Why do we hate it when our bands become successful?

tonadax

To turn a phrase from Morrissey, Why do alternative fans turn on bands that acheive a measure of success? I've seen fans slagging good new releases from the likes of The White Stripes, Wilco, Arcade Fire and Modest Mouse. The underlying complaint is that success has ruined them. Any comments?

JOEJOEJOE

tonadax wrote:

To turn a phrase from Morrissey, Why do alternative fans turn on bands that acheive a measure of success? I've seen fans slagging good new releases from the likes of The White Stripes, Wilco, Arcade Fire and Modest Mouse. The underlying complaint is that success has ruined them. Any comments?

Many people feel that populartity causes them and the band to lose the hipness and the indie cred factor....it also makes it tougher to see them in a small venue!

I used to love the GooGoo Dolls, but once they became huge, they opted to change their musical stylings....no hard feelings, but I moved-on.

I am a huge REM fan, and when "The One I Love" became a hit, I was happy, however, it was weird having to explain to people that they have much better stuff then the aforementioned hit single!

musicismylife78

1. bands that get huge tend to turn to more commercial music. There are exceptions of course, Uncle Neil, Bruce, Pearl Jam and Sonic Youth for example. But bands that tend to be huge, tend to have a more commercial fanbase, and therefore arent going to make experimental and noncommercially pleasing music. They want to remain successful and the way to do that is to make 2 minute rock/pop songs and a friendly video for MTV and to do interviews and zines and photos and such

2. Fans change. A small indie band has a dedicated following of hard core fans who like the music, because its good music, not because its fashionable. As a band increases in popularity, you get people who just like the band because the band is the buzzworthy or "hot" band of the moment. It alters the meaning of the band, if they are political as well. A band like Rage, as it plays TRL or is on the cover of rolling stone is going to get new fans who want to throw molotov cocktails and start the revolution, but it also attracts fans who just want to be cool and like the new hip band of the moment

3. It changes the live scene and set. A band like Arcade Fire is a perfect example. They have without a doubt the most dynamic and mindblowing live show in the world right now. Part of this is because they only play smaller venues, and they include the crowd in the set as well. With all the press they recieved, from glowing reviews of both records Funeral and Neon Bible in all magazine and media outlets, and with Coldplay Frontman Chris Martin saying they were the best band in the history of music, they are getting more and more popular. What happens now? Well to accomodate the fans, they will need to play bigger and bigger venues. And that will change EVERYTHING about the Arcade Fire live show. EVERYTHING. It wont be as dynamic and powerful.

Oddly enough, to the thread starter, I am a fan of indie music, and I love all the records by the bands you mentioned. None of those records are remotely "radio friendly". None of those bands give a goddamn about pleasing some critic (well maybe Ryan Adams does!) or selling a million plus record.

musicismylife78

as we are on a PJ board I think a perfect example is the whole grunge scene. Many complained in the grunge heydey that the increased media attention and hype and commercialization of the scene ruined the experience, and that it wasnt Kurts death but rather the explotation and commercialization of grunge that is the reason we dont have a seattle scene anymore.

You had a group of bands and dedicated fans from the northwest making powerful and important music. Somehow the mainstream music fan was turned onto Nirvana and soundgarden and mudhoney and others and everyone and their mother wanted to move to Seattle.

As a result you had great music, but an exploitative music buisness in the alt music world. And Liz Claiborne made "grunge fashion" a staple of runway fashion shows, you had a front page NY Times article on grunge that had a list of "slang" terms used in the movement etc...

Things changed. Ed would agree, Kurt would, Layne would as well. They all would say that becoming bigger and more famous had a clear downside.

Its not just fans who hate bands getting bigger, its the bands themselves who hate it. As I said, Ed, Kurt, and others hated that their music was making them famous

Character Zero

I think a lot of people want to feel special, and like they are on to something that nobody knows about. I've never stopped listening to a band because the got "popular" only when they make stylistic changes that I don't like. I also think that people are always looking for something new and people use it as an excuse to find something new.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

Character Zero wrote:

I think a lot of people want to feel special, and like they are on to something that nobody knows about.

That's the correct answer to me.

norm

if someone is judging the bands they like by their popularity instead of the music, they need a new hobby......

amethgr8

I think PJ does and excellent job of balancing their career, fan club and fame. I've been on board since 10-vs. and always feel appreciated and part of a wonderful time.

musicismylife78

again, I pose this question:

Why is it always the "indie snobs" or idiot fans who get the rap of being all possessive about "their" bands?

