New Buzzing Artists…
Posted May 9, 2008 — in Music News
I Want To Be Popular: This interesting video of John Mayer popped up on the blogosphere. His good musicianship and personality allows him to hang out with the popular kids in high school. For some reason his music never struck a chord with me..
Have you seen the new video for ‘Pretty Buildings‘ by People in Planes? Check it out here. It’s good, original and different.
Listen to the new track Actions and Motives by alternative act 10 Years that comes off the Division record which be will be in stores this tuesday May 13th. The songwriting became so intense and divisive that the band almost broke up during the recording process. The band will be performing on the Linkin Park’s Projekt Revolution Tour this summer.
Unsigned midwest act One Less Reason gives us another reason how today’s artists can reap rewards from the net. Their numbers show them selling 30,000 units independently and logging 100,000 PAID downloads. Their website welcomes upwards of 12,000 visitors each day, so it is no wonder why retailers are knocking on the door of this unsigned wonder. “They are in an incredible position, marketing wise” says their publicist Stephanie Christie, “To be able to open for acts like One Republic and book Top 40 radio interviews one day and dominate the charts of Alternative Addiction and active rock radio the next day is quite impressive.” Check out the live performance for A Day To Be Alone uploaded on YouTube by a fan.
Listen to In All Honesty by Safe As Houses. Also listen to Addicted by Jacqueline Rose who is Clear Channel’s artist pick of the month.
Seattle based indie band Barcelona’s “It’s About Time” was added to regular rotation on Seattle’s 107.7 The song was #10 most requested twice last week. Check out the music video here.
We want to hear new music. We don’t care about Myspace plays, but you must have at least one. We also want to see decent pictures, including close ups. We noticed many artists today don’t know how to take decent pics. Go ahead and find yourself a good photographer. If your singer isn’t photogenic you may as well find another one. More importantly, the pictures on your myspace shouldn’t look like they belong in your high school year book. Email tips@kingsofar.com along with a link to your myspace, and let us know your favorite song.
“We also want to see decent pictures, including close ups … If your singer isn’t photogenic you may as well find another one.”
Wow. That’s nothing short of pathetic. So after countless posts begging for talented vocalists with great range, you tell us that a singer’s look is more important than their voice. Congratulations, you’re officially part of the problem.
Comment by Jalan — May 9, 2008 @ 11:46 am
i don’t see where he said “a singer’s look is more important than their voice”..?
besides, I think we all know that we’re a visually oriented society. video content is pushing audio-only to the curb. granted, there have been unattractive frontmen who have been big stars… but they still had a “look”.
the more appealing a band is to look at, means the more people they will appeal to. but it’s only one piece of a HUGE puzzle. A good looking singer with no great songs isn’t a frontman of a band… he’s what we would call a “pop star”. haha.
Comment by beej — May 9, 2008 @ 11:52 am
thanks for explaining beej- jalan is a slow learner!
Comment by rich — May 9, 2008 @ 11:56 am
Rcommended listening: Check out Texas based Vehicle Reason http://www.myspace.com/vehiclereason “Wherever You Go”
Comment by Brett — May 9, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Good Lord. What part of “If your singer isn’t photogenic you may as well find another one” don’t you understand? It’s self-explanatory — if he isn’t good looking, get a better looking one. Not if he has poor pitch, get someone who can hit the notes. Not if he has poor tone, find someone with a better voice. Not if he can’t write lyrics or melody, find someone who’s creative and talented. None of those things are even mentioned — only looks. If you get anything different out of that statement, you’re simply making (weak) excuses.
And sure, we’ve become much more of a visual society, but that’s no excuse to accept and/or reinforce it. Which would you rather have more of — Britney Spears or Janis Joplin? Bob Dylan or Ricky Martin? Led Zeppelin or Nelson?
Sure, good looking AND talented is a better package. But that doesn’t excuse the idea that a singer should be dismissed because they’re not good looking enough (which is relative to begin with). I’m not even sure why I bother trying to explain this to the KOAR fanboys…
Comment by Jalan — May 9, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
Singers need to be beautiful? Tell that to Phil Collins, Janice Joplin, Tracey Chapman, Macy Gray, Michael Bolton, Klaus Mein, Tom York, Deborah Ihyall, Udo Dirkschneider and the singer for the Plain White Tees.
Comment by Brett — May 9, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Jalan - stop over thinking. Todays artists are far from rock stars and thats the point of KOAR. Rap artists replaced the rock stars, but even the rappers went back into their dark alley ways where no one cares about them.
Comment by rich — May 9, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Roy Orbison is hot though…I think it’s those dark shades.
Comment by Brett — May 9, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
the days of MEATLOAF are done!!!!
Comment by liz — May 9, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Rich, I’d rather you stop not thinking (pardon my double negative). There’s nothing in my post that was overthought — KOAR’s original post was as clear as day.
