How to Succeed as an Original Band

[TRichardsbass]

10 years experience? There are bands that have had multiple gold albums in less than 10 years.

If any of those bassists in bands that have multiple gold records wishes to chime in here, then they may. Exception to the rule.

I put a 10 year window on it because I want the thread to have information from musicians who have really had experience. I know from my and other's experiences that an original band usually spends 2-4 years just playing around locally and getting a following at the regional level. And usually that means more then one attempt at it.

Even in the Justin Beiber world we live in nothing happens overnight. I just sold some songs to a potential Beiber and as his parents said they have been building this kid up for more then three years and he is just now getting attention at a higher level.

 

[TRichardsbass]

TRichards, I really do appreciate what you're trying to do here... pass on the knowledge / experience... heaven knows I would have benefited greatly from TB twenty years ago...

But a fundamental question about your post is what do you mean by success?

Financial success or artistic impact?

My advice would be very different depending upon which question your asking.

There are plenty of bands that are / were influential that didn't enjoy too much financial success (Birthday Party, Jesus Lizard for example...) And there are obviously plenty of original bands that enjoy massive financial success, but their music is unpalatable.

(I don't know why I keep getting sucked into threads like these....)

Success unfortunately is truly in the eyes of the beholder. For my case here, I will define success as a threshold and objective:

Success threshold - Having an original band that plays regularly, has a decent demo or local label deal, has some regional fan base and can get paid enough to be able to be a musician as a living, only having to supplement it with the occasional non-musician gig.

Success objective - label signed, world or US tour, some endorsements and the ability to do nothing but play your original music.

I cannot include the type or perceived goodness of music. I always found Kiss to be musically inept, however they are successful beyond any definition. That should not exclude them from being considered here. And as for the millions of bassists who are clearly better musically then me, who have more chops then me, who have better basses then me, but play only in their garage or basement, don't tour and aren't part of a band, well, they don't count.

Does this define it for you?

 

[80'sRocker]

...don't move to the Albany/Capitol Region of New York, that's for sure. What was once a great original scene is now reduced to 100's of screaming "bands". Steer clear!

 

[lunarpollen]

And what is true in NJ is definitely not true in other places.

I used to live back east, I used to do sound at a very popular NJ sports bar for the various cover bands. I also used to be in a couple of original bands, so I know what it's like in the NJ/NY area.

But I've lived in CA for the past decade, have done sound and gigged in original bands out here in northern CA. It's a lot different here; even sports bars tend to book original acts over cover bands. There are cover bands out here that do well, but it's a pretty small niche, and they probably make most of their money doing special events, private gigs, etc. Even after a decade of living here, I am still pleasantly surprised at how supportive (relatively speaking) the scene is for original bands out here...

 

[TRichardsbass]

Aye, I think the ten year qualifier is a wee bit silly. My own "original" band has only been playing for five years, yet we've gone through european tours, a small record label, a much bigger record label, dealing with booking agents, dealing with sponsorships/endorsements and negotiating contracts. I know many bands who have been playing original material for a LOT longer than ten years who haven't got a fraction of the experience with this that we've built up in five years.

Okay, modified rule.

I won't put an experience time on it, however when you post an answer to a question you must put your musical resume preceding it, as you have done here. That way the questions being answered have a provenance. Its only fair.

What I am trying to do here is not have a lot of opinions and information provided based on limited experience.

And also, don't equate your personal success with being able to provide nuggets for success. The guys who have been in the trenches for ten years but have never found your success can provide an insight you cannot, as we learn as much or more from our mistakes then our successes. And what worked for your band may not work for everyone.

I will tell you that in my best band we were signed, toured regionally and were on the cusp when the musical tastes of the country changed. The band, based on all the typical band things, did not change as needed and died a quick death. I learned more in those 4 months of band death then I ever did on the rise to the cusp.

So provide your advice, but everyone, please at least put in the number of years you have been in original music and also note if you have been local or nationally signed (if you were) and any other info that will add weight to your comments.

Thanks.

 

[bucephylus]

IMO, the apparent dichotomy between "Original" acts and "Cover" acts seems a little strange.

Popular music has a strong tradition of influences. Many, many successful "Original" artists have historically mixed covering previously written material with creation of new material. I can recall back in high school having Ted Nugent, Brownsville Station, Bob Seger, Frijid Pink etc etc play 4 hour dance gigs; and guess what? A lot of the material was covers. Of course, in parallel (what a concept) they were writing and performing original stuff.

What was "right" about that process, IMO, is that the previous art is incorporated and the new art carries and passes on the baton. It is called paying dues. Conceiving of a process of bypassing paying dues, and dogmatically playing ONLY original material seems to me to be missing several important parts of creating the art. But, I see more and more trend in that direction. IMO, that is not a good thing.

