The way a band should be concidered?

Sonm

Curse You All Men...
Aug 14, 2002
2,337
19
38
Sometimes I wonder about THE COMMON (!!) opinion of how a band should sound like...
And more and more often it convince me that at least 50% of listeners simply do not care about the music, but pay their attention to how a band SOUNDS. And the band that has its guitar sound similar to say a well known band (although the music can be totally different) is doomed to be rejected. Fucking great, men!! And the explanation is that the more original the band is the more attention it deserves... What about the classical music then?! It all sound the same simply because in most cases it is just an ORCHESTRA... Let's imagin an artist painting a wall with shit - 100% original!! Would you enjoy his art? Thanks a lot guys I'd better buy somethin' less original, looking 40% Repin, 20% Rembrandt, 30% Mikelangelo but being a REAL peace of art despite all those similarities...
 
Originally posted by Sonm
And more and more often it convince me that at least 50% of listeners simply do not care about the music, but pay their attention to how a band SOUNDS. And the band that has its guitar sound similar to say a well known band (although the music can be totally different) is doomed to be rejected.

What a nonsence... Many bands are rejected just because they can't be compared with anyone. It's a serious disadvantage for a young band from the point of view of many labels. How should they sell it? And I don't just imagine it - all I say is based on the talks with some label managers.
It can' be explained by the fact that A&R departaments and reveiwers in metal magazines usually have contraversary opinions concerning such things. The guy who reviews 10 albums a day definitely will lust for something extraordinary rather than a quality piece of what he had heard thousand times before. But it's not public opinion as it may seem. It's an opinoin of many reviewers and you can see it because you can read it somewhere, so you may have an impression that everyone thinks so also.
 
Originally posted by Sarquanaar
What a nonsence... Many bands are rejected just because they can't be compared with anyone. It's a serious disadvantage for a young band from the point of view of many labels. How should they sell it? And I don't just imagine it - all I say is based on the talks with some label managers.
It can' be explained by the fact that A&R departaments and reveiwers in metal magazines usually have contraversary opinions concerning such things. The guy who reviews 10 albums a day definitely will lust for something extraordinary rather than a quality piece of what he had heard thousand times before. But it's not public opinion as it may seem. It's an opinoin of many reviewers and you can see it because you can read it somewhere, so you may have an impression that everyone thinks so also.

Aha, so you think that doing something ORIGINAL without taking care of what it is much better than doing something what can be compared to known band? Why not playing stouns then? Or say using sounds of accelerating turbo pumps instead of guitars? That's damn original and more than just extraordinary things? Why not to crush botles against wall during the whole album?
I can understand those reviewers are fed up with reviewing bands LACKING MUSIC... But why the fuck do people kepp on buying new albums of known bands then? Probably you think that they expect to hear something EXTRAODINARY? Could you answer that? And one more thing - when starting arguing never start it with phrases like 'what a bullshit, or what a nonesense (BY THE WAY IT IS nonsenSe and not nonsenCe which makes it nonsense indeed!)" coz that indicates a low intellect... Better say something like "I think I do not agree because..."
But that's just a tiny suggestion
Cheers
 
I guess c l e v e r people live in Suomi!! Let us :headbang:
 
I guess C L E V E R people live in England (originally from Austr... you think Austria? No!! Australand!!):lol: