Patistuta New Member Posts:16  
| 12/12/2005 6:34 PM |
|
|
...this Sunday, December 18th at 6.30 pm on RTE1.
This year the winners will NOT be representing Ireland in Eurovision (Brian Kennedy will). The prize on offer is superb, 1 album deal with polydor, 10 000 eruo worth of gear etc - check rte.ie.
The heats for Galway, Derry and Cork have been on for the last 3 weeks. Dublin, where all the bands auditioned (and where The Shakes impressed the judges) is on this Sunday.
Yes it's a cheesy show but the prize on offer was too good not to have a go. Vote for us and strike a blow for credible rock n roll!
You can vote by text or phone so please, give us a text. Footage of us playing our song SHINE in the studio will be shown on Sunday.
Listen to SHINE here: http://artists.cpu.ie/play.php?band_id=166&song_id=450&mode=song_hifi - BROADBAND
and here: http://artists.cpu.ie/play.php?band_id=166&song_id=450&mode=song_lofi - DIAL UP
www.theshakesrule.com
|
|
|
|
milkman Basic Member Posts:119
| 12/12/2005 6:49 PM |
|
|
Jaysus.
i don't understand it.
i don't get it.
why would a young band put themselves in the firing line like this?
it doesn't matter how good the offer is, won't it drive you nuts hearing people say "you're a star band, the shakes"?
the factual details of the prizes are one thing, but the chances of you wining are low (older people and kids vote - they like easy to listen to stuff and pop) and therefore the chances of your career being tarnished with the reality show tag for the foreseeable future is all too real.
something like this destroys credibility - if a judge decides your music is crap, what right do any of them have to judge it? why would you allow yourself to be at the mercy of people who probably can't play instruments very well? who probably can't write songs?
i don't understand it.
don;t bands have any belief in themselves any more? a show like this isn't the answer....
|
|
|
|
james bluntNew Member Posts:9
| 12/12/2005 7:29 PM |
|
|
I think that the shakes are right to have a go at the you're a star thing because its a lauchpad for young bands to get their name out there, too many people i think are prwejudice against these shows i think, and its just musical snobbery.
The prize at the end of the show is an international record deal,so who cares about a few begrudging irish bums.
Would it not be worse if decents bands like this got no recognition and no record deal??
dont let the name fool ya
|
|
|
|
klootfan Advanced Member Posts:851
| 12/12/2005 8:07 PM |
|
|
Your a star is a popularity contest full stop. And popularity is a fickle thing which never lasts. The show is all about the here and now and its got nothing really to do with what happens to the winners after the show is over. The prize is a poisened chalice as no band/act yet has been successful following your a star. After 6 months, no one cares about this years winners as they have all moved on to looking forward to next years possible winners. That is the target audience for the show.
The reality of the show is the fact that its an opportunity for a comercial company to make money out of phone line revenue by playing on the hopes and aspirations of young people who want to be famous...If it was really about developing the career or careers of prospective musicians, then there would be a follow up on the winners after the show, bringing them from a talent competition on into to profesional music. But there isnt, winners are just left by the wayside, to make room for next years hopefuls.
There is nothing wrong with a band having a go at this competition as long as they go into it with their eyes open. Is it musical snobbery to make little of the entrants to this competition. Maybe. A certain amount of it that some people believe that a band/musician has to earn their attention by the long days touring or the hard worked album. But then this doesnt make sense when you see how irish people jump at the american/uk bands as soon as they hit the irish shores purely on word of mouth alone. I duno.
Personally, if a band/person goes into this show expecting the gig-going public to fall at their knees as soon as they have won the show then they are really misguided as it just is not going to happen. Yes, you might get a number one single out of it, and you might get a couple of gigs, maybe the tour of the country that the winners seem to undertake every year, playing every crap venue going. But its unlikely, in my humble opinion, that 6 months later, the people who originally bought your single, will even care where you are now. As, being the nature of the audience, they will have moved on.
|
|
|
|
PatistutaNew Member Posts:16
| 12/12/2005 8:20 PM |
|
|
Of course we are going into this with our eyes open. We had grave reservations about going on in it in the first place but the prize on offer was so good it was something we had to consider.
