Do we want a metal band to be a huge success?

[metalheadinthe253]

I've been thinking about this lately, just wanted to throw this out and see what you all think. I know this sounds like I've been on a Lamb of God jag with my other post, but I was reading their interview in the latest Revolver magazine and one of the guys made the point that for all their success they still aren't at the buying cars and houses stage. They've never even had a gold record, so there is lots of room for growth, but as metal fans do we want that? Should a band in the metal genre sell gold or platinum or, gasp, multi-platinum? In some ways I think it would be cool, but I also have a friend who is a huge Arch Enemy fan, and he's been pissed that they've done Ozzfest and now the Gigantour this year. He wants them to stay small, play the small clubs, etc. I can see that too, but if these musicians put their hearts and souls into what they do and grind it out year after year, I think it would be great for them to reap a big reward from it at some point. Your interview with James Rivera also made me think about this, with some of the things he talked about.

Anyways, let me know what you think.

 

[Evil C.]

Wow, this is a great topic.

Yeah, the interview with James made me think about this as well. Do we want our favorite bands to get HUGE or stay at the same level we are comfortable with? Do they continute to produce music that pleases us, and should they be well compensated for that? Or when bands start making money, that just means they are "selling out"? Too many bands to mention with that last part.

There are many bands that we, as metalheads, enjoy who continute to produce quality music, tour their ever loving asses off, yet still have to come home to a real job. That doesnt seem quite fair.

Hmmm...

 

[Demonic Nosehairs]

selling lots of records doesn't mean your a sell out, changing your style to something more widely accepted is selling out

 

[Sour_Diesel]

My answer would be a reserved yes...I want my favorite bands to be fucking huge...but without compromising their sound. The line between change and compromise is a thin one. I think the new Lamb of God album is fuckin killer. There are slight changes, but it doesn't sound watered-down at all. Instead it sounds...uh..."whiskeyed up?" It's still the Lamb of God that we all know, but with tighter and more organized song structures, more layers, and more atmosphere in the vocals. I think they prove how popularity can be good for a band...then again, you never wanna pull a Metallica. That's just bad news.

 

[metalheadinthe253]

I'm with you Sour Diesel. If a band can stay true to their roots or sound or whatever you call it, and sell a lot of records and do huge tours, that is awesome and well deserved on their part.

I just get tired of the whole "pop" thing, none of those maggots have any talent and they don't deserve to make millions of dollars for the shit they put out. But the people who keep it real and stay true are forever playing clubs that hold 300 people and going back to a day job when the tour is over. Just doesn't seem right. But thank god that they keep doing it regardless because it gives us all some great music to listen to and support.

 

[Papa Josh]

There are some talented pop artists...

But nine times out of ten, their songs were written by some behind the scenes person that only gets recognition by industry people.

But the initial question is a tough one. I must sit, smoke and ponder on this one.

 

[Demonic Nosehairs]

pantera is a good example, they were big but they didn't compromise.

 

[Evil C.]

of corpse, there are a lot of bands that that continued to make the music they wanted to make, and still have all the popularity, Pantera was a great example.

But all this is a matter of opinion, since we are all metalheads here, and sort of biased. Naw, never.

 

[Mr. Arch]

Pantera got more intense with thier albums one after another and they still made it out big. Yes i wan't my favorite metal band to make it big and sell more but without sacrificing thier sound. (Unlike In Flames...totally and obviously a sold out). But there is still kind of risk there if they are overly exposed by the media.. For Ex. Metallica's Black Album..watered down it may be but the musicianship is there. I Enjoyed it for a year in my own personnal world then a year after the album became a great hit here in my country. Everybodys jamming to it, everyone started liking it to the point that it became a trend. And of course after that trend ended. Metallica went to the uncool list...

