Why does opinion change when ur signed???

trent_derby

Just something to think about, and im totally open if some1 thinks im wrong, but it seems to me lately that bands grow in popularity right up to the point that they get signed, mostly when its a major label, i do agree with anyone who says that the bigger lablels are a commercial superstore of pop and boy/girl band music but ive seen a lot of people dissin bands like melaton, and it seems that is cos they have loads off cash etc...
maybe thats because with such a big deal that they got that its expected of them. who knows???
Pobodys nerfect!!

atonal

when a band is signed to a major lable my criticisim goes up for a number of reasons

1. general spite and jelousy... I am guilty of this sometimes because there are certain bands/artists I would really like to see be sucessful and I cant help be a bit upset when acts I consider inferior are more sucessful even though logically I know that sucess of mediocre band X has nothing to do with fantastic band Y's lack thereof. I try to reign this in as it is illogical but....

2. The standards are higher when something is being marketed internationally with a lot of money behind it, the comperables change from other local acts to the entire history of music.

3. a general sense that anything associaed with a major lable must be commercialized junk. Unfortunately because bands are signed on marketablity and not on talent and originality this often holds true. I am sure that there are a number of bands I would like better if I did not feel they were being over-hyped and marketed though. example: i really dislike the strokes but if i walked into a pub and saw them playing I maybe would leave rightly impressed.

4. no holds barred. I generally hold punches on unsigned and indie acts as there seems no point saying local band A is shyte (everybody does not do this) once a band has serious money behind it I feel no need to withold opinion as my little criticism is no match for major lable millions anyway.

as far as melaton I havent heard that much but from what I have heard they are a half decent band anyway.

Arch

Speaking of all this... did you hear that Mr. North have just been signed to a major label in NY?

Finally! Someone reaps what they have sown. A Dublin band makes good in New York City after so many years of hard work. It's absolutely brilliant!


Arch.

____________________
www.stantonstation.com

atonal

ARCH
No I did not know for sure... I had some idea about it.... their last show in NYC was absolutely amazing by the way...... long long overdue what an amazing band they are,.

Angle

Maybe I am mad, but if I won the lotto I would invest it into my own label & bring it all to the masses.

Look at TURN, - Amazing band signed by Infectious & sold pritty well & then they were dropped - why because the record label mismanaged money & had to cut acts - Take a look at EMI at the mo !! - One week they pay Maria Carey $44 Million F*#K off Money & the next week they anounce 8,000 job cuts & they are dropping bands left right & centre.

Surely there is room for an Irish owned & run label that can finance bands like Turn, Subrosa, Damien Dempsey etc. These acts are capable of packing TBMC or Whelans so they should sell at least 3,000 copies !!!

What is the break even on releasing an Album ??

Ruaidhri

Why does opinion change when ur signed???

No integrety (major label = pop music, pop music = CRAP)

Bateman

You just have to be really good. Jeff Buckley fúcked around with Sony, because he signed a contract for artistic control etc etc. Obviously not every band is going to get so popular that they can be spoilt for choice, but at the same time, not every band has to grab the first offer that comes along. It might be better to build up a bit of local identity first. Just a thought. Although if you perceive music as being your career without a doubt, you might not want to let an opportunity pass by..

o sleep

it's kind of problematic slating bands for signing to major labels as most of the 'indie' labels are part or completely owned by major labels. and let's not forget that people like Steps, 5ive and Britney Spears are (as far as i know) signed to Jive records, which is technically an independant record label, while Grandaddy are signed to V2, which is the 'indie' offshoot of Virgin records, which is probably owned by the Geffen/EMI global conglomerate of record companies. and so on.

as for the slack meloton have been getting recently, i would have thought it was because they're an average bland group, rather than whether or not they're signed to a major label or not. but i could be wrong.

as for EMI paying out ****loads to mariah carey and then the next week announcing job cuts: perhaps they were in some way related? just a guess ...

Gar_ptc

reel big fish are on the same label as spears etc.

the label is jive.serious mis-use of the word.


but people are so jealous of success.

also some people prefer bands to stay small-their own secret,as i t were

i don't.

raven_jezebel

When a band is unsigned, you compare them to the other bands you hear in pubs and clubs.

Once they are signed to a label, you immediately begin to compare them to an international range of bands...thus, taking them down off the pedestal they were on when they were unsigned, in a small county / country, and placing them in the lowly dungeons of an enormous international market place....

did that make sense?

thedrowner

well it makes absolutely no difference to me if a band is signed or unsigned, i didnt even know melaton were signed and it hasnt changed my opinion of them...that they are alrigh but they sound too like a lot of other bands from dublin.