Is it worth recording new albums?

[Rufus]

I've copied and pasted an interesting response from Twisted Sister guitarist JJ French, which he provided when asked whether a new record would ever be released by the band. Some of the points raised are worthy of discussion on here, especially those about album sales and song selection on the live shows:

JJF: Well there is no point recording I think that is an old school idea. Why? No one buys it. I mean no one is yet to make a case for any reason to record, I do not see any reason in the world to record. The fans who come see you do not care, they claim they care but they do not really care because if you think about it, if you take an average set list 15 to 20 songs, those songs are off the albums everybody bought. Now if you could actually tell the fans we are going to play a new song today but we are going to take this other one out to play it, what do you think they are going to vote for? If I said “Here is a new song but we are not going to play Burn In Hell”, “Here is a new song but we are not going to play Under The Blade”, “Here is a new song but we are not going to play We’re Not Gonna Take It” that would not go over too well. So the point is we do not tour, you have nothing to promote and nobody buys it and nobody listens to it, so it is contrary to any logic whatsoever that it matters. Now it only matters if you care that it matters, so if you want to write the stuff because you feel you have a need to express it then you write it and record it. Dee has not written a song in 20 years he has no need to express it and so therefore we do not do it and we do not play enough for it to matter, since we only play one show in one country every couple of years. It is not like people say “Wow man! When is the new tour coming? I saw you on the last tour”. We do not get a chance to play that often, so I just think for bands like Kiss and Judas Priest and all these bands who make all these new records that nobody buys, when I say “nobody buys” I mean in their heyday bands are selling 2 or 3 million copies now they are selling 100,000 records, alright? If you are touring it may make some sense, I just do not see the logic behind it. We are happy playing these 17 songs and we are a great live act and we do them really well. Does anybody care if AC/DC makes a new record? I mean they have made the same record for the last 30 years. AC/DC is one of my all time favourite bands, all time, they are one of the only bands I will stand up for two hours to watch, but if I see them do you think I want to hear a new record? Of course not.

[arabicadabra]

I do it for those two old wierdos in This Is Spinal Tap who ask them "Y'All got a new record comin' out? Smell The Glove?"

You can't BUY that kind of devotion....

[dnieper]

Once upon a time, musicians were happy to play new music they came up with for a few people in their town. The idea of refusing to make new music because "only 100,000 people" would hear it would probably seem strange to them.

[trurl]

It depends. For us it's extremely worth it. For a classic band that has an audience that only wants to hear the old material, probably not so much. Also, if you still labor under the idea that albums must be made in big studios for $100,000 with a producer that's going to take five figures up front and 15 points off the top you probably don't need to be doing it.

[bob_32_116]

Once upon a time, musicians were happy to play new music they came up with for a few people in their town. The idea of refusing to make new music because "only 100,000 people" would hear it would probably seem strange to them.

I've argued in this vein on a couple of other forums - not sure I can be bothered repeating it all here, Basically I said that the idea of music as a product, to be bought and sold, with people actually making a living from it, is a very recent development in the context of human history. It's quite possible that the period from about the 1950s to the early 2000's - the era of mass marketing of recorded music, will one day be seen as a brief aberration.

[infandous]

Agree with Bob. I've always played music for the sheer joy of it. When I was younger, I wanted to be a famous rock star. Then I realized that to do that, I'd have to get extremely lucky.......and THEN I'd have to try to come up with music that lots of people liked a lot. That second part was just not something I wanted to do. Other options were session playing, giving lessons, etc. All of that seemed too much like work. Music was never work to me, always fun, always a pleasure. Perhaps in retrospect I might have eventually gotten to do what I wanted musically, after slaving away as a "music worker" for years, likely doing stuff I wasn't much interested in. I've found that musicians, rock musicians anyway, generally do their best work when they are young and hungry and don't know the rules. So I'm glad I just did my thing and found other ways to make money to support my music habit. So yeah, playing for a few people that really like what you are doing has always been more than enough for me (I have played to somewhat larger crowds, and it is quite a rush when they are really into it........but I find I sometimes get an even bigger rush playing for just a couple people who I can hang out with after words and talk about the performance with them).

As to recording, I would love to be able to record my songs in decent quality with a full band. Really just so I can have them to play for friends and family. I wouldn't dream of making any money on it these days.

