RF Scott

I do love that people who don't like The X Factor assume that those watching it are complete idiots, wasting their time, don't have a "good" taste in music, etc. So, so, stupid.

Which is precisely why when I mentioned the term marketing it was in direct reference to bands who might miss out a bio, photos and influences rather than bands who include it.

No. Just because you can't see the point doesn't mean it's pointless. A bio, photos and influences helps to contextualise, increase meaning and broaden understanding. Arguing against them is to say more ignorance is a good thing. Broadly speaking it is not.

Could you explain to me how stating influences increases meaning and broaden understanding? I'd hardly call not knowing a band/act's influences being ignorant. When you're listening to their own output it's completely irrelevant.

Grader are booked on a 10 date tour starting in Feb but currently have no transport.

Are there any Self drive company's / Bands that hire out splitters in Aberdeen?

Failing that, any other alternatives?

Cheers,

GOOD LUCK! Scotland is a complete shitter for arranging splitter hire without your head exploding.

I would 100% recommend Doug Wilson at A Plus above all else available in this country.

A Plus Tours (A + Tours) on Myspace

Alternatively, call up Arnold Clark and enquire about splitters - they're very affordable and reliable, if you're not bothered about the nice stuff that splitters decked out for bands normally provide (DVD screens, table, bunk, etc...). Make sure you call them up though, as they're not listed on the website, and be prepared to drive down to the central belt to pick it up.

Don't, whatever you do, ever use AIG. Unless of course you're suicidal.

i saw nicky wire being interviewed and they spoke about strictly. they basically said if you've got shows or a record to promote there's not much you can go on to promote it anymore except for programmes like strictly or x factor. what are they meant to do?

Exactly. I don't really see the problem on appearing on something like Strictly... I mean, it's hardly akin to soundtracking one of Goebbels' films. It's/they are entertainment shows, and bands have always appeared on entertainment shows. Top of the Pops had a similar audience to Strictly... and The X Factor, for a start and even programmes like The Old Grey Whistle Test had questionable acts booked... Anyway, who is to say that those watching said programme don't have a good taste in music? It's just presumed elitism to suggest otherwise. I'd love it if a band I like played on The X Factor, for example - think about the millions of people who wouldn't hear them otherwise! If the resulting sales and exposure from that means that said band can afford to keep carrying on...

Stage times?

The "influences" section always makes me cringe. It always turns into a list of everyone's favourite bands. Just because you listen to folk music, it doesn't make you a folk band. I see Bob Dylan listed so often under "influences", without there being any remote influence on the music beyond it having singing and a guitar.

It very often turns into a name-dropping section.

Even worse is when you see, for example, an indie band and they list about 20 bands that sound exactly the same:

INFLUENCES: The Kooks, Hard Fi, Pigeon Detectives, Oasis, The Beatles, Ocean Colour Scene bla bla bla bla bla bla Bob Dylan.

We get it! You like shit indie bands and Dylan.

Absolutely. Stating influences is pointless (especially these days when you can have a band's song starting to play in the same time that it'd take to read such a list) and distracting.

Pre-Internet, sure - all of the above is helpful when you're not able to hear the act in question without catching them on the radio (if they even get airplay) or buying one of their releases. It's ridiculously easy to hear a band - both legally and illegally - today.

I can see the point of photographs (not neccessarily of the band...) or artwork when 'pushing' your music - a question mark as an avatar on Soundcloud, Last.fm, etc just looks stupid, for example. Journalists are inevitably going to want them as well, to make their articles look pretty.

As for bios, the only thing I think they're really relevant for, is again, for journalists. If they've got a list of facts then it means fewer inaccuracies, and less of an excuse to ask mundane questions in interviews (the 'point' of an interview is another argument, I guess).

At the end of the day, a band can do whatever the hell they want to, but it'd be a shame to think that they'd be spending a significant amount of time partaking in the above based on thinking they HAVE to.

Yeah this is definitely cancelled, friend's band are meant to be on the bill and they didn't know about it until I told them?!

BBC News - Wikileaks: UK 'feared al-Megrahi jail death'

Confirmed

Not quite ' confirmed', the leaks just state that some diplomats were "relieved", which is far from an official UK Government position on the matter.

However, good to see that it indicates that the Scottish Government weren't complicit in anything shady concerning the release.

Real Estate almost made my list. Very good record. Suburban Dogs is one of my favourite tunes of the year.

Came out last year innit

I think these are my favourite 17 of this year, not too much thought has gone into it, though. In no order. Going to narrow it down to ten for the end of the year, don't really like lists that are any longer as they end up just being 'albums that I've heard this year'.

