How to Succeed as an Original Band

[bluewine]

Song selection and set placement. Something that original bands need to really pay attention to and watch.

Great point,It's tough when experienced band leaders and members don't have a clue to how to place their songs.

I was lucky, my Dad started taking me to Rock and Roll Reviews at The Brooklyn Fox back in the 60s when I was 9 years old, so I learned at an early age how this stuff is supose to work. Keep in mind I have had the responsibility of putting the set list together and have made some mistakes, it's not easy.

 

[Drop-the-One]

Regarding setlists, I always felt that the 1st 4th and last 2 songs were the most important.

My thoughts are somewhat similar to Toms:

First song is first impression to anyone in the club that's never seen you. Should not be the big "hit" of the band, but should be IMO one of the best representations of what you do. It has to kick ass, but should also not kick the most ass, as you still need to move up from here and keep people's interest. Also, something The Nerve used to do (pre first song) that worked incredibly well for the type of band that it was, was to actually start our shows with some ridiculous 3 part acapella thing. We had many of them, most TOTALLY non sensical. One of the ones that made more sense opens this video http://www.youtube.com/joenerve#p/u/6/r8wuMyKsTUw . It was insurance that we had everyone's attention before we kicked into the first song. And it worked.

Fourth song I always used as a changer upper. By the end of the third song I think an audience likes to know you can do something different, and that not all your songs are going to be the same vibe. Kind of re-hooks them in, and may grab some others if they weren't into the vibe of the first 3. Also gives a little bit of a rest.

Last song is a no brainer. I always wanted people leaving the club humming our tunes. Whatever we considered our "hit" they'd have to wait for. If there was no "hit" then it was our catchiest most memorable bestest tune!

I said last 2 songs above because ya always have to make provisions for encores, and for the last song being cut by the club. Which happens. Often. Last 2 often have to get juggled and need to be well thought out.

Almost forgot... another thing I consider key. I always like to make the 2nd or third song a cover. When a band is brand new to an audience I think it pulls people in, gets them on your side, and keeps them hanging around possibly hoping for another, which we rarely if ever gave em. Audiences like to have something to identify with.

Last note on this. Unless you have a huge fanbase, short sets are always the way to go IMO. A half hour set leaves people wanting if they like ya, and saves people if they don't. I think it's about making a mark and then moving along. The 2 1/2hr. gig will make anyone sick if it's unkown music, I don't care how excellent a band it is. The 1 hr set is enough to start pushing people out. I like 1/2 hr sets, 45 minutes tops. That's more than enough to give em all you've got.

aaaawesome! x1000
I like your idea of the whole strong (not strongest) attention grabbing song 1st. Just don't feel down if nobody was listening to it. It takes ppl time to finish their smoke outside or finish business in the bathroom. It mainly acts as a vibe-setter and to get ppl in.

 

[taphappy]

Some good stuff in here but I think there's some important info missing

Great stuff, Kabal Helluva thread, here.

Originals player, bands since the 80's - grew up playing NYC, moved around (Nashville, LA, SF), now in AZ. All sorts of styles/scenes from prog, industrial, indie, rock, fusion, metal, tough bands, sissy bands, bands who climb on rocks...

What I'll add is the most basic rule of marketing:

If you give one person a good impression, they'll tell three of their friends.
If you give one person a bad impression, they'll tell fifteen.

When I've got something in the works, this is 24/7. This does not drop as long as a single set of non-intimate ears (other than family, close friends, SO, band mates) is in range. I can not count how many times I've spoken to a random person, and heard them enthusiastically offer up how they "hate" a certain band due to a fluke five second encounter with one of the members who happens to be a fantastic guy. No, you can't please everybody. But you should be aware that you are always under the microscope of junior woodchuck paparazzi. The grapevine can be your friend - equally with the shakers and movers, with other musicians, and with fans. This is part of creating buzz. Check out how many times you hear a local fan back up a band they love with "...and they're great guys!"

Wanna bet they bought merch?

Focus on positives instead of negatives. Big picture rather than small. As an obvious example, drunkenly informing somebody whose unbeknownst roommate is the girlfriend of the singer of X local band that their drummer sucks does not do much for you or your band, and could easily have a domino effect which takes a hefty chunk of their fanbase, along with the fans of whatever other bands they've been in out of your pocket. This is the most simple, base level of professionalism. And makes you quite a bit more sunny to be around

It is the music business. The product is you, your guys, and your songs. In this, as in all things, you are only as strong as your weakest link.

