This thread is for Pate...

There's no point in debating with you over the Cheap Trick thing, as you said it's a matter of opinion and therefore subjective.

But as for me, I'll personally take their "horrid mainstream garbage" over 95% of what comes out of the metal scene these days, personally ;) Yeah I said it. lol

Yeah, I'm not going to debate music with a musician. I'm sure you could state good points regarding Cheap Trick. I just never liked their music or presence on stage. I can't be specific, for it was a long time ago. But, music needs to move me, make me feel something. And this band only made me feel nauseous. It is my simple subjective opinion. Nothing more, Nothing less. As for your "metal" comment, I think you might be takin' that a little too far:erk: But, once again, a simple subjective opinion, which I respect.
 
Cheap Trick is definitely a love em or hate em kind of band.
They were one of the first hard rock bands I ever got into, along with KISS, Rush, Journey, etc, etc.
 
Yep, all understood. And agreed. Music needs to move me too, I think we can all agree on that. That's been my problem with alot of metal for a while now, it doesn't move me. I hear some cool riffs, some great playing or singing here and there, a decent song or cd now and then, but on the whole, so much of it winds up becoming utterly expendable to me. I still love metal but find myself preferring to listen to my old stand-bys as opposed to being really taken with alot of newer metal that's coming out.

But yeah man, arguing over music is pointless really because it all comes down to how it affects you personally.
 
Jasonic mentioned Kiss. Another subjective opinion is, Kiss was about the glitz and show. Not one shred of musical integrity. And this Gene Simmon's monstrosity on AE, you can't tell me this guy is a serious musician. An arrogant clown. Period.
 
You're looking to debate this shit aren't you?? LOL

Deciding whether or not an artist has "musicial integrity" once again falls into that subjective grey area, the way I see it. I think Kiss has written some great rock and roll music over the years. Whether Gene behaves like a greedy bigmouthed twat at times is irrelevant to whether or not the man and his cohorts have the ability to write good songs.

People are funny sometimes in that they look at the material that a band like Kiss or Cheap Trick writes, and it gets written off as mindless pop/rock drivel. But in fact, I can tell you honestly that it's much MUCH harder to write a 3 minute song that will stand the test of time and be sung and remembered by millions for 30+ years, than it is to write some 8 minute technical progressive opus. Oh I'm not saying playing said opus doesn't require better musicial chops in terms of technique and ability. But anyone can spend 8 hours a day in their bedroom for years until they have the chops to play a Watchtower tune. But there's still no guarantee that the person will be able to write a memorable, catchy song worth remembering.

That's not a slam against Watchtower, either. I love that band, amazing chops. I love progressive,technical stuff for what it is....I just happen to also be able to appreciate and see the beauty in a simple Beatles or Cheap Trick or Fleetwood Mac tune as well.

I don't want to burst anyone's bubble or take away from the mystique or impressions that their favorite bands/artists give them......but if you guys had any idea about the kinds of attitudes, egos, shady business shit, greedy money-grubbing, and other all around bullshit that goes on with so many of your favorite artists, your heads would quite possibly spin. And don't think it's limited to just the big rich rock'n'rollers either, I'm talking about some of the well-known artists in death metal, black metal, power metal, etc. The only difference between Gene and some of these people I'm alluding to is that Gene doesn't try to hide it and instead chooses to builds his infamy and popularity off of it.

It's like the whole Coldplay thing.....they're a great band who can write memorable tunes and play well. But due to the excessive amount of hype and popularity they've acheived, they've become targets for over-criticising and negativity. But if Coldplay were to change places with a much smaller, more respected "underground-cred" band, like Klimt1918 (great band)...then I think alot of people's impressions of their music would be different.
 
Speaking of people's attitudes and egos - I try not to let these kinds of things affect whether I listen to a band or not. Case in point - Kvarforth from Shining could possibly be one of the biggest douchebags I've come across in the metal scene, but I love their music so much, I don't really care. It's all about the music.
 
