Discussion of the Week #4 (2011/12/04)

[Champ213 1858]

The Discussion of the Week!

How it works:

- Each sunday a staff member will start a thread with a new music-related question. They can range from broad to specific, but they are usually more in-depth than just asking for your favourite band.

- The discussion will be featured as announcement on the front page to get as many people involved as possible.

- People should put some effort into their posts, ie. not just write a few words and leave, or quote a sentence from a previous poster without adding anything to it. At least 2-3 well-worded sentences are not too much to ask.

- Other than that it's just like a normal discussion: you can discuss posts made by other users, but try to stay on topic and, of course, be civil.

The thread will stay open even after the week has passed, so the discussion can continue, but it will be replaced in the announcement center by the next featured question.

(Btw: you can also submit questions for the Discussion of the Week by sending them to any staff member.)

Got it? So here's the new question:

What do you think about the Indies vs. Major discussion? Do you have a preference? Do you think that bands will inevitably lose their style/trademark sound if they become major?

[JustIronic 1]

Haha, I actually wrote a blog post about that a few weeks ago. It's here if anyone feels like reading the long version.

In short, I guess I don't like it when bands change drastically. A small change I won't mind, but there are bands that have gone all out of what they used to be. And it's not always that I necessarily dislike the new material, if it was a new band starting out with the same sound I might like it, but it's the disappointment that does it all. When you know a band can do much better, because they already did ~once upon a time~.

And then there's the bands that don't change much at all, like Versailles, and start becoming boring instead. It's a very fine line.

[miyuu 40]

being major is good for them because then they make money from what they love as a job and are enough to live with that. so is awesome to have as a job, what you love.very few people have this in their life.

we should want a band to be successful if we love them.

but the negative is that now is a job and that means you have to be serious and you have to care about money and what majority wants to a point.

it's not just having fun or just friendship anymore.

so i believe a band changes! not always for worse but the change is inevitable

personally i prefer indies bands

for completely personal weird reasons

i feel i can relate more to them

edit: but i wonder then can you be indies forever? i mean if you don't have some success or money to a point . won't you quit/disband at the end. when growing older?

edit 2: to correct myself. i don't think being major always guarantees success.

also the most important thing to an artist is freedom of expression. but apparently in this world free expression doesn't make money most of the times.

[CAT5 9075]

I personally could care less whether a band/artist is indie or major, as long as they make good music. But do I have a preference? HELL YES - Indie all the way! Why Indies? Simply for the fact that you'll hear a greater range of sounds amongst indie acts then you will major. This is largely due to indie acts having much more creative freedom - and that's a truly wonderful thing.

Do you think that bands will inevitably lose their style/trademark sound if they become major?

Not necessarily. Some bands undoubtedly take a turn for the worse, and some bands handle the transition quite well. I definitely think a part of it depends on how tight of a leash the record label has on them, though.

[LIDL 692]

No. Because even if a part of sound change may be influenced or requested by major label owners, for marketing reason.

Most part of this are still decided by the artist or the band themselves.

More over, i know there is enough major label out there that can compromise with the artist's artistry.

They signed them a contract because of their 'radical' and 'rather different and unique' music and thought to be valuable in the first place.

The label may just ask them to polish their sounds to be not as raw, but this do not necessarily mean they have to be completely doing new sounds altogether.

This opinion are just for those that actually writing their own songs themselves.

May be totally different kettle of fish to some so called artists that using ghost writers provided by their labels for doing the job for them. AKA mass product made by the labels to make nothing but business. Usually with same old formula of pretty faces and basic vocals or music skills. Which i cannot comment too much.

[Zeus 7997]

Not sure how to answer as I'm not sure what's being asked but I think that what's being asked is "what do you think about the belief that bands go worse when they go major", so I'll answer that question. That statement is a broad generalization that does not encapsulate a majority of the bands that are in the scene but there is some truth to it and there are a sizeable number of cases that I can personally recall in which that has happened. At this moment I don't have a preference and I'm looking only for good music just like CAT5 is, but if you were to take a look at my charts an overwhelming number of the artists in there would be indie, so I guess my preferences also lie on the indie spectrum of things.

