"That's 'Our' Band. Not Yours"

[Aktivator]

Hipster syndrome.
I've got a few
Yeah Yeah Yeahs -first saw them in an empty lot in brooklyn 02 and several times before this show in 03:

I was a big fan of their first two albums but really haven't been much of a fan since although I still like them.

Coldplay: Loved the first two albums and fell to just an okay band after. I really think this one was do to the masses love and hate of the band. It finally got to me.




Of course plenty early bands I liked that I never stopped liking:
White Stripes who I started seeing in 2001:


I also saw Interpol, The Strokes, The Decemberists, Arcade Fire, Elbow, The Kills and loved them from the beginning and still do.


Of course the opposite can happen here is My Morning Jacket in 2002. I didn't think much of them until the last few years where I've become a fan.

 

[Soot and Stars]

I think it's a product of the internet age where opinion is more important than listening. We seem to be an age also that's anti-trajectory and no artist can win no matter what direction they go. It's either too samey or too far off the grid from the first. Upping the accessibilty and energy for a larger crowd is a huuuuge no-no. I've always felt that aspect was a band finally settling in and finding a groove where they CAN make THEIR sound bigger in scope. The one thing we seem to like about them if they are a new band today is exclusivity. I personal love seeing my artist soar. Why? Because otherwise there's a thin line between whether they'll even exist. I can kind of see why someone would be sad to see an artist go to a venue that's less intimate though but there's another side to that. I loved seeing Meg Myers in the setting I did. She was the middle act in a small venue where I got to be right up to the stage and just lose myself. The thing is while there were hardcore fans there being that she was a new artist there was the acclamation period from others who were there to see the new group. They'll walk away with that experience BUT they were ready to lose themselves yet and honestly it was a different genre for them than the new band they came to see. Plus it was the type of venue where a lot of them go to just see a BAND in general. Anyway, if Meg reaches huge heights on her first album then I'd be able to actually have more energy and enthusiasm equal to that smaller niche audience. PLUS, when an artist is still gaining an audience poor saps like me won't necessarily get to see them at ALL. Whether an artist gets off the ground and how high has so many factors. I've heard megs more aggressive, raw side but I respect like Hell it's made to be accessible and she's trying to get an emotion out instead of pretentiously trying to please herself. I want her to become huge because I know I like the core of what she does and a little polishing won't diminish that. I don't want her to be another SouthFM which was a band that was second tier only to the Pumpkins to me. I would've taken some alterations if it meant they'd actually get promoted and were still making music with all the core elements I loved about them. A good band/artist remains a good/band artist but each just reacts to whatever musical journey that life and it's ever changing stimuli bring them.

 

[Sox]

The first band that sprung to mind for me and has been mentioned already is Kings of Leon, don't know if some money spinning media friendly giant got hold of them but to me the edge has gone. Another band I am concerned about is Black Stone Cherry. The first two albums were great and had that venom I like. The third was alright but I detected a shift .. hope I'm wrong about this band.

 

[Jet]

I have the opposite feeling. I feel really bad when I see bands like Chicago, Three Dog Night, Heart, to name a few who were really big before I was born, and I see them at a county fair, and they can't even sell that out. I always wonder what happened.

 

[Lynch]

Another band I am concerned about is Black Stone Cherry. The first two albums were great and had that venom I like. The third was alright but I detected a shift .. hope I'm wrong about this band.

I saw them in concert a couple of weeks ago, they were outstanding! I already really liked their albums, but after seeing them live, I have to say I like their studio work even more. The energy these guys have on stage amazed me. Great charisma, great interaction with the fans. I found a new appreciation for them, including the latest album... more so than before seeing them.

 

[Jet]

@Aktivator I saw My Morning Jacket for the first time on Letterman about four years ago. I never heard of them before, but I really like them.

 

[Riff Raff]

Interesting discussion. I actually can't speak from a place of knowing on this one. All the acts whom I've gotten into on the ground floor, have failed to hit the mainstream.

I think a band has hardcore and casual fans at any stage of their career. And I'd say the ratio is probably pretty similar across the eras. I mean these megastar acts, they inspire an equally strong and proportionally huge number of insane diehard fans.

I understand that when a band is small, you can have a special connection with the artist and the community is much more closely knit. But what doesn't change about a band when they get big is, it's still the same great people you knew before up on stage, and the music means as much to the new fans as it did to the old fans.