Ed, Kurt, Uncle Neil and many other hate and hated their fame, and hate the fact they appear on tv and in the news.

Its a two way street. Its not just fans who hate it when bands are successful. Its the artists themselves. As much as we all would love Pealr Jam to be known for their music and their activism, I think for better or worse they will be known to music fans in the future as the band that scaled back and rejected their fame. Ed has many times said that in the heydey of the 90's he was headed on the same path as Kurt was. And there is little doubt fame had something to do with it

to understand why we hate our favorite bands getting more and more successful, its probably best to first answer the question of why is it that artists themselves hate being really really famous and sucessful.

hendrix78

The "fans" who turn on bands when they become popular generally were more interested in the lifestyle or fashion of the band than the music. They may say otherwise, but the indie snobs care more about the "counter culture" or "nonconformist" aspect of liking underground music more than the music itself. These people annoy the hell out of me. The music does not change just because more people like it. I had a friend like this in high school. We would both get into bands before they got popular, but when they did, he stopped liking them. I always thought it was stupid.

Che, I think the reason artists dislike the fame aspect is because it makes it more difficult for them to focus on the music because all of a sudden, they have tons of industry people up their ass telling them how they should market their music and what direction they should take next. They begin to feel like a product instead of like an artist.

FinsburyParkCarrots

I love to see bands become successful, but I've an eye to how they deal with managers and record companies telling them what they should be playing and how they should sound. If they can override that pressure, and stay creative, fair play to them.

JaneNY

Cheguevara6 wrote:

to understand why we hate our favorite bands getting more and more successful, its probably best to first answer the question of why is it that artists themselves hate being really really famous and sucessful.

I don't think all artists do. I think Pearl Jam got successful basically right out of the gate with their first album, and it overwhelmed them in terms of all the hype and fame and hugeness. But there also bands who are slogging it out and who have grown slowly and are delighted with their success. An example of this would be AFI. They have been around a LONG time but their growth has been slow and gradual and they seem to be pretty happy with it all. (I know not everyone likes them, and/or their newer sound, but I do) And to tie it in back to the original point, their are some people who stopped liking AFI when they became more popular and changed sounds. But they gained plenty of other fans.

Perhaps people dislike the growth because they don't want the band to lose what they liked about them in the first place. Some bands manage to do just fine - Springsteen IMO has stayed absolutely true to his art despite legendary icon level. U2, not so much. (I like U2, but they;re not in my top tier of favorites)

red mos

On inde labels, why is it that some bands on a certain label get the "national" treatment and can tour and sell albums in stores all over the US?, and other bands on the same label sometimes just get the local band treatment of having their albums only sold to a certain chain like cd warehouse or a mom and pop record store? Is it the type of deal the label strikes with the band or does the label do what the band wants?

DCGARDEN

Character Zero wrote:

I think a lot of people want to feel special, and like they are on to something that nobody knows about. I've never stopped listening to a band because the got "popular" only when they make stylistic changes that I don't like. I also think that people are always looking for something new and people use it as an excuse to find something new.

Yes, I think this is the case too. Music is such a personal thing, that the very lyrics you relate to can almost feel like they were written with your exact feelings in mind, you've shared it. To see some deuschbag with a green Yankee hat turned to the side, one pant leg higher than the other and just a general asshole latching onto a band that you've invested a lot of personal feelings into, can sometimes be dis-heartening -

musicismylife78

I still think the fans and the bands themselves have the same concerns.

Both bands and "indie snob" fans want bands to remain small because

1. they have more control over their music and image

2. the "meathead" factor. The people who like the music just because its popular start flocking to gigs and talking about it in high school classrooms

3. The gigs themselves are less intimate and less powerful

I am a radical so of course I need to get to the "root" of whats going on.

Fans and bands both dont want the music to be compromised and watered down to please mainstream society.

The examples are endless. Black Eyed Peas were a alt hip hop act, very political, very conscious, really into positive powerful rhymes. Now they are parodies of themselves, all about image, their songs arent political, and its gross. Thats why I hate when bands are popular and successful. Thats what happens to them. They turn into crap bands.

Why did Kurt hate his bands success? It attracted the jocks, homophobes, racists and sexists that he continually loathed in interviews, and those were the same people that beat him up as a kid. The songs lost their meanings. Polly a decidedly antirape song, was playing in the background as some kids raped a girl.

