|
|
Post by the dark fourth on Aug 7, 2008 10:24:32 GMT
I think chloe as a pretty girl will bring PRR 2 the mainstream. It is all it takes imo. Maybe it would if they marketted her as a "pretty girl", which, thank god, they don't. I can't stand these Lacoona Coil/Paramore/Evernescence bands where the only member anyone can recognise is the ("pretty") girl. Much better to do it like the Pixies or the White Stripes (or My Vitriol - didn't they have a girl? Or is that my imagination?) where the girl is just a normal member like the others, even if she does happen to have, ahem, excellent ascthetics. If the girl is genuine "front man" material, like the Yeah Yeah Yeahs or something, then that's a different kettle of fish. |
|
|
|
Post by sarahm on Aug 7, 2008 10:29:25 GMT
Maybe it would if they marketted her as a "pretty girl", which, thank god, they don't. I can't stand these Lacoona Coil/Paramore/Evernescence bands where the only member anyone can recognise is the ("pretty") girl. Much better to do it like the Pixies or the White Stripes (or My Vitriol - didn't they have a girl? Or is that my imagination?) where the girl is just a normal member like the others, even if she does happen to have, ahem, excellent ascthetics. If the girl is genuine "front man" material, like the Yeah Yeah Yeahs or something, then that's a different kettle of fish.[/quote] the last album didnt use pics of the band etc. look at there myspace now, the nearfest live album. i think they are marketing thru the band members image. ilook forward 2 seeing the new album art work. I reckon we r in for a big change.  |
|
|
|
Post by Nikos on Aug 7, 2008 11:50:29 GMT
I beg to differ. It seems to me now, that this is a period where the band care alot less about their image. they used to wear shirt/tie etc. on stage, now their more dressed down and 'dont care' I guess. They don't have a stylist any more either!
|
|
|
|
Post by ripley on Aug 7, 2008 12:00:47 GMT
As 4 swearing, the same exact word. a song by Radiohead which made them BIG comes 2 mind and it was also there to make more expression, not 2 be mainstream imo. ;D ;D And me, that also was around at the time for 'Creep', thought that it might have been because of something like songwriting skills.... a great melody might have had something to do with it  I doubt, as in the case with, NIN, that one swearword could make a band successful, even at that time. We weren't that 'unspoilt' by a nasty language. I don't even think that it was that simple with RATM! There has to be something more, otherwise it would be real sad, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by Lawrie on Aug 7, 2008 12:41:08 GMT
I beg to differ. It seems to me now, that this is a period where the band care alot less about their image. they used to wear shirt/tie etc. on stage, now their more dressed down and 'dont care' I guess. They don't have a stylist any more either! They used to have a stylist?!  |
|
|
|
Post by sarahm on Aug 7, 2008 12:44:47 GMT
I beg to differ. It seems to me now, that this is a period where the band care alot less about their image. they used to wear shirt/tie etc. on stage, now their more dressed down and 'dont care' I guess. They don't have a stylist any more either! They used to have a stylist?! lol |
|
|
|
Post by david on Aug 7, 2008 16:45:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by murphymurphy on Aug 15, 2008 21:32:47 GMT
who the hell said mainstream listeners like songs with the f-word in? possibly the dumbest thing I ever heard. ever. and I've listened to Amy Winehouse interviews. my mum listens to mainstream music, and last time I checked, she's not a huge fan of limp bizkit.  Well said doesn't even begin to cover it... On the topic, I don't think Limp Bizkit, or NIN for that matter, used the swear words to appeal to mainstream, if anything quite the opposite- they wanted to seem rebellious perhaps, or maybe they just wanted to use the bloody words cos they expressed what they wanted to say! (As is my argument in the case of the 'deus-gate,' I think, there is a sense "she'll fucking never know if I have anything to do with it..." which just wouldn't have come across the same if he just said 'oh, she'll never know...' which sounds less powerful/angry and more remorseful. It's all about meaning not shock value or anything else. Never got a chance to say that before as I was prancing around the East but there, said it now.) I think one of the biggest problems in this discussion is that without going off on a major rant, what is 'mainstream?' Because these days, its not simply the charts, there are a multitude of 'mainstreams,' it's a really wide term that doesn't actually really mean much. Well, I hate to take your argument and