Popmatters Interviews Bob Mould
Speaking of radio and record labels, insightful Q&A with Mr. Dü...
BOB MOULD: The problem is that [music] business is not adapting to the new technologies, the new ideas. There's no reason why, when I approved the masters at Sterling six weeks ago, there's no reason that record couldn't have been out in two weeks. There really isn't. Places that it's getting hung up is trying to get traditional retail excited about the pre-order. To do that you have to get radio reporting the track, because retail looks to the radio reports and says, "Oh, they're playing this record, so I can order this." I think if a lot of that was done away with, and you finished a record, you could put it out two weeks later. If you just pushed it out the door and saw what happened with it, I think we'd be in a more organic situation. People would hear a record and go, "This is great, I want to talk about this, and I'm going to drive people to the site to buy the record." Fluxblog is a good example of how this can work...
Read Mould's Q&A here.
Download "Paralyzed" (and order Body Of Song) here.
Visit Bob's blog here.
Posted at 5:04 PM
I'm just looking forward to the day when radio doesn't matter at all anymore.
Glad Bob's back on the scene.
Score = 0
yea, I dunno. these days, the records that do the best are expected for months in advance, and are leaked three or four weeks before release. what I think he pre-supposes is that the print, and online coverage that makes so much more happen these days, would automatically be there. you simply cannot have a record turnaround of two weeks, with no promo, and expect to sell. and really, if everyone just started dropping records left and right, you might have something not unlike the career of ryan adams or frank black(by which I mean the incessant releasing of records without interest in, say, quality) going on. there would be no great, overblown albums. just a lot of blips on the screen. and the great stuff would get lost.
or not.
Score = 0
I think Bob's take on this may differ from a lot of blog readers' in that he (like I) can remember when releasing a record didn't involve such a gigantic amount of effort in regard to marketing; by this I mean both the '60's and the late '70's/early '80's DIY period which produced bands such as Husker Du.
There were several reasons for this, one of which being that there wasn't the need (real or imagined) to sell five million copies of any given album. Labels would let bands develop over the course of several records, rather than dropping them instantly if they only sold, say, 2000 copies. Of course, this was helped by the fact that albums in general cost far less to make; the concept of a band at the musical level of the Strokes (for example) taking more than two days - let alone two years - to make an album would have been unthinkable. As well, bands weren't being advanced the GNP of a small nation just to sign a contract.
I think the "print and online coverage which make so much more happen these days" (in Matthew's words)is what Mould is trying to avoid. Unfortunately, many consumers these days (whether or not anyone will admit to it) are conditioned to wait until they're told something is good before they will take a chance on it, whether it's by a blog, or MTV, or Spin magazine, or whatever. As Bob says, if a record was just "pushed out the door" then a healthier, more honest reaction to said record might be the result. It might not sell quite as much, but unless the band in question has sales - rather than artistic integrity - as their main motivating factor (and how many bands will admit to that?) it's a reasonable risk to take.
And (while this is not a personal attack on Matthew), if bands "just started dropping records left and right" it might just make it easier to see who is actually any good. The fact that Ryan Adams & Frank Black release patchy, lame albums isn't due to anything other than their own shortcomings. If you don't have anything good to say, don't say it. To bring this back on topic, look at Husker Du. In their heyday they would release at least one record per year, the large majority of which were spectacularly good. So did Black Flag, but theirs, for the most part, were unutterably bad. Is this the fault of the release schedule? No. (And we won't even get into 60's bands such as the Kinks, Beatles, etc,. who would release several records per year).
Is Mould's concept practical in today's musical climate? Perhaps not. But boy, it would be refreshing.
Score = 0
Nice name drop of Fluxblog there.. and it's true.
Score = 0
bob rox. i hear hes skinny and shit now.
Score = 0
dude, whoever wrote the long screed, right on. People like what they're told to like. Period.
Score = 0