That might have applied at some point in time, sorta maybe. But I would like to hear why, if it's about the music as you say, 99% of neo-VK sounds the same. Okay there may be some slight variation with melodies, but essentially it's all the same, the Gazette included. They might throw in some swing and some disco and who knows what in order to sound "original" to the ears of teens who've only heard J-pop before, but it's not like mixing styles isn't an essential part of VK since the early 90's. Nothing original about it. Even the vocalists sound the same. They have this stomach-turning wannabe tenor thing going on with random growling thrown in. I don't know why they think it sounds good, but to each their own I guess. And most importantly, it sounds very different from other rock music from the same contry. So don't tell me it's the same with all Black Metal sounding the same or rap or country. You need to compare it to the same genre sans make-up, and let me tell you there's a huge difference. Not talking about major label pop-rock here, though that's probably the closest thing to VK just without distortion and amateurish genre mixing.
Oh and I've also been wondering about the logic behind thinking a band can go from some grand art to total crap and back and alternate between the two without you wondering one bit about the reasons behind it. If a band has talent then they won't suddenly make total shit and then something great the next moment. They may lose their freshness over time, but if they have something to say with their music it tends to show. So do you never consider that what you think is oh-so amazing is just something borrowed from a few other places and put together by a talented producer? Or does that not matter one bit as long as you enjoy it?
