Is it fair to bands that people turn on them when popular?
White Discussion
Melissa Texas Posts: 2,812
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
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
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
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.
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.
Dublin 02 Arena - 22/6/10. Belfast Odyssey Arena - 23/6/10. London Hyde Park - 25/6/10. Berlin Wuhlheide - 30/6/10.
Manchester MEN - 20/06/12. Manchester MEN - 21/06/12
Adelaide 1998
Adelaide 2003
Adelaide 2006 night 1
Adelaide 2006 night 2
Adelaide 2009
Melbourne 2009
Christchurch NZ 2009
Eddie Vedder, Adelaide 2011
PJ20 USA 2011 night 1
PJ20 USA 2011 night 2
Adelaide BIG DAY OUT 2014
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
*BEC, Brisbane, March 1995
*BEC, Brisbane, March 1998
*BEC, Brisbane, November 2006
*QSAC, Brisbane November 2009
*EV Solo, QPAC, Brisbane March 10 and 12 2011
*Big Day Out, Gold Coast, 19 Jan 2014
*EV Solo, QPAC, Brisbane, 22,23 & 25 Feb 2014
you could've just stopped there. very valid points in this paragraph. nuff said.
On the plus side for the band, it let's you know you've made it.
I think the same thing happens in sports too. It's why everyone hates the Lakers and Yankees and roots for the underdog ... such as the Red Sox at one point ... but now everyone hates the Sox too. :think:
Confession time: One of my guilty pleasures is Coldplay. For the same reason you ask the question in the title of the thread, it's no longer "cool" to like Coldplay. People hate on them because they're so popular yet I don't think they're making music seismically different that when they were a young band creating a swell in the indie world.
To answer your question, I think it's fair that people turn on bands when the end goal is popularity and authenticity is the casualty. Other times, it's not necessarily fair, it's just us being elitist music snobs. I can't imagine the challenge that fame presents regarding being available enough to satisfy the press and social media while remaining insular enough to stay true to who you are both musically and as a human.
I agree with you. I think some of KOL's songs are still similar to what they were putting out before and really good. The albums, collectively, sound a little different due to those few songs people point out sound "different", commercial, etc. etc.
This is an interesting thread.
I was thinking about the same concept. While out, a few people commented Gotye (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy7c6ghHAeY&ob=av3n) has been "ruined" now that a local Top 40 radio station is playing that song. Have they sat down and listened to his whole CD? No. It's pretty good. Yet he's "ruined". I agree with the fact that people seem to follow this trend that it's cool to hate on bands or artists because they are popular to the masses. I think a lot of people just do that shit to seem knowledgable, "cool", trendy, fit in, etc. etc.
If it makes people feel better- more power to them.
Using the examples brought up: KOL and TBK: Speaking for myself, I have always been a very casual fan of both Kings of Leon and The Black Keys. Kings of Leon had a few good songs...but nothing that would make me rush out and buy all of their records or F5 like a crazy person to get tix to their shows. And in truth, while I like The Black Keys 'sound' well enough, to me, all of their music sounds the same. I don't see them trying anything much new, but more riding the same wave for as far as it will take them. That's okay - their choice. But you have to do more than put out what is essentially the same record over and over to keep me interested.
Now to me, those kinds of reasons for flagging interest in a band are very different from the hipster mentality, where "If it becomes popular, that's when we start to hate it." I never understood that...because what the hipsters have done is to turn the 'against the rest of the pack' mentality into what amounts to simply a new pack. Which sort of defeats the purpose of being 'against the rest of the pack'.
that was about 7 years ago. Now i like all music. There are no guilty pleasures in my view. Just pleasure. And my music tastes prove that. Yes, im into whatever band Pitchfork or Stereogum talk about, but i keep an ear to pop radio, as well as modern rock, and even country. I listen to Jay-Z and Eminem and also independent artists. I like Coldplay and u2 and the Killers, but also like unsigned singer songwriters.
Part of the reason I changed my views on things was the reasons ive outlined in previous posts. Bands in general no longer frown upon the idea of becoming popular, and neither do fans. I think fans and bands both think of marketing and popularity as necessary. No band is ever going to live up to the standards of Fugazi. And once you realize that, you begin to accept bands as they are, and you can accept mainstream bands like Coldplay, and accept the small indie bands as one in the same. Thats the whole point i was trying to make. In 2001 or 2002, when i was getting into underground hip hop, the lines were clearly drawn. You had eminem and Jay-z and ludacris and mainstream hip hop and you had underground artists like Jurassic 5 or mos def or talib kweli, dead prez. In 2012, every single one of those artists is mainstream. Hip hop fans reguardless of allegiance know those bands, and they are popular. The notion of independent hip hop and non independent is gone. Thats why i view this as a false premise. Your positing that there is a seperation between indie bands and mainstream bands. I see that line as very blurry and maybe even non existent. So the idea of fans turning on bands that become popular just is not going on, because of that. If you find out about a band from watching a tv show that 10 million other people are watching, the line between indie bands and commercial bands is blurred. Same with Pitchfork. Millions of people read that site. When they recommend a new band, millions of other folks are reading that same thing. The lines are again blurred.
I think part of the reason why fans turn on bands once they become popular is the perceieved idea that the fans of the band while they were on an indie label and had 2,000 fans, that the music was more real, more true, more honest, more raw, and that the art was made for arts sake. I think when a band becomes popular, the fan base may not be as hardcore. Teenyboppers and parents may even start to like popular bands. And the music is perceievd as not as real. The idea of real fans versus fake or scene fans starts to become an issue. The integrity of the fan who liked the band when they were on a small indie label and sold 10,000 copies of their album total is never questioned. But once the band becomes huge, people start accusing others of getting into the band because its a cool thing to do, or that people want to fit in, or that people want to be a part of a scene
I just dont experience this as reality. I am a self identified hipster. Read pitchfork religiously. I can attest to the fact that the bands pitchfork and others spotlight and recommend, and cover are not merely bands who no one knows about. Neither do they ridicule and turn on a band when they become popular. This just isnt hipster culture in 2012. it might have been 10 years ago, it isnt now. Bon Iver, Kanye, Bright Eyes, Iron and Wine, First Aid Kit, etc... are all covered by hipster sites, and all are praised. For all the bluster about pitchfork and others turning on bands when they become successful, ive read a fair amount of reviews from Pitchfork and Stereogum over the years. Say what you want about what they cover, or the bands they cover, or how fickle or non fickle they are, but ive never read a review from a hipster site, that says "this band is popular now, they suck". It just doesnt happen.
i think people confuse trying to find and expose new bands, with not being a fan of bands that become successful. The Suburbs was among the most acclaimed albums of 2010 from fans and critics, and by then Arcade Fire were huge.
I just have a major problem with someone suggesting hipsters dislike bands that become popular. Animal Collective, The XX, Grizzly Bear, Bon Iver, you go to these shows and you will see a hipster audience. When they became popular hipsters didnt start to turn their back on the bands. Hell, right now, Lana Del Rey, a singer Pitchfork promoted before she became famous, before the SNL gig, before American Idol, before the scathing press. Today, months after all that, she;s right now the top story on pitchfork. And she's famous.
Ive always found that stereotype lazy.
As I have found it lazy to like a band, simply because Pitchfork recommends it.
You see, I've been through all of this before. I grew up in a time when Rolling Stone had the same reputation that Pitchfork has now. They made or broke careers, with nothing more than a good or bad (or no!) record review in their 'cutting edge' publication (and yes, at one time, Rolling Stone was 'cutting edge'). They took no-name bands...or bands who had been around for a while and had never really made it onto the Big Stage...and with one review made them big. And the chief audience they used to MAKE these bands big? Were the people who read Rolling Stone "religiously", just like you read Pitchfork now.
Yeah...they all thought they were hip, and cutting edge, blah, blah, blah...but in hindsight, they were one step away from mainstream. Because by so many people giving a publication that much power over their likes and dislikes, they MADE that publication mainstream.
And this is what I see Pitchfork on the cusp of now. Through no fault of their own, mind you. It's just that success breeds power. And power breeds money. And money breeds mainstream. Its the way of the world, because people are social animals...and LOVE bandwagons.
In truth, 'hipster culture' means very little to me, because I don't believe that any group that is large enough to HAVE a 'culture' is conducive to independent thought...which was what I thought the original hipsters were about. So just like Rolling Stone and Pitchfork, their own success is sort of their undoing, when it comes to their original mission and objective as the standard-bearer of independent thought.
Bandwagons like 'reading Pitchfork religiously' are not conducive to true independent thought, IMO. The fallacy is in thinking that this particular publication is somehow 'different'. Because it's not.
Once you are powerful enough to BECOME the taste maker, you are one step away from mainstream, with your big toe in the water. And if you don't believe me...get back to me 10 years from now when Pitchfork has the same 'over the hill mainstream' reputation that Rolling Stone has now. Trust me...you see it alot better with a few years of hindsight.
the amount of fans death cab had prior to the oc, was small. so the change in fans leaving would be small as well.
I cant think of any band in the indie scene where ive personally seen, witnessed or heard any person ever saying "im done with this band, they became popular, so they arent cool now". ive never heard that, and as i said, I havent acted that was myself in 7 years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYWz8G9a3qQ
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say