Evanescence

[Linen]

Originally Posted by LadyLucretia

I think part of the problem also is that once a band is on a major label, they are assigned songwriters and producers who often overproduce their music beyond recognition. And they get the whole image makeover so that they're marketable, regardless of whether that style was theirs to begin with or the creation of some Hollywood stylist. This happens more often than not when a band becomes a moneymaker for a label, and it really saps the creativity out of the music creating process.

Often obscure bands can't afford a producer, or even an effects pedal, so the music retains a rawness that allows both talent and defect to shine through much more honestly.

I agree with what you said, however:

If you want to be technical, though, Evanescence is NOT on a major label. Wind-Up is an Indie label.

But Wind-Up still managed to be controlling enough, obviously.

To the comments about The Cure et al & 80s Pop - great points! In my opinion, *most* (not ALL) really talented musicians hit "the big time" at some point in their careers anyhow. The bands who refuse to be signed to a label for fear of losing their street cred are few and far between.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by Linen

To the comments about The Cure et al & 80s Pop - great points! In my opinion, *most* (not ALL) really talented musicians hit "the big time" at some point in their careers anyhow. The bands who refuse to be signed to a label for fear of losing their street cred are few and far between.

Thanks for the compliment, although I'm going to have to disagree with you on the rest. :-(

Large amounts of the most talented artists have avoided major labels, or have complained about them after leaving.

Part of the problem with music history is trying to identify what labels were bought when, since the majors have traditionally bought Indie labels outright, instead of signing the artists on them directly. Sire, Virgin, Cleopatra, IRS, and Rhino Records were all independent labels at one point, but if you buy bands off these labels now, you're supporting the big four (no longer the big five).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_market

The other problem, which is more specific to Evanescence, is distribution. While they are on an independent rock label, they are distributed through Sony/BMG and Warner Music Group. This means that they still have to play by the same rules as any band owned directly by these labels, which is probably why their label is so restrictive and values over-production. To make matters worse, since there are usually large fees for distribution, you're still helping the big four considerably by buying bands off this label.

Hope that clears things up some?

[Opteron_Man]

MM is not our god. think before you talk.

[Linen]

Originally Posted by delicti

The other problem, which is more specific to Evanescence, is distribution. While they are on an independent rock label, they are distributed through Sony/BMG and Warner Music Group. This means that they still have to play by the same rules as any band owned directly by these labels, which is probably why their label is so restrictive and values over-production. To make matters worse, since there are usually large fees for distribution, you're still helping the big four considerably by buying bands off this label.

Hope that clears things up some?

Ah, good point. I completely forgot about this, and you are right. That makes a lot more sense now. I mean, Amy Lee did say she had more "creative freedom" to do basically what she wanted on the last album, but to me it still seems like she and the rest of the band didn't have a WHOLE lot of say in it. I'm not sure why it never occurred to me about the Sony/BMG distribution connection.

[Bete Noire]

Hmm, Evanescence have never done it for me. That said, I do really enjoy Within Temptation. I think they have a much more natural sound, and Sharon den Adel can really sing. They dont usually sound as predictable and contrived as Evanescence.

Although I dont really listen to Within Temptation a huge amount, I think they'd be incredible live, and I shall find out in November.

[LadyLucretia]

Originally Posted by Corpsey

Pop was good in the 80's though...

You can't compare the 80's to this decade, social motivations and what is desired from music and other things where musical inspiration might come from have somewhat changed a lot and have been doing so since the early 90's.

I guess the confusing distinction is that 80's pop included a lot of good stuff, but 90's and current pop...not so much. So while it's snobbish to write off *all* pop, I have yet to see a pop act in the last 15 years that was even close to the Siouxsie or Bauhaus level.

[thedoll]

I love Amy Lee's fashion sense, and she has an amazing voice. Her songs all sound the same to me but if you just want to have background noise, they please my ear hole.

[thedoll]

Originally Posted by Bete Noire

Although I dont really listen to Within Temptation a huge amount, I think they'd be incredible live, and I shall find out in November.

My goodness, I just youtubed their video and am blown away. Thank you for the suggestion! *sorry for the double post*

[maggot]

Originally Posted by thedoll

I love Amy Lee's fashion sense

You realize she has a wardrobe guy, right?

[thedoll]

... no >.<

it actually never crossed my mind, just that I really wanted every corset I have seen her wear. Now I feel dumb...

[maggot]

xD

It happens to the best of us.

[Vyvian Blackthorne]

Originally Posted by Corpsey

Pop was good in the eighties, though

Granted, but it depends on the degree of "pop" music you're thinking of. You see; in the eighties, was pop really different? Teen idols like Hanson and whats-her-name were everywhere throughout the media. Of course, I honestly don't care of such pop idols but other than the bubblegum pop the eighties, our culture was attemptedly adopted as an image for such.