tear it up (really, I'm sorry  , but I have to disagree. I agree that they swore to seem rebellious, but they obviously got a lot of attention from it. Any reasonable band would look at it from the big picture viewpoint: "Hey, if we get all this attention from being rebellious (including but not limited to swearing), why not just keep on doing it?" These bands found that something in the "mainstream" (I guess) human being makes cursing and swearing appealing, and don't ask me what it is either. They therefore, with a "why fix what's not broken?" mentality, continued to swear and be rebellious, and because of that they reaped the short term "benefits" (attention) of it. Now I don't mean to say that PRR is doing this at all. I was just saying it may turn into a snowball effect. "If we did it once, and that song [possibly] became one of our most popular songs, why not do it again?" Again, I'm not saying they will do that, I just hope it doesn't happen. I just don't want them to sacrifice or compromise anything in order to gain attention or fans. This probably isn't the best example, but look at Tool. Honestly, where I live, no one has heard of Tool, except for me and a couple guys I introduced them to. But the thing is, Tool is fine with that (no major attention from the media). And like PRR, Tool plays superb if not divine (lol) music, and how come they're not recognized or appreciated for their work with a huge fanbase? It's most likely the same issue with PRR. I don't know why, maybe because of their long songs and "inaccessibility," but neither PRR nor Tool gets much media attention (yet). However, Tool has a huge underground fanbase, and PRR's is growing. And I think that Tool is satisfied with that, and I'm glad for that. And maybe PRR is / will be satisfied with that too, but I'm not sure as they're still in their "early stages." So the only reason I said Tool is a bad example is because they swear fairly often, and I don't really approve of that (lol), but the reason I chose them was to illustrate an example of an "underground" band that plays great but doesn't get recognized too often for it. And the second thing I disagree with is this: I don't think you have to curse to express emotion, or anger, or whatever you're attempting to convey. It's really all about intonation, and you can put intonation on any word in a sentence you want to and change the meaning of it entirely. Take this poor example that was quickly thought up (lol): "Will you please take out the trash?" sounds like a simple request. However, "Will you PLEASE take out the trash??" could either be sarcasm on "please," frustration because it's not the first time being asked, or anger in general. So you see, you don't have to use swear words to illustrate "angry types" of emotion (hatred, anger, rage, etc.). Let's look at my earlier example, Tool. Although many of their songs do contain violently spoken "f-bombs," listen to such songs as Lateralus, The Grudge, Vicarious, Stinkfist, and 46 and 2. If you listen to Maynard, you can clearly see that he uses heavy and emotional intonations (most of which are anger, rage, and hatred) without cursing. But the point is, It Still Sounds Good! You can still make great music and not curse, that's pretty much what I'm saying. So, you can see that it is definitely possible and not out of anyone's ability to replace f*** with another one-syllable word or f***ing with another two-syllable word that still expresses whatever it is you're trying to express. |
|
|
|
Post by ryan on Aug 16, 2008 16:33:26 GMT
Using Tool as an underground band doesn't work, not many underground bands play Wembley Arena.
Tool shares more fans with Limp Bizkit than the (read, 'stoner') portion of Tools fan base would care to admit.
But why replace 'fuck'? Just because you can? Because swearing is taboo? It's a word that evokes a feeling, pretty strongly, and arguably better than other words.
Plus, swearing makes you sound as cool as smoking makes you look.
|
|
|
|
Post by isador21 on Aug 16, 2008 21:20:17 GMT
Using Tool as an underground band doesn't work, not many underground bands play Wembley Arena. Tool shares more fans with Limp Bizkit than the (read, 'stoner') portion of Tools fan base would care to admit. Unfortunately ... I hate when people refer to Tool as "mainstream" tho... They simply have VERY dedicated fans ... Their music is always sort-of anti-mainstream, really ... |
|
|
|
Post by ryan on Aug 16, 2008 22:37:53 GMT
Their music isn't so much (though I don't think it's exactly 'inaccessible' in the grand scheme of things), but they are on a major label, release records that sell A LOT, get on magazine covers (hell, get magazines dedicated to them), play arenas AND sell them out.
