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
"All I Ever Knew" available now in print and digital formats at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and iBooks.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
'Cause you don't give blood and take it back again.
Comments
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.
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.
Going outside my younger self's comfort zone, in other words, was the answer for me. Your mileage may, of course, vary.
Including Korn!
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.
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
I will walk w/my face blood
I will walk w/my shadow flag
Memories back when she was smooth and strong
and waiting for the world to come along...
Eddie solo Vegas Oct 31,Nov 1 2012
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.