Ok its a slightly provocative subject and by no means is it an attack on live gigs but i was reading a post on ROTD about gigging, pay to play for unsigned bands and apart from honing your playing, what is the point of doing live gigs whereby you have to bring your own fans, there is little scope for developing a fan base.
With the internet age finally coming of age, i would like to know from bands, managers and anyone else how live performing early on in your career actually helps.

With the internet and tipsheet in particular now fastracking good bands (Orson, Vacancy) into record deals, with virtually all pop acts not really needing live gigs before their record is out except in rare cases where they do schools tours and nightclub gigs, isnt it now the time for artists to concentrate on rehearsing for months, even years to perfect their act, post video clips, diaries etc on their website, generate an online fanbase using myspace and others to gradually add fans to their database and then concentrate on a hit single, tv, mtv, blogs etc

Im posing the question and would very much like to open this debate. Cheers KZ

It is not a question of internet or live, it is internet and live.

Use the internet to get known, to give away free mp3s. Than tour and sell cds, t-shirts etc.

Good point , and my answer is the point in continuing to gig would be to hone ones craft.
I hate the way , we appear to have gone back to "pay to play", but it was inevitable.
We, personally, shut down as an agency, and moved into innovative projects , here, because we simply could no longer afford the wages of , what I can only call the third division of live music.
There was for a while, a decent amount of money in this, but it went down and down, to the detriment of most of the agents, we got out as quick as we could.
I am annoyed in many ways, that the worse kind of music live, has made it difficult for the new , original, and up and coming bands to finance themselves by playing live.
The whole thing has gone full circle in twenty years, the internet sites, have put a stick in the cycle wheel, which can only be a good thing.
That all said? You are still only as good as your last gig.......next......

If you really are great live, you must get out and hone your craft.
I remember going to every Joe Cocker gig with my then girlfriend (ITN star Joan Thirkettle) in the 60's because he was electrifying live.
You're as good as you make it.
And it's a whole different ball game. A great performer needs a live audience to interact with - the Internet is no substitute.
I tried to start a thread about great performers but it provoked limited reaction.
Perhaps this is why.

there's no direct contact between the managers who sign acts / decide about releases etc. and the audience. They rely only on market research data.

When the publishers ruled (till the 50s/60s) the orchestra leaders / big stars decided what songs they released as singles - based on the reaction of their live audiences.

Then the radio djs were very important. They knew their audiences from requests and live shows.

In the 70s/80s research took over (radio / record industry).

I think it all depends on where your interest is.

For me I have never been interested in performing live and seeing acts.

However I have always loved to buy and listen to recordings - particually singles. Now I buy singles from iTunes because it's cheap, reliable and you get the artwork included when you download a track.

There are many record labels that don't have an interest in the live element
and they tend to concentrate on Dance/Pop type material.

Dance and pop/dance is very much a producers idiom whereas actual band units
are a different ballgame and many other aspects come into play when you
go down that path.

EMI decided they wanted to get into the live revenue stream so they now have an interest in Robbie Williams live performances.

I don't think it's particually necessary - but for some artists it does suit them and their audience and they can also make a fortune from big tours.

I remember reading years ago ( and I do mean years ago) in a book about
the pop wheel of fortune in which Jonathan featured heavily in it - Jonathan indicated that he had been offered many lucrative tour deals in the early seventies to tour up and down the UK but declined to do so
because that wasn't where he was at.

Jonathan's interest was in making hit records and playing the TV/Radio
pop game .. which he did so very succesfully.

Now that singles are booming again because of successes like iTunes
Music Store, the money is back in the game and once again opportunity
is knocking for those that wanna have some fun with pop.

So back to the thread - no I don't think performing live is that important for
pop and dance acts - but for rock bands and Jazz bands I think it is crutial because a band is more or less is set up to go out and get gigging.

david wrote:
Now that singles are booming again because of successes like iTunes
Music Store, the money is back in the game and once again opportunity
is knocking for those that wanna have some fun with pop.