[GuitarGeek]

Once upon a time, musicians were happy to play new music they came up with for a few people in their town. The idea of refusing to make new music because "only 100,000 people" would hear it would probably seem strange to them.

You have to understand that people like JJ French, at least at this point, are only in it for the money. I've seen a few interviews with him on VH-1 over the years that suggest he's more of a businessman these days than a guitarist. I think he was mainly the band's rhythm guitarist in the first place, so it's not like he morphed from being a Jeff Beck wannabe into a Clive Davis wannabe.

The problem of playing new music is that bands and musicians have gotten themselves to a place where the audience expects to hear "the hits" or whatever. In the case of Twisted Sister, they don't have 20 hits. If they went out and did You Can't Stop Rock N Roll, We're Not Gonna Take It and I Wanna Rock somewhere late in the show, they could do anything want for the other 17 songs. JJ is delusional if he really thinks the majority of the people who goes to see them is gonna care that they played some obscure album track that most of us have never heard.

I was always impressed with the fact the Grateful Dead could go onstage and not worry about whether they played the hits. Well, they only had one hit, but even the stuff that got radio airplay like Truckin', Uncle John's Band or Casey Jones, they didn't always play. Hell, they went something like 15 years without playing Casey Jones.

Likewise for the Allman Brothers Band, I was stunned the second time I saw them, and the house lights came on after the final encore, and they hadn't done Whipping Post, Jessica or Ramblin' Man. I dug the idea that they got so sick of playing certain songs that they decided to only play them when they felt like playing them. On the other hand, every single time I saw them when Dickey Betts was still in the band, they did Blue Sky (and after Jerry died, it always had the alleged Franklin's Tower jam appended to the intro). But then, I guess they weren't as tired of that song as the others. Or at least, Dickey wasn't as tired of it.

But then, the Allmans and the Dead play to a different kind of audience than virtually any other rock group. Their audience wants to hear them do something new each night, and don't really care whether they play "the hits" or not. Of course, one could argue much of the crowd is so stoned they probably thought they got to hear this or that song even when they didn't. Of course, youcould also argue that most of the audience at any other rock concert is stoned or drunk they probably wouldn't know what songs were played anyway.

BTW, if I made an album that sold "only" 100,000 copies, I'd be extremely happy and proud of such sales figures. Of course, if I had taken 3 months to record that album at Electric Lady, with Bob Ezrin producing, I might be upset that it didn't go into the black (hmmm, maybe that's what "Back In Black" means), but hey, the truth is you don't have to do it like that anymore. And you don't have to have some jackass Emilio Largo wannabe taking 80% of the pie, simply because he sat in his big comfy chair behind the desk in his office and said "I don't hear any hits here, boys, go back and write me something I can push on the radio".

[GuitarGeek]

Oh, and as far releasing new albums being "worth it", the likes of Steve Roach and Radio Massacre International seem to think so. They both turn out incredible amounts of material on a pretty steady basis. Of course, they both work in a more improvisatory arena, so it's not like every 6 months they're thinking "Oh, need another 10 songs for the next record".

[progman1975]

Its Twisted Sister...No one cares now and no one cared in the 90's.....

[Adm.Kirk]

I think one point that should be made is lack of support from radio over the years for veteran artists making new music. People heard those old classic songs over and over for years so, naturally, that's what they want to hear. Radio plays it safe and doesn't go out on a limb to play new music by veteran artists so many are never exposed to it.

I was reading an article today reviewing and Eric Clapton show from a day or so ago and they reviewer was bemoaning the fact that Clapton didn't play several classics. He also said it really didn't matter what he played as the audience was to busy talking with each other to pay much attention to what was happening on stage.

I think the truth is that the general public really doesn't care that much about music anymore. They are too interested in their smart phone apps and social interaction than to really spend anytime actually listening to recorded music or a live performance.

Bill

[Gerardo]

I think J.J. French has a valid point. I remember in 2012, Pat Travers recorded a CD-R EP that he offered to his fans on Facebook for $10.00. He said he wanted to become independent and start his own label, so he would sell it directly to his fans. At the time, his Facebook page had over 15,000 likes. After 6 months of having released the EP, he posted a status asking who would become the 1,000th buyer of the EP. So you see, only around 1,000 people (including myself) out of 15,000 "likes" cared enough to support the man. The others are obviously just content with having his 70's material and don't care if he releases new music (his latest 'Can Do' is awesome btw).

