Gunnar & Matthew...Lightning Strikes Twice

[Ehwmatt]

I would say he needs to release stuff like WET or Chickenfoot....music that takes the genre to a new place...not to a very old tired place that everybody has been to before.

I personally don't think WET takes the genre anywhere other than where it has been before. It's done competant (and occasionally great), but nothing earth shattering in the slightest.

I agree.. WET's a great album, but far from an original or innovative sound.

[G.I.Jim]

I would say he needs to release stuff like WET or Chickenfoot....music that takes the genre to a new place...not to a very old tired place that everybody has been to before.

I personally don't think WET takes the genre anywhere other than where it has been before. It's done competant (and occasionally great), but nothing earth shattering in the slightest.

I agree.. WET's a great album, but far from an original or innovative sound.

Shut your mouth boy! You're getting stuck with a grenade for that.

[S2M]

Sample the rest of the album....

http://www.heavyharmonies.com/cgi-bin/glamcd.cgi?BandNum=69&CDName=Lightning%20Strikes%20Twice

[Saint John]

I would say he needs to release stuff like WET or Chickenfoot....music that takes the genre to a new place...not to a very old tired place that everybody has been to before.

I personally don't think WET takes the genre anywhere other than where it has been before. It's done competant (and occasionally great), but nothing earth shattering in the slightest.

+1

I think people tend to get wrapped up in WHO is in the band, muddles the senses....

Yes and yes. Chickenfoot is a glorified bar jam band with nary a hook or melody. W.E.T. has hooks and melody, but it seems as though none of their members having any sort of following is forcing them to abandon the project as a one-time mini-money maker. I also think that the album was loaded with studio tricks that would be extremely difficult to pull off live. Still a good album, regardless.

[kgdjpubs]

I would say he needs to release stuff like WET or Chickenfoot....music that takes the genre to a new place...not to a very old tired place that everybody has been to before.

I personally don't think WET takes the genre anywhere other than where it has been before. It's done competant (and occasionally great), but nothing earth shattering in the slightest.

+1

I think people tend to get wrapped up in WHO is in the band, muddles the senses....

Yes and yes. Chickenfoot is a glorified bar jam band with nary a hook or melody. W.E.T. has hooks and melody, but it seems as though none of their members having any sort of following is forcing them to abandon the project as a one-time mini-money maker. I also think that the album was loaded with studio tricks that would be extremely difficult to pull off live. Still a good album, regardless.

Hard to say whether there will be a follow-up at this point. WET certainly got good reviews, and the scene is small enough that a miniscule amount of sales by Journey standards is MORE than enough to guarantee a follow-up. I wasn't blown away, but there were hints of greatness, and a 2nd or 3rd album might well get there. Maybe the wombat has heard something on these lines.

[Don]

How many copies of the WET albums were sold? It may have got good reviews, but really, did it even move 10,000 copies?
As far as the future bringing greater opportunities, I'm not sure. The last five years have seen a renaissance for Melodic Rock bands, tour wise and in the retail arena but that window has been closing quickly. The big box store exclusives have petered out it seems. Even Glee can't continue to sustain the era's popularity forever and will probably move on to covering more 90s acts or even delve backwards and hit ups tunes from the 50s and 60s in the show progresses.
For WET, who caters to that genre sound wise but has no nostalgia factor to fall back on, I just don't see how that type of music is going to become more successful for them commercially on subsequent releases.

[S2M]

Ahem! The W.E.T. forum is 4 doors down...thanks.

[S2M]

How many copies of the WET albums were sold? It may have got good reviews, but really, did it even move 10,000 copies?
As far as the future bringing greater opportunities, I'm not sure. The last five years have seen a renaissance for Melodic Rock bands, tour wise and in the retail arena but that window has been closing quickly. The big box store exclusives have petered out it seems. Even Glee can't continue to sustain the era's popularity forever and will probably move on to covering more 90s acts or even delve backwards and hit ups tunes from the 50s and 60s in the show progresses.
For WET, who caters to that genre sound wise but has no nostalgia factor to fall back on, I just don't see how that type of music is going to become more successful for them commercially on subsequent releases.

I disagree, there has been no renaissance. There has been the same groups touring the same venues, playing the same old tired music....the renaissance is the NEW groups that play the old style. Bands very few have heard of here....and until someone has the ballz to get a U.S. tour together featuring these bands....you'll still have the status quo. Dinosaur acts playing fossilized craptastic 'music'.

[kgdjpubs]

How many copies of the WET albums were sold? It may have got good reviews, but really, did it even move 10,000 copies?