The fact of the matter is that I moved back to Belfast 18 months ago while the other 2 boys stayed in Dublin. We practise every week in the bass player's gaff in Newry (a happy medium) but it is getting harder and harder to put the time in as college life becomes a distant memory.
We are a credible band who have played regularly in places like Dorans and The Hub in Dublin, but let's be honest, no A&R types are sniffing around there picking up people like us.
Other recent gigs include HWCH and supporting The Radiators in September. We entered this show for no other purpose than to gain a bit of exposure for our music. We're not stupid. We know the craic and what has happened to the winners of these reality shows in the past.
If people see us on it and like our music, they can hear more on our website and our fan base will increase. We will have lost nothing.
|
|
|
|
klootfanAdvanced Member Posts:851
| 12/12/2005 8:27 PM |
|
|
Well then fire ahead. Seems like ye are going in to it with yere eyes open.
Just wondering, have ye set up a MySpace account with some sample music. Probably would be a good idea. Then attempt to join as friends to other Irish and internation myspace musicians. Therefore people looking at the other users site will also see yere band as being "friends". On myspace, no one gives a crap about who you are or where youve been. If the music is good, the crowds will follow.
Good luck with it, and welcome to cluas by the way.
|
|
|
|
PatistutaNew Member Posts:16
| 12/12/2005 8:29 PM |
|
|
www.myspace.com/thef**kinshakes
Thanks for the welcome.
|
|
|
|
Unicron Veteran Member Posts:1696
| 12/12/2005 8:57 PM |
|
|
I think that there are less obvious positives to the many negatives involved with what you're doing lads but if you're allowed to maintain control over what you do on the show then it could be a good opportunity for you and I wish you only the best of luck with it.
Are you allowed to play your own songs on the show, either on the heat this week or more importantly if you et through the the last however many it is? Because if you are then it's potentially a very good opportunity to showcase your material to a wide audience, if your not then you could get labled as a covers band.
Also, if possible please tell Brendan thingy from the sindo that he's an annoying, unfunny douchbag, thanks.
|
|
|
|
PatistutaNew Member Posts:16
| 12/12/2005 8:59 PM |
|
|
Yeah, we played our own song in the audition (see post at the top to hear it) and intend on playing our own stuff the whole way through (if we get through on Sunday). Otherwise what would be the point? Our main focus is exposing the songs we have made to a wider audience.
|
|
|
|
deraBasic Member Posts:163
| 12/12/2005 9:51 PM |
|
|
A recently-thawed caveman, frozen in the Alps for 20,000 years, could tell you this was a bad idea. Just write songs.
Sorry, was that naive?
|
|
|
|
NomingtonNew Member Posts:81
| 12/13/2005 3:43 AM |
|
|
I can completely understand why everyone thinks it's a bad idea, if you go on statistics and all that especially but Patistuta's argument is valid, what can possibly be lost? F*ck "credibility" and such nonsense, I think it's great to see a 'real' band on something like you're a star, they can show the little teeny tarts how music should 'look' (example: Music should look more like a guitar than lipstick) and hopefully, If they're any good, sound. If anything, they will get more fans than they had before the show, even if they are fans that f*ck off after a short while, well good f*ckin riddance, they were probably complete toerags anyway...and if not, hoooray!
Pastistuta, I'd say that everyone seems to think that people who do get exposed to your music, will think 'Ah but they're only the w*nkers who were on You're a star'. But that's just music snobbery because it should only EVER be about the music.
Fair play to ya and good luck (oh and I'll vote too, even if I end up thinking you're music is sh*t, just because your bound to be better than all the other d*ckheads on it)
It's the middle of the night and I'm in work so I have rights to cuss more..
|
|
|
|
DamienBasic Member Posts:316
| 12/13/2005 5:14 AM |
|
|
The Shakes rule! Well, one time at Radiator they did. Also, if I have credit I will do a vote. Good luck.
|
|
|
|
UnicronVeteran Member Posts:1696
| 12/13/2005 10:50 AM |
|
|
Whatever happened to Dave's Radio?
|
|
|
|
DamienBasic Member Posts:316
| 12/13/2005 11:15 AM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Unicron
Whatever happened to Dave's Radio?
