spilt from Evanescence topic

[fallenangel]

James...I don't even know where to start.

Well, Sid. Sid was tailored to fit the part. BY HIMSELF. If you know anything about Sid, it's that he was the biggest trendwhore in the history of the world. Bigger than any of the pop stars since. He spent his entire life trying to be cool and failing miserably. He went to school and showed off his painted toenails in the dead of winter 'cause he thought it was glam and cool like Bowie. Johnny constantly tried to push the buttons of the "cool" people (ie buying a Pink Floyd shirt then adding "sucks" to it), and he tried to take care of Sid when he was more or less hopeless. Including getting him into the Sex Pistols. The Sex Pistols themselves were the boyband of punk as far as being put together, but not Johnny. He's the only real artist of the bunch. Steve and wobble and everyone else wanted to be mod, play the boring radio tunes that were popular at the time, and Johnny...just wanted to annoy people. That balance is what makes the Sex Pistols sound the way they do. I'm not sure why you brought up Sid Vicious in the first place because he wasn't an artist nor a musician. He could barely play bass, had never touched it when he joined, and was just following Johnny around most of their lives. He wasn't the embodiment of anything except excess.

And again, Motley Crue...you can't use any 80s band as an example. I have never claimed them to be "real", hell, the entire point is that they aren't real. They're an image, a large than life personality, not genuine people. And Motley especially, given what a trendwhore nikki is, are hardly serious. They jump from one trend to another, but the thing is, they get in and get out while it's at its prime and move on to something else. They started punk, went to hard rock, glam, the harder sound of the late 80s, alt. rock, mod. rock, and are now cashing in on the retro market. And I can't believe you used anything Tommy Lee says, let alone on that show, as an example. For one, Tommy is a moron and always has been. That show is a joke. And because of their genre, image is a part of it. BUT, to use your example, yes the chick has to be hot. SHE has to be hot. Not her airbrushed album cover photo, she herself has to be hot. That's fine. There were some god awful looking bass players in the 80s, but the frontmen were always stunning.

[quote] i dont like live music anyway, its never as good as the studio.[/quote]

The point isn't the music, it's the show. You must be seeing boring artists.

[quote]you have to appeal to a demographic, and so comes the studio gangsters and goths and punks.
[/quote]

That's a relatively new development. Last 15 years or so. At least in the world of rock, pop has always been a product. But it used to be...bands would pool their money, drive their van around as far as they could, end up in LA or NYC, build a club following, and when they finally had enough of a fanbase, label reps might come check them out. So if they couldn't perform life, sucks for them. Now, the middle step has been cut out. Reps from the major labels don't go looking for what the kids are into. They're constantly flooded with kids who want a deal. All they have to do is pick the most desperate and shape them into what they need and tell the kids to like it. Look at Avril, she went from country loser in high school to little pop punk princess the next year. Wasn't her idea I assure you.

When label execs started going to see Gn'R...they all passed at least twice. When they were finally signed and started selling like crazy because of that live following and word of mouth, all the labels ran out and signed bands that were similar from the same scene (Faster Pussycat, etc.). These days, they make the rival bands. Kids are jumping from the garage and birthday parties to label deals.

For the millionth time...people can like whatever they want. Saying "I like britney spears even though she's a glorified stripper" means nothing. The point is Evanescence are an airbrushed, production synthesized, label shaped waste of space. And through these past couple years not a SINGLE person has been able to say anything other than "but I like them". It amazes me how people fail to comprehend.
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[unfocused]

