Page 6 of 16
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 3:25 pm
by Jorge
McParadigm wrote: Millions more people watch Big Bang Theory than watched Arrested Development, too, because it's much more easy and immediate to enjoy...but it won't be populating internet discussion jokes and dominating DVD sales charts five years after its over.
Let's put a pin on this and revisit it five years after TBBT dies. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what's going to happen-
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 4:44 pm
by Wendy Carlos's Twin
Release_Me wrote:In this sense, this band has always been taking risks. They alienated a lot of Ten fans with the more aggressive sound on Vs. Then, they left everyone flabbergasted with the sort of non-songs they included on Vitalogy. By No Code, they'd whittled down their fanbase considerably. With Yield, they went back to the basic arena-rock sound that brought them initial success and this was right after their most 'experimental' album. I don't really know what they were trying with Binaural but it was the polar opposite of Yield. Riot Act too was a very downbeat album. S/T was the most energetic record they'd put out in a long time. BS was definitely them doing something unexpected. The world's most self-conscious and serious band having fun and making a pop-punk record. Who'd have thought? LB took some of the pop aspirations of BS further but discarded most of the frivolity, with more fleshed out songs and stronger melodies resulting in more of the band's strengths coming to the fore, in my opinion. Every album has gone somewhere different. I don't agree with their direction from No Code to Riot Act. It was the most frustrating part of my fandom. But I give them props for not giving a shit about expectations or pandering to the fanbase.
So basically, they took a risk by sucking.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 5:02 pm
by Heathen
Well you never know where this dick has been to
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 5:51 pm
by ABNorman
Heathen wrote:Well you never know where this dick has been to
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 6:02 pm
by Jorge
ABNorman wrote:Heathen wrote:Well you never know where this dick has been to
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 2:53 am
by Kevin Davis
Heathen wrote:I don't disagree about risk being defined by the expectations of the audience. Hell that's pretty much my point. The difference is that I don't limit the audience to the fanbase. So by getting closer to what the audience (here, the general public) wants (catchy/upbeat music) you are taking less chances (probability of success is higher on a larger scale). Cue KD's point.
I don't mean to limit the audience to an existing fanbase; I think the question I ask myself is, will this particular artistic choice (in this case, opting to write more ''accessible'' music) result, overall, in the artist finding him- or herself in an improved situation (an expanded fanbase, more sales, greater critical cache--however you choose to define it), or a less desirable one? A risk isn't really a risk unless there stands something to be lost, and existing fans are probably the most significant thing any artist stands to lose. Again, I agree with what I think is your overall point--that more often than not there is little artistic risk involved with making a crassly commercial piece of work that simply mimics the formulas other works that have proven historically to be successful--but I also think that point somewhat oversimplifies how easy it is to gain large-scale mass appeal simply by writing a catchy tune instead of a challenging one, and since risk is a concept that essentially exists in the space of time
prior to the appearance of result, I think a lot of the chance involved in a typically non-commercial artist trying to veer the direction of accessibility is, what happens if we're just flat-out no good at it? What happens if our attempts at going commercial fail miserably and we not only win no new fans, but also lose half of the old ones who don't appreciate what the effort stands for?
What do we stand to lose? That's why I struggle to see this in anything other than relative terms; every artist has his or her own unique set of circumstances that will dictate how those questions play out, and how the audience responds to the artists' challenges (or lack thereof).
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 5:08 am
by Heathen
what happens if we're just flat-out no good at it?
- Spoiler: show
I won't object to what you wrote but I think you might be overstating the potential damage. I believe a fanbase is prone to forgiveness. At least for a while.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 10:56 am
by stip
I take no pride in my psychic or deductive powers by knowing exactly what is underneath that spoiler tag without clicking on it
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 12:18 pm
by Release_Me
Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Release_Me wrote:In this sense, this band has always been taking risks. They alienated a lot of Ten fans with the more aggressive sound on Vs. Then, they left everyone flabbergasted with the sort of non-songs they included on Vitalogy. By No Code, they'd whittled down their fanbase considerably. With Yield, they went back to the basic arena-rock sound that brought them initial success and this was right after their most 'experimental' album. I don't really know what they were trying with Binaural but it was the polar opposite of Yield. Riot Act too was a very downbeat album. S/T was the most energetic record they'd put out in a long time. BS was definitely them doing something unexpected. The world's most self-conscious and serious band having fun and making a pop-punk record. Who'd have thought? LB took some of the pop aspirations of BS further but discarded most of the frivolity, with more fleshed out songs and stronger melodies resulting in more of the band's strengths coming to the fore, in my opinion. Every album has gone somewhere different. I don't agree with their direction from No Code to Riot Act. It was the most frustrating part of my fandom. But I give them props for not giving a shit about expectations or pandering to the fanbase.