Sufjan Stevens 'The Age of Adz'

No Age 'Everything in Between'

Burzum 'Belus'

Julian Lynch 'Mare'

Salome 'Terminal'

Errors 'Come Down With Me'

Titus Andronicus 'The Monitor'

Autre Ne Veut S/T

Los Campesinos! 'Romance is Boring'

Brian McBride 'The Effective Disconnect'

Moon Unit 'Hell Horse and Heady Stratus'

Swans 'My Father Will Guide Me Up a Rope to the Sky'

Sky Larkin 'Kaliede'

Kanye West 'My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy'

Infinite Body 'Carve Out the Face of My God'

Gold Panda 'Lucky Shiner'

Perfume Genius 'Learning'

I may have just picked well but I've never really been disappointed by a Vonnegut novel. I suppose Timequake wasn't as great as the others but it was still a good read.

For some reason I haven't read any of his short story collections. Is there any consensus on what is the best one?

My vote for best short story collection would be The Dubliners.

'Dubliners' (no 'The' - pedantic apology) is pretty patchy I find, though 'The Dead' is an amazing re-read.

Personal favourites exluding the aforementioned Brautigan;

'Actual Air' by David Berman (of Silver Jews fame)

Penguin's complete F.Scott Fitzgerald collection

" Saul Bellow collection

'The Slow Learner' by Thomas Pynchon

I read The Death of Bunny Munro a while back. I'm not sure if I enjoyed it as such, but I got through it quickly and wanted to as well. I appreciate Bunny Munro's love of Kylie Minogue.

Also, I think there might be some Vonnegut tees here: Out of Print Clothing

Yep, I thought it was terrible!

That clothing company is pretty good - have the Moby Dick t-shirt. Bit pricey but you're semi-supporting a good cause.

In what way? Never read any Richard Brautigan, but he's gon' have to be hella good to get me off my current Vonnegut wanking-fit.

Well it's the best collection of short stories I've ever read, for a start - better than Fitzgerald, better than Bellow. Brautigan also has a far better track record in my opinion - everything he wrote was incredible, whereas Vonnegut - for me - is incredibly hit-or-miss, and fairly samey.

There's been an oversight here - 'Revenge Of The Lawn' as recommended in the first reply to this thread is better than anything Vonnegut ever wrote.

Pinkerton reissue!

Hi there,

Clearing out my room today, found a bunch of guitar TAB books. All in great condition.

Jeff Buckley 'Grace' 3

Queens of the Stone Age 'Songs For The Deaf' 4

Red Hot Chili Peppers 'Californication' 3

Soundgarden 'Superunknown' 4

System Of A Down S/T 3

System Of A Down 'Toxicity' 3

The White Stripes 'White Blood Cells' 3

Open to offers for bulk buys, etc.

I've only recorded at Tom's once, and I was fourteen or thereabouts. I'd suggest getting in touch with Iain from Bedford Recordings - if I was looking to record in Aberdeen I'd go to him first, without a doubt. I'm fairly sure his email address was listed in a similar thread to this.

I had no idea that he was popular enough to command such a high ticket price!

I think you're overplaying the 'scratchy/noisy' element of your argument - this shouldn't be too much of a problem, if one at all, if playing a record that's in good condition, using good quality equipment - in the same sense that an MP3 or CD only really sounds 'good' if in good condition/at a decent bitrate and played through good quality equipment.

That said, it's entirely subjective. I do think that in the right conditions as stated above, a record will sound 'better' than a CD. That said, there are things that I prefer to listen to on CD/MP3, for example most releases by Tim Hecker, where there's no real space between tracks and so flipping over a 12" disrupts the flow somewhat.

It's also worth pointing out that it's very rarely satisfying to hold a CD in your hand - they're flimsy and generally crappily presented/looking. The same is less often said with records. You could argue that 'it's just the music that matters', and to an extent I'd agree, but then would point you in the direction of digital music.

I only really buy CDs if they're cheaper than buying digitally, or if it is the only format on offer for whatever release.

It's also worth noting that privatising music tuition in schools will potentially open the door for other private tuition in council-run schools, which is a fairly unnerving and dangerous prospect.

Fair play to them IMO, but I feel my instincts are good as:

a) involves Facefuck, therefore tainted by retards, standard.

b) criticises council for NOT spending money.

c) no decent journalism on the issue (P&J lol)

a) terrible, terrible argument.

b) terrible, terrible argument.

c) Time magazine are hardly likely to be doing a feature on music tuition in schools in Aberdeen and the surrounding area anytime soon.

Hi there,

Going to be putting up a bunch of CDs for sale on here. Being sold due to simply not listening to them anymore (or ever) / needing to free up room.

Can post goods or arrange to meet.

All CDs are in great condition, a bunch are unplayed.

Here we go! Feel free to make offers on prices you don't agree with.

