Is it fair to bands that people turn on them when popular?

White Discussion

I've been meaning to post something about this forever because it burn me sometimes. Why in the hell do good fans turn on bands when their style changes a bit and they become popular to the masses? All bands change and their music does as well. Hell PJ doesn't sound a hell of alot like they did in the 90's these days.

I just don't understand why people that loved a band at one time will piss on them when they make good and sale records? I understand if you never liked them and then they become famous and you still hate them . I have friends that use to love the kings of Leon just as I do. They started getting popular tho and oh hell, my friends now say fuck those guys :wtf:. I'm like shit good for them for finally making it to a place where they can provide for their familes and do whatever they want. I also know that Caleb can be a little Douche bag, but it doesn't take away from the music to me. Shit I don't have to agree with bands behavior or beliefs to enjoy what they do. I have the ability to seperate the two, some can't.

All black Keys fans get ready for the backlash to begin, I love these guys too. They have become huge tho like KOL and your friends are gonna turn on them and even some of you will. Both these acts and many more have plenty of skins on the wall and deserve to make whatever kind of music they choose.

What if PJ would have continued to sale millions of records would some that we know have turned on them too? I think all PJ's stuff is awesome and "The Fixer" is as great and radio friendly as anything they ever released but the masses have left the bands side. We are all crazy about these guys and believe they are just hitting their stride. I'm not trying to complain just expressing myself and find it kindof crazy how great artists are despised when they make it. U2 gets alot of hate as well and not sure why.

Also not sure why so many talented great artists and songwriters get dismissed or never make it. Someone in my top 10 favorites is Joseph Arthur, how's he not made it? He's put out 10 or so records and written hundreds of songs. One month after PJ20 I saw him at the Kessler, 100 people there max. It made me excited because he's our little secret but saddened me also because he's busting his ass so hard when he should already be there.

Love you guys thanks for the rant here's me and Liam in the Milwaukee airport after PJ20. He's such a fucking rockstar that he doesn't even change clothes after rocking some Habit at PJ20.

BTW-I'm a big guy, but damn Liam is really small

chadwick

it is because people are fucking stupid and useless

Pap

I also have a picture with Liam outside the XOYO venue in London, UK. I'm bigger than him too. Even though, I'm much younger than him. Cool guy. Check out his picture with Paris Hilton on Last.fm. :thumbdown:

White Discussion

:wtf:

chadwick wrote:

it is because people are fucking stupid and useless

Of The Aggie

There is a difference between a band's style and musical direction changing and them just getting popular. If a band changes their sound enough then they can justifiably turn off some old fans. Those that were attracted to them for that particular sound. Maybe the fans just don't care much for their new direction and I have no problem with people who decide not to follow a band anymore because of it. People left PJ after No Code since it was such a departure from Ten/Vs./Vitalogy.

Now when fans begin to hate a band solely for the fact that they got popular, then that's another thing entirely. I think some do it just because they think it is hip to like obscure stuff and once a band hits it big, they are no longer considered hip and those fans move on to the next up and coming band. Some may like the intimate feel of smaller venues and once their favorite bands outgrow those, they move on. Other factors could be changes in attitudes by the members, over-exposure, changes in how the band treats its fans, etc. Fame, money and the like does change people even though some may try to say it doesn't, or won't happen to them, or try to deny it hasn't already happened.

People are fickle in general. Look at how fashions change on a whim, musical genres flow in and out of popularity and even certain foods and drinks can be attributed to certain groups of people.

White Discussion

Good points, I was just voicing my personal opinion on this subject. Seen it 1st hand a few times as I'm sure everyone has as well. Even the bands that change their styles a bit still have alot of the elements I love about them still there. Thanks for responding.

Of The Aggie wrote:

There is a difference between a band's style and musical direction changing and them just getting popular. If a band changes their sound enough then they can justifiably turn off some old fans. Those that were attracted to them for that particular sound. Maybe the fans just don't care much for their new direction and I have no problem with people who decide not to follow a band anymore because of it. People left PJ after No Code since it was such a departure from Ten/Vs./Vitalogy.

