Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: Going Mainstream?

  1. #1

    Going Mainstream?

    So. Something occurred to me. Do musical artists actually actively try to "go mainstream"? Like, do they sit around and discuss amongst themselves, "We've got a pretty cool thing going, and our fans love it, but we should really dumb down our music so we can get more radio play and get more fans?"

    If they do decide to try to "go mainstream," do they think it'll actually work? It seems like it almost never does. There are a handful of success stories of bands that widened their appeal to achieve mainstream success (e.g., Genesis, Rush), but it seems like the majority do not. KC didn't do great trying to play pop music, nor did ELP, Camel, or Renaissance. A few stragglers got lucky in the 80s, but most everything else was "meh".

    This phenomenon isn't unique to progressive rock, either. I saw it a lot in punk/hardcore in the 90s. Bands with a unique sound and a decent fanbase (but not necessarily enough to live off of) would jump to a major label, then produce a boring rock album with no character. And then they face the harsh realities of being a yet another failed investment for the music industry.

    I get for some bands/artists, it's an evolution of their sound .. trying new things, etc. But for others, it seems like an attempt to "cash in." But it seems like it rarely actually succeeds. So why do they do it?

    Discuss.
    flute juice

  2. #2
    Highly Evolved Orangutan JKL2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Westchester, NY
    Posts
    16,529
    From what I've read it sounds like Gentle Giant decided, without label pressure, to simplify and poppify their sound.

  3. #3
    Member rickawakeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    West of Worcester (Western Massachusetts)
    Posts
    1,034
    From the interviews in the most recent ish of Prog, ELP's label successfully pressured them to do this, noting the "successes" Yes and Genesis had in dummying down. Why? "I've always said that cash cash cash can do anything well!"

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Kalamazoo Michigan
    Posts
    9,578
    I have a friend who was involved in the country music scene in Nashville for a while. He has a lot of stories regarding the songwriting process in Nashville and how calculated much of it is in order to try to appeal to certain demographics and “mainstream” country listeners. I have no personal firsthand knowledge, but he has some pretty good tales of songs being written for specific artists that are basically designed for radio airplay. I would guess this happens in pop / rock music as well.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    140
    Yes, some artists do take a strategic approach towards mainstream appeal. Some simply write catchy songs that get on the radio. That doesn't necessarily mean that the artist has "dumbed down" anything.
    That said, you only become more of what you are. Trying to be something you're not in an attempt to appeal to others didn't work in 8th grade and it doesn't work in the music business either.
    As far as the songwriting process itself, this episode of The Flintstones says it all.

  6. #6
    Jefferson James
    Guest
    "The boy's got potential but he'll never have commercial success."

  7. #7
    Subterranean Tapir Hobo Chang Ba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Frownland
    Posts
    2,395
    I would image it would depend on the individual bands. Sometimes it down to pressure from labels (though I would guess that this is less nowadays, though I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't) sometimes it's what they want to do, sometimes they want to try and get more Fame/$$/recognition, etc....
    Please don't ask questions, just use google.

    Never let good music get in the way of making a profit.

    I'm only here to reglaze my bathtub.

  8. #8
    Member Bungalow Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Vermont U.S.A.
    Posts
    58
    Many things you could say here.

    Is it sometimes only record company pressure?

    Is it necessarily "dumbing down" to record more commercial material? The Beatles were wholly commercial...and they rarely dumbed down.

    Popular music has always been about airplay (or whatever is comparable these days). Prog bands in the 70s were extremely mainstream. Tull had two #1 albums. Then...mainstream changed...and the bands needed to change to remain viable and continue their careers as popular musicians. It's not unimportant to remember that these are working musicians practicing a livelihood.

    Is entering into the mainstream always a sacrifice of quality and/or integrity?

    Entering into the mainstream sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. Using your examples, Yes, Tull, ELP and The Moody Blues were all once highly mainstream. KC never was; GG never was. Pink Floyd certainly was, even in Syd's day. GG tried; I'm not sure KC ever did although maybe the Belew-era in the 80s was a mild attempt.

    Yes, sometimes it's a "cash in". Mostly I think it isn't. It's the pressure of remaining relevant so that a career can continue.

    As much as I dislike post-Abacab Genesis, the music didn't suck. It was actually very good pop music. It just wasn't/isn't my thing.

    I don't see a necessary corollary between turning mainstream and producing poor-quality music.

    Many very adventurous British Invasion bands started with some pretty mainstream radio tunes. The Who, for example. Their earlier stuff was totally geared toward airplay. And yet, it was monumental music.

    Hendrix didn't shy away from commercial success.

    There's a lot to be said for the Zappas and VdGGs of the musical world. There's a lot to be said for the John Lennons and Led Zeppelins of the musical world. Mainstream music isn't necessarily bad.