Insulting those who disagree and trying to spin KOAR’s original comment into something it’s clearly not only makes you look silly and desperate.
And yes, Liz, the days of Meatloaf are done. Is that a good thing? Are you glad that music is more fashion than substance? If not, maybe we should say something when people in the industry try to reinforce those negative trends?
Comment by Jalan — May 9, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
Meatloaf was substance?! Fuck me. I missed out on that memo.
Oh man, I love it when all my favorite artists are mentioned in a thread…
Britney
Michael Bolton
Ricky Martin
Yes indeed.
I guess I should go listen to them in my silly/desperate state. I’d rather be silly and desperate than jaded and bitter.
Comment by beej — May 9, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
fuck off
Comment by Julian Moore — May 9, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
dude i do have to say barsalona is amazing and im going to see them on thursday in the nuclar launge 21 one and under finally
Comment by lauren! — May 9, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
wow. I believe he said Photogenic…. not good looking. Need a dictionary? Is Marilyn Manson good looking? HELL NO? Is he photogenic? HELL YES!
Comment by Beau Bretz — May 9, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
P.S. - Jalan - I suggest you go to a library and study various logical fallacies. You might realize how ridiculous you sound to anyone who understand anything of rhetoric.
I won’t trust you to actually look up what a logical fallacy is though. So here’s a good link: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Off the top of my head - I would suggest looking up “Red Herring,” although I’m sure you’d fall into at least 5 of the categories throughout this mindless post.
Also see: Slippery Slope.
Beau
Comment by Beau Bretz — May 9, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
Now children lets get back to the issue. You really want to see a gorgeous singer, great voice, amazing songs, incredible stage presence #1 song on fm radio B97 beating out Madonna, Lil Wayne , One Republic check out …
THE VETTES. I am not going to say another word.
Comment by Lisa Bradley — May 9, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
“Rap artists replaced the rock stars, but even the rappers went back into their dark alley ways where no one cares about them.”
And by no one are you referring to YOU? The problem with the music today is that there aren’t really too many rappers just being them. Too many are simply a copy of what’s come before instead of being original.
You do have a few hip hop mega stars but that’s far and few these days.
Comment by Universal Indie Records — May 10, 2008 @ 4:24 am
Beej, I personally can’t stand Meatloaf, but it’s clear that he was not a success because he was “photogenic”, so in that respect, he was more substance than fashion.
And Beau, you’re right that I should not have used “good looking” as a synonym for “photogentic”. However, my argument is still valid and is no more of a ‘red herring’ than your response (though ’straw man’ may be a better fit for you).
You can attack my use of the phrase “good looking” if you like, but if you look at my original comment, my beef is with KOAR’s implication that a singer’s “looks” are more important than his voice, talent, writing, etc. Where would your boys Coldplay be if they followed KOAR’s advice? A&R should be looking for TALENT and letting the label’s overpaid stylists make the singer ‘photogenic’, as opposed to the other way around.
Dude, I know you’re hoping that KOAR will help your band, but that’s no excuse to carry their water when they say something that any talented, self-respecting musician would find offensive.
P.S. I’m not trying to insult you (since we’ve established that being “photogenic” is unrelated to being “good looking”), but I’m sure that your band could find a more photogenic singer than you — Dallas is a pretty big city, after all. So if they kicked you out and replaced you with a more photogenic singer with a worse voice, less talent and no writing skills, you’d totally understand and support their decision, right? Or does that concept seem completely ridiculous, if not offensive, when you take the time to think it through and apply it to your own life? Let me know…
Comment by Jalan — May 10, 2008 @ 7:56 am
StoneRider’s got it all.
Comment by sergio — May 10, 2008 @ 7:56 am
I think saying you have to have looks to play great music is silly. I do not buy records from bands that are only good looking or have a good looking singer. That might be what record labels want but I don’t see normal people caring. Look at Saving abel they are not easy on the eyes but they have a great song and it is all over radio now.
Also I can see why One less reason is putting up such high numbers. It is not my thing but it seems to be right up middle americas alley.
Also I am not digging the new shinedown song! Anyone else?
Comment by Shane — May 10, 2008 @ 9:49 am
uhhhh
anyone else think the 10 years song is awesome?!? can’t wait to hear this disc!!
Comment by Reddrop — May 10, 2008 @ 9:52 am
few things. that Lisa Bradley was right about The Vettes. I just went and listened. Not bad. I like. And any indie band that can have major radio (even if it’s just local) success, is doing SOMETHING right. Radio is still relevant… in some form… in this industry.