Oh, and stay away from angry drinks. For you Jack Daniels drinkers, might I suggest Seagram's VO. It makes you hug people, rather than try to stick copious amounts of vegetation in their eye sockets.

<3
-tap

 

[TRichardsbass]

Hope all of you had a very Happy Thanksgiving. I was remiss and didn't post yesterday, but one thing I am most thankful for is Talkbass. I am glad its founders have given us this forum and thankful for all who post here.

New topic today. How not to overplay. One thing original bands do often because each person in the band usually feels like they are the star, or if they aren't the star they want to be noticed.

Original bands and songs are usually loaded with tons of overplay. Guitar parts that are too loud. Solos that use every single guitar technique known to man. Bassists who play slap bass solos throughout the whole song. Drummers who fill every conceivable sound void with something from their 32 piece drum kit. We've all seen and heard it.

What makes a successful original band is knowing the differrence between tasteful playing and four soloists. While bassists are usually not the biggest offenders here, when bassists overplay it always stands out and everyone can tell. Bass over playing destroys the groove and motion. Kills the rhythm. Mucks up the sound mix.

No matter what style of music you play, the bass unfortunately has a role. To lock in the time and drive the music forward (or backward). Even Stanley Clarke has a bass player, and SC IS a bass player. He can play both roles well, but when he plays solo his piccolo bass is really just a baritone four string guitar played with fingers. He still normally needs someone behind him to keep the drummer's time and move the music in the right direction.

The worst offenders are usually the slappity-tappity-clankmeisters (thanks JimmyM for this tome) who want to make sure there is a pop, chordal hits and thumps over every living bar of a song. What was a technique has morphed into a style all unto itself. And with that everyone forgot what the heck the bass was supposed to be doing in the first place.

Wanna know what overplaying is? Go listen to your local high school marching band. The Tuba/Sousaphone is your bass. Never, ever hear one overplaying. If you do you will hear really bad marching music. Paul McCartney derived many of his original bass parts by listening to tuba parts when he was a kid. And when you listen to them they sort of sound like tuba parts. Sparse. Open. No overplay.

I saw a band on Wednesday night that made my ears cringe. Not only did the guitar player think he was Satch, but the bass player must have thought he was channelling Stu Hamm, and not the Stu Hamm who plays bass for Satch but the one who plays Linus and Lucy on his solo albums. What a mash up of crap! He played so much stuff up above the 10th fret, and tapped so much I was trying to figure out why he didn't just own a guitar and play that. The music didn't move me (or the others in the crowd, who ran for the outdoor cancer stick area after the first song) and I couldn't figure out what they were trying to do.

Each piece in a song has a reason for being. As a bassist in an original band its your job to ask the question "why" for any part you do, and "so What?" for any part you come up with. For example, if you decide to put a slap and pop on a two bar part, ask yourself, "Why?" Is is because it works with the song and makes it musical? Or is it because you just felt that at that moment you could use another technique you have mastered. Then ask "so what?" So, what is the reason behind it. Did it move the song into the right mood? Did it help make a tempo shift or transition? Did it make the song go from not to hot? If you can't answer those questions to the parts you play and right, most likely you are over playing. Period.

All original bands have to take a critical eye on their stage sets and not showcase all their technical guitar, bass and drum prowess in every song at every moment. Most people can't tell the difference between a good guitar solo and a great one, and most don't care. With today's dynamically compression for every song on yoru iPod, most average fans can't even tell nuance and subtle musical genius. So you tap the coolest chord ever in the song, and just use that all over the song. If it doesn't make them tap their feet or hum the song, its a waste and shouldn't be there.

As bass players we normally can't prevent the guitards from trying to showcase their inner SRV, Satch, Vai or Yngwie. But we can pay attention to what we play, and not over do it.

 

[thudfromafar]

Regarding setlists, I always felt that the 1st 4th and last 2 songs were the most important.

My thoughts are somewhat similar to Toms:

First song is first impression to anyone in the club that's never seen you. Should not be the big "hit" of the band, but should be IMO one of the best representations of what you do. It has to kick ass, but should also not kick the most ass, as you still need to move up from here and keep people's interest. Also, something The Nerve used to do (pre first song) that worked incredibly well for the type of band that it was, was to actually start our shows with some ridiculous 3 part acapella thing. We had many of them, most TOTALLY non sensical. One of the ones that made more sense opens this video http://www.youtube.com/joenerve#p/u/6/r8wuMyKsTUw . It was insurance that we had everyone's attention before we kicked into the first song. And it worked.

