What are your sources of new music?

[evil^milk]

The first step in listening to good music for me was from here.

Someone long ago here linked to pitchfork which is how I got to know **** Buttons, Battles, Burial, Fennesz, Lindstrom, and probably a bunch of other perishable bands that I have happened to really like throughout these times.

I really don't prefer music discovery services like Pandora and Grooveshark et al these days; I think the best things I've listened to have come from recommendations or even radio stations.

But that's pretty much that...

Where do you get all your music recommendations? What blogs, radio stations, etc. do you use?

 

[Wanted Bob]

To be totally honest, I use the Genius recommendations on iTunes to find new music. Say what you will about Apple and their products/software, but I've found tons of excellent music I've never heard of before through it's recommendations.

I've also started listening to the Going Quantum podcast, which has some great mixes every week.

Finally, I'll check out the UFK and HospitalRecords youtube channels for new DnB every once in a while.

 

[Krynn72]

Pandora or my cousin. Though I should seek out new sources, as I haven't gotten much new stuff lately. Pitchfork is good according to my cousin, but I'd have to force myself to read stuff on there, since I don't really care enough to be naturally inclined to do so.

 

[Edeslash]

Pitchfork, /mu/

Spotify tends to make me find new music too.

 

[Bad^Hat]

I don't actively check this any more as they honestly just posted too much good shit than I had time for, but this blog is pretty great for all sorts of music - http://www.thesirenssound.com/ (ignore the bloated site design as much as you can)

Besides that I occasionally check a few Something Awful threads and some subreddits, but mostly I just sort of find stuff, often through looking into artists I already like and finding out their influences/who they influenced.

 

[KiplingsCat]

What do you mean by "new"? Do you mean music that is contemporary, or new recordings of old music, or music that is new to you but not necessarily to the world? I'm going to go with the latter of the three, so...

My grandfather's record collection. Piano sheet music. Things my parents listen to. Things Glenn Gould recorded. Film soundtracks (like Little Miss Sunshine, Juno, any film by Wes Anderson, various films by Tarantino to name but a few). BandCamp. The BBC Proms (which are on now). Concerts that I see in town. Things my neighbour recommends.

BBC 3 is pretty good as well, they do this cool thing at weekends where they compare a bunch of different recordings of the same piece to see which one they like the best.

 

[Shift]

Considering that most radio stations are a pile of shit in the UK I tend to come across all new bands by going to gigs of bands I already like and watching the support acts. Sometimes you come across a few gems but on the most part, they are very average. There is a distinct lack of good new bands emerging however, I think that's down to the lack of media coverage and magazines like Kerrang and NME only focusing on the same crap music. Turn on a channel like Skuzz and you are greeted with a bunch of bands that you've probably never heard of who all sound exactly like each other, its utterly depressing to see.

 

[JUL3]

Gigs, festivals and general word of mouth. When I hear something I like, I listen on Youtube, if I really like, I download (if I really really really like, I buy.)

 

[knut]

I tend to come across all new bands by going to gigs of bands I already like and watching the support acts.

this is a good attitude.

There is a distinct lack of good new bands emerging however, I think that's down to the lack of media coverage and magazines like Kerrang and NME only focusing on the same crap music.

this, however, i do not agree with. the uk has never been more vibrant or exciting for talent right now, but if you limit your search just down to turning the radio or tele on you're never going to fully experience what this place has to offer. arguably, it would be lovely if some of the bigger channels or stations did look a bit harder themselves, but it's really not the be all and end all of displaying talent.

 

[kineaesth]

Bars, podcasts (or whatever you want to call the regular mixes that many online music sites release http://www.factmag.com/category/factmixes/ http://www.residentadvisor.net/podcast.aspx https://www.fabriclondon.com/store/fabric-products.html, sometimes /mu/, arch in dubby hub , flatmates, blogs

 

[Shift]

this, however, i do not agree with. the uk has never been more vibrant or exciting for talent right now, but if you limit your search just down to turning the radio or tele on you're never going to fully experience what this place has to offer. arguably, it would be lovely if some of the bigger channels or stations did look a bit harder themselves, but it's really not the be all and end all of displaying talent.