"James...I don't even know where to start. Rolling Eyes

Well, Sid. Sid was tailored to fit the part. BY HIMSELF. If you know anything about Sid, it's that he was the biggest trendwhore in the history of the world. Bigger than any of the pop stars since. He spent his entire life trying to be cool and failing miserably. He went to school and showed off his painted toenails in the dead of winter 'cause he thought it was glam and cool like Bowie. Johnny constantly tried to push the buttons of the "cool" people (ie buying a Pink Floyd shirt then adding "sucks" to it), and he tried to take care of Sid when he was more or less hopeless. Including getting him into the Sex Pistols. The Sex Pistols themselves were the boyband of punk as far as being put together, but not Johnny. He's the only real artist of the bunch. Steve and wobble and everyone else wanted to be mod, play the boring radio tunes that were popular at the time, and Johnny...just wanted to annoy people. That balance is what makes the Sex Pistols sound the way they do. I'm not sure why you brought up Sid Vicious in the first place because he wasn't an artist nor a musician. He could barely play bass, had never touched it when he joined, and was just following Johnny around most of their lives. He wasn't the embodiment of anything except excess."

he stood in front of a mic and said words in a rythmic-like sequence, or tried to, whatever, point is; they ALL try to. of course he wasnt an artist, i dont believe most of whats on the radio now is art. nevertheless, he tried to be, and he wasnt, this makes him fake. whether he tried to be real or not.

"And again, Motley Crue...you can't use any 80s band as an example. I have never claimed them to be "real", hell, the entire point is that they aren't real. They're an image, a large than life personality, not genuine people. And Motley especially, given what a trendwhore nikki is, are hardly serious. They jump from one trend to another, but the thing is, they get in and get out while it's at its prime and move on to something else. They started punk, went to hard rock, glam, the harder sound of the late 80s, alt. rock, mod. rock, and are now cashing in on the retro market. And I can't believe you used anything Tommy Lee says, let alone on that show, as an example. For one, Tommy is a moron and always has been. That show is a joke. And because of their genre, image is a part of it. BUT, to use your example, yes the chick has to be hot. SHE has to be hot. Not her airbrushed album cover photo, she herself has to be hot. That's fine. There were some god awful looking bass players in the 80s, but the frontmen were always stunning."

stop contradicting yourself, thats my job. if motly crue is fake, where do you get off talking shit about someone elses fake band? lols

"That's a relatively new development. Last 15 years or so. At least in the world of rock, pop has always been a product. But it used to be...bands would pool their money, drive their van around as far as they could, end up in LA or NYC, build a club following, and when they finally had enough of a fanbase, label reps might come check them out. So if they couldn't perform life, sucks for them. Now, the middle step has been cut out. Reps from the major labels don't go looking for what the kids are into. They're constantly flooded with kids who want a deal. All they have to do is pick the most desperate and shape them into what they need and tell the kids to like it. Look at Avril, she went from country loser in high school to little pop punk princess the next year. Wasn't her idea I assure you.

When label execs started going to see Gn'R...they all passed at least twice. When they were finally signed and started selling like crazy because of that live following and word of mouth, all the labels ran out and signed bands that were similar from the same scene (Faster Pussycat, etc.). These days, they make the rival bands. Kids are jumping from the garage and birthday parties to label deals.

For the millionth time...people can like whatever they want. Saying "I like britney spears even though she's a glorified stripper" means nothing. The point is Evanescence are an airbrushed, production synthesized, label shaped waste of space. And through these past couple years not a SINGLE person has been able to say anything other than "but I like them". It amazes me how people fail to comprehend."

all but what... 3 people on the forums go to concerts? even if i constantly went to concerts, i still listen to albums and radio edits more often. all of us do, babe. if they were to give a live show to me that i liked, it would mean shit, since most of the time i'm not listening or going to shows. i'm not into the show anyway, to me it isnt what music is about. actually, its not what music is about at all, and was never meant to be. and i've said it before, why rag on people for liking what makes them feel, its what music is made to do. like homophobes who get uncomfortable around gays, you cant stand it when music makes you feel anything other than good.

[fallenangel]

You're confusing Sid Vicious with someone else. Probably Johnny Rotten. Sid played bass...sorta...for a little while then he ran off with Nancy and died.