Now when fans begin to hate a band solely for the fact that they got popular, then that's another thing entirely. I think some do it just because they think it is hip to like obscure stuff and once a band hits it big, they are no longer considered hip and those fans move on to the next up and coming band. Some may like the intimate feel of smaller venues and once their favorite bands outgrow those, they move on. Other factors could be changes in attitudes by the members, over-exposure, changes in how the band treats its fans, etc. Fame, money and the like does change people even though some may try to say it doesn't, or won't happen to them, or try to deny it hasn't already happened.

People are fickle in general. Look at how fashions change on a whim, musical genres flow in and out of popularity and even certain foods and drinks can be attributed to certain groups of people.

mookeywrench

Kings of Leon - changed their style more than 'just a bit'
Black Keys -They've always been mediocre, Brothers was a solid album, but everything before (and now after) has been a steaming pile of ho-hum. That'll be the source of their backlash.

Some bands aren't fit for arenas, some bands attract the wrong crowds which can be disastrous at an arena show, some bands are past their creative peak when they finally 'make it'.

I can support a band getting popular, that's good for them, but that doesn't give me reason to be along for the ride.

veddertown

Interesting you went with Kings Of Leon and The Black Keys. I loved the first two KOL albums and the third was ok. I can't stomach what they've become now. Compare rootsy blues like Red Morning Light to shopping mall anthems like Sex Is On Fire and there's a good enough reason to turn away but to hate them for it is a bit much. Just don't buy it. The Black Keys however I'll politely disagree with. They still have their roots firmly in their original sound heavily influenced by blues and soul. It maybe sounds different to each individual but I think TBK have evolved on a smoother keel than KOL.

Loulou

veddertown wrote:

Interesting you went with Kings Of Leon and The Black Keys. I loved the first two KOL albums and the third was ok. I can't stomach what they've become now. Compare rootsy blues like Red Morning Light to shopping mall anthems like Sex Is On Fire and there's a good enough reason to turn away but to hate them for it is a bit much. Just don't buy it. The Black Keys however I'll politely disagree with. They still have their roots firmly in their original sound heavily influenced by blues and soul. It maybe sounds different to each individual but I think TBK have evolved on a smoother keel than KOL.

Yeah I agree, KOL's first 2 albums were great and I still enjoyed the 3rd. I have just gone off them purely based on musical changes but to stop liking a band simply because they become popular is kinda dumb to me.

titchinello

metallica is another classic example, when they came out with ...and justice for all, some people started to turn. then when the black album came out, and the band exploded into popularity, loads of people including a lot of people i know where like you said.. fuck those guys.

facepollution

veddertown wrote:

Interesting you went with Kings Of Leon and The Black Keys. I loved the first two KOL albums and the third was ok. I can't stomach what they've become now. Compare rootsy blues like Red Morning Light to shopping mall anthems like Sex Is On Fire and there's a good enough reason to turn away but to hate them for it is a bit much. Just don't buy it. The Black Keys however I'll politely disagree with. They still have their roots firmly in their original sound heavily influenced by blues and soul. It maybe sounds different to each individual but I think TBK have evolved on a smoother keel than KOL.

I agree that Sex On Fire is shit, but that album had songs like Closer, Manhattan and Cold Desert which don't fit the shopping mall mould.

White Discussion

Really enjoy the back & forth with this. Like I said I everyone has an opinion about music and what they like. KOL did change somewhat but alot of the same characteristics are still in the music. I love Cold Desert also. Even on their latest there is some great tunes that aren't on the radio. No Money, The End & pickup truck are great.

TBK are great but man the bluesy early stuff sounds way different to me than what they've been doing lately. I love it all but Think there sound has changed a ton.

Metallica is another great example, they continued to rock but exposure turned some off.