Just recently, I read somewhere that Sebastian Bach (of Skid Row) riled against his FB "fans" because he has over 700,000 "likes" and only 5,000 people have bought his new solo record. I guess the stories go on and on which brings me to the following observation: the fans. How is it (and maybe this will stray in to another topic) that there are people on FB that are "friends" with every conceivable musician there is and yet you can tell that most of them don't have or wouldn't buy a release from such artist they have as "friends" or see them live. I've met personally quite a few that have told me that they don't have anything by those artists they are "friends" with or have never seen them live nor would make the effort to see them. Some others have told me (this is true) that they download illegally their releases because they can't afford to pay for everything they like. So, what you really have are people that just "like" you but won't likely *support* you by buying your releases and/or seeing you live on tour.

[rcarlberg]

I've always played music for the sheer joy of it.

Any musician who plays to get rich isn't much of an artist.

[ashratom]

>>Is it worth recording new albums?

Absolutely - and for numerous reasons beyond economics including having a memento, a validation of effort, a chance to share your recording with fans and potential fans.

The question being addressed here: Is it worth recording new albums and still make a profit? Or Is it worth recording new albums when all anyone wants to hear is the "classic stuff".

The latter presumes of course a body of work - and one that already has a loyal following. The former would depend on the band I think. Twisted Sister is a "time and place" band, and newer material would be superfluous in my mind (and apparently in the group's mind too). It's no different than The Beach Boys recording a new album in the 90s (which they did) and expecting cultural mountains to shake. Yet a band like Black Sabbath, who transcends generations did quite well with "13" (perhaps not like their heyday, but still well for a bunch of (umm) old geezers) - and I'm certain fans wouldn't mind hearing the new stuff right along with their classic 70s works. As well, if a band like King Crimson puts together a new album with fresh material, it will generate buzz and excitement - and be welcome at concerts.

[jupiter0rjapan]

It is a sad truth to swallow for us musicians and die-hard music fans, but the general public does not value music anymore. It is nothing but background sounds to surf the net to. People will say "I like this song", but they will scoff at the idea of paying even 1 dollar for that song. The era of the digital download is a soulless, uncaring era. Music is just disposable bits. The days of people sitting around the living room and just LISTENING to a record are long gone. This is something to mourn. This is a disgrace. It is shameful.

Yet, if the artists want to complain too much, I would like to remind them that THEY are the ones that took advantage in the 90s with ever-soaring ticket prices (Rolling Stones, Eagles, The Who, I'm looking at YOU!), endless re-releases of "re-mastered" material, and letting their producers correct the soul out of their music with pro-tools. They played the MTV game, and let music become product. The record companies were always ruled by evil scum, but too many artists were only too happy to be whores for a few scraps fame and wealth. Punk Rock D.I.Y. became a new fascist rule book until it became GREEN DAY. It changed nothing in the end, just became the new Los Vegas Elvis, with way less talent , and twice as much fat attached.

Meanwhile radio became a robot. Innovation was left behind for mind-numbing repetition. Playlists were narrowed down so low, Even Zeppelin's mighty catalog got cut down to 4 songs. Weekend live music shows like King Biscuit got replaced with more hours of the same 15 songs. Now we are left with washed up Motley Crue bass players pretending to be a DJ, telling lame stories, and not even introducing music (because the local computer picks the songs during the show). You want real radio, you have to pay for it now.

MTV, do I even have to say it? I can not overstate the negative impact that MTV had, once they realized they could control and direct the youth "culture". Now instead of getting your video played, you hope for the five second scrap of background to some college-aged meltdown on the "THE REAL WORLD" This is what music means to the general public.

The general public sucks, and they are not to be catered to, or to be trusted. All hope is not lost. We can still teach our children to value art. We can show them that music can be ANYTHING and can do EVERYTHING. The limits of the "cool", well it just is nothing but a pose, we need to dispose of a culture in repose. The flower grows right under your nose, from where all knowledge shows that love can conquer us from our head down to our toes.

Teach your children well...

[Facelift]

They certainly do make a great case for not making any more Twisted Sister albums. I could make a great case for that too, though, and it wouldn't take up a whole paragraph.