You are right but that's why I look via other avenues like support acts for gigs. I am certain there are many great new bands appearing in the UK, the problem is they are just not getting the coverage they deserve and they are hard to find. Its staggering when I come across an insanely good band I've seen who are tiny. You wouldn't have had that 5-10 years ago I'm in a band too, have been for 3 years and we have just started to get some recognition and attention, its very, very difficult to be a band these days.

 

[knut]

well, there are sources that people are using to spread the word, and it comes through the strength of internet networking, which is invaluable these days. a very, very large portion of bands i follow all use tumblr, twitter and facebook as a platform for promotion, news, information, photography and obviously as a provider/space to listen to music (through bandcamp, soundcloud and such) and they've been great for them.

outside of that, as far as physical media goes there is a massive resurgence in DIY ethics towards zines featuring reviews, previews, interviews, photographs and actual artwork promoting gigs and shows around the country, and that artistic/physical element goes a long way these days. i guess that sort of counters my point about how strong an online presence is, but the two of them working together is a wonderful thing.

thread: i usually hear about it from other bands through their own tumblr's or twitter accounts, or via record labels promoting or recommending things. my old flatmate was really into music so we would swap harddrives every month or so to take and exchange new finds, and in general word of mouth/chat with friends or people at gigs is a great way because you can gauge how enthusiastic they are about who they're talking about in person.

liner notes on the back of records are great for the fact that (usually) a lot of the bands being thanked or cited for influence are in a similar vein to the artist on record. very helpful.

last.fm is still pretty good, too. i don't use it all that often anymore but i did get into quite a fair bit of music that way.

there's more but i can't remember. i guess long exposure to the internet every day helps.

 

[Shift]

Oh yeh its only after we started using youtube and facebook that our popularity started to increase, we've been making these epic videos using DIY tactics, using post-grads with the abilities and hiring out the equipment required. Its literally all you can do now, basically shout louder than all of the other bands out there and show more desire.

 

[knut]

i would say you should be shouting with them, not over them. why not work with other bands, alongside them? tour with them, share a van with them, put gigs on for them, promote their own music because it's something you might enjoy - you gain not only a whole new collection of friends or gig buddies, but it also opens up new platforms for your own promotion - lots and lots of bands are gaining fanbases off of the back of tours they do with other bands or from praise from friends within these bands.

i think what music had been missing for a while was a community spirit amongst musicians, but it's coming back a helluva lot more as of late and i would argue it's the direction to go.

 

[Shift]

Yep I agree, there does need to be more of a community spirit but here in Manchester its practically non-existent, there is no music scene to speak off. I think the attitudes of other bands we've come across and particularly the attitudes of promoters have tainted our view of bands working together. We played a gig a bit ago with this largish band from Huddersfield, they invited us over and promised us large crowds, we were meant to be the main support for them. However at the last minute, the said they wanted to play before us and have us headline because they and their fans didn't want to wait around for too long and we had to adhere, so they played their set to a full room and when it was our turn, the room was practically empty. Not all the bands we've come across have been like that though, we've met some great people too but everyone is just too much in the mindset of fending for themselves rather than helping others, at the moment at least anyway.

 

[Krynn72]

its very, very difficult to be a band these days.

Baloney. Its probably the easiest its ever been.

 

[Shift]

Baloney. Its probably the easiest its ever been.

You're clearly not in a band yourself although I'd love to hear your theory on it?

 

[sixteenth]

Someone long ago here linked to pitchfork

There needs to be a "hipster-off" button on that website. I feel like I should be wearing hotpants and an oversized pair of sunglasses.

