What are the chances of making it big like NIRVANA these days


PDA

View Full Version : What are the chances of making it big like NIRVANA these days


alex0203
10-31-2008, 07:12 AM
Just wondering what the chances are of a pop/rock band making it big like NIRVANA did back in the 90s??

AwesomeDrummer
10-31-2008, 07:13 AM
dude, your making a lot of threads here...

and im stupid enough to be answering all of them.

Slim, but who knows, you just might be that small percentage.

alex0203
10-31-2008, 07:15 AM
thanks for answering my threads. I know I have a lot of questions, but a lot has been on my mind lately....

cd>mp3
10-31-2008, 07:19 AM
not in the way that Nirvana overshadowed everything else, but there are a LOT more opportunities to do huge tours and spread your music. Just look at mediocre bands like Madina Lake and Metro Station. Absolute crap imo, but can survive as artists because the internet allows a lot more in the way of promoting.

So yes, but not in terms of there being 1 MASSIVE band. But who needs that, anyway?

+}-136-{+
10-31-2008, 07:29 AM
Assuming your band does make it big, just remember to blow your head off with a shotgun afterwards.

cd>mp3
10-31-2008, 07:31 AM
Assuming your band does make it big, just remember to blow your head off with a shotgun afterwards.

DUDE!!!

no!

i think i'm gonna cry

gallagher2006
10-31-2008, 07:34 AM
It's extremely hard. Major record labels are practically inaccessible unless you win a show like X Factor, and Indie Labels are going out of business left and right. If you're truly THAT good, you've got to keep yourself in whatever exposure you're in for as long as possible - this could be gigging around the same 2 cities, or gigging around your entire country, the most important thing is that you stay at it, and for the love of god, make sure you stay motivated.

Your best chance would be some sort of indie exposure to start you off with an EP deal or some sort of sponsorship, then hope your music is good enough that a bigger label will take interest in you.

It's hard work, so I suggest you think about it. If it's really what you want to do, you could be signed with 3-5 years if you're THAT good.

Good luck =D

AwesomeDrummer
10-31-2008, 07:43 AM
It's extremely hard. Major record labels are practically inaccessible unless you win a show like X Factor, and Indie Labels are going out of business left and right. If you're truly THAT good, you've got to keep yourself in whatever exposure you're in for as long as possible - this could be gigging around the same 2 cities, or gigging around your entire country, the most important thing is that you stay at it, and for the love of god, make sure you stay motivated.

Your best chance would be some sort of indie exposure to start you off with an EP deal or some sort of sponsorship, then hope your music is good enough that a bigger label will take interest in you.

It's hard work, so I suggest you think about it. If it's really what you want to do, you could be signed with 3-5 years if you're THAT good.

Good luck =D

But do remember, alot of labels are beginning to crumble what with the whole if-i-can-download-from-limewire-then-why-the-****-should-i-buy-thing, and these days, unless musicians are selling an absolute shitload of cds, then they aint actually making all that much money out of it, most of it comes from gigs.

cd>mp3
10-31-2008, 07:44 AM
It's extremely hard. Major record labels are practically inaccessible unless you win a show like X Factor, and Indie Labels are going out of business left and right. If you're truly THAT good, you've got to keep yourself in whatever exposure you're in for as long as possible - this could be gigging around the same 2 cities, or gigging around your entire country, the most important thing is that you stay at it, and for the love of god, make sure you stay motivated.

Your best chance would be some sort of indie exposure to start you off with an EP deal or some sort of sponsorship, then hope your music is good enough that a bigger label will take interest in you.

It's hard work, so I suggest you think about it. If it's really what you want to do, you could be signed with 3-5 years if you're THAT good.

Good luck =D

really?

sorry, you seem more informed about it than me, it just seems weird that Madina Lake can make it and by your account almost no one else can :confused:

gallagher2006
10-31-2008, 10:49 AM
really?

sorry, you seem more informed about it than me, it just seems weird that Madina Lake can make it and by your account almost no one else can :confused:

You've got to remember, different labels are looking for different bands. This "Madina Lake" band you're on about must be appealing for a certain audience, and the record label picked that up.

