Wuss Music....

[reset]

I listen an eclectic mix of music. I've always been into music that has a lot of emotional power (like the band slowdive one of the dude's mentioned earlier ).

When I was in jr. high/high school, and felt alienated like most kids, is when I fully embraced music that expressed that, stuff like Morrissy, the Cure, Depeche Mode (my first favorite band, from being a young kid anyway), lots of industrial like Skinny Puppy, Ministry, etc. I got a lot of crap for it, and even back then it wasn't called "wuss music" it was called "fag music" but I didn't care.

Music is probably the most important passion in my life, trumps women, work, whatever. It's what I live for. Over the years I have been passionate about discovering new music, whether it's sad or happy or whatever, it makes you feel, it reminds you that you are human. Nothing wrong with it.

So go back about a year ago, basically an AFC, I get my heart broken by a bpd chick, blah blah. I realize I have to change, I wasn't feeling like a man, and I did not like that feeling.

One of the FIRST things I did, as I discovered seduction, and all the stuff involved, was take a serious look at the music I was listening to. One of my buddies told me, dude you need to listen to stuff like Snoop, Jay-Z, Too $hort, Dre, etc. Rap was something I never liked, I thought the lyrics were anti-woman, the guys were ignorant losers. But I did it, and that's when I started changing.

I'm not a huge rap fan, but I do really enjoy it now, and I have quite a collection of hip-hop and rap, and that stuff really gets me pumped up, and feeling like a man. All of my opinions about the "anti-woman" lyrics have basically changed, I think most of it as ridiculous exaggeration, but there's truth in it, and the main message I get from it was, don't let a chick bring you down, you take the lead, be a man.

I stopped listening to all the depressing stuff, and just listened to hip hop, and a lot of upbeat house music.

Now that I've made that a part of my lifestyle, I look at the stuff I listened to before that in a new light. I'm a little more aware of the lyrics I'm listening too, but at the same time, I'm strong enough to re-introduce it into my life. You're not always happy or always sad. There are lots of shades of grey inbetween and music is there to help you express all your moods.

But I don't think I would feel the level of confidence I have now if I hadn't plunged into that sort of macho rap style. And now I can say I like Jay-Z and Snoop, about as much as I like Morrissey and Depeche Mode, for different reasons, and they are absolutely on different sides of the emotional spectrum.

Having said all that, the NEW stuff I hear these days, I'm pretty cynical about. Like that song that was mentioned earlier, the british dude who sings "your're beautiful--beeyootiful it's true" makes me want to kill myself. Not to knock the guy, I'm sure he's talented and everything, but that sort of sentiment rubs me the wrong way these days. Too sappy.

So anyway, I can go on and on about music. I agree with what was said earlier, if you're a confident guy, you've got your **** together, the music you listen to is not wuss-music, it's the music you're into. But I do agree that a heavy dose of depressing or lonely lyrics, without an equal measure of hard, masculine terror, can't really help your inner game too much.

 

[Ricky]

I loved 80s metal but the ballads made me think that romantic love was kind of what AFC's expect.

 

[penkitten]

I loved 80s metal but the ballads made me think that romantic love was kind of what AFC's expect.

they only sang all those ballads for the chick fans and to move more of their albums and sell more concert tickets and merchandise.
the chicks were the ones buying every shirt they had and standing in line to get them autographed and would squeal and cry when they were standing in line to get them.
then all the bands had to battle it out for who could sing the best ballad on their newest album, like a contest between them all.
whoever had the "great " ballad would get more mtv air time.

no guys were ever suppose to take them word for word .....

 

[reset]

Gee, I thought it was all about the songwriting.

 

[The Forms]

I don't really want to jump in on the "true metal" debate (but if you're into that you HAVE TO read Chuck Klostermann's "Fargo Rock City") but here's some food for thought when it comes to power ballads:

Successful records need a few slower tunes. That's the nature of the beast. Albums that consist of nothing but fast tunes from start to finish wear out too easy for a listener (en masse, at least. your personal tastes might differ).

Throw in 2 or 3 slower or mid tempo tunes and the album is more palatable. It can also help a group/solo artist from getting pigeon holed by putting out 2 or 3 up tempo tunes one after the other and people get tired of their sound too fast.

When metal went pop in the 80s the successful producers at the time knew this, and made these guys write or play these power ballads.