Arcade fire as I said, is a band that almost needs to be indie because their live shows depend on intimacy. But their popularity is forcing them to change. They already have admitted this.

I dont think indie snob fans are the problem. Its the issue of fame, celebrity, artist control and mainstream consumer culture that is the problem.

But as I said, I am a radical, so I always need to look at the cause of things.

musicismylife78

DCGARDEN wrote:

Yes, I think this is the case too. Music is such a personal thing, that the very lyrics you relate to can almost feel like they were written with your exact feelings in mind, you've shared it. To see some deuschbag with a green Yankee hat turned to the side, one pant leg higher than the other and just a general asshole latching onto a band that you've invested a lot of personal feelings into, can sometimes be dis-heartening -

I disagree. Its seeing that same gree yankee hat wearing person singing songs that are personal to you, or are political in nature, and singing along and not understanding the meaning, and not understanding the power the lyrics convey.

Read my post about polly and nirvana above.

Its the idea that the powerful lyrics, the meaning in them, is lost when its spread across millions of people. And I have to say, I agree completely. There is something disturbing about people singing along to a Green Day American Idiot song or a Fugazi song or a Pearl jam song and not understanding the socially conscious overtones of the song.

Music has a purpose, sometimes its political, othertimes its personal, but seeing some teenybopper girl, cellphone in hand at a show, and seeing she doesnt give a damn about the politics of the show or the personal aspect, that she just is into the band because it is cool, is very scary and sad indeed.

as for the comment about why some bands on indie labels are given the national treatment and others are given the mom and pop treatment, give an example of what you mean.

soulsinging

tonadax wrote:

To turn a phrase from Morrissey, Why do alternative fans turn on bands that acheive a measure of success? I've seen fans slagging good new releases from the likes of The White Stripes, Wilco, Arcade Fire and Modest Mouse. The underlying complaint is that success has ruined them. Any comments?

cos they have no penises and are whiny pussies. all indie fans who say shit like that deserve a beatdown.

JOEJOEJOE

red mos wrote:

On inde labels, why is it that some bands on a certain label get the "national" treatment and can tour and sell albums in stores all over the US?, and other bands on the same label sometimes just get the local band treatment of having their albums only sold to a certain chain like cd warehouse or a mom and pop record store? Is it the type of deal the label strikes with the band or does the label do what the band wants?

It has to do with whether or not the label feels as if they will sell records. If the band delivers a bad record, the label doesn't want to put them on the road, and they may not push the record that hard to distributors.

A label needs to protect their reputation, and if they release too many marginal records, their distributors will stop taking chances on them.

musicismylife78

soulsinging wrote:

cos they have no penises and are whiny pussies. all indie fans who say shit like that deserve a beatdown.

great language soulsinging. Shows the true sexist macho pig that you are.

Fans who dont like bands to compromise their values, integrity and art OH MY GAWD! What a horrific crime!

soulsinging

Cheguevara6 wrote:

great language soulsinging. Shows the true sexist macho pig that you are.

Fans who dont like bands to compromise their values, integrity and art OH MY GAWD! What a horrific crime!

fans who get their panties in a bunch becos somebody else started listening to their pet sound are annoying. fans who care more about their image or their politics or "the root" of the scene or posing and pretending to be hip than they do about the actual sounds coming out of the instruments are fucking losers and are hypocrites becos they are as shallow as the people they claim to hate.

lucylespian

This is a funny thread. I read a great interview with Jack White recently, saying he moved to NAshville cos he was sick of teh "cool people" who moved on after one album cos they weren't teh hippest thing any more.

He said " OK cool people, you win, I'm outa here" !!

SweetHarmonics

"we" = insecure weirdos

Blyss

Cheguevara6 wrote:

1. bands that get huge tend to turn to more commercial music. There are exceptions of course, Uncle Neil, Bruce, Pearl Jam and Sonic Youth for example. But bands that tend to be huge, tend to have a more commercial fanbase, and therefore arent going to make experimental and noncommercially pleasing music. They want to remain successful and the way to do that is to make 2 minute rock/pop songs and a friendly video for MTV and to do interviews and zines and photos and such

I agree with your number one point, a good example for this for me is kt tunstall i saw her live playing black horse and the cherry tree, and went wow, what a talent her live performace is great. And whilst i still like her there are two reasons for me hardly listening anymore, her sound has gone eve more commercial her newest song sounds over produced and being popular you can get really overplayed and the listener gets bored and moves along. So it's not really that it's not "hip" anymore at least not for me. I think there is so much music people move along to find the next thing very quickly.