[quote]stop contradicting yourself, thats my job. if motly crue is fake, where do you get off talking s**t about someone elses fake band? lols [/quote]

This is what happens when you only read the music forum once every 6 months. I'm perfectly happy to talk crap about motley or poison or pretty boy floyd or tuff...the problem is nobody else is. Do you see a lot of people here able to critique pretty boy floyd with more than "they look like fags"? Nope. And there never has been. However, I've NEVER said they're any better in the corporate department. They are in musical skill, but again, no one here to talk about that with. They're what I like, but that doesn't make them musical gods and I never said it does. A few people...who shall remain nameless...took it upon themselves to paste Gn'R and Led Zep and various others in every trendwhore thread. Wasn't me. though I didn't and won't stop it

[quote]all but what... 3 people on the forums go to concerts? even if i constantly went to concerts, i still listen to albums and radio edits more often. all of us do, babe. if they were to give a live show to me that i liked, it would mean s**t, since most of the time i'm not listening or going to shows. i'm not into the show anyway, to me it isnt what music is about. actually, its not what music is about at all, and was never meant to be.[/quote]

Uh. Wrong. Just wrong. Music has been performed long before it was recorded. And the industry lives on the shows. That's where the artists make their money and where most of the profit is. The industry would be nothing without the show.

Music is meant to be live. It's why people go to the symphony after all. The energy, the atmosphere, the enhanced performance without the watered down album cut... What isn't a part of music...is the commercial BS and videos. Music videos have become a bastardization of music, selling a person instead of a song. What started as a way to bring the live show to people at home has been turned into a visual smokescreen to hide the fact the music sucks.

You can't honestly think that studio recordings are more important or better than the show. That's insane. Ask any band whether they'd rather play to a packed crowd or sit in the studio and play the same song over and over...no question. The point of being in a band is to perform, not to pump out a product. At least it used to be.

[quote]and i've said it before, why rag on people for liking what makes them feel, its what music is made to do. like homophobes who get uncomfortable around gays, you cant stand it when music makes you feel anything other than good.
[/quote]

I'm not ragging on people, I'm ragging on bands. People can like whatever they want. If anyone feels personally insulted, they need to take the ego down a bit and realize they have no connection to the band. I can't stand music that makes people feel anything than good? Oh how little you know... I don't care who likes what or what makes them "feel" (what an emo description, by the way). That's been the fatal flaw of this music forum, people who want nothing more than to say "I LYKE MCR!!!!" "OMG I DO 2!!!!!" "KEWL!!!!!" "YA RLY!!!!!"... and others who want to discuss the bands with facts...examples...observations...good or bad. And unfortunately, STILL, there is apparently no arguing with us because a fan has never been able to counter any of the negatives. Except to say they like them. Which didn't need to be repeated.
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[ragingflea002]

[quote]all but what... 3 people on the forums go to concerts? even if i constantly went to concerts, i still listen to albums and radio edits more often. all of us do, babe. if they were to give a live show to me that i liked, it would mean s**t, since most of the time i'm not listening or going to shows. i'm not into the show anyway, to me it isnt what music is about. actually, its not what music is about at all, and was never meant to be.[/quote]
You send a demo to a venue and they decide whether they like it or not. If they like it, they will let you play.
In our case, we play one free show. We won't get paid. We'll rock out with our cocks out and we'll prove that we are a kickass live band, and possibly much better than we were on the demo.
See, the live performance will make or break a band. It's almost exactly what the point of being a band is, besides connecting and doing something you absolutely love. You prove to a live audience that you're a lot more than data on a disc.
I know plenty of bands, including my own, that sound way better live than they do on their CDs, and it's not really because of production, while some of it could definitely be better.
They put a lot of work into their stage shows. Imagine Petrucci simply standing still while shredding. The stage show embodies their efforts, emotions, and their dedication.
Coincidentally, the three major things that build good music.