    Plus, isn't there a typical curve? Bands begin as unheard-of acts. "My favorite underground, unknown band is..." The fanboy cult. Then they form a fan base. They evolve. Their fan base follows them. Sometimes the band is in the mainstream; sometimes they're not.

    Is Neil Young a good example? He's been experimental; he's been mainstream...

    Bob Dylan?

    David Bowie?

    Anyway, it always comes down to what you like. I don't see "mainstream" as a terrible thing. Not all underground bands have integrity or hipness. The Sex Pistols were a commercial scam of the first order.

    Sometimes I want the intensity of VdGG. Sometimes I want the melodicism of Billy Joel. Sometimes I want the silkiness of Joni Mitchell. Sometimes I want the sheer black bombast of early Sabbath.
    For that which is not,
    there is no coming into being
    and for that which is,
    there is no ceasing to be;
    yea of both of these the lookers into truth have seen an end.
    Bhagavad Gita

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by arise_shine View Post

    ..... Do musical artists actually actively try to "go mainstream"? Like, do they sit around and discuss amongst themselves, "We've got a pretty cool thing going, and our fans love it, but we should really dumb down our music so we can get more radio play and get more fans?"....

    Discuss.

    ...."We've got a pretty cool thing going, and our fans love it, but we should really dumb down our music so we can get more radio play and get more fans?"....

    Ok, It can be a one more answer to calm and satisfy elusive expectations,OK

    Nevertheless, Innovation is the main enhance to me.

    To give you an example, electric guitar as a distorted sound has arrived into its non-more possible intoxication, OK.

    When a proto musical concept appears in the air, a new possible musical horizon does so, OK. This strenght can open a new musical north, simple as it can be, the success among young receptive audience gives the answer...

    So, then after, the evolution of this concept in progressive terms, enrich and enlight this new north into a new musical mainstream.

    As a one more example, trance, house music so successful as they are, they remain basic but successful, to conceptualise in prog terms can be a new possible horizon...

  10. #10
    Member eporter66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    169
    As an artist, I would imagine everyone would want commercial success. By that, if you are creating music, you would want as many people as possible to listen and enjoy it. That being said - it does not mean you have to give up your vision. I see this in Steve Hackett, he has had many highs with Genesis, his solo career and GTR. Yet, for the most part, it seems he has stayed true to himself.
    I am sure many musicians and artists have "tried" to write hits, whether based on label pressure, or just because they want success. Yet, sometimes the best stuff just hits a chord with people. I am sure Phil Collins (sorry for the Genesis leanings) did not write "In The Air Tonight" to be a hit, but look what happened. So, I think it can be easy to pick up when an artist attempts to write a "formula" type song (like every 80's artist writing power ballads), but the truly brilliant pop songs are often quite unique. Sometimes you can't figure out how a song became a hit - another form of the magic and power of good music.

  11. #11
    I know from BJH's experience in the late 70,s and early 80,s it was label pressure to a large extent, the other thing is that when they had a more mainstream sound thats when they had the big single in germany and the problem is then that the big labels will then want "more of that please". To a large extent with the majors in particular they were not particularly interested in an artists integrity, if they had paid big advance money and the poppy "hit" was what sold, then thats what they would want more of and so its either go with the flow, or do away with those nice deals that kept your family.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4,485
    It doesn't bother me. If it's successful and enables a musician to make a living, good for them, even if I don't always like the product...which certainly isn't a given, as I listen to a lot of quite 'poppy' stuff.

    It can often come down to a change in production style rather than material, I think. Take David Bowie's much-maligned 'commercial' period of the mid 80s. 'Let's Dance', 'Tonight' and 'Never Let Me Down' have various songs that could certainly be done with a harder edge (some indeed already were on Iggy Pop's 70s albums, where a couple of the songs from those 80s Bowie albums originate). But the sound of all three is super-slick, full of the usual 80s stuff (big drums, lots of reverb) alongside poppy backing vocals, session players and all that. Those are the sort of tropes you find on so-called 'commercial' albums.

    With BJH who Vicky mentions, it's interesting that their peak in popularity was a fairly unhappy period, which I wasn't aware of. John Lees mentioned in a recent interview (available on YouTube) he'd thought about leaving the band in the early 80s. But even if their 70s stuff was better, they deserved to do well after slogging away for so long, and there is still enough decent material on those 80s BJH albums for me to keep them.
    Last edited by JJ88; 04-22-2014 at 07:30 AM.

  13. #13
    In the 80s it happened a lot as a whole production/promotion process. The Tubes and Chicago got David Foster as a producer which means he's gonna write songs, play keyboards and probably hire Toto to play the album, or at least the single. Or it would be hey, let's get Desmond Child and have a hit (Kiss, Heart, Alice Cooper, Starship, etc). Everyone wanted to be successful and you did what you had to do.