Here is a vote for being less dogmatic, mix it up, and pay dues. Its fun. Sure, focus on the original compositions, but fit them into the context. That's what seems to be missing more and more to me; context. We are losing our context for the art; perhaps one reason recent versions of Woodstock have had no soul. Just a thought.

IMO

PS: I have been playing for 40 years, and have played some fraction of original material at all times since then.

 

[TRichardsbass]

Subscribed My band is getting bigger and bigger, we're looking at how we can improve ourselves and really get noticed by labels.

Thanks for starting this thread!

Thanks for the kind words.

One thing I will note is that today many labels will not even want to talk to you until you have a very decent following and some decent ranking on sites like reverbnation.

Being near NYC and directly in the "Land of Springsteen and Bon Jovi" I see label A&R and execs at least weekly. I had a discussion with one at the Stone Pony last week. He highlighted to me how developmental deals don't exist anymore. Yes, you might find some with "artists" who are very young (again, think Beiber) but labels are now looking for the payday in a different way.

Everyone here has heard of the 360 deal. Labels sign you, put in a very minimum of cash and effort, but expect a portion of not only your recorded product but your performance pay, endorsements and your merch. So for your band this is key to remember.

In order for a decent label to be willing to "invest" they want to know that if they send you on a small regional tour supporting a larger act that you can sell merch and that you will have a large enough fan base to sell at least 10% of the tickets.

You didn't provide any specifics for your band, so I'm sure you will be trolling here for that nugget you don't know.

Good luck!

 

[TRichardsbass]

IMO, the apparent dichotomy between "Original" acts and "Cover" acts seems a little strange.

Popular music has a strong tradition of influences. Many, many successful "Original" artists have historically mixed covering previously written material with creation of new material. I can recall back in high school having Ted Nugent, Brownsville Station, Bob Seger, Frijid Pink etc etc play 4 hour dance gigs; and guess what? A lot of the material was covers. Of course, in parallel (what a concept) they were writing and performing original stuff.

What was "right" about that process, IMO, is that the previous art is incorporated and the new art carries and passes on the baton. It is called paying dues. Conceiving of a process of bypassing paying dues, and dogmatically playing ONLY original material seems to me to be missing several important parts of creating the art. But, I see more and more trend in that direction. IMO, that is not a good thing.

Here is a vote for being less dogmatic, mix it up, and pay dues. Its fun. Sure, focus on the original compositions, but fit them into the context. That's what seems to be missing more and more to me; context. We are losing our context for the art; perhaps one reason recent versions of Woodstock have had no soul. Just a thought.

IMO

I don't want to get into the discussion about cover versus original and if you should start as a cover band then graduate to original. In my experience in NJ that never works. Once you are branded a cover band, and especially if you are a very well known one, you are stuck there. The Benjamins are a great example. They recorded their own CD of original material. No one buys it, nor do they care (which is unfortunate as these guys do have talent.) There is another band who I will not mention their name out of respect, but they have a couple of originals in their set and the crowd becomes crickets and grabs a beer everytime they play them.

I agree, everyone needs to understand the root behind the music. I don't know any original band, even large ones like U2 (I still love their version of All Along the Watchtower), who don't throw in covers, especially on tour. Unfortunately in the current business the labels want to see original acts, not pure cover acts.

 

[Ric5]

To succeed you need:

1-Good songs. There are a lot of people who write original songs without a hook.
2-Good singer frontman. I have played in a lot of B bands that could have been A bands with better vocals.
3-hard work. Making it in music is harder work with longer hours than other careers.
4-Luck. You really need a lot of luck. The odds are really against an original band making it.

 

[TRichardsbass]

To succeed you need:

1-Good songs. There are a lot of people who write original songs without a hook.
2-Good singer frontman. I have played in a lot of B bands that could have been A bands with better vocals.
3-hard work. Making it in music is harder work with longer hours than other careers.
4-Luck. You really need a lot of luck. The odds are really against an original band making it.

Simple set of advice for guiding an original band. I really support 1, 2 and 3. Number 4 is obvious. If you do 1-3 odds are you will make some of your own luck.

 

[bucephylus]

I don't want to get into the discussion about cover versus original and if you should start as a cover band then graduate to original. In my experience in NJ that never works. Once you are branded a cover band, and especially if you are a very well known one, you are stuck there. The Benjamins are a great example. They recorded their own CD of original material. No one buys it, nor do they care (which is unfortunate as these guys do have talent.) There is another band who I will not mention their name out of respect, but they have a couple of originals in their set and the crowd becomes crickets and grabs a beer everytime they play them.

I agree, everyone needs to understand the root behind the music. I don't know any original band, even large ones like U2 (I still love their version of All Along the Watchtower), who don't throw in covers, especially on tour. Unfortunately in the current business the labels want to see original acts, not pure cover acts.

Not saying you are incorrect at ALL, and not trying to start a this vs that derail on your thread. To the contrary. Its just that the "industry" is in the process of killing the music with this kind of attitude. IMO, Just sayin'. I mean just look at the Beatles....

 

[hennessybass]

I have been making original (and cover) music for at least 10+ years. Have been in a bunch of different bands - which means a bunch of different personalities, approaches, etc...

Since this thread seems to have taken on a cover/original theme, I will comment on that.

My advice
- Original bands need to know some covers!!

I know, I know... you want to make original music, but audiences want to hear familiar music. I'm not saying become a cover band, but an original band with 1 hour of original music should have 1 hour of cover music too. You don't have to do the songs like they are performed on the radio - you are an original band, do them your way! Use them sparingly. During your original set, maybe play 1 cover song each time - it keep things fresh. The audience comes out to see your music, and gets a cover. Next time change it up. You are playing the same original material each time you play (and probably the same audience), adding one cover can keep the show fresh for you and your audience. Your fans might hear that you played one of their favorite songs last time, and so they will come out next time kind of thing...

Also, if you do this, you can all the sudden start to take 2 hour gigs instead of just the 1 hour gigs. Lear covers that you like, and that people know, but are not super hits -- if you are a rock band, cover some zeppelin - don't do whole lot of love, do Ten Years Gone - everyone will know the song, but who covers that? It can help open up some doors. It's fun, the audience likes it, it makes you a better musician, etc...

I was in a mostly original band for several years. We had a very small hand full of covers that we did. On down the road, when things started to pick up for the band, I felt like we were missing opportunities that we could have taken if we knew additional material.

Cover songs also provide a great reference for your audience. If they hear your band do a song they know, then they start to "get" your music more. Throwing in a cover can make your music more accessible to the audience, and they can enjoy your music more because they have a frame of reference. It's like teaching someone a language (using a cover) and then having a conversation with them (using original material).

 

[bassbully]

I have been playing 10 years in mostly originals bands. The early band was covers only but lasted a short time all the other bands (2) to my present band did originals and some covers. Today my band does all originals and we throw a cover in twisted our way.

We are just getting to the point after 2 years where we are getting in the know in our area. We have had some reviews, press, and regionally have been working hard to get out name out and music. We also have been lucky to land decent paying gigs for our efforts for an original band.

You have to work hard..very hard, to promote and get gigs that are worth your time. PR is important and we work on getting it but we dont whore ourselves out for it. Recording our second album in important also to have something to get out and let people hear new tracks from us. Its a labor of love and you have to be willing to give band money to fund projects such as PR costs,recording etc.


Cover bands IMO are much easier to manage and run. You can play so many more places such as clubs , parties,events of all kinds that original music cant get a crack at.
My advice is have a good product (music) have band members willing to promote and sell it. Be willing to take a hit on any money made and be willing to get to the people and work on recording and PR for the band on your time off.

 

[Burlington]

Not saying you are incorrect at ALL, and not trying to start a this vs that derail on your thread. To the contrary. Its just that the "industry" is in the process of killing the music with this kind of attitude. IMO, Just sayin'. I mean just look at the Beatles....

I'm sorry to say it man, but that is the past. None of the touring, pro bands that I am into and support play covers during their set. They got where they were by being unique and carving out a niche that no one else had.

I am speaking for the metal/hardcore scene, btw.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

I played with original bands for many years... The only one that came even *vaguely* close to real success imploded when the A&R guys started coming to gigs. Sound familiar?

Any more, I figure that it really comes down to what your expectations are and how you measure success; For me, if someone will let me play original music in a pleasant venue where folks will enjoy it, I have succeeded even if I don't make a dime. But that's me.

 

[bucephylus]

Apologies for derail, lets not get into the this vs that and get back to OP's questions. Agree with Burlington that shows on tour are mainly inappropriate for covers; that's showtime and originals rule (and they should).

 

[Jazz Ad]

Catchy songwriting, charismatic singer, dedication and a lot of luck?

 

[LiamPodmore]

Bands around where i live tend to start off as cover bands and then as they get more gigs they start to add more originals, eventually resulting in an all (Or atleast 90%) originals band.

Liam

 

[bucephylus]

BTW, my most recent effort with original material was with this fine gentlemen:
Link Removed
Great songwriting, IMO. With that group, we went out into the clubs with about a 25/75 sampling of originals to covers; which is what I was talking about in my original post. Made the band tighter and put the music in context.

Any current lack of success for Mike has had way more to do with the vagaries of industry connections than anything about what kind of mix the band was doing. Again IME/IMO.

 

[panama]

My advice is:

Whoever is driving the van picks the music.
Whoever is shotgun navigates.
Everyone else shut up.
Also always drink gatorade from the widemouth bottles. They're great to use as lavatories when you don't want to stop the van, just keep the gatorade bottles far from the toilet bottles. Wouldn't want to go looking for gatorade at night and find pee.