Why do so many people hate Anders Friden?
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
They released 5 more albums since their last one? Oh I guess I seriously missed something then. Also, they did that pretty quickly, 5 albums in about half a year.
I think you're mistaken though. I checked everywhere I could and I couldn't find any album sinds Sounds Of A Playground Fading.
La Rocque
I am that I am
If I could fuck myself, I'd never leave my house.
As for Anders Friden, best thing ever to happen
was when he left DT or was kicked out -
Look man, you like the new In Flames, that's fine. I think that compared to their older stuff, their newer stuff is a disgrace, and that's fine too. But to pretend there's not a massive break after R2R and that they didnt change their style to a far more simple, catchy, more accessible kind of metal, that's just retarded.
The fact that you like it doesnt mean it's not shit
The fact that you like it doesnt mean it's not shit
Look man, you like the new In Flames, that's fine. I think that compared to their older stuff, their newer stuff is a disgrace, and that's fine too. But to pretend there's not a massive break after R2R and that they didnt change their style to a far more simple, catchy, more accessible kind of metal, that's just retarded.
The fact that you like it doesnt mean it's not shit
And the fact that you like it doesn't mean it is. And I never pretended there wasn't a massive break after Clayman, but a massive break is not the same as a sellout. There was a massive break for DT after The Mind's I as well, and that still isn't the same as a sellout. And perhaps their newer material is more accessible, but that still doesn't make it a sellout. I think it would be more of a sellout if they just kept recording the same album over and over again, just because they know all old fans would adore a new The Jester Race. Making an album like R2R or StYE was more of a huge risk than a sellout honestly.
You think it's sellout to stay true to your musical roots?
And at the same time, you dont think it's sellout to abandon your musical roots and forego the audience that got you where you are, for a more numerous, less demanding audience that you can please with more catchy, less complex music?I think you have your definition of sellout a little backwards
You think it's sellout to stay true to your musical roots?
I think you have your definition of sellout a little backwards
I think selling out is the act of creating music (in this case, that is) of which they know it will sell. Is this what they did with R2R? Absolutely not. If they had recorded another The Jester Race, Colony or Whoracle, would that be what they had done? Yes. But you know what? I think In Flames make the music they want to make, and if you don't like it stop whining and get the fuck over it. If you think you're too good for them, just go listen to another band.
Well, that's just like, your opinion, man.
I think I'll reserve the right to express my opinion. As people they have the right to do whatever they want and I might even go so far as saying that in their stead, I might have done something similar. But as musicians I think they have a certain moral responsibility towards the fanbase that supported them and got them to where they are and as a fan, I have the right to complain when they give me the proverbial finger and start making shitty music aimed at people 10 years younger than me.
It's the same with bands dying in plane crashes, the fans are devastated because they lost their favourite band and you dont tell them to "stop whining and get over themselves" either, now do you?
It's the same thing, the band is essentially dead and people are upset. You like the new stuff, most people dont. That's what you need to get over it would seem.
Moral responsibility? That is just plain stupid. If you don't like their music now that's ok, you are entitled to your opinion. But there's a big difference between expressing your opinion and continuously whining about things that you're not gonna do anything about anyway.
Bands should respect their fans, but keep the freedom to make the music they want to make. And you don't like it, ok, that's not their fault. That doesn't mean they're dead. A friend of mine never liked them, so does that mean they've never lived? And eh, most people don't like their new stuff? So that means my definition of selling out was right, or?
And moreover, you're exaggerating this. You're acting as if they're the new support band for Justin Bieber or something.
stizzleomnibus
Decisively Human
Anders Fríden's singing is so cat-like that it scared my cat, who went flying across the room and upset a lit candle. My house burned down and my wife has yet to forgive me for it.
I think the whole concept of "selling out" is fundamentally irrelevant. The only thing that matters about a piece of music, or any other creative work, is quality. If a piece of work is good, it really doesn't matter or shouldn't matter how "true to their roots" the artist is being.
In fact, I'd go as far as say that if the "authenticity" of an album, and how "true to their roots" the artist in question is being then it's really not even about the music at all, instead the music is more of a cultural signifier and you are listening to that band as a way of saying that you identify with a certain subculture around it, and in your eyes you gain status because of it. If you do this, you need to drastically reevaluate your priorities, and if your self-worth is based on listening to bands no one else has heard of (and thus you resent them gaining success because being into them no longer makes you cool) then you need to outright grow up. Most people who listen to music in an even semi-serious way listen to bands most other people have "never even heard of" because there are approximately 900 billion bands out there who had an album in a shop at one point, and no one can possible have heard of them all.
Also, I fully support the right of all bands to take their music in a more commercial direction. Most bands, especially in niche genres like extreme metal, don't make enough money to live off their music, and I would never begrudge anyone who manages to make a living doing what is basically their hobby. That's amazingly cool and I wish them luck.
So, in light of all this I think we can say that the main issue with In Flames post Clayman output, artistically, is that it is complete shit.
In fact, I'd go as far as say that if the "authenticity" of an album, and how "true to their roots" the artist in question is being then it's really not even about the music at all, instead the music is more of a cultural signifier and you are listening to that band as a way of saying that you identify with a certain subculture around it, and in your eyes you gain status because of it. If you do this, you need to drastically reevaluate your priorities, and if your self-worth is based on listening to bands no one else has heard of (and thus you resent them gaining success because being into them no longer makes you cool) then you need to outright grow up. Most people who listen to music in an even semi-serious way listen to bands most other people have "never even heard of" because there are approximately 900 billion bands out there who had an album in a shop at one point, and no one can possible have heard of them all.
Also, I fully support the right of all bands to take their music in a more commercial direction. Most bands, especially in niche genres like extreme metal, don't make enough money to live off their music, and I would never begrudge anyone who manages to make a living doing what is basically their hobby. That's amazingly cool and I wish them luck.
So, in light of all this I think we can say that the main issue with In Flames post Clayman output, artistically, is that it is complete shit.
Similar threads