I think 10,000 copies in THIS genre is probably enough to get #2. One thing nobody ever sees is sales figures, but the impression I have is 5-10K is average to good.

[kgdjpubs]

How many copies of the WET albums were sold? It may have got good reviews, but really, did it even move 10,000 copies?
As far as the future bringing greater opportunities, I'm not sure. The last five years have seen a renaissance for Melodic Rock bands, tour wise and in the retail arena but that window has been closing quickly. The big box store exclusives have petered out it seems. Even Glee can't continue to sustain the era's popularity forever and will probably move on to covering more 90s acts or even delve backwards and hit ups tunes from the 50s and 60s in the show progresses.
For WET, who caters to that genre sound wise but has no nostalgia factor to fall back on, I just don't see how that type of music is going to become more successful for them commercially on subsequent releases.

I disagree, there has been no renaissance. There has been the same groups touring the same venues, playing the same old tired music....the renaissance is the NEW groups that play the old style. Bands very few have heard of here....and until someone has the ballz to get a U.S. tour together featuring these bands....you'll still have the status quo. Dinosaur acts playing fossilized craptastic 'music'.

the question is what band has a chance of breaking through given the right promotion. I used to think Gotthard might be able to do it, but now, I'm less convinced.

[S2M]

How many copies of the WET albums were sold? It may have got good reviews, but really, did it even move 10,000 copies?
As far as the future bringing greater opportunities, I'm not sure. The last five years have seen a renaissance for Melodic Rock bands, tour wise and in the retail arena but that window has been closing quickly. The big box store exclusives have petered out it seems. Even Glee can't continue to sustain the era's popularity forever and will probably move on to covering more 90s acts or even delve backwards and hit ups tunes from the 50s and 60s in the show progresses.
For WET, who caters to that genre sound wise but has no nostalgia factor to fall back on, I just don't see how that type of music is going to become more successful for them commercially on subsequent releases.

I disagree, there has been no renaissance. There has been the same groups touring the same venues, playing the same old tired music....the renaissance is the NEW groups that play the old style. Bands very few have heard of here....and until someone has the ballz to get a U.S. tour together featuring these bands....you'll still have the status quo. Dinosaur acts playing fossilized craptastic 'music'.

the question is what band has a chance of breaking through given the right promotion. I used to think Gotthard might be able to do it, but now, I'm less convinced.

Their promotion missed the boat....They should have been ALL OVER Human Zoo...then they would have been huge today....

[S2M]

If someone got: Pretty Maids, Crazy Lixx, Reckless Love, Gotthard, Wig Wam, Danger Danger, Chris Laney, Unruly Child, and Nelson together to tour - promoted the fuck out of it - I'm sure it would do extremely well.

[kgdjpubs]

How many copies of the WET albums were sold? It may have got good reviews, but really, did it even move 10,000 copies?
As far as the future bringing greater opportunities, I'm not sure. The last five years have seen a renaissance for Melodic Rock bands, tour wise and in the retail arena but that window has been closing quickly. The big box store exclusives have petered out it seems. Even Glee can't continue to sustain the era's popularity forever and will probably move on to covering more 90s acts or even delve backwards and hit ups tunes from the 50s and 60s in the show progresses.
For WET, who caters to that genre sound wise but has no nostalgia factor to fall back on, I just don't see how that type of music is going to become more successful for them commercially on subsequent releases.

I disagree, there has been no renaissance. There has been the same groups touring the same venues, playing the same old tired music....the renaissance is the NEW groups that play the old style. Bands very few have heard of here....and until someone has the ballz to get a U.S. tour together featuring these bands....you'll still have the status quo. Dinosaur acts playing fossilized craptastic 'music'.

the question is what band has a chance of breaking through given the right promotion. I used to think Gotthard might be able to do it, but now, I'm less convinced.

Their promotion missed the boat....They should have been ALL OVER Human Zoo...then they would have been huge today....

Yea, I think the timing would have been somewhere between Homerun and Human Zoo. Too bad, as they had the songs, image, voice, live presence, etc.

[Rocker Chic]

If someone got: Pretty Maids, Crazy Lixx, Reckless Love, Gotthard, Wig Wam, Danger Danger, Chris Laney, Unruly Child, and Nelson together to tour - promoted the fuck out of it - I'm sure it would do extremely well.

There is... It's called Firefest! Oh, you meant here in the U.S...