Cough, splutter. Why did no-one tell me?

In fact, the money back in the game is coming from ringtones and to a much lesser degree "video" games. Ringtones only work for hits, and it's the publisher and writers that (are supposed to) pick up the money.

Singles are still an expense rather than a viable source of profit. And don't forget that in most parts of the world, your gigs are your best distribution outlet, as the record shops dump your stock after about 3 weeks from release.

Although dance acts don't "gig" as such, they would be stupid not to get out and do those PAs.

Don't agree, Michael. I think single tracks have always been the important thing and whether the income benefits writers, artistes or companies is neither here nor there.
The advent of downloading and iPods and low marketing costs means that we are indeed back in a SINGLES world and it's going to get stronger and stronger.

Awfully naive of me I know; but maybe the point of playing is what music is about?

for me, PRODUCING has always been the most rewarding and exciting job.
Followed by COMPOSING - writing lyrics and melodies and hooks and concepts; most fulfilling hearing something progress from a thought in your head ("What's He Like, Mavis? He's A Real Tasty Geezer".) to a multi million seller (in that case 4.5 million at the time and growing every day on compilation albums and collections).
Then SINGING (which I've never been much good at).
Then PROMOTING - packaging, ideas, PR, airplay, exposure, marketing.
Then DEVELOPING - taking someone else's talent and watching it grow with your help; Genesis; 10cc; Bay City Rollers; Orson; Tipsheet executives; etc.
I've never enjoyed LIVE PERFORMANCES - either doing them or seeing them - with very few exceptions.
I once had a long conversation with ELTON over dinner when he said he could not understand this; he lives and breathes for those few hours on stage and hated all the rest!
Different strokes for different folks.
Thank God the world of music has room for ALL of us.

Steve R wrote:
Awfully naive of me I know; but maybe the point of playing is what music is about?
I like that attitude! The background is that it has become so difficult to continue doing so without losing the energy. And that each gig should be a stepping stone to a bigger gig, or more of them or whatever. I'm not in that end of the business so I can't pontificate to what degree this has changed. Funny thing is that when working on stuff, I still have to "see" it live, even in my mind's eye. Is this an encore song, a breakdown song or an opener?

JK2006 wrote:
Don't agree, Michael. I think single tracks have always been the important thing and whether the income benefits writers, artistes or companies is neither here nor there.
The advent of downloading and iPods and low marketing costs means that we are indeed back in a SINGLES world and it's going to get stronger and stronger.
Maybe we should define our debate. For me, the individual song has always been the Holy Grail: the songs that lift you and carry you around for a week. There was a time when pressing bits of plastic with individual songs was apparently a profit centre in its own right. I just don't believe that the paltry single sales on iTunes are really profitable. I could be wrong. But there's no doubting the fact that people - starting with me - are happy enough to buy indiviudal tracks. Love the things, in fact.

Also, the lower marketing costs? Hm, not too sure abuot that one. The entry level is lower, as you can record and mix and post to iTunes, Whippet, Potato or Weed, etc. But if you want to sell tons, you do have to spend a couple of kilos. And to break internationally, you will have to engage the worldwide industry, hence bucks/sheckels and euros will be involved.

Having said all that, there is still room for exciting music from out of left field (just hope it's not as pedestrian as The Editors).

I agree that if just getting a hit is the aim, maybe there's not a lot of point gigging. But for most of the musicians I know gigging IS the point - until they get a manager who wants to sack the drummer, cut down on gigs to up the mystery ante etc.

I understand JK's point, but a band, as opposed to a producer/writer, needs to be great live and they should play and play while continuing to write and record. It's a way of life.

In a very busy day, with several hundred visits a minute at peak, this was the most read and pondered...
Worth further discussion methinks!

If an act can't perform onstage, then its an act I don't want to be part of. I have never signed an act that didn't knock me off my seat, live. Pop acts included.

It is in fact the bellwether as to wether I feel I can work with an act.