 

[metalheadinthe253]

Pantera got more intense with thier albums one after another and they still made it out big. Yes i wan't my favorite metal band to make it big and sell more but without sacrificing thier sound. (Unlike In Flames...totally and obviously a sold out). But there is still kind of risk there if they are overly exposed by the media.. For Ex. Metallica's Black Album..watered down it may be but the musicianship is there. I Enjoyed it for a year in my own personnal world then a year after the album became a great hit here in my country. Everybodys jamming to it, everyone started liking it to the point that it became a trend. And of course after that trend ended. Metallica went to the uncool list...

I think we have to be careful when we throw around the phrase "sell out". Did In Flames really sell out? Do they really sell that many more CDs now than they used to? Or as they grew and matured did they just come to look at music a little differently? Most of what In Flames does now was there on their early stuff, they've just thrown in some melody and a better sense of song structure, which is not by itself a "sell out".

My definition of sell out is the classic example of Bon Jovi with their 2 huge albums in the 80s. Before the records were even released they had listening parties and only included the songs that got the best responses from the listeners. That is selling out, when you go simply by the whims of the public and not stand by what you have put your heart and soul into. Listen to Def Leppard's "On Through The Night", then put on "Pyromania". That is a sell out.

I am biased here, but I would argue with your example of Metallca's "Black Album" that that was not a sell out either. If a band puts out a record and it just gets huge on its own, as you seem to be describing, then how has the band sold out? Although you'll have to read my previous thread about Metallica to know that I'm not totally unbiased on this subject.... I think Load and Re-Load are better examples if you want to talk about sell outs, especially when you factor in the whole image change.

 

[Mr. Arch]

I think we have to be careful when we throw around the phrase "sell out". Did In Flames really sell out? Do they really sell that many more CDs now than they used to? Or as they grew and matured did they just come to look at music a little differently? Most of what In Flames does now was there on their early stuff, they've just thrown in some melody and a better sense of song structure, which is not by itself a "sell out".

My definition of sell out is the classic example of Bon Jovi with their 2 huge albums in the 80s. Before the records were even released they had listening parties and only included the songs that got the best responses from the listeners. That is selling out, when you go simply by the whims of the public and not stand by what you have put your heart and soul into. Listen to Def Leppard's "On Through The Night", then put on "Pyromania". That is a sell out.

I am biased here, but I would argue with your example of Metallca's "Black Album" that that was not a sell out either. If a band puts out a record and it just gets huge on its own, as you seem to be describing, then how has the band sold out? Although you'll have to read my previous thread about Metallica to know that I'm not totally unbiased on this subject.... I think Load and Re-Load are better examples if you want to talk about sell outs, especially when you factor in the whole image change.

And right you are.. i just used metallica's black album for ex. bec. its the one most popular in here that even non-metal heads know. And was coverd to death by bands so much that it feels embarassing to play it nowadays. The load and re-load didn't fair much in terms of popularity.

And to the subject of being a "Sell out". Wrong was i to label in flames that cause i didn't evn know if thier selling more records than before. Maybe the right phrase is "trying to sell out". When i saw anders in one of those newer videos, man he looks like one of the nu metal kids these days.. It's like this: Instead of having thier own sound then mixing it up with something new.. i hear the reverse..Nu metal with added in flame infleunces. iam not saying they suck now cause i liked some of thier new material but in a different way, but the subject is the way a band changes for its audiences. Can't blame em though trying to broaden up.

 

[metalheadinthe253]

Let's just say that if In Flames tried to sell out it didn't work so well for them.

I get your point though, the Black Album really took off for Metallica, but my only point, and I've had this discussion many times, is did it take off because of a calculated effort on the part of Metallica, or did it take off because of the years and years of touring and making a name for themselves prior to that album finally pay off? If Slayer's new CD suddenly sold 2 million copies we wouldn't call them sell outs, we'd be happy for them that the many many years they've put into their music paid off in a big way. But then if on their next CD they changed their look, changed their style, brought in songwriters, etc, then we would have every right to say they sold out.

 

[Demonic Nosehairs]

exactly