Jump to content
 

Why did Scott get a harder time over alcoholism than the other members?


Meltdown Tracker

Recommended Posts

Purposely holding back from your potential is just as bad as blatantly selling out imo. Thinking you're so special that you can't be ruined by popularity? Give me a break. Not only is that weird, it's stupid as hell.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at Sugar Ray, they went from Metal-ish to "IIIIIIII JUST WANNA FLY". It was a huge departure (well some of that record is) and they basically remade themselves over once Fly became a smash hit. Now I was never a fan of their early work, so I didn't really care. But imagine if your favorite band did. It would be somewhat devastating. That's why people cry about "selling out". Bands would flip themselves out to fit and be "successful". Blink was always pop punk and just made higher quality (in terms of recording) pop punk. They did it right in my eyes. Same with a band like Goo Goo Dolls. They either evolved or chased that radio hit depending on how you look at it. Fans don't want that.

But imagine if Blink went and became Smash Mouth-lite when Enema came out....things could of been so much worse. I really shutter to think.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who seriously condemns a band / artist selling out makes me roll my eyes. Maybe it’s because most of the artists I listen to are popular, but I never understood why wanting to make it big is such a problem. Music is often still good even if the artist is popular. Maybe my perspective would be different if more underground artists that I liked started making it big. It’s only happened once and I didn’t really care. It meant more people to talk about the music with.

It reminds me of people who listen to obscure artists not because they like the music a ton, but because the artist is obscure. It’s more of a status symbol than anything, imo. Listening to obscure music because it’s underground and shaming popular music doesn’t make you cool. It makes you a douche. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, _Kyle_ said:

Look at Sugar Ray, they went from Metal-ish to "IIIIIIII JUST WANNA FLY". It was a huge departure (well some of that record is) and they basically remade themselves over once Fly became a smash hit. Now I was never a fan of their early work, so I didn't really care. But imagine if your favorite band did. It would be somewhat devastating. That's why people cry about "selling out". Bands would flip themselves out to fit and be "successful". Blink was always pop punk and just made higher quality (in terms of recording) pop punk. They did it right in my eyes. Same with a band like Goo Goo Dolls. They either evolved or chased that radio hit depending on how you look at it. Fans don't want that.

But imagine if Blink went and became Smash Mouth-lite when Enema came out....things could of been so much worse. I really shutter to think.

Totally agree, and funny enough I loved those super popular Sugar Ray albums when I was a kid and their earlier metal stuff fucking sucked hahah

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Nasa said:

Anyone who seriously condemns a band / artist selling out makes me roll my eyes. Maybe it’s because most of the artists I listen to are popular, but I never understood why wanting to make it big is such a problem. Music is often still good even if the artist is popular. Maybe my perspective would be different if more underground artists that I liked started making it big. It’s only happened once and I didn’t really care. It meant more people to talk about the music with.

It reminds me of people who listen to obscure artists not because they like the music a ton, but because the artist is obscure. It’s more of a status symbol than anything, imo. Listening to obscure music because it’s underground and shaming popular music doesn’t make you cool. It makes you a douche. 

Because if you look at it ethically or morally, the music business is a very, very fucked up place. Playing house shows and having your friend put out your record is a lot more socially conscious and probably more lucrative if you do it right. You would never end up on MTV (when that was a thing) and you would have to be super duper lucky to get any radio play. Now that radio is owned by basically the same company, it's never ever going to go that way. Especially if you're making product instead of "art". It's not a shock to me the entire industry is quiet about XXXtenshy or whatever the fuck his name is. They industry backs teenage girl fuckers like R.Kelly. It's a horrible place if you look hard enough.

Also in the 90s, bands used to be signed and then have their rights taken away. Like they couldn't release anything under contract, they had to do it the label's way, etc. Sometimes they'd get signed to just not be signed by a rival label. Which I know sounds insane, but that apparently did happen.

It's still that way to a degree. Grimes ironically is currently feuding with her label about it. It also happens to people like Kesha who has to work with her alleged rapist..

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Olidamus said:

selling our certainly has negative points.... to say otherwise is foolish

but at the end of the day; it would be foolish to turn away finanicial security and fame. Most sane people wouldn’t. So long as you stay grounded. 

