Dubstepforum.com

JamesHanvey wrote:what are you ranting over?

this

JamesHanvey wrote:It's true though

and this

JamesHanvey wrote:definitely got more plays when i upped the quality of my logo design

im not "ranting" lol don't take it personally

my post was spot on though

Fair enough

Here's a quote from SOPHIE - who has his image down perfectly, and that, along with some very original sound design/production, has gained him a lot of traction.

"Aesthetic aims should be secondary to conceptual aims, otherwise you end up with music that is driven by stylistic references rather than its conceptual or musical ideas, or actual content—I’m speaking from experience here. The music or image—the same applies to both—should be built outwardly from conceptual core to aesthetic appearance in order for the conceptual roots to be present and visible in the final product. If you’re working the other way round and trying to force the ideas or content into a pre-existing stylistic mold, then the concepts become warped and deformed."

link to the interview: http://pitchfork.com/features/rising/9237-sophie/

i believe that your image is extremely important in terms of success. Having your own image is in no way selling out, it's furthering what you're trying to do with your music.

A very narrow, and capitalistically co-opted definition of success has been used in this thread as a default. Failure to recognize this distortion is dangerous for your art, your soul, and the world.

It seems like you have people one one side saying that image is more important than the music, and people on the other side saying that image isn't important at all, but if you want to succeed in the MUSIC BUSINESS as the OP specified then I think it's important to have some of both.

I also think it should be taken for granted that we are all trying to make the best music we can... it's not like any of us are like "fuck it I'm not going to try to improve my music I'm just going to work on logo design for the next 6 months." People are constantly shouting "just make good music" as if we aren't all trying hard as shit to do that already...

If you want to get real with making it in popular music, the music is the least important part of it all. It must be at a certain level, but that level is fairly easily achievable. You can just hire someone to produce the tracks, or just buy preexisting tracks. What is important is that you can convince people to give you their money. That is it.

Hit the gym, get a good haircut, get your charisma going, and work that fist pump like your life depended on it, no part of that is produce music.

nowaysj wrote:You can just hire someone to produce the tracks, or just buy preexisting tracks.

Now that indeed is dangerous for your soul.

Why? If you just want to make a business, you do what ever it takes to get people to give you their money. You service their weakness, their vice, their uncontrollable urges, their perceived need for status.

I guess it's not that bad if one is open about the fact that one's music is not self-produced

Why? It is business. All that is important is that you get people to give you their money, whatever it takes, lie to them, fill them with hate/self loathing/arrogance, whatever it takes, just get them to give you their money.

ddnnqq wrote:Here's a quote from SOPHIE - who has his image down perfectly, and that, along with some very original sound design/production, has gained him a lot of traction.

"Aesthetic aims should be secondary to conceptual aims, otherwise you end up with music that is driven by stylistic references rather than its conceptual or musical ideas, or actual content—I’m speaking from experience here. The music or image—the same applies to both—should be built outwardly from conceptual core to aesthetic appearance in order for the conceptual roots to be present and visible in the final product. If you’re working the other way round and trying to force the ideas or content into a pre-existing stylistic mold, then the concepts become warped and deformed."

link to the interview: http://pitchfork.com/features/rising/9237-sophie/

i believe that your image is extremely important in terms of success. Having your own image is in no way selling out, it's furthering what you're trying to do with your music.

In his case, it's a gimmick. His tracks wouldn't get a second look if he didn't dress like a woman and send imposters to do his Boiler Room sets.

nowaysj wrote:Why? It is business. All that is important is that you get people to give you their money, whatever it takes, lie to them, fill them with hate/self loathing/arrogance, whatever it takes, just get them to give you their money.

Well I certainly do not possess the knowledge or experience to get into a debate on business ethics but I would say that you cross the line when you start to lie to people or mislead them.

It's a matter of degree I think... there are not-so-bad things like sending your music to promotion channels and DJs, sharing it on Facebook, etc.. then there are less ethical actions like spending money for plays and likes on soundcloud or getting someone to ghost produce for you. Now I haven't yet measured the effect each of these actions has on the soul, but I don't think that running a successful business (in music or elsewhere) requires the complete abandonment of widely agreed-upon ethical principles.

I realize I'm probably taking this way too seriously... people can do whatever they want with their music, I don't care. I've never really been one to promote my own stuff anyway, I'm way too much of an introvert to be successful at that. In the end I suppose people can try to cheat their way to the top... but it's pretty transparent when someone is just in it for the money.

Add9 wrote:

nowaysj wrote:Why? It is business. All that is important is that you get people to give you their money, whatever it takes, lie to them, fill them with hate/self loathing/arrogance, whatever it takes, just get them to give you their money.

then there are less ethical actions like spending money for plays and likes on soundcloud or getting someone to ghost produce for you.

Though i certainly agree that having someone ghost produce etc. is wrong, we still have to understand that music is business first. All you need to do is look around us, boy bands like one direction and how popular they are. They're literally paid to look pretty and reel in money. Music isn't a part of it as far as they're concerned, they're a business. The suits running it don't go out searching for amazing, talented and unique singers, they search for looks, chemistry etc. Noone really seems to realise or care, so where do we draw the line as far as ethics are concerned?

You don't, you just do whatever you have to do to make money and will not get you prosecuted, and if then, some lower member of your organization on the chopping block. That is business.

nowaysj wrote:You don't, you just do whatever you have to do to make money and will not get you prosecuted, and if then, some lower member of your organization on the chopping block. That is business.

wub wrote:

ddnnqq wrote:Here's a quote from SOPHIE - who has his image down perfectly, and that, along with some very original sound design/production, has gained him a lot of traction.

"Aesthetic aims should be secondary to conceptual aims, otherwise you end up with music that is driven by stylistic references rather than its conceptual or musical ideas, or actual content—I’m speaking from experience here. The music or image—the same applies to both—should be built outwardly from conceptual core to aesthetic appearance in order for the conceptual roots to be present and visible in the final product. If you’re working the other way round and trying to force the ideas or content into a pre-existing stylistic mold, then the concepts become warped and deformed."

link to the interview: http://pitchfork.com/features/rising/9237-sophie/

i believe that your image is extremely important in terms of success. Having your own image is in no way selling out, it's furthering what you're trying to do with your music.

In his case, it's a gimmick. His tracks wouldn't get a second look if he didn't dress like a woman and send imposters to do his Boiler Room sets.

i don't know what you're on about. i mean i'm sure i'm not the biggest advocate of his tunes but i admit that he's definitely doing his own thing and i know i'd go see his set even though i'm not aware of his crossdressing or his mf doom-esque endeavors

any more tips??

Lol crossdressing hipsters, one direction, working on your image
What happened to the dubstep

Still going on, strangely just not on this website.

benjam wrote:Lol crossdressing hipsters, one direction, working on your image
What happened to the dubstep

My question is when did this forum become so pessimistic? or has it always been this way.

Nothing happened to the dubstep... I still learn a lot from this forum each time I visit. Someone posts one thread about working on image and everybody freaks out because somebody has different goals in music making than they do... and suddenly now dubstep is dead or something. I guess in the good old days no one cared about image right, they just made good tunes? Am I supposed to believe that capitalism is a new phenomenon that only started affecting dubstep producers in the last 5 years?

But hell I don't know shit, I'm 23 and I've never owned a single piece of analog processing equipment and only touched a real moog once in my life. I've downloaded thousands of samples but I've never once dug through a crate. Maybe when I grow up I can gain the experience to be a cynic like everyone else seems to be.