 

[knut]

Yep I agree, there does need to be more of a community spirit but here in Manchester its practically non-existent, there is no music scene to speak off. I think the attitudes of other bands we've come across and particularly the attitudes of promoters have tainted our view of bands working together. We played a gig a bit ago with this largish band from Huddersfield, they invited us over and promised us large crowds, we were meant to be the main support for them. However at the last minute, the said they wanted to play before us and have us headline because they and their fans didn't want to wait around for too long and we had to adhere, so they played their set to a full room and when it was our turn, the room was practically empty. Not all the bands we've come across have been like that though, we've met some great people too but everyone is just too much in the mindset of fending for themselves rather than helping others, at the moment at least anyway.

yeah, the whole attitude that some people have of turning up for certain bands and then buggering off when the band they're pals with or have heard before is something that riles me up so much.

just last week, a band i was doing merch for (i release their music on my label, so i get around with them to gigs because it's all the sort of stuff i'm really into) were set to open up for a bunch of bands in birmingham but due to the headline band getting stuck in traffic in london and turning up late - which wasn't their fault - there was a lineup change so two bands went on first. they were cracking bands, real good stuff, but they were local, so once they were done the whole room emptied out and this wasn't even a massively well known show to begin with, so for these guys and the headliner it was basically just me, a couple others, the other band and the promoter and his girlfriend. it was still ace, because small gigs are great regardless, but it's disappointing.

i know a few dudes who were in a not so great band but they obviously thought they were the dogs bollocks and because of this they had a bit of a rockstar attitude (you'll know the type, i'm sure) so they would disappear during support bands sets to go and chill in the backstage rooms with their rider of beer then go on stage for their set. pissed me the right **** off, everytime. support your supports!

would also like to hear krynn's thoughts on the subject of it being easy to be in a band.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

Grooveshark, I guess. Haven't deliberately listened to much music in the past few years, though, aside from merely cutting the silence on the road by turning on the radio.

 

[kineaesth]

There needs to be a "hipster-off" button on that website. I feel like I should be wearing hotpants and an oversized pair of sunglasses.

In terms of "hipster" websites pitchfork is pretty mundane, it's just a music review site with specific taste and a reputation.

Also what knut said, labels are a great way of finding more artists you like - if a label's well curated it'll have a clear direction, and if you like a few artists on it you'll often like the rest (see: Hyperdub, Clown & Sunset, Hessle)

 

[Krynn72]

You're clearly not in a band yourself although I'd love to hear your theory on it?

would also like to hear krynn's thoughts on the subject of it being easy to be in a band.

Well, first off, lets revist what I was addressing, since I can already feel myself being led astray so as to appear to be defending something that I wasnt suggesting. The statement was thus:

its very, very difficult to be a band these days.

The implication, which is the main point of the statement, is that its harder "these days" as compared to "those days". If you wish to back off that implication, since its clearly an absurd notion, then make your backpedals now and save me the effort. Otherwise, confirm your supportive stance, and I'll post a few of the myriad of reasons why that notion is, indeed, absurd.

 

[Shift]

yeah, the whole attitude that some people have of turning up for certain bands and then buggering off when the band they're pals with or have heard before is something that riles me up so much.

just last week, a band i was doing merch for (i release their music on my label, so i get around with them to gigs because it's all the sort of stuff i'm really into) were set to open up for a bunch of bands in birmingham but due to the headline band getting stuck in traffic in london and turning up late - which wasn't their fault - there was a lineup change so two bands went on first. they were cracking bands, real good stuff, but they were local, so once they were done the whole room emptied out and this wasn't even a massively well known show to begin with, so for these guys and the headliner it was basically just me, a couple others, the other band and the promoter and his girlfriend. it was still ace, because small gigs are great regardless, but it's disappointing.

i know a few dudes who were in a not so great band but they obviously thought they were the dogs bollocks and because of this they had a bit of a rockstar attitude (you'll know the type, i'm sure) so they would disappear during support bands sets to go and chill in the backstage rooms with their rider of beer then go on stage for their set. pissed me the right **** off, everytime. support your supports!