Fourth song I always used as a changer upper. By the end of the third song I think an audience likes to know you can do something different, and that not all your songs are going to be the same vibe. Kind of re-hooks them in, and may grab some others if they weren't into the vibe of the first 3. Also gives a little bit of a rest.

Last song is a no brainer. I always wanted people leaving the club humming our tunes. Whatever we considered our "hit" they'd have to wait for. If there was no "hit" then it was our catchiest most memorable bestest tune!

I said last 2 songs above because ya always have to make provisions for encores, and for the last song being cut by the club. Which happens. Often. Last 2 often have to get juggled and need to be well thought out.

Almost forgot... another thing I consider key. I always like to make the 2nd or third song a cover. When a band is brand new to an audience I think it pulls people in, gets them on your side, and keeps them hanging around possibly hoping for another, which we rarely if ever gave em. Audiences like to have something to identify with.

Last note on this. Unless you have a huge fanbase, short sets are always the way to go IMO. A half hour set leaves people wanting if they like ya, and saves people if they don't. I think it's about making a mark and then moving along. The 2 1/2hr. gig will make anyone sick if it's unkown music, I don't care how excellent a band it is. The 1 hr set is enough to start pushing people out. I like 1/2 hr sets, 45 minutes tops. That's more than enough to give em all you've got.

very well said, very intuitive... completely agreed

 

[stratovani]

Tom - I hope you don't mind, but I've been copying and pasting all you excellent information to Notepad and storing it in a special folder on my computer, for future reference. I'd like to chime in with some of my own experiences, but I'm going out to eat with my wife in a few minutes. Maybe I'll write something up when I get back.

 

[TRichardsbass]

Tom - I hope you don't mind, but I've been copying and pasting all you excellent information to Notepad and storing it in a special folder on my computer, for future reference. I'd like to chime in with some of my own experiences, but I'm going out to eat with my wife in a few minutes. Maybe I'll write something up when I get back.

When you write that book, just give me a credit...

I'd love you to chime in. That's what this thread is all about!

 

[dj150888]

I'm not sure if its been mentioned yet, I'm a bit crazy with work for uni at the minute, so my memory for anything but my thesis is a little hazy, but one thing thats very important for the band to continue to gel well as a long term business is totally transparent book-keeping.

A band playing originals should, in my opinion, always have a "band fund". I prefer for this to be set up as a proper bank account. Any money in should be recorded, as should any money going out. Expenses that aren't obviously necessary should be cleared with the rest of the band. In my own band, I take on the job of book-keeper/treasurer and at the end of each quarter, at a meeting with the rest of the band, I provide the bank statements, as well as a very clear spreadsheet I keep of expenses and income, so the incoming and outgoing money can all be accounted for. Someone wants to know what an outgoing amount was? I look up the date and the amount on my spreadsheet and it says very clearly what it was spent on.

It mightn't seem like this is totally necessary, especially if you're in a band with your mates, but I've seen a whole lot of bands break up over arguments about money. If everyone is totally aware of the finances of the band, there can be no dispute that anyone is being financially treated differently to any other member of the band or that any money is mysteriously being syphoned off. It takes an extra few minutes to do it, and saves the risk of any major headaches.

 

[BardoBass]

Drugs, even pot, basically make you slow, stupid, and put you in a crowd of losers. Sorry if that offends anyone here.

A crowd of losers like: Bob Dylan, Lennon & McCartney, Bob Marley, Simon & Garfunkel, and on and on.
I'm not seeking an argument here - I generally agree with you. Especially with the prevalence of cannabis indica strains these days, any excessive use does indeed make one sleepy and hard to focus. During the time of the aformentioned songwriters, cannabis sativa was the more common, and that variety has a very different effect.
I simply have to point out that good pot, LSD and mushrooms - entheogens cannot be lumped in with destructive, harmful and addictive drugs like alcohol, cocaine, heroin, commercial tobacco, or even caffeine and sugar. You can have too much of a good thing, but that doesn't make the good thing intrinsically bad.
Of course the argument can be made that "I am the Walrus" is an incoherant novelty that communicates nothing, and that "Please Please Me" is a pinnacle of songwriting craft. But then in the middle we have such fine examples as "Norweigan Wood".
There is a proper context, time and place for these things, and the black and white prohibitionist approach is no more useful than the approach of going onstage out of one's gourd. The first ignores the inner world, the second ignores the outer, and there are always exceptions.
But as said, no derailment intended. It's just that in a prohibitionist backdrop, honest communication about these substances is inhibited, which in turn perpetuates the destructive element when they are used to excess.
I'm looking forward to discussion of songwriting, because that is the heart of the matter where original bands are concerned. The other stuff is very important, but where the songwriting is strong is where the difference lies between flash-in-the-pan songs, and ones that have potential to become standards. That's where my 10 years+ (actually 20-something) years lies, although bass playing has been a primary band role for me and is of course enormously important in the arrangement of a song.