Yeah you guys are right. I stand corrected. As Beast says, "it's all about the music." Personally, I don't care about a musicians personality or what he/she may or may not do. Just something about bands like Cheap Trick and Kiss, that rub me the wrong way in a musical sense and also performance. And musicians have the right, I guess, to do what they want. By the same token, bands like Skepticism and Mournful Congregation, arenot concerned about the glitz and "wow man" factor. They create their art for the love of it. So, to me their is a big difference between such bands as Kiss and Cheap Trick. The impetus for bands like Kiss and Cheap Trick, was/is to make a boatload of money, and the result imo, is the music suffers. They certainly have the right to make money, and the "mainstream" will then wedge these bands into a certain place so EVERYONE can make some dough! It's a fuckin' shame, but, part of the fabric of this truly difficult and fucked up culture in which we live. I've always spent my money on bands who I enjoy musically, and try to be as supportive as I can for bands who are brilliant, yet go unnoticed. Yeah, I'm talkig to you Novembers Doom. It's a borderline crime that ND are not appreciated more. I'm sick of reading that ND are an "MDB clone Band." This is probably coming from someone who has never given ND an attentive listen, or Esoteric, MC and Skepticism. The "mainstream" attitude is a sheep mentality. If I were a musician with musical integrity(I wish I was) I would avoid being funneled into what this society deems acceptable Such as bands like Kiss, Aerosmith and Cheap Trick. Fuck those bands, they're not relevant to me. Not trying to debate anything, just stating a subjective opinion. Then again, I've always lived on the fringes of this culture. Hence, my musical taste. Hey, that's just me!!
 
But see you're kind of laboring under the impression that a band like Aerosmith and Cheap Trick are creating their music solely for the purpose of making mad wads of cash and I don't think that's true. Sure I'm sure they aspired to become "rich and famous" as most of us have dreamt of at some time or another. But I think those guys make that kind of music because that's the kind of music that means something to them. They grew up loving and jamming on The Beatles or The Stones or Yardbirds or whatever, and so that's reflected in the music they create. It just so happens that the sound and songcrafting those guys came up with wound up appealing to the masses and therefore became a hit. Hell, even with Kiss, you have to keep in mind that songs like "100,000 Years" or "Deuce" etc. weren't exactly the kind of music that was normally selling millions back in 1974, it was definitely more akin to the "heavy underground" of that time. The fact that they were clever enough to come up with a unique visual spin on things I think just showed their ingenuity really, regardless of how greedy or jaded they might've become later on.

If Skepticism or some band of that sort were given the opportunity to have widespread fame, while still playing the music that means so much to them, you'd better believe they'd want to go for it. They can't help it that a huge majority of the population just have little to no interest in that stuff. Even me, yeah I like some doom and I have my favorites but that Skepticism stuff bores the living shit out of me. I respect them for creating their art and everything, but I'm not a fan. I'll take an old Aerosmith album any day.

But again, just a matter of personal opinion ;)
 
I think this horse has been saddled, ridden, and beaten!

The only thing I can say about bands like KISS and Cheap Trick, is, while they seem like cash grabbing rubbish now, I think it warrants to point out what they were doing visually and musically since the early to mid 70s.

Even the the most kvlt bands like Bathory and Pentagram have spoken to the importance of bands like KISS to metal as we know it today.

Don't get me wrong. I am not implying that you should like KISS just because some respected metal bands like them.
Just saying that I think you need to take certain bands in relevance to where they came out in time.

For example, I while I can't say I like the New York Dolls musically, you can't deny their importance to glam rock / metal as we know it today.
 
i wonder why the beatles is mentioned in this regard. sure, they've done their share of poppy songs and easy listening, but there's some nasty shit on their later albums. weird song structures, dissonant passages... i think they've done their part for bringing out experimentalism into what bloodsword defines as "acceptable music" :)
 
Bloodsword, you know that I fully agree on hating the whole "MDB clone" tag we've endured. I mostly laugh at it now though, since it's so ridiculous anyhow. If any of those people would ever actually mention that idea to someone like Andy from MDB, he'd laugh in their faces. We've certainly had a laugh or two with those guys about the whole thing, as we both know it's totally unfounded.

As for the whole thing of us being overlooked or not being as successful as we could or should be......sure it bums us out that it's that way. But at the same time, some of that is by our own doing, because we didn't take the normal route of touring constantly, putting our music careers before family, health, etc. I don't think that makes us any more of a legitimate artist than someone who does have more mainstream success, it's just that we weren't willing to make that sacrifice and deal with the bullshit that this industry throws at you under those circumstances (we've had to endure enough of that as it is). I'd love to see ND be more successful and reach more people, but at the same time, I'm pretty happy and proud with what we have acheived thus far, and if it all ended tomorrow for some reason, I could look back with pride and a sense of accomplishment. You can't really ask for more than that.

