Goal attack said about 2 years ago or at 8:40PM on Tuesday, January 19 2010 in industry
The sooking in the Pavement support band thread has had me wondering about if there is a certain amount of lobbying/hustling/promising/jockeying/threatening/bribering by bands and / or their management to get supports, festival slots, playlisted, their half horizontal ad in a favourable position in a publication etc.
You know, like Peter Grant and his baseball bat.
You may have guessed that the music industry fascinates me, though I don't (and never will) work in it.
Yes.
i can't believe i said ''baseball bat''. It's cricket bat.
So it actually does happen? I guess that means a band needs to either have (or have a manager that has) the brass to do all of the above to get what they want (beyond the obligitary talent, good tunes etc), without burning bridges in a very small industry. I applaud that in a non-sarcastic or cynical way.
i thought everyone knew that the music industry runs on gobbies.
what purpose did you imagine managers to fulfil if not to chase gigs/supports/airplay, etc?
well it's one thing to ask for something, it's another thing entirely to do what it takes to make something happen.
Yep, there's a lot of backscratching. Only about five good managers in Australia though. Most of the other managers are glorified roadies.
reel off some names timewaster.
Ha ha. The good managers or the glorified roadies? I'm not gonna bag people out.
nah, i don't want you to bag anyone out, i'm interested in who you think the good ones are.
I don't want euphemisms, I want specifics!
Once again, specifics!
Though this thread isn't necessarily about managers, there are already a few of those. There are plenty of self-managed, driven, entrepreneurial bands who really work at achieving the 'success' they want.
I guess the point I'm hoping to come to is that this industry is one of the only ones where a 'lateral' approach to business is required to give a band the 'edge' they need. And that's where the fascination lies. You can read all of the how-to books, go to all of the industry seminars and buy the Australian Music Guide but it will probably amount to zilch.
Needs more gobbies.
needs more Boeing 707s
If being a 'good' manager means having the willingness to hang around at a venue until 4 am scoring coke for some egomaniac promoter/agent/manager/artist so that he/she will consider the merits of the band I manage getting a support slot, while my girlfriend is home alone, then I guess I'm not a good manager.
this industry is one of the only ones where a 'lateral' approach to business is required to give a band the 'edge' they need.
as if. all industries are like that. the right person has to know you exist to care about you. it's all just about making connections. how you do that might vary, but probably not by as much as you might think.
It's heartening to know the above scenario is not the only way to do business then.
xpost
If only it were enough to manage a good band and to act professionally. Some industry peeps that I simply *had * to make a 'connection' with have been anything but. I guess they're the ones who are willing to act 'laterally', thus confirming Goal attack's hypothesis.
I've been thinking about this hypothesis, and believe that an effective management method that involves professional methods requires the manager (or whoever in the band is managing it) to cast their net incredibly wide with the other people they engage with, because only a small percentage will be able to help out at any given time (for a variety of reasons ranging from being busy to being unreliable). The manager's ability to 'connect' with these people in a positive way is hugely important in an industry built on personal relationships. From there it requires a level of energy and tenacity to maintain contact until the goal is attained (be it airplay, supports, festival slots etc), without being in people's faces too much, but also with a constant focus on doing what's best for their client above all. It's a delicate balance. Then they have to back up any talk with action. This is in addition to the tasks a manager has in keeping the band on track internally, of course.
In conclusion I believe that good managers can exist, and do earn their 20%. It's a blend of good business practice, hard work and personality, the latter of which cannot be learned.
Fascination over.
OK...to answer that question.
Actually, it's easy to think of dodgy fatcat managers who have destroyed promising young bands. One man springs to mind. But naming names on a public forum? It ain't worth it.
A good manager will do things that the band can't do themselves. Obviously, any band can book their local gigs, make posters, get local supports, etc. A good manager will actually have a vision for the band, beyond the local pub. They will understand the music and where it fits, domestically and overseas.
Good managers in Australia? Ummm...Will Larnach-Jones has done a top job with The Presets. Danny Rogers has done a smart job with Trendy Trap. Obviously those big Sydney guys like Johns Watson or Woodruff, the Savage Garden svengali. There's a few others. Not many though.
By the way, Goal Attack...all that stuff about airplay, festival slots, supports...
That's not usually the manager's role. The label handles the radio servicing. The booking agents gets all the gigs. The manager just coordinates between these guys and the band.
That's why a smart band doesn't need a manager. Especially if they have a good booking agent and a (financially solvent) label who actually gives a shit.
But...ironically, often bands need a manager BEFORE they can get a good label or booking agent. Music is so subjective. A lot of industry knobjockeys need a manager to tell them that the band is good.