The Teenagers 'Reality Check' 3 (unplayed)

Soundgarden 'Louder Than Bombs' 2

Jack Penate 'Matinee' 3 (unplayed)

Vampire Weekend S/T 3 (unplayed)

The Jon Spencer Blues Explosion! 'Orange' 3

The Silver Mt.Zion Memorial Orchestra & Tra-La-La Band with Choir ' "This Is Our Punk Rock", Thee Rusted Satellites Gather + Sing' 4

ISIS 'Celestial' 4

The Kills 'Keep On Your Mean Side' 3

Joy Division 'Closer' 2

Sonic Youth 'Dirty' 2

TV On The Radio 'Return To Cookie Mountain' 3

Peter Bjorn and John 'Living Thing' (unopened) 3

Artic Monkeys 'Humbug' (unplayed promo) 3

Animal Collective 'Merriweather Post Pavilion' (unplayed promo) 3

more to be added.

Would prefer contact via richardfraserscott at gmail dot com !

I understand that, of course. I was merely pointing out that communities of bands do take on the ideal that their music should be free/cheap and push for people to go to their shows and buy their merch etc, which is the point you questioned.

Of course it's wrong to just take something in the way that it is being doing, but it's not so black and white to label it as theft or whatever. Yeah, I read blogs that share music, and I download music from them, based on the description the blogger has given to spur my interest. If I dig it, I buy it. Everytime. If it wasn't for these blogs, I wouldn't even know about any of these bands that I'd never heard of, and I would buy significantly less music, and that is a fact. It's all well and good for the author of the article saying "that's what Myspace is for", but how would I search for a band I'd never heard of? Also, some of these bands that bloggers are sharing are obscure bands from the 80's and 90's. They're rarely even on Myspace or Spotify. Myspace is also shite, riddled with adverts, the player is buggy as fuck, and I avoid it like a turd in a swimming pool.

I understand blogs/file sharing is abused to high heaven, but it honestly is the best way of discovering music for my personal circumstances, and if listeners, like me, are buying the records that they enjoy, I personally don't see a problem. I got into punk rock because of Napster when I was 13. I downloaded 4 or 5 Bad Religion songs, and subsequently bought the first 5 albums. I'm sure Greg Graffin didn't mind, especially since Bad Religion so heavily advocated the merits of Napster/file sharing, as did an astronomical amount of punk rock bands did at the time. If Napster hadn't have happened, I'd still be listening to Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince on cassette. It's the same now. If I couldn't discover new music on the handful of blogs I subscribe to, my music collection would just hit a brick wall. File sharing is exploited by those who don't value music, but I honestly believe file sharing is doing as much as good as it is bad by unearthing records and bands people may not ever know about, and urging them to listen to them and subsequently go buy them.

I could stop subscribing to blogs, but then I would listen to and buy a whole lot less music as a result. Would that be better for the music 'industry'? I really don't think it would.

I agree with the vast majority of this - though I would argue that it's really easy, to the point where I'm sure my grandparents could master it given enough time, to hear/sample most, if not all of a release before buying, legally. Whether that's through the now one minute long samples of each track provided on iTunes (which I think is a good length, the previous thirty seconds was taking the piss a little), a stream of the full album on the band's website or a website they've provided a stream to, etc. There's a vast difference between those who upload music and those who download music, I find. By going to unauthorised uploads of works instead of those provided by the artists, it's legitimising something that I can't understand people think is OK: taking someone else's work and giving it away without permission. It's not just about finances, it's about having control about what you make and how you put it out into the world. If I found someone to have uploaded and made available my work(and it's happened quite a bit), especially ahead of release, in a format and manner which I've had no say in whatsoever, I'd be angry if it was a release which was being put up for sale, or a release that was being given away.

I read a lot of music blogs/websites, and am constantly listening to and buying new music, without the need to download or support methods that the artist(s) hasn't/haven't sanctioned/provided themselves. The Napster comparison doesn't really hold any ground these days as far as I'm concerned, given how easy it is to access and hear music legally now. Last.fm, Spotify, Myspace (ugh!), et al weren't around then.

Huge amounts of DIY bands release their music for free and tour off the back of it. Especially in punk rock circles, where alot of bands seem to go to the effort of releasing their music as cheaply or as free as possible, and tour. The kind of bands that aren't striving to make a living off their music, but will quit their job to go on tour, then come back and get another job etc. It happens. Because you're not aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't...

Oh absolutely, my badly worded reply was actually trying to make the point that I couldn't think of one band that does this ie. it only really happens in and works for - what is a fairly niche area of music (and that's not saying anything negative about it in the slightest). However it's not a working model that'd last or work at all for the majority of bands - for a start it's expensive to finance recordings releases and tours, in addition to other expenses that occur as a result of being in a band, especially if the whole band is working presumably p/t jobs between tours as you suggest. A lot of bands do this anyway, obviously, but are able to put more money towards covering these expenses through charging for recordings, however small that figure is.

It's unfair to suggest that bands that don't give away their music for free are striving to make a living off their music. As I said above and in a previous reply, any and all income for bands up to a certain level will go towards simply keeping the band afloat, not towards paying rent or buying Christmas presents.

Basically, you can't really argue against a band giving away their music for free - it's their music. But when people start to justify taking what hasn't been given...

Surely people are realising that the tone and style it's written is is faaaaaiiirrrrllllyyyyy tongue-in-cheek?