Unsigned... (1 Viewer)

[Goodbye]

What is with the use of the word "Unsigned" on these pages these days... Its beginning to really piss me off.
Its becoming as offencive to me as the words "Non national"... The so called nice way to say "Nigger".
Stoppit...

 

[Anthony]

How about "non-signed"?

 

[Goodbye]

Mackey, shove it up your hole...

 

[IU]

PeeWee (09 Feb, 2002 04:05 p.m.):
What is with the use of the word "Unsigned" on these pages these days...

What's wrong with it? Its true, isn't it? We could use non-signed, ex-signed, don't-want-to-be-signed and in-between-signings but they would all mean the same thing: a band or act that is not signed to a label, including their own at the current time. what is it with Muso-snobs that think that there's something wrong with the word? Is it supposed to suggest 'desperate-to-be-signed'? No, really, I'd love to know.

It reminds me of those muso snobs who are of the opinion that only their favourite choice of music is 'real' music or 'good' music. To me, there is no such thing as bad music, or bad art for that matter, as long as it is original or significantly changes the original. What do I base that on? The simple use of imagination. I am a wordsmith and I like the clever use of words. Others like clever guitar solos ort chord structures (whatever they are!). Still others like clever arrangements, but thay are all 'good' if they are created.

Don't shove your own tastes down someone elses throat, much as you wouldn;t allow them to do the same to you.

 

[ronan]

IU (11 Feb, 2002 02:09 a.m.):. I am a wordsmith and I like the clever use of words.

similarly, i am a blacksmith and I like the clever use of blacks.

 

[IU]

ronan (11 Feb, 2002 02:29 a.m.):

IU (11 Feb, 2002 02:09 a.m.):. I am a wordsmith and I like the clever use of words.

similarly, i am a blacksmith and I like the clever use of blacks.

Excellent! Now that's a clever use of words...

 

[Stephen]

To me the word means one without label isn't one at all.

I am not a muso snob, I am a snob.

 

[pad]

the use of the word unsigned to me appears to emphasise the negative. it's as if bands who aren't signed arent achieveing their potential or they aren't good enough to be signed. wheras independent means the same thing but the emphasis is on the positive. that someting can be acheived without signing.

 

[snap-apple]

it seems to me:
unsigned = not signed = iu
independent = d.i.y. = things

indepedent suggests that the band will release stuff by themselves. unsigned suggests the band will not and want to get signed in order to further their musical career. am i the only prick who can see this?

 

[#10-7]

this is getting stupid.

there is no shame in being unsigned. no shame at all. it just depends what you want. if you want to be signed then unsigned is a dirty word. if you want to do things independently, then unsigned is not applicable.

everyone who normally reads this site will understand what things is trying to do, and i'm sure most will understand what IU is doing also.

it just depends on your goals.

 

[egg_]

lorcanzo (11 Feb, 2002 10:08 a.m.):
this is getting stupid.

Correct!
A description of Stoat's most serious recent 'row' (we're too civilised to shout at each other, but we do get quite emotional at times):
desperately trying to complete a song (a VERY painful process these days), we had a collection of bits of song and were discussing how to organise them. "So", says I. "Let's try two verses, then that loud bit, then another verse, loud bit, then the chorus". "It's not a chorus", says Tom Haggard, guitar player. "Okaaayy", says I, a little unsure. "Lets just CALL it a chorus for the purposes of this little discussion of the structure". "It's NOT A CHORUS", utters Mr. Haggard in a deadly whisper, his eyes reduced to tiny slits.
We had to call it 'the sandwich' for the remainder of the discussion to avoid a fistfight.

So, eeemmm, my point is, words can be important to some people and even though it might seem daft to you, it's best to just go along with them and everyone will be happier

(p.s. in case you're worried, 5 minutes later the song miraculously completed itself and we were all best friends again ... the REAL reason for the disturbance seems to have been a buildup of bile from the 14 month old uncompleted song expressing itself)

 

[Stuart Little]

Jesus.