If I were to see someone like say The Primatives or HotChaCha become megastars, I think my reaction wouldn't so much be resentment over losing them, but pride and wonder over the fact that I got to experience this phenomenon at its start -- that I have something special with this band that thousands of new fans will envy and dream of. Those early shows, those out of print selfmade EPs, if a band stays underground then these things never fade into the annals of legend. But after a band 'makes it,' they do. And when an act you're connecting with on a deep level becomes a megastar, that's a powerful validation of the fact that you were justified in your hardcore devotion, and it's now dawning on thousands of people just how powerful this music is, and just how right you were all along.

I must admit, I tend to see the phenomenon you're describing as elitism. I don't think there's anything strange about not liking a band's new material -- just because you like their early work doesn't mean you'll like everything they ever put out. But backlashing against a band because they get popular, I don't know. How can a band stop being good because too many people like them? I just can't wrap my head around that bit. I often feel frustrated when there's an album that I consider to be truly, awe-inspiring brilliant and nobody else feels that way. I would be overjoyed to see these works get the recognition they deserve.

But, again, it's not really something I've experienced. So perhaps I just can't understand it properly or intimately.

Metallica fans to name the biggest example of a fanbase that's diehards do this. If the band diverts they're sellouts because they don't want to do the same albums they did in the 80s. Bands are not allowed to change because if they get popular its considered selling out allegedly. Plenty of other fanbases do it but metal has a shit load of morons that have that very hipster mentality.

 

[Khor1255]

Or maybe when their sound changes it is into something we don't like? Maybe the reason we liked them in the first place WAS their earlier sound?

Is that so hard to grasp?

On the contrary side in my experience was when Screaming Trees started to make it (albeit for one brief season). I had heard their Uncle Anesthesia album and liked it quite a bit but wasn't yet a huge fan until the single Nearly Lost You made them famous enough for them to visit the East Coast and me to see them. I really liked the tune but was even more excited when I saw them live and free of the overproduced sound they had on their albums. I was truly a fan at that point.

Another band I remember being excited about was Queensryche way back when Warning was their new album. Never mind that I thought their debut EP was and is the best thing they've ever produced by a long shot but I was truly excited to be in on 'the ground floor' of a band's rise. Ditto for Accept. We saw them on their first ever US show at the Bayou in DC. Now Balls was the first album of theirs I didn't like through and through but back then thought they would pull off at least one more great album and was thrilled to be the first person in almost every group I was in to have listened o then extensively.

 

[luderei]

From a musician's point of view there's also this: when they're just starting out, many artists have a sound that's unique to them, and often some imperfections that define them and make them stand out.

After cutting a few albums, a certain amount of professionalism starts taking over: they learn how to play their instruments better, they learn the "formula" for writing songs.

For many bands, especially indie or punk bands, the "mistakes" and the inexperience is what made them interesting in the first place. Take Redd Kross, the dB's, the Posies, Bob Mould or Teenage Fanclub (yes I realize these are not exactly stadium-sized bands): they all had an interesting, sometimes quite challenging and individual sound. But after thirty years, musicianship and a certain degree of mellowing sets in, and they sound like virtually interchangeable quite great guitar pop acts.

This is not necessarily a conscious thing, just musicians learning their craft. But it will be seen as "selling out" by the fans who prefer the youthful energy of the early songs over the slickness of the newer ones.

 

[Riff Raff]

Or maybe when their sound changes it is into something we don't like? Maybe the reason we liked them in the first place WAS their earlier sound?

Is that so hard to grasp?

On the contrary side in my experience was when Screaming Trees started to make it (albeit for one brief season). I had heard their Uncle Anesthesia album and liked it quite a bit but wasn't yet a huge fan until the single Nearly Lost You made them famous enough for them to visit the East Coast and me to see them. I really liked the tune but was even more excited when I saw them live and free of the overproduced sound they had on their albums. I was truly a fan at that point.

Another band I remember being excited about was Queensryche way back when Warning was their new album. Never mind that I thought their debut EP was and is the best thing they've ever produced by a long shot but I was truly excited to be in on 'the ground floor' of a band's rise. Ditto for Accept. We saw them on their first ever US show at the Bayou in DC. Now Balls was the first album of theirs I didn't like through and through but back then thought they would pull off at least one more great album and was thrilled to be the first person in almost every group I was in to have listened o then extensively.

Its not hard to grasp that people like a particular sound of a band. That is quite fine because plenty of bands I am like that with but in saying that I have no issue if a band does a direction I dislike because in the end I ignore that era of a band. It just is only a problem when fans expect a band to always stick to a particular sound. If its not what the band wants then they are entitled to do whatever they want even if some people won't like it. But I understand the fans viewpoint when it comes to bands who may go for a watered down radio friendly sound just for money because in that instance I can agree with fans who come down hard on that sort of selling out mentality. Change shouldn't be for the sake of it but shouldn't be ruled out either depending on that band.