 

[TRichardsbass]

A crowd of losers like: Bob Dylan, Lennon & McCartney, Bob Marley, Simon & Garfunkel, and on and on.
I'm not seeking an argument here - I generally agree with you. Especially with the prevalence of cannabis indica strains these days, any excessive use does indeed make one sleepy and hard to focus. During the time of the aformentioned songwriters, cannabis sativa was the more common, and that variety has a very different effect.
I simply have to point out that good pot, LSD and mushrooms - entheogens cannot be lumped in with destructive, harmful and addictive drugs like alcohol, cocaine, heroin, commercial tobacco, or even caffeine and sugar. You can have too much of a good thing, but that doesn't make the good thing intrinsically bad.
Of course the argument can be made that "I am the Walrus" is an incoherant novelty that communicates nothing, and that "Please Please Me" is a pinnacle of songwriting craft. But then in the middle we have such fine examples as "Norweigan Wood".
There is a proper context, time and place for these things, and the black and white prohibitionist approach is no more useful than the approach of going onstage out of one's gourd. The first ignores the inner world, the second ignores the outer, and there are always exceptions.
But as said, no derailment intended. It's just that in a prohibitionist backdrop, honest communication about these substances is inhibited, which in turn perpetuates the destructive element when they are used to excess.
I'm looking forward to discussion of songwriting, because that is the heart of the matter where original bands are concerned. The other stuff is very important, but where the songwriting is strong is where the difference lies between flash-in-the-pan songs, and ones that have potential to become standards. That's where my 10 years+ (actually 20-something) years lies, although bass playing has been a primary band role for me and is of course enormously important in the arrangement of a song.

I'm not going to take this thread down that road. This thread is advice to help make someone more likely to have success. IMHO drug use never is a key to success, nor does it provide anything directly leading to success. I can't point to any of my famous friends who would tell me that drug use made them a success or more successful. I can point to two directly who lost their success and chance at stardom directly because of it. So I stand on my statement that any drug use, including pot, does not set you up for success.

I am going to start the songwriting thoughts today, so I hope you have some good insight following my post.

 

[sloasdaylight]

We played a gig this Friday at a club that's just starting out as a favor to our promoter, and here's a thing I took from that gig that's applicable in almost EVERY. SINGLE. INSTANCE.:

Keep your set moving. I kinda talked about this a bit earlier, and it's kind of a no brainer, but it bears repeating because so many people don't do it right. Keep your set moving from one song to the next. Don't get caught up trying to talk to the audience or cracking jokes between every song or every two songs, it doesn't work out well for you. People are there to see you on stage playing your music, not trying to make it as a stand up comedian or a talk how host. The more songs you can run together the better in my band's experience. You would not believe the compliments we get from other bands, promoters, sound guys, etc, about how kick ass it was that we just moved from song to song to song to song.

Get on stage, do your thing precisely and professionally, banter a little bit near the end of the set, then wrap up and blow them away.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled nuggets of wisdom from TR.

 

[Saxn]

I'm not going to take this thread down that road.

Sir, with all due respect you DID take the thread down that road with the 'drugs are bad' speech - and with some pretty strong, sweeping statements to boot. I have no problem with that in and of itself, but I think as long as BardoBass meets your criteria for posting here that he should be allowed a dissenting opinion and not be shouted down by knee-jerk, defensive reactions like one I read afterwards. If it's to be a non-issue then let it be a non-issue, but let's not start that discussion and then stifle dissenting opinion, please.

Now, what about songwriting?

