Having grown up a metalhead, I know what the general consensus is on commercial success in popular music, especially metal. Let's think for a moment, though.

One: what constitutes "commercial success" in popular music?

Two: is it a universal truth that all those who achieve even a modicum of commercial success as musicians somehow lose their ability to write decent music? Furthermore, is "selling out" a prerequisite for commercial success?

Three: is there something inherently wrong in the desire to make money (i.e. a living) in music or art?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One: It would stand to reason that there are varying degrees of success, particularly with respect to the genre of music, and with respect to band goals, level of ability and level of commitment. There are bands such as Judas Priest, Iron Maiden and the like (who are somewhat more accessible than your average death or black metal band) who enjoy what could be considered a modicum of commercial success. Enslaved are arguably achieving levels of recognition and success that 10-15 years ago would have been met with cries of "sellouts!" (This leads to a further question; is greater success acceptable for a band who have been in operation for a certain amount of time? If so, how long? Who decides?)

Two: the above bands serve as examples of bands who have managed to achieve a modicum of commercial (and I use the term somewhat loosely) success and yet who have managed to still create relevant and pleasing music. Of course, this is largely relative, considering diverse tastes. One person's vinegar is another person's honey, and vice versa. However, to play Devil's advocate, one could argue that a band such as Metallica, who were almost universally berated within the underground metal scene as being commercial sell outs (which could be true) with the release of the "Black" album and those afterwards, met with greater and greater success. Personally, I don't particularly like what they came out with post- "Master..." but it would seem that my disapproval has proven inconsequential.

Three: I am a career musician. I teach music, but I also make money from performing. I don't do anything else. I don't work in a pub, in a restaurant (fast food or otherwise), I don't work in retail, etc. etc. In other words, I live and breathe music. My goal is not merely to make money at what I do; what I do means something to me, and so I will do it to the best of my ability, regardless of the level of payout. I have bills to pay, I must survive; like every other person in this world who chooses a career, I have chosen to dedicate my life to something, which will serve the dual purpose of providing me with the means to support myself as well as said means serving as something which I actually enjoy doing. I trade value for value. What I do, aside from having meaning to me personally, has value. I don't do what I do for free, and would never think to do so. I don't trade for approval; approval is not currency. I don't trade in acclaim; acclaim does not buy food, shelter, clothing. Approval and acclaim are fringe benefits, which are a means to further my success and provide for more opportunities to make money, but they don't make the money themselves. Does this compromise my integrity? I think not. As I said, I do it to the best of my ability, and not to flatter myself, my ability is considerable. Is there anything inherently wrong in that?

EDIT: This begs a further question: must one have a totally demoralizing day job in order to be "legit" in the music scene? Also, to further clarify, I may have used myself as an example in the third answer, but I meant it in the broadest possible application to the underground music scene as a whole.

Thoughts?

Some of my exact thoughts on this can be found in the letters page of Zero Tolerance, two issues after the one with 1349 on the cover.

Doesn't compromise your integrity in the slightest. If you can do what you love full-time, good for you! I never understood this whole "gotta live like a bum, so not perceived as a sell out" mentality that some people have. It's a matter of integrity, if you are making the type of music that YOU want to make that others enjoy, that's all that matters. However, if you start just making anything for the sake of the allmighty dollar, that's a different thing.

I do think in a way, if somebody is doing a shitty job, and slogging away making unpopular music that they can't live off, then they are more probably genuine. They clearly aren't in it for the money. I think this is really important for metal, I love this music, and I want to listen to music made by people of a like mind.

That said, they could be making no money from it, but be complete fucking scenesters who expect to make friends or nail groupies as a result of their music making. Whilst that's nice for them, I'd still feel happier listening to their record if I knew they actually making it because they like the music.

Lots of things confer integrity on a band for me. I started a thread a while back about Megadeth, Dio and Motorhead, bands who just keep doing what they've always done, the continuity and commitment to their style of metal gives it credibility.