I know exactly what you mean, I've been in those very situations with my band. I've lost count of the number of times we've had to play to empty rooms usually because the promoters who put the gigs on don't know what publishing is and couldn't hype a gig up to save their lives. It got so bad that we just stopped using promoters altogether, especially considering that they were wanting us to sell tickets at daft prices and all that does is put pressure on the band to make the sales. We are now essentially going via other contacts like the Manchester council and the councils of all the local boroughs and playing rock pubs (that actually have people wanting to hear new music) and playing small acoustic sets. We figured out that we could do 100 gigs around Manchester but its not going to get us anywhere, took us a few years to figure that out. We are now concentrating on online presence, music videos and gaining as many contacts as we can with people high up in the music industry and so far its slowly starting to pay off

 

[knut]

Well, first off, lets revist what I was addressing, since I can already feel myself being led astray so as to appear to be defending something that I wasnt suggesting. The statement was thus:

The implication, which is the main point of the statement, is that its harder "these days" as compared to "those days". If you wish to back off that implication, since its clearly an absurd notion, then make your backpedals now and save me the effort. Otherwise, confirm your supportive stance, and I'll post a few of the myriad of reasons why that notion is, indeed, absurd.

the difference between those days and these days lies largely in online distribution and the presence of the internet. for better or worse, it affects different bands in different ways. whilst i do know what you're saying, it's arguably difficult to say whether any particular time is harder or easier for some bands.

if you're an electronic musician who isn't overly fussed about performing live or putting out his music on wax or CD and is operating from his a bedroom consisting of a macbook and some software from the internet, then perhaps distributing your music on things like itunes or spotify is the preferred, easier option for him - and more credit to him for being able to create music in such a manner, i'm not saying it's any less respectful. but for a hardcore band cramped up in a van putting all of the last of their money into paying for petrol and getting 12'' vinyls pressed because they believe in creating physical media then it's a lot harder ''these days'' because it's very, very difficult to get some people to get away from listening to music for free or for cheap when they're sat at their computer. i know this from attending empty gigs in which a band have traveled 100 miles to get to only to receive less than half their pay for the night for petrol and barely any records/shirts/tapes sold to help them eat, let alone get to the next gig some 80 miles away. this wasn't a problem for someone like black flag back in the 80's because people had to get up off their arse to go and see them or buy things from a show because it was the basically the only way, in ''those days'' at least.

it's all relative, really. i think for some, yeah, it's the easiest it's ever been - those platforms like itunes and spotify are going to be great for some, and it's so easy to become a bedroom artist with the myriad of technology and software available at the click of your fingers - but realize that that statement doesn't apply to all. on the flipside, because of the online presence of digital distribution and, of course, piracy, it's never been harder for some folk. i would argue it all comes down to digital media over physical media, and what do you think more people are opting for these days? it's near enough the exact same thing between people who prefer to download games via steam or watch films via netflix. not to say that there aren't people who don't go out to game or movie stores to buy copies, and there are people who do go to gigs and buy records, but i don't think there are nearly enough people who do these things then there was 10 to 20 years ago.

so, whilst i don't want to back myself into a corner saying one time period is any easier or harder than the other (which i really, really don't want to say as you're right, that would be absurd), realize that there are a few things outlined above that do make it harder ''these days'' then what some touring bands would never of had to experience a while back. there are hundreds and thousands of other things that would of made bands traveling in the 70's or 80's much more difficult than some today but that's an absolutely massive debate right there which i wouldn't even know where to begin, so i'm mostly focusing on online distribution and piracy, which is the main bane of why i see a lot of bands in the UK falling apart or splitting up over. that is for certain something that makes being in a band today very, very difficult. or, as said, something that makes it very easy for some. so yeah, it's hard to button down, really. i guess i'm talking more from experience of following and being a big fan of touring bands who go the extra mile to put money into making physical copies of their music or art - that's my sort of thing.