 

[TRichardsbass]

Sir, with all due respect you DID take the thread down that road with the 'drugs are bad' speech - and with some pretty strong, sweeping statements to boot. I have no problem with that in and of itself, but I think as long as BardoBass meets your criteria for posting here that he should be allowed a dissenting opinion and not be shouted down by knee-jerk, defensive reactions like one I read afterwards. If it's to be a non-issue then let it be a non-issue, but let's not start that discussion and then stifle dissenting opinion, please.

Now, what about songwriting?

I said that IMO using drugs do not lead you in the right direction to be successful. If Bardo could actually have pointed to how drugs make you successful, as opposed to pointing out that some successful musicians had used drugs (and not necessarily before they became successful) and given the typical dissertation on the types of cannabis then and now, and how sugar apparently is the root of all evil, then I would have just muddled on.

But as OPBassman said, there are musicians reading this, younger ones in particular, who are looking for ways to increase their chances for success. If anyone can actually show me how they got signed by a label, got hired for a regional or national tour, or got recognized as a band due directly to drug use, then let them prove it here. Otherwise, I'm ending the discussion with my point that drugs don't ever lead to success, in any legal endeavor.

As for the songwriting, I'm finishing up my post now in my
notepad and will post before three o'clock.

 

[Saxn]

If Bardo could actually have pointed to how drugs make you successful, as opposed to pointing out that some successful musicians had used drugs (and not necessarily before they became successful) and given the typical dissertation on the types of cannabis then and now, and how sugar apparently is the root of all evil, then I would have just muddled on.

If anyone can actually show me how they got signed by a label, got hired for a regional or national tour, or got recognized as a band due directly to drug use, then let them prove it here. Otherwise, I'm ending the discussion with my point that drugs don't ever lead to success, in any legal endeavor.

I like the way you think. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[rreynoldsbass]

Courtesy. To bandmates, other bands, venues and their owners, engineers, agents, "producers," managers, etc. Each of these has invaluable information to teach you, and you should never take the high ground to them unless they force you to.

EDIT: sorry to throw in my two cents. Not intending to step on any toes.

 

[TRichardsbass]

Courtesy. To bandmates, other bands, venues and their owners, engineers, agents, "producers," managers, etc. Each of these has invaluable information to teach you, and you should never take the high ground to them unless they force you to.

EDIT: sorry to throw in my two cents. Not intending to step on any toes.

You clearly didn't step on anyones toes, and your two cents are absolutely valuable here.

Courtesy. It's quickly becoming a forgotten attribute.

People will share with you much more when you are courteous then when you are obnoxious.

So good point.

 

[BritPicker]

I think that TRichardsbass was absolutely right in his opinions about drugs. In my bass-playing career I've seen many (and heard of many more) very good players just going down the drain with them.

Either not playing, or dead or in an institution, which they will, barring a miracle, remain in for the rest of their lives.

Bass-players are, generally an intelligent group of people, not naturally given to extremes (slap bass solos excepted), but sadly there are many who lap up the myth that drugs are enhancing to one's creativity and well-being.

The modern world doesn't take kindly to the opinion that some avenues are best left unexplored in the knowledge that many who have taken them have not ended their journey happily.

Well, I'm content to remain at odds with that particular purity of purpose.

TRichardsbass is completely correct in what he said.

 

[TRichardsbass]

Okay, its songwriting time.

Original bands must have good songs. They just don't happen overnight. Songwriting is a craft few master and few pay enough attention too.

I hear a lot of bands that are technically much better then I'll ever be. They play the living crap out of their instruments. They play some really cool stuff, but they always loose me or often overplay their welcome. They copy the style well, but don't have good songs. There is a difference.

I am not known as the strongest songwriter, so I've teamed up over the years with several much better songwriters. This has not only helped me hone my craft but also has allowed me to fix otherwise decent songs and make them good, strong or great songs.

Part one of songwriting for today's discussion:

ITS THE HOOK STUPID!

No song ever works without a great hook, and no hooks works unless it can be repeated over, and over, and over in a song and it really is the crescendo and pop in the song. Its corny, but think about Neil Diamond's "Sweet Caroline". One of the best hooks in the history of music. Its melodic, has a sing along part, and so memorable even two year olds know it. That song is the hook.

How do you find a good hook? Part sweat, part luck. Often times the hook is hidden in the verses you right. I wrote a song the other day and wrote ten verses but couldn't find a chorus and hook. Then bamm! I kept singing one verse over and over. So I said, "what if I make this the hook instead? It just popped. I wound up restructuring the entire song, and all those verses are now just crumpled paper on the floor. But the song has already gotten a thumbs up from a good songwriter I know and also from a country artist in Nashville.

