Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SlowlyChoking]

Brings a fleet of retards that claim they have been fans forever, when they don't know the difference between one song from the other. I am getting fucking tired of this.


Like with the Arcade Fire, kids are claiming they liked them before they were popular. Yet they have no fucking clue, what Us Kids Know was or the difference between the two.

Anyone, else sick of these things happening?

Its been happening with The Decemberists, The Weakerthans, and Iron & Wine alot lately too.

I swear to god if this happens with M83 I am going to be pissed, I'll shank someone.

Why does it matter so much how long a person has listened to a band for? Is that all you care about? Hearing a band before other people? Does that make the music worse, or any less relevant now that more kids listen to it? The music is the same. Who cares if kids who listen to The Killers now listen to The Arcade Fire. Do you even own their two previous albums before The Funeral?

[KharBevNor]

It's because all these people are jumping on bands you really like, and it's because it's trendy. They don't have the same liking or affinity for the band that you do, and it irks you because you feel that your much liked band is not being appreciated properly.

At least that's how I see it. As I've said, not ever so likely to happen with most of my favourite bands.

[SlowlyChoking]

It's because all these people are jumping on bands you really like, and it's because it's trendy. They don't have the same liking or affinity for the band that you do, and it irks you because you feel that your much liked band is not being appreciated properly.

At least that's how I see it. As I've said, not ever so likely to happen with most of my favourite bands.

Why would I be upset that a bunch of morons are listening to a favourite band of mine? That means that the wonderful music is actually being heard by more than a few thousand people and maybe opening some kid's mind musically. And it also means the band is actually probably making a living now. If you can get over your pride, it's a win win situation.

[Kid Modernist]

There are labels out there that don't pressure you to have a producer. Go to one of them.

You have a point about the unbiased thing. Of course they are biased. What I meant was that if they are good (throwing bad producers out as completely useless and un-defendable) they are not biased by being as close to the music as you are to tell if it's any good.

My main argument though is that these companies are spending their money on you and yoru music, of course they want to make money. So in order for you to get your music out, you have to make the sacrifice of maybe having a producer.

[Jamoky]

Y'know what is awesome?  One of my local radio stations now plays alot of music that I like.  Which means a total of three awesome things:
(1) people I think deserve more money are now getting it.  
(2) I can listen to kickass music in my car which does not have a CD player.
and last but not least!
(3) I can easily find out about new good bands.
...
So I'm listening to this band I've never heard before on the radio right now and I really like it.  I don't know the bands name, nor the names of the members of the band and their biographies.  But I'm still really enjoying this song! Isn't that crazy?!
maybe tomorrow I'll tell my friend about them so that we can both be excited about this band. and we might talk about them even though we haven't been fans since the lead singer was a fetus.
...is that really so wrong?

Enjoy the music you like. Enjoy the music other people like.  Enjoy knowing about obscure bands.  But stop trying to find more reasons that your better than everyone else. please.

[Maui]

*waits for angry response from sp2*

This thread was bad news.

[KharBevNor]

stop trying to find more reasons that your better than everyone else. please.

Psssh, like I need any more.

[Kai]

and we might talk about them even though we haven't been fans since the lead singer was a fetus.

For the Win!

[tigerlily]

ahahah I totally agree, that fetus comment was the bestest.

[Wulfen]

Y'know what is awesome?  One of my local radio stations now plays alot of music that I like.

I found out from a rather embaressing source that a national radio station plays quite a bit of the music I like. Apparently, Triple J (the auzzie gov-funded station) plays a fair bit of Indie-type music. I was blown away by the idea of a radio station that didnt just play mainstream. And all these songs I thought my family had never heard of were on regular airwaves.
 
Moral of my story: My mum apparently has more Indie-Cred then me

[maxusy3k]

I still just don't get the whole thing with 'before they were popular' or whatever anyway. I mean, I've always been a mainstream kinda guy, I'll hear bands through the radio or music television, buy their album and then, if I like them enough, backtrack through their discography. I didn't like them before they were popular but I don't understand how that can put me in a position where my opinion is disregarded...