To say they are an underground band is just silly.
Fantastic band, but they've not been an underground band since the first album. Admirable that they've got to where they are without compromising yes, but still...
|
|
|
|
Post by isador21 on Aug 17, 2008 2:08:35 GMT
That's completely true...
They're not mainstream, but not underground either.
Mainstream usually means to compromise...
Porcupine Tree and Radiohead enjoy the same kind of popularity ...
They've just collected a huge and dedicated fanbase.
Their success isn't temporary like those mainstream "artists" you see on TV, but they do sell alot of albums and play huge-budget shows.
Too bad these kind of band don't get many fans where I live ...
I heard there are so many Tool fans in the U.S. that they're annoying ...
|
|
|
|
Post by ryan on Aug 17, 2008 4:42:40 GMT
What about it isn't true?! Tool are far bigger than Porcupine Tree, less so that Radiohead. Porcupine Tree are resonably known for what they are, they do ok with tours (much better now they are on a major proper) but get almost zero coverage in any media. I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't at least know who Radiohead are, even if they don't know any tunes. I'm not trying to argue Tool write mainstream pop tunes or anything, but they aren't exactly writing unlistenable avant-garde jazz pieces. There's enough big riffs, chunky guitar and aggressive sounding vocal to pull the Limp Bizkit crowd in (using LB as a catch for that kind of no-brainer metal). I'd the size of their fanbase, the coverage they recive, the fact they are on Sony BMG etc. etc. puts them FAR away from the underground. They've been lucky that they managed to get a deal giving them total artistic freedom is all. I can't see this going anywhere though, it's all down to how you wanna use the word 'mainstream'. So I'll leave it at that |
|
|
|
Post by isador21 on Aug 26, 2008 22:54:20 GMT
What about it isn't true?! Tool are far bigger than Porcupine Tree, less so that Radiohead. Porcupine Tree are resonably known for what they are, they do ok with tours (much better now they are on a major proper) but get almost zero coverage in any media. I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't at least know who Radiohead are, even if they don't know any tunes. I'm not trying to argue Tool write mainstream pop tunes or anything, but they aren't exactly writing unlistenable avant-garde jazz pieces. There's enough big riffs, chunky guitar and aggressive sounding vocal to pull the Limp Bizkit crowd in (using LB as a catch for that kind of no-brainer metal). I'd the size of their fanbase, the coverage they recive, the fact they are on Sony BMG etc. etc. puts them FAR away from the underground. They've been lucky that they managed to get a deal giving them total artistic freedom is all. I can't see this going anywhere though, it's all down to how you wanna use the word 'mainstream'. So I'll leave it at that I've never considered Tool "underground", they're actually one of the only 3-4 bands who's albums are available at my local HMV store (that's usually my standard for "known" music, since this is No Music's Land) But they are kind of an acquired taste, just like Radiohead and such... The brainless Limp Bizkit crowd would never get into Wings For Marie / 10000 Days (pt.2) |
|
|
|
Post by ryan on Aug 27, 2008 16:02:12 GMT
I don't think that track is even that dense, once the riffing and shouting gets going anyway.
Tool fans are far to precious about Tool.
|
|
Well said doesn't even begin to cover it...
, but I have to disagree. I agree that they swore to seem rebellious, but they obviously got a lot of attention from it. Any reasonable band would look at it from the big picture viewpoint: "Hey, if we get all this attention from being rebellious (including but not limited to swearing), why not just keep on doing it?" These bands found that something in the "mainstream" (I guess) human being makes cursing and swearing appealing, and don't ask me what it is either. They therefore, with a "why fix what's not broken?" mentality, continued to swear and be rebellious, and because of that they reaped the short term "benefits" (attention) of it.
