I replied to this news about Nightwish's ECHO award and my response became quite lengthy. So I turned my remark into a forum post. Tell me your thoughts.

http://www.metalstorm.ee/events/news_comments.php?news_id=6018

"I have read all of the comments here and everyone is saying similar things when it comes to the mainstream and underground. The problem with almost all of mainstream music is that it only "sounds good". It usually lacks depth and the trait to be appreciated musically. Metal becomes less complicated and less layered the longer it is in the mainstream light. When people listen to music on the radio, they don't want to analyze music, they just want to sing along and bop around to the beat.

If a band is known world-wide, then you can't categorize them as underground. When it comes to classifying an underground band, the band typically isn't on a large record label or on one at all. Nevermore, Behemoth, Evergrey, Hypocrisy - these are big bands, but they aren't mainstream and nor are they underground. They are in that perfect margin where they can be musically respected and analyzed for their articulate musical mastery and still "sound good". I feel I have gone way past just listening to music because it sounds cool. I first have to figure out the time signatures and understand the music rather than listen aimlessly to repetitive verses and choruses. Then each time I listen to a song I usually hear something new. I can marvel at the musicianship. To me that is priceless and is what makes metal a passion of mine. I'll have to admit that sometimes it doesn't hurt to listen to a monotonous song. It can even hit the spot.

Most of the metal I own, I can listen to a band's entire CD collection from the very first song to the very last without skipping a song. When it comes to mainstream music, people listen to 1 or 2 songs on repeat all day when that artist will have a 12 track CD. On top of that, if a mainstream artist has 6 CDs out, they most likely won't even listen to a song that was on the previous CD. That is a HUGE waste when it comes to talent and time of that artist. Not a waste of cash though. That will flow on if those two tracks hit big. But why play metal if you're only going to dumb it down and people will only listen to one of your songs? This is a great way to make money, but a bad way to make great, authentic music. I don't want to repeat myself in any manner; when I say "great music" I don't mean something you can dance to, but something you can value formulaically and skill-wise.

Now speaking of Nightwish, I'm not too familiar with Europe's mainstream, but I'm certain it is somewhat different than America's. I really didn't see Tarja's operatic vocals going far on America's radio/ TV. The vocals were too dramatic and it's tough for normal people to get use to or appreciate the talent. However, Anette's vocals, which are great, are more rockish and people can sing along easier. The only thing that will get Nightwish to sell more records in America is if they tone down progression and technicality in their music. Is that really metal? IMO it really isn't. They'll turn into hard rock with female vocals if they go that route.

All in all, I am happy for Nightwish. Winning awards and knowing you have hundreds of thousands of fans is reaching a pinnacle milestone when it comes to music. However, remodeling your music for the taste of the masses isn't very fair to any bands current fans nor innovative to metal or music in general. I don't want to see them go that way, but if they do I wish them the best. The success of unlocking wealth and fortune has to be a feeling far past imagination."

see, i cant fathom how someone can say a band sells out by winning awards in other countries. OTHER COUNTRIES. winning awards in other countries doesnt carry the same stigma as it does with winning awards here in the US. winning awards in other countries just showcases a band's influence and goes to prove how amazing they really are. now, ive never heard nightwish and know nothing about the dynamic of their former lead singer leaving to pursue other ventrues but i respect them as a music producing entity and hope they continue to prosper without having the label "sell out" falsely tarnish their reputation.

Now you are talking about many different aspects.
I would call a sell-out someone who changes their complete musical style just so some primitive people could find it easier to grasp. But we have been over this for a million times and I wouldn't like to lead another stupid debate on this.
Mainstream however, could be defined as something that has become extremely popular. Let's take for example Iron Maiden. There are a lot of people who don't listen to metal and don't know shit about it, because they like different music genres, but these people still know some Maiden songs, and they even like them, and sing along, but they could never grasp the full meaning and value of this music. But bands do tend to profit on this kind of people, and they know it. Feel free to criticize my point of view, this is just the way I feel.

What I like most about metal is that it isn't marketed toward any specific group of people. When I used to work at Coconuts people would come in and you can usually tell what they are looking for by their appearance. This stereotypical behavior ended whenever someone was buying a metal cd, I was pleasantly surprised a few times, the metal community being as diverse as it is.
And pop music is single-oriented, they sit around the studio trying to make one catchy track to get them airtime on the radio and fart out the other nine songs.
There are many bands that aren't necessarily successful, in terms of popularity, but maintain a respectable influence over their genre. I've met many people who have never heard an Iron Maiden song (up until the Guitar Hero explosion) but they are still considered one of, if not THE, most important bands in metal.

Awards are meaningless, and I don't see what is so great about Nightwish anyway, the had maybe 1.5 albums of any significance to me. People are too easily entertained by average metal bands that gain notoriety for having a female singer.

I really didn't mention or show aggression towards someone selling out because I'm pretty tired of that term. I did mention what it is the mainstream ear likes and what a band has to conform to for them to make profit. I think you were responding about what your read in that post though, Macout. I was just stating the differences between authentic vs. conformed music and how the more authentic appeals to me due to its purity and intelligence. I'm really not into Nightwish at all, but I was using them as an example because I've had this on my mind lately. I suppose I wasn't too clear though about Nightwish. I don't feel they sold out because they won an award. I'm only saying that they aren't mainstream or sold out just because they're known world-wide/ won an award. In America, they wouldn't be considered mainstream because people wouldn't enjoy their music at the simple level they need to. Then I stated the steps they need to take for they to conform to the liking of normal radio. If mainstream is considered being known world-wide, then who cares? I just might be getting mainstream confused with "pop" or radio friendly. As long as their music doesn't suck or lose their talented metal attributes, then there's nothing wrong with people enjoying their tunes. This might be similar to mainstream posts in the past, but I think you need to read what I'm saying a little closer. Broken down, mainstream pop is simple minded music that doesn't work the brain and metal is true work of skill and effort that intigues and challenges the mind as well as the soul.

