I wish Dev had the fiscal latitude that "mainstream" popularity provides, so that he could just focus on the artistic side of his creations. IF there is any artist who I think would be able to maintain artistic integrity, it's Dev.

Maybe he should sell-out once. Make one album that sells hundreds of thousands, or millions of copies worldwide, for the instant wad of cash. Get his name out, get some exposure for his 'real' work for some long-term income. Then after that, do whatever he wants to do completely disregarding other people's expectations or any commercial issues, because he has plenty of money anyway!

That's what I'd do

I don't think being mainstream is such a bad thing.

Trying to get away from being mainstream just for "not being mainstream" sake is a bit silly...

I think it has something more to do with the preasure when you get famous...the expectations and the disappointments that come when a new album or project comes out because someone will be alienated. And fans can be the harshest critics. Look at Metallica. On their message boards it sounds like most the people on their hate the band because all they do is bash them and call them sell outs because they had balls to change direction and try something new. They get a lot of abuse from the people that are supposed to be fans. That is one side of the mainstreamness that really sucks and I imagine it can piss a lot of people off.

Being mainstream gives people a chance for exposure.

BUT

The whole record company thing would suck. A record company is a business and will try and suck a lot of money out of a musician and (I imagine) try and force them into a mainstream/radio friendly thing....that's the MASSIVE downside to it all. A musician is not seen as a musician but as a (hate using this word in this context but I feel I should) tool. Losing their musical integrity.

All the major, lasting bands/musicans/painters/dramatist/sculpter etc are long lasting and rememberd because they did something new. They broke some sort of mold. They actually went away from mainstream. They kept their integrity. Look at the Beatles/Led Zeppalin. They then became mainstream because of the talent and integrity of the band. People then copy, record companies push for things that sound the same and everything becomes stagnant.

So mainstream can be a good thing. Fresh and original. Integrity can come through and artistic vomit.

And of course, it's about doing what you WANT and FEEL.

This is just my view, I have no idea what Mr. T (Do you pity the fool? DO YOU!?) thinks. What I said is not true and is not right (I don't know I'm not famous) it's just what I think.

Please rip into this if you have another opinion.

Was that even relevent to the topic!!??

Heehee that was totally relevant. Thereis some good points in there actually.

All the major, lasting bands/musicans/painters/dramatist/sculpter etc are long lasting and rememberd because they did something new. They broke some sort of mold. They actually went away from mainstream. They kept their integrity. Look at the Beatles/Led Zeppalin. They then became mainstream because of the talent and integrity of the band. People then copy, record companies push for things that sound the same and everything becomes stagnant.

This one I like a lot. I can only partically agree with that statement though. Those bands sort of bands, never really were mainstream. I think it's the bands and record companies that try to recreate their sound which then creates the mainstream. If that makes sense.
There are bands that sell out completely obviously, but for the ones who keep thre artist integrity, they tend to not be in the spot light as much.. sorta... I dunno what I'm saying. xD

Heehee that was totally relevant. Thereis some good points in there actually.

All the major, lasting bands/musicans/painters/dramatist/sculpter etc are long lasting and rememberd because they did something new. They broke some sort of mold. They actually went away from mainstream. They kept their integrity. Look at the Beatles/Led Zeppalin. They then became mainstream because of the talent and integrity of the band. People then copy, record companies push for things that sound the same and everything becomes stagnant.

This one I like a lot. I can only partically agree with that statement though. Those bands sort of bands, never really were mainstream. I think it's the bands and record companies that try to recreate their sound which then creates the mainstream. If that makes sense.
There are bands that sell out completely obviously, but for the ones who keep there artist integrity, they tend to not be in the spot light as much.. sorta... I dunno what I'm saying. xD

Must be really hard forging new paths though, at least for a while. Because no one knows you, knows what you're doing, and are too lazy to figure it out. People like the Dev are pretty admirable for sticking with it, because people can be so unaccepting. Once you get a fan base though, you can kind of give everyone else a big 'fuck you!'

Part of me is happy that I don't hear Devy on the radio and what not - not because I don't want success for him, or fans... but once the spotlight is on you, you have a lot more limitations and people watching for a slip, a mistake or a reason to hate you again. Just my two cents.

I don't think it's snobbery to say that people on the whole, aren't interested in intelligent music. Most people aren't looking to listen to music that's challenging, or interesting, they just want to listen to something catchy. You only have to look at the popularity of songs that are saying nothing more than "I kissed a girl and I liked it", to see that this is the case.

There's a reason, that you generally have to stick to a set of rules (chord progressions used, song length, etc) to have a number one hit. (although obviously there are exceptions)

It's not that these people are somehow inferior or less intelligent, it's just that most people aren't that interested in music on a deeper level. I'm very much into music, but my appreciation for visual art is very superficial. I'd consider myself to be reasonably intelligent, but I'm just not that interested in visual art on a deeper level.

I would agree that it's a bit wanky to think that you have to be intelligent to like Devin Townsend, or that people that don't like Devin Townsend aren't intelligent, but that's a different argument entirely.

I don't think it's snobbery to say that people on the whole, aren't interested in intelligent music. Most people aren't looking to listen to music that's challenging, or interesting, they just want to listen to something catchy. You only have to look at the popularity of songs that are saying nothing more than "I kissed a girl and I liked it", to see that this is the case.

