Does Over Exposure Ruin the Experience

Motley Crue

So, I was thinking, does over exposure ruin the experience of a good band. Take Kings of Leon, and their new album, and regardless of opinions personally or otherwise the song is getting great airplay on all major radio stations in both Ireland and Europe. But my problem is this, if the bands album becomes so popular, will genuine fans of the band or rock and metal fans in general simply become disillusioned and walk away.

One thing I liked about the recent Metallica album, for example, was the fact that there was a distinct lack of radio play. This means the album doesnt get ruined by over exposure.

What do people think, this could apply to a multitude of bands, but I wonder if you think that over exposure of songs and particular bands on the radio ruins that bands appeal in the long term?:pac:

OctavarIan

Anyone who decides that they don't like a band because they've gotten too popular needs to sit down and have a little think.

Who immediately spring to mind for me are the elitests who harp on about how they liked the band 'before they were famous'.

Over exposure to a single song of course can kill affection for the song in the short term, too much of a good thing etc. I can't see over exposure to an album or band ruining the band's long term appeal.

Genuine fans won't just walk away, they like the band because of the music, not the scene that comes with them.

Passenger

OctavarIan wrote: »

Anyone who decides that they don't like a band because they've gotten too popular needs to sit down and have a little think.

+1

Pyr0

I see what you're saying alright. I have to agree with OctavarIan, when you hear somebody say "I was listening to them before they got famous" sets off the elitist alarms bells. I can understand fans walking away from a band when they start appealing to the new exposed fans, but it all depends on the fan base their trying to appeal to. It'd be like a hardcore death metal band gaining loads of radio airplay and then their next album is a pop-radio friendly album..

BostonB

Some songs and albums I grew to dislike because they were played so often. Thats a different thing to disliking them because they are popular. Its just you get jaded from hearing some music over and over and over etc. Some classic tracks you can listen to forever. So I dunno whats the difference.

Karl Hungus

I think a lot of times, songs can suffer from being overplayed. I used to be a huge RHCP fan in my youth, and I did like the Californication album quite a lot when it came out, but after a few months, I think the overexposure really did sour the music for me. I cannot listen to that album any more.

ShawnRaven

Karl Hungus wrote: »

I think a lot of times, songs can suffer from being overplayed. I used to be a huge RHCP fan in my youth, and I did like the Californication album quite a lot when it came out, but after a few months, I think the overexposure really did sour the music for me. I cannot listen to that album any more.

Funny you mention that. I felt pretty much the exact same way about every Chili's album since Blood Sugar Sex Magik! It's not an elitist thing, it's a "i'm bloody sick of hearing half the album everywhere i go" thing!

GhostInTheRuins

Pyr0 wrote: »

I have to agree with OctavarIan, when you hear somebody say "I was listening to them before they got famous" sets off the elitist alarms bells.

Does anybody actually say that? I don't think I've ever met anyone that said something similar but wasn't taking the piss.

WindSock

Yes. I hate when I hear my favourite songs been repeated constantly then covered by some shitty pop band/singer. Then they become demi Gods and their music suffers for their egos and I can only see them in large outdoor venues that take away from the experience of going to a gig.

big b

I agree with those who say that they can play an album/song so much that they sicken themselves of it, I'm sure most of us have been there.
I'd say that anyone who claimed they had stopped listening to a band just because they've become popular is a jackass. And I've never stopped following a band just because their success meant they were playing bigger venues.

Musical snobbery is just snobbery with the word music in front of it. It's not an appealing trait.

Pyr0

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

Does anybody actually say that? I don't think I've ever met anyone that said something similar but wasn't taking the piss.

I've had it said to me once before, I didn't talk to the guy for long afterwards.

A song that was ruined by being overplayed was Pantera - Walk. I hear it every time i'm in Fibbers, so sick of hearing it at this stage. Same can be said for numerous Queen songs and <insert classic rock song here>. Pick a different song ffs !

Motley Crue

Pyr0 wrote: »

Pantera - Walk. I hear it every time i'm in Fibbers!

My brother came over to visit me recently, and I put on Pantera in the car driving back from the airport, and he said that he could not listen to 'Walk' cause he was sick of hearing it each and every Thursday in Fibbers lol

ShawnRaven

Pyr0 wrote: »

A song that was ruined by being overplayed was Pantera - Walk. I hear it every time i'm in Fibbers, so sick of hearing it at this stage.

Funny you mention this, and any old school Fibbers goers will attest to this, around 92-93, all that was played on loop for two hours every day in the DJ's box from 6.30-8.30 before the random tunes would come on, was Vulgar Display Of Power. It went from an album we enjoyed, to an album we could barely f*cking stand anymore.

Then they just stuck to feeding the jukebox into the stage area again and all was right with the world.

Pyr0

Seems like i've picked an example we can all relate to haha !

The DJ downstairs never seems to have anything that I haven't heard 10+ times before, I'd go up and ask for the likes of Death, Pantera's Power Metal, Cynic, Morbid Angel. Maybe I'm just asking for the wrong songs/bands or maybe they're just not 'in' at the moment

Pugsley

Pyr0 wrote: »

The DJ downstairs never seems to have anything that I haven't heard 10+ times before, I'd go up and ask for the likes of Death, Pantera's Power Metal, Cynic, Morbid Angel. Maybe I'm just asking for the wrong songs/bands or maybe they're just not 'in' at the moment

Lavery's in Belfast done metal nights last year and we managed to get some Cathedral and Morbid Angel playing, he also had some At the Gates

A Primal Nut

Any music I like I tend to listen to over and over again, especially soon after I first hear it. In addition, very few songs I like are actually played on the radio (despite a fairly mainstream taste in music) so its not a problem for me. I don't see why anyone would complain about music they like being played. Presumably, if they were playing music you didn't like you would complain too. So the only answer would be not listen to the radio. Which I don't tend to do unless i'm in a car.