But do remember, alot of labels are beginning to crumble what with the whole if-i-can-download-from-limewire-then-why-the-****-should-i-buy-thing, and these days, unless musicians are selling an absolute shitload of cds, then they aint actually making all that much money out of it, most of it comes from gigs.

Yeah, that's why most Indie Labels are going out of business left and right, usually within a year of being founded, very few make it more than that. You've still got to have a record label behind you though. If you don't have something readily available, 9/10 people won't come to see you in a gig, where you make your money. It's estimated that in a standard record contract, each band member (in a standard 4 member outfit and excluding any assuming all 4 members wrote the songs) gets about 0.45 a sale from a 10 CD. My band have an EP out right now on a record label, and it costs 3 for the 4 tracks and each of us gets about 20 a MONTH (not week) coming in from it, and even then it's only gone down from 30 when it first came out. Most of our spare money comes from our part time jobs on the weekends (we get about 100 for 2 days work) and usually we'll have gig or two between Thursday and Sunday which earns us about 30 each. So you can see even though we have jobs, go to college, are gigging and have an EP out, we're only actually getting about 150 a week to live on. It's a hard business to break into, but we're not giving up, and I wouldn't tell anyone else on here to give up either.

Hope this helps to put it in perspective.

cd>mp3
10-31-2008, 06:16 PM
lesson is: do it for the funzorz, not the cash. Have a backup career.

as for me, i'm going to be an architect :p:

Freunleven
10-31-2008, 06:26 PM
With modern computers, being readily capable of recording and mixing far beyond the capability of anything Nirvana used back in the day, and the ease of internet distribution, I don't believe that the "Nirvana" model will really fit ever again.

Want to make it big? Get a following on Myspace. And Facebook. Play shows, and advertise them online. Given the "six degrees of separation," there's a chance you'll get the attention of someone who can help you move on to the next level.

Eventually. :satan:

Dunjma
10-31-2008, 07:00 PM
Assuming your band does make it big, just remember to blow your head off with a shotgun afterwards.

aww come on man..
i realize it was a joke, but geez..

axemanchris
10-31-2008, 07:02 PM
Oh, boy.....

Record sales amount to about $1 for every unit sold. Sure, it isn't much per sale, but if you sold 50 000 copies, and shared that $50 000 with the rest of the band, that's still over $12 000. I make good money, but if someone cut my pay by 12 grand, I'd sure as hell notice it... really hard. I get really tired of the rhetoric that likes to suggest that record sales don't count for much.

As far as computers goes... the problem with that is you get the average net surfer who finds posts like that, and then seems to think that a cracked version of Logic and an SM57 will get them studio quality recordings. Nope. Not even close. It costs money to get that kind of recording... a lot more than just a computer.

Now... big like Nirvana. The odds of getting signed are maybe, what... one in 10 000. Out of all the bands that get signed, the odds of making money for more than a year are maybe one in ten. Now we're at one in 100 000. The odds of making great money for a period of three years might be one in 20 so far. Now we're at 1 in 2 million. You can see where this is going, yeah?

Now that we're at infinitely small numbers, let's look at Nirvana. They're really in a league of their own. Every decade has one or two artists who really define the decade. The '80's had Madonna, Michael Jackson, and Motley Crue. The '90's had Nirvana who really changed all the rules and set all the standards. That's one or two (okay, maybe three?) artists out of how many in a decade's worth of successful bands? Maybe 2 or three out of 2 or 3 hundred? I guess that is one in a hundred. Now your odds are reduced to about 1 in 200 000 000. Ready to quit school yet? :haha

CT

gallagher2006
10-31-2008, 07:20 PM
lesson is: do it for the funzorz, not the cash. Have a backup career.

as for me, i'm going to be an architect :p:

:eek: Me too!