There's a reason, that you generally have to stick to a set of rules (chord progressions used, song length, etc) to have a number one hit. (although obviously there are exceptions)

It's not that these people are somehow inferior or less intelligent, it's just that most people aren't that interested in music on a deeper level. I'm very much into music, but my appreciation for visual art is very superficial. I'd consider myself to be reasonably intelligent, but I'm just not that interested in visual art on a deeper level.

I would agree that it's a bit wanky to think that you have to be intelligent to like Devin Townsend, or that people that don't like Devin Townsend aren't intelligent, but that's a different argument entirely.

You nailed it buddy - right on.

Definitely not pretentious to point out a social truth, that being that most people enjoy catchy over cerebral. Good point.

This may be a bit arrogant, but oh well... Devy Metal I feel is for "smart" people. By this I mean that most people will shrug it off and call it noise. You either get it, or you don't. There are a lot of little nuiances in his music that makes it so unique and wonderful that you really have to be a contemplative person to completely understand and enjoy it. Lots of metal bands use simple riffs and song progression.

Sometimes it's actually really good (Cannibal Corpse anyone?) but a lot of the bands turn out fairly cookie cuter. Honestly though, I like a lot of popular metal bands who might be considered generic, but that makes Dev all the more special. It's band like Dev, Gojira, Mercenary, Meshuggah, and Buckethead that really give me hope in music to come. There are still true artists out there.

This may be a bit arrogant, but oh well... Devy Metal I feel is for "smart" people. By this I mean that most people will shrug it off and call it noise. You either get it, or you don't. There are a lot of little nuiances in his music that makes it so unique and wonderful that you really have to be a contemplative person to completely understand and enjoy it. Lots of metal bands use simple riffs and song progression.

Yeah, and jazz people will say it's primitive since it's way too little syncopation, dynamics and not a lot of harmonic variation (it's mostly C-something scale, isn't it?). I think trying to assign "intelectual value" to your favourite music is risky a bit, there's always someone who's snobbier

^
|
|


I completely agree. Music and intelligence, IMO, are completely unrelated. However, you need to be knowledgeable about some things in order to appreciate some kinds of music. But knowledge != intelligence.

And yeah, jazz people tend to be arrogant about their music and I dislike that a lot.

The suggestion that Dev should "sell-out" once and make hay is demeaning IMHO.

Some considerations:

1) What is meant by "mainstream". There are many "mainstreams/audiences". Country fucks. Jeezo freaks. Britney wanna-bes. etc.
2) Write/perform music that is true to oneself and build up a substantial audience. Dev did this with SYL, which became a brand.
3) Write/perform music for the masses that you might not otherwise do. Could you image Dev writing and performing music for Britney wanna-bes? * Vomits profusely*

Maybe what was meant is "sell-out" to use music to attract a certain demographic.

Would you buy a toilet plunger commercial with background atmospherics borrowed from Ziltoidia Attaxx? A woman pumping furiously to the beat and the toilet exploding in her face?

Hell yea!

I just think people should write music that they want to.

But saying that, not music that is just a carbon copy of someone else. They may want to emulate them and take ideas and influence from people, but there's a difference between copying and being infulenced.

Being original to ones self. Writing what you feel.

Of course some songs people write are quite "mainstream" in the fact they have a catchy riff/idea. And I have heard record companies push bands to do some sort of radio friendly song (Isn't that how the song Fucker came about?? Radio friendly groove and...er...shall we say un radio friendly lyrics - brilliant song!)
Once in a while I come up with a riff/hook/song that sounds like it could be more mainstreamy - it can happen naturally.

I just think it's vitally important as an artists/musician/poet/author whatever to stick to your own creative beliefs and not be pressured into creating "mainstream" just for the sake of it. I've heard this can be hard, especially with the promise of wealth/notoriety. I've always believed music has a soul. Music just for music's sake...has no soul.

I just think the public are clever enough to notice a "consistant quality" to music someone puts out and their integrity. People do notice it.

I just think it's vitally important as an artists/musician/poet/author whatever to stick to your own creative beliefs and not be pressured into creating "mainstream" just for the sake of it. I've heard this can be hard, especially with the promise of wealth/notoriety. I've always believed music has a soul. Music just for music's sake...has no soul.

I agree, people should make the usic they want too. I suppose whether it sounds like someone elses or not could be coincedence. Hmmm be interesting to get a person who's never listened to music to make a song, although it would be practically impossibly too I imagine... Anyway.

I see what you mean about Music for music sake, but, what if you created music for musics sake in the sense of testing boundaries, and new places? Does that still have no soul as its an 'experiement' or in a strange way, does it develop it's own sense of 'soul'...
What becomes music, just for music sake?

I don't mean too sound condecending, I'm geniunly interested in knowing how you interprety music

Amber Wrote
This one I like a lot. I can only partically agree with that statement though. Those bands sort of bands, never really were mainstream. I think it's the bands and record companies that try to recreate their sound which then creates the mainstream. If that makes sense.
There are bands that sell out completely obviously, but for the ones who keep thre artist integrity, they tend to not be in the spot light as much.. sorta... I dunno what I'm saying. xD

Just wondering who you think, and who other people think, are bands that sold out? And maybe everyones personal opinion of how selling out is defined?

Linkin park?

Linkin park?

Did they put out any manifest of kvltist undergroundage? Maybe they honestly planned to make shitload of money from the beginning.