So basically, they took a risk by sucking.
Yes. That's why I said I didn't agree with the direction they took from No Code-Riot Act. No one really wants their favourite band to intentionally suck for that long just for the sake of proving their 'alternative rock credentials'. I'm glad they got it out of their system.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 1:01 pm
by Release_Me
The only people that PJ really is making music for now is the fanbase, besides themselves. PJ stopped being relevant as far as the mainstream is concerned after 96. It was clear by then that Ten part 2 was not forthcoming. People had Creed to listen to if they wanted more of that 'sound'.
No casual fan is going to pay hundreds of dollars to go watch a PJ show or even pay a few dollars for their merchandise just because he watched Sirens on YouTube and liked it. I watch a lot of videos from bands I don't really care to pay a dime for, I even enjoy them. PJ is the only band I'd actually spend money on because I'm a fan. No matter how 'accessible' anyone thinks the latter day albums are, they're not going to make people start caring about PJ again. As such, I believe their reason for being more accessible has little to do with the album's potential success from a financial standpoint and more to do with the type of music they want to make and feel they make best. They won't be selling 10 million copies no matter how accessible they are. The general public doesn't really factor into their decision making, in my opinion. They're smart enough to know that they don't matter to them. It's not 94 anymore.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 1:08 pm
by stip
The low point was 2000 when spin had binaural split a review with matchbox 20
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 1:08 pm
by stip
That's still a raw wound
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 1:11 pm
by Heathen
Release_Me wrote:Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Release_Me wrote:In this sense, this band has always been taking risks. They alienated a lot of Ten fans with the more aggressive sound on Vs. Then, they left everyone flabbergasted with the sort of non-songs they included on Vitalogy. By No Code, they'd whittled down their fanbase considerably. With Yield, they went back to the basic arena-rock sound that brought them initial success and this was right after their most 'experimental' album. I don't really know what they were trying with Binaural but it was the polar opposite of Yield. Riot Act too was a very downbeat album. S/T was the most energetic record they'd put out in a long time. BS was definitely them doing something unexpected. The world's most self-conscious and serious band having fun and making a pop-punk record. Who'd have thought? LB took some of the pop aspirations of BS further but discarded most of the frivolity, with more fleshed out songs and stronger melodies resulting in more of the band's strengths coming to the fore, in my opinion. Every album has gone somewhere different. I don't agree with their direction from No Code to Riot Act. It was the most frustrating part of my fandom. But I give them props for not giving a shit about expectations or pandering to the fanbase.
So basically, they took a risk by sucking.
Yes. That's why I said I didn't agree with the direction they took from No Code-Riot Act. No one really wants their favourite band to intentionally suck for that long just for the sake of proving their 'alternative rock credentials'. I'm glad they got it out of their system.
He...
That's not...
Nevermind.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 1:21 pm
by stip
that's pretty much exactly what WCT was saying, Heathen
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 3:08 pm
by Release_Me
stip wrote:that's pretty much exactly what WCT was saying, Heathen
Stip understands.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 3:19 pm
by Jorge
Release_Me wrote:No matter how 'accessible' anyone thinks the latter day albums are, they're not going to make people start caring about PJ again. As such, I believe their reason for being more accessible has little to do with the album's potential success from a financial standpoint and more to do with the type of music they want to make and feel they make best.
Except more than one band member has actually stated in interviews that they're looking to be more accessible to get more attention.
Mike McCready wrote:But now that we're putting out a record on our own, we're taking on the responsibility of sinking or swimming ourselves. If that means writing a song that sounds like a mainstream radio hit, we're going to do that.
MR: Is it hard to strike a balance between commercialism and integrity?
EV: I suppose so. You want to [make sure your music is] at least accessible to where … you get heard. Let's say there's a classroom and every student in the classroom is a band … you do want to raise your hand and be heard
And sundry quotes by Stone around the release of Avocado about wanting to make more accessible music and get played on the radio, which I can't find right now.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 5:05 pm
by Lament
Release_Me wrote:PJ is the only band I'd actually spend money on because I'm a fan.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 5:14 pm
by Heathen
It's not like one would have any money left to spend on other bands after such a money grab.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 6:01 pm
by E.H. Ruddock
theplatypus wrote:
And sundry quotes by Stone around the release of Avocado about wanting to make more accessible music and get played on the radio, which I can't find right now.
I'd appreciate it if you could find these. Thanks.
Re: *new song* I won't hold on (?)
Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 6:20 pm
by stip
Platy is not imagining that stuff.