Metal Reviews

I don't think bands are about making money

from the interviews I've read it seems like most musicians (except the really popular ones) lose money by going on tour because they have to quit their day jobs...

I liked At The Gates a lot more than The Haunted, sucks that they broke up... Tomas Lindberg is so much better than any of The Haunted's vocalists.

There are basicly three groups:

Bands that change their music to make money.
Bands that want to make money but play what they like.
Bands that play what they want but are not doing it for the money.

Feel free to disagree with that, but know you are wrong!

What about bands that deliberately change their music to make less money? I'm sure there must be some somewhere...

Or bands that don't play what they want and don't want to make money?

like me. I know what I want my hands to be able to do on the keyboard but I'll never be good enough to match my ideals. and even if I could it wouldn't be the sort of thing that'd make much money.

not that I'm a band.

Well, yeah, I stated there are 3 basic groups where lots of bands belong to, but of course there are always weird people

Not with that attitude.

All you wannabe musicians should team up, even over the net. It'd be interesting to see the results, and would make a good story in Terrorizer or whatever local equivalent people have. "We started by arguing over a metal forum (www.metalreviews.com, plugplugplug) and put aside our differences to make pure, sexy music". You could call yourselves "Gastronomic Heppa-Titus", and feature a different vocalist on each track, each randomly chosen from the forum.

If nothing else, it'd spruce up this site's laughably bad MP3 section.

Sexy music for sexy people.... At sexy time!

Ah, Cradle of Filth. I went to see them last night, and my God if it wasn't the worst Metal gig I've ever been to. They were onstage for an hour and fifteen minutes if you count an exteneded interlude and encore break, missed out most of their songs that are actually good (I was really just there because a friend wanted to go), and their sound was suitably awful.

Added to that is the biggest crowd of posers I've ever been immersed in. I don't like chucking the word 'poser' around too frequently, as its one of the sillier Metal cliches, but in this case it was justified. The crowd was broken down into the 'mean' looking goths that stood talking to each other for most of the gig ("This is the second time I've seen them" Did you actually watch them the first time you stupid sow? :x ), the shirtless arseholes that spent the entire gig in a moshpit, and the screaming 14 year olds that had their attention held for maybe the first two songs before they resorted to running around in circles.

I've concluded that Cradle don't acually have fans - there are people who buy their albums, listen to them maybe twice, wear their t-shirts and then go to the gigs and pose before going home to listen to Evenesence.

Cathedral were the support act, and they looked seriously bored. The crowd had no interest in them whatsoever, and they knew it. even at that they were the best thing about the gig.

Glad you had a great time!

Cradle of Fillth= Shit+++
The Haunted= Shit++

I'm so envious... I hope they'll play on WOA '06...

About the actual topic. In Russian we have an old saying (I'm sure there is an English version for that, I just don't know it): "In another's eye you will see a speck of dust, while at the same time you won't notice an entire log in your own."

Nirvana tried to do that but failed.

False. It was the other way around. Bleach was an angry, fuzzed-out album that truly had it's own sound, spanned a few genres, and wan't geared towards the radio in the least. They come back with Nevermind, which was streamlined, had a clean production, and several poppy songs made specifically for the radio. I mean come on, Butch Vig isn't synonomous with underground music.

CoF was once good! Get your facts straight!!

I meant from Nevermind--->In Utero

In my opinion, if a band is not doing it in any way for the money, they give away their albums for free, they only make albums for themselves that are not for distribution, or they simply don't make any albums at all. Otherwise, it's done for money to at least some extent. Aside from that, I definately agree that there is a big difference between bands that want to make some money and make the music they want, versus those that sacrifice their musical goals for the money...

And I was just about to clarify what noodles just said about going from "Nevermind" to "In Utero" because that's what I thought he had meant. However, I think "In Utero" was the best thing they ever did. Not saying it was great, because I don't think any of their albums are, but that one waa decent and had an interesting abrasiveness to it. But anyway, I think it is a fair example of that kind of thing (a band changing itself to not be as mainstream). I think there are probably more examples out there than you might first think though, depending on what you think qualifies. For example, I was just thinking of Fleetwood Mac's "Tusk".

-Tyrion

Perhaps Radiohead's "Kid A"?

What about selling albums to make up for recording costs?