As soon as I saw this thread I was waiting for that post to come.

Written by Zap on 06.10.2015 at 07:36

As soon as I saw this thread I was waiting for that post to come.

Me too, took a while though.

Yeah, that's a good post. Probably sheds some light on why Amorphis were able to do the style change despite of Tales and Elegy selling loads of copies. They didn't get a single penny.

Written by deadone on 06.10.2015 at 07:25

Music is a business and like all businesses, it's directed by sales targets and legal requirements.

I'm not going to get into a 10 + comment debate with you on this, as I already have in the past ad nauseam. You know that I HATE art being exploited for the sake of money at the sacrifice of one's creative drive, and that I think that using sales as a judgment of a band's quality is completely idiotic. So let me just leave you with this to muse over instead...

NO. Sorry, but no. Music is an art form first and foremost, and should always be regarded as such. It was CRAFTED into a business over a period of time, but that does not by any means whatsoever mean that that was the original inclination it possessed right from the outstart. If you think that classical composers in the 18th century, or proto blues guitarists sitting on plantations strumming along and singing songs about their woes were concerned about how well their music would sell, well... is all I have to say. The business model for music is a modern day adaptation that completely dilutes what it was and is in the first place: an expression of the innermost desires and characteristics of one's soul... a way of giving words to abstract concepts and emotions through sound. And any one who thinks otherwise is turning a blind eye to the rich history of music as an art form. Yes, I know I may sound like an idealist or whatever other label you'd like to throw at me in an attempt to de-legitimize my argument, but this is something that I'm incredibly passionate about, and I'm standing by my point.

Sure there's a business aspect to music nowadays. But to me there's a difference between playing music BECAUSE you're looking to make money, and playing music because you want to express yourself artistically and just taking whatever money happens to come your way on the side. One is done primarily for the sake of a profit. The other is done for the sake of pursuing creativity and your own artistic passions. And ya know what man, we may have our necessities in this life and our obligations we need to fulfill via cash, but at the end of the day I'd always rather be doing something I know I love and suffering for it than getting by doing something that I hate and that doesn't allow me to fully express myself. And I KNOW plenty of people would agree with me on that point. Bands can play music primarily for the sake of business. They can churn out a bunch of redundant, cookie cutter albums because that's what their label or the industry deems as more easily marketable. They have every right to do so. But it doesn't mean I'll respect them, and it doesn't mean I'll take their artistic vision (or lack thereof) very seriously.

Written by deadone on 07.10.2015 at 00:46

So they probably weren't making much money anyhow.

Amorphis were a notorious jackpot for Relapse, Tales had sold more than 250 000 copies by the end of their contract in 2002. Add Elegy with 130 000+ to that and it definitely would've been decent money with that kind of music (plus merch sales). Relapse royally abused a band that had no legal experience in the field, not even their friend circle (because of being the first truly successful Finnish artist outside their country, playing freaking death metal).

What that whole business side conversation comes down to: if you wanna make music for the money in this day and age, you're an idiot. It might be a reason for some bands to keep making the same generic garbage, but -- unless they're Metallica or Iron Maiden -- if they really keep doing it for the money, they should probably consider a career switch. So let's get back to the interesting topic from page 1, which was nice to read.

Written by Cynic Metalhead on 04.10.2015 at 20:49

I didn't understand why people were so pissed when WIITR went onto new direction. Considering band released shit tons of statements in interviews and mags that old WIITR will disband and will go into new direction.

Even if they hadn't done that, it still wouldn't have been too surprising. Celestial Lineage was predominantly black metal of course, but it also opened the door into the ambient/atmospheric territory the band had been playing around with since Day 1 wider than it ever had been before. So you could tell they were starting to get more interested in fully exploring that side of their personality. Whether they're going to keep doing ambient music or go back to black metal, though... that remains to be seen.

Written by Auntie Sahar on 07.10.2015 at 21:01

Even if they hadn't done that, it still wouldn't have been too surprising. Celestial Lineage was predominantly black metal of course, but it also opened the door into the ambient/atmospheric territory the band had been playing around with since Day 1 wider than it ever had been before. So you could tell they were starting to get more interested in fully exploring that side of their personality. Whether they're going to keep doing ambient music or go back to black metal, though... that remains to be seen.

Actually, I might be wrong, but when WITTR announced Celestite I read a bunch of interviews about it and if I remember correctly the album was a sort of reworking of the ambient stuff from Celestial Lineage. Which direction they would henceforth continue in wasn't clear but I interpreted it as a one-off at the time.

Art alone cant make your stomach full... music (any music) is both art form and business ....if you balance it good you last enough on scene if not you either get rich and be considered crap or you get best there is but die poor . that being settled i blame a lot on why we consider this whole genre stale on fans.

in my opinion fans are to blame for at least 50% of shit happening.

Written by Zap on 07.10.2015 at 21:04

Actually, I might be wrong, but when WITTR announced Celestite I read a bunch of interviews about it and if I remember correctly the album was a sort of reworking of the ambient stuff from Celestial Lineage. Which direction they would henceforth continue in wasn't clear but I interpreted it as a one-off at the time.

As did I, I think it's just going to end up being a "one time only" sort of thing. But if they do indeed continue on with that sort of sound, I definitely wouldn't mind either. Especially because it'd just continue making all the trve kvlt fans who can't stand the band not playing metal butthurt

Written by Auntie Sahar on 07.10.2015 at 21:08

As did I, I think it's just going to end up being a "one time only" sort of thing. But if they do indeed continue on with that sort of sound, I definitely wouldn't mind either. Especially because it'd just continue making all the trve kvlt fans who can't stand the band not playing metal butthurt

Yup, I also wouldn't mind. In fact, I think Celestite is my most played album of theirs. Not necessarily my favorite though, but still grrrreat.

