Written by totaliteraliter on 21.02.2008 at 09:59

Because the many qualities that we have discussed, and others as well, make marketing it more difficult and expensive than other forms of music. Are you implying metal is crap? I don't get the connection you're making.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 21.02.2008 at 11:18
see, you're contradicting the reality of the industry. again, metal bands aren't given nearly as much money as major artists when they go to record an album. and i'm not talking about one well-known artist like iron maiden anymore, i'm talking about metal bands as a whole.

a new pop artist can be signed to a major label and given a multi-record, million dollar contract before they even start recording. indy labels give little to no money to a metal band because that small amount of overhead (that they already had) is instead allocated to advertising and touring. as far as producing an album is concerned, the band pays for a producer in most situations, unless they're signed under a major contract.

so when you look at the big financial picture, when all is said and done, it doesn't cost nearly as much to produce a metal band as it does a major artist. a metal band doesn't get that signing bonus, or that million dollar deal that a pop group would.

realistically speaking, recording equipment (amps, effects pedals, mics, drum machines, samplers, keyboards, soundboards, computer programs, engineering tools, etc.) cost the same no matter what. so if you take two artists and make them both record an album, the only cost anyone has to worry about is the producer's fee, because all that equipment was supplied to that producer (by a record label) or paid for by himself. obviously, a well-known producer is going to charge a helluva lot more to produce a pop group than a mostly unknown producer would to produce a metal band.

so with that in mind, it does NOT cost as much to produce a metal band. with indy labels, if that overhead cost is going to advertising and touring instead of the artist, than why isn't metal as popular as it should be? those labels aren't dropping millions on an artist in an attempt to advertise more for them, so that means more advertising. if the advertising is there, than the fanbase should be as well.

edit: i'm not calling metal crap by any means. it's the most creative music of our time IMO. i'm merely saying that if the music industry can make a profit off of crap artists, than why aren't they making a profit off of talented metal bands as well?

Written by totaliteraliter on 21.02.2008 at 19:36

Written by b0000mst1ck on 21.02.2008 at 11:18
see, you're contradicting the reality of the industry. again, metal bands aren't given nearly as much money as major artists when they go to record an album. and i'm not talking about one well-known artist like iron maiden anymore, i'm talking about metal bands as a whole.

a new pop artist can be signed to a major label and given a multi-record, million dollar contract before they even start recording. indy labels give little to no money to a metal band because that small amount of overhead (that they already had) is instead allocated to advertising and touring. as far as producing an album is concerned, the band pays for a producer in most situations, unless they're signed under a major contract.

so when you look at the big financial picture, when all is said and done, it doesn't cost nearly as much to produce a metal band as it does a major artist. a metal band doesn't get that signing bonus, or that million dollar deal that a pop group would.

realistically speaking, recording equipment (amps, effects pedals, mics, drum machines, samplers, keyboards, soundboards, computer programs, engineering tools, etc.) cost the same no matter what. so if you take two artists and make them both record an album, the only cost anyone has to worry about is the producer's fee, because all that equipment was supplied to that producer (by a record label) or paid for by himself. obviously, a well-known producer is going to charge a helluva lot more to produce a pop group than a mostly unknown producer would to produce a metal band.

so with that in mind, it does NOT cost as much to produce a metal band. with indy labels, if that overhead cost is going to advertising and touring instead of the artist, than why isn't metal as popular as it should be? those labels aren't dropping millions on an artist in an attempt to advertise more for them, so that means more advertising. if the advertising is there, than the fanbase should be as well.

edit: i'm not calling metal crap by any means. it's the most creative music of our time IMO. i'm merely saying that if the music industry can make a profit off of crap artists, than why aren't they making a profit off of talented metal bands as well?

You're totally missing the mark. Cost is an irrelevant factor here, you have to think in terms of ROI. And you're comparing major labels with independent labels again, which is nonsensical.

Written by b0000mst1ck on 22.02.2008 at 01:01
lol, we're getting nowhere because you don't understand what i've been talking about. comparing major labels with indy labels is necessary when talking about something like this. there are indy bands that sell records as well as most artists on major labels, while metal bands don't because of their lack of promotion. it's more than relevant as it's a major factor of this debate. but i'm clearly wasting my time since you can't see that.

i give up. there's no reason anyone would misunderstand what i'm saying as i've been as clear as possible, and gone in-depth about everything numerous times. every aspect of a label hiring, recording, producing, and distributing a band has just as much to do with their success as anything else. if anyone else has an opinion they'd like to lend me, i'd appreciate it. otherwise, i'm done with this discussion. talking to a brick wall would be more effective at this point.

Written by ANGEL REAPER on 28.02.2008 at 15:31


really this last award is based on the remaining fame of the band,and not on its quality,which they had before

Written by Stigmatized on 29.02.2008 at 16:01

Just a thought, don't know if someone has said this already. Bands that are famous are famous for a reason, they didn't make it that far by having their music suck.

Written by Marcel Hubregtse on 29.02.2008 at 16:20

Written by Stigmatized on 29.02.2008 at 16:01

Just a thought, don't know if someone has said this already. Bands that are famous are famous for a reason, they didn't make it that far by having their music suck.

Alas, that isn't true in a lot of cases. A lot of bands are famous because they are backed by huge record companies who pay magazines for good reviews plus the companies back the bands immensely by paying for airplay, promotion, tours etc.