JaneNY

Cheguevara6 wrote:

Music has a purpose, sometimes its political, othertimes its personal, but seeing some teenybopper girl, cellphone in hand at a show, and seeing she doesnt give a damn about the politics of the show or the personal aspect, that she just is into the band because it is cool, is very scary and sad indeed.
.

Yes I'm pretty sure I saw an example of this at Lolla. I was behind my 5 foot daughter who was on the rail, for Patti Smith. Next to us was a teenage girl, ON THE RAIL, who spent part of the show with her back turned, fucking TEXTING, while Patti Smith was performing. I really wondered why she was there. People of all ages can like anything, but how could you waste such an opportunity as being on the rail for Patti? Was it just to say she was there?

South of Seattle

People get mad because it's harder to get tickets and their acts play larger less intimate venues. That's been the case for some bands for me. Sometimes the sound doesn't translate as well.

intodeep

This also happens in the metal community. Bands get popular and loose their cred.

Personally as long as the bands sound does not change to appeal to masses i'm cool with it.

In Modest Mouse's case good news was an okay album but the new album we were dead is very good. If they would have followed up good news with another album i felt was just okay i might have lost interest but i think they came back very strong on this one.

hendrix78

soulsinging wrote:

fans who get their panties in a bunch becos somebody else started listening to their pet sound are annoying. fans who care more about their image or their politics or "the root" of the scene or posing and pretending to be hip than they do about the actual sounds coming out of the instruments are fucking losers and are hypocrites becos they are as shallow as the people they claim to hate.

I would word it differently, but I fully agree with the sentiment of this post.

I response to Che's arguments, I believe you are putting something on the music that is not there. Music does not lose meaning because it gains a wide audience including poser fans who miss the point. If it loses meaning to you, it is something you are putting on the music, not something that is there. A truly powerful performance is powerful because of what the musicians put into it, not because it happens to be latched onto by "radicals". A true radical would not care about how other people react to the music he enjoys, he would just enjoy it for what it is regardless of other's opinions.

Zanne

Cheguevara6 wrote:

as we are on a PJ board I think a perfect example is the whole grunge scene. Many complained in the grunge heydey that the increased media attention and hype and commercialization of the scene ruined the experience, and that it wasnt Kurts death but rather the explotation and commercialization of grunge that is the reason we dont have a seattle scene anymore.

Seattle has one of the best music scenes I've ever had the pleasure to experience... and it's happening right now. Maybe the grunge scene is dead and gone, but a very exciting bunch of musicians make the 'new' scene there very vibrant and alive. It's not Seattle's fault if the rest of the country/world are too closed minded and lazy to go out and experience it.

Peace

soulsinging

hendrix78 wrote:

I would word it differently, but I fully agree with the sentiment of this post.

I response to Che's arguments, I believe you are putting something on the music that is not there. Music does not lose meaning because it gains a wide audience including poser fans who miss the point. If it loses meaning to you, it is something you are putting on the music, not something that is there. A truly powerful performance is powerful because of what the musicians put into it, not because it happens to be latched onto by "radicals". A true radical would not care about how other people react to the music he enjoys, he would just enjoy it for what it is regardless of other's opinions.

thanks for saying it tactfully for me

NickyNooch

I'll post my take on this. For me do I care if a band is popular or not? No.

However, lets use a 'for instance' of A.F.I. When they were on Nitro Records they were a punk band. They built a huge punk following and then after 7 discs (counting EP releases) they signed to a major label.

Their musical style changed DRASTICALLY. So when I say the last 2 albums were garbage, it's not that I hate them now that they are popular... it's just their music changed to be popular.

So maybe that's it... changing your music to be popular is what I don't like. If you maintain integrity, then I don't care how many people like you.

musicismylife78

NickyNooch wrote:

I'll post my take on this. For me do I care if a band is popular or not? No.

However, lets use a 'for instance' of A.F.I. When they were on Nitro Records they were a punk band. They built a huge punk following and then after 7 discs (counting EP releases) they signed to a major label.

Their musical style changed DRASTICALLY. So when I say the last 2 albums were garbage, it's not that I hate them now that they are popular... it's just their music changed to be popular.

So maybe that's it... changing your music to be popular is what I don't like. If you maintain integrity, then I don't care how many people like you.

thats the point. Most bands change to be popular. Most bands arent like Pearl jam or Radiohead.