Lifted

mookeywrench wrote:

Kings of Leon - changed their style more than 'just a bit'
Black Keys -They've always been mediocre, Brothers was a solid album, but everything before (and now after) has been a steaming pile of ho-hum. That'll be the source of their backlash.

Some bands aren't fit for arenas, some bands attract the wrong crowds which can be disastrous at an arena show, some bands are past their creative peak when they finally 'make it'.

I can support a band getting popular, that's good for them, but that doesn't give me reason to be along for the ride.

this is very accurate.

i especially like how you noted that the black keys have always been mediocre. i would suggest the same for kings of leon.

i think another factor for why the op is getting this impression may be that the detractors don't feel the need to voice their opinion about an unknown band. once an act hits the mainstream, they become more polarizing, which of course is going to make the people who aren't "buying it" just a bit louder. who's going to go around trashing bands that are playing small clubs? probably not too many...even though there are a lot of bad ones.

SatansFuton

I've seen it quite a bit myself. And yes, there are different reasons for somebody turning on them. Changes in style, attitude, etc. But I have had some experience with people who simply turn just because everybody else now likes them. It's almost as if they want the band to always be their little secret, even if it means the band stays dirt poor and can't pay their bills or whatever. And maybe that plays into it, they like the idea of the starving artist, just struggling to put out music, and once they actually make it big the band loses that image. All the rock star excess and glitz of the 70's and 80's sort of wore out its welcome with the arrival of the 90's (though pop/rap star excess is still acceptable) and the image of the poor garage band, or the indie band who care for nothing but making music, and stuff like that began to emerge. And it's hard to keep that image when you're making pretty good money.

Some of the people I know may have bailed on bands for a change in sound or other forms of "selling out", but they would often stop listening to the early stuff they once loved. I guess they found the success so off-putting that they no longer even wanted to listen to the stuff they once loved. I don't know if it's just because everybody else loved it, or if it's like they feel the band abandoned their values (of being poor I guess) and bailed for something bigger and better, or what. It often seems like Tall Poppy Syndrome to me, but I can't crawl around in people's heads and figure out what's really going on. And I don't want to generalize, because I'm sure many people aren't that shallow, and really just don't like the change in sound or something.

musicismylife78

i dont think the idea of sellout exists anymore, or at least not to the extent it once did. back in the day, if you were percieved as making commercial art, you'd be ridden out of town on rails. Youd lose all integrity and people would be embarrased for and by you. The most dominant genre of the last decade has been indie rock. hipster music. you couldnt come up with a more commercial or popular music genre in 2012. Being a hipster is something every single person on earth knows about. my mom is a fan of the decemberists. my parents saw bitzen trapper live. my mom owned The Suburbs before it won a grammy. you can name 100 different indie bands and they invariably, have had their song on a tv show, or in a movie, or have a commercial. Jack White did a commercial for Coke. The Shins for Mcdonalds. Modest Mouse for beer and a minivan. Iron and Wine for m and m's. Postal service for the USPS. And on and on.

all those artists are tremendously popular, and all are respected by fans and critics in spite or despite their success in marketing, despite their popularity, despite the fact they are commercial bands.

I think its a result of file sharing. Bands have to make money. They no longer make money via cd sales, so they have to make up that money they would have earned. and i think people are conscious of this. they know that. Additionally, radio and MTV are no longer ways most people are exposed to new bands. So bands who do sell their songs to tv, or movies, or make commercials, are really just doing what any smart band would do, which is to expose their music to an audience. Any band that has a new album coming out, i dont care who you are, to not take the songs to tv, or movie, i think thats just crazy.

James Mercer wasnt ridden out of portland, Jack White isnt a pariah because of the coke commercial, Isaac Brock isnt hated. Even Kevin Barnes who did an Outback Stakehouse commercial, he isnt castigated or isolated.

i will respect fugazi until i die, but i do think there are many ways of running a band. i dont think anyone thinks less of Sam Beam because his music was used on greys anatomy. And i dont think anyone is embarassed by Death Cab because they went on The OC.

