All right guys, I am putting out a record this spring. In past bands I have released stuff before, toured behind it, that sort of thing. Now that I'm a dad, I don't have time to maintain a band, so this latest collection--some of the strongest work I've ever done--is pretty much written, performed and recorded by me with the help of my drummer and assorted bassists.
My problem, and it's sort of image/promotional: do I make up a band name for myself, as is the indie practice, or do I use my own name (it's not barabajagal!)?
On one hand, it takes cashews to use your name. I'm very confident about my music; it's always been well-received by audience and press. And while my name isn't exactly catchy, it's not a bad name, as names go. I should note the CD packaging, too, will be very attractive.
On the other hand, as a critical audience, myself, I know I tend to diminish things at first glance if there's no band name and I've never heard of the artist. I'm less willing to give the benefit of the doubt ("Another vanity project!") So there's that crucial "first impression" hurdle.
Do you guys share the same misgivings about "solo" artists, or is that just a stupid prejudice of mine?
What's in a name? Rock snob advice sought!
Moderators: Jake, D. Phillips
-
Barabajagal
- GLONO Board Maniac
- Posts: 1461
- Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 10:15 am
- Location: Not quite close enough to say Chicago
You should give yourself a nickname, that always helps. I mean, who would you rather listen to, Snoop Dogg or Calvin Broadus?
But in all seriousness, do whatever works for you. I personally wouldn't use my real name, except if I wanted to see people butcher the pronunciation. But if your name sounds okay, just go with that.
But in all seriousness, do whatever works for you. I personally wouldn't use my real name, except if I wanted to see people butcher the pronunciation. But if your name sounds okay, just go with that.