[unfocused]

@fallen

"This is what happens when you only read the music forum once every 6 months. I'm perfectly happy to talk crap about motley or poison or pretty boy floyd or tuff...the problem is nobody else is. Do you see a lot of people here able to critique pretty boy floyd with more than "they look like fags"? Nope. And there never has been. However, I've NEVER said they're any better in the corporate department. They are in musical skill, but again, no one here to talk about that with. They're what I like, but that doesn't make them musical gods and I never said it does. A few people...who shall remain nameless...took it upon themselves to paste Gn'R and Led Zep and various others in every trendwhore thread. Wasn't me. though I didn't and won't stop it "

you avoided the question. i'm not saying amy lee is a god on stage either. yet you still blow up and remind me they're not. all i asked is how can you knock someone elses sucky band when you have your own?

"Uh. Wrong. Just wrong. Music has been performed long before it was recorded. And the industry lives on the shows. That's where the artists make their money and where most of the profit is. The industry would be nothing without the show.

Music is meant to be live. It's why people go to the symphony after all. The energy, the atmosphere, the enhanced performance without the watered down album cut... What isn't a part of music...is the commercial BS and videos. Music videos have become a bastardization of music, selling a person instead of a song. What started as a way to bring the live show to people at home has been turned into a visual smokescreen to hide the fact the music sucks.

You can't honestly think that studio recordings are more important or better than the show. That's insane. Ask any band whether they'd rather play to a packed crowd or sit in the studio and play the same song over and over...no question. The point of being in a band is to perform, not to pump out a product. At least it used to be. "

bands and solo artists rely on albums to pay their way, not concerts, even if the shows are to promote the albums. better shows dont equal more albums sold, and it doesnt assure it or promise it either. money isnt made from concert profits, its from albums, everyone knows that. because music was performed long before recorded doesnt take away the fact that we dont go to a concert to hear a song, we turn the radio on. and when you say its about the show, you're just talking for the band, who gives a a fuck what they want, live or studio, most fans dont go to concerts, without these fans, fans who dont need a concert, the band wouldnt make money.

"I'm not ragging on people, I'm ragging on bands. People can like whatever they want. If anyone feels personally insulted, they need to take the ego down a bit and realize they have no connection to the band. I can't stand music that makes people feel anything than good? Oh how little you know... I don't care who likes what or what makes them "feel" (what an emo description, by the way). That's been the fatal flaw of this music forum, people who want nothing more than to say "I LYKE MCR!!!!" "OMG I DO 2!!!!!" "KEWL!!!!!" "YA RLY!!!!!"... and others who want to discuss the bands with facts...examples...observations...good or bad. And unfortunately, STILL, there is apparently no arguing with us because a fan has never been able to counter any of the negatives. Except to say they like them. Which didn't need to be repeated."

i dont see anything wrong with making a thread because you like someone who sucks. like you say, no one ever has anything more to say than "mcr rocks", so why get pissed? they dont have reasons to back them up, so why waste time arguing? and emo, yes, we're talking about evanessence after all.

how many times have you and your minions bashed emo punks and others alike? let them like what they want, you dont have to click on a thread. and how many times have i had to say these same things to you?

[unfocused]

[quote="ragingflea002"]
You send a demo to a venue and they decide whether they like it or not. If they like it, they will let you play.
In our case, we play one free show. We won't get paid. We'll rock out with our cocks out and we'll prove that we are a kickass live band, and possibly much better than we were on the demo.
See, the live performance will make or break a band. It's almost exactly what the point of being a band is, besides connecting and doing something you absolutely love. You prove to a live audience that you're a lot more than data on a disc.
I know plenty of bands, including my own, that sound way better live than they do on their CDs, and it's not really because of production, while some of it could definitely be better.
They put a lot of work into their stage shows. Imagine Petrucci simply standing still while shredding. The stage show embodies their efforts, emotions, and their dedication.
Coincidentally, the three major things that build good music.[/quote]

oh yeah, shows are great, i'm sure yours are to, but you make no money, and this is my point. you and your band is my point when i'm talking about concerts and how they dont pay a musicians way.