The fans turning on KOL i can sense thats happened, but I dont think thats happened with the Black Keys.

The idea that fans no longer like an artist when they make it big i think is an invented idea. Anyone here been to an Arcade Fire or Bon Iver gig lately? An Adele gig? These are some of the biggest bands in the world, and i think they all retain artistic integrity despite their success

SatansFuton

musicismylife78 wrote:

The idea that fans no longer like an artist when they make it big i think is an invented idea.

Because you haven't seen it? Clearly there are still lots of people at those gigs, we're talking about the small percentage of people who move on to something else after the mass appeal begins. Be it for practical reasons, or the mass appeal itself.

musicismylife78

SatansFuton wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

The idea that fans no longer like an artist when they make it big i think is an invented idea.

Because you haven't seen it? Clearly there are still lots of people at those gigs, we're talking about the small percentage of people who move on to something else after the mass appeal begins. Be it for practical reasons, or the mass appeal itself.

what you are talking about exists. But, my point is valid and true. plus, i dont think you could even measure the loss of fans. A fan may be just as likely to turn away from an indie band that becomes popular because they outgrew the music, or dont listen to it anymore, or found other bands they like better, or it reminds them of a breakup and they cant listen to that band, or their boyfriend or wife dislikes that band so they dont listen to them anymore, or they dislike their live show, or they dislike their politics, or they met the band and think they are rude. The point is theres a million reasons why fans could turn on a band. to isolate one reason as being THE reason I dont think is possible.

Bon Iver and Arcade Fire should be the most hated bands in the hipster universe. As far as I know, and Im a rabid fan of both, no one turned on Bon Iver after he became friends with Kanye and recorded some tracks with him. By the time Kanye recorded with justin, For Emma was already the cult hit that it is today. When Bon Iver put out his latest record, it was among the most highly and well recieved albums of the year. Appeared near the top of nearly every major publications top albums list, and I hear no reports of mass exodus of fans at gigs, or people shouting "you sellout!" between songs. As he now has a grammy, I hear no reports of people, no one on here or elsewhere posted saying "justin is big now, im done with him". In fact, before the grammys, justin made a Bushmills alcohol ad. He was called out, not by fans, but by The Avalanches another band. No one came to support the Avalanches stance on the issue.

Additionally, Arcade Fire, have grown in popularity, exponentially since Funeral. Ive seen it first hand. They went from that band who Bowie was pushing on friends and family, to winning Album of the Year, and headlining festivals and being one of the biggest and successful bands in indie, or music overall. I have no doubt that when i see them live promoting the next record, album 4, that the crowds will be bigger, and that fans will not have turned on them, and neither will critics.

I think this change is pretty self evident. James Mercer liscenced Shins songs to Mcdonalds. Even 15 years ago that would have been an unforgivable sin, and fans would have left screaming for the exits. Mercer would be the laughing stock. Instead, The Shins like Arcade Fire, are big tent indie. One of the most successful and popular indie bands around. When natalie Portman said their music would change lives in Garden State, Mercer wasnt derided by fans, the gigs got bigger and bigger, sales got bigger and bigger, and their profile got bigger.

Things have changed. And i think most people, most fans accept that bands need to make money, since they wont get it via record sales. And, as I said, the fact that tv and movies and commercials are essentially the new radio only plays into that. I cant remember the last time i found out about a new band via the radio or mtv. But when Greys anatomy airs, or when Gossip Girl airs, when Bones airs, or House, or Scrubs, etc... go to the youtube of that song used in the show, and comment after comment are "im here because of the show". I personally have found out about tons of bands this way. I hear the song on the show, and go youtube the song. This is the way I think many people find new music.