 

[Shift]

There is also the fact that record labels at the moment are taking less risks with music and are signing less bands because they need to be sure they will make a net profit on whoever they do due to the economic difficulties at the moment. There are a magnitude of bands now actually leaving their original labels because they started offering them deals known as 360 deals whereby the label basically monopolises every aspect of the money generated by the band and gives them a certain percentage of the costs. It basically means bands are earning less money now and are actually having to fund their own projects with their own money because their labels need it. For example, when the Courteeners' first album was released and they toured it across the USA and Europe, all the money they earned from it when straight into funding the second album because Warner were unwilling to fund it due to money struggles, they made zero profit in the end.

Then there is the fact that you cannot simply send a demo of music into a record label and expect them to listen to it like you could say 10 years ago. If its unsolicited then it would be thrown in the bin, and to stop that happening you need to get to know as many people high up in the business as you can and get them to listen to your music first which I assure you, is no easy task. This is why less good bands are getting signed at the moment, because their music is just not reaching the right outlets and the right people who could hook them up with the resources and potential fans that they desperately need.

So in terms of a band getting signed and actually making a career out of music, then yes its harder than it ever was, and you only have to watch any interview with any record label, listen to any band on the subject or check out the Unsigned Guide over the past couple of years. All those areas would confirm how bad it is at the moment, and how you basically have to be prepared to "swim through shit" to get anywhere which I can vouch for.

 

[Stormy]

soundcloud or spotify

 

[Krynn72]

So in terms of a band getting signed and actually making a career out of music, then yes its harder than it ever was

Asking new bands is clearly a stupid way of determining this sort of thing. They (and you, and me) dont really know how hard it was in the past decades. But I suspect that Pink Floyd wouldn't be like "Damn, we had it easy compared to what Katy Perry had to go through!"

Pretty much everything else you said has been that way forever. Record Labels rarely, if ever, took risks. I really doubt in the 60s they were more willing to risk their money than nowadays. And they've always been screwing artists. You're seeing more unsigned bands because its becoming easier to do without them, and is more profitable if you do pull it off. Thats something you simply didnt have the option to do years ago. You either signed a deal with a blood sucking label, or you only played local gigs and didnt quit your day job.

The ONLY thing I think that would make it a little bit harder for bands is the saturation of the market. Everyone is in a band these days. But thats because its a lot easier to be in a band these days so...

With the internet and television being so prominent, if a band can't get the attention of a few thousand people no matter how long they're at it, then they're probably just doing something wrong (like playing shitty music).

 

[Shift]

Asking new bands is clearly a stupid way of determining this sort of thing.

I've heard countless bands who have been around for a while talk about how hard times are now for music in general and new talent coming through. And new bands are the best source because they are the ones trying to get somewhere in the current climate, they are going to know better than anyone how difficult it is.

They (and you, and me) dont really know how hard it was in the past decades. But I suspect that Pink Floyd wouldn't be like "Damn, we had it easy compared to what Katy Perry had to go through!"

Katy Perry broke though around eight years ago so that's hardly a relevant comparison.

Pretty much everything else you said has been that way forever. Record Labels rarely, if ever, took risks.

You obviously don't know anything about the 90s grunge scene stemmed from the likes of Nirvana and Pearl Jam, bands like Tool admitted they were offered a record label because they merely had grungy vibes to their music. Or about the Oxford music scene of the early 90s that gave birth to likes of Radiohead, Ride and Supergrass, bands need only to ask for a record label if they were apart of that circuit and they were given one. I can't say much for the 60s and 70s but if it was that easy in the 90s then it can't have been much harder...

I really doubt in the 60s they were more willing to risk their money than nowadays.