Welcome to the least friendly place on the internet.

Thumped _does_ sound like a fucking incestuous wankers breeding ground sometimes.

There is SO MUCH other shit out there to complain about - but the jackals come out as soon as they hear about a *shock horror* new website that might be trying to help out young, un-initiated, inexperienced, unsigned, irish bands.

While I can see where the (THiNGS / IU) mission statements differ, I also think that this kind of confrontational behavior flies in the face of the THiNGS supposed methodology.

Perhaps THiNGS people should be honest with themselves and post a list of criteria that must be met before acceptance into the fold, with use of the word 'unsigned' resulting in immediate disqualification, or at least a severe ear-bashing. Similarly with any expression of interest in commercial success through association with non-independent labels further down the line.

But, alternatively, if it IS about the music then shut the fuck up.

 

[egg_]

Thought twice about this and decided not to say it after all

But I would like to state my allegiance to the pro-friendliness faction

 

[pete]

Stuart Little (11 Feb, 2002 10:58 a.m.):
There is SO MUCH other shit out there to complain about - but the jackals come out as soon as they hear about a *shock horror* new website that might be trying to help out young, un-initiated, inexperienced, unsigned, irish bands.

Speaking personally, I have no problem with the existence of IU - I think it'll be pretty useful to any bands / artists who choose to follow that route.

All i was saying was that it looked like someone wasn't being entirely honest about their motives. And if i'm wrong, so be it. It's just my opinion, after all.

pete

 

[snap-apple]

me also has no problems with IU - fair play to 'em. its just I think there are fundamental differences in their goals and Things' goals but i'm not trying to say we're better - just different.

 

[mugwump]

Conor (11 Feb, 2002 09:55 a.m.):
it seems to me:
unsigned = not signed = iu
independent = d.i.y. = things

indepedent suggests that the band will release stuff by themselves. unsigned suggests the band will not and want to get signed in order to further their musical career.

I agree completely...just because a band is signed to a label does not automatically mean that they are shit, that they are only interested in money and that their music has no "cred" man...
I wonder how many 'unsigned', 'd.i.y' etc. Irish bands would turn down a record deal with a major label if they got the oppertunity.
Many (unsigned, non-signed whatever the fuck you wanna call it) Irish bands have said that they don't want a major record deal but if push came to shove would they really turn down £250,000 (for example) to make music for a living ? I don't think many (if any) bands would refuse the offer no matter what they say now... and yes...i have read the steve albini article.

 

[snap-apple]

i would find it very hard to turn down that sort of cash. i'd love to be able to make music for a living but personally i'm not in a band to "make it" anymore. i used to be about 6 years ago but there's something great about doing it all youself. i haven't read the steve albini article - but did read that extremely scary tale in the culture yesterday of kerbdog accumulating £1.1 million in debt. $400,000 for the second album - wow!

 

[chriths]

i'd sell out at the drop of a hat! ha ha!

sorry...

...i want to be on cribs...


...sigh

 

[Dan]

I think it all depends on you aims. I think that most people on thumped wouldn't have ended up in bands for the sake of making money. You have to be huge before you start earning any sort of money out of alternative music. I would say the main reason for an alternative band to sign to a "bigger" label is so that more people will get to hear their music...thats why I'd do it if I got the oppurtunity.

 

[mugwump]

i agree completely with you mate...i'd say that 99% of people don't pick up a guitar or start stroking the ivory with the pre-meditated aim of making wads and wads of cash. It's for the love of music which is one of the most powerful forces in the world - it's amazing how music evolved from banging a couple of sticks together to something as beautiful as barbers adagio for strings. However being offered a substantial amount of money to help you make a record, which would give your music much more exposure worldwide, than say playing in Wheelans, has to be an oppertunity/incentive that most bands would not refuse...if making records is a bands passion then record deals (on whatever level) are part of the territory.
After all...think of all the musical toys you could purchase with all that cash to help you enhance/advance the music you're making...