General Music Chat

Oh cmon Paul, there's tons and tons. I'm not gonna list em here. You can think of some on your own.

I'll just use a few bands as examples I know that use that formula....oh wait, they used that formula when they started never mind...why I don't listen to mainstream rock much....but anyways, if whoever the from man is for rush can sing and make money, and les claypool hasn't hired anyone else to sing for him, and weird al is still doin good, thats proof that as long as you can make a microphone work you can sing

Oh cmon Paul, there's tons and tons. I'm not gonna list em here. You can think of some on your own.

I'll take that to mean you can't name one.

Oh cmon Paul, there's tons and tons. I'm not gonna list em here. You can think of some on your own.

I'll take that to mean you can't name one.

Here's one: Nickelback.

So what your saying is that there was a time, a song even, when Nickleback didn't suck? They are on my top 3 worst bands of all times list with Creed and Def lepard.

Do you really think that they aren't proud of, don't love, their radio material?

That would mean that they wrote music that they liked until they were "discovered" then they suddenly changed their writing style to get on the radio. That straight doesn't make sense. If their style wasn't marketable they wouldn't have been picked up in the first place.

People write what they love and love what they write.

People write what they love and love what they write.[/quote]

Sometimes this is true, other times this isn't true. The Fabulous Thunderbirds are a perfect example of this NOT being true. Their early material was straightforward four-piece Texas blues. They had achieved a level of recognition and a level of income that was NOT going to ever become mainstream. Not until somebody went to a big time producer (I believe it was Dave Edmonds) and he completely changed the image and music of the band. They got rid of their original bass player (Keith Ferguson, God rest his soul) and Kim Wilson (leadsinger/harmonica player extraordinaire) stopped playing his harp. They were going for more mass appeal and higher income. The flavor of the music changed rather dramatically. Today Kim Wilson is back playing what he loves (and a little richer I hope), the blues. Quite a few famous artists changed to make more money. Rod Stewart is another example. "Every Picture Tells A Story" was a great hard rocking album. He went from that to "Do You Think I'm Sexy?" and a total image change to fit the disco era. The Bee Gees early material and their disco material was entirely different. You can't tell me that these artists loved the pop crap they put out after the great music they made earlier on in their careers.

I think they do love it. I'm speaking from experience here. I bet that when the the Tbirds had been convinved to make that pop record and were in the studio listening to it getting mixed that the hair on their neck was standing up. They were probbly giddy with excitement and full of artistic satisfaction both. A change over time doesnt make you a sellout. It simply means you are musically open minded.

Oh cmon Paul, there's tons and tons. I'm not gonna list em here. You can think of some on your own.

I'll take that to mean you can't name one.

Man, I'm not gonna even argue that.

Oh cmon Paul, there's tons and tons. I'm not gonna list em here. You can think of some on your own.

I'll take that to mean you can't name one.

Man, I'm not gonna even argue that.

Read the 2 posts before yours from FB and then me. You have to back up your opinions if you are going to debate.

Hence why I don't wanna argue, Paul. It's not because of lack of examples, but for my lack of patience

PS. the original poster gave you an example.

If you are referencing Chris cornell in the original post then what your saying is that Chris Cornell was cool when he was with Soundgarden and his Audioslave material is crap AND that he knows it. I adamently disagree. I don't think he needs to care about money. I think he matured and WANTED to write the music he wrote with audioslave. I am willing to bet he is proud of that material and that getting radio play had nothing to do with the writing process.

Nope. Even his solo albums were relatively intricate and soulful. Only his last solo album with Turdaland as the producer.

You are saying that you can read his mind. That you know he sold out for radio play. Do you really think he needs money? Does that make any kind of sense? The guy has been all over the mainstream since "outshined" Do you think he wanted to go from super successful to super duper successful? And that he would make music that denies his own creative decisions? None of that adds up.

It's a business. And no he hasn't been all over the mainstream. Ask any of your average person if they know who Cornell is. They'll tell you "The university?"
Anyways, I said I'm not in the mood for arguing my opinion against others'. Out.

Obviously you are into debating it. That's what we've been doing. Chris Cornell IS all over the main stream. Just because some people don't know his name doesn't mean they don't know soundgarden and Audioslave. He's played the grammys, he owned MTV for years, he has had many many top 40 or pop hits. He is pop and never needed to sellout. There is no formula to what he does. Especially not a formula to get airplay. He writes, he rocks, it gets on the radio because he was and is good.