In theory, yes, but unfortunately, unless those bands are played on radio here, no one knows who the hell they are. The average music fan here is lazy and will only consume what is spoon fed to them. Radio is a huge factor in this equation and the days that DJs played what was good, rather than what they are told/paid to play, are long gone.

Debbie

[kgdjpubs]

If someone got: Pretty Maids, Crazy Lixx, Reckless Love, Gotthard, Wig Wam, Danger Danger, Chris Laney, Unruly Child, and Nelson together to tour - promoted the fuck out of it - I'm sure it would do extremely well.

I don't think there is enough money out there to make that tour make money, unless you had some billionaire sponsor who doesn't care. There is NOTHING on that tour that is enough of a headliner to justify the other bands. Might be able to pull it off as a one-off show, but not as a tour.

The smarter way to do it would be to throw huge amounts of money at Bon Jovi (or similar) and get ONE band as their support on a tour.

[bluejeangirl76]

The average music fan here is lazy and will only consume what is spoon fed to them.

How come every time a non- "well known" band (or bands) is (are) discussed here that the vast majority doesn't listen to or care about, suddenly it's because everyone but the few who do listen to it are "lazy" and mindless and only listen to what is fed to them... maybe they just don't dig that kind of thing? Maybe it's more of a hobby for some than others? I mean, I'll check out new stuff as much as the next guy, but it's not world-ending if I don't. Everyone can dig whatever they want, but it doesn't make the majority lazy because they either haven't heard of or don't give a damn about bands that play bars and festivals. I mean, really.

I asked someone on Sat if he ever heard of Danger Danger and I was a little surpised when he said yes, but I wouldn't have cared or talked down to him if he said "Um... who?" Then again, he's a musician, so I shouldn't have been all that surprised, but still, and I'll be honest here, this superiority complex that floats around here over this is a little unreal. It's like when you haven't seen a certain movie and someone talks to you like you're an asshole for it... "You HAVEN'T seen _____ ?!?!?! What's wrong with you?!" Um. Nothing. Just never saw it.

I don't think there is enough money out there to make that tour make money, unless you had some billionaire sponsor who doesn't care. There is NOTHING on that tour that is enough of a headliner to justify the other bands. Might be able to pull it off as a one-off show, but not as a tour.

The smarter way to do it would be to throw huge amounts of money at Bon Jovi (or similar) and get ONE band as their support on a tour.

Agreed.

But I guess that's just because most of us are lazy...

[kgdjpubs]

The average music fan here is lazy and will only consume what is spoon fed to them.

How come every time a non- "well known" band (or bands) is (are) discussed here that the vast majority doesn't listen to or care about, suddenly it's because everyone but the few who do listen to it are "lazy" and mindless and only listen to what is fed to them... maybe they just don't dig that kind of thing? Maybe it's more of a hobby for some than others? I mean, I'll check out new stuff as much as the next guy, but it's not world-ending if I don't. Everyone can dig whatever they want, but it doesn't make the majority lazy because they either haven't heard of or don't give a damn about bands that play bars and festivals. I mean, really.

I don't know if "lazy" is the right word. Maybe "indifferent" would be a better choice--they will listen to it if it's put in front of them, but if they don't get that, they won't go out to find a band that appeals to them if they find nothing they like on the radio.

Speaking for myself, I personally didn't care for a lot of what was found on 90s radio, and it didn't take long to go through the back catalog's of the few bands I had that I really enjoyed. I will also burn out on a band if I listen to them too much, thus the necessity to find new artists. So, I went out and found this place (or specifically the AOR Hard Rock Hot Spot, as it was called then), checked out the reviews, and make a few purchases based on the glowing reviews. I kissed a few frogs, so to speak....and also found some of what I would now call my favorite bands. Many good bands simply never broke into the US, but experienced success elsewhere.

For many people though, they won't go to that much effort. It doesn't make them lazy per se, but it does prove that finding new bands to listen to isn't very high on their list of priorities. They are happy with the status quo, and don't care to change. I'm just not happy doing that, so I continually look for something new.

[bluejeangirl76]

For many people though, they won't go to that much effort. It doesn't make them lazy per se, but it does prove that finding new bands to listen to isn't very high on their list of priorities. They are happy with the status quo, and don't care to change. I'm just not happy doing that, so I continually look for something new.

Yes, exactly. Me, I just don't have the time it takes to hunt all that stuff down. I've been turned on to some great stuff through this site, and I found a few things through MR Fest that I dig, and I don't at all mind checking things out that I wouldn't have otherwise paid all that much attention too... but that's OK!

People are happy with what they're happy with.. .nothing wrong with that.

