Options
Kings of Leon cant comprehend bands who dont want success
musicismylife78
Posts: 6,117
In an interview with MTV today the followills said they hate indie and hipsters. While its quite odd since when their first albums came out and even on to Because of the Times they were huge in the blog buzz band realm.
while im a fan of the band, and actually am not turned off by the arena rock sound they have embraced, i found this next sentence odd:
"I think when we were considered 'hipsters,' if you will, we were never backing down from success; we were never doing that on purpose. When someone like U2 asked us to go on the road, we immediately were like, 'Yeah! Pearl Jam? Yeah! Bob Dylan? Yeah!' They were all different things, and we wanted to get ourselves out there and for people to hear our music," he said. "We weren't dumbing it down, and there was never a point in our career where we were like, 'Oh man, I think we should scale it back otherwise we're going to be popular.' And anyone who acts like that, I think they're full of it. No one wants to not succeed in what they do, and I think in any walk of life, you wanna be the best at what it is you do, and that's always been our goal."
That explanation is naive and oddly makes little sense. The 2 bands he cites here notoriously scaled it back because they were going to be popular. Dylan orchestrated the whole motorcycle crash in 66 and disappeared for a few years following the madness of being called the spokesman of his generation. And he later put out albums like Planet Waves which by his own admission was solely designed to lose fans.
Pearl Jam we all know the story with them. Following the massive success of Ten and Vs, they released Vitalogy, started not doing videos, refused interviews, took on ticketmaster, refused to tour, and released No Code, which by Ed's own admission was an attempt to lose fans.
So while Kings of Leon are without a doubt one of the biggest bands in the world at this point, their analysis of rock history, and bands who pull in the reins when they are about to be famous is childish and naive at best.
while im a fan of the band, and actually am not turned off by the arena rock sound they have embraced, i found this next sentence odd:
"I think when we were considered 'hipsters,' if you will, we were never backing down from success; we were never doing that on purpose. When someone like U2 asked us to go on the road, we immediately were like, 'Yeah! Pearl Jam? Yeah! Bob Dylan? Yeah!' They were all different things, and we wanted to get ourselves out there and for people to hear our music," he said. "We weren't dumbing it down, and there was never a point in our career where we were like, 'Oh man, I think we should scale it back otherwise we're going to be popular.' And anyone who acts like that, I think they're full of it. No one wants to not succeed in what they do, and I think in any walk of life, you wanna be the best at what it is you do, and that's always been our goal."
That explanation is naive and oddly makes little sense. The 2 bands he cites here notoriously scaled it back because they were going to be popular. Dylan orchestrated the whole motorcycle crash in 66 and disappeared for a few years following the madness of being called the spokesman of his generation. And he later put out albums like Planet Waves which by his own admission was solely designed to lose fans.
Pearl Jam we all know the story with them. Following the massive success of Ten and Vs, they released Vitalogy, started not doing videos, refused interviews, took on ticketmaster, refused to tour, and released No Code, which by Ed's own admission was an attempt to lose fans.
So while Kings of Leon are without a doubt one of the biggest bands in the world at this point, their analysis of rock history, and bands who pull in the reins when they are about to be famous is childish and naive at best.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
As for KoL....Their last 3 albums are alot better than the first 2. They've actually grown into and developed their own style. I never for a minute thought they were down and dirty southern boys. Always seemed more like preppy redneck sissies to me.
Oh Dude!
They're young men just trying to figure it all out. A few years from now, they'll say something else. That's just life in general.
Everyone is just trying to make sense of wherever it is they are and later they see things differently because they have more experience.
Of course they're naive. So are you if one can comment upon some of the threads we've seen you put up. :P :geek:
But, be assured, everyone is just trying to figure it out in their own world.
I like this bit.
Anyway, just thought I'd mention.
Some people are more comfortable operating at higher levels than other people.
That is ok.
What is wrong with everyone finding their own comfort level? Nothing.
If in the process it is necessary to shake things up to keep your head, then who cares? In the long run, no one.
I dont really understand you all. Pearl Jam and Dylan have both said, read that again, rewind! Both have said, they tried to lose fans. If you want to say some alien invaded Dylan and Ed's body when they said this, thats your own problem. I choose the people who lived it, I believe them.
And no, I dont think they didnt want alot of fans because it was "cool" to not have fans. When was it ever cool to not be a huge rock star? Even in the 90's, that was a cool thing. The 60's it certainly was.
In PJ's case, the band got too big. It turned into something the band, especially Ed didnt want. He had stalkers, he was dangerusly close to what Kurt felt, and I just think it got too much for him. Ed has explicitly said, No Code was an album released to lose them fans. Now, not all the PJ members agreed with this route but all agree thats what happened. They didnt do it to be cool. Ed didnt say "Hey lets release no Code and release a single thats wired and bizaare, because thats the cool thing!" When has PJ ever said that!