All i know is I dont think the "sellout" factor exists for most people. Thats the stereotype of hipsters ive always found pretty naive and untrue. Go to Pitchfork right now, there are headlines of The national, and Sufjan, Patti Smith, Fiona Apple. They still cover Grizzly Bear and Animal Collective. And Arcade Fire. And Iron and WIne, And Bright Eyes. These bands arent small. They arent some little tiny indie band. All of them are huge bands who could play to huge crowds. Whatever you think of Pitchfork as an entity, they certainly set the trend for what a certain demographic listen to. And let me assure you, its not all tiny indie bands with 20 fans.

SatansFuton

I don't think anybody is talking about the general public abandoning these bands en masse. Just talking about a small group of people, or in my personal experience a handful of people I know. I don't think anybody is saying that Arcade Fire can't fill a venue. Clearly they can. I think the point of the thread is just about certain individuals who get turned off of these bands once they become successful. For whatever reason. I agree, there can be other factors, I was saying that in an earlier post. But I've known some people who just flat out refuse to listen to what "everybody" listens to. When these bands are smaller they like them, then once they get big (even if they don't change all that much) they roll their eyes just at the mention of them.

musicismylife78

SatansFuton wrote:

I don't think anybody is talking about the general public abandoning these bands en masse. Just talking about a small group of people, or in my personal experience a handful of people I know. I don't think anybody is saying that Arcade Fire can't fill a venue. Clearly they can. I think the point of the thread is just about certain individuals who get turned off of these bands once they become successful. For whatever reason. I agree, there can be other factors, I was saying that in an earlier post. But I've known some people who just flat out refuse to listen to what "everybody" listens to. When these bands are smaller they like them, then once they get big (even if they don't change all that much) they roll their eyes just at the mention of them.

i just think thats hard to suss out. I guess we just interact with different groups of people. In terms of new bands in the last decade, or 5 years even, ive never heard anyone i know, or seen online on this board or elsewhere, anyone say "im done with this band because they got too commercial, or become popular, or are famous now as opposed to the days when they were an indie band". I have no doubt those people exist, people who disown a band when they do letterman or appear on a commercial, or become popular, but I just dont think thats the general atmosphere overall. The loss of fans bands may experience because of this, i dont think is any greater than it was in the past if bands got popular and people disliked that. Head and the Heart is a great band. They had an insane last year. They went from being a band on Sub Pop to doing Conan, and having their song being used as the last song ever played on Chuck. I dont think their fanbase cares. I dont think many fans burned their copies of their debut because it was used on a popular tv show. I dont think that factors into peoples minds much anymore.

I respect bands with integrity. But theres only one Fugazi for a reason. Most bands , in fact no band other than Fugazi ever went that route. And they are legends and heroes as a result and for good reason.

Plus I think the entire culture of music and bands now is accepting of popularity, and commercialism, and "selling out". The general feeling around Seattle, isnt that Head and the Heart sold out and arent good music because they are now popular. Nor do I think that many fans are turned off by this.

I think the general feeling nowadays is that bands no longer sell out, largely because as i said, bands need that money. I can be fairly certain the money James Mercer made off that Mcdonalds ad, or the money Ben Gibbard made off the OC gig, wasnt used to buy a jet plane, or a yacht, or some 50 room mansion. They used it to pay rent, to pay studio time, to fund the next record etc... With bands like KOL, I love their music, but I think they do do these things. I think they live the rock and roll lifestyle to the max. U2 the same way. The resentment people have about these bands i think is based in part on the fact most people, especially in a recession, dislike seeing overt wealth flaunted like that.

Thats the whole point. Unless you are Kanye or Jay-z you really arent making much money in music. I dont think Isaac Brock makes a ton of money, nor do I think Sam Beam does, nor do I think Colin Meloy does, or Joanna Newsom, or the Fleet Foxes or Grizzly Bear even though every single one of them is hugely popular. The fact all of them are popular and arent buying Rolls' tells us something. Popularity is alot harder to quantify or qualify nowadays. And certainly just because you are successful in music doesnt mean you then have the money as a result.