For instance, the Cure are labeled "pop" by the mainstream, yet does it really make them, aesthetically and in styling (musically and fashionably), pop music? Clearly in the eighties our culture was visible, just pop in disguise. The media had no term for us, and we were only actually celebrated in the underground. If someone says that Faith and Pornography are pop, they are technically inaccurate. Because why must the media try and manipulate every area of music and replace it with "pop"? That's why personally I am disgusted at the media's illusion called "pop"; for they try and appeal to every skin colour, audience, country, etc. Whether it be social anti-establishment (pop punk) the mainstreamized raggae and ska revival (out of the underground) and look what happened to the New Romantics! Originally a real bold fashion and music movment, but completely bastardized and killed by the mainstream when Boy George and Adam Ant attained their success too much. Now both The Ants and The Culture Club are embarressing to be associated with.

In a nutshell, pop hasn't really changed. And, it can even be comparable to what pop is now, in all areas. "Pop" is an illusion created by the corperations and general mainstream to make an art-opposing poisition toward music. This perspective being embraced, why trust Pop? Much less favour the orders of pop? Like I said, tastes are a totally different thing. I just think it's a waste to see bands like The Banshees, the Cure, and (early era) Culture Club be insulted by being called only pop music, and nothing more. The system of pop hasn't changed, they're only trying to take in new images. Our culture, for a while, in the eighties, was attempted to be adopted with the Sisters of Mercy and the Cure. And as these remain influenticals toward us, they completely distanced away from the goth rock styling and more toward alternative rock (thus the birth of the entire genre due to SO MUCH mainstream success-attaining).

And the sickest thing of all? Pop is still trying to make our culture trigger the false assumptions with MM, MCR, HIM, etc. Just taking metill and the mainstreams' ignorance that we're all metill heads. And then there's all-appeal "Rock" bands like Nickelback; and let's not get started with pop-punk, shall we?

This is an entirely different argument, yet even one statment can bring out the entire book. Good goth this was long...
Goth Forever
Goth Forever
Goth Forever

[maggot]

Technically, Nickelback is post-Grunge.


For someone so bent on not giving things broad, sweeping labels, we sure can be inaccurate, can't we, Mr. Gyvian?

[LadyLucretia]

Originally Posted by Vyvian Blackthorne

Granted, but it depends on the degree of "pop" music you're thinking of. You see; in the eighties, was pop really different? Teen idols like Hanson and whats-her-name were everywhere throughout the media.

Erm, Hanson was a late 90's/early 2000's phenomenon.

For instance, the Cure are labeled "pop" by the mainstream, yet does it really make them, aesthetically and in styling (musically and fashionably), pop music?

That's the thing - pop is not a genre. It is just a label for any music that is popular. Thus you assume that popular music has a certain song structure and qualities such as being melodic and novel, but this is more a guideline than a rule. If a song is high on the charts, it is pop. Even if the song itself is the sound of a baby throwing up looped over a drumbeat - if it goes to #1, it is pop music.

Clearly in the eighties our culture was visible, just pop in disguise. The media had no term for us, and we were only actually celebrated in the underground.

In most parts of the US, yes, but in the UK goth culture had it's moment in pop culture. Bauhaus played on the UK show "Top of the Pops," which followed the same sort of tradition as "American Bandstand" or "Total Request Live."

Now both The Ants and The Culture Club are embarressing to be associated with.

According to who? I like both these bands, and have never received flak for it.

I just think it's a waste to see bands like The Banshees, the Cure, and (early era) Culture Club be insulted by being called only pop music, and nothing more.

I think the fact that they attained commercial success yet didn't radically change their image or sound as a result actually speaks well of them. And I don't know if anyone is calling them pop bands; I mentioned that they achieved popular success in the 80's, but I never equated them with, say, Backstreet Boys or other commercially driven acts.

Just taking metill and the mainstreams' ignorance that we're all metill heads

Erm, I think you mean "metal"?

[Vyvian Blackthorne]

Good goth. Well, apparently my entire essay is being attacked by yet another newbie on Gnet. Let's see how I can handle this one, eh?

Originally Posted by LadyLucretia

Erm, Hanson was a late 90's/early 2000's phenomenon.

*Sigh* At least you get the infant-fu*king idea, kid. Ok? Plus, there were plenty of terrible bubblegum pop acts in the 80s that are EQUALLY comparable to acts like Hanson.

Originally Posted by Luc

That's the thing - pop is not a genre. It is just a label for any music that is popular. Thus you assume that popular music has a certain song structure and qualities such as being melodic and novel, but this is more a guideline than a rule. If a song is high on the charts, it is pop. Even if the song itself is the sound of a baby throwing up looped over a drumbeat - if it goes to #1, it is pop music.

The mainstream markets made POP, in the eighties at least, adopt every image from Raggae to Gothic Rock. Popular music my decayed eyes, pop is a bitch to define anyway. Bow Wow Wow and late Adam & the Ants along with Soft Cell and Poision made the vaguely tribal and (with other bands) synth pop or "Rock" image a trait for all Pop bands that weren't below the glossy bubblegum pop.

And I agree, it's not a genre, and hardly a label. But an illusion created by the media, that attempts continually to ruin the aesthetics of our culture, and that of plenty others.