So it isn't so much an issue of being "metal" as it's an issue of the guys actually calling the shots (ie not the musicians) knowing what it takes to get a band more than one hit (keep in mind that many bands had more than one successful song in their career, but nowadays would be considered one hit wonders by people looking back/people in their twenties who pretend they remember the eighties despite the fact that they weren't even alive or conscious when most of this music was being made).

 

[PrinceBeavis]

You two aren't even having the same conversation.

Stormbringer's talking about serious metal bands who simply didn't care one bit about hits, and Form's well, talking about comercially oriented bands.....two VERY different things.

And while power ballads were ridiculous, and got completely out of hand, with just about EVERYONE having a power ballad, I have some fond memories of hanging out with chicks that liked that stuff.

And while I am totally with all the bands that stormbringer listed, and more, there's STILL something AFC about all that. If you're singing about swords and skulls and megatons of nuclear weaponry, it means you're not particularly focused on having chicks around. ...it's all kind of nerdy, and StarTrek'ish.

The "True Metalheads" were drinking beer with other guys, while the "Glam Fags" were bedding tons of women....which group is REALLY afc?

 

[The Forms]

I wasn't trying to argue against anything said so far. I was just pointing out WHY there were a lot of power ballads. The bands who didn't care to have their albums make the charts didn't have to fool with the ballads (unless they wanted to), whereas the guys who were making chart topping music did.

Like I said, I don't want to start the "what is TRUE metal" conversation, but I wanted to show that it wasn't really up to the bands themselves if they were going to play a power ballad or not oftentimes. So it doesn't necessarily make a band "not metal" for playing a ballad. It just means that they wanted to make a little cash, or they signed to a label that wouldn't budge.

If the record label was going to sink millions into a band, they were going to use a formula that works. And that's why these bands all had power ballads. Because they work.

And yea, I feel like the skulls and death and all that is a little like a front. Overused, lame imagery that is pretty cookie cutter for the type of people who profess to abhor cliches like ballads. Trying to seem unblinkingly hardcore about dark things is so transparent. Makes you want to say to the guy, "c'mon guy, you know you like being in love with a lady too. You think puppies and babies are cute too. Quit taking yourself so seriously now."

I've noticed that some of the guys in this discussion seem to not understand that it's OK to not be focused on chicks ALL the time. It doesn't make you AFC to spend a night in with the guys just drinking beer. In general, I'd like to see fewer guys labeling everything as AFC. So how bout a quick reminder:

AFC is when you stammer around girls and sweat and develop a nervous twitch and can't wait to get away from a new girl once you meet her. That's what being an AFC is. Drinking beer with your buddies is not AFC, voting democrat is not AFC, driving a hatchback is not AFC. If it's not really related to your mindset when interacting with women, it has nothing to do with being AFC or not.

Sometimes I think I'm going to see a thread one day called "Eating Vegetables is for all you friggin' AFC Chumps!!!!!!11"

 

[Bonhomme]

I like what the Trouser Press music guide said about The Smiths.

It said more-or-less, that their music was a tug-of-war between awfully self-pitying, lyrics that reeked of solipsism and marvelous, catchy, well-played music, and the beat won hands down.

 

[Ricky]

Hmmm. Sounds like you were listening to "hair metal"...which was never really "metal," anyway; it was just marketed as such.

You won't find sappy AFC "power ballads" in TRUE metal.

Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Mercyful Fate, Venom, Slayer, Testament, Death, Celtic Frost, Megadeth, Voivod, etc...no "I Remember You" crap there.:rockon:

You are exactly right and back then being the angry youth I was I didn't like Def Leppard, I listened to Anthrax, Slayer and the real Metallica not the pusses of today. As well as Megadeth.

It was only later when music really took a turn for the worse that I could appreciate the hair metal. The **** puts you in a good mood, especially nowadays.

 

[The Forms]

The thing about the hair band/power ballad thing that I found most lame was that they showed NO BALLS by becoming puppets of the music industry, forgoing any artistic integrity by allowing themselves to be molded by whatever trends the corporate wh0res at the record companies demanded they follow at the time. The whole "Well, it's a business" line doesn't fly with me, for there are plenty of bands who not only made it big on their own terms, but went on to establish legendary status by sticking to their guns. That is why Iron Maiden is the band I respect the most. This is a band that turned down a big record deal in the late '70s because the label asked them to cut their hair and play the flavor of the day, which at the time was punk. That's BALLS. That's METAL.

I'm a musician in Nashville, and a lot of my buddies are hitting the point where they're getting signed and moving up to the next stage of music.

