Metal Reviews

exactly eyesore, nothing more needs to be said

Yes, and then there are the countless counterexamples such as In Flames, Metallica, Within Tempatation that most definitely did change their sound in puruit of the $$$. What really fucks me off are people who can't accept that some bands who attract criticism and lose older fans when they get popular actually deserve it.

That's crap. How do you know they most definitely changed their style for money? The "new" In Flames is all over their old releases that people claim to be their best. It was ALWAYS there! On the black album Metallica shortened their songs, nothing else changed. And it wasn't the first album to feature a ballad either! Load and Reload are not albums that I would think a band did for money, they came from left field! Sure, they actually made a lot of money, but they're not sellout albums!

There are examples of bands doing this—Sugar Ray, Aerosmith—but those you gave are not good examples. It's purely speculation and more than likely incorrect.

Personally I don't care what the bands's intentions were - things like In Flames, Metallica, The Dillinger Escape Plan, Mastodon, or Children Of Bodom's new stuff IS more commercially accessible, and it really annoys me when people say that someone dislikes them because they're popular, when its really because they *sound* more popular (simpler, catchier, more straightfoward songs etc)

Take The Mars Volta's new album for another example, I don't dislike it because it'll be a classic rock album, I dislike it because it sounds like a classic rock album.

ANYTHING can be commercially accessible, bud. Whatever the corporations want to push can be "radio-friendly." Just look at the droves of metalcore bands out there! Is that what you'd call radio-friendly? Commercially accessible? It's all relative. Had radio and MTV started playing the old In Flames stuff, there would be no difference.

Well most of those metalcore bands are fairly simple, catchy and use pop song structures; so yeah I'd call them radio friendly. I'm not a big fan of early In Flames but I think they use linear song structures on their early stuff, which isn't a big radio thing.

You're just saying that to better your argument. There is nothing radio-friendly about retards screaming, but media marketing can make people think it is. If radio and MTV started playing Cannibal Corpse, and the giant corporations kicked in a huge media marketing blitz, Cannibal Corpse would sell millions of albums.

ANYTHING can be made commercial.

I disagree. I don't think all the sugary prep girls I see every day would be able to dig ANYTHING by Darkthrone or the like, even if the radio/MTV started playing them.

I agree with you that genre-wise anything can be played and accepted on the radio, but within the genre it will be the bands with verse/chorus song structures. I mean look at the Dillinger Escape Plan - Calculating Infinity gets completely ignored, then when they make Setting Fire To Sleeping Giants and Unretrofied (both catchy, verse/chorus songs) singles, they start getting played.

I actually don't really know much about this except that pretty much universally as bands start getting simpler they start getting more popular.

Well, now you're making the conversation very specific and not general in nature. Sure, I can't imagine "sugary prep girls" liking Darkthrone, but we weren't being that specific. There are how many people in the world? There are minority races, not tastes. With enough money and marketing you can sell anything.

But they're fitting a certain required format. My point is that the required format can be anything, and if the money and marketing starts to back the new format then it will sell. Anything can be sold.

My main point is that anything can be deemed commercially accessible. Saying a band changed for that specific reason is retarded. The current version of In Flames would NEVER have been played on the radio ten years ago, and in a few years they won't be playing these songs because the format will have changed.

Ken, I totally agree with what you say about commerciality being decided predominantly by what's being pushed as fashionable.

But it seems to me that your defence of Metallica and In Flames is misguided. Metallica DID change their style in order to attract a wider audience with the Black Album. Surely there can't be any doubt about that? Right from the start the band had said they'd wanted to be one of the biggest in the world, and this was just another big step towards that goal. They hired Bob Rock because they wanted him to show them how to become more accessible.

Now, a better defence of them, and the one I've been making for many years now, is to say that the fact they sold out is irrelevant, because the resulting music was still worthwhile. I love TBA, and it will always be a favourite of mine, but I believe 100% that the styllistic shift from AJFA was motivated by commercial factors. If that counts as selling out, then we can say TBA is proof that a band doesn't need integrity to make good music.

As for In Flames, I never gave a shit about their stuff, old or new. But once again there can be no denying that their later albums moved their sound towards the mainstream. It's ridiculous to say it happened the other way round. Whether this was a business decision, or an artistic one that just happened to take them in a more commercial direction is hard to say, but the former seems slightly more likely.

But what did they do, really? Did they really change their style? I don't think they did at all; they just wrote within the confines of a standard song structure, whereas on past albums there was no strict structure, they could have a 2 minute solo after the first first!