Written by Smurfophagist on 18.02.2008 at 14:08

Now you are talking about many different aspects.
I would call a sell-out someone who changes their complete musical style just so some primitive people could find it easier to grasp. But we have been over this for a million times and I wouldn't like to lead another stupid debate on this.

than i'll lead it. someone just needs to call webster's dictionary and have that definition put on file. i don't think anyone could've said that better because it's to the point.

take staind for example (bad example, i know, but it's the first group that i thought of). their first two albums were a lot heavier than anything else they've done to this day, yet they weren't even close to popular back then. their third album (and so on) was completely different and softer, giving it the ability to appeal to a larger mainstream audience. it worked, because they're famous as shit now. that's a cop-out, or a sellout, however you want to look at it.

a group of people can start a band and come up with a basis of what their sound should be, and maintain that concept throughout their career. groups like iron maiden, slayer, and hell, even megadeth have stayed true to that original sound. yes, even after the extensive lineup changes most bands experience. but nonetheless, the concepts of their music haven't been altered or manipulated to appeal to the masses. any band that can do that over such a long period of time proves that a band doesn't need to change their sound to be successful.

on the other hand, you have bands like in flames, who've changed their sound extensively over the last 8 years to reach a wider audience. why, i wouldn't know, but they certainly didn't need to. whether they reached a point of wanting more money or fame, or if their label even pushed them into it, is unknown to any of us. but that doesn't change the fact that they still let it happen.

all i have left to say is this: selling out is both good and bad. on one hand, it brings more attention to the metal scene (as bad as that may be to the culture and it's reputation). yeah, that may taint it in the process, but that happens in any culture, no matter the situation.

on the other hand, it also causes a band to lose it's original fans, creating animosity in the process. i, for one, have done nothing but talk shit to every fan of metal i know about in flames since they released RTR. and i don't care what anyone says. every person takes notice to other people's opinions, even if it's in the slightest way possible.

so shit in one hand and wish in the other. unfortunately, the shit will always weigh more.

We are going off subject. We're straying onto the usual"mainstream/ sell out" forum post. I feel I've written something that is more of a statement rather than something people can discuss. This isn't about bands selling out. It's about how clear it is to me how poorly composed and constructed mainstream music is compared to metal. Sure selling out is a branch of this acknowledgement, but it isn't the focus. If others can elaborate on this idea, that'd be great for me to see. So far anyone I've talk to about this subject has had nothing to say about it as if they don't even realize it.

Written by Carrion Misery on 19.02.2008 at 00:12

We are going off subject. We're straying onto the usual"mainstream/ sell out" forum post. I feel I've written something that is more of a statement rather than something people can discuss. This isn't about bands selling out. It's about how clear it is to me how poorly composed and constructed mainstream music is compared to metal. Sure selling out is a branch of this acknowledgement, but it isn't the focus. If others can elaborate on this idea, that'd be great for me to see. So far anyone I've talk to about this subject has had nothing to say about it as if they don't even realize it.

i'll take the blame for that, and reiterate what i meant by my previous post.

easy listening (or elevator music, respectively) is dubbed as such for a reason: it's easy to listen to. the easier it is to listen to, the more exposure it gets. it's used in all sorts of atmospheres; restaurants, elevators (it's true!), doctors offices, etc. i'd guess the reason why is because of the lack of texture and layering in the music. the more layers and such, the more complicated the music becomes. when you add more layers (take wintersun, for example) or make it more complex (basically every type of metal besides drone/sludge/stoner) you'll lose a large amount of exposure because of how difficult it may be to listen to it.

i've always related to a wide variety of people. i have friends that go to raves and listen to EDM, i have friends that are strictly metalheads, and i also have friends that listen to rap. if you think about it, most rap is composed of only a few layers: rhythm (drums, bass), a simplistic lead part, and the vocals (usually layered two or three times at certain points). being that rap is one of the more popular styles of music in the world, the reason almost has to be the simplicity of it. aside from that it has nothing else to offer except for violent gang/drug/women-related lyrics, which isn't really a worthy offering in the first place. but no matter, it's still popular.

on the other side of musical complexity, you have metal. exluding nu-metal, it's widely underground (to the mainstream culture, not you or i). when comparing it to any style of popular music, you'll find few similar points. it's angry, aggressive, overwhelming, violent-sounding, and "politically incorrect". on a technically difficult scale, rap and metal are on the opposite sides of the spectrum. so IMO, the more complex, or harsh, the music is, the less popular it'll probably be.

again, i apologize for going off-topic. hopefully this post will get things back on track.

Man, these posts are way too long for my little brain...

first, let me quote myself: (what a loser)

Written by selken on 16.02.2008 at 22:30

I'm glad the little minds of non-metal people get a spot for some bands, that's great. This is a very important bridge between underground and mainstream metal, Metallica was my bridge, and Nightwish could be someone's else.

Who cares if they want commercial success??? they deserve it!! who cares if they want to "sell out" and those stupid tags!!. I think the label "sold out" was product of the envy of the unsuccessful artists towards the ones which are successful.

Written by Fernand on 16.02.2008 at 21:51

It seems like it surely wants to get to where it's heading now (global fame/more money) and that's sad.

no it's not sad, is just they're musicians, that's their job, that's the way they get their food!, and in your job, you must look for opportunities to grow, to reach a better life level. If you have a job you would understand this point of view.

Im not saying this cause im a fucking mallcore kid, I mean, my fav genres are melodic black and death, I love their complexity, the haunting sound of Dissection.. (blah, blah, blah...)

My point is when you despise some artist because of them wining a price you are forgetting that these praised artist is the the window of metal to the external world.

Also I think this thread is very close to this, although not the same

Thanks Harbringer. That is what I am reaching at. Most people don't see the intelligence it takes to formulate metal and due to that, they chose to insult metal. It only further shows their ignorance and it truly does make me feel good that I am aware of something great that most of the people on this planet are not. Seems like some kind of an epiphany. This realization makes me hate soldout bands less and it delivers me from putting down those who only listen to hip hop or emo. Its their musical ignorance that is preventing them from giving a tolerant opinion on metal. That right there proves to me that there's no reason to bash nonmetal heads. They simply don't understand and they simply don't realize the creativity and complexity it takes to write a great musical piece.