[S2M]

The average music fan here is lazy and will only consume what is spoon fed to them.

How come every time a non- "well known" band (or bands) is (are) discussed here that the vast majority doesn't listen to or care about, suddenly it's because everyone but the few who do listen to it are "lazy" and mindless and only listen to what is fed to them... maybe they just don't dig that kind of thing? Maybe it's more of a hobby for some than others? I mean, I'll check out new stuff as much as the next guy, but it's not world-ending if I don't. Everyone can dig whatever they want, but it doesn't make the majority lazy because they either haven't heard of or don't give a damn about bands that play bars and festivals. I mean, really.

I don't know if "lazy" is the right word. Maybe "indifferent" would be a better choice--they will listen to it if it's put in front of them, but if they don't get that, they won't go out to find a band that appeals to them if they find nothing they like on the radio.

Speaking for myself, I personally didn't care for a lot of what was found on 90s radio, and it didn't take long to go through the back catalog's of the few bands I had that I really enjoyed. I will also burn out on a band if I listen to them too much, thus the necessity to find new artists. So, I went out and found this place (or specifically the AOR Hard Rock Hot Spot, as it was called then), checked out the reviews, and make a few purchases based on the glowing reviews. I kissed a few frogs, so to speak....and also found some of what I would now call my favorite bands. Many good bands simply never broke into the US, but experienced success elsewhere.

For many people though, they won't go to that much effort. It doesn't make them lazy per se, but it does prove that finding new bands to listen to isn't very high on their list of priorities. They are happy with the status quo, and don't care to change. I'm just not happy doing that, so I continually look for something new.

Actually, I'll say it...IT IS LAZINESS. A vast majority of the Sheeple like the fact that these 'famous' bands had an IN, if you will, right place, right time...or were amoung the first in a genre. You think Poison, Crue, and Ratt are really THAT talented? They are just the bands that ushered in the mainstream awareness of the new style....the bands that came later suffered from that indifference that was hinted at. They figure that if they haven't heard of a band that they can't be any good - or they'd have heard about them (circular reasoning, BTW). Also take into consideration that it's about 20 years past the supposed death of hair bands - equals an apathy for all things new and not spoon-fed.

[kgdjpubs]

Actually, I'll say it...IT IS LAZINESS. A vast majority of the Sheeple like the fact that these 'famous' bands had an IN, if you will, right place, right time...or were amoung the first in a genre. You think Poison, Crue, and Ratt are really THAT talented? They are just the bands that ushered in the mainstream awareness of the new style....the bands that came later suffered from that indifference that was hinted at. They figure that if they haven't heard of a band that they can't be any good - or they'd have heard about them (circular reasoning, BTW). Also take into consideration that it's about 20 years past the supposed death of hair bands - equals an apathy for all things new and not spoon-fed.

I learned a long time ago that musical ability and strength of songs might be the two LEAST important pieces in achieving success. Marketability and promotion are the two big ones. If you have those, the rest can by supplied.

[Don]

It's nothing to do with being lazy. Why should people have to look for entertainment? If I already like what I have, why should there be a requirement that I have to continuously search out new or obscure bands to feel a need that is already being met. These no names are the one's selling the product, they are asking for my money, not the other way around. If these bands can't find a way to be noticed, how does that make the consumer lazy if it's not a product they are actually looking for anyway? I like a lot of artists that are of the mainstream track but I'm not going to force them on anyone because I think they should be better known. If I suggest them to a friend and he/she doesn't care for them, that's all there is to it, no need for me to lament the facts that no one else shares my interest. As long as i get something out of it why should what others think matter? Why do people need others to like it? If the artist cant sustain themselves because of lack of fans, that's life. I'll just be happy with what I got out of it and move on, simple.

[S2M]

Actually, I'll say it...IT IS LAZINESS. A vast majority of the Sheeple like the fact that these 'famous' bands had an IN, if you will, right place, right time...or were amoung the first in a genre. You think Poison, Crue, and Ratt are really THAT talented? They are just the bands that ushered in the mainstream awareness of the new style....the bands that came later suffered from that indifference that was hinted at. They figure that if they haven't heard of a band that they can't be any good - or they'd have heard about them (circular reasoning, BTW). Also take into consideration that it's about 20 years past the supposed death of hair bands - equals an apathy for all things new and not spoon-fed.

I learned a long time ago that musical ability and strength of songs might be the two LEAST important pieces in achieving success. Marketability and promotion are the two big ones. If you have those, the rest can by supplied.

