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

Jason P

No Coder wrote:

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.

I think that is a good analysis of the human psychology involved on how people will turn on a band.

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:

cowboypjfan

I think a lot of bands turn on their fans when they become popular. That's the only time I'll turn on a band unless they start putting out subpar records(PJ excluded because I still listen after Yield )

jjflash

Who am I? It's a question we all have to ask ourselves from time to time and bands are no different. I'd imagine fame exaggerates the answers. Part of my point being as bands achieve success as defined by popularity the question of "Who am I?" may tend to find it's answers in the majority/masses rather than from the band itself. So, the music, in this case, tends to become a response to what it's supposed to be than to what it actually is. A good example of this, IMHO, is in your case studies: KOL (supposed to be music nowadays) vs. TBK (is music). Another good example is PJ. At the height of their popularity, instead of releasing what everyone was anticipating, they delved into themselves and created No Code, and in the process (successfully methinks) shucked the masses . Flipside example: Cornell's Scream. I still don't know that the hell that's supposed to be :? . Radiohead is the benchmark in being able to achieve success and consistently deliver for a ridiculously extended amount of time relevant music that defines what is. They are the Apple of the music world. They create the future.

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.

Stardog3..

White Discussion wrote:

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.

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.

PKTrekGirl

I think there are a number of reasons for losing interest in a band - I don't think all equate to 'turning on them' though.

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'.

musicismylife78

i used to be someone who would only listen to underground hip hop, or music with explicitly political statements, or only if i agreed with the bands politics, Or only if they werent mainstream. And as I said, Fugazi deserve to be worshipped. But theres only 1 fugazi, and there probably only ever will be 1 fugazi. Every other band has sold out. Sure there are a few exceptions, people like Tom Waits, or Neil. But by and large, every single band has sold out, and become popular at some point.

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

musicismylife78

PKTrekGirl wrote:

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'.

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.

PKTrekGirl

musicismylife78 wrote:

PKTrekGirl wrote:

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'.

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.

musicismylife78

i have no doubt when arcade fire or bon iver got popular some fans ditched them. but by and large i'd say the percentage of people who did that, compared to other generations, is way lower. I just think people are way more accepting of it. They know its inevitable Bon Iver and Arcade Fire, or whatever indie band pops up next week, they know that band will be popular, or will be on tv or in movies. Its a given. Im one of those people that keeps up with the latest buzz band of the week, the latest indie band hype. I know most people dont have that time, and if you arent keeping up in that way, you arent going to be exposed to bands until and unless they break into the mainstream and become popular. Death cab was a successful indie band prior to 2003, but when they released trans, and then were seth cohens favorite band on the oc, the band became huge.

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

catefrances

musicismylife78 wrote:

i used to be someone who would only listen to underground hip hop, or music with explicitly political statements, or only if i agreed with the bands politics, Or only if they werent mainstream. And as I said, Fugazi deserve to be worshipped. But theres only 1 fugazi, and there probably only ever will be 1 fugazi. Every other band has sold out. Sure there are a few exceptions, people like Tom Waits, or Neil. But by and large, every single band has sold out, and become popular at some point....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYWz8G9a3qQ

dustinpardue

chadwick wrote:

it is because people are fucking stupid and useless

hahaha, you sir are correct!

Of course it's not fair to those bands. It's unfornate that some of their fans are those same people who think nothing is ever cool. Remember those kids, especially in the 90s? These are the same people that probably work at rags like Pitchfork now. I wrote about these people in one of my articles:
http://www.examiner.com/music-in-winsto ... e-the1990s

Lifted

dustinpardue wrote:

chadwick wrote:

it is because people are fucking stupid and useless

hahaha, you sir are correct!

Of course it's not fair to those bands. It's unfornate that some of their fans are those same people who think nothing is ever cool. Remember those kids, especially in the 90s? These are the same people that probably work at rags like Pitchfork now. I wrote about these people in one of my articles:
http://www.examiner.com/music-in-winsto ... e-the1990s

i give you props for taking the time to put your thoughts down. but that is about it. one of the most assuming, narrow-minded, self-centered, and baseless articles i have ever had the displeasure of reading.

if you want people to take you seriously as a writer, which i assume you do, i would suggest doing some research if you are going to write something like this. in addition, you made way too many personal injections; most of which seemed to degrade a group of people of which you don't associate with. really obnoxious writing in general.

oh...and maybe a few more paragraph breaks. that was exhausting.