@ Selken: This really isn't what I was getting at though as you mentioned, but I understand what you are saying. I'd imagine that Nightwish was already at the point where money wasn't an issue. However, you never can tell a band's situation just because they have hundreds of thousands of fans - things could be at the bottom of the barrel. I sort of doubt it with Nightwish though. If they were at that great point, they just wanted more. Nothing really wrong with that at all. However, I say the love of money is the root of all evil. Yeah its cliche but i thought it'd be fitting to say. Money does help though! Its still possible they'll keep their music similar. If they can do that and manage to go mainstream, then I'll have loads of respect for them. If they start playing shows with Sum 41 or Good Charolette, then I'll pretty much zone them out.

Metal won't ever be exposed into the world on such a large scale due to the fact that the human mind (which is not use to metal) can not comprehend a complex musical piece when they're trying to relax or traveling some where (as Harbringer mentioned). They get frustrated the same way how someone with ADD would get frustrated reading a lengthy book or calculating mathematical equations on paper. I can say calculus is another language to me because I don't study it. It's the same way how metal will sound like gargled nonsense to some guy who listens to hiphop and nothing else.

Written by Carrion Misery on 19.02.2008 at 02:25

Thanks Harbringer. That is what I am reaching at. Most people don't see the intelligence it takes to formulate metal and due to that, they chose to insult metal. It only further shows their ignorance and it truly does make me feel good that I am aware of something great that most of the people on this planet are not. Seems like some kind of an epiphany. This realization makes me hate soldout bands less and it delivers me from putting down those who only listen to hip hop or emo. Its their musical ignorance that is preventing them from giving a tolerant opinion on metal. That right there proves to me that there's no reason to bash nonmetal heads. They simply don't understand and they simply don't realize the creativity and complexity it takes to write a great musical piece.

Metal won't ever be exposed into the world on such a large scale due to the fact that the human mind (which is not use to metal) can not comprehend a complex musical piece when they're trying to relax or traveling some where (as Harbringer mentioned). They get frustrated the same way how someone with ADD would get frustrated reading a lengthy book or calculating mathematical equations on paper. I can say calculus is another language to me because I don't study it. It's the same way how metal will sound like gargled nonsense to some guy who listens to hiphop and nothing else.

yup, that's ignorance at it's finest. it's pathetic if you ask me. that creates naivety, causing you to miss out on tons of things that you could love but will never know for sure. but to be honest, i'm glad people are more ignorant to metal than not. that keeps the music pure and unadultered.

here's how i look at people that are ignorant enough about metal to talk down upon it: they're stupid. i don't mean offense at all, but it's true. they can't hear a piece of music that's complicated (like metal) and successfully decipher the auditory tones they're hearing, at the rate it's being thrown at them. so instead of hearing it and understanding it, it seems like a bunch of jumbled up sounds that have no methodology behind it. it's kind of like someone experiencing something traumatic. everything happens so quickly that it's impossible to interpret until after it happens. and half the time, that person still can't figure it out on their own.

Seems too many generalizations are going on here. The main one is using musical complexity as a sort of mainstream<->metal scale. Popular music can be complex, metal can be simple. Compositionally simple music can be erudite, complex music can be artistically brain-dead. Popular music isn't necessarily popular *because* it's simple; in the world of popular (here I mean in the sense of non-erudite, non-folk) music we have to realize the role of the industry. Music becomes popular mainly because of marketing, most popular acts are simple because simple music is the easiest (cheapest) to market. Complex music can become popular with proper marketing, it's just not as common - it's harder (more expensive) to market to a mass audience. But the essential part is that musical complexity isn't the only (or even the biggest in every case) factor in how easily music can become mainstream.

When metal becomes popular (read: actively marketed) it seems to be either because the music is simple on the surface (s/a Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath) or because despite musical complexity it has easily accessible, understandable and relatable (marketable!) themes (s/a Opeth, Dream Theater). Most importantly I think we have to realize that though we can find patterns when it comes to the mainstream/underground relationship there really are no absolutes as neither art nor marketing are anything close to hard sciences - exceptions are limited only to the creativity of the artists and their label.

Written by totaliteraliter on 19.02.2008 at 08:53

Seems too many generalizations are going on here. The main one is using musical complexity as a sort of mainstream<->metal scale. Popular music can be complex, metal can be simple. Compositionally simple music can be erudite, complex music can be artistically brain-dead. Popular music isn't necessarily popular *because* it's simple; in the world of popular (here I mean in the sense of non-erudite, non-folk) music we have to realize the role of the industry. Music becomes popular mainly because of marketing, most popular acts are simple because simple music is the easiest (cheapest) to market. Complex music can become popular with proper marketing, it's just not as common - it's harder (more expensive) to market to a mass audience. But the essential part is that musical complexity isn't the only (or even the biggest in every case) factor in how easily music can become mainstream.

When metal becomes popular (read: actively marketed) it seems to be either because the music is simple on the surface (s/a Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath) or because despite musical complexity it has easily accessible, understandable and relatable (marketable!) themes (s/a Opeth, Dream Theater). Most importantly I think we have to realize that though we can find patterns when it comes to the mainstream/underground relationship there really are no absolutes as neither art nor marketing are anything close to hard sciences - exceptions are limited only to the creativity of the artists and their label.

i'd appreciate it if you'd elaborate more about marketing simpler music. how is it easier to market? if you advertised for a popular artist and iron maiden in the exact same manner, how would the final costs be any different? an ad in a magazine is an ad in a magazine. and that magazine is going to charge the same price no matter who they're dealing with. in fact, i could see certain companies charging more to advertise for a more popular artist.

it's cheaper to produce a metal band than it is a famous rap group because of the label costs/production costs/mass production costs; 1) the labels don't give bands nearly as much money as major labels do, 2) producers don't charge as much as one fromthe mainstream would, and 3) when a major artist releases a CD, millions of copies are made, as opposed to maybe a couple hundred thousand that a metal band would have pressed.

metal is based on independent labels. indy labels focus all of their funds on advertising and marketing, whereas major labels throw a ton of money into the same things, as well as a ton more at producers and artists. so when you look at the big picture, it's more costly to market an artist to a larger audience. so when you're talking about marketing a new artist (musical ignorance aside), what does the style of music have to do with anything if the label is spending the same amount, no matter what?

