving people the stuff they like. But sometimes enough hype can make someone want something they previously DIDN'T want. Studies of the effects of advertising on children show that it's pretty easy to get someone to want something they don't already want (or know about) if you sell it well. I think, in a trvial sense, it's true that they're getting what they want ("kids like sweet things...they'll like the new Super Sugar Candypop Bar if the commercial is colorful") but maybe they are being fed a specific desire that feeds on the broader, underlying desire.

A lot of people bought Wilco without knowing anything about the sound of YHF based solely on the hype. I assume many more are doing the same with the Arctic Monkeys today...

Pax, I believe we're approaching from the same philosophy.

But, all I'm saying is, we have no way of knowing whether the people would like Wilco until they've heard them.

The record company is giving people what they want to hear, you're correct. But they're only giving people what they already know they want to hear.

I'm telling you that, in 1997, did I know Elliot Smith existed, I would have adored him. But back then I got my music from MTV and the radio. They never told me he existed -- so I didn't know he existed.

And I have a question...in the year 2020, which do you think is going to get more plays, overall? N Sync's 'Celebrity', or Wilco's 'Yankee Hotel Foxtrot'?

Music fans everywhere are thinking that new music is a complete garbage dump. Why do you think that is? Because the good music hasn't been played any place they listen to.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
I doubt it is because there is some executive in a glass tower listening to Wilco, saying "This is a piece of shit, get it out of my office." That's what some of us would like to believe, but the truth is probably that Wilco doesn't want their music in the exec's hands in the first place.

That's exactly what happened. Reprise (a Time Warner label) shelved YHF, calling it a career-ender. Wilco bought the masters for $50,000 and streamed it from their website. Finally, Nonesuch (strangely, another Time Warner label) signed them and released YHF. I'm sure someone at Reprise was pretty pissed about that one.

Bands don't want their career or especially their music to be influenced by businessmen, but they do want to make money and reach a wide audience. I can't think of anyone except maybe Jeff Mangum who wanted to labor in obscurity.

And RL is right. Do you think bands haven't tried to bypass labels and directly sell their music before? Of course they have. It's just that you've never heard of them. Because they weren't on a label. I think you're overlooking the fact that Pitchfork and TMT don't just review whatever crap is floating around on the Internet.

Bands today are selling two things: 1) an image (typically pale with black hair, eyeshadow, lots of rings and stuff) and 2) the same old crap that everyone else is doing. Even though I never thought there could be a worse band than Good Charlotte until I heard My Chemical Romance, that is what the public wants. These are the people who think that they unearthed a rare gem in James Blunt. Your sentiment that marketing does not lead to sales is cute but at least partly errant. RC Cola beat Coke and Pepsi in just about every taste test anyone ever conducted.

You just have to come to terms with the fact that pop music and quality music diverged over 30 years ago, and there is no reconciliation in sight, aside from the occasional crossover (White Stripes, "Float On"). You cannot just expose a Simple Plan fan to the Flaming Lips and expect a conversion. Indie bands (regardless of their quality) will always have to toil in relative obscurity and poverty for years; that's part of the deal but it's the same in most professions.

quote:

Originally posted by dubs:

You just have to come to terms with the fact that pop music and quality music diverged over 30 years ago, and there is no reconciliation in sight, aside from the occasional crossover (White Stripes, "Float On"). You cannot just expose a Simple Plan fan to the Flaming Lips and expect a conversion. Indie bands (regardless of their quality) will always have to toil in relative obscurity and poverty for years; that's part of the deal but it's the same in most professions.

Well, I still say getting people to listen to Flaming Lips is no more out-there a proposition than getting them to listen to Radiohead or Nirvana. They're pretty equal in terms of distance from mainstream at the time.

I think the one thing missing in most indie bands' forumlae for popularity is catchy repeatable hooks.

Marketting wins out in the short term, but it's quality that wins out in the long run. How many albums sold just as well, or better than Sgt Pepper in 1967? How many of them have we ever heard of?

Macarena got played in baseball games, and only ten years after the fact, we only ever talk about it when we're making fun of ourselves for liking it. Just like Vanilla Ice, New Kids On The Block..