+1,000,000,000,000

Truer words have never been said.

[kgdjpubs]

It's nothing to do with being lazy. Why should people have to look for entertainment? If I already like what I have, why should there be a requirement that I have to continuously search out new or obscure bands to feel a need that is already being met. These no names are the one's selling the product, they are asking for my money, not the other way around. If these bands can't find a way to be noticed, how does that make the consumer lazy if it's not a product they are actually looking for anyway? I like a lot of artists that are of the mainstream track but I'm not going to force them on anyone because I think they should be better known. If I suggest them to a friend and he/she doesn't care for them, that's all there is to it, no need for me to lament the facts that no one else shares my interest. As long as i get something out of it why should what others think matter? Why do people need others to like it? If the artist cant sustain themselves because of lack of fans, that's life. I'll just be happy with what I got out of it and move on, simple.

repeat "status quo".

The point S2M and myself are making is that anyone who tried to do melodic rock at any point past 1991 had ZERO chance of being played on a radio station or selling albums unless they were already a big-name act. I won't blame Nirvana for it, but grunge totally killed "melodic rock" as a genre in the US. Quality didn't matter from that point forward. It had never happened before to kill an entire genre overnight, and hasn't been done since. Not saying a thinning of the ranks wasn't needed, but I'd venture to say the music industry is still hurting from that move, and may well be one of the big reasons for the eventual downfall of the industry in general.

There are plenty of bands since then that given half a chance would have sold many millions worth of records. There were plenty of bands that sold records by the boatload in the 80s in other locations, but couldn't even get arrested in the US.

It doesn't mean you have to like everything. There's a bunch of stuff that gets rave reviews that I find totally average and that might not have even gotten a record deal at the time. There is some good stuff out there however. I won't beat you over the head for not listening to it or checking it out, but the general apathy on a board devoted to a band that isn't making hit records is sometimes surprising. btw, this isn't focused at you in specific--you just happened to reply.

[S2M]

It's nothing to do with being lazy. Why should people have to look for entertainment? If I already like what I have, why should there be a requirement that I have to continuously search out new or obscure bands to feel a need that is already being met. These no names are the one's selling the product, they are asking for my money, not the other way around. If these bands can't find a way to be noticed, how does that make the consumer lazy if it's not a product they are actually looking for anyway? I like a lot of artists that are of the mainstream track but I'm not going to force them on anyone because I think they should be better known. If I suggest them to a friend and he/she doesn't care for them, that's all there is to it, no need for me to lament the facts that no one else shares my interest. As long as i get something out of it why should what others think matter? Why do people need others to like it? If the artist cant sustain themselves because of lack of fans, that's life. I'll just be happy with what I got out of it and move on, simple.

Never said people had to like it. My confusion lies in the laziness of actually seeking new bands out. You mention bands needing to make it a point to be noticed? What do you suggest, a grass-roots, door to door canvas campaign? Or better yet, a special pop-up ad whenever you use a google search engine? How about a 30-sec MP3 sample every time you flush the toilet at participating Walmarts? The genre died because the music industry let it die...the music isn't played on radio...in fact, I dare you to locate a radio station that has the format of hair metal, glam, sleaze, or melodic rock. Besides Satellite, or web radio - there is none. The ball's in the industry's court, not the bands.

[kgdjpubs]

The genre died because the music industry let it die...the music isn't played on radio...in fact, I dare you to locate a radio station that has the format of hair metal, glam, sleaze, or melodic rock. Besides Satellite, or web radio - there is none. The ball's in the industry's court, not the bands.

like I said, I think the music industry may eventually seriously regret this decision--if they haven't already. You have a staple of bands with built-in audiences that have been formed over several albums that they systematically kicked to the curb and said you don't matter anymore. That is MILLIONS of record sales every year for the next 15-20 years that the industry decided they didn't want to deal with. Breaking the band into the scene is the hard (and $$$) part. Once they are established, the hard work is over.

Quite astounding logic....

[bluejeangirl76]

Never said people had to like it. My confusion lies in the laziness of actually seeking new bands out.

But why does not seeking something out (whether it's music or anything else) make a person lazy, that's what I want to know. You and I have debated this before, and I still don't get it. I'm not being snarky, I'm honestly fascinated by the attitude that this is some critical world-ending thing. It's an interest, a hobby, and not everyone is going to share in it, bottom line. I mean if I have the time and/or the urge to check something out, I will. Mostly I don't, so I get to it when I get to it. It does not mean that people like that are lazy. I mean come on.