PKTrekGirl

dustinpardue wrote:

chadwick wrote:

it is because people are fucking stupid and useless

hahaha, you sir are correct!

Of course it's not fair to those bands. It's unfornate that some of their fans are those same people who think nothing is ever cool. Remember those kids, especially in the 90s? These are the same people that probably work at rags like Pitchfork now. I wrote about these people in one of my articles:
http://www.examiner.com/music-in-winsto ... e-the1990s

Interesting article. I'm not sure I agree with you on all points (for one thing, Korn is better than Limpbizkit, and is equally rage-filled :P ), but for starters, you are a good writer, which is already a huge improvement over most current-day 'journalists', many of whom seem incapable of writing anything longer than a tweet without ADD setting in.

I have actually found some good music over the years since 1997...but you have to look harder for it, and some of the places you have to look are not where you'd expect. For example, I was not a particular metal fan in the 80's and early 90's - hard rock and later what we referred to as grunge (yeah, yeah, I know...but it's an easy descriptor for my purposes here) was really more my style. And I too was attracted to the 'music with a soul' aspect of bands like Pearl Jam (which is how I got here). But when alternative started going more and more vanilla in the late 90's, I eventually stopped listening to the radio and buying CDs for a while, unless they were my 'old favorite' bands like Pearl Jam, Springsteen, etc. There were a few bright spots (Beck, as one example) where you could see some real innovation and originality...but for the most part, I counted myself out, there for a while.

I was lamenting this sad state of affairs online one day, though, and one of my friends suggested that I make a move toward metal. It took some getting used to at first...but in hindsight, it was a good move for me. I have found some good musicians there - real talent. And now I don't care what kind of drivel alternative is putting out. There are occasional bright spots in alternative, even now...but when it comes to new music coming out, I'm more interested in 'harder' hard rock/metal....and have even gone back and educated myself on bands that were around most of the 90's, but where not really fully on my radar then because I was not looking in the right place - Tool is the chief example that comes to mind in this category. Yeah, of course I knew they existed in the 90's...but never really gave them a chance because I was trying so hard to like what was coming out in alt rock. I only circled back and really listened to them carefully in the early 2000's. Glad I did that!

Going outside my younger self's comfort zone, in other words, was the answer for me. Your mileage may, of course, vary.

Including Korn!

musicismylife78

i just think its a completely different world, and to look at it as sell out and non sell out, commercial vs independent etc... isnt true in 2012. I was 7 in 1991 and 10 in 1994. i heard grunge from my cooler older cousins and got into them because thats what what my idols were listening to. Of course I remember watching the videos on tv as a kid. and getting vitalogy as a christmas present. But i wasnt into those bands before they got big, only to have the whole of seattle turned into a scene that mothers and fathers and grnadparents knew about.

Along with the grunge scene was the punk attitude. And that attitude effected me greatly. my political and worldviews were greatly shaped by it. The ethics, and morals, and beliefs, how the bands conducted themselves, those were my early models on ethics and morality. I have no doubt that this is a big reason why i am who i am, and what i believe is what i believe.

But that isnt a reality in 2012. Kids today have access to music in a way I didnt in 1991 or 1994. Nowadays, even tiny bands have their albums leaked and are available to download free online. By the time most people hear bands on tv, soundtracking the latest Bones episode, that band is being talked about online on boards, or friends are texting about the band or the song they heard on tv. The idea of small bands doesnt exist in the same way it once did.

Kurt and Ed and Ian Mackaye and Uncle Neil all had qualms and issues about liscencing music and their image and art for commercials and tv and movies. And as i said i deeply respect that. But bands in 2012, by and large dont consider that. Not because they dont care. But because they dont make money off record sales. So they need the extra income. And I think fans consciously are aware of this and accept it. Bands in 2012 can be just as ethical as bands in the 90's were. And they are. The music is as emotionally powerful, and meaningful as it ever was. Music means just as much as it did before.