LawnDwarf
10-31-2008, 08:04 PM
show us some tapes of you playing music and ill give you a concrete answer.

Superstrat101
10-31-2008, 09:56 PM
Now that we're at infinitely small numbers, let's look at Nirvana. They're really in a league of their own. Every decade has one or two artists who really define the decade. The '80's had Madonna, Michael Jackson, and Motley Crue. The '90's had Nirvana who really changed all the rules and set all the standards. That's one or two (okay, maybe three?) artists out of how many in a decade's worth of successful bands? Maybe 2 or three out of 2 or 3 hundred? I guess that is one in a hundred. Now your odds are reduced to about 1 in 200 000 000. Ready to quit school yet? :haha

CT

Well who defines this decade? They're still out there!

(it's probly Radio Head or some crap like that)

AwesomeDrummer
10-31-2008, 11:25 PM
Well who defines this decade? They're still out there!

(it's probly Radio Head or some crap like that)

Foo Fighters? Queens of the Stone age?

if only.

+}-136-{+
10-31-2008, 11:47 PM
aww come on man..
i realize it was a joke, but geez..

...Yeah?

axemanchris
11-01-2008, 09:22 AM
Well who defines this decade? They're still out there!

(it's probly Radio Head or some crap like that)

Y'know.... that's a good question. Maybe we're not in a position to look back yet. Maybe it is a function of that perspective, or maybe it is a sad indictment of music in this decade, but I really can't think of anyone who has really changed the surface of the industry and set whole new standards.... yet.

Sure, the bands listed have been *very* successful, but have the redefined the industry or some facet within it? Nothing that readily comes to mind.

Eminem maybe.... but probably not. I dunno....

CT

crumbedfish
11-01-2008, 09:35 AM
id say its just as easy/hard. nirvana were just lucky to get picked up by a good label and producers. the songs that made them famous were probably 30% nirvana and 70% producers. but still in the end you can work the hell out of an album but with music thats more about creativity than technical ability its so much more about luck that people will just dig your music. always has been and always will. just look at famous you tube people, for every zuma zuma kid and the likes there's millions of people posting stupid videos that are pretty similar its just that everynow and then someone does something thats inexplicably funnier than anything else. just like nirvana(not funny but you know what i mean). the thing about them is they got in big first before every other no talent garage band. so if people were gonna do something similar to nirvana its gonna be alot harder but will still be just as easy/hard to come up with something new.

petho
11-01-2008, 08:39 PM
^ 30% Nirvana 70% Producers (Butch Vig, Andy Wallace)? My arse...

PoundCakeJay
11-01-2008, 10:20 PM
In honest reality, almost no chance at all.
You have to realize that Nirvana wasn't just the popular band in the 90's, they completely changed the path of music. They will be a band in the rock history books

Now, there is a greater chance your band might get popular which is still slim, it all depends on your music and nowadays your image unfortunately

McGnrAcDcfan227
11-07-2008, 11:59 AM
rock music in really in the trash right now b/c bands like fall out boy define this decade

axemanchris
11-07-2008, 07:09 PM
I dunno. Do they, really? When we get to the year 2020 and look back on this decade, I'm not so sure they will be the survivors in our collective memories.

I think we'll look back on Coldplay. Radiohead, maybe, but they're more a '90's band that's still surviving. Same with the Chilis and Oasis.

None of the metal bands are really defining the decade. Maybe Linkin Park? (metal??) Maybe this will be remembered as the decade the '80's bands came back, like Metallica, G'n'R, and AC/DC. None of the hiphop artists are defining the decade. They're all just doing the same stuff they did in the '90's, only with less substance.

My hope is that the band that ultimately defines this decade is just getting ready to explode right now, and hasn't really landed on the radar yet. Hey... Nirvana did it in a year.