They died in a plane crash with Richie Valens and the Big Bopper and subsequently went down in musical history. |
|
|
|
aidanAdvanced Member Posts:638
| 12/13/2005 12:40 PM |
|
|
best of luck, patistuta - nothing wrong with being ambitious and wanting to be famous; isn't that the whole point of being in a band? otherwise, we'll never have anything except. if there's one thing ireland needs right now it's proper glammed-up rock stars (and a better health service, of course. but rock stars too!)
so, go forth and be rock stars!!!! shock the grannies!!! if you're only going to be famous for just a week, then at least make it one hell of a seven days that no one will forget!
(of course, if you're only a shower of ugly, boring grungeheads keeping it 'real' I take back my 'best of luck' and I'll vote for the karaoke wedding singer instead)
|
|
|
|
trevradiatorBasic Member Posts:343
| 12/13/2005 4:34 PM |
|
|
best of luck lads,when will you be gracing the stage of dorans again@radiator you nordy cocks...seriously though lads fair play,trev
|
|
|
|
| 12/13/2005 4:44 PM |
|
|
i wil be voting for yas although i already know a person through to the helix so dont count on my vote after this round
|
|
|
|
MullyAdvanced Member Posts:849
| 12/13/2005 4:56 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by emu
i wil be voting for yas although i already know a person through to the helix so dont count on my vote after this round
Well, that kind of proves (as said earlier) that it is a popularity contest, not a talent contest.
Best of luck nailing those posters up along the highways & byways of Ireland ... |
|
|
|
PatistutaNew Member Posts:16
| 12/13/2005 6:09 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by aidan
(of course, if you're only a shower of ugly, boring grungeheads keeping it 'real' I take back my 'best of luck' and I'll vote for the karaoke wedding singer instead)
Visit our website and decide for yourself! www.theshakesrule.com
And Trev, we plugged Radiator when they came up to Newry to do the filmed postcard (cos you're such a good guy!) so you may give us a headline slot! |
|
|
|
karlvinNew Member Posts:97
| 12/14/2005 11:36 AM |
|
|
Go on lads , hope it works out for ye guys , will deffo vote !
|
|
|
|
PatistutaNew Member Posts:16
| 12/14/2005 12:11 PM |
|
|
Cheers Karl. Any more podcasts in the pipeline?
|
|
|
|
karlvinNew Member Posts:97
| 12/14/2005 6:10 PM |
|
|
Yeah , will be back on track after xmas , so will be in touch , will revamp the whole website too.
|
|
|
|
Late ManNew Member Posts:14
| 12/14/2005 7:58 PM |
|
|
Ah in fainess the programme should mever be on tv in the first place. Wouldnt it be better if they showed a programme that wasn't just a karaoke competition?? or maybe everyone is happy to watch a couple of red head children embarrass the whole country??
|
|
|
|
BinokularVeteran Member Posts:1665
| 12/15/2005 12:17 AM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Unicron
Whatever happened to Dave's Radio?
I nicked it, Dave wants it back.. 
Is it just me or does anyone else get the feeling it's only matter of time before Your a Star is recognised as an official GAA sport? |
|
|
|
UnicronVeteran Member Posts:1696
| 12/15/2005 1:13 PM |
|
|
Nope, the contestants of you're a star at least know what I microphone is for and for that reason will never scream A CHÁIRDE into it when adressing the audience.
|
|
|
|
PatistutaNew Member Posts:16
| 12/18/2005 11:45 AM |
|
|
Tonight - vote!
|
|
|
|
GarVeteran Member Posts:1676
| 12/18/2005 9:00 PM |
|
|
Despite my sceptisim of watching the programme in the first place (think it was aided by the misery of the Arsenal match) and listening to two crap judges, I thought The Shakes were actually alright. They were far better than the other two bands up for a spot to go through. I doubt a band will last long in a competition like this, as it is a popularity/what sells contest. Nonetheless, The Shakes are worth a listen.