I think Bob Rock and the record label had more to do with the change than the guys in Metallica. ...And Justice For All sold millions of albums, as did Master Of Puppets. It's clear the band would have still done well, but I think some people smelled the money and Metallica were sucked in ignorantly. I don't think there was any clear attempt at selling out from the band, I think they just did what most bands do and listened to the producer. The producer is their to guide, and when a band relinquishes that ego and follows the producer's lead it can be a great thing, or a very bad thing. In the case of the black album I think it was a great thing. Sure, it was different in the sense that the songs were more compact, but musically not a whole lot changed, in my opinion.

I think Load and Reload were rebellious albums. I think the band wanted to break away from that mold that Rock had put them in.


EVERYTHING COUNTS

Give it a listen (EDIT: Sorry, there are jitter errors). That's from Whoracle. Tell me that's not like the newest shit! There are plenty more songs, or moments within songs, that, in my eyes, proves that In Flames did not sell out, but simply evolved over time. Their albums steadily changed, there is no defined gap in style. It's a progressive, steady shift in style, which is a very normal thing as band members grow older. When you're 30 years old, just take a look at the music you listen to compared to when you were 20. Then you'll know why bands evolve and change their sound in time.

the thing that gets me and that i cant figure out why it is, is now the "new" in flames are popular and same thing with metallica and anything that is not necessarily simplistic but there is that definite change in sound than compared to what a band has done earlier. Hell, who knows maybe it goes back to "getting metal" and understanding, maybe the general public isnt smart enough or just doesnt want to take the time to explore a bands music and see everything that it has to offer.

I agree with some of the stuff said about making bands popular and the idea that almost anything can sell with marketing, etc. Much like how people want instant gratification and fed everything from a spoon, they want it now and quick as possible, maybe its the same with music, they will just take what is fed to them and decide that is what they like.

Often times at concerts, especially bands that have a pretty signifcant change in style or musical change or something of that nature, some of these kids are into because of the new stuff they here and their new style, not because of how the band used to sound or their older material, that always upsets me.

another example I was thinking of was why is it evanescense is played and people then start getting into and like that band, but nightwish isnt popular like that and if you played nightwish for that same person who likes evanescense, they probably wont like nightwish or even think its the same type of music. Nightwish is the "real" evanescense if that makes any sense, or for that matter bands like within temptation, after forever, those female fronted/gothic type bands

I have to say I disagree with on the inflames thing eyesore. Now I will say first off that I do like Reroute to Remain, that record was not necessarily like their old stuff but just had really great hooks and just solid quality music and songs. I dont even listen to soundtrack to your escape, I mean every song sounds the same. I remember hearing it for the first time and it just seemed like one long song.

Another thing I have to disagree with you on eyesore is when you said everything can be commercial or become popular. Doom genre as a whole I dont think could ever be that way and its not exactly the intention of that genre to be that way either. Also take some of these extreme raw black metal bands out there, you think that would get a bandwagon following like these stupid metalcore and hardcore bands do?

To be honest, I'd rather listen to Evanescence because I like Amy Lee's voice, and also cos I hate Nightwish. Though I was using that same argument with Lacuna Coil years ago, who are probably more comparable, though they've seen a surge in popularity recently.
Everything could be accepted, but not necessarily popular with radio exposure etc. If anything it would just become popular with the alternative music fans who maybe don't dig deeper, or are just getting into heavier music, while the general pop market would just hate the stuff they had no previous exposure to. It's not as if the casual music listener likes metalcore all of a sudden, because even the most accessible of the genre is still pretty much innaccessible. You may get a lot of posers doing it for the image/trend, but as long as someone genuinly loves the music they're listening to, who cares? So many people got into metal via bands like Slipknot and Metallica, and I imagine there's gonna be lots more who suddenly think Trivium are the greatest band in the world.
Though it's a shame that any popular alternative genre gets big sometimes, as it gets a bad reputation when there are actually a lot of quality Metalcore and Hardcore bands around. It's the same with emo, which has become a dirty word with practically everyone!

i think that yes, anything can be commercial, but it just takes time. I mean, when Lordi won the eurovision for instance, not many people here were saying "oh i love lordi! so cool!". no, they all said "ugh!". however, if Hard Rock Hallelujah were to be played on mtv and on every radio channel nonstop, 2 things would happen:
1: I would hate it.
2: The masses would adore it!

I just don't like music with instant and shallow gratification and a polished sounds. That excludes most metal, pop, rock and indie for me. I'm therefore an elitist, but an open-minded one for sure. Metallica, In Flames and Evanescene can all sink into an eternal pool of shit as far as I'm concerned.

misha, how do you feel about metallica's first 4 classic albums and older inflames stuff?