One "Generations" Review Raises A Question

[jrnyman28]

I don't usually like to 'steal' a review from somewhere else to 'disect' it here but I really wanted to respond to one point as it raises a valid question.

From the MR.com "Your reviews" page:

"14/07/05: Mike - StevePerry@gmx.de
Rating: 25
Sorry guys, but that was it for me. If You want to play music for Yourself, why don't You do this in solo or side projects ? Two Songs are ok, but the rest is boring & crap..."


My question to you is: Who should a musician make music for?


Mike seems to think that a band is making music for it's fans. I happen to think we become a fan of the music that a band makes for itself.

That is how it seems to be in the beginning at least. A band gets together and creates something. It is something they feel, something they believe in, something they love or desire, something they feel passionate about. People then hear the music and they respond to it. Some like it, some don't. Some love it, some don't. But it is the music the band made for themselves.

Should it be different after a band has become successful?

My answer is "NO".

What are your thoughts?

[Argus]

I didn't know Steve Perry moved to Germany imagine that

That review while it may have made the reviewer happy to vent, is not a review at all, IMO. It has no redeeming qualities or critical merit. Sour grapes.. nothing to dissect at all, Dave. bah!

[Rockindeano]

I didn't know Steve Perry moved to Germany imagine that

That review while it may have made the reviewer happy to vent, is not a review at all, IMO. It has no redeeming qualities or critical merit. Sour grapes.. nothing to dissect at all, Dave. bah!

I agree. I am surprised jrnyman28 got bugged by that. I pay no attention to that crap over there. Remember that a-wipe "Darren" who said he wanted the hits and left the show after 25 mins? Same people, trying to spin an agenda..

Let it Be- wise words indeed

[mamos]

If a band only made music for the fans, surely the music would just become predictable and boring.

We would all be able to say what the album was going to be like before it's release.

If a band spends too much time thinking what do the fans want, you finish up with a stereotypical album that might make for good listening on first spin, but 3 or 4 later I'm sure no surprises are going to be left.

Don't most real fans want a release with growth and something new to get excited about?

[Rockindeano]

Sucks being stuck on the wrong side of the pond, eh Mark?

lol

You can't be here live to mix it up..Read through all the posts today.. It was all bliss..

[Spike]

Doesn’t it depend on why the musicians are making the music? Back in 1977, Journey were at this watershed. They had collected critical acclaim for their progressive style, with a core of convinced and determined fans. However, if they wished to make a living, their then label made it clear that a move to a song-led style with a vocalist and a proven producer (Roy Thomas Baker) was necessary. That was a commercial decision, with which they complied, to make music which would attract a wider audience.

This is not an accusation of ‘selling’ out. Merely that the Journey-men extended their range and their talents and stepped beyond their initial musical preferences in order to appeal to a far wider audience. Arguably, the same thing applies now. Journey can return to a situation where they play only to please themselves. But it seems likely that, as time passes, doing so will cause tour revenues to abate as the ‘casual’ fans tire of spending their money and not hearing the hits that they wish to hear.

Music made just for the musicians involved is a hobby. Music made with an audience in mind is a career.

[DarrenUK]

1.....Ime not an a-wipe

2....I have not seen the band yet so how could I leave the show after 25 minutes.

3.... I am a fan of the hits but I said I would give the band an honest review when I did see them.

4..... Should I start to refer to everyone on this board with a name like a-wipe as i have plenty in my vocabulary

5.... Now piss off your interrupting my listening of Arrival and we cant have that.

Have a nice day.

[mamos]

Yep Deano it does suck.

[mamos]

Deano,

Don't you ever sleep?

Whatever time I come on here, your the first person to respond??

[jrnyman28]

That review while it may have made the reviewer happy to vent, is not a review at all, IMO. It has no redeeming qualities or critical merit. Sour grapes.. nothing to dissect at all, Dave. bah!

That's true, but I wanted to see if more people felt this way...

[jrnyman28]

I am surprised jrnyman28 got bugged by that.

See above post.

Remember that a-wipe "Darren" who said he wanted the hits and left the show after 25 mins?

I don't think you need to call him that for responding to a "review" on the Noticeboard. It was not his post.

[Rockindeano]

Darren-

My sincerest apology. Fuck I hate being wrong!!

There was in fact someone over there that was "contemplating" not going because it wasn't hits all night long. I could swear that was your post.

Trust me, I am ready to unload. Get back to me, or I'll find it myself. If it was you, well...

[DarrenUK]

Someone posted that they seen people leaving after 25 mins and they were bored.....I said i still plan to go and give the band a fair and honest review even tho i am a fan of the hits......I cant say i am not a fan of the earlier stuff as i havent really heard much.....I see them Sept 17th and I am still looking forward to seeing them live for the 1st time.......even tho some of the songs I like they may not play.......to shell out on air fair and tickets for the show and hotel does show i like the band.