i personally don't think the financial seperation between metal and any type of popular music has any validity to this conversation. in fact, i still think that if a company advertised for iron maiden the same as they did an for an already popular artist, iron maiden would still fall short when it came to record sales.

you have to understand that i live in the US, and the amount of money that's wasted on poor talent and boring music is ridiculously high. i get to see singers that don't write their own lyrics on MTV while a bunch of half-naked women are grinding on them. and i get to listen to uninteresting bands that play the same six chords in every single song they've written, on the radio...every single day. there's no type of underground radio station anywhere near me, so i'm exposed to it constantly. to this day, i can't say that i've heard any song or artist that's nearly as complex as any metal group is. and please keep in mind that i'm talking about popular music only, because i don't want a reply by anyone saying that classical music can be more complex. i'm aware of that.

finishing this off for tonight, i have to say i don't agree that the cost of marketing an artist has anything to do with making one popular. making something popular is advertising like crazy while spending a huge amount of money, no matter what you're trying to sell. i think what it comes down to is what (true) metal embodies that keeps it from becoming popular.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 19.02.2008 at 09:32
i'd appreciate it if you'd elaborate more about marketing simpler music. how is it easier to market? if you advertised for a popular artist and iron maiden in the exact same manner, how would the final costs be any different? an ad in a magazine is an ad in a magazine. and that magazine is going to charge the same price no matter who they're dealing with. in fact, i could see certain companies charging more to advertise for a more popular artist.

Because simple, accessible music is easier to absorb and remember. I only need to hear the new Britney Spears single once and I will probably remember the hook for the rest of my life, more complex music requires more listens to absorb and remember. Hence for the average radio lister to go out and buy a new CD he only needs to hear the Britney Spears single once; the Coldplay single twice; the Radiohead single three times, etc. (obviously I'm making up a scale to illustrate my point). Simpler music sells itself to an extent, the more complex the music is the more the music needs to be reinforced with parallel campaigns for it to have the same impact.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 19.02.2008 at 09:32
it's cheaper to produce a metal band than it is a famous rap group...

Isn't this a meaningless comparison? It's also cheaper to produce a rap group than it is a famous metal band.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 19.02.2008 at 09:32
metal is based on independent labels. indy labels focus all of their funds on advertising and marketing, whereas major labels throw a ton of money into the same things, as well as a ton more at producers and artists. so when you look at the big picture, it's more costly to market an artist to a larger audience. so when you're talking about marketing a new artist (musical ignorance aside), what does the style of music have to do with anything if the label is spending the same amount, no matter what?

Style is mainly irrelevant I'd say, accessibility is the main issue.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 19.02.2008 at 09:32
i personally don't think the financial seperation between metal and any type of popular music has any validity to this conversation. in fact, i still think that if a company advertised for iron maiden the same as they did an for an already popular artist, iron maiden would still fall short when it came to record sales.

Iron Maiden is one of the most popular and best-selling artists of all time.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 19.02.2008 at 09:32
you have to understand that i live in the US, and the amount of money that's wasted on poor talent and boring music is ridiculously high. i get to see singers that don't write their own lyrics on MTV while a bunch of half-naked women are grinding on them. and i get to listen to uninteresting bands that play the same six chords in every single song they've written, on the radio...every single day. there's no type of underground radio station anywhere near me, so i'm exposed to it constantly. to this day, i can't say that i've heard any song or artist that's nearly as complex as any metal group is. and please keep in mind that i'm talking about popular music only, because i don't want a reply by anyone saying that classical music can be more complex. i'm aware of that.

We must be differing on what we mean by complex - even something as basic as this or this type of song is structurally and compositionally more complex than much black metal. This is why I'm saying there are often bigger factors than complexity when it comes to popularity.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 19.02.2008 at 09:32
...i don't agree that marketing an artist has anything to do with making one popular.

I think the mere existence of the music industry suggests otherwise.

Written by totaliteraliter on 19.02.2008 at 10:02

Written by b0000mst1ck on 19.02.2008 at 09:32
i'd appreciate it if you'd elaborate more about marketing simpler music. how is it easier to market? if you advertised for a popular artist and iron maiden in the exact same manner, how would the final costs be any different? an ad in a magazine is an ad in a magazine. and that magazine is going to charge the same price no matter who they're dealing with. in fact, i could see certain companies charging more to advertise for a more popular artist.

Because simple, accessible music is easier to absorb and remember. I only need to hear the new Britney Spears single once and I will probably remember the hook for the rest of my life, more complex music requires more listens to absorb and remember. Hence for the average radio lister to go out and buy a new CD he only needs to hear the Britney Spears single once; the Coldplay single twice; the Radiohead single three times, etc. (obviously I'm making up a scale to illustrate my point). Simpler music sells itself to an extent, the more complex the music is the more the music needs to be reinforced with parallel campaigns for it to have the same impact.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 19.02.2008 at 09:32
it's cheaper to produce a metal band than it is a famous rap group...

Isn't this a meaningless comparison? It's also cheaper to produce a rap group than it is a famous metal band.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 19.02.2008 at 09:32
metal is based on independent labels. indy labels focus all of their funds on advertising and marketing, whereas major labels throw a ton of money into the same things, as well as a ton more at producers and artists. so when you look at the big picture, it's more costly to market an artist to a larger audience. so when you're talking about marketing a new artist (musical ignorance aside), what does the style of music have to do with anything if the label is spending the same amount, no matter what?

Style is mainly irrelevant I'd say, accessibility is the main issue.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 19.02.2008 at 09:32
i personally don't think the financial seperation between metal and any type of popular music has any validity to this conversation. in fact, i still think that if a company advertised for iron maiden the same as they did an for an already popular artist, iron maiden would still fall short when it came to record sales.

Iron Maiden is one of the most popular and best-selling artists of all time.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 19.02.2008 at 09:32
you have to understand that i live in the US, and the amount of money that's wasted on poor talent and boring music is ridiculously high. i get to see singers that don't write their own lyrics on MTV while a bunch of half-naked women are grinding on them. and i get to listen to uninteresting bands that play the same six chords in every single song they've written, on the radio...every single day. there's no type of underground radio station anywhere near me, so i'm exposed to it constantly. to this day, i can't say that i've heard any song or artist that's nearly as complex as any metal group is. and please keep in mind that i'm talking about popular music only, because i don't want a reply by anyone saying that classical music can be more complex. i'm aware of that.