N Sync and most of the American Idol folks are going to wind up in the same category, and eventually the really great albums will spread and gain ground, just like Velvet Underground.

People can like this stuff -- just, not the folks who only follow the trends.

WRT Wilco, first I think we can all agree that YHF was not an easy album to market. Second, I think Reprise's decision to ditch YHF was a poor business decision, for which they paid dearly in many different ways. Just because the business made a decision doesn't mean that decision was correct.

Dubs, I'm confused about what you're saying...first you say that people like Chemical Romance and Simple Plan because they have bad taste, then you say that people are just being fooled by clever marketing into liking what big companies want them to like? Which one is it? Personally I think it is a little bit of the former, but mostly it is just that indie musicians structure their music so that people are turned off by it. The Shins for instance...do you know how many college girls have "Garden State Soundtrack" as their favorite music on Facebook? It is unbelieveable...people REALLY like this stuff, yet it is not being heard on the radio. The only reason for this I can think of is that The Shins and/or their record label are not good marketers: they are not good at getting consumers to buy what the consumers want.

quote:

Originally posted by paxsoprano:
The Shins for instance...do you know how many college girls have "Garden State Soundtrack" as their favorite music on Facebook? It is unbelieveable...people REALLY like this stuff, yet it is not being heard on the radio. The only reason for this I can think of is that The Shins and/or their record label are not good marketers: they are not good at getting consumers to buy what the consumers want.

I know a lot of people like the Shins and they never get radio play, but I seriously doubt that is due to bad marketing. On the contrary, the only reason they're as popular as they are is because of good marketing. By almost anybody's standards, the Shins are enormously popular. It's only when you compare them to the few pop stars that the record execs chose to promote that they look unsuccessful.

If you've ever really spent a lot of time searching out obscure music to listen to, you know that there are a lot of unheard-of bands that are just as good as the more popular indie bands. Success in indie circles has a lot to do with luck I think. The Shins sell as many records as they do because they're on Sub Pop. If they were on Backyard Shed Records, nobody would know who they are. Heck, if Isaac Brock hadn't happened to run across them, we probably never would've heard of them.

I still maintain that the indie bands we so love do not achieve maistream success because they don't have the potential to reach as large of a market as Britney Spears or J-Lo. Most indie bands aren't fronted by "hot" singers or guitarists. Their music wouldn't appeal to many in the 12-18 age group. The stuff you now hear on the radio does, and it also appeals to college-aged people. Believe me, the major record companies know what the hell they're doing. They research this kind of thing for a living. If they thought that Okkervil River would make them as much money or more money than Good Charlotte, they would be all over them. They know better though.

Another note: Why does everybody think YHF is such a difficult record? I think it's basically a pop record with some mild experimentation in a few songs. Sure, "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart" isn't single material, but most of the album is pretty straightforward.

quote:

Dubs, I'm confused about what you're saying...first you say that people like Chemical Romance and Simple Plan because they have bad taste, then you say that people are just being fooled by clever marketing into liking what big companies want them to like? Which one is it? Personally I think it is a little bit of the former, but mostly it is just that indie musicians structure their music so that people are turned off by it. The Shins for instance...do you know how many college girls have "Garden State Soundtrack" as their favorite music on Facebook? It is unbelieveable...people REALLY like this stuff, yet it is not being heard on the radio. The only reason for this I can think of is that The Shins and/or their record label are not good marketers: they are not good at getting consumers to buy what the consumers want.

Really, I think the public has shitty taste, but I don't think they were born that way. I think they're just content to gobble up whatever they're fed by MTV and Clear Channel. Most people (typically teenagers) don't know enough about music or how to find the decent stuff to reject MTV's bullshit. And they're happy that way, as long as all their friends are listening to the same stuff (as someone pointed out, music is a social thing for most people). I don't mean to say that people are lemmings, but music is one area in which a lot of people are happy with whatever's easy to find. I don't think indie music is necessarily obfuscatory or inacessible at all (New Pornographers, Spoon, Shins, My Morning Jacket, to name a few). But it's difficult to convert: there's no indie music channel and indie fans and critics spend a lot of time crapping on popular music (thereby insulting most people's taste).

