Keep Music Live

2. write to the ones who don't accept non-live, ask why, and we can run the results as an article heh.

One solution - play live but play something completely different to what's on the record.

http://www.ilxor.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006Kjy

That would make feel me feel much better. Yes.

Not one bit. I'd hate to be in a band and have fans tell me I'm obligated to play Akron or wherever. "I really like your record! Now you owe me! You must come to my town and play! You better be good, or else I'll start to think that you suck and that you don't care about your fans!"

Aren't there ANY previously unknown artists working in the ambient field who have had records released without doing live work? There must be some.

I like the idea that performing might be helpful to the process of creating music. That conceptually and technically, a musician will become stronger by playing music live in front of people. That an audience ought to matter to a musician.

Anyhoo, the way you can look at it is--labels don't make any money on records, they make money on live acts. So there's no reason, unless you're HUGE, for the majors to sign you if you won't tour--another words, if you're not Tom Waits or Leonard Cohen or, on the electronic side, Aphex Twin or something, there's very few reasons for them to sign you unless your music is already as great as the Beatles. I was actually being courted for popmusic, and my point was, similar to yours, basically that I can't recreate what I do on tape as a band. Also, I can't stand the idea of touring over 200 days a year, which was part of another label's requirements--and their salient response to both points was, basically, if the Beatles can do it, you can do it. Looking at it from their perspective, I can certainly understand their argument.

The good news is that if your music is good, then there are a myriad of indies, from Bar/none to Beggars Banquet, who are very nice and will take demos from off the street. In fact, that may be the better way to go for you. Certainly artists on labels such as these get as much attention as the major artists do, and further more, you will be written up more quickly in the indie mags--Wire, whatnot, and get played more on indie college radio, etc. So don't despair, and beware of strangers bearing gifts.

I think most labels at this point probably have more music they hear that they would like to put out, and that they can afford to put out. So, in order to winnow the field to something slightly less unmanageable, they set up rules like that.

Unreasonable? I dunno. I mean, put yourself in the record label's shoes: how are you going to get people to buy a record people have never heard of from an artist who doesn't play live?

Release the record yourself.

Anyway, we'll see what happens over the next coupla' months.

I make music myself, and at times I struggle with how I could do a live show that would be new and viable (my instruments consisting of an old wax cylinder recorder and such)--I have no other choice but to make it a different kind of performance--even if the outcome is terrible--perhaps it is MEANT to sound bad...I have always loved sour notes.

Away from Dan's own situation - and good luck with your record! - the question he's asking is: what effect does it have on the music that gets released and heard that live performance is the key to shifting units?

This is a question that fascinates me, because of course two of the records at the very centre of the rock/pop canon - Sgt Peppers and Pet Sounds - were made outside of a play-live context. Unlikely though this idea might be, would those records have even seen release if they'd been a band's or artist's debuts?

in an ideal world - find out where their signed artists play and do they have any say over where they gig - if they do - limit yr dates to interesting venues/festivals - introduce new elements/improv/hook up with local talent etc - record a gig to release live tracks etc.

in the real world - release on own label and pray or make pact wiv devil/[insert rekkid comp] and gig - or pay lookilike to do gigs [they spekky slaphead who does every techno night everywhere]

As for playing live and the uppity attitude of those who chose not to, I don't see how this is any of the "listener"'s business if an artist chooses to play or not. I don't believe that it is a prerequisite in order for a musician to make a record, and I don't think that attitude is the only reason that we wouldn't want to do so.

I've seen great bands who have played to ten people in a crowd--on a string of 30 - 50 date tours going through bumpkin towns, and that totally sucks. Further, I've seen great bands reduced to sonic goulash when the club/soundguy messes with their sound. To a perfectionist, it's a nightmare--and definitely one major turn-off to live music. I think performance and composition are two different skills, and neither one should be pegged to the other.