The Limp Bizkit thing was a perfect example... the earlier albums were way better than the recent ones, but I heard about them when they released Chocolate Starfish, same as most other people did. It pisses me off that the moment I say 'yeah, I only heard about them when "Rollin'" came out' then the hardcore peeps feel my opinion is irrelevant.

On the flipside... I love it when bands I've liked start recieving the recognition they deserve. It gives a whole world of new conversation... somebody says they like whatever band and, even though they've only just got into them when they got popular, it at least gives you the room to say 'X album is better, also you might like Y band'. Whether they liked them four years ago or not, they still like them now, and isn't that what matters?

Okay, so there probably isn't a point to that... just my opinion.

[MilkmanDan]

I just saw that post. Seriously, not everybody knows exactly what defines an independent label, asshole. I didn't even know exactly. And where the hell are you supposed to tell which labels are affiliated with the RIAA?

www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp

The RIAA isn't some secret cult with handshakes and shit. They do tell you which labels are affiliated. Though the idea of labels secretly being members of the RIAA amuses me greatly. They'd sell a bunch of records to hipster kids and then announce 'Unlucky guys, we're cunts too! You just bought RIAA endorsed record. Bye Bye, indie cred'. That would rule. But no.

Anyway, I'll tell you why bands becoming popular pisses me off. It's because I'm incredibly lazy bastard, and I like being able to judge people based on their music taste. When a band is really small, you can assume that you'll probobly get on pretty well with any other fans you meet, because you're clearly into similer sorts of things. When a band gets a bigger fan base, you can't tell so much about people just from the fact they listen to the band. So you actually have to talk to them and shit. Hassle.

Lazy, that's all. Other than, it's all sweet.

[Kai]

See, the thing is, before this, I couldn't care less which labels are a part of major labels or not. What the fuck does it matter to me? I don't know.

[-sam]

If you're going to be working with recording, then you should learn the recording equipment.  It's as easy as that.  You shouldn't hire some fucktwit to get all involved in your music.  Know your equipment and how to use it properly (and how to abuse it properly if you're playing that sort of music) and do it all yourself.  Keep someone who has no personal investment in your band besides his cut of the profits out of the picture.

There are labels out there that don't pressure you to have a producer.  Go to one of them.

So what you're saying is that George Martin was holding the Beatles back?  

-sam

[Inlander]

Yeah, I don't know where all this stuff about producers came from.  A good producer is like a good editor: he or she will colaborate with the artist, offering suggestions and objective opinions about where the music could be changed and how the recording could be improved to best bring out what the musicians are trying to communicate.  Sometimes you need that outside voice who's a little more removed from the music.  This whole cult of the artist thing that's built up over the last century is sometimes really annoying: producers, editors, whoever - they're not some evil entity trying to fundamentally alter the artist's work, often they're people who care passionately about the art and want to help make what it's trying to communicate as clear as possible.

[grrraham]

Cult of the artist thing that's built up over the last century?
How many producers were there more than a century ago?
How much recorded music was there?
Yes, producers have really become a lot less popular than they were in the 1800s.

[Inlander]

I compared producers to editors (for writing) on several occasions in my post.  Immediately after the "cult of the artist" comment I wrote "producers, editors, whoever" - which I had hoped would make it fairly clear that at that particular moment I was talking about anybody in any field of art who has a roughly analogous role to a producer or editor - i.e., is not the artist but who seeks to help the artist.

[-sam]

I do think it's fair to say that over the past 40-50 years there have been music producers whose fame has outstripped the artists they produce.  Phil Spector immediately jumps to mind.  And certainly over the past decade or so you've seen that increase, especially in hip hop where who produced a song will often tell you more about the song than the rapper performing the song, people like Dre, Timbaland, Neptunes, Puffy, yadda, yadda, yadda.

-sam

[Kai]

*cough* Mike Patton *cough*


but I guess that's not fair, since Mike Patton rules.

[grrraham]

And let us not underestimate the impact of the esteemed Mr. George Zimmer.