As for what I choose to spend my money on, music-wise......I don't really base it much on how obscure or large an artist is or isn't, I just go by whether or not I like the music. I'm happy to spend my cash on a Woods Of Ypres or Thurisaz cd, and I'm happy to spend it on the latest Coldplay or Radiohead or Bob Dylan cd as well. It's great when people are actively trying to support the underground or more fringe bands, it's certainly needed. But I think having mainstream music tastes doesn't make someone a sheep, it mostly depends on whether or not they're allowing themselves to believe that only the mainstream stuff is the stuff worth listening to. I'm not a big fan of narrow-minded people whether it be in the metal underground or in the pop mainstream.
 
i wonder why the beatles is mentioned in this regard. sure, they've done their share of poppy songs and easy listening, but there's some nasty shit on their later albums. weird song structures, dissonant passages... i think they've done their part for bringing out experimentalism into what bloodsword defines as "acceptable music" :)


The Beatles are an exception to almost every rule, being that they were some of the original innovators and have influenced a huge majority of music of all kinds for the last forty years.

But at the core of it all, those guys were pop writers, and amazing ones at that. Then again you're talking to the guy who thinks Revolver is the best album ever put together. :)
 
True, that album has some great songs man! Dr. Roberts, For no one, And your bird can sing, eleanor rigby of course... sorry Vito for another opeth comparison, i think Akerfeldt really digs this album as well, hehe.

One of the first real songs (discounting children songs, hehe) i really liked was Fool on the Hill. I can still remember listening to that with headphones on when i was 8 or 9 years old. I also remember my first boss when i got my first job ( i was 14 ) was pleasantly surprised when i was singing along in the bakery, hehe.

Do you know beatallica Larry?

Also you might like this site i recently discovered:http://www.ricksuchow.com/music-group-204.html
 
But at the core of it all, those guys were pop writers, and amazing ones at that.

What are your insights into pop writing? Where do you draw the line? Are the kind of bands Bloodsword described pop writers? Are ND pop writers? Are Nightwish pop writers? Are Unexpect pop writers?

What does one have to do in order not to be a pop writer? If one listened to the acoustic gig you did, one could say you were pop writers, right? Are you suddenly not a pop writer anymore when you turn on the distortion?
 
Larry, I didn't mean to rattle anyone's cage about their musical taste. I appreciate the insight into what ND is/was trying to accomplish over the years. I'm happy that the band is comfortable with where your at. I know a tremendous amount of work went into this, and juggling family and health, should always come first. I'm living, really on the outer fringes of this banal society. At 52 yrs of age, I lost faith in our culture years ago. I'll leave it at that. Peace, and I hope people enjoy whatever they listen to.
 
What are your insights into pop writing? Where do you draw the line? Are the kind of bands Bloodsword described pop writers? Are ND pop writers? Are Nightwish pop writers? Are Unexpect pop writers?

What does one have to do in order not to be a pop writer? If one listened to the acoustic gig you did, one could say you were pop writers, right? Are you suddenly not a pop writer anymore when you turn on the distortion?

To me, the word "pop" can be both broad and specific I guess. I wouldn't call Unexpect's songwriting "pop" in any way, because they're approaching their song structuring, melodies, etc., from a more progressive, avant-garde perspective. As for our songs......that's a tough call, really. I think certain stuff we do could never be construed as having that formula I mentioned, but certain things can. Would it be completely inconceivable to hear "Twilight Innocence" on the radio? I don't think it's impossible, as the song isn't terribly long, the structure of it is fairly standard (verse-chorus-verse-bridge, etc.) and while it's a somber tune, it's certainly not too dark or heavy for the general population to possibly appreciate. So, no I wouldn't consider ourselves as "pop songwriters" but I do think we have more of an element of that present in some of our music than say a band like Unexpect, Cynic, or Winter.

As for the Beatles being pop writers at the core, I mean that's almost a direct quote I'm taking from the mouths of Lennon and McCartney themselves. Even when doing an odd song like "I Am The Walrus" or whatever, there's still a definite sense of trying to keep things within the accesible pop realm in terms of structure, melody, etc. It just so happens that those guys were the kings at pushing the boundaries of that realm, along with some of the other bands from that era like The Byrds, The Doors, etc. Whereas bands from that general era, like Van Der Graaf Generator or King Crimson, might've had some hook-y tunes and moments but overall their focus seemed to be more on capturing performances that were in the moment and jazzy/progressive in nature, and not so much focused on the verse-chorus hook that I think is a predominant component of pop-songwriting.

Plus, just to be clear, when I'm referring to "pop-songwriting" I'm not talking about just "pop" music, like Avril Levigne or Green Day, lol. I'm referring to a specific formula and structure for writing a song. Obviously what constitutues being labelled as "pop music" can't really be narrowed down to just own specific sound anyhow, when you consider that at one time or another, artists as diverse as Buddy Holly, The Doors, The Bee Gees, Duran Duran, Foo Fighters, and fuckin' Hannah Montana have all been lumped in or considered as "pop artists" of their time.