Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seifer Sorry about the off topic question, but why is the production quality of demos so important now? I keep hearing this everywhere. What did labels do when bands could only make crappy demos? It seems to me that the song should speak for itself. I have a few unreleased demo tracks from famous bands that got them signed in the first place, and some are quite terrible. Everclear's "capitol records demo" can be found on the net, featuring most of the songs that appeared on their first major label release, and it sounds like a crappy home recording. Sublime comes to mind as well.
I think chymer's recording paints a good picture of what the song sounds like and what the performer sounds like with only a few small flaws that were mentioned. What else do they want? Of course, I know nothing about the music biz... imo, ymmv, ita |
If the producer wants more than a weak handshake & forced smile from the A&R department, he better have his shit sounding amazing. Folks are turning in 'masterpieces' made on home computer rigs and limited equipment. The well known phenomenon you must have slept through is called the 'home studio revolution' it started about 7 years ago.
"rough demo" has been replaced with "competent facsimile of hit record"
There may be 50 other girls behind this one that may have:
better produced demos (by hit producers)
better photos
better vocal pitch / tone
better looks
better songs
pro management already in place
So while the A&R sit in the board room having a weekly A&R meeting and have the propmo pack / photos / local press / list of industry people all wanting to come aboard in front of them and a stack of CD's. Wouldn't you want the sound coming out of the board room speakers to sound like 'surefire hit'?
(yes is the answer these days)