Originally Posted by Mags

Technically, Nickelback is Post-Grunge

Hhahahah. What will we do without you? Oh and what is "Post-Grunge" anyway? Other than "alt." rockers ripping off everyone from Nirvana to Pearl Jam and judging only by image.

Originally Posted by Luc

In most parts of the US, yes, but in the UK goth culture had it's moment in pop culture. Bauhaus played on the UK show "Top of the Pops," which followed the same sort of tradition as "American Bandstand" or "Total Request Live."

Granted, our scene's bands had an occasional spotlight in the mainstream, but that was still a limited amount. And, not all of the UK goth bands played at the top of the Pops. Sure, the Banshees and Bauhaus did. The Cure did similar works, but *lights clove* the Batcave, anyone? With the sole pardon of the slight media spotlight in '84, the Batcave was the domain underground goth club.

T. Rex/Marc Bolan, Bowie, and many other glam acts were appreciated there. And Siouxsie and Smith along with Nick Cave became regulars. So pop culture, as I mentioned, only did it for the image/appeal toward other audiences other than the usual boring popcrap.

Originally Posted by Luc

According to who?

According to Vyvian. And when Vyvian's order is placed, it's Hell's Labyrinth.

I like both these bands,

I am sure you do.

Originally Posted by Luc

and have never received flak for it.

Have you heard 'Ant Rap'? It's one of the cheesiest, campiest (not glam campy) songs ever written. Actually in the hip-hop style. That and following a vast majority of other Adam Ant (solo and band) recordings turn them into pure pop. And while it's fun, it's not something to be taken seriously. I'd much perfer to listen to Dirk then that era of Sell out pop Ants.

Originally Posted by Luc

I think the fact that they attained commercial success yet didn't radically change their image or sound as a result actually speaks well of them.

Wrong and wrong. The Cure changed their style from Dark to Pyschedalic after the release of Pornography. Then, while they'd had some television interviews previously, they became literal pop stars over the following years with the failed albums "The Top" and "The Head on the Door" (Head just sounds like the theme songs for teen drama shows and sitcoms, really).

The Sisters of Mercy became the pop image for goth bands everywhere; incorperating elements of Hard Rock/Motorhead "Metill" (Kill me) in their work. Inspiring HIM and the 69 Eyes. They only seemed underground, but really both the Cure and The Sisters were afraid of us.

Therefore, they either became a dark-pop market, or changed their image and style.

Originally Posted by Luc

And I don't know if anyone is calling them pop bands; I mentioned that they achieved popular success in the 80's, but I never equated them with, say, Backstreet Boys or other commercially driven acts.

Of course not. This is another thing wrong with the illusion of 'Pop'. The Cure are pop, yet they're an alternative to crap like the Backstreet-fuking-Boys and, in the 80s other teen idol crap. It makes Santa Claus vomit in rage.

Originally Posted by Luc

Erm, I think you mean "metal"?

Yeah, I was making fun by calling it "Metill". Where is your sense of sarcastic commentary?
Goth Forever
Goth Forever
Goth Forever

[maggot]

I'm actually not quite sure how to define it. o_o


It's like grunge but worse and more boring?

[ravenheart]

Im pretty new to the goth subculture. I wouldnt call myself goth, yet I have been intrigued by the culture for the longest time. I find it facsinating, yet scary, but at the same time hauntingly beautiful. I feel that some of my other fascinations can tag along with it.

I wouldnt nescarily call Evanescence "goth", I realy dont know what to call them, other than enjoyable. I do enjoy their songs. Of course what do I know, Im not nescarily goth.

On the other hand, I definitly call Marylin Manson goth either; hes more Shock. Thats what he does. SHOCK THE HELL OUT OF POEPLE. what ever defines a genre as goth, there are some other genres of music that may have been influenced by it or uses some of it.

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by Corpsey

Suave.

This battle over what is gothic music is old and dead. If you've been around on this board for morth than a month, you should know what gothic music is and realise you don't have to like gothic music to be gothic at all. I love Andre Botticelli and I don't think he's been beaten with the gothic stick too hard, yet I don't believe that by liking or disliking him that I am in one way more or less gothic. If you like these two bands, congratulations, you like them. I like Andre Botticelli and he could kick their backsides in an opera competition so hard that they would be shitting out of their alveoli; but you can't compare the musicians at all because that would be unfair. Like them or lump them or do whatever you like about them. Just think that and stop cluttering this message board with your nonsensical arguments about who or who isn't goth, who is hot and who is fucking their grandmother.

On second thought, doing so will clutter this message board with rubbish and further enforcing the unintelligence that is prostrating itself to this messageboard and further destroying it. Please continue. Oh, Marillyn Manson has a small dick and Amy Lee is a poseur.

*Throws a cherry bomb at a wasp nest*

I love you, that made me laugh so hard

and for the record according to Jenna Jamison (who is an expert in the field) Marilyn Manson is hung like a horse

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by Opteron_Man

MM is not our god. think before you talk.

He is my hero though