A little while back I was sitting around with a very successful jazz solo artist who makes a good middle class living playing jazz (something few jazz artists can pull off).

He's been signed to i guess 3 or 4 different labels over the course of I guess 25 to 30 years. He explained it to me like this:

"On the one side you have the music you want to make, on the other side you have the music the label wants you to make. There has to be a compromise here. So the best thing you can do is meet as close to your side as you can."

A lot of those metal bands were young kids (tommy lee was 17 when motley crue got signed) who were psyched about getting record deals. If you decide to go with a big label offer and try to make things work on the big scale as a musician, you're going to have to make a few sacrifices.

Now, there are guys who have made it without a big label. But most of the guys who go that route end up delivering pizza. Doesn't mean they COULDN'T pull it off, it just means they DIDN'T pull it off.

So, what I'm getting at is I can't hate on a group because they went with the money. So you had to put out a power ballad. Big stinking deal. There are worse things you could do.

Just because a group put out a ballad doesn't mean that they didn't have integrity or they weren't metal enough. It just means that they weren't idealistic enough to make putting out a power ballad a deal breaker.

I'm amazed at the amount of talented people I meet around town who are so idealistic about their "art" that will never go anywhere with it. Who REFUSE to do anything radio friendly BECAUSE it's radio friendly. Can you think of anything more antithetical to what a person who wants to be a professional recording artist could do?

It is a business. End of story. People see it as black and white, whereas its all gray. If you sign to a major, will you get to have complete creative control and put out whatever music you like? Hell no. Does that mean you have to completely change? Hell no, they didn't sign you because they DON'T like what you're doing. They just want to make it more radio friendly. That doesn't necessarily mean that you have to give up the core of what your music is.

You have to walk the line.

 

[The Forms]

Some people don't really want to become "stars" or whatever. They don't care about mansions, fancy cars, and schmoozing with A-list celebrities. They just wanna make music, play it live, and make a decent living at it.

A lot of bands manage this without selling out.



Yeah it's a business, but bands such as Iron Maiden and AC/DC have proven you can stay true to what you do and still achieve success. Maiden never got much airplay -- they're a live band FIRST, who made it mainly off the strength of their live performances; and they have also had great, loyal management (going 28 years strong) that has protected them from all the corporate b.s. and poisonous influences that the major label world involves, allowing the band's vision to come to become a reality just how they want it. I know they're an exception to the rule, but there are others out there that tread a similar path, too.

Some bands make music, others just make product.

Can anyone here imagine Joey Ramone or Lemmy suddenly teasing up their hair and singing paint-by-numbers "power ballads?" LOL I don't think so, yet the Ramones and Motorhead are among some of the most influential bands ever. I don't care how much of a "business" music can be...conforming to the orders of record label clowns in suits is not very rock 'n roll.

First off, making a few compromises with the label to get your stuff heard is not "selling out." Completely changing what the band's sound is, and what the music is about, that's selling out. Putting out a ballad is not selling out. I don't buy it.

Even if it's not about the houses or the cars, no matter who the musician is, it IS about getting your music heard en masse. If a guy is devoting his life to playing songs, he wants them heard. Period. If someone tells you otherwise he's either lying or ashamed.

The fact that that we can name individual bands (like Iron Maiden, or, more recently, Damien Rice) who have pulled of success without a label shows how rare it is.

There is a difference between being "true to your music" and being idealistic.

I've met some amazing bands around town who simply don't do commercial music. And that's fine. However, the cross you have to bear is that not THAT many people are going to like it. It probably won't sell. Yea, it worked for Phish, but again, exception, not the rule.

It might be really cool stuff, and it might be interesting, but a lot of these bands make stuff you probably wouldn't pop into the CD player while you're driving around town.

They won't make a three and a half minute pop song (and trust me, it's a LOT harder to write a concise 3 and a half minute song full of hooks than it is to record a 12 minute song full of crazy experimental stuff).

So take a band like Simple Plan for instance. They were being true to themselves and these guys are actually pretty good musicians, and they were making the punk rock they loved.

Then a couple years passed and they got families and mortgages and bills. So they made music that made them money. There's no shame in that game. You can call it selling out if you want. I call it making a living. Some things are more important than your artistic expression. Like feeding your family.

I guess the big difference between me and you is I'm out there really doing this music thing, watching my buddies go through a lot of these decisions every day, so I don't have the luxury of being idealistic about what these bands did. This is what they do for a living, and if they are feeding their kids and paying their bills, I can't hate on them for it.