Taking nothing away from the ambition of The Shakes, as I know they want the recording contract from it, but I think I prefer if a band makes it (in terms of getting the cash, time & backing to make the album they are capable of) by struggling through on their own first. I know the band in question have played Dorans loads of times but I don't particulary like the whole competition aspect of a band gaining popularity. I suppose this could revert back to other competitions such as Mercury, in that musicians suddenly get a whole new lease of life due to their win or nomination (Anthony & The Johnsons). What I'm trying to say is that, I much prefer a musician making their way into our collections, ipods, music players etc through hard work and talent rather than under the flash image of 'Mercury nominated artist ............... new album is explosive' says NME. It almost elevates the judges opinion higher than that of the music critics/journalists. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
PilchardAdvanced Member Posts:699
| 12/18/2005 9:39 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gar
Despite my sceptisim of watching the programme in the first place (think it was aided by the misery of the Arsenal match) and listening to two crap judges, I thought The Shakes were actually alright. They were far better than the other two bands up for a spot to go through. I doubt a band will last long in a competition like this, as it is a popularity/what sells contest. Nonetheless, The Shakes are worth a listen.
Taking nothing away from the ambition of The Shakes, as I know they want the recording contract from it, but I think I prefer if a band makes it (in terms of getting the cash, time & backing to make the album they are capable of) by struggling through on their own first. I know the band in question have played Dorans loads of times but I don't particulary like the whole competition aspect of a band gaining popularity. I suppose this could revert back to other competitions such as Mercury, in that musicians suddenly get a whole new lease of life due to their win or nomination (Anthony & The Johnsons). What I'm trying to say is that, I much prefer a musician making their way into our collections, ipods, music players etc through hard work and talent rather than under the flash image of 'Mercury nominated artist ............... new album is explosive' says NME. It almost elevates the judges opinion higher than that of the music critics/journalists. Does that make sense?
yes and no, i would never take any act who emerged from You're A Star seriously. Its a TV entertainment show, where the people behind the format want big audiences to ensure loads of text votes and thus large amounts of cash. the most popular act wins which, if you're a music fan, means westlife rather than arcade fire (witness westlife winning record of the year thanks to their ability to get their fans to text in votes rather than on any musical merit)
however i wouldnt lump the Mercury in with You're A star/X Factor because firstly there are different criteria (albums rather than brand new acts) and secondly, it often throws up weird choices. this year, the amount of people i've met who have talked about antony & the johnsons as a result of him and them winning the Prize is staggering. it proves that, once in a while, an act can really benefit from the publicity and discussion surrounding such a prize.
gar, you might think there's little difference btwYou're A Star and the Mercury but try to imagine Antony progressing behind been laughed at brendan oconnor or that turnip linda martin on You're A Star (and conversely, some of the karaoke kings and queens who have triumphed on You're A Star turning up on the Mercury list) and you'll see you are comparing chalk and cheese. |
|
|
|
GarVeteran Member Posts:1676
| 12/18/2005 10:10 PM |
|
|
I didn't mean to compare 'You're A Star' with 'Mercury Prize', I was trying to highlight the fact that the majority of these competitions have a tacky stench from them. You mentioned that many people have talked to you about Anthony & The Johnsons since they won the Mercury Prize, so doesn't that mean that that particular act weren't judged to be as credible or good until a panel of judges said so? It just seems that so many people wait for the approval of a higher power (judges, radio dj's etc) to make up their mind about how good or bad a musician actually is.
What I'm trying to address is the power that is given to the judges of these competitions. If Linda Martin declares that a metal band is the best she has ever heard, does that mean that that band are just amazingly good? Thousands seem to think so and will vote because of that judge's so-called 'professional' recommendation (this isn't a cheap swipe at Linda Martin by the way). The judges of music competitions have this power to inform the greater public of what is and isn't good music. But who are these judges to which the public entrust their tastebuds? Does Sharon Osborn qualify as someone who knows more about spotting talent than a regular A&R man? Does the Mercury Prize panel tell us that Anthony & The Johnsons are the best of the year because they are slightly off-kilter or haven't received as much exposure as the other contenders? Why is there a dependency on these judges to tell us what we should buy and listen to? Has the public's buying habits whittled down to selecting only nominated music?
|
|
|
|
UnaVeteran Member Posts:1721
| 12/18/2005 10:53 PM |
|
|
let's face it, a 'rock' outfit going on a TV talent show is one of the most uncool things they could do.