Jalan, I’d recommend reading a book called “Positioning” by Al Ries and Jack Trout. Nothing to do with music… but has to do with the psychology of brands and where they are positioned in our brains. Was meatloaf good looking? No way. Is he photogenic? I’d argue yes. Name me one other heavyset pop star before him. There was a void and he filled it. People want different and people want shocking. Now, if meatloaf had been piss-poor on vox or songs, then perhaps he wouldn’t have been as successful. Of course, there’s the argument that perhaps he’s as successful as he is BECAUSE of his looks.
Same with Marilyn Manson.
Their odd looks and the fact that they were filling a void gave them a platform for their songs to be tested in the market. Sure, I can suggest that there were some Marilyn Manson “types” before him - Alice Cooper, etc - but there was a present void AND he was very press worthy. There were SO many rumors and buzz. Remember the rumor that he was that one kid from the wonder years?? Or the one that he could give himself a blow job? (Can I say blow job on here??) And (as sad as this is) even his “involvement” in the Columbine shootings was buzz. All of those things kept him relevant.
I’m sure he would give back the Columbine press any day of the week. But if you didn’t know who he was before that, you sure as hell knew of him after.
I agree with KOAR to an extent. Of course the band needs to be photogenic. They need to be visually captivating. There needs to be a story. And for god sakes, they NEED to have great songs. They need to fill a void. No more “me too” bands. If I hear another rip off of Fall Out Boy, I’m going to puke.
There are simply way too many variables that go into being successful in music. And for me (as an artist mgr) I don’t believe (as it seems by the now infamous statement above that KOAR does) that creating a successful band can be done as though it’s a science project… changing the lead singer solely on the basis that he’s not photogenic, etc. The rest of us do not live in a vacuum.
Comment by beej — May 10, 2008 @ 11:34 am
hey koar, its time to change the name of your blog..
Comment by lemmego — May 10, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
J - you sure do read a lot into things that people never said. As KOAR never said that image was MORE important. I never said that I agreed with KOAR. As to your, yet another fallacy, claim that I am sucking on the proverbial power tit of KOAR - maybe you should go back and read some previous forums - I’ve disagreed with their opinions far more than I’ve supported them.
In this current instance - I’m not 100% sure of my feelings on the issue - Honestly I don’t think they ever said anything controversial though. I was simply correcting your argument - because you swayed the entire conversation towards something that was never stated in the direction you took it. I’ll just chalk it up that you’re either A… not a good listener … or B… having a bad day. Either way - Do a little more research on the straw man Fallacy - It would be somewhat morally presumptuous to assume that I fall into that category.
Beau
Comment by Beau Bretz — May 10, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
A song starts on the inside. It’s not really separate from the person. The same thing that makes a song compelling is the same thing that makes a person compelling. It doesn’t really matter how “naturally good looking” you are. It’s true that you’ve got to have someone with star quality in the band, but that should be a given if you have great songs.
If you’re trying to follow some formula, whether it’s for your songs, your look, your poses, etc, you might as well give up. If you’re trying to find someone who “looks the part,” you might as well give up.
It’s all about the Bob Dylans, the Janis Joplins, the Kurt Cobains, the Jackson Brownes… interesting people with interesting, well-written, believable songs. People who have something to say, not people who want to be seen, not people who know all of the right poses & the right clothes to wear. Personality comes through in songs & in photos.
Comment by Jon Cole — May 10, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
Beau, please look up ‘ad hominem’ on your logic page before posting again. Being condescending and trying to insult my intelligence does nothing to further your argument.
In terms of swaying the conversation, you conveniently ignored a couple of questions I asked you in my last post. I’ll reiterate them for you:
1). Where would Coldplay (or Radiohead, Counting Crows, etc.) be if they’d followed KOAR’s advice and replaced their singers with a photogenic one?
2). Would you support your bandmates if they followed KOAR’s advice? I’ve seen your MySpace — you’re not that photogenic (again, no offense — photogenic doesn’t mean attractive, right?)
Either way, it’s no skin off my back if you don’t want to see KOAR’s statement for what it is. Just keep working on your ‘look’ and you’ll be fine — that’s why God invented autotune and cut-&-paste audio editing, right?
Anyway, I’m off to my local music store now to look at the CD covers of bands I’ve never heard and purchase the ones with the most photogenic singers. If only there were a music industry site that would openly discourage bands from having non-photogenic singers… Maybe someday. Best of luck, all!
Comment by Jalan — May 10, 2008 @ 6:53 pm
jalan - where did they grow you from? do you get paid to be the official clown? your questions dont even make sense..
1). Where would Coldplay (or Radiohead, Counting Crows, etc.) be if they’d followed KOAR’s advice and replaced their singers with a photogenic one?
Chris Martin, Tom Yorke and Adam Duritz are photogenic, are great at press, spill their guts to the public and are easily recognizable.
Comment by rich — May 11, 2008 @ 8:32 am
Well played Rich. I don’t get this guy either.
Jon Cole - Great point brother. I couldn’t agree any more.
