How to be an Underground Smash!

Brilliant!! A new golden era of Oi!Ccultist Digital Whore-Core beckons!

I just need some equipment now.

My advice:

Examine yourself thoroughly and ask yourself what, honestly, you have to offer the world of music in terms of difference and distinction. What new and original ideas and thoughts do you have to bring to music? What are you doing that 10,000 other musicians aren't doing already, and better?

If you cannot immediately and positively respond to any of these questions, then forget the whole idea; go and find employment and fulfilment elsewhere, or stick to your day job if you have one. There are too many musicians as it is - too many mediocre minds, too much musical make-do-and-mend, too many "craftsmen," too many "jobbing" musicians. We need to discourage, rather than encourage, more musicians.

Rachel Verinder said:

My advice:

Examine yourself thoroughly and ask yourself what, honestly, you have to offer the world of music in terms of difference and distinction. What new and original ideas and thoughts do you have to bring to music? What are you doing that 10,000 other musicians aren't doing already, and better?

If you cannot immediately and positively respond to any of these questions, then forget the whole idea; go and find employment and fulfilment elsewhere, or stick to your day job if you have one. There are too many musicians as it is - too many mediocre minds, too much musical make-do-and-mend, too many "craftsmen," too many "jobbing" musicians. We need to discourage, rather than encourage, more musicians.

Click to expand...

i profoundly disagree with this. if theres too much music then ignore what you don't like and push the things you do. thats the role of the selector.

if sentiments like this prevail, you wouldn't see 90% of the amazing music created in kids bedrooms, whether its grime or old skool hardcore where people went off and tried to replicate the sounds they were hearing in the raves. there was a lot of shit produced but also some groundbreaking music that pushed things forward. you don't get one without the other.

its elitest nonsense to argue against the democratisation of music production and to want to actually discourage people from making tunes. it flies in the face of everything we have fought for with rave and acid house. i think its the most incredibly positive thing that we are no longer just punters, but participants in creating and forming music and the scene.

the easier it is to make music, the more people will come through with talent. its hardly as if most kids starting out are thinking in the terms you describe.

The standard pro/con argument with punk went: the good thing about punk was that everyone could make a record. The bad thing about punk was that everyone did make a record.

No, we need quality control. There are far too many musicians who would be more gainfully employed as, say, landscape gardeners, or firefighters, or radiotherapists. A deterrent is required.

Rachel Verinder said:

The standard pro/con argument with punk went: the good thing about punk was that everyone could make a record. The bad thing about punk was that everyone did make a record.

No, we need quality control. There are far too many musicians who would be more gainfully employed as, say, landscape gardeners, or firefighters, or radiotherapists. A deterrent is required.

Click to expand...

and like i said, quality control is the job of the selector. we don't need some arbiter of taste deciding who can and cannot create music, discouraging peoples creativity when they create nothing of worth themselves. that kind of punter-mentality is better suited to rock music than the various electronic scenes.

my advice:

burn loads of CDrs

send them to distributors and chase them up for a reaction - without a distro you won't be able to get your music into shops (well, it's possible, but outside of a select few scenes you're gonna struggle) and you'll have spent £hundreds on a big pile of vinyl in your bedroom.

if you're lucky, you could well end up with a p+d deal where the distro pays all manufacturing costs for you.

if no-one offers you distribution

stick everything up on the net for free and get on with your life

if someone offers you distribution

follow woebot's advice!

====

I think it's all about drawing the lines in the sand - understand that once you decide to release music it's not about doing it "for the love" any more... not about inspiration... it's about selling music. if you're not determined to sell as many copies as possible, you have to wonder why you're bothering to get involved in the industry of releasing music at all.

want "the world" to hear your marvellous creations? the world can hear it if you stick it up on the web for free download. no need to throw money away pressing it up just to satisfy your ego.

of course, there's a line of thinking that says the whole process of getting a vinyl release together is creative and satisfying - the materials used for the sleeve, the sleeve and label artwork, the mastering process... and yes, I agree with all of that. but as I point out above, that limited run of 12"s is not gonna look so attractive in a cardboard box in your loft. but perhaps I'm thinking too much about the money side of it all? if you have a few grand to burn then I'm sure the whole experience could be satisfying and enjoyable, whether you sell any or not.

if your main inspiration is to create something for art's sake I'd suggest you look beyond vinyl - get your artist mate to draw something amazing for a website. get an artistically-minded programmer to help you build something revolutionary...

hint said:

I think it's all about drawing the lines in the sand - understand that once you decide to release music it's not about doing it "for the love" any more... not about inspiration... it's about selling music. if you're not determined to sell as many copies as possible, you have to wonder why you're bothering to get involved in the industry of releasing music at all.

Click to expand...

every musician worth their salt wants as many people to hear their music as possible. but wanting that is different to watering your shit down to appeal to a wider cross section of people. creating art and wanting lots of people to hear it is not a contradiction.