[Kitzy]

[quote]Talking about who likes someone lasts all of four posts, talking about what makes them good or bad is far more dynamic. At least it would be if a fan of linkinpark/evanescence/mcr/greenday/falloutboy/goodcharlotte/etc could ever come up with evidence of their skill or talent beyond "I lyke dem".[/quote]


Wait, I told you [i]why[/i] I liked her, and then you kept saying the same things about why you don't like her.
I think you've made your point, as have I.
_________________
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/Kitsunegirl/Pirates1.gif[/img][img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/Kitsunegirl/Pirates2.gif[/img]

[ragingflea002]

[quote]bands and solo artists rely on albums to pay their way, not concerts, even if the shows are to promote the albums. better shows dont equal more albums sold, and it doesnt assure it or promise it either. money isnt made from concert profits, its from albums, everyone knows that. because music was performed long before recorded doesnt take away the fact that we dont go to a concert to hear a song, we turn the radio on. and when you say its about the show, you're just talking for the band, who gives a a f**k what they want, live or studio, most fans dont go to concerts, without these fans, fans who dont need a concert, the band wouldnt make money.
[/quote]
Actually, you have it backwards.
It's the live shows that get the band money, which they'll generally pool together in one band account, and then they can pay to release albums, which can be publicised and sold to make way for a tour, which will produce money that will go for:
-paying for new CDs
-buying new equipment
-gas
Better shows may not equal more albums sold, but it will determine who will get more airplay and promotion on local radio stations.
Oh, and the free show is the first show only. If the band has a good demo, but sucks live, this stops the venue from wasting money on them.
Since my band puts on a good live show, our first show will be free, but the next one will most likely pay $100.

[fallenangel]

[quote]all i asked is how can you knock someone elses sucky band when you have your own? [/quote]

I did answer it. I said I will happily rag on Poison and Pretty Boy Floyd if someone can keep up and carry on the other side of the conversation. I can't talk crap about my bands if there's nowhere to do it. And for the last time, I'm ragging on Evanescence, NOT the people who listen to them.

[quote]bands and solo artists rely on albums to pay their way, not concerts, even if the shows are to promote the albums. [/quote]

Wrong. Flea pretty much explained it, and I covered it more in IM, so I won't bother again. Royalties and the initial check are crap money.
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[fallenangel]

[quote]Wait, I told you why I liked her, and then you kept saying the same things about why you don't like her. [/quote]

No, I said why they're a bad band. Like/dislike are completely separate from good/bad.

And yet people still don't grasp that...
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[ragingflea002]

At one point, Evanescence may have been a good band live, but for quality in the singer to drop as it has, she might have simply tried too hard. Opera training is intense, but a good bit of Opera singers have short lived careers due to poor vocal training and maintenance. They paralyze their vocal cords, throw out their voices, etc.
I'm willing to bet that this is the case, mainly because of how they gained the local exposure they did in Little Rock. People don't go to concerts if the bands suck. If Amy Lee sucks live now, probably as a result of poor vocal maintenance, she didn't suck live then.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter anymore.

[fallenangel]

I dunno, there's a whole lot of crappy local bands out there that local people fawn over just because they feel special liking a small band...
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[unfocused]

even if bands make more money from concerts thanalbums (which i still dont believe) they often depend on selling their name to make ends meat.

and i still say flea and his band make my case for me. great performances should be worth more than $100, am i right?

[fallenangel]

[quote]even if bands make more money from concerts thanalbums (which i still dont believe) they often depend on selling their name to make ends meat.
[/quote]

Way to steal that from me and twist it around to suit your point. I'm not even going to dignify it with a response because at this point I think you know you're wrong and are trying desperately to poke holes in what flea and I are saying.