So it's a chicken-and-the-egg scenario.
i am willing to listen to any band their manager says is good as long as he or she doesn't keep me waiting until 4am for my coke.
airplay, festivals, supports, marketing etc are more and more becoming the managers job with a shrinking industry, and a good manager wouldn't be completely leaving their faith in others for those jobs anyway. Ride that ass!
^
there's one of the shifty ones now...
Agree with nakedape. These things don't just happen. Booking agents and labels have big rosters, and it's a manager's job to get them to focus on their acts. As label resources shrink, more and more is up to management.
From another shifty manager.....
I'd agree a label might have a few bucks for putting out a release etc, but a good manager might have no dollars and have the brains, charisma to talk a band into the right places and with the right people. a label can be with a distributer and have a decent relationship based on trust and effort, but a manager is like a wild card, throw one into the mix and an average band fringing around in semi committment can become galvanised under shrewd management control by the right personality.
unfortunatly the right personality and galvanising genius charisma dude aint cheap and will expect to be right in front of the business dealings, so you'll make it but I guess the manager will have the 2 ferarri's first, but that's show biz!
I should have used col Tom Parker as my example instead of Peter grant. Now he was a hustler!
nah andrew oldham and the other guy er..took on the beatles after.. fucked the beatles/// them 60s guys were salemen.
basically it's a salesman's job.
Alan Klein?
yeah him Klein. fucker killed the beatles.
see he went too far klein, too much power, fucked the vibe, fueled too much conjecture...eastman was a part of kodak. now that has money REAL money behind it. I reckon they should of listened to Paul. got eastman and the massive empire behind eastman and then had lawyers negotiate all dealings with eastman to make sure they all didn't get screwed. say a solo set of 4 lawyers going through eastman. so in essence a solo set of 4 people working under the beatles 'imprimt' as that is what it had become.
but it's just heresay who knows really...
Thanks dnzr hahaha
Andrew Loog Oldham took over one of the bands I managed in Glasgow when I moved here. And didn't have any more joy with them than I did, which was kind of vindicating. Alan McGee had a go after him, and still nothing happened, except the singer from the band became a relatively successful manager himself.
man, the stories i could tell about the dodgy shit nakedape has done....
do tell....
In the UK, the management companies are all merging into huge firms. ie. Supervision, ATC and Nettwerk all merging to make a firm called Polyphonic.
These firms treat their bands like greyhounds in a race. If your band falls behind in 'traction', you get ignored, criticised and dropped. Each partner has to make a certain quota from their bands. Although these firms have 'clout', it's a mendacious, deceptive way to have your band managed. Because unless your band happens to be the next MGMT or Bloc Party, then you get pushed aside, ignored and dropped as soiled goods.
Bands do much better to get a passionate nobody who actualy cares about their bands.
Of course, once these individual managers get some success, the big firms offer them a cheque to join their roster and bring their bands. So the filthy cycle begins again.
The filthy cycle? Is that like a malvern star?
its what i use to get rid of ingrained dirt and biological stains
Ech - such a shitty way to look after bands. Basically if a band suffers an early setback or less than expected sales nobody wants to touch them. Need to take a couple o' record to develop your sound? Not under this system.
Yep, totally right.
In the UK especially, the bigshot management firms take on a new roster of bands every year. They'll have a few acts who blow up on the first record. The other bands get kicked off and often break up.
It's despicable. Some bands take a few albums to do really well. Look at Phoenix. They've just gone really big on album number FOUR.
its a business dude, deal.
Pheonix had quite a lot of attention from album 1 with 'too young'. Must have been album 2 and 3 they were riding on their filthy cycle.
Polyphonic isn't a merger between those companies. It's a JV between them dealing with investment in other managers/ acts rather than offering the same services they all offer in their independent businesses.
I don't really agree with the ''big companies are bad'' and ''enthusiastic friends are good'' line either. As many bands have been shafted by having well-meaning but shit managers as have been by having experienced and proven but not engaged managers.
It's horses for courses really. Phoenix didn't sign up to one of the big companies 'til this album I think, although it could have been the one previous.
Y'know, it's absurd how stuck-up some big managers are.
Recently, a friend asked me to help find them a new manager. Now, this person is a really successful young artist that you all know. A perfect opportunity for any manager. So my friend sends out emails to two good managers in England (yes, at big firms). They both reply very enthusiastically. Then they take over a month to reply!
My friend is offering himself to these guys, and has already got an international fanbase, and the managers don't bother to follow up their interest. It's like Gisele Bundchen appearing from behind a bush, seducing you, and instead you sit down and do the crossword.