No matter what the style or genre, you need to find a good hook. It should be able to be in the song so much it beats the listener over the head. Metallica had that line, "off to never never land..." followed by that bass and guitar riff. Even metal has a good hook.

If you write a song, sing it to a friend you trust who you think actually has good taste in music. Sing and play your hook, and ask them if they like it and if they would go crazy because now its so catchy its stuck in their head. If they say yes, write a song around it. Sleep with it, eat with it. Love it. Make it the song.

Another great example of "the hook" is from Christian crossover Amy Grant. On her album Simple Things the final song (track 10) begins with the hook. "After the fire is over, after the ash has cooled, after the smoke has blown away, I will be here for you." She starts the song with the hook, after a verse that has the basic melody of the hook she goes back to the hook/chorus. Does it several times. The song will haunt you. Its a perfect demonstration of how to use a hook.

So part one is the hook is the song, the song is the hook. Make sure it works. Without it most songs fail, and its hard to write a song without one first.

 

[TBrett]

I'm gonna pitch in my $.02; but first, the obligatory resume.
23 years old, played bass since I was 12.
First band.
Played 15 gigs so far.
One of 2 bands that won recording time from a competition of 20 some odd bands from the area.
One of the first call bands with the Promoter at a big venue in Tampa Bay for national acts, and have opened for Karnivool, Travis Meeks, and Marcy Playground so far, had to turn down a Drowning Pool gig :-(.

Now, onto my tip(s):
I don't know if anyone's mentioned this, because I've skimmed through this thread and haven't read every response word for word, but I will say that something that is absolutely paramount to succeeding as an original band (i.e. playing big time shows with big time bands, getting attention from record execs, blah blah) is the ability to network your ass off. The old phrase, it's not what you know, but rather WHO you know holds very true in the music business, perhaps more so than many other industries. You've got to be in contact with promoters and booking agents often, reminding them about you without smothering them. Make friends with other bands in your area, you never know when one of the bands they're playing with has to drop out of a show, or they do, and they need another band to fill the vacant spot.

You also have to approach every show like it's your last. You never know who is going to be out in the audience, there could be 15 people you don't know there, and one of them is a record exec on vacation or out checking out potential talent. If I remember right, rumor has it that that Maynard James Keenan was at a The Melvins show and that's how that band was able to break out. No gig is just an "on stage practice", they're all equally important, if for no other reason than it ensures that your fans or people there will want to continue to see you, or buy your merch, or CD, or whatever the case may be.


This is a great list, and my bit about networking fits in with number 3, but I'm going to add a 5th, and that's a thick skin and an open mind. You need to understand that just because you think a song is great, that does not mean that the song in fact does not suck righteously to most everyone else. You need to be able to take the criticism of your music, and use it in a constructive fashion, and at times compromise. Also, to use a quote from The most Interesting Man in the World: "Find out what you do not do well, then don't do that thing." Figure out what your band does best and then focus on that, and use practice/jams to develop other sounds/styles, but don't bring them out on a gig unless you're sure they're ready, and even then be prepared for them to flop.

Catching up on this wonderful - and for me, very timely - thread and just have to say, what a great post! There have been so many truly helpful and informative posts here, but you have summed it up for me, man. Along with your remarks about constant networking, the Most Interesting Man quote is perfect! It goes with Stephen King's great bit of advice about good writing: "Always be prepared to kill your darlings." In other words, stay objective and be ready to drop all those bits you think are so special, but that might "righteously suck to everyone else." If you wrote one song, you'll write another. You can always save the dropped bits for those rare occasions when you have time alone and can indulge yourself. Because realistically, if you're building a band, those moments are few and far between.

Funny how I seem to find time to waste on TB, though...

 

[TheDialog]

So much talk here...
After reading the initial post of the goal is to play MSG and get signed to a label I was done with this thread. Sorry for hating, just being honest

I also don't agree with the whole 10 year experience part...a ton of people with 10+ years in the game still don't know what's up.

I think there's a lot to be said for people/the youth who get to learn it on their own. It's nice to want to "coach" everyone, but most need to live and learn. I'm 23 and in a "successful" band, but we learn new things everyday as musicians, band mates, best friends, brothers, writers etc. I'm glad I learned the bulk form experience.