Genre Lock

Ok so I’m curious.  When a band first starts out.  First starts rockin out in someone’s basement or garage, are they really locked into one genre or style?  You hear it all the time how bands don’t sound the same and fans disappear.

Linkin Park comes to mind obviously.  They started out so ruthless with their rap rock and they evolved into more of a mainstream alternative act.  Course they still include elements of their former selves but nothing quite as special as Hybrid Theory and Meteora.

There is a pretty similar process bands go through over the years where the music changes and warps into something they didn’t start out playing.  Is that really a bad thing?  I used to think so.  I would get so heated when the style changed for a new record.  I wanted what they've established themselves to be, not this new image and style they are trying out.  I remember thinking, “Great, now I have to wait til the next album to really get what I wanted to hear.”

The process they go through is following all the fleeting influences in a musician’s life and slowly narrowing in on a style that incorporates all the parts they want it to.  It’s a painful process and drives you mad sometimes.  There would be times where I’m sitting in my drummer’s basement just frustrated as hell because I can’t get the song to sound like it does in my head.

Bands are going to change.  If they are meant to survive throughout time they have to change.  Everything else changes so why should creating music be any different?  Influences come and go, so those elements come in and out of the music throughout the years.  I actually enjoy being surprised with new styles now.  I just reviewed the new Muse album and that was what sort of sparked this post.  Lots of people don’t like the way it sounds because they changed.  If it’s a good band that have proved themselves throughout their careers, why not trust the tangents their music travels?  At what point is it selling out to make the same music you have been making simply because it does well in the market?  If the artist isn’t fully behind what they do, and just do it for others, it loses the warmth and passion.  Those things come through in the recordings, they really do.  I can tell you numerous times where I had to redo a recording because the energy wasn’t there.

Don’t get me wrong.  I hate to see things I liked about a band disappear in following albums, but here’s a good way to look at it.  Yeah you might not like that album so much, but it’s only one album.  It’s the same if you just don’t like a certain part of a book or a movie.  Same concept.  The overall picture of what the artist does and has done is still there.  Who knows, maybe somewhere down the line you’ll go back to that album and actually develop a liking of it.  I recently did this with Foo Fighters Colour and Shape.  A problem arises if they lose their style completely.  Even then, the artist is being true to what they feel like.  If they don’t they are crucified, if they just make music to please others and to do well in the marketplace, they are “sellouts”.  Not too much room for a win-win here.  I’d prefer the artist to stay true to what they feel like creating.  I may drop out of their fan base if they lose their original style that I liked but I still respect them and there will always be the songs that I do enjoy.

The real question is what kind of follower are you?  Do you more just like certain songs by an artist?  Or do you thoroughly enjoy the artist and all that they do and represent?  Neither is right or wrong.  Think about it.

The One Way Ticket to Selling Out Comes From Apple?

Here's the situation,  a sponsor approaches an artist to provide entertainment for an event.  Does this seem out of the ordinary?  If the artist decides to provide the entertainment does it make them a sellout?  Sounds to me like every other event artists play.  They were approached with an offer because someone thought their music would best suit the night.  I don't see any real argument to say this artist is a sellout yet.  Alright here's a little more information.

The event is a new product launch from Apple.  Apple's  release event for the iPhone 5 was on September 15th in San Fransisco and decided to make an event out of it complete with musical guests.  Ok, now there are some more variables like who's the artist, do they fit the product, do they fit the audience, etc.  On face level I still don't see the argument for selling out.  The artist didn't have to change their image and music to accommodate the client rather they were chosen BECAUSE of their music and image.

The artist is the Foo Fighters, a rock band with some serious underground punk roots from back in the day.  Naturally seeing them in front of a big Apple logo upset some of the fans.  A lot of people had something to say about them apparently selling out because of this.  Fans even went so far as to say they no longer like them simply because of this.  Alright I can see where that uneasiness comes from.  This is the Foo Fighters we're talking about.  This band has been through the dirt and grime of the industry and were bred in a time of taking it to the man in the suit.  They don't do corporate events.

Remember the saying, that was then this is now?  Rings true here.  The music business was so much different a decade ago.  Come to think about it, the business isn't the same as it was a week ago.  A sellout to some people simply means making money from a different revenue stream other than out of a strictly artistic nature.  Associating an artist to a brand or to sell a product was forbidden unless they want to suffer the wraith of the music scene.

Times have changed.  In order to keep up these days, the artist NEEDS to tap into other revenue streams WHILE maintaining a consistent image.  What if Apple held this event at The Forum in California (A venue the Foo Fighters have played before) instead of Apple headquarters?  Apple is just the sponsor supplying a venue for the artist to expose their music.  In this case, it's an intimate setting so the Foo Fighters played an unplugged set.  ITS NOT SELLING OUT IT'S APPROPRIATE.

You can probably guess I'm a Foo Fighters fan.  Matter of fact they are a major influence of mine.  Knowing the band like I do it does not seem out of ordinary for them to play this gig.  They are an incredibly versatile band and have proven time and time again where their passion comes from and have always been true to the music and image they represent.  Regardless of the artist or sponsor, if the music and image isn't put in question just to make a buck, it's not selling out it's just smart placement then.  Who gets paid for what shouldn't be the focus.  Realistically, Apple has done so much for the music industry and for so many artists that any artist should be honored to play that gig.  It'd be different if they helped launch a new test drug that makes your hair gold.  It's for a device you listen to music on and for a company that is heavily invested into making music an interactive experience for the customer.  I'm as much of a skeptic as anyone about big corporations and I don't feed on what's dished out without thinking about it a little deeper.  After thinking about this situation it makes me wonder why the "selling out" mindset stayed so ancient in a world desperate for the next big thing.  Think about it.

Ultimate Guitar Article