There are no gimmicks and there are no sellouts. Just stop.

[General Zod]

what if their change in style was not based on commercial success but based on a real artistic interest in the new style? would that change your outlook on the music itself?

No. The music is, what the music is. Regardless of what their motivation was behind writing those songs, I think the songs are of poor quality. It just so happens, that I think their motivation was bigger bank accounts. And if you take this in light of what the band has done since (selling backstage passes, charging for access to parts of their web site, etc.), it certainly seems consistent.

Zod

 

[J.]

what if their change in style was not based on commercial success but based on a real artistic interest in the new style? would that change your outlook on the music itself?

Then perhaps the band should choose a new name for this new musical interest, instead of staining the original name.

 

[Black Winter Day]

so all it has to do with is names??? didn't shakespeare have something to say about that?



(i can see the witty retort now: "shakespeare was ghey!")

 

[J.]

The name of a band is how fans identify the band. It would surprise if I bought a Bolt Thrower album, only to hear gay power metal. If Bolt Thrower wanted to play power metal, then a new name would probably help.

It happens all the time with side projects. Look at Dan Swano. He had Pan Thy Monium, the solo Moontower, Edge of Sanity, Odyssey, Godsend, Karaboudjan, etc. It'd get kinda confusing if he simply released all those albums under one name.

A name doesn't define a band, but it's how fans recognize them. Look at Erik and Sorath. Instead of playing both thrash and black metal under Nasheim, they chose to use a different name for each venture. Which is what bands should do.

 

[Black Winter Day]

i disagree. it's the band's right to record whatever the hell they want under their name. if you buy a new album by a band you listen to without reading up on it and it turns out to be something different, then tough shit. if nasheim's next release was power metal, it wouldn't make undergang less cool. it might make me wonder about sorath and erik personally, though... it's the people who make the music not the name it is under. if genesis had changed their name when they turned gay, it wouldn't make phil collins any less of a fag.

in short: a change of styles does not merit a name change. the only time names of bands should change is if a large portion of the band members from the previous albums are gone (i.e. axl firing the whole band, but still keeping the name Guns n Roses). and that is ONLY if a change in style occurs simultaneous to new members.

 

[J.]

Of course it is the right of the band to play whatever they want. But if Drudkh all of a sudden start playing hardcore, that is being very deceptive to their fans, who have already identified the name Drudkh, with black metal.

The guys in Hate Forest/Drudkh recognized that "hey, since we are going to play two entirely dfferent types of music, lets create two different bands so people don't get confused", which is the way is should be.

And I believe Genesis should have changed their name when they became mainstream pop. But oh noes, they didn't want to lose their fans and start from scratch.

The name is simply another identifier, like a genre name. And not everyone has the means to read up about bands, contrary to what many believe.

 

[Black Winter Day]

what about the bands whose sounds "progress" into something entirely different over the course of several releases? when should have amorphis changed the band name? isn't it a double-edged sword? it is just as deceptive (to the fans) to have a band change names when they change styles as it is to keep the same name and still be "identified" with the style of music they previously played.

 

[J.]

Well, when I said "name change", I actually meant "form a side project". Lets stick with the Drudkh guys. Instead of releasing Scythia, Blood and FIre, Forgotten Legends, Purity, and Autumn AUrora all under the Hate Forest moniker, the guys chose to distinguish the two into two entities, instead of releasing raging black, heathen metal, then raging black metal again, consequently confusing the hell outta everyone.

If a band has a desire to play another form of music, go for it, just release it under another band name, and leave the original band name alone. If Bolt Thrower wants to play soilwork-esque fag metal, fine, just release under a different name. And when they feel like playing their warlike death metal again, you already have the Bolt Thrower name. Side projects are the key here.

As far as Amorphis, they might as well have changed the name for Tuonela. Some band members changed I believe (not sure), and vocal duties were somewhat changed, not to mention the difference in sound. Then again, amorphous means "to change".

 

[NAD]

it's the band's right to record whatever the hell they want under their name.

 

[Demonspell]

I have to agree with BWD on this one. The name is integral in indetifying the band, but most fans respect the fact the band can record whatever music it wants under that name, it shouldn't automatically bind you to one sound. I agree that certain projects should be released under a separate identity, but a shift in musical direction shouldn't be enough to warrant a name change. An example I'd use would be Devin Townsend...originally he wanted each of his solo projects to carry a different name, but eventually decided to release them under his own name, seeing that the differences between them didn't obscure the fact that they had the same creator.

 

[J.]

The name is integral in indetifying the band, but most fans respect the fact the band can record whatever music it wants under that name, it shouldn't automatically bind you to one sound.

A name is integral in identifying a band, and with that identity comes a certain sound. When I think of Bolt Thrower or Suffocation, anyone would instantly think death metal. No one thinks of folkish heathen bosanova-core.

When you say "most fans", are you talking about 5% of the metal scene? Hardly any fans respect bands that change drastically. Opeth has gotten flack, In Flames, SOilwork, Arch Enemy, and even Carcass got a lot of shit for Swansong. The list goes on and on. The fans will probably eventually get over the change, but some former fans will never let their disappointment die.

ANother example I'll use of someone that did the right thing is Rob Darken. He could have easily released his Lord Wind albums under the Graveland moniker. But so as to separate the two, because they each have a different core sound (yet are both heathenistic in nature), he chose to keep them separate.

And going back a little, a band should have the right to release whatever they want with their name, but record labels will step in if it is too drastic a change, unless the band had artistic freedom. Or the band simply sells a lot.

 

[Black Winter Day]

ANother example I'll use of someone that did the right thing is Rob Darken. He could have easily released his Lord Wind albums under the Graveland moniker. But so as to separate the two, because they each have a different core sound (yet are both heathenistic in nature), he chose to keep them separate.

Ah-HA! but take a listen to "the celtic winter" and then "immortal pride". you CANNOT say that the two are similar at all -- in fact they are vastly different. same name, different music. so why would he put the lord wind stuff out under a different name? it can't be because of the "different styles" thing. if that is what he says, he's lying to himself. based on the musical shifts graveland has taken over the years.

 

[J.]

The two are very similar. One is just a little slower than the other. They are both pagan-ish black metal.

 

[J.]

We need Erik's and Sorath's input, since they are both in two different bands, playing two different types of metal. And I think Erik is working on a funeral doom project, yet I doubt he'll be using the names Lethal or Nasheim.

 

[Black Winter Day]

one is much slower, has clean vocals, repetition and a melody-based foundation.
one is fast, has extreme/distorted vocals, shorter songs without a ton of repetition and an atonal/nihilistic song foundation.

i guess i don't get what you're saying. sure, they can both be classified as "heathen black metal" but other than that the albums have very little in common.

but i digress...

 

[J.]

but i digress...

me too.

 

[Black Winter Day]

so how was dinner?

 

[Hell Mike]

Lethal and Nasheim are two different bands because the styles of music we play are very different indeed. Erik's doom stuff (or anything else he makes [he makes lots of stuff] that doesn't fit Nasheim or Lethal) won't be released under any of those names.

 

[J.]

I'm eating dinner right now. Pizza Pocket and crackers with peanut butter. And watching Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

Yep, it's a saturday night as Casa del Moore.

 

[General Zod]

what about the bands whose sounds "progress" into something entirely different over the course of several releases?

It's an interesting issue. I don't think there are any right or wrong answers. In my opinion, if a band plans on making a temporary departure from their style, to experiment with something completely new, a new monikor is probably wise. However, if it's just the natural progression of things, then a new band name is probably unjustified.

Zod