Written by ANGEL REAPER on 07.10.2015 at 21:06

Art alone cant make your stomach full... music (any music) is both art form and business ....if you balance it good you last enough on scene if not you either get rich and be considered crap or you get best there is but die poor

Of course, as I said to deadone, there's a big difference between going into playing music PURELY because you're looking to make money doing it and going into music because you want to express yourself artistically, and then making a little money on the side through performances, album sales etc. In one scenario you're saying "this looks like an easy thing to make cash off of," in the other you're saying "I'm doing this for my own creative drive, and if I can make a little money doing it, that's cool too." Personally, I have a much bigger problem with the former than with the latter. I never said I had an issue with making money off of art, I said I had an issue with art being exploited for money, and exploited is the key word.

You can certainly make money off your shit and still stay extremely creative, versatile, and adaptive with your music (see Mories, Sunn O))), Blut Aus Nord, The Meads Of Asphodel, etc. etc). But when you start to do it more for the money and lose sight of your own artistic integrity, that's where things start to go downhill if you ask me.

Not to derail the thread but the idea that classical composers or blues musicians made music solely as an artistic outlet is ignorant as hell. Classical composers created most of their work after being commissioned to do so by aristocrats and every single blues musician whose work has survived to this day did so after writing it down or recording it so it could be sold. Music has never been solely or even majorly about art. Yeah there are musicians who do the whole underground starving artist bit but they are and have always been a tiny minority.

Written by Guest on 12.10.2015 at 06:39

Not to derail the thread but the idea that classical composers or blues musicians made music solely as an artistic outlet is ignorant as hell. Classical composers created most of their work after being commissioned to do so by aristocrats and every single blues musician whose work has survived to this day did so after writing it down or recording it so it could be sold. Music has never been solely or even majorly about art. Yeah there are musicians who do the whole underground starving artist bit but they are and have always been a tiny minority.

"Ignorant as hell." That's very nice of you. I haven't gotten my usual dose of online condescension today, so I suppose I should extend thanks to you for fulfilling that role. Regarding that comment, sure, there could have been (and probably were) a few earlier, proto-business models for music that stretched back before the modern adaptations that we saw in the 20th century. But again, I retain my point: when people first started experimenting with sound and organizing it into music, a sense of capitalizing on that for monetary gain was never involved. And my friend, I'm not saying we should all just go back to banging on drums in Africa c. 5000 BC, because everything has to evolve eventually... but that's nonetheless a part of music's history that I believe will never be separated from it. Art form first. Expression of the soul first. Business can be an aspect of it, I never said it couldn't, but it should come after the art aspect is already established. Attempting to reverse that, and putting the business aspect of music at the top of your priority list before anything else... well, some may think differently, but to me that usually ends in failure, because it just makes it a lot less genuine.

Also, I must highly disagree with your remark that underground artists are a tiny minority. As the Vulcan saying goes, "the higher, the fewer." The group of musicians who are in mainstream prominence, and making a sizable income off of their music... that's the REAL "tiny minority." Those "starving artists" will always be larger than the mainstream simply because it's more difficult to attain a large degree of popularity and massive fanbase than it is to just remain obscure in your own small musical circle. I could name maybe 20 metal bands off the top of my head right now that have legendary discographies, massive international followings, and are making hundreds of thousands (if not millions) off of sales of their material. But I could name about a hundred more who are just operating quietly in the shadows, doing their own thing, and taking whatever financial benefits happen to come their way, big or small.

This is an interesting topic with a lot of interesting ideas being thrown around. I certainly feel that music, as a whole, should be regarded as an art-form first and foremost although I think the business aspect of it, in today's environment, is undoubtedly present and cannot be denied. Any band on a record label, despite their artistic freedom, still has to be exist within the confines of financial, physical and geographical limits, for example. A band can't record a record that costs a million dollars (at least the ones most of the people here enjoy), they can't tour every single day of the year and they can't be at more than one place at one time ... in other words, a band has to exist within the confines of their label just as the label has to, likewise, exist within the confines of the band. I don't think many bands can make it with total independence - in other words, a label is needed for almost all up-and-coming bands because, otherwise, they will not be heard by many. Sure, big artists, at once with label support, may be able to go independent and scoff at the music industry if they wish but, for the majority of musicians out there, a realistic compromise and expectation has to be developed with a record label. While I think it would be naive to say record labels don't have a financial interest, I do think that the labels that distribute metal music also have a "heart and soul" behind them because this music, even at its biggest, still is far from the likes of popular music in almost all cases.

As for the many old and "classic" metal bands, I think they keep plugging onward because it's a source of income for them, more or less living off of the success of their past works. I mean, really, it's hard to imagine some of these folks getting day jobs after living the life of a "rock star" (for lack of a better term) for 20+ years. Does this mean they're totally worthless and without artistic credibility, just because they are playing their music for paying audiences? I don't think so, personally.

I do agree with Apo on this, I mean, either stop completely or move on to a new sound. It's true that some band do pull it off by playing the same shit again and again but usually it just sounds repetitive and gets boring pretty quickly. I wouldn't mind it at all if bands would have a constant musical evolution (a bit in the veins of Mastodon, Baroness and ... well a lot of progressive and alternative bands now that I think of it).

Though I think a lot of bands just don't want their fans to flame them if they fail horribly at their ''new sound'' (I mean.. Metallica). That could be a reason why a lot of them just keep on redoing the same ol' shit. Could also be because of label restrictions? I don't know I'm just talking here.

^ How fast can you be banned?

Written by Karlabos on 31.10.2015 at 04:15

^ How fast can you be banned?

fifacome35s response