We must be differing on what we mean by complex - even something as basic as this or this type of song is structurally and compositionally more complex than much black metal. This is why I'm saying there are often bigger factors than complexity when it comes to popularity.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 19.02.2008 at 09:32
...i don't agree that marketing an artist has anything to do with making one popular.

I think the mere existence of the music industry suggests otherwise.

okay, now we're almost on the same page. that first paragraph in your response is basically what i was saying yesterday. i just put it into different terms by saying that the more complex it is, the lesser of an audience it's going to absorb. so i agree with you about simpler music being easier to market based on the lack of depth.

as far as producing a famous rap group being cheaper than a metal band, i still disagree. i don't see how a major record label would pay the producer, artists, and engineers the same amount as an indy label would. i mentioned before that indy labels focus most of their money toward advertising and marketing, which in turn means less money for the artists. at least, i doubt that a band like slayer gets paid just as much as lil john does when they record an album.

okay, yeah, maybe iron maiden wasn't the best comparison because they're one of the most popular metal bands. but nonetheless, i doubt they've ever sold enough albums in the first week of a release to compete with someone like (i hate talking about this psycho bitch) britney spears.

lastly, i royally fucked up that last paragraph...lol. switch one word around and it changes the whole meaning of it. i probably should've proofread it before posting. what i meant to say was advertising (not marketing) an artist (in the US) doesn't have as much to do with making one popular as most people think. when godsmack released their first album their label had tv commercials playing all the time for them. they were featured on ozzfest that same summer, but their record sales still didn't come close to some of the bigger acts during that time (which happened to be mostly boy bands, ie: nsync, backstreet boys, etc.) but then again, it goes back to metal embodies (even nu/alternative), like the technicality, depth, emotions, and so on.

One thing that I've never understood is when people talk about how metal music is a zillion times more complicated and sophisticated than the mainstream music. It isn't like metal music is the most complicated form of music with best musicianship. Also I don't think that simpler music is neccesariy easier to market. I mean, despite being complicated, something like Genesis is still very easily marketable when compared to something like Blasphemy. I think that mainstream popularity has more to do with being easy-on- the- ear than being simple.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 19.02.2008 at 19:01
as far as producing a famous rap group being cheaper than a metal band, i still disagree.

...

i mentioned before that indy labels focus most of their money toward advertising and marketing, which in turn means less money for the artists.

I'm saying that you can't compare a popular artist from one genre with an artist of average popularity from another. Iron Maiden costs more to produce than the average rap group.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 19.02.2008 at 19:01
okay, yeah, maybe iron maiden wasn't the best comparison because they're one of the most popular metal bands. but nonetheless, i doubt they've ever sold enough albums in the first week of a release to compete with someone like (i hate talking about this psycho bitch) britney spears.

First week probably not, because Britney Spears has more marketing money behind her (and again, simpler music). Although I think Maiden has still overall sold more albums (of course they've had a head start).

Written by b0000mst1ck on 19.02.2008 at 19:01
lastly, i royally fucked up that last paragraph...lol. switch one word around and it changes the whole meaning of it. i probably should've proofread it before posting. what i meant to say was advertising (not marketing) an artist (in the US) doesn't have as much to do with making one popular as most people think. when godsmack released their first album their label had tv commercials playing all the time for them. they were featured on ozzfest that same summer, but their record sales still didn't come close to some of the bigger acts during that time (which happened to be mostly boy bands, ie: nsync, backstreet boys, etc.) but then again, it goes back to metal embodies (even nu/alternative), like the technicality, depth, emotions, and so on.

It isn't surprising at all that boy bands are most successful, this also has to do with marketing. For such acts the marketing begins before the band is even formed, they are projects designed first and foremost to make money. Prefabricated bands with panels of songwriters are probably the best example of the effect that the label's marketing activities have on a band's success. Bands like Godsmack can get pushed hard but they still lack the designed accessibility of a larger commercial venture like a boy band. So for them to have equal success they would have to be pushed much harder then an N*Sync - this doesn't happen because of the higher risk and lower rate of return for the label.

Written by [user id=23267] on 19.02.2008 at 19:46

One thing that I've never understood is when people talk about how metal music is a zillion times more complicated and sophisticated than the mainstream music. It isn't like metal music is the most complicated form of music with best musicianship. Also I don't think that simpler music is neccesariy easier to market. I mean, despite being complicated, something like Genesis is still very easily marketable when compared to something like Blasphemy. I think that mainstream popularity has more to do with being easy-on- the- ear than being simple.

I am talking about today's mainstream. The mainstream in the 60s 70s 80s and even some of the 90s has nothing to do with this. I listen to classic rock almost just as much as metal and that too screams grand musicianship loud. Furthermore, I am comparing most of Metal with any form of today's Mainstream music. Genesis is an awesome band, but again they don't count. Blasphemy is much more chaotic than Genesis, so I would expect that Genesis would get more exposure.


@ totaliteraliter: There are exceptions to this post's initial idea. There are metal bands with songs that are simple and there are mainstream bands with songs that are somewhat complicated. Its the same way that there are 2 goods songs on a mainstream album and 2 bad songs on a metal album. I really exclude rock bands that are still around such as Rush or Santana because they're more like legends; and not only that, those bands are really intelligent with their instruments rather than playing 3 chords the entire album.

Can you list 5 mainstream songs that are more complicated than 5 black metal songs? I can try to find what you list myself, but it could help if you posted them. The blast beat itself is too complicated for one use to mainstream music.

I'm not quite talking about CD sales in this conversation and you guys strayed into it. Which is fine because that's another important subject when it comes to metal and mainstream. I really prefer it to stay the way it is when it comes to that. Anyways, I know we've almost ruled out Iron Maiden and I might be repeating some of the things you have said, but I wanted to add my own thoughts on it. They've been around since 75' so they are not included in this discussion. They've sold 100million CD over 33 years - Britanny Spears sold 75 million CDs in 9 years. She isn't too far behind even with Iron Maiden's 24 year lead. This sort of still adds to my point though that there are more simple people in the world than otherwise.

