The most consistent theme of all bands who start out edgy or have artistic cred, is they'll never ever sustain it The only way to have consistent credibility is take on a medium, middle of the road theme from the start so there's not much credibility to lose. Like Barenaked Ladies or Ween or Blink 182 or something. (Limp BIZKIT had rock artist credibility? ) Right, some bands have style changes BEFORE they get big that we dont see. Sugar Ray, Green Day and Goo Goo Dolls had alternative and punk roots. But its when we actually see the change that we really bash them for it. A bunch of young, angry, bitter, hungry young guys living together on the road in a cramped apartment with no food with only their dreams to live on. Well yeah they're gonna be more edgier than themselves approaching their 50s living in their own ranches and 2 story mansions with house servants.
they arent what they used to be, but i wouldnt call them sell-outs. they gave away their last album on the internets. reznor has also had a long history of feuding w/ his own label and generally being difficult to handle. rather than going in a more pop direction since pretty hate machine, he made increasingly challenging music. imo, for a band at that level, they are really the antithises of sell-out. im not even a big nin fan, but i really respect the way they have gone about it.
Definitely aging had something to do with it but I also think the reason why people always cite Metallica is this: They made fun of MTV, radio play, and the Grammy scene for most of a decade and then suddenly made an album with Bob friggin Rock, shortened their song length (= more radio and MTV play), made a whole bunch of videos, and started writing ballads. So people saw that as doing nothing but courting mainstream money. Then they cut their hair and their music got even worse and, of course, the Napster thing annoyed a lot of people. I think they were on the road too long after the Black album that their fans didn't realize they aged...or at least how much they aged, and that they would not be producing the same kind of music anymore. So people see them as in decline since the Black album. Hell, I only a few months ago heard Unforgiven II and Hetfield actually threw a crooning "whoa whoa whoooo whooo-uhhhh-oooohhh" kind of run on the end? That was comical and only a few cheese steps away from throwing in a "shoobi whah whah". Personally, I think Burton's death killed them. Justice is really overrated in my mind. Too repetitive and blah for me. Even though it was the "sellout", I think Black was a better (more enjoyable) album overall.
in regards to the OP post: staind --i really like Dysfunctional and the albums after that were not as edgy or hard but they were still pretty decent, Aaron Lewis has a great voice (imo) but yeah i still find myself playing the songs off of dysfunctional the most limp bizkit--??? they were good at any point? metallica --been discussed korn-- they've aged and i think they tried to change their style a bit and experiment since so many new bands started to imitate their style of music and all. they lost one of their guitar players and i believe their drummer so naturally they have to adjust to the sounds they can produce. their last album was total crap though i think they are done as a band for now.
Sometime I wonder whether being a 'sellout' is even relevant anymore. In the end, it is about the money....AND, you hope, about the music. I shot an awesome Metallica set at Stubb's during SXSW...they played all 'old' Metallica songs WHILE promoting their new Guitar Hero game. I suppose that is a sell out...but how is that necessarily a bad thing? Using Metallica is an example...they are an industry that employ's dozens of people and have given dozens of bands exposure they wouldn't have had it otherwise. The older I get, the simpler it is for me....if someone produces music that is earnest, creative and original, I can't fault them for getting a paycheck from Geico or BMW....this will allow them to do more things and spread their influence in the industry. If someone produces a marketing campaign wrapped in power cords, I hope people can see through it...if people can't...then sorry....you get what you pay for.
Bands, much like people, go through different phases. You can usually attribute a major shift in a bands style with either a replacement of a band member, or a long hiatus. I don't really mind that bands change their sounds.....it's MUSIC. There is no definition as to what it is right or wrong. If Incubus decides to change their sound or what they write about, it's THEIR right, because it's THEIR music. If you don't like it, don't listen to it. Plain and simple.
Except for a handful of band, the labels, I strongly suspect, have too much say in what music sees the light of day. The labels want old bands to sound new and relevant, and in doing so make the old bands look like sell-outs. Even for the bands that can push back the labels wrt artistic freedom, these bands will likely be listening to what is currently popular (not exclusively mind you) and modern elements sneak into their own songs. U2 comes to mind. Bands may also see their back catalog as a double edge sword. If the band tries to "recapture" the magic from their back catalog, not all fans will be happy since they are expecting the band to move forward. Other fans who want the old stuff may find the magic was not recaptured. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Queensrÿche's Operation: Mindcrime II comes to mind.
They replaced him with the AMAZING Terry Bozzio of Frank Zappa and Missing Persons fame. Not exactly a downgrade. On Metallica, my band had to learn Nothing Else Matters recently because it was the bride and groom's first dance at a wedding a while back. Talk about surreal.
the thing about Queensryche is that while their stuff lately hasnt really stood up to the older stuff, it cant rightfully be attributed to selling out. Selling out would imply that you wrote music to be more widely accepted.....not less accepted. Losing Chris Degarmo really hurt their songwriting imo. rimbaud.....exactly! except I do appreciate And Justice...just not anything after that.
Excellent point...but this is changing. Being on a label used to be the only way you could get quality production, marketing and distribution. Now that quality production can be done 'on the cheap' and distribution can be done on the cheap, record labels are selling their marketing abilities to new bands. Record companies want to market what will bring profit AND exposure to the label, hence, the 'meet me half way' conversation with 'up and coming' bands. Change your sound a bit and we will bank roll you...stay where you are and take your chances. Bands are being signed, marketed on the cheap then dropped if they aren't profitable or willing to change into something that is marketable. The problem with this is that many bands never get a chance to develop their sound and reach their potential. Good labels used to cultivate artists...now it is one shot and done.
It doesn't get much sadder than this. Of course, he became super rich by selling out, so I doubt he cares. this in 1971 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhemoVkL9LQ to this in 1978 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIlHt_syoSE&feature=related
Yeah I have listened to it. While I certainly don't think The Slip is as good as the Downward Spiral or the Fragile, I still wouldn't call it garbage. And besides, I don't understand how that would make Trent a sell out. Just because you don't like the music anymore?
Don't get me wrong, Justice isn't bad...I just think people overvalued it because ofwhat happened with Black. So it gets mentioned alot as their peak. I don't see how you can argue that it was not a drop off from the KtA-RtL-MoP progression. One, Harvester of Sorrow, Dyer's Eve are plenty good for 80's metal, though, so I don't want to come accross like I am trashing it. It is just that as an overall listening experience, I don't like it as much. I would rather listen to Black straight through I guess. But the highs of Justice are higher than those of Black. Does that make sense?
i'll be honest, i sorta agree. they tried to make much more radio friendly albums and they were widely panned by their fans. but, in what i feel is evidence of what a great band they are, they have turned most of those into outstanding live songs. the bigger question is, have you bought the new one yet??
i'm ashamed to tell you i have not i guess i'd agree with the direction they took on Everyday. of course that seems like ages ago. but generally speaking, they were making pop music from the start. songs like Ants Marching and What Would You Say were radio hits right off the bat.
