Philly McButterpants Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 There is a difference between a band with a small audience and one that becomes quite popular. The REAL test of integrity, IMO, is when a band that does its own thing becomes popular and continues to do their own thing instead of chasing the dollar. That is extremely rare in popular music (or anything in pop culture). Typically, a band that finds popularity in its early years, begins to sell out and suck after becoming popular. It's very easy to stay true to your roots when nobody is offering you $$$ to do otherwise. Pearl Jam comes to mind. Immensely popular, but do their own thing . . . the fact that they make a lot of coin doing it is just gravy . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorCal Aaron Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 This whole thing smacks of the whole authenticity in music canard. True, there are ground-breakers who rupture a bloated or stale era, but ultimately, save for the few laboring earnestly in their art as they strive for innovation, most eventually want to make a nice living. Two images I remember strikingly along these lines: 1. In the early 90s, Henry Rollins splashing in his hot tub mockingly singing 'Anarchy in the UK' on MTV in response to questions regarding his wealth accumulation versus the punk 'ethos'. 2. John Cage in a spoken word passage about an ad agency calling him for a commission: They said, 'Mr.Cage?' I said, "Yes". 'Are you ready to prostitute yourself for your art?' I said, 'Yes'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrojanitor Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 There is a difference between a band with a small audience and one that becomes quite popular. The REAL test of integrity, IMO, is when a band that does its own thing becomes popular and continues to do their own thing instead of chasing the dollar. That is extremely rare in popular music (or anything in pop culture). Typically, a band that finds popularity in its early years, begins to sell out and suck after becoming popular. It's very easy to stay true to your roots when nobody is offering you $$$ to do otherwise. yeah, but there are a lot of examples of popular bands staying true to their art. Fugazi had the audience but still refused to even talk to major labels, Sonic Youth has stayed difficult, Flaming Lips just put out a pretty difficult album, Radiohead has remained true (boring, but true)...lots of examples. the reason people still love the classic rock of the 60s and 70s is because nearly all of those bands stayed true to their original purpose. Stones, Dylan, Beatles, Zep, Sabbath, neil young...they made solid music first and knew an audience would respond to that. I think now people are just more aware of terrible bands being able to suck their way into a fluke hit single. Seriously, wanna make a million dollars? Write a song about butts or something vaguely about football ESPN can use during highlight reels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted January 8, 2010 Author Share Posted January 8, 2010 The reason to go into music is to make $ and get laid. If you think it's for the "art" you're a naive kid. and yet there is a big difference between making music and selling out. it's not a simple equation and it's eventually what separates the bands that matter and those that fade on the credibility scale and start failing the smell test. though, i'll begin with the mighty 'Mats, i'll build the list with such groups that resonated: off the top of my head, The Clash, Zepplin, Nirvana (though their run was short), Mr. Johnny Cash, Steve Earle, Pearl Jam (though their relevance seems overburdoned by its lead singer, which can also be said to a far further degree about U2 and REM), Tom Waits, Lucinda Williams, the Pixies, Camper Van Beethoven, Husker Du, Drive-by Truckers, Minutemen, the Faces, Big Star, Maiden, heck AC/DC in my book before their last album, which was OK, but still true to their form. i'll even make the case for the Dixie Chicks, who went the other way, starting as a country pop band, and then becoming serious. then there's the Rolling Stones. though they eventually went south, any band that produced so many perfect rock and roll songs during its first 15 years, and features the godfather of rock and roll in Keith Richards, can be forgiven for its missteps. i'm not naive, just a perfectionist, seeking nobility by demanding the most out of my music, and not cheap sellout artists, like what Sting has become and Rod Stewart, whom i'll never forgive for his sugary remake of Waits' classic "Downtown Trains." i'll make the case that you might be the naive one, and do so humbly and without disrespect. there is always a place for finger in the air, kick you in the gut rock and roll, and it doesn't require to be pimped on broadway, among the fannypack bus tour crowd. and if that's what billy joe and company need to get laid these days, well, good luck with that. jw ADD: backing up in my own way in agreeing with Dean and Astrojanitor's points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 I think it was The Cure that changed or still changes record labels all the time because they won't conform or sellout by making their music more mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrojanitor Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 I think it was The Cure that changed or still changes record labels all the time because they won't conform or sellout by making their music more mainstream. Yup...and Neil Young got sued by geffen in the 80s for not being commercial enough. And Wilco got kicked off Reprise for Yankee Hotel Foxtrot