OK, I know the solution would be to play a much broader range of music but with that unlikely to happen any time soon, I'd still rather hear a good song a hundred times than a hundred **** songs played once each.

BostonB

Most people must rotate their frequently listened to albums on a regular basis. I probably go for a couple of weeks with the same 4 or 5 albums before I start to rotate them. Sometimes it can be over a year before I listen to them again. Depends what it is really.

CiaranTheGreat

Pyr0 wrote: »

Seems like i've picked an example we can all relate to haha !

The DJ downstairs never seems to have anything that I haven't heard 10+ times before, I'd go up and ask for the likes of Death, Pantera's Power Metal, Cynic, Morbid Angel. Maybe I'm just asking for the wrong songs/bands or maybe they're just not 'in' at the moment

Well he is just a Pr**k anyway. Thinks he is god!!

Walk is the perfect example of the over exposure song!!

Motley Crue

CiaranTheGreat wrote: »

Walk is the perfect example of the over exposure song!!

It is indeed:D

lord lucan

Pyr0 wrote: »

I see what you're saying alright. I have to agree with OctavarIan, when you hear somebody say "I was listening to them before they got famous" sets off the elitist alarms bells. I can understand fans walking away from a band when they start appealing to the new exposed fans, but it all depends on the fan base their trying to appeal to. It'd be like a hardcore death metal band gaining loads of radio airplay and then their next album is a pop-radio friendly album..

metallica is a classic example. regarded as an almost 'underground' band up to and including MOP in '86. when they made the video for 'one' and suddenly got lots of airtime on MTV a lot of older fans abandoned them,almost a case of "now everyone's in to them so they're not cool anymore". that escalated even more in '91 when TBA came out,loads of older fans left but where replaced by an MTV audience hooked on 'enter sandman'.

BostonB

In fairness Metallica changed. The music became more FM friendly and the ego's came out. There was the whole MP3/Napster thing too. So not really a good example.

Its not their popularity that turned the older fans off, but their change in direction.

ShawnRaven

BostonB wrote: »

In fairness Metallica changed. The music became more FM friendly and the ego's came out. There was the whole MP3/Napster thing too. So not really a good example.

*rubs hands with glee*
I so can't wait until Rockee see this post!, Popcorn anyone?

BostonB

...meh...

RoosterIllusion

I think any music can be ruined if you don't particularly like the band that plays it. Lately I just ignore who the band are because it tends to take away from the music for me. Then again it also sorts the bands I think are truly great from the ones that are just good.

Example:

Pearl Jam are great
Neil Young is great
Ry Cooder is great
Bob Dylan is great

Soundgarden are good
Kyuss are good
Jerry Cantrell is good

ShawnRaven

RoosterIllusion wrote: »

Soundgarden are good

They were great at one point, Superunknown ruined them
Superunknown was a good album, just didn't quite measure up to the lofty standards of BadMotorFinger. Soundgarden are a classic case of setting the bar too high to the point where they can't reach it anymore. Thankfully they didn't attempt too many times and just called it quits.

Pearl Jam on the other hand, stuck to what they knew and worked with it. No mess, no fuss, just awesome music.

lord lucan

BostonB wrote: »

In fairness Metallica changed. The music became more FM friendly and the ego's came out. There was the whole MP3/Napster thing too. So not really a good example.

the napster thing will never die:D

BostonB

My point was only there more to it than metallica simply being more popular.

ShawnRaven

The thing is, nobody ever denied that Metallica ever changed, and i had a huge debate with Rockee about this in the DM thread a while back. Metallica became more popular because they changed their style, and it worked.

Megadeth used MTV for their own gains as well from 88-95 too, but started to wane away from big publicity after Youthanasia turned out to be a commercial flop for all intents and purposes. Metallica pulled it off where Megadeth failed to do so.

That said, a lot of people have a lot more respect for Megadeth as a result because they didn't end up sounding like "cock rock" in the process.

BostonB

Just because you like/dislike the new style of a band, doesn't mean you dislike them because they are popular. For me, for both of these bands, I find more of their earlier stuff interesting than I do their more recent stuff. Thats not to say I don't like all their newer stuff. Just less of it. I could care less if its popular. Over exposure is different.

Motley Crue

lord lucan wrote: »

the napster thing will never die:D

You are right there. Never before in history have a band tried to prosecute fans for listening to and supporting their own music. They may not have been monitarily supporting it but it was giving kids who couldn't afford to buy their albums the chance to be introduced to them.

RoosterIllusion

ShawnRaven wrote: »

They were great at one point, Superunknown ruined them
Superunknown was a good album, just didn't quite measure up to the lofty standards of BadMotorFinger. Soundgarden are a classic case of setting the bar too high to the point where they can't reach it anymore. Thankfully they didn't attempt too many times and just called it quits.

Pearl Jam on the other hand, stuck to what they knew and worked with it. No mess, no fuss, just awesome music.

Down on the upside is my favourite album. I find it depressing, and I like that as it reminds of when I first started listening to it.

Yeah I always thought Pearl Jam were great. I only listened to binaural a few days ago, having shunned it because I disliked Yield and No Code so much. Turns out to be (almost) a Vitalogy beater, Vitalogy being my favourite album.