Have you ever seen Garden State? You can't even buy that kind of publicity, especially with females between 14 and 30. To clarify, it's a chick flick in disguise, and when Zach Braff and Natalie Portman meet for the first time, she plays some Shins for him, then they fall in love. Of course every girl you know loves them. I would argue that they are quite popular, easily one of the biggest bands on Sub Pop, and that it was a publicity masterstroke getting their product placed like that (though I suspect that Braff, the writer/director, is probably a fan).

Edit: RL is right-YHF is totally straightforward and follows directly from Summerteeth, which was somewhat critically acclaimed (9.9 from Pfork).

YHF has probably one radio-friendly song, "Heavy Metal Drummer". When I say "radio-friendly", I don't mean pop radio, I mean any kinda radio.

I don't think the majority of listeners have shitty taste, I think they just make due with what they're given. Most people don't hang out in music forums or read pitchfork. They learn about new bands through the radio. I don't know about radio where you guys live, but where I live, it sucks. If you hear some Coldplay, Killers, or White Stripes songs on the radio, that's about the best you can hope for. If I only listened to the radio, those would probably be my favorite bands too. And I'd probably think the new Weezer album was pretty sweet.

The bottom line is that a lot of people may like bands like Wilco or Spoon if they heard them, but if they're not being exposed to them, how would they know?

quote:

Originally posted by dubs:
Really, I think the public has shitty taste, but I don't think they were born that way. I think they're just content to gobble up whatever they're fed by MTV and Clear Channel. Most people (typically teenagers) don't know enough about music or how to find the decent stuff to reject MTV's bullshit.).

A good point, and one that carries over to other areas such as news and politics as well.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
The bottom line is that a lot of people may like bands like Wilco or Spoon if they heard them, but if they're not being exposed to them, how would they know?

True, but you also have to consider that people will be less receptive to most indie music because they've never been exposed to it before. People generally like what is familiar, and since all they've ever been exposed to is MTV garbage, anything that isn't Clear Channel-approved will sound unfamiliar and initially turn them off.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
True, but you also have to consider that people will be less receptive to most indie music because they've never been exposed to it before. People generally like what is familiar, and since all they've ever been exposed to is MTV garbage, anything that isn't Clear Channel-approved will sound unfamiliar and initially turn them off.

You're probably right about bands like Deerhoof, Animal Collective, and the Fiery Furnaces-- all of which are a bit of an acquired taste. But bands like Wilco and Spoon are pretty accessible I think. I don't think everyone would love them, but I can't imagine many people being immediately turned off by it. If stuff like System of a Down and the Mars Volta can make it on the radio, anything's possible.

All good points. But it still does not resolve why a band like the Shins would not be on the radio. To clarify what I mean, here is what we know about the Shins:

1) If people listen to them, people will like them (this we know from the success of Gardenstate soundtrack, hordes of devoted teenage girls, etc).

2) Record labels generally want to release/hype music that lots of people want to buy, and this hype leads to radio play, MTV video rotation.

3) The Shins are not on MTV, and they're not on the radio.

So how do we rectify this seeming contradiction? You can't say, well the public doesn't like them, because that is obviously not true. I think we can get a clue to the answer from a Rolling Stone interview that I read about James Mercer earlier this year where he said something like, "Since the 1950's we have had all these advances in technology, but those advances have not made us any happier, and this is the subject of one of my songs blah blah blah." That sort of anti-capitalist sentiment indicates a deep mistrust of anything mainstream, anything popular. Over the last few years there has been a big influx in the number of R&B acts getting airplay. I would argue this is because R&B acts take their cue from people like Jay-Z, who are constantly bragging about how many albums they sell. To R&B artists, widespread popularity is a badge of honor, while that is not the case for indie rockers. Also look to rock 'n' roll...the two biggest mainstream rock bands in the world right now are probably Coldplay and U2, and both of these bands have been on the record as saying one of their goals is to be the biggest, most popular band in the world. You can look back to the Beatles too...the Beatles didn't just become popular in the United States by chance or because their music was good. It took a lot of effort from the Beatles to make themselves marketable.