The problem is that most musicians overestimate their salt.

A steering committee must be formed and every potential musician should be made to stand afore it and explain why they should be allowed to make music before they are permitted access to instruments or equipment.

This idea is not new. It was originally advocated by a prominent poster to this board some years ago.

bassnation said:

every musician worth their salt wants as many people to hear their music as possible. but wanting that is different to watering your shit down to appeal to a wider cross section of people. creating art and wanting lots of people to hear it is not a contradiction.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's a contradiction or that it affects the music at all - I'm saying that a musician who starts a label (by which I mean arranging the manufacture, release and promotion of releases) is also by default a label manager and label managers should have definite goals that don't necessarily have anything to do with making music.

as I point out - there are ways to let people hear your music, whilst you retain full control, which don't involve forking out large sums of cash and working your arse off doing mundane stuff such as filling in MCPS forms.

Rachel Verinder said:

The problem is that most musicians overestimate their salt.

A steering committee must be formed and every potential musician should be made to stand afore it and explain why they should be allowed to make music before they are permitted access to instruments or equipment.

This idea is not new. It was originally advocated by a prominent poster to this board some years ago.

Click to expand...

I'll assume you're trolling, since that is such a ridiculous suggestion.

hint said:

I'm not saying it's a contradiction or that it affects the music at all - I'm saying that a musician who starts a label (by which I mean arranging the manufacture, release and promotion of releases) is also by default a label manager and label managers should have definite goals that don't necessarily have anything to do with making music.

as I point out - there are ways to let people hear your music, whilst you retain full control, which don't involve forking out large sums of cash and working your arse off doing mundane stuff such as filling in MCPS forms.

Click to expand...

accepted, but there are many, many examples of artists that have acheived recognition on their own terms. the kind of artists, i might suggest, that are lauded on this very site. we aren't talking robbie williams. surely it is possible to run a label that is dedicated to groundbreaking or "difficult" music and to make a success of it. surely its about knowing your audience, which i guess, might be your point.

You shouldn't assume so much. Why is it ridiculous? There's more than enough music out there. Why do we need more musicians, more mediocrity? Anyone who has anything to say will get through anyway; it doesn't matter if you're John Lydon or Dizzee Rascal. Why should we continue this absurd encouragement of wannabe no-marks? Consideration should be given to the consumer, not the musician.

aye - I was thinking the same thing

think perhaps rachel's beef is with a+r rather than musicians..? but even then... life's too short to get het up over listening to stuff you don't like.

Rachel Verinder said:

The problem is that most musicians overestimate their salt.

A steering committee must be formed and every potential musician should be made to stand afore it and explain why they should be allowed to make music before they are permitted access to instruments or equipment..

Click to expand...

and you are the person who should make that call, right?

i will be the judge of what i want to hear, not some arbitary steering group of aging hipsters trying to be down wid da kidz, thank you very much.

Rachel Verinder said:

You shouldn't assume so much. Why is it ridiculous? There's more than enough music out there. Why do we need more musicians, more mediocrity? Anyone who has anything to say will get through anyway; it doesn't matter if you're John Lydon or Dizzee Rascal. Why should we continue this absurd encouragement of wannabe no-marks? Consideration should be given to the consumer, not the musician.

Click to expand...

May I suggest, then, that people who wish to discuss music are made to stand before a group of musicians to explain why they should be allowed to discuss it. After all, there are enough people talking bollocks about music without the need for any more.

Certainly not. We spend money on music, we pay musicians' wages and we're the sods who have to listen to it/them. Let The Public Have Their Say!

bassnation said:

accepted, but there are many, many examples of artists that have acheived recognition on their own terms. the kind of artists, i might suggest, that are lauded on this very site. we aren't talking robbie williams. surely it is possible to run a label that is dedicated to groundbreaking or "difficult" music and to make a success of it. surely its about knowing your audience, which i guess, might be your point.

Click to expand...

yeah - of course. I'm not talking about changing your music or compromising your integrity in order to sell. plenty of great independant artists have been supported by labels which are run by people who are nothing but "business brains"... in fact most of the artists that get the attention they deserve are involved in that kind of set-up... doesn't mean anything is compromised.

as you say - it's about thinking beyond "I want to release something"... it's about thinking about how to do that properly and successfully (not purely in financial terms either) - knowing your audience, knowing the processes involved in getting a release manufactured and into the shops etc. in order to get into that mindset, you need to go beyond being just a musician who wants people to hear his stuff, that's all I'm saying.

...hang on a minute, in the album charts Athlete are straight in at number one and Feeder are straight in at number two...

Let The People Be Gagged! Tyranny Is The New Hoxton!!

Rachel Verinder said:

Anyone who has anything to say will get through anyway; it doesn't matter if you're John Lydon or Dizzee Rascal.

Click to expand...

How will they get through if their initial request for "permission to experiment" is denied by The Committee?