
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Joined: 03 Jan 2003 | Posts: 476 | Location: Austin TX
|
|
|
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 | Posts: 198 | Location: Your mother
|
|
|
Heh, a lot of good bands are passed up. That's the way the world runs. For example, if Eisley played somewhere that had mainstream bands, even if Eisley was better than those bands, the mainstream bands would get more attention because the magazine or whoever that is doing the reviews want to get their story sold, which makes them want to go for the bigger names where sheep would be like "Ooo I want to read about that because it has *insert band name here* name on it! Sad really... _________________ UPDATE: REAL MYSPACE LINK! http://www.myspace.com/2399095 Check out my FLICKR and leave comments!!! http://www.flickr.com/photos/28644084@N00/
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Apr 2005 | Posts: 829 | Location: Manteca, California
|
|
|
Joined: 22 Jan 2005 | Posts: 2278 | Location: sweet sydney,australia
|
|
|
Joined: 03 Jan 2003 | Posts: 476 | Location: Austin TX
|
|
|
They could have mentioned them though. _________________ UPDATE: REAL MYSPACE LINK! http://www.myspace.com/2399095 Check out my FLICKR and leave comments!!! http://www.flickr.com/photos/28644084@N00/
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Apr 2005 | Posts: 829 | Location: Manteca, California
|
|
|
Y4J wrote: They could have mentioned them though. Considering that they're a baby band that was pretty far down the setlist and there were many significantly bigger bands, why would they? _________________ Coprophiliacs make sh*tty lovers. Flickr Transvaal IV - Myspace : Virb Deep Thoughts About Shallow Subjects |
|
|
Joined: 02 Sep 2003 | Posts: 2455 | Location: Grapevine, TX
|
|
|
Because they were there? The bands were bigger YES, but the fact that other bands LIKE Eisley played should still be something WORTH mentioning. I don't care how the "system" works. If a band is playing there, there name can be mentioned which takes just a TAD more ink in a magazine or wherever. It's not that difficult. _________________ UPDATE: REAL MYSPACE LINK! http://www.myspace.com/2399095 Check out my FLICKR and leave comments!!! http://www.flickr.com/photos/28644084@N00/
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Apr 2005 | Posts: 829 | Location: Manteca, California
|
|
|
Y4J wrote: Because they were there? The bands were bigger YES, but the fact that other bands LIKE Eisley played should still be something WORTH mentioning. I don't care how the "system" works.
Given the space allotted for written coverage of Coachella in most rags, most writers would be more inclined to rave about bands their readers have shown interest in. Now consider how many times Eisley have been featured in a magazine like Rolling Stone or Spin. Not exactly material warranting a full page spread. Quote: If a band is playing there, there name can be mentioned which takes just a TAD more ink in a magazine or wherever. It's not that difficult. When said band is an unknown band that did a set filled with technical problems, do you think magazines will assume this is something its readers will demand to read? Again, it's about readership, not exposing bands with great music that had a problematic set during a festival. Also, why use ink on an unknown band when they can use it for a clothing advert? It's money in the bank. _________________ Coprophiliacs make sh*tty lovers. Flickr Transvaal IV - Myspace : Virb Deep Thoughts About Shallow Subjects |
|
|
Joined: 02 Sep 2003 | Posts: 2455 | Location: Grapevine, TX
|
|
|
|
|
|
Laughing City Forum Index -> eisleyBlog -> I've read tons of Coachella reviews
Page 1 of 1 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|