Fame sounds terrible. I don't get how anyone would want their private lives on display to the masses. It's really weird

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, _Kyle_ said:

Because if you look at it ethically or morally, the music business is a very, very fucked up place. Playing house shows and having your friend put out your record is a lot more socially conscious and probably more lucrative if you do it right. You would never end up on MTV (when that was a thing) and you would have to be super duper lucky to get any radio play. Now that radio is owned by basically the same company, it's never ever going to go that way. Especially if you're making product instead of "art". It's not a shock to me the entire industry is quiet about XXXtenshy or whatever the fuck his name is. They industry backs teenage girl fuckers like R.Kelly. It's a horrible place if you look hard enough.

Also in the 90s, bands used to be signed and then have their rights taken away. Like they couldn't release anything under contract, they had to do it the label's way, etc. Sometimes they'd get signed to just not be signed by a rival label. Which I know sounds insane, but that apparently did happen.

It's still that way to a degree. Grimes ironically is currently feuding with her label about it. It also happens to people like Kesha who has to work with her alleged rapist..

It's really awful. It seemed even worse in the 50s and 60s. 

I'm sure indie labels are shitty a lot of the time too though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, _Kyle_ said:

Because if you look at it ethically or morally, the music business is a very, very fucked up place. Playing house shows and having your friend put out your record is a lot more socially conscious and probably more lucrative if you do it right. You would never end up on MTV (when that was a thing) and you would have to be super duper lucky to get any radio play. Now that radio is owned by basically the same company, it's never ever going to go that way. Especially if you're making product instead of "art". It's not a shock to me the entire industry is quiet about XXXtenshy or whatever the fuck his name is. They industry backs teenage girl fuckers like R.Kelly. It's a horrible place if you look hard enough.

Also in the 90s, bands used to be signed and then have their rights taken away. Like they couldn't release anything under contract, they had to do it the label's way, etc. Sometimes they'd get signed to just not be signed by a rival label. Which I know sounds insane, but that apparently did happen.

It's still that way to a degree. Grimes ironically is currently feuding with her label about it. It also happens to people like Kesha who has to work with her alleged rapist..

Yeah, definitely. I understand the appeal of artists themselves not wanting to go big for all of the reasons that you’ve stated. The music industry is shitty and I love supporting the few independent artists that I do follow because I want to support their choice to stay free of major label restraints and things like that. There’s a podcast I listen to called The Future of What that discusses challenges and experiences in the music industry, and it’s cool to hear about, but there really are so many barriers to entry to success, and even then, you’re not sure if you even want to be there.

Music listeners, on the other hand—I feel like a lot of them who condemn acts for selling out aren’t condemning them for getting big in a music industry that’s shitty for a lot of reasons, but instead for just getting popular and having new, bandwagon fans. It often comes off to me as less of a problem with the artist’s decision to go big in a problematic industry and more of a problem with more people joining on, people who supposedly don’t “know” the music or are just listening because it’s cool. Shaming like that is a behavior I feel strongly about because I think it’s partly why serious music fans have earned such a shitty reputation / why more people don’t take music as seriously as other art forms. But that’s a whole other topic. :P 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Olidamus said:

selling our certainly has negative points.... to say otherwise is foolish

but at the end of the day; it would be foolish to turn away finanicial security and fame. Most sane people wouldn’t. So long as you stay grounded. 

Such as?

I’m curious to hear your thoughts because of your opinion on co-writers and everything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Nasa said:

Such as?

I’m curious to hear your thoughts because of your opinion on co-writers and everything. 

Music is art and art should be organic IMO. When you give up creative control by writing to a certain demographic or writing stuff you think will sell to a mass audience; you've given up a bit of your band, your art, and your music.

There are tons of songs I love that are written by suits and ties, but the ones that are written organically have far more heart to them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Olidamus said:

Music is art and art should be organic IMO. When you give up creative control by writing to a certain demographic or writing stuff you think will sell to a mass audience; you've given up a bit of your band, your art, and your music.

There are tons of songs I love that are written by suits and ties, but the ones that are written organically have far more heart to them.

Makes sense. I’d say that’s the most significant reason not to sell out. Fortunately now with the Internet it’s easier than ever to carve out your own identity and audience and not feel pressured to go about making music non-organically. Best time to be a musician, I’d say.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Olidamus said:

There are tons of songs I love that are written by suits and ties, but the ones that are written organically have far more heart to them.

You know Feldmann wears suit jackets because it's a ska thing, not because he's an evil rich corporate bad guy.................................right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...