You by and large dont hear discussions of fans turning on bands because its not a reality, generally. I dont think the majority of teens or 20 somethings who consume or spend the majority of their lives consumed in music give a damn whether bands are big or small, famous or not famous. They just want good music. So no, I dont think what you are talking about is a reality. I dont think that when Bon Iver became big fans turned their backs on him. I certainly didnt see or hear anything to suggest this was the case. Same with Arcade Fire.

You are thinking about things in terms of times gone by. back then, you generally did have small bands who suddenly became huge.

The other day Pitchfork recommended the new Lotus Plaza album. Its a side project of the less famous Deerhunter group member. Are they huge? no, but prior to the other day, i think they were pretty unknown. Given the traffic Pitchfork gets, im positive, as a result of the exposure of just one review on pitchfork, the band was near the top of What.cd and other torrent sites and other boards requesting the album, InSound an indie online record shop listed it among its best selling items, and im positive the band will be reviewed by press now who wouldnt have otherwise noticed. Im also positive the bands facebook and twitter recieved a high amount of traffic. Is the band Britney or u2 huge? no, but they are popular now. Thats the reality in the now. I cant see anyone disowning Lotus Plaza because of this.

musicismylife78

i also think you need to specify and narrow it down. You wouldnt see a 50 year old, or 40 year old or even a 20 year old turn on a band. its a specific age group-teenagers.

And my music taste at that age was popular music. I listened to modern rock radio. And sure, it was catchy music, but was stuff like Puddle of Mudd or Nickelback, or that type of stuff that great? part of it was i didnt have access to high speed internet or filesharing then, and i was listening to stuff my peers were listening to. trying to fit in i guess. As are most teens and high schoolers. Or trying to find an identity.

I used to view independent hip hop music and mainstream hip hop as somehow different. That the people who bought Dead Prez or De la or Mos Def were radical activists ready for the revolution and that liking Jay Z or Eminem was like supporting the enemy or something. The truth is, in the years since those days in high school, ive learned to enjoy music thats not political and is mainstream, and ive learned to see not all music thats mainstream is bad. That we need both, the stuff to make us dance and have fun, and the stuff with a message.

I guess what im trying to say is, we should be asking teens this question, not people on the board. But its so hard to deal with it in modern terms. Nowadays someone could upload a video of them playing a Bon Iver cover and the next day it could have 10,000 views and go viral. The idea of things being small or unknown, or not big is just not a reality.

But i think it all comes down to identity. how we identify with the music. If a band writes music that seems to me for and about us personally, and we put energy into being a fan, which means literally a fanatic, it takes over our lives. And when a band changes styles, or alters their sound either in a bid to try and go mainstream or to try something new musically, it can be scary and alienating. It can be scary for people of all ages. Whats worried me most about the new Shins album is the fact Mercers lyrics seem to be less about some sort of spiritual crisis i could identify with on the previous 3 albums. And im 28. So that fear is always there. Along with it is the creative artists mindset and makeup, which is constant reinvention, trying new things, advancing, morphing, changing, evolving, experimenting. There are people who will never be satisfied with Radiohead until they make another Kid A or Ok computer. People who wont be happy with Bruce until he makes another Born to Run or Darkness. When bands change that can literally through our whole lives out of whack

AlbertaGirl70_

Anyone else hoping that when Arcade Fire is on the SNL season finale next Saturday,that Ed will make a surprise appearance?? I am the eternal optimist

Dru_Cortez

The answer to the OPs question is NO.
The only exception I can possibly come up with
is if the band in question specifically wrongs a person in some way.

Is there anything wrong with liking, adoring, worshipping a band
when I was young,
then turning away from that band because my tastes have changed?
Absolutely not!

What would be wrong would be slandering and slamming a band
that I outgrew just because I outgrew them.
Popularity should not even be a factor.
I understand + agree with the posters that wrote about
losing their secret little band to the masses-
there IS something wistful about that.
Staying relevant means evolution,
+ evolution means change, which may or may not be pleasant,
but is necessary.

Awesome topic; I'm bringin' it back yo!
Cheers.