The classic rock, hard rock & heavy metal genres are full of spectacular artists who are full of talent and vision unlike today's mainstream. Sure I'll give the artists today credit for their vocals, but skill only - not talent/ originality. If a metal band is very popular, its usually because they've been around for 20 years. You are right though, you can't compare a 20 year old metal band with a 4 year old pop artist when it comes to popularity; however, you can't compare them on talent and skill. The thing that is so uncomplicated about mainstream bands is their song formula:

intro (if even)
lyric verse 1
chorus
lyric verse 2
chorus
lyric verse 3
chorus
chorus
chorus
interlude
chorus

Not to mention the beat and melody. The beat remains the same through out the entire song except for in the interlude or possibly the chorus, which probably also is the same as the lyrics verse. The same thing can be said about Nickleback, Daultry, Beyonce, or Lil Wayne. It doesnt amount to metal in complication or talent whatsoever; Black metal, doom metal, or power metal. Like I said, there are exceptions, but not nearly enough to counter act this thought.

Written by selken on 19.02.2008 at 02:06

Man, these posts are way too long for my little brain...

first, let me quote myself: (what a loser)

Written by selken on 16.02.2008 at 22:30

I'm glad the little minds of non-metal people get a spot for some bands, that's great. This is a very important bridge between underground and mainstream metal, Metallica was my bridge, and Nightwish could be someone's else.

Who cares if they want commercial success??? they deserve it!! who cares if they want to "sell out" and those stupid tags!!. I think the label "sold out" was product of the envy of the unsuccessful artists towards the ones which are successful.

Written by Fernand on 16.02.2008 at 21:51

It seems like it surely wants to get to where it's heading now (global fame/more money) and that's sad.

no it's not sad, is just they're musicians, that's their job, that's the way they get their food!, and in your job, you must look for opportunities to grow, to reach a better life level. If you have a job you would understand this point of view.

Im not saying this cause im a fucking mallcore kid, I mean, my fav genres are melodic black and death, I love their complexity, the haunting sound of Dissection.. (blah, blah, blah...)

My point is when you despise some artist because of them wining a price you are forgetting that these praised artist is the the window of metal to the external world.

Also I think this thread is very close to this, although not the same

Now I hate Nightwish as much as the next guy, but you took the words completely out of my mouth...now I have no reason to post! I agree with your point here.

.....Oh yeah, I'm not sure if its just me or did that first post on this thread come off as really pretentious? I don't see how a persons musical judgement is thrown into question because they don't listen to complex 90000000000 layered music (*cough*Cough* overproduction *cough*) I listen to the Ramones for christ sakes, I don't see why I should be considered simple minded because I don't listen to much prog.

Written by Carrion Misery on 20.02.2008 at 04:16
@ totaliteraliter: There are exceptions to this post's initial idea. There are metal bands with songs that are simple and there are mainstream bands with songs that are somewhat complicated. Its the same way that there are 2 goods songs on a mainstream album and 2 bad songs on a metal album. I really exclude rock bands that are still around such as Rush or Santana because they're more like legends; and not only that, those bands are really intelligent with their instruments rather than playing 3 chords the entire album.

Can you list 5 mainstream songs that are more complicated than 5 black metal songs? I can try to find what you list myself, but it could help if you posted them. The blast beat itself is too complicated for one use to mainstream music.

I'm not quite talking about CD sales in this conversation and you guys strayed into it. Which is fine because that's another important subject when it comes to metal and mainstream. I really prefer it to stay the way it is when it comes to that. Anyways, I know we've almost ruled out Iron Maiden and I might be repeating some of the things you have said, but I wanted to add my own thoughts on it. They've been around since 75' so they are not included in this discussion. They've sold 100million CD over 33 years - Britanny Spears sold 75 million CDs in 9 years. She isn't too far behind even with Iron Maiden's 24 year lead. This sort of still adds to my point though that there are more simple people in the world than otherwise.

The classic rock, hard rock & heavy metal genres are full of spectacular artists who are full of talent and vision unlike today's mainstream. Sure I'll give the artists today credit for their vocals, but skill only - not talent/ originality. If a metal band is very popular, its usually because they've been around for 20 years. You are right though, you can't compare a 20 year old metal band with a 4 year old pop artist when it comes to popularity; however, you can't compare them on talent and skill. The thing that is so uncomplicated about mainstream bands is their song formula:

intro (if even)
lyric verse 1
chorus
lyric verse 2
chorus
lyric verse 3
chorus
chorus
chorus
interlude
chorus

Not to mention the beat and melody. The beat remains the same through out the entire song except for in the interlude or possibly the chorus, which probably also is the same as the lyrics verse. The same thing can be said about Nickleback, Daultry, Beyonce, or Lil Wayne. It doesnt amount to metal in complication or talent whatsoever; Black metal, doom metal, or power metal. Like I said, there are exceptions, but not nearly enough to counter act this thought.

It seems really obvious to me that metal is often at least as simple as much mainstream stuff. The last few Justin Timberlake singles have more "riffs" and more complex structures than "Transylvanian Hunger." Pretty much any minimalist or punkish black metal like Ildjarn or Absurd doesn't often exceed the "mainstream" song formula you posted, usually only using two or three simple riffs. Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Venom, and many more use vere/chorus/verse structure making it pretty common to metal I think. "Paranoid", "Sweet Leaf", etc. use the same standard rock formula that Nickelback and the rest use. And pop music often has far more extravagant instrumentation than the average metal band. Which brings us to production in general; a pop song you here on the radio tends to have waaaaay more going on in it (as far as multitracking) than the average metal recording.

Also, you need to explain what you mean by "talent."

Written by totaliteraliter on 20.02.2008 at 10:05

Also, you need to explain what you mean by "talent."

Talent is nothing but a subjective label, I mean, YOU refer to somebody as talentous, if they make things you like, otherwise they aren't. If you say Britney Spears has talent, then she has, if you say Chuck Schuldiner is not talentous, then, he is not, all is relative and subject to personal view. You problably has readed in this site reviews with low ratings of albums you love, or albums you hate with a very high rating. And thats all about opinion, and I'm not tired to say when, debating about opinion is useless.

I think I actually agree with everything you said in the first post (except for Anette being great).