KOAR - Post a new blog ASAP so we can get past this crapola.
Beau
Comment by Beau Bretz — May 11, 2008 @ 10:10 am
I’m done with this conversation. I’d love to argue some more, but it’s clear we see things differently. (probably because I’m a “slow learner”, “jaded”, “bitter”, “ridiculous”, “mindless”, etc. — all very relevant to your collective counter-argument, I might add).
I’m leaving with the quote that started it all:
“If your singer isn’t photogenic you may as well find another one.”
If you agree with that, so be it. If you don’t, you may wanna ask yourself why you’ve wasted so much time talking smack trying to defend it. Again, best of luck.
Comment by Jalan — May 11, 2008 @ 11:29 am
“never judge a book by it’s cover”
yet..it’s the first thing we see…
my grandson’s band draws over 150 fans at each show
they have a “look” and a “connection” to their fan base.
music..? well it’s ok, but to a label guy they have a
market that would sell.
use to be we would look for a band member who would “fit in” and be cool to hang with.
guess todays bands have gotten as “cold” as any buisness.
good thing bands have management cause it takes a lot of “balls to tell someone “your out you don’t look the part”.
and don’t forget…that go’s for the rest of the band.
Comment by larry anderson — May 12, 2008 @ 5:45 am
I think it’s more about confidence than anything. If a band owns their look and appears confident, then it will look like they belong almost no matter what that look is. I think it may matter to label folks a bit more than the average music fan, but it does matter. You’re building a brand and image is part of that. But you have to look confident and comfortable!
There’s nothing more annoying than seeing a band that is “trying” to have a look. They’ll all have their skull t-shirts, all the cool accessories, some crazy hair cuts…it’s like the rock star master race…but they look totally uncomfortable, like they’re trying to be something they’re not, and therefore do not look like they believe in themselves and that comes across in their performance. You could put the same clothes on 2 different bands and end up with 2 totally different results.
If a band believes in what they’re doing and performs as such, people will be drawn to them no matter how “attractive” they may seem. Having great songs that connect with people is a big part of this…it’s a lot easier to be confident when people are into what you’re doing.
Ultimately it comes down to being confident and comfortable in who you are and what you’re doing. When you reach that point as a band, it’s actually not that hard to pull off good photos.
Comment by Jason — May 12, 2008 @ 7:05 am
I think discomfort can be very compelling… just look at Kurt Cobain. That guy was never comfortable, which made for the most interesting shots, I think.
It’s not easy to make yourself or your band captivating. Otherwise everyone would be a rock star. Just like it’s not easy writing songs worth listening to. Otherwise everyone would do it. And if I’m going to waste my time staring at your mug on my computer screen or listening to your songs past the first 30 seconds, it’s not going to be because you’re hard working, confident, or comfortable… it’s going to be because you’re a person who’s more interesting than most, who isn’t trying to be something he or she isn’t, who has something to say & says it in a way that the average joe can’t. If you’re that person, it’s going to translate into a photograph.
Comment by Jon Cole — May 12, 2008 @ 7:37 am
Jalan, I totally see your point. Too bad some others prefer to ignore the obvious. Cheers.
PS. - Photogenic: suitable for being photographed especially because of visual appeal
I would never believe that somebody would find Claudio Sánchez (Lead singer of Coheed & Cambria) visually appealing, rather disgusting. Nor Cedric Bixler (Mars Volta), nor Zach de la Rocha (Rage against the Machine), etc etc etc.
Still, the talent is right there.
Comment by John — May 12, 2008 @ 8:26 am
John - you said you would never believe that Claudio Sanchez or Zach de La Rocha are appealing? you should start believing because they are really appealing, how can you miss Claudio Sanchez? the dude has an afro that can fill a room. You can never miss him. What a strange example you give…
Comment by liz — May 12, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
*Sigh*
Appealing = “having appeal : pleasing ”
Pleasing = “giving pleasure : agreeable ”
Pleasure = “a source of delight or joy”
Yes, you can’t miss seeing those guys.
NONE OF THEM IS AGREEABLE, PLEASING, DELIGHTFUL ETC TO THE EYE. They are flashy, showy, striking, NOT APPEALING.
Geez, need apples and oranges for this explanation?
At least watch Sesame Street, I can’t either believe the utter -absolute, total- ignorance of the language in the country.
Comment by John — May 13, 2008 @ 8:03 am
you guys push a lot of Christian music. being someone who used to work in that industry… if your looking for a built in audience and sales, then go that jesus way!
just like that episode of south park, i’m sure you guys would recommend Christ+1. their sales were great!
Comment by jesus — May 13, 2008 @ 8:53 am
Cedric’s not bad looking, but Tony Hajjar was the eye candy in ATDI.
Comment by × — May 15, 2008 @ 9:22 am