not being radio friendly enough...the record that broke them into the mainstream. There are always those who understand they are artists and many many listeners who cannot respond to bland corporate music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 ¶ if there was any indication of how out of touch the grammy's have become, and that's a stretch to begin with, well, sunday's annual episode reached a new low, however impossible as that might sound. ¶ the irrelevance meter is long broken and we should all be left gagging over the latest gaga. ¶ all that's left to wonder is when/if elton john dies, will they parade out his carcass on stage to twin with the "latest big thing" to provide some street credibility? what, elvis' corpse was tied up with the graceland crowd? ¶ and then the topper -- or in this case -- the bottomer: green day singing songs from its new broadway show. ¶ as a result, i'd like to thank the grammy organizers for allowing me turn the show off in record time. made it 6 minutes in before switching the pbs, and left the channel there in my own personal bid to skew the ratings. ¶ ¶ it's been a long time since the grammy judges stood anywhere near the time zone of reality and relevance. and it's become evident that the logistics are growing exponentially larger. if i'm on the earth, they're now on jupiter. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 The only thing about the Grammys' that was at all palatable, was Beyonce's gyrating crotch (but please Beyonce, we know you can sing, but why do you have to SCREAM!!!)... Green Day has always sucked... Taylor Swift is as bad a live performer as you can see, but at least she writes her own (crappy) songs, and plays an instrument.... I watch the Grammys, because I work with music and like to know what is going on...but this really isn't it... Kings of Leon are crap too... anyone sick of hearing Eminem dissing the Grammys' every year, but then performing at them anyways...who buys all of this crappy music? Jeff Beck tribute to Les Paul was okay...but lasted only about 30 seconds, while Eminem, Lil Wayne and Chris Johnson (I think that his name, the Rihanna beater) went on for frigging ever.... if Taylor Swifts teeny-bopper "country" is the "album of the year" I think I am ready to give up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 The only thing about the Grammys' that was at all palatable, was Beyonce's gyrating crotch (but please Beyonce, we know you can sing, but why do you have to SCREAM!!!)... Green Day has always sucked... Taylor Swift is as bad a live performer as you can see, but at least she writes her own (crappy) songs, and plays an instrument.... I watch the Grammys, because I work with music and like to know what is going on...but this really isn't it... Kings of Leon are crap too... anyone sick of hearing Eminem dissing the Grammys' every year, but then performing at them anyways...who buys all of this crappy music? Jeff Beck tribute to Les Paul was okay...but lasted only about 30 seconds, while Eminem, Lil Wayne and Chris Johnson (I think that his name, the Rihanna beater) went on for frigging ever.... if Taylor Swifts teeny-bopper "country" is the "album of the year" I think I am ready to give up... Eminem is still around? get out. wow. one of my many problems with the gammy's (sic) is that they're always way too late and often too far wrong. this was the weakest Kings of Leon album put forward by the band, which is just like when the Dixie Chicks won. "Home" should've been their winner but, of course, it wasn't a seller. in fact, why does cbs have to do reruns at this time? had they not already presented the peeple's choice awards? what, might i ask, is the difference? i still got a kick out of metallica's reception speech from way back when after winning the heavy metal award: "we'd like to thank jethro tull for not putting out an album this year." ... umm, ok. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Eminem is still around? get out. wow.one of my many problems with the gammy's (sic) is that they're always way too late and often too far wrong. this was the weakest Kings of Leon album put forward by the band, which is just like when the Dixie Chicks won. "Home" should've been their winner but, of course, it wasn't a seller. in fact, why does cbs have to do reruns at this time? had they not already presented the peeple's choice awards? what, might i ask, is the difference? i still got a kick out of metallica's reception speech from way back when after winning the heavy metal award: "we'd like to thank jethro tull for not putting out an album this year." ... umm, ok. jw Believe it or not, I have known Martie and Emily for years... they are putting out a new Dixie Chicks record, minus the singer...what I have heard sounds real good...those Chicks can play... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi Bills fan Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Say what you will about Green Day. To each his own, no worries. I personally think a lot of their music kicks ass. Plus their live show is one of the best. By people saying that they've been sellouts for a long time, don't forget that their American Idiot cd was a big FU to Bush and all of his pro-war wackos during a time when most recording artists were crying in their beers about how great America was and making a fortune from it. They stuck their necks out and spoke their minds in one of the best cd's I can ever remember being recorded. "Holiday" was one of the songs that helped me through moving my family away from that madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 Believe it or not, I have known Martie and Emily for years... they are putting out a new Dixie Chicks record, minus the singer...what I have heard sounds real good...those Chicks can play... indeed. i have plenty of respect for Martie and Emily -- and i've always thought that Robison had alternative tendencies given some of the ska-like skirts she's worn. but not having Maines in the group is going to be different. and it just may blunt the group's edge. as much as Maines wasn't a strong lead singer, i think this was a band that was better as a whole than as individuals. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 Say what you will about Green Day. To each his own, no worries. I personally think a lot of their music kicks ass. Plus their live show is one of the best. By people saying that they've been sellouts for a long time, don't forget that their American Idiot cd was a big FU to Bush and all of his pro-war wackos during a time when most recording artists were crying in their beers about how great America was and making a fortune from it. They stuck their necks out and spoke their minds in one of the best cd's I can ever remember being recorded. "Holiday" was one of the songs that helped me through moving my family away from that madness. i hear you Kiwi ... but ... that said, to have that music watered down on broadway is a complete and ultimate disconnect -- in my opinion, and others -- from what the band pretended to stand for. they're now doing the establishment dance -- dare i mention Ms. Palin -- by cashing in on celebrity. with all due respect, imagine this: ramones, the musical replacements, drunk on broadway the clash, sandi-broadway-nista! nirvana, never-spamalot-mind. it's become evident that macy's day parade seems potentially a trail balloon. and their one big hit now truly applies: "good riddance (time of your life)" jw ADD: and in reference to the cheney administration, how do you now separate them (green day) from haliburton = cashing in? and sorry, my disposition in regards to green day has taken a full 180. i do now absolutely hate them. ... and no offense to you, kiwi, truly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 indeed.i have plenty of respect for Martie and Emily -- and i've always thought that Robison had alternative tendencies given some of the ska-like skirts she's worn. but not having Maines in the group is going to be different. and it just may blunt the group's edge. as much as Maines wasn't a strong lead singer, i think this was a band that was better as a whole than as individuals. jw They haven't broken up, just taking a break...but I think the sisters just want to get back to their subtler roots... I think Maines is a pretty strong singer, but her tendencies are much brassier than the sisters. It may be a little bit of an ego thing too...I think casual music fans don't realize that the two of them are really fine musicians... they are often written off as nothing more than a "country-Spice Girls", but they are much more talented than that. Maines just kind of gives them the edge that makes them more accessible to a mainstream audience. Don't know that the record (minus Maines) will ever see the light of day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOBILLS78 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 They're successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopsGuy Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 You mean you actually thought those frauds were punk to begin with? Bob: Hey Eddie, do you like this music? Eddie: Yeah. It rocks! Bob: Well I think this music's for posers. Eddie: [brief pause] Well i think you're a f@g. Stevo: F@G! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloaggie Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 yeah, but there are a lot of examples of popular bands staying true to their art. Fugazi had the audience but still refused to even talk to major labels, Sonic Youth has stayed difficult, Flaming Lips just put out a pretty difficult album, Radiohead has remained true (boring, but true)...lots of examples. the reason people still love the classic rock of the 60s and 70s is because nearly all of those bands stayed true to their original purpose. Stones, Dylan, Beatles, Zep, Sabbath, neil young...they made solid music first and knew an audience would respond to that. I think now people are just more aware of terrible bands being able to suck their way into a fluke hit single. Seriously, wanna make a million dollars? Write a song about butts or something vaguely about football ESPN can use during highlight reels. So true. How many more times will we hear Muse's Uprising? The song mentions "we will be victorious" in the chorus and it becomes an anthem on ESPN! As for Green Day, I wish someone would use 21 guns on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 The reason to go into music is to make $ and get laid. If you think it's for the "art" you're a naive kid. Yeah that guy in the SF Symphony is beating the chicks back with his basoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Green Day was more "punkish" when they first got together but they have been far from it for a long time. I will say that since I moved to SF I've gotten so sick of hearing about them. They formed up here and seems to be SF's gift to the music world (at least you'd think so by reading the Chronicle) but personally I think they suck. I thought the band Journey was SF's gift to the music world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I thought the band Journey was SF's gift to the music world. No that would be the Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane and Santana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts