post brought to you by: dyson
This is all I heard through my years at Berklee College of Music. Get out of Boston. Go to New York, LA, Nashville. Anywhere but Boston.
Did it get old? Yes. But did I do it? Yes…
I moved to Manhattan and tried my hand as an engineer/photographer (don’t ask) for a few months. Was it what is was hyped up to be? Not even close. I have some great stories to tell but that’s about it.
And I finally called it quits when a buddy of mine assisted engineering on Bob Dylan’s ‘Modern Times’ yet decided to take the job as night manager of the studio because it made him more money. Sad. (and did he get credit on the album? Go look. His name is Tom Aiezza…)
So this leaves me with the question. What the hell is so wrong with Boston?? I understand if it was the 50’s or 60’s and I needed to be working in the Brill Building to be in the music scene. But times have dramatically changed. You can make an amazing album in your parents house in Albuquerque and have it become an indie sensation.
But Boston has a very bad stigma for musicians who feel the need that they need to get out of here to actually become something. I can rattle off a list of major artists who have never even come close to a major city. (but I’ll keep this post short)
So honestly, what is so wrong with being a band from Boston? Why is Brooklyn the place to be?
Yes, there is a good scene there because it has been hyped til the cows come home. But you can be successful anywhere. It’s pretty simple actually. Make a great product (album), tour, promote it correctly, and have someone like Bono fronting your band. (ok. forget the last bit because Bono is like the Pepsi of music to me)
(look for more on the Boston music scene to come in the near future thanks to some writing help from a new contributor)