How do bands get blackmarked?

[JayKeeley]

Here are some possibilities for music style comparison:

If you like Dissection, you might like Cradle of Filth.
If you like Emperor, you might like Dimmu Borgir.
If you like Megadeth, you might like Gamma Ray.
If you like Judas Priest, you might like Manowar.

And so on.

Notice how the latter of those bands have been 'historically' blackmarked, a stigma attached to them. So along comes a new metal fan oblivious to all this, and might like some of those bands until others explain that it's not acceptable.

In other words, do you think people eventually dislike them because they really can't stand the music, or do you think peer pressure turns people away from bands?

Is it a shame that these bands have a dark cloud hanging above them, or do they sincerely deserve the backlash?

 

[NAD]

Cradle of Filth and Dimmu Borgir were once good, their newer stuff is a bit crappy. Never heard Gamma Ray. Heard one Manowar song, don't care to hear any more because I don't even like Priest that much.

I'm going to assume a lot of it is peer pressure, or elitism being forced upon yourself perhaps. Obviously there are cases where the latter bands don't appeal to the former of your list as well.

 

[JayKeeley]

Obviously there are cases where the latter bands don't appeal to the former of your list as well.

True, but you'll never enter a flame war for admitting to liking Emperor etc. Only the other way round.

I'm just wondering whether these bands really did deserve the stigma, or did everyone just go along with the crowd to avoid the wars.

 

[General Zod]

I think what you're saying has some truth in it. I believe people approach something that's got "street cred" differently. They go into the listening experience hoping to like the CD and give it every chance to win favor with them. Conversely, when a band becomes the whipping boy for a given genre, ala CoF, people are quicker to dismiss them. To some degree, we've all been guilty of this at one point or another.

Zod

 

[NAD]

I'm just wondering whether these bands really did deserve the stigma, or did everyone just go along with the crowd to avoid the wars.

I don't think it's any coincidence that Cradle of Borgir have both graced the mainstream.

 

[General Zod]

I'm just wondering whether these bands really did deserve the stigma...

They became popular.

For many of the people who bought the intitial pressings of "The Principle of Evil Made Flesh" and "For All Tid", part of the draw of these artists is the underground aspect. These folks take enjoyment in knowing that they are part of this very small club. And when these bands gain wider acceptance, and more people learn the secret handshake, the first group often moves on.

I think one of the bands you left off the list is Arch Enemy. While they're admittedly not quite as heavy as they once were, they take way too much shit for how they've evolved. My guess is, if they had a male lead singer, with a voice identical to Angela's, they wouldn't take half the crap they take.

Zod

 

[mousewings]

Conversely, when a band becomes the whipping boy for a given genre, ala CoF, people are quicker to dismiss them. To some degree, we've all been guilty of this at one point or another.

Guilty as charged.

Also, sometimes the blacklisted band sounds less sophisticated than the real thing. More commercial, gimmickly and like a copy. example: DMB>John Mayer

Although some of the black listed bands are okay, so it could be due to peer pressure/attitude. You'd never catch me listening to CoF or Mayer as it's so... poppy and something people like to seem "cool". I make fun of the Mayer/CoF/etc fans too... but hasn't everyone?

 

[JayKeeley]

Good points.

I recognize the mainstream vs. underground issue as well, but from a *pure musical perspective*, are CoF, Manowar, or Arch Enemy completely talentless musicians / songwriters? Is some of the harsh criticism for their musical output deserved do you think -- subjectivity aside?

In other words, if they didn't hit the big time, would they still draw this much negative attention?

 

[IOfTheStorm]

Manowar own you all, its a pity that you dont realize that. Most people who bash them, never heard a single song, and the rest who bash them not an album. And i hate it when everyone is ignoring their first 4 MASTERPIECES, and just cares about "metal warriors" or "fighting the world" stuff.

 

[IOfTheStorm]

That was an "answer" in the question if they are talentless or not

 

[spaffe]

Hm, bands such as Arch Enemy hit big time because they've become more acessible etc, thus compromising with the music. Such a behaviour invariably gives you a stigma in the underground where most of the ardent haters of above mentioned bands reside.
Dissection are pretty big, but they haven't compromised (yet perhaps I should add) so a stigma is not necissarily connected with getting well known.

 

[Ayeka]

Manowar own you all, its a pity that you dont realize that. Most people who bash them, never heard a single song, and the rest who bash them not an album. And i hate it when everyone is ignoring their first 4 MASTERPIECES, and just cares about "metal warriors" or "fighting the world" stuff.

I've always found it quite sad that most of the flak ManOwaR get is for their image. I thought Metal fans were supposed to be above that. Especially when you consider they moved away from the Conan image in, what, the mid-80s?

I guess that ties in with the peer pressure/herd mentality thing that's been touched upon. Whether these bands have been 'blacklisted' for having commercial leanings, a gimmick, an image some people can't comprehend, a singer who does falsetto or weedly-weedly guitar solos (I haven't listened to Gamma Ray, but I can't imagine what people could have against them? Playing Heavy Metal?), people will try and do the "xxx are gay" to get noticed, try and be controversial. When people do that out of hand having only listened to a few songs (if that), it's herd mentality.

 

[General Zod]

...are CoF, Manowar, or Arch Enemy completely talentless musicians / songwriters?

Each of these bands has talent, to varying degrees.

When bands change, they do so for one of two reasons:

1 - a natural evolution of the musicians in the band, ala Opeth or Amorphis.
2 - a change in sound due to market influences/bands tryng to reach a wider audience.