"Has the public's buying habits whittled down to selecting only nominated music?" - only those who are dumb enough not to be able to define their own taste.
|
|
|
|
PilchardAdvanced Member Posts:699
| 12/19/2005 12:15 AM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gar
I didn't mean to compare 'You're A Star' with 'Mercury Prize', I was trying to highlight the fact that the majority of these competitions have a tacky stench from them. You mentioned that many people have talked to you about Anthony & The Johnsons since they won the Mercury Prize, so doesn't that mean that that particular act weren't judged to be as credible or good until a panel of judges said so? It just seems that so many people wait for the approval of a higher power (judges, radio dj's etc) to make up their mind about how good or bad a musician actually is.
no, no, gar, thats not what i meant at all. Many people i know - some big-ish music fans, some 5-albums-a-year - heard FIRST OF ALL about A&TJs after he/they won the Mercury Prize. It was the Prize which put them on the map - thus proving the whole point of a Prize like the Mercurys that it helps to highlight albums which would not otherwise be highlighted.
its not about credibility or anything like that - its about PROFILE. u mentione arlier about acts getting onto your IPod/ITunes without big hype etc (i'm paraphrasing here). But in order to do so, there needs to be a recommendation system. Look at any P2P system and a similar selective process is in use. The Mercurys are a bigger, more profile version of this recommendation system - though anyone who bought Roni Size's album on the back of the Mercury Prize win may be still looking for a refund
quote:
Originally posted by Gar
What I'm trying to address is the pwer that is given to the judges of these competitions. If Linda Martin declares that a metal band is the best she has ever heard, does that mean that that band are just amazingly good? Thousands seem to think so and will vote because of that judge's so-called 'professional' recommendation (this isn't a cheap swipe at Linda Martin by the way). The judges of music competitions have this power to inform the greater public of what is and isn't good music. But who are these judges to which the public entrust their tastebuds? Does Sharon Osborn qualify as someone who knows more about spotting talent than a regular A&R man? Does the Mercury Prize panel tell us that Anthony & The Johnsons are the best of the year because they are slightly off-kilter or haven't received as much exposure as the other contenders? Why is there a dependency on these judges to tell us what we should buy and listen to? Has the public's buying habits whittled down to selecting only nominated music?
as i said before and at the risk of repeating myself, shows like You're A Star and X Factor are in the business of ENTERTAINMENT first and foremost. they're put together by TV executives with the aim of having huge audiences which then provide loads of money via text polls etc. They have NOTHING to do with music and talent-spotting bar as a suitable vehicle (ie we need something here, hey what about would-be singers...).
The Mercury Prize is about the MUSIC first and foremost. All the acts have already made albums; played gigs; attained a certain level of awareness; have a certain profile (sometimes high, sometimes niche, but always there). The Mercury nomination and win lifts them up because people hear about them, like the songs and go buy the album/go to the gigs.
OK, you might think, no real discernable difference - both types exist to find new music and sell it on. But go back to the root of each show and you'll find the difference - You're A Star/X Factor would be about finding the next big thing in sausage making or acting or car-racing but the Mercurys need the music and the albums. One is formatted to the nth degree; the other comes up with winners which are unpredictable and far from commercial.
The "power" given to judges like Linda Martin etc? Its only "power" in a TV sense. Same with the Mercurys cast of music writers etc - you can take it or leave it. Sure, some people will take it and discover either startling music or music which startles them.