[cubby69]

A band should make the music they feel like they should make when they walk into the studio. PERIOD!

They shouldn't have to answer to a label, a manager, an agent, a critic and certainly not the fans who's level of acceptance could be anywhere.

Gregg Rolie said it best when he recorded his Roots album, he said they walked into the studio with no pre-determined idea of how that album would sound. He let the album create itself within the songs that came out of those sessions. I've always thought he was one of the greats, when I read that in email he sent me, made me respect the man that much more.

[jrnyman28]

A band should make the music they feel like they should make when they walk into the studio. PERIOD!

They shouldn't have to answer to a label, a manager, an agent, a critic and certainly not the fans who's level of acceptance could be anywhere.

Gregg Rolie said it best when he recorded his Roots album, he said they walked into the studio with no pre-determined idea of how that album would sound. He let the album create itself within the songs that came out of those sessions. I've always thought he was one of the greats, when I read that in email he sent me, made me respect the man that much more.

That's what I'M talkin' about!!

[Greg]

Doesn’t it depend on why the musicians are making the music? Back in 1977, Journey were at this watershed. They had collected critical acclaim for their progressive style, with a core of convinced and determined fans. However, if they wished to make a living, their then label made it clear that a move to a song-led style with a vocalist and a proven producer (Roy Thomas Baker) was necessary. That was a commercial decision, with which they complied, to make music which would attract a wider audience.

This is not an accusation of ‘selling’ out. Merely that the Journey-men extended their range and their talents and stepped beyond their initial musical preferences in order to appeal to a far wider audience. Arguably, the same thing applies now. Journey can return to a situation where they play only to please themselves. But it seems likely that, as time passes, doing so will cause tour revenues to abate as the ‘casual’ fans tire of spending their money and not hearing the hits that they wish to hear.

Music made just for the musicians involved is a hobby. Music made with an audience in mind is a career.

I tend to agree with this statement! Now, what is impressive are the bands who continue to make the music that they love, without changing, while impressing the fans who listen to it. However, take a listen to almost every successful 70's rock band. Listen to their stuff from the 80's...nearly all changed their style to fit the music scene. I believe it starts off for the love of music, but it almost has to turn into a business because that is their career - making music! Nearly every popular, successful rock band has changed their style - even the newer bands.

I don't look at it as selling out as much as survival.

[PROPERRY]

Doesn’t it depend on why the musicians are making the music? Back in 1977, Journey were at this watershed. They had collected critical acclaim for their progressive style, with a core of convinced and determined fans. However, if they wished to make a living, their then label made it clear that a move to a song-led style with a vocalist and a proven producer (Roy Thomas Baker) was necessary. That was a commercial decision, with which they complied, to make music which would attract a wider audience.

This is not an accusation of ‘selling’ out. Merely that the Journey-men extended their range and their talents and stepped beyond their initial musical preferences in order to appeal to a far wider audience. Arguably, the same thing applies now. Journey can return to a situation where they play only to please themselves. But it seems likely that, as time passes, doing so will cause tour revenues to abate as the ‘casual’ fans tire of spending their money and not hearing the hits that they wish to hear.

Music made just for the musicians involved is a hobby. Music made with an audience in mind is a career.

Excellent post Spike!

Lori

[The_Noble_Cause]

Journey can return to a situation where they play only to please themselves. But it seems likely that, as time passes, doing so will cause tour revenues to abate as the ‘casual’ fans tire of spending their money and not hearing the hits that they wish to hear.

The band tried appeasing everyone already.
The effort was called "Arrival" and it failed quite triumphantly.

[Spike]

Where I’d argue Arrival failed was that the record company imposed a marketing person’s idea of what would sell to a traditional Journey audience. These marketing decisions, were, in my view a mistake, right down to the apparent assumption that buyers would not notice the substituted vocalist. A smarter promotion would have launched the new vocalist in a big way, and attempted to celebrate the changes. Many of the songs seemed weak, and their new singer was still growing into his role. I’d be very wary of arguing that any of the songs were written and played solely for mass market appeal though, even if they were eventually marketed that way. It is probable that Journey have always tried to play what they wanted to play, and the resulting differences in tone and style in their catalogue is due to their dynamic and changing line-up.

Of course, all this depends on your definition of success and failure. Arrival ‘failed’ to shift as many units as, say, Trial By Fire. But it succeeded in keeping Journey’s name in front of a substantial number of listeners, and getting those listeners to concerts. In its very attempt to replicate the classic Journey sound, Arrival ‘failed’ to create the spark of earlier recordings. It did, though, give Journey new material to play, and it could be said that they failed to capitalise on that resource.

I’d still say of any musician, that to an extent, if they are expecting people to pay for the privilege of hearing their music, then they do have some duty to their audience’s expectations. Whether we like it or not, in music as in other areas of life, market forces prevail. It all comes back to why the musicians are making their music.