I can't really say that a band will lose their style when they go major because there are plenty of bands that lose their style and never go major. VanessA is a great example of a band that did a complete 180 in sound and never went major (such change was received harshly too). Girugamesh is yet another. MUCC were angura as all hell up until their second album, when they adapted Korn and other nu-metal influences and that propelled them to stardom (so you can say they lost their "style" early on, even if they aren't known for it). Sometimes you can't even say that a band's change means that they're abandoning their roots because some bands need time to find their roots and see what works for them. There is definitely a noticeable trend towards a more "marketable" sound when a band signs to a major label but this has to be taken on a band by band basis. Some bands don't change at all (lynch.), some bands change drastically (Dir en grey) and some bands modify their core sound only slightly but big enough to make a difference (school food punishment). NoGoD as a band were changing when they were indies and that change has been a continuous one even up until the present day. Now they are major and you can point to the label and say "look, they crapified them!" but if you take a progression through their releases, you can clearly see that's where they were going regardless of whether or not they signed.

So tl;dr - you can't make any sort of generalizations because every band takes their approach to music differently. It seems like a copout answer but it's what I follow based off of what I've observed.

[TheBistroButcher666 228]

I'll focus on Visual Kei for a quick second but VK is kinda its own hot mess. I feel like a broken record but many bands that start out as Visual only do it to give them a leg up and become noticed. Yet once they finally become noticed, signed to a major label they say FUCK IT and dress like normies. The music may or may not change but to some Visual Kei fans that is considered 'selling out'. Oh my Gawd, they don't dress like clowns anymore, SELL OUTS!

I'll also say that perhaps it's just Visual Kei because I'm not going to lie but most of what I listen to that comes out of Japan is Visual Kei, but Visual Kei seems to be quick to pump out softer tunes that sell more to a wider audience especially when they start to become more recognized. Doesn't necessarily mean they are major or not, but you see this with the more popular indie acts. Some of them are kind of a mess, they shit out two or three ballads to appease the pussies and then shit out two or three heavy songs to appear the hxc kids. These are the bands that, if becoming major and signing to Warner or Sony, wouldn't surprise me if suddenly all they played was ballads and softer more accessible pop tunes.

Overall though I believe it depends on a band by band basis, Japanese or not. Contract, producer and label can play huge a role in how they influence the band's new record. I have read stories of metal bands being signed to a major label like Warner and being incredibly upset by it. Then the moment the contract expires jumps ship because the label tried to have them create an album that would appease a larger audience outside of metal. I think this was a pretty notorious thing with metal bands during the 90s, mainly during that time when Nirvana showed up and killed metal and all everyone wanted to listen to was grunge rock. So labels tried pushing their bands in that direction since that was what was selling at the time.

Anyway, I think I'm getting off topic.

TL;DR -

It just depends on the band and the label. Visual Kei bands to be more precise tend to be quick to change their style to appease to a wider audience but they don't have to be major to do it. Western bands, it can happen major or not but I don't see it as often as I do with Visual Kei.

[Jigsaw9 6783]

Well I guess the situation of style change/loss depends on different bands and different labels - it's hard for me to formulate a concrete answer. In visual kei the tendency seems to be that when a band goes major their appearance and music will gradually get toned down, to reach a wider potential audience. Some bands/labels do this well, others don't.

On a personal note, it really saddens me when a band that had a really effective style change to something completely different - the change just doesn't feel honest. Sure, they say in interviews that "ooh we wanted to expand our sound, blabla" but it gets kinda fishy for me when "expanding one's sound" slowly becomes equal to "playing same-y bored-sounding crap over and over again". Kinda paradoxical, if you ask me. Of course if you stick to one kind of style that might get boring after a while, a band just needs to do it in an interesting fashion to keep their sound fresh, yet sticking to their roots - this has to be one of the hardest things IMO, especially the in the super-fast sped-up world of VK. One can burn out very quickly.

