Why is album popularity such a bad thing, even in the underground?

[General Zod]

I truly believe the sound displayed on Clayman was enough to propel them into the spotlight, while at the same time not deviating too far from the style that brought them so many "underground" fans to begin with. If they had just stayed along those lines, I believe they would've become even MORE popular because they would've continued to be successful without being so shunned in our community.

Agreed. It's quite ironic. For the same reasons I never got why Queensryche changed so drastically from O:Mc to Empire and why Metallica changed so much between And Justice and Black.

Zod

 

[Hell Mike]

While it's understandable that in your lifetime you want to be as successful as you can and acquire as much wealth as possible,

What do these have to do with eachother? And why is "successful" = "commercially successful"? (At least that's the way I interpret your words)

 

[Ellestin]

Most of what I'd have to say has been said already, so I'll narrow it down to a self-expalanatory example. I remember when I first came across Agalloch through "Pale Folklore" back in 1999 and fell in awe about just how brilliant this was. I tried to get some feedback on the album from a couple friends and all I got were comments on the lines of "yeah that sounds cool, but could you please just shut the door behind you, I'm not quite done licking Akerfeldt's penis...". So when this "The Mantle" craze started taking off and the same people were coming to me saying "Hey, I discovered a new kick-ass band, d'ya know them?", I couldn't help feeling a bit dumb and, consciously or not, I put "The Mantle" back in the shelf where it stayed untouched for some weeks. Worse, even today I'm unable to determine whether I was blaming the situation on those guys or on Agalloch themselves!

It is just that, in the underground more than anywhere else, people are torn by this stupid contradiction: I want a band to be mine, and at the same time I want other people to hail how cool I am for liking such a great band. A bunch of Narcisses we are, really.

 

[JayKeeley]

The case of In Flames is quite ironic in that they jumped on to the nuMetal bandwagon just as it was derailed. You're right, Dark One, at least if they stuck with Clayman, they would have at least had their own identity. Say what you will about Clayman, but it does still 'sound' like In Flames (at least Colony era). "Soundtrack" could have been written by anyone on the other hand.

 

[General Zod]

Most of what I'd have to say has been said already, so I'll narrow it down to a self-expalanatory example. I remember when I first came across Agalloch through "Pale Folklore" back in 1999 and fell in awe about just how brilliant this was. I tried to get some feedback on the album from a couple friends and all I got were comments on the lines of "yeah that sounds cool, but could you please just shut the door behind you, I'm not quite done licking Akerfeldt's penis...". So when this "The Mantle" craze started taking off and the same people were coming to me saying "Hey, I discovered a new kick-ass band, d'ya know them?", I couldn't help feeling a bit dumb and, consciously or not, I put "The Mantle" back in the shelf where it stayed untouched for some weeks. Worse, even today I'm unable to determine whether I was blaming the situation on those guys or on Agalloch themselves!

It is just that, in the underground more than anywhere else, people are torn by this stupid contradiction: I want a band to be mine, and at the same time I want other people to hail how cool I am for liking such a great band. A bunch of Narcisses we are, really.

Probably the most dead-on, honest post I've read. I think a lot of folks feel this way, and either deny it or don't even realize that they're doing it.

Zod

 

[Dark One]

What do these have to do with eachother?

Nothing if you're talking about some obscure pagan black metal band that wants nothing to do with commercial success. Everything if you're talking about a band that does.

And why is "successful" = "commercially successful"? (At least that's the way I interpret your words)

I'm talking "successful" in a general sense. I mean, come on, who DOESN'T like the idea of being successful in some way, shape or form - whether it's playing in front of a crowd of 100,000 people on a nightly basis, or sitting in some dark office alone somewhere keeping books for a small business?

Anyway, as far as In Flames is concerned, it's quite obvious to me that the acquistion of wealth was the driving force behind their desire to change their look and sound. Their personal definition of "success" appears to be to sell as many albums and sell out as many arenas as possible. Other bands definition of "success" may be to do everything in their power to not "sell out" and stay true to their musical vision and personal belief system. The latter approach is no less valid than the former; however, the latter approach is likely to be met with a great deal more "respect" in our community.

 

[Dev]

It is just that, in the underground more than anywhere else, people are torn by this stupid contradiction: I want a band to be mine, and at the same time I want other people to hail how cool I am for liking such a great band. A bunch of Narcisses we are, really.

That's too sad to be true , yet it is . I do recognize myself in this sometimes

 

[J.]

It is just that, in the underground more than anywhere else, people are torn by this stupid contradiction: I want a band to be mine, and at the same time I want other people to hail how cool I am for liking such a great band. A bunch of Narcisses we are, really.

Totally. Although I don't mind people liking "my" bands if those individuals are true fans of metal. Fuckoff the trendhopping Hot Topic Dimmu-fan Goth-wannabe fucks.

 

[Hell Mike]

Nothing if you're talking about some obscure pagan black metal band that wants nothing to do with commercial success. Everything if you're talking about a band that does.



I'm talking "successful" in a general sense. I mean, come on, who DOESN'T like the idea of being successful in some way, shape or form - whether it's playing in front of a crowd of 100,000 people on a nightly basis, or sitting in some dark office alone somewhere keeping books for a small business?

Anyway, as far as In Flames is concerned, it's quite obvious to me that the acquistion of wealth was the driving force behind their desire to change their look and sound. Their personal definition of "success" appears to be to sell as many albums and sell out as many arenas as possible. Other bands definition of "success" may be to do everything in their power to not "sell out" and stay true to their musical vision and personal belief system. The latter approach is no less valid than the former; however, the latter approach is likely to be met with a great deal more "respect" in our community.

Aye, I follow you, it's just that I don't like that view on success. To me, being successful is making kickass music.

 

[MFJ]

I agree with FOTMBM, success (musically) to me is making good music that people like... and only that.

 

[Hell Mike]

I agree with FOTMBM, success (musically) to me is making good music that people like... and only that.

Fuck people, I want to make music that I like. That I like making, first of all, and I don't really like making music I don't like to listen to either. If people want to hear it, fine by me, I'm happy to share but I don't make it for them.

 

[MFJ]

Well I agree, I don't make music for other people either. What I make is a personal expression, but if people like it and want to hear it, than that makes it all the better.