---

Posted by sprinklerhead on 07-14-2004 at20:52:

  Working the Dogs

In the interview portions of the Chicago DVD, they talk about how they have worked their individual bands but haven't really worked the Dogs yet. They said something about trying to work this band to see how far it will go. Can anyone enlighted us to if / how they are trying to work the Dogs?

---

Posted by jeffrey k. on 07-14-2004 at21:22:

  RE: Working the Dogs

quote:

Originally posted by sprinklerhead In the interview portions of the Chicago DVD, they talk about how they have worked their individual bands but haven't really worked the Dogs yet. They said something about trying to work this band to see how far it will go. Can anyone enlighted us to if / how they are trying to work the Dogs?

This pure speculation on my part, but I think the fact that they are frequently continuing to record and tour as The Lost Dogs sort of answers the question. For years the Lost Dogs were sort of a secondary project to their other bands...or at least it seemed that way...and now since none of their main bands are recording or touring with any consistency, the Dogs seem to have become "the" band for Mike, Terry, and Derri to work in. It makes sense really, because to do the Dogs it really only takes the 3 of them, where to do the Choir, 77's, and DA, you have entire bands of people that have day jobs and in some cases are spread out across the US, and as a result seem unable to tour/record. Plus it costs money to make all these projects a reality, and fans don't buy like they used to, so I think you have to focus on what is working....and the Dogs work.

Anyway, thats my take on it...

jeffrey k.

---

Posted by mindgasket on 07-14-2004 at21:31:



Agreed. I think the Dogs are in many ways better than the individual bands, especially when they all contribute with the songwriting.

It would be so cool if they could play the Grand Ole Opry or be on Austin City Limits!! That would be a beauty!

---

Posted by Mountain Fan on 07-14-2004 at22:38:

  RE: Working the Dogs

quote:

Originally posted by sprinklerhead In the interview portions of the Chicago DVD, they talk about how they have worked their individual bands but haven't really worked the Dogs yet. They said something about trying to work this band to see how far it will go. Can anyone enlighted us to if / how they are trying to work the Dogs?

Great question. I was wondering the same thing. Especially since it seems many here prefer the 1st 3 albums and I think I have seen it said that they sold more. I really do like all their stuff, but reality doesn't seem to match up with that statement (about working the Dogs).

I am VERY thankful they have been touring!

---

Posted by bereal on 07-15-2004 at00:02:



I think the Dogs are working just fine!

---

Posted by jeffrey k. on 07-15-2004 at00:41:

  RE: Working the Dogs

quote:

Originally posted by Mountain Fan quote: Originally posted by sprinklerhead In the interview portions of the Chicago DVD, they talk about how they have worked their individual bands but haven't really worked the Dogs yet. They said something about trying to work this band to see how far it will go. Can anyone enlighted us to if / how they are trying to work the Dogs? Great question. I was wondering the same thing. Especially since it seems many here prefer the 1st 3 albums and I think I have seen it said that they sold more. I really do like all their stuff, but reality doesn't seem to match up with that statement (about working the Dogs). I am VERY thankful they have been touring!

I dunno...but I think you, and perhaps a lot of other people are missing something....assuming I'm reading your post right....in that the band doing what "many here prefer" has nothing to do with whether they are "working the Dogs" or not.

You are talking about 3 records that were recorded and released starting 12 years ago....and in the case of Green Room, Pt. 1, 8 years ago. It was a band with a now-deceased member that seemed to have some sway with how the records sounded due to his own sounds being more aggressive/gritty/rock than the others and him being the guy that recorded, engineered, and mixed the songs...at least for the most part. Thats NOT to say the other guys had no say or whatever, but if you listen to the records done before and after Gene, he seemed to really have a strong influence on the band and it's direction.

So the reality is, things have changed. For the band to keep "plowing that field" would probably get pretty boring for them, and after a while boring for the fans. Plus as artists, I really doubt they sit down and plan records based on what they think the fan-base prefers. I think what you are hearing now is the music they want to make, or they wouldn't be making it. Maybe they have lost some fans as a result...but artistically it makes more sense than simply pandering to seemingly please some fans.

I also personally don't think the style of the early Dogs records has all that much to do with them selling more than what they sell now. It was a different time....it was a time when a band like the Dogs were able to attract far more fans because they were on the cusp of the whole alternative Christian music "boom" and there weren't 1000 other crap bands to distract people. Their individual bands were all pretty active with recording, touring, etc. (with the exception of Adam Again...but even they put out 2 records in the early 90's) so the Dogs were a really great "bonus" band if you were a fan of all those others. But it's been brought up several times on these boards that many of these fans have just moved on....regardless of what the individual bands have done. So again, I don't think it has much to do with style.

I think the band is doing just what Terry says...they are working it. The Lost Dogs are seemingly now more of a "stand alone" band vs. a side project, and I really do think what they are doing is creating the music they want to, and then working to support it. Otherwise, what would be the point? I can't believe for a minute all the records they have done since Gift Horse have been "stop gaps" until they get around to recording another big "rockin" Dogs record that will please the fans and catapult them back into the "big time"!

Anyway....thats my take on it all.



jeffrey k.

---

Posted by bereal on 07-15-2004 at01:05:



Like I said before:

quote:

Originally posted by bereal I think the Dogs are working just fine!

---

Posted by sprinklerhead on 07-15-2004 at09:35:

 

quote:

Originally posted by mindgasket Agreed. I think the Dogs are in many ways better than the individual bands, especially when they all contribute with the songwriting. It would be so cool if they could play the Grand Ole Opry or be on Austin City Limits!! That would be a beauty!

