Milestones in "Making It"

raindog.promo

So you have your album/ep recorded and up online (or in the shops) and played a few gigs. Then the band sees nothing happening and then fizzles out.

So what else do the readers here think should have been included when the band were making plans for world domination?

Some of the things I think need to be pegged as goals along the way:

1) UK touring - More people to get your music to.
2) Radio interviews/sessions.
3) Recorded live performance (youtube vids and whatnot).
4) Regular gigging.
5) Appearance on national television (Ireland and UK).
6) Building up a vocal online presence.

Possibles:
1) Get a tune on a soundtrack (be it amateur, semi-pro or pro).

(I'll add more as I think of them. Just had a huge Chiken Tikka and can't think at the moment).

super_furry

I'd say nowadays, getting a vocal online following. Getting a buzz around youtube/facebook stuff.

raindog.promo

super_furry wrote: »

I'd say nowadays, getting a vocal online following. Getting a buzz around youtube/facebook stuff.

Thanks. I'll add these into the list of the OP if no-one minds.

It would be interesting to know which would be the more important, having a local following or online following.
People can buy albums online now quite easily. Is it more likely for someone to go to your gig from seeing a poster on the street or being sent a FB invitation?

With Facebook, you're sending invites straight to your target audience and a lot more people will see what their friends are attending/listening to and that could be a bigger recommendation these days then having a few lines of a review in a music mag.

Squidgy Black

I'd stick recording a full length album in a decent studio on there. You'd be surprised how most small bands only do EP's etc.

raindog.promo

Isn't that mainly to do with cash and getting experience?
As in it's better to cut your teeth on putting an EP together before attempting an album?
Plus nowadays you may be doing it yourself.

getting some decent recording gear may make the list too. But is it considered essential?

flyswatter

Get your music spread round blogs I'd imagine. As many as possible.

slavetothegrind

on recording gear, past the basic free nearly free stuff for getting ideas down i'd say no.

there are tons of qualified recording engineers who have spent a fortune on gear and are miles ahead of you on how to employ it offering studio time for very little indeed!

if a band has their practise done and the songs well rehearsed they would fare much better spending the price of a modest recording rig in a studio IMHO.

also something about spending cash on the process sharpens the focus on working in the studio

rcaz

slavetothegrind wrote: »

on recording gear, past the basic free nearly free stuff for getting ideas down i'd say no.

there are tons of qualified recording engineers who have spent a fortune on gear and are miles ahead of you on how to employ it offering studio time for very little indeed!

if a band has their practise done and the songs well rehearsed they would fare much better spending the price of a modest recording rig in a studio IMHO.

also something about spending cash on the process sharpens the focus on working in the studio

I dunno, I'd argue that the music always sounds best, more complete and integrated, when the band themselves are as involved in the recording and production of it. Rather than all the art being in the instrumental performances and then mixed by someone else, you can make every single part of the production a part of the creative process.

raindog.promo

rcaz wrote: »

I dunno, I'd argue that the music always sounds best, more complete and integrated, when the band themselves are as involved in the recording and production of it. Rather than all the art being in the instrumental performances and then mixed by someone else, you can make every single part of the production a part of the creative process.

I don't know if it's essential, definitely helpful.
Actually, I think recording your own stuff makes you a better songwriter and more appreciative of all the other instruments. So pretty essential in that sense. Depends what your priorities are I guess.

slavetothegrind

rcaz wrote: »

I dunno, I'd argue that the music always sounds best, more complete and integrated, when the band themselves are as involved in the recording and production of it. Rather than all the art being in the instrumental performances and then mixed by someone else, you can make every single part of the production a part of the creative process.

i don't disagree with that, a band will have , hopefully , a vision of how they want to sound and they should be able to communicate this to the engineer effectively.
this is where a good selection is important, there has to be understanding and respect between the two parties, you must be able to work togetherand compliment each other to a degree.

I think the engineering side of things should be left to the engineer though, nearly every musician has some experience of DAWs and recording so the temptation is there to dive in to the mechanics of the recording process to the detriment of the performance side of things.

Sure there is a neverending list of possibilities with mixing the performance but in the case of a low budget demo/ep the engineer will get more out of the studio than you in a short time so let 'em at it. you still can say yes or no to the direction but don't micromanage the engineer

in my opinion first rate tracking is the most important thing, this is the building block of any mix and where the money should go.
if you have paid for it you can bring it home then and do your own mix aswell!!:)

theholyghost

Someone else playing for it...

That was the real milestone for me when publishers, record companies etc. were actually prepared to put up money for you to record. It doesn't feel so much like a "hobby" then.

slavetothegrind

theholyghost wrote: »

Someone else playing for it...

That was the real milestone for me when publishers, record companies etc. were actually prepared to put up money for you to record. It doesn't feel so much like a "hobby" then.

but were they? or were they just loaning you the money in a risk free adventure to see if they could rape the profits you made IF you were sucessful.

I believe the record companies are now including percentage points of touring and merchandise revenue in their contracts.

Ah sorry lads, very negative. i do know what you mean holyghost, and sincerely hope you weren't rogered!

just read dee snider's book, he was an eejit about it but he did accept a 1 million dollar advance for a record that all band members had to individually sign responsibility for in the event of not making money off the album ( which they didn't) he spent 20 years repaying it.

I feel for those at the point of signing, music must be the dirtiest business out there.:(