I'm having a conflict of interest with myself and my writing...

[Jason West]

Originally Posted by Musickiks

And being in a band I want to be able to WRITE and PLAY different types of rock/music.

Just figure out what's more important to you... the songs... or the band.

To me, the song is more important. Band members and collaborators are interchangeable, but the intrinsic desire to create certain types of songs are not. I might be working with one singer on a club dance tune but I also have an itch to do a throwback doo wop tune with all acoustic instruments and fiddles. I don't have an identity crisis discussion with the dance singer... I just find a different singer that's a natural fit for that other genre. No awkward conversations about it.

As for mashing together different genres on one CD release, I don't know what extremes will fly. A record label wants a marketable product and a return-on-investment. If the diverse songs help sell it, great. This is one of the areas where the digital marketplace makes it easier to sell to fragmented audience tastes: just sell singles instead of entire "concept albums".

If you're an artist that wants to write a heavy metal tune, but also a singalong children's tune, and then do some cerebral 4-string quartet... the digital marketplace is the best distribution mechanism for that. No record executive is going to package those 3 genres on 1 CD and most consumers would like one of the songs but hate the 2 others because they feel out of place.

The exception to this situation is if you're a very well established artist that's putting out an "experimental" album. If Paul McCartney were to put out a new CD with heavy metal, a children's tune for Sesame Street, and a string quartet instrumental, people would buy it because of the interest in Paul McCartney.

When you're starting out with no name recognition, people only can judge you (and like you) for the songs. Therefore, the songs have to be in the same ballpark as far as genre.

[Musickiks]

Originally Posted by Jason West

Just figure out what's more important to you... the songs... or the band.

To me, the song is more important. Band members and collaborators are interchangeable, but the intrinsic desire to create certain types of songs are not. I might be working with one singer on a club dance tune but I also have an itch to do a throwback doo wop tune with all acoustic instruments and fiddles. I don't have an identity crisis discussion with the dance singer... I just find a different singer that's a natural fit for that other genre. No awkward conversations about it.

As for mashing together different genres on one CD release, I don't know what extremes will fly. A record label wants a marketable product and a return-on-investment. If the diverse songs help sell it, great. This is one of the areas where the digital marketplace makes it easier to sell to fragmented audience tastes: just sell singles instead of entire "concept albums".

If you're an artist that wants to write a heavy metal tune, but also a singalong children's tune, and then do some cerebral 4-string quartet... the digital marketplace is the best distribution mechanism for that. No record executive is going to package those 3 genres on 1 CD and most consumers would like one of the songs but hate the 2 others because they feel out of place.

The exception to this situation is if you're a very well established artist that's putting out an "experimental" album. If Paul McCartney were to put out a new CD with heavy metal, a children's tune for Sesame Street, and a string quartet instrumental, people would buy it because of the interest in Paul McCartney.

When you're starting out with no name recognition, people only can judge you (and like you) for the songs. Therefore, the songs have to be in the same ballpark as far as genre.

Thanks for the advice.

And well, they would be basically the same genre. It would still stay, rock or indie rock/pop. It's just the vocal melodies themselves for each group of songs, move between some sounding 60's/70's and some songs sounding current.

I like the idea of just releasing singles, or maybe EP's which represent each "sound". And if you got real proficient you could even do two albums each with a different sound, time period wise.

But even that, if it's coming from the same band, can't that appear as "not genuine" or just plain stupid? Haha.

[Aint Nobody]

Regarding: "...you can't do whatever the hell you want and still be considered for a label..."

Here's my 2c on this concept as someone who does pop music aimed squarely at top 40, yet constantly pushes the envelope about blending unexpected sounds::

Nothing will get you a label deal (if that's what you want) faster than not needing one. It's always been true. It just used to be that not needing one meant you had to have amassed a huge fanbase from physical appearances. That bit still works, there are just some other avenues that have opened up to demonstrate financial viability. All the guesswork about dressing a certain way, playing a certain type of song, or standing on your head to impress a label only cater to notions about what they might look for in lieu of an actual track record. Demonstrated value beats image designed to give the impression of possible value any day of the week.

The goal should never be a label deal. At best, a deal where you bring nothing but image to the table (no following) is a getting bent over the bargaining table scenario... hoping you stay in the label's good graces long enough to become one of the few who are even given the opportunity to make it into the black. You need a GOOD deal (if you even want a major label deal, but that's another discussion.) That's only going to happen when you can demonstrate value.

So... what does it all mean? Focus on the fans and forget the label. If you believe that doing x, y, or z works for you, and works for the fans, then do it. If you believe it alienates fans, then don't do it. It's your career. Win over the crowd, and the emperor is powerless.

As to the specific consideration of coherence, you may wish to ask first what you stand for as a band. Here's how that question has changed my outlook:

My PURPOSE as an artist is to expand the horizons of pop fans by blending my eclectic influences with modern pop aesthetics to make them palatable to a much wider audience. My clarity about what I stand for as an artist drives decisions ranging from arrangement to mixing to video production.

Once I got clear about that, I asked myself for each track whether it fit my definitive personal style... note I didn't ask whether it fit an A/R rep's prospect checklist. Some tracks that sounded like straight-up 70's soul grooves had to be remixed to be modernized. Some that were all synthetic had to be "retrofitted" with some classic sounds or world music influences. The result is a signature sound... a purposefully balanced mixture of eclectic sonic influences and modern production aesthetics.

The coherence that matters to me is in that balance:

1 Sounds like it BELONGS on the pop charts (production style, arrangement, etc)
2 Has a distinctive sound that sets it apart from the rest of the charts (sound palate, influences)
3 Has a sho-nuff groove

If one of those elements is missing, it's back to the drawing board. WITHIN that framework, though, there's infinite variety. Heck my latest (in siggy) is literally 808's crossed with a string section, timpani, acoustic guitar, and vibraphone. Recent sound sources included a hypnotherapist, banjo, whales singing... Remember, part of the mission statement is to EXPAND horizons. To me, being a good pop producer means being able to take any point of inspiration, and using production techniques to bridge the gap to make it digestable to pop audiences without losing the essence of the inspiration.

Doesn't mean every band's answer is to pull all their material towards a common sound. Maybe you WANT every song to be completely different. Maybe your niche is being eclectic. Maybe that's what motivates you and gets you out of bed every morning. Just means you may want to ask WHY you care about the band's image. If you have a strong vision that defines and motivates you to create a powerful and distinctive style, that's a whole different animal than dressing up like Flock of Seagulls, or singing ballads you can't stand just to try and land a record deal. Both will answer questions for you about what choices you should make, but the results will be very different.

A definitive vision of who you are and what you stand for will tend to guide you in all matters. Ask yourself what your band is really ABOUT... then stay true to that and work it to the bone.

[brockorama]

Great post.

Originally Posted by Aint Nobody

Here's my 2c on this concept

[youngfreak]

What do you do best? That's a good place to start.