Yep, that is what I was getting at. I realize that this has become more of the main band for all of them. Just wondering what they are doing in terms of marketing, promotion, exposure, etc. I am thrilled that they did the small tours but, there is no reason why they shouldn't be on Austin City Limits or something similar.

---

Posted by Mountain Fan on 07-15-2004 at11:37:

  RE: Working the Dogs

quote:

Originally posted by jeffrey k. quote: Originally posted by Mountain Fan quote: Originally posted by sprinklerhead In the interview portions of the Chicago DVD, they talk about how they have worked their individual bands but haven't really worked the Dogs yet. They said something about trying to work this band to see how far it will go. Can anyone enlighted us to if / how they are trying to work the Dogs? Great question. I was wondering the same thing. Especially since it seems many here prefer the 1st 3 albums and I think I have seen it said that they sold more. I really do like all their stuff, but reality doesn't seem to match up with that statement (about working the Dogs). I am VERY thankful they have been touring! I dunno...but I think you, and perhaps a lot of other people are missing something....assuming I'm reading your post right....in that the band doing what "many here prefer" has nothing to do with whether they are "working the Dogs" or not. You are talking about 3 records that were recorded and released starting 12 years ago....and in the case of Green Room, Pt. 1, 8 years ago. It was a band with a now-deceased member that seemed to have some sway with how the records sounded due to his own sounds being more aggressive/gritty/rock than the others and him being the guy that recorded, engineered, and mixed the songs...at least for the most part. Thats NOT to say the other guys had no say or whatever, but if you listen to the records done before and after Gene, he seemed to really have a strong influence on the band and it's direction. So the reality is, things have changed. For the band to keep "plowing that field" would probably get pretty boring for them, and after a while boring for the fans. Plus as artists, I really doubt they sit down and plan records based on what they think the fan-base prefers. I think what you are hearing now is the music they want to make, or they wouldn't be making it. Maybe they have lost some fans as a result...but artistically it makes more sense than simply pandering to seemingly please some fans. I also personally don't think the style of the early Dogs records has all that much to do with them selling more than what they sell now. It was a different time....it was a time when a band like the Dogs were able to attract far more fans because they were on the cusp of the whole alternative Christian music "boom" and there weren't 1000 other crap bands to distract people. Their individual bands were all pretty active with recording, touring, etc. (with the exception of Adam Again...but even they put out 2 records in the early 90's) so the Dogs were a really great "bonus" band if you were a fan of all those others. But it's been brought up several times on these boards that many of these fans have just moved on....regardless of what the individual bands have done. So again, I don't think it has much to do with style. I think the band is doing just what Terry says...they are working it. The Lost Dogs are seemingly now more of a "stand alone" band vs. a side project, and I really do think what they are doing is creating the music they want to, and then working to support it. Otherwise, what would be the point? I can't believe for a minute all the records they have done since Gift Horse have been "stop gaps" until they get around to recording another big "rockin" Dogs record that will please the fans and catapult them back into the "big time"! Anyway....thats my take on it all. jeffrey k.

Pretty good post.

I don't think I'm stuck in the past. I certainly respect the fact that Gene was tremendous and he's not here anymore. I also respect the guys' using full artistic license and doing music that they want to. Maybe I don't fully understand what "working it" really means. To me, it would mean recognizing the fan base, current music trends, etc., and striving to be successful BOTH in terms of creativity and popularity/sales, without necessarily taking too much of a "pandering to fans" view.

I do have somewhat of a "stopgap" view of MUTT only (but still enjoy it). I enjoy all the others as they are. It's sort of a side show - like an overlook on the Parkway or something. Beautiful along the way, but not a real destination.

I must somewhat disagree on style. Yes, there is an element of "being in the right place at the right time" and all to when they got started. And the reality is that they are to a large degree in the CCM, now-clogged, world whether they like it or not. But when I compare them to other artists outside the CCM world, they don't have quite the sparkle they did when they started. Don't get me wrong, I still love them, but I feel if their were a little more conscious with style decisions that they could be more of a force to be reckoned with. And more relevant to the current music world and thus more potential fans (and hurting souls, really).

If God has changed their directions and music, then so be it. He knows best anyways and this is what is really important. They were certainly there for me when I needed it and I think they will continue to be there for others when they need it, even as they might continue to change and morph towards something a little different.

I'll keep seeing them live if they never write another new tune, but I'll be hard pressed to keep buying CDs of reworked tunes (see other thread) if they put out more like MUTT. I would still probably buy them, I just wouldn't be in as big a hurry to get them and a preorder would probably be out of the question (I did do SE preorder and Jubal preorder).

---

Posted by Ben on 07-15-2004 at15:31:

  RE: Working the Dogs

I'll buy anything that the Dogs or DA puts out! I'll go to any show that I can get to.

I'll bring the Dogs back to Derwood Maryland if they tour on the east coast again.


DA ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!

---

Posted by jiminy on 07-15-2004 at15:49:

 

my daughter Jen were talking this very thing.. (shes becoming an ardent fan thru her daddy)

she loves CMT - and country Music in general (where did THAT come from!!?) and sees the Dogs as a cool country band that could do a soundtrack (or a spot on ACL I think)

shes not much interested in the "original" versions of the tunes on MUTT- that would probably wrinkle her nose a bit.


and I freely agree- I could see one of their songs in video right next to Brad Paisley or Josh turner....
and would I feel they sold? - nope, they got the gold!

I pray to that end:

Cmon , MR Burnett- they're part of what yer doin, son! Hook em in, before others do!
Amen!