Written by Carrion Misery on 20.02.2008 at 04:16


I am talking about today's mainstream. The mainstream in the 60s 70s 80s and even some of the 90s has nothing to do with this. I listen to classic rock almost just as much as metal and that too screams grand musicianship loud. Furthermore, I am comparing most of Metal with any form of today's Mainstream music. Genesis is an awesome band, but again they don't count. Blasphemy is much more chaotic than Genesis, so I would expect that Genesis would get more exposure.

Ok, my bad. I somehow got the impression that you meant that complicated music is bound to be less popular than simpler music.

Written by [user id=23267] on 20.02.2008 at 17:40

Ok, my bad. I somehow got the impression that you meant that complicated music is bound to be less popular than simpler music.

Yeah, I've only been saying that the majority of metal is more complicated than mainstream music. I'm trying to state that metal musicians show more talent and usually more skill in their music than pop artists in any area that is considered music.

Written by totaliteraliter on 20.02.2008 at 10:05

It seems really obvious to me that metal is often at least as simple as much mainstream stuff. The last few Justin Timberlake singles have more "riffs" and more complex structures than "Transylvanian Hunger." Black Sabbath, Iron Maiden, Venom, and many more use vere/chorus/verse structure making it pretty common to metal I think. "Paranoid", "Sweet Leaf", etc. use the same standard rock formula that Nickelback and the rest use...

These aren't fair descriptions. You're comparing the forefathers of metal with evolved pop. Metal started off with simple formula and some still stick to it, but most went on to more complicated things. Pop stuck to ABABA formula and didn't go far from it. Songs such from the black metal genre are probably the easiest to put down when it comes to complication. Especially bands like Dark Throne with their early released from 1994 or before. When you throw in Naglfar or Old Man's Child, there's no comparing them because their musicianship far passes any pop artist you bring up. I never put down pop for their musicianship, I only said that metal far exceeded pop's capabilities.

Written by totaliteraliter on 20.02.2008 at 10:05

And pop music often has far more extravagant instrumentation than the average metal band. Which brings us to production in general; a pop song you here on the radio tends to have waaaaay more going on in it (as far as multitracking) than the average metal recording.

I don't see why you can say this when you're part of a metal forum or perhaps you don't have much experience with recording. Gnarles Barkley does surpass many other pop artists, along with Amy Winehouse, when it comes to instrumentation and skill. However, Gnarles stuck with one melody for his voice the entire song except for the chorus, which wasn't that far off. Tristania, Sins of Thy Beloved, Finntroll, Ensiferum. These bands all have extravagant instrumentation. When you say "the average metal band" you're talking about 2 guitars, a bass, vocalist, and drums, right? Gnarles Barkley is not your average pop artist, but he doesn't fall far.

Written by totaliteraliter on 20.02.2008 at 10:05

Also, you need to explain what you mean by "talent."

When someone has the extreme skill to play guitar or sing, they can do anything by the book. Ask them to cover a song - they'll play it note for note, scale for scale. Now if a person has talent, this lurks more in the originality department. This means they have the ability and focus improvement. where they take their skill and become noticed over most people who walk in the room. I've seen a band who sounded exactly like Wintersun/ Children of Bodom mix. I really was not impressed because I knew they lacked originallity or the talent to grasp a sound of their own. The crowd was not very active either, but that's because they didn't really have much stage presence. Those guys could tear up the guitar though. They had skill, but not much talent.

In pop, this is where the producers come in. The producers have the talent. So they give the "artists" direction because all they have is skill. The problem is that the producers are use to simple pop music and keep on that road; unless they're innovative like the Black Eyed Peas or Gnarles Barkley then it isn't as simple, but is nevertheless.

Written by Doc G. on 20.02.2008 at 08:07

.....Oh yeah, I'm not sure if its just me or did that first post on this thread come off as really pretentious? I don't see how a persons musical judgement is thrown into question because they don't listen to complex 90000000000 layered music (*cough*Cough* overproduction *cough*) I listen to the Ramones for christ sakes, I don't see why I should be considered simple minded because I don't listen to much prog.

I can see how it may sound pretentious, but it's a realization I came across and I had to find out if anyone felt the same way. Again, I am not bashing those who listen to pop. Music doesn't always reflect on a persons intellect. I have friends who listen to it and even my girl friend does. So I hear it a lot. Being musically analystic, when I hear the same songs over and over I study it to pull apart the fundamentals. IMO metal is more faithful to instruments and personal ideas and thoughts rather than having to listen to someone else's recycled ideas. I'm just praising the pureness of metal when it comes to music in general. I'm not trying to show that I know more than the next guy, but express my revelation for my love within metal.

i think we all just need to admit that most metal will never be popular because of the themes behind it. we all keep talking about complexity, technicality, marketing, and advertising, when these are only a fraction of what it takes to make an artist popular. another major influence on whether an artist becomes popular or not are the themes found within their music. as a whole, metal seems to portray anger and hate. admit it: if you weren't a metalhead and naive to it you'd immediately assume that anyone screaming into a microphone, or a drummer that's playing like he wants to have a heart attack or destroy his drums, is pissed off about something.

angry lyrics or harsh sounds are not things the larger part of society looks for in music. they want something they can enjoy or relax to, or even party to; not something that makes them want to pick up an uzi and visit their local post office or DMV (metaphorically speaking, of course.). and please, don't bring up the mallcore or emo scenes. you can't compare a bunch of musically knowledgable and experienced people with pre-teen kids that are far from understanding and controlling their emotions.

take metalcore for instance: it's more popular than genres that have been around for years now, and it's only been prevelant for the last 5 or 6 years. why? because it's easier on the ears. and bands like in flames and soilwork have conformed to that genre, pushing their record sales higher than they've been before.

basically what i'm saying is that this goes way beyond how an artist is marketed, or how much talent they have. yeah, we have a few popular metal bands that have put metal on the map, as we can rightfully claim (iron maiden, metallica, slayer, dream theater, etc.), but all of those bands play metal that's easier to listen to when compared to some of the other bands any of us could come up with.