Most acts that can't cut it live, or live draw, have a record business foundation of un-sustainable drivers, that ultimately result in their 15 minutes or less.

No need for me to list the current ones, you all know who they are.

It is also of note, how many of the new young bands have done the acting school/performance degree courses.(don`t ask me to name them all, cos I can`t)
However, there is no substitute for live performances in abundance I feel, now matter how many pieces of coursework have been written about it.
But...you can spot it in any of the young bands preperation for their work .

Well I have to side with Jonathan on this subject because to me it has always been about making records.

Whether that's 7" vinyl, CD or music downloads it's all bout the magic in the studio.

The music business I am associated with is doing very nicely from ITMS and soon to be selling ringtones and through other online music stores and subscription
providers.

Firstly we're reaching an international consumer base -
ITMS is operating in UK, Europe, USA, Canada, Australia and Japan. There's no physical manufacturing of discs, printed cover inserts, warehousing of stock,
assignment to distributors and bricks and morter retail stores shelf positioning.

There are still costs but much more direct and
less likely to ruin you financially.

For the business I'm with, we are experiencing boom sales compared to the old way of plastic and shops.

Secondly I have nil interest in whether an artist can perform live because frankly I couldn't care less - like I said that is of no interest to me.

To me it's all about records - the magic in the grooves, the songs and the arrangements.

Some people are more into the live aspect and that's peperfectly fine, same goes with live theatre
vs film and TV I suppose.

Also I don't believe you necessarily need an actual artist - faceless pop and dance records are fine by me and in fact that's where I am seeing big growth.

Look at the success of The Crazy Frog -
I think that was a Gut Records release.

For labels signing artists it still a big commitment and expense often filled with many complications.

When a label signs up an artist and releases their recordings you are effectively creating a business relationship that will often last many decades
because you will have to provide accountings
at least once per year and the artist and their
representatives will always be on your back about money and promotion matters.

It never ends - that's why some producers prefer to make records often without an actual artist - kind of creating a product out of nothing at all.

In Jonathans case he did this many times with such idioms as The Weathermen, The Pigletts, One Hundred Ton and a Feather and many others.

Dance Music producers often uses this approach
and it's great because you are free to make tons of records under all manner of names and styles.

It's a very liberating approach to creating and selling
music and a hell of a lot of fun too I might ad.

Not every company necessarily wants a Robbie WIlliams in their stable - projects like Hooked On Classics and Stars On 45 were huge successes and were "artist free"
if you understand my meaning.

There are many ways to cook a goose ..

I do agree that many acts do not need to play live, and probably , in fact , create themselves major trauma, by planning what the heck they are going to do to promote their art/wares in an arena, of which they are not used to.
BUT..
How many acts were not persuaded , to join this mad human arena, by not at least starting to play live first, listening to applause, or see people dancing to what they were doing?
I hazard a guess at none.
And whilst I am on a rant:woohoo: , I hate this "Battle of the Bands" thing that has re-amerged.
I have an invite here, that says, and I quote, "the winner will be viewed by a major record company, although obviously we cannot say who it is yet"
Another case in point, Chicane, obviously doing great "live "tv performances of a song that may or may not have needed it.
So much to discuss on this subject.

The bands that i have always loved the most are the ones who produce great records and innovative live performances. The best live performances i have seen have been when the artists have taken a slightly different slant on their songs - tempo changes, jams etc.

I think that most good bands see playing live as a chance to have fun as musicians and show their skills as a band.

Hi Martin - it's because I love the world of recorded music that I was so attracted to your "One Minute"
CD project.

It really struck a chord with me - it is such a producers project that it's great.

You've got some really valid and worthy points about the live aspect - it's just for me it's not the area of interest.

When I was 18 I did some gigs with a couple of bands
but really I would have preferred to have stayed home
and knocked up a track in the studio. So that's the direction I eventually took. But believe me I know plenty who hate the studio but love the excitement and thrill of going out and playing live - so great all sides.

"One Minute" is going to be dyna~mite and the
must have item of 2006 - I certainly want it.

David