Dylan-anyone who is worth their amount in rock history, or dylan history, knows the stress put upon dylan, in the 1960's. he was HUGE! He released songs the civil rights movement and antiwar movement latched onto, was called the spokesman of a generation, and people tried to woo him to speak on different causes behalfs. he went electric and people FREAKED out. They felt he was betraying the movement and the people. Dylan talks about hippies in the 1960's coming to his house, sneaking in and having relations in his bed, all while he was gone. it was nuts. so dylan, either from stress crashed his bike on his own accord, or made up the story so as to be left the hell alone. he disappeared for years, and has admitted Planet Waves, was made to lose fans.
I dont see the problem here folks. Are we really arguing this point? Isnt it pretty common knowledge that Pj and Dylan both, and especially as we are in a PJ forum, that these 2 bands deliberately sabotaged their own career? How is that not basic PJ and Dylan 101 to you people?
WHo are you addressing here? Ive been on this board since 2003 and not once have I suggested PJ or Dylan, were stupid for pulling back. Im arguing the opposite, that KOL are childish for making fun of those who deal with fame differently.
Its one thing for KOL to say, we like fame, we enjoy it, its another thing to say the bands who pull back are "full of it" thus disengenuine.
I think ultimately for dylan and PJ the pulling back and sabotaging of their own careers was the greatest thing they ever did, personally and professionally. i dont think either of them would be alive today if they had done otherwise
DL, with all due respect, you need to do some research. this is basic rock history 101. there is nothing in your post above that is accurate. neil young, pj, dylan, all have pulled back and deliberately done things to lose fans. if you cant see that, then i dont know what
Sucess and fame and all that are all very hard things to deal with. the history of literature, film, music, art is littered with extremely talented people who have become famous and have had a very rough road dealing with it.
the point is, ive never understood people who cant understand what fame and money does to people. you had people after kurt died saying, he was a poseur or a liar. i dont think many of us will ever know what he felt. to have people consider you the spokesman of a generation. i mean for a guy who grew up in aberdeen that had to have been absolutely insane.
that's not very rock n roll, IMNSHO
slice it any way u want...
was opening for pj
bought everything they had done
and bought only by the night when it was released
"crawl" is fucking awesome
but i am done
i will not buy the new one
didn't care for their clothing line
and don't much care for the comments in this article
"what a long, strange trip it's been"
I believed this theory when i was 16. I'm a little older now.
PJ's pulling back was more about not burning themselves out. Being a fad and then disapearing into obscurity (see many 80's band and the Nu Metal genre). Also, it was a lot less Pearl Jams move than it was Ed's. He had a great plan that luckily the band abided by. The whole sabatoging their career is overblown.
As for KOL, if i enjoy an album of theirs i'll bite. If i don't i won't. Could give two shits about what they say. Interviews are often taken out of context. Not to say this is, but i just could care less
if anything, even if KOL is talking about an unknown band, is this even the way of the world? I didnt know the cool thing lately in music, was to not be a popular band. they mention hipsters and indie bands as a subject of their hatred, and indie music is my favorite genre. i read pitchfork and stereogum and brooklyn vegan, and have been a fan of "indie" since 2005/2006. if anything as evidenced by bands like modest mouse or the shins or sleigh bells or whoever liscencing their music to tv and commercials, the cool thing is quite the opposite. the cool thing is to want to get your music out to as many people as you can.
so either way, the KOL are really out of the loop in their analysis.
and i dont think its naive to mention dylan or PJ in the conversation... they aren't saying that either followed the same business plan... they're both still huge band despite their efforts... and they're mentioning them in relation to the efforts KOL have made to become big... opening for big live bands gets your music heard
i still hope they scale back the promo stuff a little bit now that they are huge... they have a much stronger album than their last one and it should be able to stand alone without being tainted by tv soundtracks and mtv appearances
http://seanbriceart.com/
Mike said it one of the interviews, maybe Rolling Stone, where he was against it at the time, cause he was excited at getting big, but he sees now that "Ed was brilliant" is I think the quote he said.
It wasn't to be "cool" or "indie" or have some bullshit cred. They didn't want eyes on them at all freakin' times. They wanted to do what they wanted when they wanted, not be paraded around on fashion magazines.
It's pretty simple. And very believable.
That guy from KOL basically said in that quote that Eddie Vedder is full of it. Nice guy.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
8/7/08, 6/9/09
8/08 - Ed solo in DC, 6/09 Ed in B'more,
10/10 - Brad in B'more
you pretty much quoted my page one post. So I agree with your points here
QFT
Their older stuff is much better
8/7/08, 6/9/09