Sharon Osbourne - before she turned into a reality TV star, shazza spend decades working as a manager with all manner of bands and knows as much (if not more) than many indie A&R people about how the industry works and how stars are created
"why is there a dependency on these judges to tell us what we should buy and listen to?" - there is only a dependancy when we allow it to be so. i'll always be interested in the Mercury winners and nominations because they have proven over 10-15 years that they have a keen ear and can produce some oddball, unexpected winners (as well as the best candidates like franz ferdinand or badly drawn boy). In the case of You're A Star, their sorry cast of winners tells its tale about dependancy, consistency and reliability
"Has the public's buying habits whittled down to selecting only nominated music?" - no, it hasnt. Look at the way the public has quickly turned against such Irish pop-TV "winners" as mickey harte, simon casey, those eejits from athlone, six etc. the public gets what the public wants and theres enough diversity for that to mean westlife or arcade fire or celtic woman or jape.
|
|
|
|
PatistutaNew Member Posts:16
| 12/19/2005 12:21 AM |
|
|
Thanks to anyone who voted. To be honest I thought we sounded awful on the show and it wasn't a good representation of what we sound like. Good luck to the rest of them. Shakes still rule!
|
|
|
|
aidanAdvanced Member Posts:638
| 12/19/2005 12:48 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pilchard
as i said before and at the risk of repeating myself, shows like You're A Star and X Factor are in the business of ENTERTAINMENT first and foremost. they're put together by TV executives with the aim of having huge audiences which then provide loads of money via text polls etc. They have NOTHING to do with music and talent-spotting bar as a suitable vehicle (ie we need something here, hey what about would-be singers...).
The Mercury Prize is about the MUSIC first and foremost. All the acts have already made albums; played gigs; attained a certain level of awareness; have a certain profile (sometimes high, sometimes niche, but always there). The Mercury nomination and win lifts them up because people hear about them, like the songs and go buy the album/go to the gigs.
OK, you might think, no real discernable difference - both types exist to find new music and sell it on. But go back to the root of each show and you'll find the difference - You're A Star/X Factor would be about finding the next big thing in sausage making or acting or car-racing but the Mercurys need the music and the albums. One is formatted to the nth degree; the other comes up with winners which are unpredictable and far from commercial.
separating 'music' from 'entertainment' (and 'entertainment' from 'music') is how we've ended up at the sorry stage of:
1. glorified buskers from your friend's bedsit party being stars (all 'music' and no 'entertainment')
2. glorified karaoke singers from your cousin's wedding reception being stars (all 'entertainment' and no 'music')
thankfully, there are plenty of acts out there who believe that (to quote an example) 'you can't have one without the other'.
why believe that music-making (be it arcade fire or sugababes) is any different or more noble than sausage-making (to take that random example)? - in both cases we should just concentrate on enjoying the product and not think about how the product is made 
|
|
|
|
| 12/19/2005 2:41 PM |
|
|
"why believe that music-making (be it arcade fire or sugababes) is any different or more noble than sausage-making"
I love sausage makers. Changed my life man
|
|
|
|
PilchardAdvanced Member Posts:699
| 12/19/2005 3:50 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by seanc
"why believe that music-making (be it arcade fire or sugababes) is any different or more noble than sausage-making"
I love sausage makers. Changed my life man
i love superquinn sausages but will make do with gold medal ones if i'm stuck. |
|
|
|
UnicronVeteran Member Posts:1696
| 12/19/2005 6:57 PM |
|
|
Ah superquinn sausages, a rare commodity round our way now that Aldi opened up near us and I can't justify going in there just for sausages.
But a sausage never set my heart alight and lifted my mood completely in the course of 3 mintues. Then again, I've never been a starving Ethiopian.
|
|
|
|
UnicronVeteran Member Posts:1696
| 12/19/2005 6:58 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Una
let's face it, a 'rock' outfit going on a TV talent show is one of the most uncool things they could do.
f**k cool or uncool, if the Shakes can square being in You're a Star with themselves it shouldn't matter what anyone else thinks. If you start compromising what you want to do becasue you think other's will think less of you then you're never going to do anything good becasue you won't really believe in it. |
|
|
|
| 1/20/2006 1:09 PM |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Unicron
Whatever happened to Dave's Radio?
Dave's Radio are alive and well. They are signed with Polydor UK, and have recorded 2 singles with Steve Osborne in Bath. They play tonight in Radio City (Isaac Butts), and Whelans on 27-Jan & 7-Feb.
Official releases are iminent. |
|
|
|