[quote]and i still say flea and his band make my case for me. great performances should be worth more than $100, am i right?[/quote]

No. Not if they're just starting out and have no track record to offer the venue as insurance that they'll even draw a crowd. The venue can't afford to pay them $5000 then have 3 people show up. The more you play...the more fans you get...the more money you make.
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[ragingflea002]

[quote]I dunno, there's a whole lot of crappy local bands out there that local people fawn over just because they feel special liking a small band...[/quote]
It's a possibility, but you never know. That's the bad thing.
[quote]and i still say flea and his band make my case for me. great performances should be worth more than $100, am i right?[/quote]
Which is why after our second performance, we can get up to $200 and more venues.
What we have is this:
We play A Dough Re Mi pizzaria/bar. We put on the best show we can, and we play the best we can. We have fun.
We gain a fanbase and send better demos to other venues such as The Map Room, Cumberlands, and the Music Farm. The Farm is the biggest venue.
You put on good shows, people will pay to see you. Note something here.
They can pay to hear you on a CD, but they will pay to see you live.
So you spread the word that you're good enough to play a major venue in town, and you know people will come out and support. Plus, every town should have a rock station that plays local rock. You do well enough on those venues, you could have a station supporting you.
Which looks great to record company executives.
Oh, and I forgot to mention how parties work. You play a party, and it can be any kind of party, and you sound good to the people at the party, they'll check you out. We played a show in support for the American Cancer Society and we had about 300 hits on our MySpace in 7 hours. Then more people ask you to play, and so on and so forth, until you can start arguing "yo, we've played for free for some time now. Next time you want us, we'll charge about 10 bucks per person in the band".
It's a good deal, by the way.

[unfocused]

steal what from you? i said to keep this in the forums, i'm not trying to keep this private.

and its too late to say "he's just starting out" when he's trying to use his bands gig to argue his point in here. i'll poke holes, because this is what you're arguing with.

good luck with the $200 performance, btw. if you ever make it big, i'll make $200 by selling this link to a paper.

[ragingflea002]

[quote]steal what from you? i said to keep this in the forums, i'm not trying to keep this private.

and its too late to say "he's just starting out" when he's trying to use his bands gig to argue his point in here. i'll poke holes, because this is what you're arguing with.

good luck with the $200 performance, btw. if you ever make it big, i'll make $200 by selling this link to a paper.[/quote]
Our gig won't be for another month.
And trust me, you can send the link to the paper, but all local musicians know how the game works. It's nothing big. We are just starting out. We've been a band for about 3 months now. We have 8 complete songs. We're working to get contacts in all areas so we can at least become local hits.

[fallenangel]

He's using his gig because it's a valid example of the way the money works before you're signed, and I've explained to you how it works after. At no point does the majority of the money come from record sales.

It's not instant money for playing one good concert, and it's also not a nice paycheck from record sales. That's why all those "illegal downloading doesn't hurt the artists" is entirely true, but it does hurt the industry. It's not taking any money out of shakira's pocket, it's taking money from whatever label she's signed to that goes to paying employees, giving the execs bigger houses, and maintaining the corporation.

As a visual artist...one would think you could understand that just because you draw one amazing picture doesn't mean you'll make a fortune off it unless you've built up a fanbase and promote yourself. That's what playing several gigs does.
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[ragingflea002]

You have to be able to promote yourself with the resources you have, as effective as possible. It's sort of like a project you'd get in middle school where the teacher says "this is what you have, now make something out of it".
It's the same principle. You have a band, you have music, you have computers, paper, and ideas. You promote.
You can promote yourself as a great band, but you have to be able to back it up. You can have a great record because you have a few connections, but a live performance can break you.
Hence, why live shows are very important to the music and why there's no point in arguing any further.

[unfocused]

i understand that, but i cant use his band in an example? thats [i]all[/i] he is doing.

and none of what you are saying is justifying bashing emos and punks and any music you just dont like. yeah, i hate rap to, but i would perfectly respect some newb posting off tupac lyrics in his sig, just because it brings me no harm.