Written by Carrion Misery on 20.02.2008 at 23:25
These aren't fair descriptions. You're comparing the forefathers of metal with evolved pop. Metal started off with simple formula and some still stick to it, but most went on to more complicated things. Pop stuck to ABABA formula and didn't go far from it. Songs such from the black metal genre are probably the easiest to put down when it comes to complication. Especially bands like Dark Throne with their early released from 1994 or before. When you throw in Naglfar or Old Man's Child, there's no comparing them because their musicianship far passes any pop artist you bring up. I never put down pop for their musicianship, I only said that metal far exceeded pop's capabilities.

I'm not trying to "put down" anything. If you have a perspective that complicated=good then I think you need to move beyond it. Darkthrone are technically simplistic, but on an artistic level they far surpass garbage like Old Man's Child. And I'd agree that metal tends to value musicianship more than pop music (not that this is necessarily a good thing, but that's another discussion).

There isn't anything inherently inferior about the verse/chorus structure either, it's just a tool. It can be used to make music that is simple and shallow or music that is deep and meaningful.

Written by Carrion Misery on 20.02.2008 at 23:25
I don't see why you can say this when you're part of a metal forum or perhaps you don't have much experience with recording. Gnarles Barkley does surpass many other pop artists, along with Amy Winehouse, when it comes to instrumentation and skill. However, Gnarles stuck with one melody for his voice the entire song except for the chorus, which wasn't that far off. Tristania, Sins of Thy Beloved, Finntroll, Ensiferum. These bands all have extravagant instrumentation. When you say "the average metal band" you're talking about 2 guitars, a bass, vocalist, and drums, right? Gnarles Barkley is not your average pop artist, but he doesn't fall far.

Well if you agree the average metal band is a 4-5 piece group, I find pop music often exceeds that (just from watching Leno, Letterman, SNL, etc.). Even Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera are known to perform live with 7-10 piece backing bands. I don't see what you are saying that disputes this. And beyond instrumentation female pop vocalists often have more vocal tracks on one song than a lot of metal bands go through in a career. This is a genre where the producer and mixing are major focal points, often overshadowing the performer themselves (Timbaland's recent work, for example). That's all I'm saying, I don't think metal in general is really comparable in this area.

Written by Carrion Misery on 20.02.2008 at 23:25
When someone has the extreme skill to play guitar or sing, they can do anything by the book. Ask them to cover a song - they'll play it note for note, scale for scale. Now if a person has talent, this lurks more in the originality department. This means they have the ability and focus improvement. where they take their skill and become noticed over most people who walk in the room. I've seen a band who sounded exactly like Wintersun/ Children of Bodom mix. I really was not impressed because I knew they lacked originallity or the talent to grasp a sound of their own. The crowd was not very active either, but that's because they didn't really have much stage presence. Those guys could tear up the guitar though. They had skill, but not much talent.

In pop, this is where the producers come in. The producers have the talent. So they give the "artists" direction because all they have is skill. The problem is that the producers are use to simple pop music and keep on that road; unless they're innovative like the Black Eyed Peas or Gnarles Barkley then it isn't as simple, but is nevertheless.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 21.02.2008 at 07:51
we all keep talking about complexity, technicality, marketing, and advertising, when these are only a fraction of what it takes to make an artist popular. another major influence on whether an artist becomes popular or not are the themes found within their music.

I think that marketing is separate from the rest - complexity, themes, catchiness, etc. are all factors that combine in various forms to give something the *potential* to become popular. But it's what happens on the industry side is what actually *makes* the artist reach the level of top 40 mainstream popularity. It doesn't matter what the music sounds like or is about, without a big push from the label it isn't going to make it.

It's fine to talk about this in an abstract sense, recognizing patterns and trends, but I think we have to keep in mind that popularity isn't just something that happens when certain conditions are met. I think it's more realistic to look at it from the industry point of view than from just a musical one.

@totaliteraliter - it may be more realistic to look at it from an industrial viewpoint, but there's no industry without a product. so perhaps it's most realistic to look at both aspects equally, as the quality of the product decides how well the industry benefits from it.

so, i'm still sticking to my opinion about why metal isn't popular. as i said in the first post i made in this thread: i'm glad it isn't. when something becomes popular, it's adultered and corrupted into something else entirely. i like metal the way it is, and i hope that it never gets to that point.

The multiple layers for pop vocals really doesn't make the music complex. It only brings depth to the vocals for chorus effect and sometimes an overlapping effect. The same thing is done when metal vocals (or any vocals for that matter) are correctly recorded. The only thing nearly complicated with pop are the vocals.

When mentioning a band is more artistic than the other, that is really a matter of opinion. Also, the amount of members in a band does not show the complexity of the music. Especially if they're all playing the same thing in repetition through out the entire song.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 21.02.2008 at 08:43
@totaliteraliter - it may be more realistic to look at it from an industrial viewpoint, but there's no industry without a product. so perhaps it's most realistic to look at both aspects equally, as the quality of the product decides how well the industry benefits from it.

It's reasonable to look at both aspects. But "quality" is a bad word to use here I think, in most any industry (music being no exception) when you get to the marketplace the quality of your product isn't all that important. Any company benefits more financially from well marketed crap than it does from poorly marketed gold.

Written by Carrion Misery on 21.02.2008 at 08:54
The multiple layers for pop vocals really doesn't make the music complex. It only brings depth to the vocals for chorus effect and sometimes an overlapping effect. The same thing is done when metal vocals (or any vocals for that matter) are correctly recorded. The only thing nearly complicated with pop are the vocals.
...
Also, the amount of members in a band does not show the complexity of the music. Especially if they're all playing the same thing in repetition through out the entire song.

These are all aspects of complexity in the music, and I think we agree that there are some areas where pop music is more complex than the average metal band, and also that some areas of metal are of equal or lesser complexity than pop music in general.

Written by Carrion Misery on 21.02.2008 at 08:54
When mentioning a band is more artistic than the other, that is really a matter of opinion.

Yes and no, it's not a scientific fact but it isn't like picking your favourite colour either. It's arguable around objective qualities that Darkthrone has more artistic merit than melodic fluff ala OMC, it just takes an essay or two. This is pretty much my original point; that we shouldn't focus solely on musical complexity. Metal doesn't absolutely get more complex as you go further from the mainstream.

@totaliteraliter - okay, than answer me this: if any company can benefit from well-marketed crap, how come metal is so unpopular?