All that said, I bought a Motley Cru CD the other day. I bought this because it's a good laugh, the band themselves were probably in it for the beer, coke and anal sex with groupies. But here, that doesn't matter, because it's good music to listen to while drinking beer at the weekend. I make exceptions for this sort of music because I want something different from it, it's feel good, brain off listening. Same with something like Steel Panther.

Real metal is meant to be engaging in a different way I think, exploring darker feelings and subject matters. It just wouldn't seem right to marry with sorts of motivations that Motley Cru have for making music with these sorts of moods and topics.

There's no hard and fast rules, I take each band as it comes, and if I smell that they're not in it for what I deem the right reasons, I take my money elsewhere.

EDIT: I meant to mention Amon Amarth. I used to think they made good albums, Oden on my Side, The Crusher, Golden Hall were good records. These days, I've no doubt they've sold out, you can see it and hear it, and I don't want to know anymore.

Commercial success is when you get reviewed in a (serious) sunday newspaper.

double post. fail.

It always feels (in the metal scene) that the more people like a band, the worse the band are.

Children of Bodom - terrible
Lamb of God - Meh
Slipknot - drivel
Arch Enemy - poo pie
In Flames - knackers
Disturbed - please?

This leads me to believe that commerical success means compromising individuality or originality for something that taps into some kind of 'en mass' conciousness which i often fail to understand / appreciate

There are a few exceptions....like Tool maybe, or some Dimmu Borgir...but for the most part, if loads of humans like your band, you are probably rubbish.

You should for sure be able to get paid for what you do. I don't agree with the "don't pay for it and download it for free" viewpoint and pay for all of my music-I have a monthly Napster subscription, an Emusic subscription and buy at least another $50 worth of albums from emusic per month, PLUS buy CD's still.

My only point is this-If you make good quality music and promote yourself you should be able to make at least somewhat of a living off of it if not be able to do it full time.

I've come to see peoples habits of tagging band as "commercially sucessful" is wholly dependant on their own context. That is to say, people have a bad habit of not being able to see further than their own scene - or borrowing someone elses preconceived notions about other scenes.

For me personally its a subjective thing relating to sound and playing style. Modern bands I consider sucessful tend to have a very clean sound, very clever and or manipulated instrumentation, and extremly glossy artwork. Because most of my favorite music predominantly falls outside of metal (noise, improv, etc) I have grown to love and crave amateurish and lo-fi recording styles, and more untrained playing styles. For me interesting and thought provoking music comes from people who don't necessarily know how to play their instruments, or at least not formally.

Knobbing about on other forums has made me realize how open to intepration mainstream culture is now! Its all dependant on how krieg you are... Don't like Lady Gaga for being popular but love Gun 'N Roses without realizing they have an infinately larger fanbase? Unthinkingly shout MAINSTREAM!

Seething at the relative success of shoegazer band The Twilight Sad when your sisters boyfriends brothers no wave band from Huddersfield doesn't even get a look in? Unthinkingly shout MAINSTREAM!

Hate the fact that Cradle Of Filth is crowding your national socialist bedroom black metal projects? Unthinkingly shout MAINSTREAM!

Annoyed that your neo-appropriative noise art project named after a Mike Kelley installation gets "0" listeners on last.fm when your vaguely racist power electronics rival (lets call them Rapejew) gets at least "2"? Unthinkingly shout MAINSTREAM!

Mainstream is a bucket in which to throw something, seeing as for the most part these days that bucket is full of pig swill with little to no value, you can do that safely. I mean, you're not going to say Lady Gaga is pop mainstream crap, but Guns N' Roses are mainstream and good, so that's okay, are you?

There are bands that make the mainstream and are good, I think that's increasingly a rarity though, and the exception doesn't make the rule.

Throwing something in the mainstream bucket is a way of saying I see nothing in your band but the need to sell as many records as possible to make money, and no dedication to music for its own sake.

If most mainstream music wasn't this way, people wouldn't use the label the way they do.

The guy with the cool Cradle of Filth shirt I talked to yesterday said he could tell this isn't the internet as the guy with the Darkthrone shirt isn't calling him a poser pussy.