Honestly, Ben, regardless of Steve's personal tastes I think he was more disallusioned with the short attention span of some fans these days and certainly not resenting the fact Gloryhammer and its ilk exist. I wouldn't take it as directed attack.
The reason I chose to weigh in on this discussion was because when we posted our original promo pictures and announced our signing to Napalm in early 2012, Steve posted this on facebook:
Steve Williams said:
If there is one thing I hate.....it is gimmick driven music and bands. Image over substance doesn't do it for me I'm afraid
And the very day we first posted our Angus McFife video online, Steve rather charmingly posted this:
Wish there was more integrity within the scene these days.....there's just too much godawful shite out there for my liking. Must be in a minority though I guess
Given this, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to surmise that there might be a link between them...if not, who are all these 'joke/comedy type projects'?
I have absolutely nothing against you having fun or writing music you like.
No, I'm aware of that, it's just people actually listening to it that you object to, right?
I for one think it's completely understandable to be upset when this is what sells
So...why's that then?
Is it perhaps because of this idea that because we're out there doing things, someone else more worthy is actually missing out?
it says a lot when the bands that can't get a break have musical content that is from (and about!) the heart
Aren't there any bands at all who make music 'from the heart' that are successful around at the moment? Not one?
I bet you there's a ton of 'joke/comedy type projects' who are also struggling to get anywhere.
Also, I do wonder if when you say 'musical content' you really mean subject matter/lyrical content. All of the
music I contributed to Gloryhammer was from my heart, however difficult you might find that to believe. Me and my sister did full orchestral arrangements for the entire album. We worked for four weeks solid on it, day in, day out, working all through the night on multiple occasions.
We did this because we are passionate about orchestral music and wanted to see just how good we could make it. That part certainly wasn't a joke.
Of course we don't expect people to take the lyrics seriously...in fact we're often amazed how seriously people
do take them considering how stupid they are. But then, people have been taking Rhapsody seriously for a long time, and they've always been a 'joke/comedy type project' to me.
whereas bands that get all the mainstream appeal have to rely on dressing up in fantasy clothing, plastic or crazy weaponry on stage...
Again, this is still the exception rather than the norm, isn't it. And in any case, the rest of the bands are wearing the 'metal uniform' or some variation on it. You get in trouble if your hair isn't long enough or you don't have a beard. You'd be amazed at the criticisms we've had levelled at us simply because our singer has short hair and no beard, which casts complaints about what we're wearing in an interesting light.
And nobody said anything about anyone being stupid.
No, the implication is that this is children's music:
we seem to be into the realms of rock/metal bands for kids with cartoon type stuff.
...and you yourself said:
as a grown man I don't have to watch them prancing around on stage like they're cosplaying World of Warcraft.
(emphasis added)
So, following this line of thought, if grown, sensible adults want to listen to children's music, that must indicate they are intellectually subnormal. If that's not what you mean, then I'm unsure what it is you do mean.
Let's think about cartoonishness for a moment. Don't Iron Maiden have a giant zombie puppet on stage? Doesn't Bruce Dickinson dress as a 19th-century infantryman and wave a big flag? In fact he dresses as all sorts of things.
Sounds sort of childish doesn't it? Bruce raiding the dressing up box again! But of course, it's
in order to put on a good show. Eddie of course started off as a smoke-breathing head above the stage...bit gimmicky isn't it?
Does it matter?
I think the implication that most bothers me here is that Gloryhammer owes its present profile to nothing more than dressing up. Would Rhapsody really be more successful if they dressed up as things? I don't know. Would Power Quest be more successful if everyone wore something stupid? I don't think so somehow, it's not in keeping with the brand. It's not so simple as 'if you cave in to commercialism and dress up as a caveman, you'll get X million record sales'. There's a bit more to it than that. What we've done is create a solid, consistent image that matches the music that we're making, so even if you just look at a picture you've got an idea of what you're getting...and looking at a picture, or even reading the track listing of the album is enough to pique many people's curiosity. We don't want people to then buy a record or come to a show and feel that they've been short-changed, the music has to be good as well, but as we all know it's getting people's interest in the first place that's the challenge.
I want to discuss this point that Dom made as I think it sums everything up very well:
At the same time I've never known power metal, the overarching genre we're all talking about, to hold deep lyrics and talented music in one hand seperate from a tongue-in-cheek, playful,cheesy approach in the other. Argue all you will about the inclusion of plastic swords or costumes but I think PQ and Gloryhammer are different shades of the same colour.
I agree entirely. Let's not forget that to most people, probably even most metal fans, power metal is a totally ridiculous genre of music...however sincere and heartfelt your lyrics might be, if you've put them over the top of a 200bpm double-time skank beat with 80s synths playing the most exuberant chord progression possible in a major key, with guitars playing palm-muted 16ths your average listener is probably going to find it harder to relate to emotionally than, say for example, Joni Mitchell. Only people who have been trained to interpret this sort of music are going to find it communicates to them emotionally.
I mean, all metal is thought of as pretty ridiculous from the outside...I'm always reading snooty newspaper articles about Iron Maiden that basically levels the same criticisms at them as Gloryhammer has had here, that it's children's music with no substance. I thought 'Angel of Death' by Slayer was the funniest thing I had ever heard when I first heard it! That high-pitched scream, those drums, the atonality of that riff...surely you can't be serious? But after a while, I found myself laughing less and just enjoying the music.
Yes Gloryhammer is daft, but I think that an awful lot of metal is just as daft but doesn't realise it. In fact there's nothing funnier than people doing something ridiculous but taking it really seriously...this has influenced our own presentation quite a bit.
One last thing. One of my favourite book series is Terry Pratchett's Discworld. These started out as a fairly straightforward parody of 80s fantasy fiction, and the first few books are relatively content-light albeit well-executed...but then fast forward to 20 books or so later and his work is attracting comparisons to Jonathan Swift and the great satirists, and yet on the face of it it's still all silly stories about dwarves and vampires and dragons...
Things can be good art and yet also tongue-in-cheek, satirical or downright silly. I happen to love things like that. It doesn't mean I don't also like things that intended to be taken totally seriously. There's a place for both, as Dom rightly says:
In fact highlighting this time old duality of the genre reminds me that there is actually a binary aspect of the music industry itself - it has always been there for in-depth stuff and easily digestable stuff at the same time. It is a shame that bands can be overlooked and perhaps it is a shame the masses/youth are leaning further away from what others may deem more timeless and significant, I get that frustration, but it should come as no surprise. Both can coexist anyway and as I said I don't think necessarily the two are fundamentally distinct.