I think fans, who have been with the band since the beginning, see this as a slap in the face, which leads to harsh criticisms.

Is some of the harsh criticism for their musical output deserved do you think -- subjectivity aside?

It's hard to say, since we never really know what's in their heads and their hearts. A band should always make music they enjoy. If that alienates their fans, so be it.

In other words, if they didn't hit the big time, would they still draw this much negative attention?

Probably not quite as much. Take Dimmu for example. I'm quite sure the folks who thought "For All Tid" was the shit, honestly don't like "Death Cult Armageddon". However, it's the success that DCA has brought Dimmu that stokes the flames.

Zod

 

[General Zod]

Hm, bands such as Arch Enemy hit big time because they've become more acessible etc, thus compromising with the music. Such a behaviour invariably gives you a stigma in the underground where most of the ardent haters of above mentioned bands reside.

I agree with most of this post. However, I'm not sure they compromised their music.

If their record label came to them and said, "If you don't tone things down, we're going to drop you", and they did so to meet that demand, that would be a compromise. Or if the brother's decided that they wanted AE to generate more money, and set out to write more commercial songs, that would be a compromise. However, I'm not certain that's what they did.

Say what you like about Angela, and how her presence has benefitted AE. The fact of the matter is, when they recruited Angela, if wide spread sucess was what they were after, why not grab a vocalist who could also do clean vox and bring in a wider audience? If it wasn't her sound they liked, why not bring in a woman who looks more like Christine Scabbia. I don't mean to knock Angela's looks, but she's hardly a pin-up girl.

I think Arch Enemy's sound has simply evolved into what it is. Granted, it's evolved to a less agressive approach, but that doesn't mean they've compromised.

Zod

 

[JayKeeley]

Wages of Sin is not less aggressive than previous AE efforts in the slightest. It is a mass frenzy of guitar fury, but yeah, there is a female death vocalist omg sellouts. The funny thing is, people will dismiss a vocalist because of the gender (Gossow), but not a vocalist that was disgustingly terrible (Livva).

P.S. I have a compilation tape of Manowar that PJ sent to me. I shall listen to it shortly.

 

[spaffe]

I agree with most of this post. However, I'm not sure they compromised their music.

If their record label came to them and said, "If you don't tone things down, we're going to drop you", and they did so to meet that demand, that would be a compromise. Or if the brother's decided that they wanted AE to generate more money, and set out to write more commercial songs, that would be a compromise. However, I'm not certain that's what they did.

Say what you like about Angela, and how her presence has benefitted AE. The fact of the matter is, when they recruited Angela, if wide spread sucess was what they were after, why not grab a vocalist who could also do clean vox and bring in a wider audience? If it wasn't her sound they liked, why not bring in a woman who looks more like Christine Scabbia. I don't mean to knock Angela's looks, but she's hardly a pin-up girl.

I think Arch Enemy's sound has simply evolved into what it is. Granted, it's evolved to a less agressive approach, but that doesn't mean they've compromised.

Zod

It doesn't necessarily have to be a given order, I think "a lot" of bands realize that by changing sound they'll gain more fans. But such a thing can never be proven of course, which makes it a pretty pointless discussion I guess.

Well speaking of Angela and all that; I like her vocals and Wages of Sin, it's the only albums of their that I've heard. Having a female vocalist will surely get you a lot more attention than a male, but I don't see any hurt in that since she's as good as most male vocalsists, and thus not just there to promote the band.

As I said I haven't heard Antehms of Rebeillion (that's what it's called right?), but I remember beeing deterred by the review I read, not by someone claiming that they've sold out etc

 

[General Zod]

As I said I haven't heard Antehms of Rebeillion (that's what it's called right?), but I remember beeing deterred by the review I read, not by someone claiming that they've sold out etc

I prefer "Anthems". While I can see why someone would say it's more polished and less aggressive, it's a far cry from being a sell out. If you liked "Wages", you'll probably like "Anthems".

Zod

 

[JayKeeley]

You guys need to hear the Manowar cover that Arch Enemy did. Download it -- seriously, it smokes.

 

[Demonspell]

While sellout accusations for just about all of those bands except COF are overblown to an extent, I think the extensive criticism they get is justified, for reasons mentioned above: compromising themselves and contributing to the dilution of a once viable form of music. While I believe that bashing something solely for being generic isn't valid because at least 95% of music isn't original, it does become offensive when someone blatantly follows in someone else's path for commercial purposes.

 

[J.]

I think most here know my stance on AE. I've never really been a fan of the band, but I thought Stigmata was there best. COmpared to the Amott bros previous bands (Carcass, early Armageddon, etc), AE is child's play. I wanted to like Wages of Sin, but I can't appreciate lackluster music from musicians capable of so much more. I thought their show with Nile was quite good, though. I don't think many fans are pissed so much that they have a female singer, but how the band have gone on to market it, what with having her taking scantily clad pictures and all. I mean c'mon, are they Lacuna Coil now? Add to it I thought Wages of Sin was pretty crap, and then you have a band that becomes pure irrelevance (not that they were ever really that good).

Dimmu is another one that I never really liked. Stormblast was OK, but it's not like they released some masterpiece.

My only problem with Opeth is that they released two near masterpieces, and one solid album and then became boring. I don't like boring. Add to it they have one of the most obnoxious pseudo-intellectual fanbases right up there with Tool and Dream THeater.