How to be an Underground Smash!

[LRJP!]

I like this thread as I now have names and personas I can apply to the circular argument that rolls around approximately tri-weekly in my head…

 

[hint]

lol!

at the kind of level thats needed to get the requisite media attention to secure a proper distribution deal you can simply distribute them yourself. thats what the black dog did, thats what position normal did, thats what maximo park did.......

hmmm... well in my experience you can get an offer of a p+d deal from a distro on the strength of the music on a CDr - less than a quid spent. I'm not talking T.E.N. or anything - plenty of small distros out there taking on small labels - you just have to have music that they want to back.

and I think we may have different criteria by which we judge something to be an "underground smash" (although I appreciate that the thread title is tongue-in-cheek)... I'd say that black dog and maximo park only really broke through once they hooked up with a label with good distribution.

I was just pointing out that I know a lot of people who set up a label with the best intentions but who end up with a big pile of stock in their flat and a big debt in their bank accounts because they haven't really understood what it takes to either build up demand for their releases or supply it to the shops.

 

[Raw Patrick]

Surely for 'the Commitee' we just need to expand Pop Idol to be a 24 hr a day every day kinda show. And replace Waterman or Walsh or whoever w/, uh, Marcello Carlin.

One thing that I think would help destroy the 'excess of creation' (excess of access?), although in a slightly different area, would be to ban TV presenters/stand up comics from writing novels. I think we could all get behind that.

 

[SIZZLE]

I agree with initial posts suggestions and with Hint.

Rachel, you are just wildly, flagrantly wrong. As godard said and demonstrated very ably: the best criticism of one film is another film. Substitute song for film, rinse and repeat.

To use grime as an example (seems like some kind of common ground on here) one of the greatest things is the proliferation of kids sitting in their bedrooms making music on their playstation or on shareware like fruity loops, trying to be the next whoever and just getting it totally fucked up and wrong and in the process producing something wierd and new and great.

There is no need to stand up and be taste cop and 'protect' us from all the half baked music. History has done an extremely effective job of that and I imagine will continue to do so. Good art floats to the top through years and years of popular mundane rubbish, no amount of bad reviewing and taste coppery will change that either way.

 

[AshRa]

To use grime as an example (seems like some kind of common ground on here) one of the greatest things is the proliferation of kids sitting in their bedrooms making music on their playstation or on shareware like fruity loops, trying to be the next whoever and just getting it totally fucked up and wrong and in the process producing something wierd and new and great.

I think this would be allowed through by 'the committee' but any records that are simply carbon copies of others should be dealt with SEVERELY! This would kill 95% of recorded music - GOOD.

 

[puretokyo]

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.

That is potentially the most awful, evil, offensive thing I have heard in the last several months. I am presently quivering with righteous indignation.

Such a suggestion is fundamentally wrong insofar as music is listened to by millions of different individuals; not by this hypothetical committee. Can you imagine the narrowing effect of such a process? Music that did not appeal or was not understood to fall within the committee-members criteria would be effectively obliterated. This would also damage the development of new musical styles and forms as, in their very early stages, they would not be understood/appreciated as a worthy development.

And frankly, there isn't enough amazing music out there at the moment. There's lots, for sure, but why not more?

Finally, how well do you think (for instance) Daniel Johnson would have done at explaining himself to this committee?