In the end, I tend to favor the indie scene, be it VK or regular rock, but I have my select few major favorites as well (like BUCK-TICK who managed to remain interesting through all those years). Indie-level music has more diversity and artistic freedom (at least that's how I perceive it), if not only because of the abundance of bands, but I also admit that you have to dig in reeaal~ deep to find stuff that is actually good and suits your taste.

[Yasupon 18]

What do you think about the Indies vs. Major discussion? Do you have a preference? Do you think that bands will inevitably lose their style/trademark sound if they become major?

I'm an indiefag so anyone who reads this may find it slightly one-sided.

I think that some/many major bands are trying to appeal more towards the fangirls than the actual music, but at the same time there are a lot of major bands that are major because they're unique, who don't conform to that practice.

It's undeniable that many indie bands sound ridiculously similar, while with a lot of major bands you can tell that they became major for a good reason. Some major bands sell out and start to develop a more commercial or mainstream sound which in my opinion defeats the purpose of what got them major in the first place.

Many indie VK bands hardly get the money they need to keep on going, which is why so many indie bands disband all the time. They need to get jobs for a better pay. Most indie bands just love making music, and the indie scene has many bands who are very passionate about it, you can feel the emotion in their music.

I think most people that listen to VK music listen to major bands and few indie bands for a few reasons. One reason would be that major bands are generally better. Another reason would be that they haven't been exposed to many indie bands and don't think that many even exist or don't care to discover more bands. Another reason could be that they don't think that many indie bands are truly worth their time so they don't bother at all. I believe the main reason though is simply because they don't realize how many bands are out there, similar to how people who listen to mainstream music on the radio think that those artists are pretty much the only ones out. At least from experience with my friends at school, etc.

Additionally on that subject: I think part of the reason why when major fans discover a new indie band and they compare that band with gazette or dir en grey is because they belittle indie bands, or simply because they don't think many indie bands even exist as stated before.

I listen to so many indie bands because I love most VK bands in general. There are just so many VK bands that exist, and they all have something to ofter. Of course I don't care for some of them as much as others, but I'd hate to ignore so many bands out there who I would enjoy. You could be a major band with all the technicality possible, but all I want in my music is a good tune or melody and some enjoyable vocals.

[sai 868]

Wow, interesting question! To be quite honest, I never really thought about this kind of question, but I was often confronted with it.

It is often said that many bands who go major lose their charm because the record label wants them to sell as good as possible. I myself listen to quite a lot of major bands and I can definitely say the change is there, even when they move from one label to another (examples: the GazettE, MUCC, NIGHTMARE). Although it's a bummer most bands lose their original sounds, there are plenty of bands who don't. D made the most awesome album ever (7th Rose) in major status and Versailles' best work remains JUBILEE, which was their first major album and second major release. For me the major status is so-so. It can totally ruin a band's sound, but it can also help them improve to their best, so for me it's always a surprise what comes out once an indie band goes major.

[Yasupon 18]

That sums up my post in a nut shell, minus the bias of me favoring indies.

Also,

HELL YES - Indie all the way! Why Indies? Simply for the fact that you'll hear a greater range of sounds amongst indie acts than you will major. This is largely due to indie acts having much more creative freedom - and that's a truly wonderful thing.

That is a huge part of it for me.

[Number Girl 48]

Labels overall don't matter to me, because I've always believed all music has its share of junk and gems. But if I was forced to pick one I'd have to say indie just because 1) based off my listening patterns, most of my collection is indie music which obviously means 2) there is a lot more variety and music on indie labels that fit my particular tastes. However, quite a few bands I love are on major labels and nothing about their "majorness" in my opinion has much bearing on the satisfaction or dissatisfaction I get from their music. Their music feels just as honest and just as passionate.

As for if bands going from indie to major will change their sound - I guess I do get doubts at first but I always give them a chance. Unfortunately, many times the change is not a change for the better in terms of their sound but I've always felt there's no point in bashing a band for moving forward in their careers. It's best just to forgive, forget, and move on.