CT

Rock Pig
11-07-2008, 07:46 PM
You have to realize that Nirvana wasn't just the popular band in the 90's, they completely changed the path of music.
Pfft, they made it more distorted and less toneful.
It was punk if it took itself seriously D:

But yeah. Unless you have something new and different, you won't be remembered like Nirvana.
And finding something new and different that people will like is hard. Only one person in a million will do it and only one in a million of those ever puts it into music.

That's why we only get gigantic bands like Nirvana once a decade.

PoundCakeJay
11-07-2008, 09:25 PM
Pfft, they made it more distorted and less toneful.
It was punk if it took itself seriously D:

I didn't say they changed it for the better, but they were significant in the uprising grunge phase and descending the popularity of metal

Dunjma
11-08-2008, 05:54 AM
i would say that for this decade it was probably Eminem (is that the right spelling?), because he became really big all of a sudden (although he lost popularity just as quickly) and ever since there have been Hip Hop and Rap ripples running through the popular music scenes. you cant go to a club or party without hearing a black man rhyming about his hoes. and i realize that M'n'M didnt really have too many (if any at all) popular songs about such things, but it certainly gave the genre a boot in the arse.

axemanchris
11-08-2008, 05:41 PM
i would say that for this decade it was probably Eminem (is that the right spelling?), because he became really big all of a sudden (although he lost popularity just as quickly) and ever since there have been Hip Hop and Rap ripples running through the popular music scenes. you cant go to a club or party without hearing a black man rhyming about his hoes. and i realize that M'n'M didnt really have too many (if any at all) popular songs about such things, but it certainly gave the genre a boot in the arse.

Naw... the industry was already ruined like that before Eminem came out. He did nothing to define any genres, styles, aspects of the industry, or the sound of the decade IMHO. He simply became successful at what everyone else was already doing.

CT

destijl
11-08-2008, 09:58 PM
you don't even need a record label anymore due to the internet.

axemanchris
11-09-2008, 09:54 AM
you don't even need a record label anymore due to the internet.

Rhetoric. A phrase thrown around a lot, but misguided (and naive) rhetoric nonetheless.

Oh, sure, you can distribute your stuff world-wide for nothin'. Get your name out there and your music accessible to everyone from Alaska to Zimbabwe. Sure. No prob.

Do you really think that's all the label does? C'mon. They are still absolutely necessary to get to a certain level of sales. No indie label bands are selling triple platinum and booking 15000 seat arenas. Do you really think you can achieve this level of success with a cracked version of Cubase and an internet connection? No chance in the world.

Never mind even that.... there are a lot of signed recording acts that barely make enough money to describe as a middle-class living for any more than a couple of years. You think you're going to do that as an independent? Good luck to ya, really. Oh sure, this might be possible, but statistically, hugely unlikely. Most independent musicians I know (and this includes ones who release albums, do tours, etc.) are forced to support their hobby income with income from a regular job.

(the one exception I know of is a guy who spent years signed to Capitol, released a few gold and platinum-selling albums under Capitol while touring the world, and is now doing his stuff independently. Even at that, he still supports his income by teaching privately.)

The label has a huge marketing and promotion infrastructure that a legacy of other artists has paid for and helped established that, by signing to them, you have access to. There's no point having your songs available for sale to a person in Uzbekistan, or even in a city only a few hours away if they've never heard of you.

Oh, sure, you have your Myspace and Facebook networking, but do you really think that begins to compare to access to this already established marketing infrastructure, and connections to the industry big-wigs who will put you on tour opening for the Foo Fighters or whatever? Nah....

They launch you into this infrastructure so that people DO become aware of you, so that they will hear you, so that they just might buy your music, even if they're half a world away. This involves making sure you have a great sounding and a great looking product, having a video, getting out and getting onto good visible tours, putting ads in stores, malls, magazines, etc.

As you can appreciate, this is hugely expensive. It costs into the millions of dollars to 'break' an artist. Especially now, in an age of declining CD sales, you can see why it is so hard to get a record deal, as investing over $1M on a horse that might not win is a daunting proposition for anybody.