Plus, the music industry is an ever-changing world, a fact that needs not even be stated. It is what it is. I bet somewhere there's a handful of grunge fans arguing on some website about the decline of their favorite genre.

[Rocker Chic]

The average music fan here is lazy and will only consume what is spoon fed to them.

How come every time a non- "well known" band (or bands) is (are) discussed here that the vast majority doesn't listen to or care about, suddenly it's because everyone but the few who do listen to it are "lazy" and mindless and only listen to what is fed to them... maybe they just don't dig that kind of thing? Maybe it's more of a hobby for some than others? I mean, I'll check out new stuff as much as the next guy, but it's not world-ending if I don't. Everyone can dig whatever they want, but it doesn't make the majority lazy because they either haven't heard of or don't give a damn about bands that play bars and festivals. I mean, really.

Most do not know of other options with things in general, unless they stumble upon it by accident or if media (of any sort) puts it out there for all to discover freely and without provocation.

Lazy: indolent; idle; lethargic; languid; sluggish; slothful.

Indifferent: uncaring, unresponsive, apathetic, unsympathetic; unconcerned; unmoved.

Nope, I meant lazy, as in “I settle for what you give me, because that’s all I have in front of me.”

I asked someone on Sat if he ever heard of Danger Danger and I was a little surpised when he said yes, but I wouldn't have cared or talked down to him if he said "Um... who?" Then again, he's a musician, so I shouldn't have been all that surprised, but still, and I'll be honest here, this superiority complex that floats around here over this is a little unreal. It's like when you haven't seen a certain movie and someone talks to you like you're an asshole for it... "You HAVEN'T seen _____ ?!?!?! What's wrong with you?!" Um. Nothing. Just never saw it.

No superiority or patronization here (nor was it implied). A condescending attitude is reserved for uber fanatics of anything in order to justify their own choices. To demean someone else’s choices due to one’s own lack of knowledge is far easier to do, rather than to learn what it is that appeals to others. If one does not voluntarily seek knowledge, one is considered lazy.

Yep, lazy…

[S2M]

The genre died because the music industry let it die...the music isn't played on radio...in fact, I dare you to locate a radio station that has the format of hair metal, glam, sleaze, or melodic rock. Besides Satellite, or web radio - there is none. The ball's in the industry's court, not the bands.

like I said, I think the music industry may eventually seriously regret this decision--if they haven't already. You have a staple of bands with built-in audiences that have been formed over several albums that they systematically kicked to the curb and said you don't matter anymore. That is MILLIONS of record sales every year for the next 15-20 years that the industry decided they didn't want to deal with. Breaking the band into the scene is the hard (and $$$) part. Once they are established, the hard work is over.

Quite astounding logic....

Hmmm....I don't think the industry ever regrets anything. There's one constant in the industry - change. The industry is doing just fine from a monetary standpoint. Don't let them fool you with headlines of revenue declines. Gaga, Fergie, Beiber, and debut CDs by AI winners can keep the industry in the black for years....Coldplay, M5, and the like can sustain them....and the dinosaur acts releasing GH packages with '2 new songs' added will do their share....and touring is the big money maker.....sadly, I think the music scene in this country is complete shit. It takes money to make money - but no one seems to want to risk their own money to usher in anything new. European bands will stick to Europe and Asia...and the U.S. will continue to churn out lame-ass music....with great U.S. bands touring small portions of their home country, while ignoring other parts of the nation - and also touring in Europe, cause they can make money there....it is what it is. Til somebody with a vision changes the Status Quo.

[Melissa]

What cracks me up about people saying they've never heard of
bands S2M or others mention like those bands (*I* have but I know
I'm in the minority) is that THIS website is geared to THOSE bands
Anyone here ever bother reading the front page, or am I in the
minority there too? I found MR specifically because of looking
for a place that still carries news on these bands. Too bad it still
seems it will always be underground now though... some awesome
music people are missing out on while listening to Journey's Greatest
Hits for the umpteenth time, lol.

[Saint John]

If someone got: Pretty Maids, Crazy Lixx, Reckless Love, Gotthard, Wig Wam, Danger Danger, Chris Laney, Unruly Child, and Nelson together to tour - promoted the fuck out of it - I'm sure it would do extremely well.

Define "extremely well" for us, first. I'm guessing that, if you were lucky, you'd get 500-1,500 fans. After security, travel, venue, equipment and transportation costs, each band would receive about $100. Hardly worth it. You'd be better off with a Danger Danger/Nelson double bill, as they're the only ones that have any sort of following.