I think generally people dont care if bands become popular anymore, because of all the things i mentioned. the insane amount of quality bands who were discovered by average music fans via soundtracking tv shows or movies. i think people know the result that this has, that when a band is in Greys Anatomy, they become popular. i dont think most people are traditional rabid music fans. most people are casual music fans. most people dont find out about the new hip band via a blog. most people dont have that time. They find out about a band once they are big. So I think that plays a part in it as well. Its hard to be angry at a band for selling out, if you hear them for the first time and they are popular already, or at that moment millions of people are becoming fans. I think our generation and the new generation are used to this happening. More so than other generations were. Finally, I think when bands become popular people think of bands changing their sound to appeal to a wider audience and watering down the content, and making music to become rich. I think what the last decade taught us is that bands can be popular, and have commercials and sell Coca Cola, and Mcdonalds, and On Star, and OutBack steakhouse, and its okay, largely because no one thinks Kevin Barnes makes his music for Outback. No one thinks Isaac Brock makes music to appeal to corporations. No one thinks Jack White makes music so he can be rich and be a millionaire off endorsing Coca Cola to others. People know that those actions were just to get money to pay rent and to live.

The type of stuff we saw when Metallica made the Black Album, you;d never see that now. When bands become popular nowadays I dont think people really care. Its so tied into everything else, that I dont think it really matters. If people disliked Kiss Each other Clean, I didnt get the sense it was because they thought Sam Beam was popular. Although he certainly is.

No Coder

I think people turn off some bands due to them feeling they have lost some connection with the artist which "they loved first, before they were big". They feel cheated that everyone else is in on the act, but didn't do the hard yards with the band when they were'nt popular.

I think part of it is the way you look at music. I have changed my mindset to music over my life, especially from when I was a teenager. I remember loving Pantera when they first came out with Cowboys from Hell and then Vulgar Display of Power. Once Far Beyond Driven came out and they toured, there was all these "pretty girls with Pantera shirts on" and I was devastated. They had stolen my band from me and I felt that was the band's fault.

I no longer give a shit who likes the music I like, and I do like a large variety.

Reading about KOL, I do think they have changed quite dramatically from their first 2 albums. I actually love BOTT and their first 2 albums, and I also like at least half the songs off their 2 latest albums, BUT they did come out and say prior to "Only by the night" that they wanted songs to fill a stadium. That is exactly what they went out and did. They then didn't like what happened next. I went to that tour, and you could tell they did not like the crowd and the fact that half had no idea about their earlier albums. This then resulted in some poor gigs. I have seen them 3 times live and the first 2 were great, but their energy just wasn't there during the "Only by the Night Tour". That is the way they have taken their career and good luck to them, but they have sort of lost me. It has nothing to do with them being popular, in fact, I was estatic for them, but they have changed their music and have behaved like pratts recently (IMO).

Each to their own. I love the music I love and coudn't gove a shit what anyone thinks.

Lifted

musicismylife78 wrote:

SatansFuton wrote:

musicismylife78 wrote:

The idea that fans no longer like an artist when they make it big i think is an invented idea.

Because you haven't seen it? Clearly there are still lots of people at those gigs, we're talking about the small percentage of people who move on to something else after the mass appeal begins. Be it for practical reasons, or the mass appeal itself.

what you are talking about exists. But, my point is valid and true. plus, i dont think you could even measure the loss of fans. A fan may be just as likely to turn away from an indie band that becomes popular because they outgrew the music, or dont listen to it anymore, or found other bands they like better, or it reminds them of a breakup and they cant listen to that band, or their boyfriend or wife dislikes that band so they dont listen to them anymore, or they dislike their live show, or they dislike their politics, or they met the band and think they are rude. The point is theres a million reasons why fans could turn on a band. to isolate one reason as being THE reason I dont think is possible.

you could've just stopped there. very valid points in this paragraph. nuff said.