[littleatlas_steve]

If the question in this thread, "is it WORTH recording new albums" means "does it bring me happiness?", then the answer is yes. It all depends on what the word "worth" means to you. We are in the realm of values. If "worth" is an economic terms, then the answer is "maybe". I bet Beck thinks his latest album was worth it.

[Dave (in MA)]

It's not worth recording new Twisted Sister albums.

[Jefferson James]

"We're not gonna buy it, no, we ain't gonna buy it, we're not gonna buy it anymore."

I can't speak for the classic artists -- those initially funded by the mega-labels back in the day with a catalog of hits everyone remembers -- but for me, personally, yeah, it's worth it just to hear something I've written or had a hand in writing recorded in all its digital glory with a real band. It's fun and it's not too hard to keep things on the cheap these days. I'm not in this for the money so it's a personal thing more than anything else; if something connects with an audience wider than my circle of musician friends, that's cool, too, but that's not anywhere near the motivating factor, which is, and has always been, the pursuit of perfection in songwriting.

[Grimjack]

It's an artistic, strategic and financial decision that varies from artist to artist. End of story.
JJ is a smart guy and knows that when TS plays, TS fans don't want to hear new TS songs…they want to hear OLD TS songs. And TS wants to give the people what they want, and clearly aren't filled with the desire to record a new album. Good for them.
The Rolling Stones tend to tour around new albums, even if lots of fans head to the beer line when Mick says "we're going to play a new song". Regardless of that fan reaction, they are genuinely excited about playing new material. Good for them.
Umphrey's McGee is releasing a new album 'Similar Skin' on 6/10. They wanted to record a new album, one that hangs together as an ALBUM of new music. Their fan base wants to hear NEW Umphrey's McGee songs. So they recorded a new album. Good for them.
Plenty of smaller, indie artists like to record new songs and bang them out there to their fan base as they complete them…they don't see the need to wait for enough songs to make an album, or don't see an album as anything but an "artificial container" (one of my client's terms, not mine) to collect a bunch of songs with no relation to each other and package them. The technology exists to do so and the fan base is accepting of this. Good for them.
Lots of approaches, and hopefully more as digital music continues to evolve...

[JKL2000]

Come on, there's no way in hell Twisted Sister has so many songs that fans can't live without that they fill up an entire full-length concert.

[Harbottle]

I've never heard of twisted sister. I'm buying more new music by new bands these days than I ever have done, especially (European, mainly) jazz and (English) Folk. A lot of stuff. And the old bands still bring stuff out that I like - whether it's Ian Anderson, Wishbone Ash, Uriah Heep or Yes.

[Stickleback]

You get one brief trip in this world. Are you going to squander your creative potential because it doesn't buy nice shiny things?

"I’m not kidding. The arts are not a way to make a living. They are a very human way of making life more bearable.
Practicing an art, no matter how well or badly, is a way to make your soul grow, for heaven’s sake.
Sing in the shower. Dance to the radio. Tell stories. Write a poem to a friend, even a lousy poem.
Do it as well as you possibly can. You will get an enormous reward. You will have created something.” Kurt Vonnegut

[Facelift]

I've never heard of twisted sister. I'm buying more new music by new bands these days than I ever have done, especially (European, mainly) jazz and (English) Folk. A lot of stuff. And the old bands still bring stuff out that I like - whether it's Ian Anderson, Wishbone Ash, Uriah Heep or Yes.

Twisted Sister achieved brief fame in the US in the mid-'80s with the videos/songs "I Wanna Rock" and "We're Not Gonna Take It." They fall roughly in line with the glam/hair metal of the time, and lead singer Dee Snider's bizarre androgynous look was part of the MTV hook that propelled them up the charts. Along with other industry names (including Frank Zappa), Snider testified before US Congress in 1985 regarding vulgarity in song lyrics. I had no idea that they had 15 songs that people would know. I had no idea that the songs ranked, say, 13-15 in notoriety on the set-list would be missed by their fans if new ones were substituted, but I guess I'm wrong.

[trurl]

Well, I'm sure they have 15 songs that fans know, but you named the only 2 anyone else are going to know.

[Digital_Man]

Kind of off topic here but I'm wondering on average how many albums do prog bands these days press? I'm talking about lesser known prog bands which of course makes up 98 percent of prog bands. My guess would be about 5-10,000 but I admit that might be a little bit high.