Why do we hate it when our bands become successful?

SweetHarmonics · August 2007

"we" = insecure weirdos

Blyss · August 2007

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 · August 2007

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 · August 2007

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 · August 2007

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 · August 2007

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 · August 2007

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 · August 2007

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 · August 2007

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 · August 2007

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.

g under p · August 2007

What do we here consider success?

peace
earle

corduroy10 · August 2007

I think Korn is a great example of this. Their first few records were angry, raw, but fresh and different. Everything post Follow the Leader has been like what the fuck, really guys? We get it you were pissed off. You had issues, but c'mon. You rich rock stars now. Life at least appears to be a little better. Rather than growing as a band they kept staying within that tortured angry band mold, that sounds like a parody of their former selves.

Pearl Jam, or Ed has been labeled as angry, or depressed, particularly on the first few records. The difference is that begining with No Code, there has been a shift in Ed's writing (or growth) in that in almost all of his angry songs (habit, grievance, save you, comotose) the feeling is directed at or about something/one else, instead of retreading on whatever might have ailed him in the past.

I liked Korn, but haven`t been able to buy their past few records because its always the same tired stuff.

JaneNY · August 2007

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.

I don't know if I totally agree - they have changed over time, and the change started to be seen in Black Sails in the Sunset, then more so in The Art of Drowning, and then even more in Sing the Sorrow, and on. I think their sound started to change when Jade Puget joined as he basically writes all their music, and joined before Black Sails in the Sunset. One thing to keep in mind was Havok had voice issues after Sing the Sorrow, which I think explains the difference in his voice in December Underground.

I do totally agree with you on the difference between creating something that happens to be popular, and creating differently simply to BE popular.

g under p, that is a really good question! I guess to me, success would mean that you can support yourself in your profession while maintaining integrity to creating your art. If I was in a band I'd be shooting for the time that I can live decently, pay my bills, and have the means to create, and even create a record that bombs occasionally without it putting me bankrupt.

Why do we hate it when our bands become successful?

Comments

Categories