  14. #14
    Taker of Naps IncogNeato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    NC-USA
    Posts
    836
    For some artists, and I'm thinking artists that started out more progressive/technical/artsy, it can be yet another challenge to their abilities to attempt to write simple, mass-appealing commercial hooks. That is actually a skill unto itself, and not everyone can do it. I know a lot of us would consider it "dumbing down" just because maybe the tempos are straight and the melodies are sing-along...but to write a simple, singable hook that really catches fire to a mass audience isn't really as simple or "dumb" as we would think.

    It's hard to speculate as to an artist's motivation to do this. With Genesis, it feels like a natural evolution with the changing line-ups, different writing combinations, etc. With Yes and 90125 it feels maybe a little less so? I don't really know. Maybe it was record company pressure, maybe it was natural evolution, or a blend of the two. Either way, some find success with it, some don't. It's nearly impossible to predict what will catch on commercially...major labels then took a more "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" approach. But, also, back then artists were given more than 2 albums to catch on...they were allowed to develop...that would never happen these days.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by IncogNeato View Post
    For some artists, and I'm thinking artists that started out more progressive/technical/artsy, it can be yet another challenge to their abilities to attempt to write simple, mass-appealing commercial hooks. That is actually a skill unto itself, and not everyone can do it. I know a lot of us would consider it "dumbing down" just because maybe the tempos are straight and the melodies are sing-along...but to write a simple, singable hook that really catches fire to a mass audience isn't really as simple or "dumb" as we would think.

    It's hard to speculate as to an artist's motivation to do this. With Genesis, it feels like a natural evolution with the changing line-ups, different writing combinations, etc. With Yes and 90125 it feels maybe a little less so? I don't really know. Maybe it was record company pressure, maybe it was natural evolution, or a blend of the two. Either way, some find success with it, some don't. It's nearly impossible to predict what will catch on commercially...major labels then took a more "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" approach. But, also, back then artists were given more than 2 albums to catch on...they were allowed to develop...that would never happen these days.
    It does still with indie labels with certain artists as we are doing with Sanguine Hum and Tin Spirits--but yes the majors often dont allow that development these days.

  16. #16
    Taker of Naps IncogNeato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    NC-USA
    Posts
    836
    Right, yeah...indie labels exist for a whole different reason and tend to be more art-driven in the first place. So I'm glad to see that development still exists, but not if the company is trying to use your music solely to turn a profit and increase their own bottom line.

  17. #17
    Its a wrong way to think to be honest or you would never get another Radiohead or Pulp etc but I guess its the same in many sectors that are accountancy driven these days not just music.

  18. #18
    Just remember, Genesis wanted to be a commercial act from day one. They seem to have feel into prog almost as an accident.

  19. #19
    Member Man In The Mountain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Chicago area
    Posts
    1,066
    Prog in the early to mid 70's was mainstream. Stuff like Thick As A Brick, Karn Evil 9, Roundabout, Lamb Lies Down on Broadway..., were commercially successful hit songs. YES in particular had a quite a few hits from the classic period, The YES Album, Fragile & CTTE (And You & I). One could argue that they were really good at making popular music for the times. But no hits on Tales, is where the music then became not as commercially viable, and prog started to implode on itself. I think bands always wanted to make money and be active in the current scene - some just couldn't fit into it.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Man In The Mountain View Post
    ... no hits on Tales, is where the music then became not as commercially viable, and prog started to implode on itself ...
    I think in the UK at least Tales went to number 1 in the album charts, so that is still pretty mainstream. I personally feel that once they moved into the late 70's the pressures built to replicate this kind of success in a differing market. Of course by then they are used to the commercial success, the country mansions and the fleet of cars, and so it they need to play the corporate game and try and "dumb down" to achieve / maintain their income. This is what happened with Tormato, faced with an industry that embraced the shorter form song, they were a little adrift.

    90125 was definitely a product of management leadership, with Brian Lane playing Fantasy Football with his charges, and lo and behold they clicked with the zeitgeist.

    Ever since I think there has been an effort to try and get that elusive hit, and as a result there have been some bloody awful short songs released that would have been kicked to the horizon in their peak.

    Who can really predict what the market will want though? How can you explain a band as arch as Radiohead being so popular? I love them to bits but always scratch my head with wonder when the gigs sell out in minutes and yet other adventurous music languishes unloved by the multitude.

  21. #21
    Taker of Naps IncogNeato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    NC-USA
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by trurl View Post
    Just remember, Genesis wanted to be a commercial act from day one. They seem to have feel into prog almost as an accident.
    That's probably more a case of wanting commercial success while still being who they were...which is what everyone wants, isn't it? "Wanting to be commercially successful" doesn't necessarily equate to "Wanting to write short, easily digestable pop songs".

