have a look at this(!) (1 Viewer)

[Anthony]

http://www.irishunsigned.com/

 

[Keeror]

Wow. It's a bit like things innit?
Have you mailed them/him?

 

[snap-apple]

'tis a bit like what we're doing alright but you get the impression that the emphasis is on unsigned - as in they want to help get bands signed - not sure how that fits in with the d.i.y. element of things.

 

[egg_]

Hmmm I think the distinguishing characteristic of Things is the experience/contacts certain people who are involved have ... (also the quality of the bands)

 

[Anthony]

.. and that their website has something on it. (?)

 

[pete]

that site is run by an A&R person

vested interest and all that jazz

 

[Stephen]

Is unsigned not the most degrading thing you could ever refer to your band as?


anto/Keeror would you refer to yourselves as being such?

I could say so much more but I know no-one would agree.
[1]i.e I reckon that site is ran by greasy haired wanta be rock star back in their day but will now settle for being managers ex-student union types who really have no idea what a good tune is[/1]

 

[Stuart Little]

Stephen (05 Feb, 2002 01:55 p.m.):
Is unsigned not the most degrading thing you could ever refer to your band as?


anto/Keeror would you refer to yourselves as being such?

I could say so much more but I know no-one would agree.
[3]i.e I reckon that site is ran by greasy haired wanta be rock star back in their day but will now settle for being managers ex-student union types who really have no idea what a good tune is[/3]

pardon?

 

[snap-apple]

I gotta agree with Stephen - the whole website just looks like it was set up for labels/a&r peeps to check out new bands that they might want to sign. Plus things is miles ahead of it - they only have 3 bands listed...

 

[egg_]

Stephen (05 Feb, 2002 01:55 p.m.):
Is unsigned not the most degrading thing you could ever refer to your band as?

Pah! My band cannot be degraded by mere words

 

[Stuart Little]

Pah! My band cannot be degraded by mere words

[color=006699]
Stoat is an anagram of Toast.[/color]

[1]that's not very degrading, is it?[/1]

 

[Keeror]

Stephen (05 Feb, 2002 01:55 p.m.):
Is unsigned not the most degrading thing you could ever refer to your band as?
anto/Keeror would you refer to yourselves as being such?

Yup, and proud of it! I ain't selling out to nobody!
I think it's unfair to judge Unsigned without talking to them. You could easily say that Things is a nerd's utopian fantasy who know nothing about the "real world" and would be best avoided at all costs. But of course that isn't true.

Unsigned's misssion statement isn't that different to Thing's, though there's a definite language difference.
I reckon you could persuade them to come over to the dark side Stephen...

 

[Stephen]

still think they're dirty under-panted Ent's officers.
I think the major difference between THiNGS and unsigned is THiNGS isn't "for record company and other industry people to access new and upcoming bands"

smells of dax wax if you ask me.

 

[pad]

Stephen (05 Feb, 2002 04:33 p.m.):
still think they're dirty under-panted Ent's officers.
I think the major difference between THiNGS and unsigned is THiNGS isn't "for record company and other industry people to access new and upcoming bands"

smells of dax wax if you ask me.

aint nothin wrong with dax wax me boy!

 

[billygannon]

Ah well...to Hell with them....

 

[Pantone247]

Keeror (05 Feb, 2002 04:25 p.m.):
You could easily say that Things is a nerd's utopian fantasy who know nothing about the "real world" and would be best avoided at all costs. But of course that isn't true.
/quote]

BOO HOO!!
YES IT IS......ITS TRUE WE"RE JUST NERDY NERDS AND ARE NERDY NERD DREAMS DON"T AMMOUNT TO A HILL OF BEANS IN THE REAL WORLD, BOO HOO, I KNEW WE"D BE FOUND OUT......

*sob*

I want to go home now....

 

[snap-apple]

Stuart Little (05 Feb, 2002 04:18 p.m.):

[color=006699]
Stoat is an anagram of Toast.[/color]

[1]that's not very degrading, is it?[/1]

Stuart Little is an angram of Alert Tit Lust...

 

[IU]

Conor (05 Feb, 2002 09:38 a.m.): not sure how that fits in with the d.i.y. element of things.

IU is similar but different. Our reason d'etre is the simple provision of information. One thing that lead to the formation of IU was the noticeable absence of anywhere where bands AND industry heads could get info on each other (and the gigs where they were likely to meet each other etc). All we are interested in is providing centralised information. Things, on the other hand, exists partly to make music, I assume?

 

[IU]

egg_ (05 Feb, 2002 10:03 a.m.):
Hmmm I think the distinguishing characteristic of Things is the experience/contacts certain people who are involved have ... (also the quality of the bands)

Actually, I think the distinguishing characteristic is that IU is not musicians, record company people, publishers, stores - indeed anythin that could be considered part of the industry. By that, we could never be accused of trying to get something out of it by hoodwinking everyone. We don't even get paid.

Things has it's own character. I.U does too. For example, we intend to cater for EVERY genre of music from Jazz, Trad and Gaelic to Disco, Dance and Club - so long as it is unsigned and Irish - hence the name!

As mentioned in the reply above, the reason you exist is different than the reason we exist. Why does everythin in this bloody Country have to be comparison/competition? I.U. is not in compoetition with anything. Quite the reverse.

And, another thing (no pun intended), 'quality' is in the ear of the beholder. I, personally, think Depeche Mode were quality. Other's think Aslan are. Who's right? Everyone. There's no such thing as bad music (in any genre) unless it is a direct copy of something.

 

[IU]

Anthony (05 Feb, 2002 11:19 a.m.):
.. and that their website has something on it. (?)

Jeez, get a life. Some of us have other things to do! Besides, I just looked at yours on SnapTo. Lot's of swearing and not much else. will appeal to the musicians alright but not to the industry. You appear to want to alienate one from the other. A novel idea but one we feel seems destined to cause problems for musicians, leading to the 'Rich getting richer...' syndrome where only U2, Cranberries, Daniel O'Donnell appear clean enough to get business. And then you can all complain about the lack of support for grassroots music. I suppose that's what you want, or had no-one considered it?