Band's that work like dogs and are ignored play (with few exceptions) very poor music. Either the recordings are so lo-fi, presumably in an attempt to cover up the lack of a strong melody/progression, that the words are impossible to understand, or the band lacks originality with an alluring quality to their music. All in all, band's that work like dogs should consider focusing their time/efforts on bettering themselves as artists, instead of working a hard days night to endlessly promote recordings that blogs aren't playing... perhaps there's a reason for that other than that they're ignoring you? It's just a possibility is all I'm saying.
DEPRAVOS DE LA MOUR said:
axel- you CAN"T spell rocknroll rong. there is no right way. also if you are getting press ANY press! then you are really fortunate. in chicago the local reviewers write mainly about big time acts or their fellow reviewers acts. all the reviewers are in bands and thus have easy access to press. we have seen feature articles about a reviewer's roomate's drunken train wreck band thrown together for a one off night of baloney and then called the new hope of rock and roll. press space is wasted on 3rd rate FRIENDS. bands that work like dogs to achieve something are ignored.
Axel Björnsson said:
I totally agree with you.. haha I always spell rock n roll wrong..
Ok my band was playing at international festival in my town and by older rewiews and describes (including from ourselves) we're described as a 60's revival psychedelic rock. (ofcourse we have influence from bunce of other genres as well) But that description really tracked us down. One journalist was not happy with us.(fuck journalists by the way) I can respect his opinions and all that crap but he killed his credbillity by saying that The Piper at the gates of dawn with Pink Floyd is what psychedelic is supposed to sound and our music were just chaosistic. (has he fucking listened to 13th Floor Elevators? That's what psychedelic is supposed to sound for me thou) The chaosistic is the psychedelic.. Different opinions.
But really my point is descripion can be dangerous.. at least when we're are talking about ignorant journalists..
DEPRAVOS DE LA MOUR said:that usually doesn't cut it with potentially interested listeners not familiar with your music. sifting through the gazillion choices requires some specific glittering shiny object word or phrase. sad and as unhappy as it may be the term rock n roll is meaningless.( FUCK!! NOBODY CAN EVEN AGREE ON HOW TO SPELL IT!!!!!) to one person it means you may be death metal or to another you could be jimmy buffet or you could be a 1953 rhythm and blues offshoot. it would take longer to describe what you mean by rock and roll than to describe yourself. clubs, bookers, websites, bloggers and online mags or whatever will not even bother to listen to an unknown quantity without a stinkin' category marker. we really and truly do not know what category we are supposed to be stuck in. and its a sure bet that like yourself many other bands do not now what they are until someone else tells them..
Axel Björnsson said:I was onetime obsessed with analyzing my music, talked endless about it. I'm still obsessed with it but I keep it to myself because I think it's dull to describe my art to another person. Recently I just tell people that i play Rock 'n Roll.