Is this a bad idea for a band?

Question

Imagine a band that never releases an album and is only know for playing live music. So if you want to hear the songs you have to go see them live. There would be live video and maybe live recordings but there would be no official studio albums. Do you think this could be pulled off? Could a band like this be successful?

Answer 1

No



People over fifty call that band "The Grateful Dead."

Those under fifty, but over thirty call them "Phish."



Those under thirty just snicker at the idea of going to see a band.

Answer 2

I highly doubt it.  The ONLY person who was ever successful at something even close to that was Bathory.  Quorthon played ALL of the instruments and did the singing and I have every one of his albums.  He never played live though because he was a one-man band.  Kind of difficult to duplicate live.  

Answer 3

It'd be a great way of ensuring you'd continue to just play at Rick's Rock 'n' roll chicken shack for the rest of your life.



Your gimmick is 'it's really hard to hear us play'. That is simply annoying. If I went somewhere and liked the band playing I'd ask if they had a CD, if they said 'no we don't' I'd probably forget them. If they said 'er, actually we ONLY play live, for the TRUE EXPERIENCE' I'd think they were absolute tools.



That's assuming they ever got a gig. I wouldn't book a band that didn't have a website, couldn't email me a track or even post me a CD. Nobody has the time to sit down and actually listen to you play a goddamn set.

Answer 4

Even with the modernisation of recording techniques, most live recordings have relatively poor sound quality compared to studio albums. And a band that's just starting out isn't going to be playing venues with great acoustics and shelling out money for top quality live albums, so people who are only familiar with sub-par live bootlegs aren't going to be enticed to go out of their way to see the band on stage. I think it's a terrible idea. Plus, it invites the fair criticism that the band in question doesn't really believe that they'd be capable of cutting a decent record, and most people would assume that the members were simply using the whole "we only play live" gimmick because they're well aware that they would sound awful on a proper release. That's what I'd assume anyway. Every band's dream is to release a studio album. Being reluctant to do so wouldn't make you look edgy, it would make you look stupid.

Answer 5

It's not really an “idea” - thats the way just about every band in the history of rock/pop has started out. They play as many live gigs as they can, build up a large group of fans, get “noticed” by a record company and signed. Of course, nowadays the support of a record company isn't essential for modest success.



There are many, many bands, duos and solo artists why never venture inside a studio but sell live recordings at gigs and from their website.



It's not a question of “pulling it off”: it's been happening for decades. Could such a band be “successful”? It depends on how you measure “success”. If they're trying to play good music well, have people enjoy their gigs and build up fan base, of course they can. They won't be commercially or financially successful though.

Answer 6

I consider an album as a calling card to what your band is about. Air play is not important, there are a lot of bands put there that never get on the radio and do quite good. It's the internet world, wake up!

Answer 7

Albums = airplay = much wider audience, much wider fan base.



So: what you describe IS possible

but a band who lives by such principles is very much less likely to "hit it big" than is a band that has albums and - therefore - airplay.

Answer 8

yes, that is a bad idea