And that's essentially the same thing that I'm doing now. Technology has progressed, so I use my computer instead of a four-track machine, but it's still the same do-it-yourself feeling. Often, I think about what difficulties would arise if I tried to perform my songs live. Many of the songs I've written have three simultaneous guitar parts, which I obviously can't play live. So for the time being, I've pretty much abandoned all hopes of playing live. It's not really a thing I think I would enjoy very much anyway.
And yet, just because I can't play my songs live doesn't mean that success can't be attained. The Alan Parsons Project - while it may have more of a cult following than mainstream success - were still received well despite their lack of any kind of live show. They were based mostly on studio performances but still attained some level of success. But what I can't figure out is how the Alan Parsons Project started. Who came up with the notion that a band could be successful without that touring element, and how was that marketing plan drawn up?
I may be mistaken, but I believe that the Beatles were the first band to completely shun live performances and focus solely on studio work. But even when they were doing things only in the studio, they had at least five years of live performances behind them. They had built up their fame with those live performances, and their studio work needed only to sustain that attention.
The Alan Parsons Project didn't have that. They just sprung up in the studio, and they had to create a following based only on records, not on live performances. That's what I really need to figure out how to do because I doubt I'll be doing any live performances any time soon.
---&---