Record labels in the 60s weren't in the same debt as the labels of today. MANY have essentially disbanded or have been claimed by the likes of Warner, Sony and EMI, they are the three remaining "big" labels in the world today, the latter of which is in serious trouble economically. There were financial difficulties in the past but nothing quite like today, labels are loosing a LOT of money because of the growth of the online consumer market and online downloading, all high street music shops bar HMV (although they have closed down many stores) have disbanded so labels aren't getting the money from record sales anymore which was always a big area of income. There is further evidence of this by the introduction of 360 deals which I mentioned before, labels taking larger percentages of money out of merchandise and touring incomes, areas which were previously granted to the bands.

With the internet and television being so prominent, if a band can't get the attention of a few thousand people no matter how long they're at it, then they're probably just doing something wrong (like playing shitty music).

The sheer ignorance of this is quite amazing. There are many great unsigned bands out there, with big fanbases and plenty of online presence who just cannot get a label to sign them. To simply say they are just doing something wrong or playing crappy music just proves that they really don't know this subject well at all. Yes the internet is a great asset for a band and can open you up to an entire audience but the problem is, no one is bothered to listen. Barely anyone makes the effort anymore to search for new music, if its not on the radio or its shown up in magazine likes Kerrang, Q or NME then the masses are not interested. No one is interested in gig nights anymore, bands literally have to beg people to come down and listen to them play when in the past (and I've spoken to plenty who grew up in the gigging scenes of the 60s and 70s), people would be going down in waves to the local venues and pubs and listen to new music. If your band were good then eventually you would have an A&R guy checking you out from a local label. The only way to score enough online attention to make a difference is with viral videos or gimmicks, gigging essentially doesn't work any more for reasons just explained so all that is left to do is try and score more contacts high up in the music industry.

There may seem to be more options for a band these days but trust me, its not just as simple as just throwing a few videos on youtube and waiting to get famous and that's even if you were playing truly amazing music.

 

[knut]

With the internet and television being so prominent, if a band can't get the attention of a few thousand people no matter how long they're at it, then they're probably just doing something wrong (like playing shitty music).

wow

shift, don't waste your time.

 

[Krynn72]

Even Vegeta gets 10k views on his music on youtube. How much promotion do you think he does? He could be a professional musician getting paid big dolla dolla bills yall if he tried to.

They really shouldn't have removed my custom title. People take me way too seriously now.

 

[knut]

right, and this band from the UK have twenty-two thousand hits on their one video alone in the last three/four months, but do you think they're sleeping in hotels and eating a regular three meals a day when on tour because of the online popularity? 'coz they aren't, they tour relentlessly, sleep in their van and use any money brought in from selling one or two records a night on petrol money to get to the next gig. i know this from talking to them after a gig in my hometown in which perhaps 15 people turned up to and they earned diddly squat from it - in fact, the promoter had to go into his own pocket to pay extra for petrol money to get them along to the other side of the country the next morning. at the moment they are garnering a lot of praise from the UK punk press, but youtube hits, likes or reviews alone don't keep them going as a band - people buying their records, t-shirts and attending their gigs does. if they sat around at home and uploaded music to youtube all day they would be fine, but they don't want to do that - they want to go on tour and produce actual physical products for people to own.

with any luck, it would be great for vegeta to do that one day because his online stuff is great - how about you check in with him then once he's tallied up how much touring several cities is going to cost and see just how many of those ten thousand people actually get off their arse and attend his gigs or buy his records.

do not get online popularity and actual popularity confused. one requires clicking the left mouse button, the other requires going outside, paying bus/train fair and standing at a gig in a city you may of never been in before spending hard earned money on a record at the end of the night. the difference ''these days'' is that people don't have to do all of the latter to hear music anymore, so they won't. in ''those days'', they did have to because they didn't have the choice. i think - personally - that that is one of the massive differences between being in a band 20 years ago and being in a band today.

 

[Lucid]

Pandora is still mostly serviceable for me.