  22. #22
    Studmuffin Scott Bails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Near Philly, PA
    Posts
    6,583
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveSly View Post
    I have a friend who was involved in the country music scene in Nashville for a while. He has a lot of stories regarding the songwriting process in Nashville and how calculated much of it is in order to try to appeal to certain demographics and “mainstream” country listeners. I have no personal firsthand knowledge, but he has some pretty good tales of songs being written for specific artists that are basically designed for radio airplay.
    This is painfully obvious, if you've ever heard a mainstream "country" song.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sunlight Caller View Post
    I think in the UK at least Tales went to number 1 in the album charts
    I would think that this is a product of their popularity, not the appeal of the actual album. In other words, the "I have to get the new Yes album being released this week" effect.
    Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally

  23. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    4,485
    ^Brian Lane was handling Asia by the time of '90125'. I'd agree though that external factors- particularly Trevor Rabin and Trevor Horn- who weren't even in the band in the 70s certainly helped make that one a success.

    Probably the most notorious example of a failed compromise is 'Love Beach'. The first side of that is a near-total disaster as far as I'm concerned. I've nothing against a band doing shorter songs- I think most (though not all) of Genesis' ones retained a certain quality. Whereas I think you can tell just by listening to stuff like 'Taste Of My Love' and the title track, they weren't that into what they were doing. Yes have a few similar skeletons- 'Open Your Eyes' aiming for a big rock-radio hit with an AOR sound that was, on a commercial level, dead and buried by the late 90s. And also 'Don't Go', again it has the feel of them being decades out of date.

    'Tales' and 'A Passion Play' in the US were what one could call 'momentum Number 1s', like Scott suggests. That is to say, the amount of positive attention and acclaim for the previous album dictated a high level of demand for the next release.

  24. #24
    Member No Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL, USA
    Posts
    137
    Interesting thread. I have a lot of jumbled thoughts on the subject; not sure I can put them into a coherent order, but I'll just throw some stuff out there and hope some of it sticks.

    Yes, bands/artists all want to reach as many listeners as possible, but ideally, they want it to be on their terms. When that doesn't work out, they'll often start guessing what it is that people want and seeing if they can produce it. In my way of thinking, that usually involves focusing on craft, as opposed to art (not that the two are mutually exclusive).

    Being more of an artist than a business man, I always felt that musicians/composers should write and play what they're compelled to write and play. If making money is your main objective, there's a lot of easier ways to make it than trying to write hit songs. Artists are a product of their influences and their own creativity and art is or should (ideally) be made to please the creator(s) of it, first and foremost. I think the musicians and composers who make the best pop music are the ones that truly love and have always been inspired by pop music. Writing pop comes natural to them because they're doing exactly what they want to do. But if your passion/inspiration is and always was prog or fusion (or some other more obscure musical genre), you're going to be less likely to make yourself or your band into a pop sensation, because you've stopped focusing so much on art in the interest of developing your craft. Make sense?

    Of course, it's not all black and white. I believe that a band like Toto was formed and existed for the purpose of making commercial music, but they managed to sneak their artistic passions in to it here and there (most of it for the "masses" but little bits and pieces for those who crave something slightly more challenging). I'm guessing even a band as artistic as Steely Dan edited what they were capable of creating in the interest of being commercially viable, at least to some extent.

    But a band like Gentle Giant trying to make commercial music was so against the grain of what came naturally to them that it didn't quite work. I wouldn't call their attempt at it a dismal failure (at least not musically), they produced some decent music in the attempt, but it paled in comparison to their "classic" stuff because it was more ordinary and less extraordinary. I actually feel that way about Genesis too, but obviously, their commercial stuff resonated with a lot of people and in that way, they are on the opposite end of the spectrum.

    It's too bad it's so difficult to have art and commerce exist in harmony while on opposite planes, but artists have to eat too... and therein lies the rub.

    Well, not as a coherent a post as I'd hoped to make, but I guess that's par for the course. Oh well!

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by IncogNeato View Post
    That's probably more a case of wanting commercial success while still being who they were...which is what everyone wants, isn't it? "Wanting to be commercially successful" doesn't necessarily equate to "Wanting to write short, easily digestable pop songs".
    But in their case I think it did... they wanted to write radio hits for other groups. Their beef with Jonathon King wasn't that he made them make an album of short commercial songs, just that they were not in the style that came naturally to them. The irony was of course that what came naturally was not a short easily digestible form. They wound up working in longer structures, at a time when you could get away with it. But I've always felt the Genesis of the 80s was the realization of the Genesis they had expected to be from the start but couldn't.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •