Where did T? go “wrong”?
Started by Superunknown in General Therapy? Topics on Thu, 27 November 2003 at 12:00
D4AMick wrote:
Hey man. I can´t agree with most of what u wrote. Nothing personal but I think u have gone past a long line of arguments that are just way too unstable. The reason the band not being a large success making millions worldwide surely doesn´t lie within the albums. And lines like: “IL would be more successfull nowadays” might be true but are missing the point. Have you ever played in a band? I don´t think any PROPER band gives much shit about the market out there and whether the album´s gonna sell trillions. They just do music they enjoy. Not for the reason “this is gonna sell” but rather “this is fucking brilliant song”. World is just way too fucked by media, PR and quid. Every single day u hear loads of shit from TV, radio, you read about the “stars” in pop-magazines and even in the newspaper. U´ve got trends and fashion which are no longer products of natural evolution and revolt of youth (as Hippies or Punk are)but rather products of big companies that can quite decide what´s gonna sell. That´s why Britney is out there. Now, add the fact that Lifestyle is faster and the requirements of life ever-growing (make more money to feed the family, do this, do that…). So more and more people are giving in to the easy way of life. They never touch anything but the surface, their kids are on drugs and interruption runs, living a splendid life of never ending fascination and anxiety. In a way they are fucked up in a similar way their parents are. I could keep this bullshit going on for ever and give u more and more examples and even facts. All this just to make a simple point. T? is a band. Band (again - meaning “proper” band) is not a product, can´t be sold. Music is more than a mere conjunction of different tones and tunes. And if the band is gratified by something very rare, but accessible to every single human - something I can´t name for I am not sure how to call it (some call it sense, some call it myth, some call it heavenly image…), then, and only if you are used to (feeling/accepting/sensing…) this (sense/myth…), only if you are “real” enough, you can be led to what lies beyond the tones and words. So the only reason T? is not as big as Britney is is the fact that it is not a mere product, mere something that can be bought, mere collection of cheap tunes and shitty lyrics, that are so easily see-through, that to a “listener” too soon reveal the emptiness of that which was artificially created and misses any link to this “real”. For the “real” band does not create but rather reveals the primary (aboriginal) creation, “opens the channel” as we would say, through which both - band and the audience alike share the experience of “primary”, “real” or “authentic”. Pay a listen to Dancing with Manson and think about what makes it so special…
Posted on Mon, 1 December 2003 at 14:28
JSar666 wrote:
D4AMick, yes, I have played in several bands, and I’m a huge T? fan. If you’d care to look in the tab section of this message board you’d see I’ve tabbed most of the High Anxiety album.
To say any proper band doesn’t care about album sales is a joke. Don’t you think T? want money to sustain themselves? I’m not saying T? will change their style and do a cover of the Macarena to sell albums, but they care about selling albums in the sense that selling albums means they can keep playing music. You’re not going to be able to be a professional musician without some form of income, be that from gigs, merch or CD sales.
I’m not saying Therapy? do think “oh this is going to sell millions, let’s do this”. This is a good thing, don’t get me wrong, I I love the fact that T? have the balls to piss in the face of everything fashionable. But the unwillingness to compromise means that they’ll never be as big as they could have been. This is especially true after the changes in musical trends (both with artists and labels).
A lot of bands stick to their guns, but most that do (there are a few exceptions) don’t become huge in the 15-million-copies-of-one-album-sold sense. But then again, like I’m sure you’ll agree, T? never set out to do this. This whole thread (I believe) wasn’t about where T? went wrong musically, as I’m sure most of us don’t think they ever did go wrong musically, but commercially. And that is what I’ve tried to help point out.
Posted on Mon, 1 December 2003 at 15:11
D4AMick wrote:
Agreed. The question about the band was in no way meant as an insult! Sure, there is the question of compromise. However, it is also a question of price and reward. About the money: I think I expressed myself in a wrong way. Sure the band cares about the profit, for they have to buy food and feed their families the same way we all do (again there goes the question of compromise). But the music itself and the process of its creation are not determined by possible future income. If you believe that the song is good, u mostly (not always) believe it´s gonna be popular=sell accordingly. What I meant to say was - I dont think T, went wrong commercially! Rather I think the market was what went astray alongside with the changes in social organisation (and individual approach towards life and it´s value, which is most obvious on the “value-gap” phenomenon).
Posted on Mon, 1 December 2003 at 15:42
Reverend Savage? wrote:
D4AMick wrote:
And if the band is gratified by something very rare, but accessible to every single human - something I can´t name for I am not sure how to call it (some call it sense, some call it myth, some call it heavenly image…), then, and only if you are used to (feeling/accepting/sensing…) this (sense/myth…), only if you are “real” enough, you can be led to what lies beyond the tones and words.
oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
Couldn’t you just say ‘top quality bollocks’ like the bloke on the DVD?
Posted on Mon, 1 December 2003 at 18:42
Isness wrote:
D4AMick wrote:
So the only reason T? is not as big as Britney is
Nobody’s saying they should be as big as Britney. But, as rock bands go, they’re actually pretty obscure. Ask around, most people will know Pearl Jam, The Screaming Trees, Deftones, lots of rock bands who’ve been around for years. Even if they don’t know their music, most music fans will at least know their name. Therapy? still go relatively unknown, not only in the top ten, but even in a lot of rock circles - certainly in comparison to a lot of bands, anyway. Look at how big T? were in 94/95, and then just four years on, in 98/99, they were no bigger than they are now.
It’s not so much “why aren’t they in the top ten?”, it’s more “why aren’t they in the top ten rock bands?”.
Posted on Mon, 1 December 2003 at 20:03
up_in_flames (Tom) wrote:
they are, they are. T? are the no. 1 rockband :D
Posted on Mon, 1 December 2003 at 20:12
Citizen Erased wrote:
Isness wrote:
they should be as big as Britney
but they don’t have the tits, or the legs I’m afraid to say, to do it :(
Posted on Mon, 1 December 2003 at 20:22
JSar666 wrote:
Oh, right I understand you D4AMick. What I meant was that T? made the wrong commercial decisions by not changing in accordance with trends, and even making a conscious effort to go against them at points.
Speaking of Britney Spears (and God knows why we are on a Therapy? board), it amazes me that her new single is fucking awful, regardless of genre, and yet it’s all over TV. ARrrrggh.
Top Quality Bollocks! I loved that bit:) I liked the bit where Andy was going “are you clappin’ at me?” LOL I love Taxi Driver.
Posted on Mon, 1 December 2003 at 21:43
D4AMick wrote:
LOL! Got me there! Sure it´d be easier! :-) Yeah I see your point 666, still - I think they just went their way. SPYF might not be comercially best think but well Jam Jar Jail and Sister and 6 Mile Water sure are among the best songs I have heard… But yes, mostly I agree that in terms of business they are not good thinkers. At the same time, I dont mind :).
Posted on Mon, 1 December 2003 at 22:48
Citizen Erased wrote:
I like the guy on the DVD who goes ‘I heard they were dead’
Posted on Tue, 2 December 2003 at 22:49
Don't Call Me Honey wrote:
Bad Karma wrote:
Most people think they split up after Infernal Love.
most people I know think therapy? were great in 1993, but have been rubbish ever since. which is just as far off the mark, really.
and what annoys me most about it (though that’s a bit off topic) is that this seems to be less of an opinion than a prejudice. not “I’ve listened and I really don’t like it” (fair enough, everyone’s entitled to their opinion), but “therapy? are so last decade, daaaahling, I wouldn’t be seen dead listening to them anymore.”
i.e. it’s a hipness thing. maybe I’m not so off topic at all…
I am ranting though, aren’t I? sorry. :rolleyes:
Posted on Wed, 3 December 2003 at 00:24
JSar666 wrote:
I’m sure the guy that goes “I heard they’re dead” thought it was being taped for TV and not for a DVD. Which is why he flips the camera off and goes “who cares about TV?”. I bet he doesn’t feel so smug after seeing himself on camera being stuck-up:)
Yeah, T? are no longer “trendy”… they’re “too old” in an age-ist industry and they’re not willing to suck enough cock (metaphorically) and become one of those awful thrift-store bands like Hot Hot Heat or whatever crap passes of as rock music these days. But thank fuck for a band like them.
Posted on Wed, 3 December 2003 at 08:30
Gemil wrote:
Title: Part of the problem has been the line-up changes
When Fyfe left, it was a complete shock, because that was when they were just really breaking it big.
Andy has gone on record as saying he doesn’t really like Infernal Love, and you could construe that as an admission that they did make the wrong album after Troublegum.
Having said that, Fyfe could easily have drummed Semi Detached, but after that, when their style changed from power pop to the full on metal assault of SP - YF, I doubt whether the original line up could have continued; therefore Graeme came in and gave them a different dimension, allowed them to come up with different time structures and segways in their music which didn’t exist when Fyfe was in the band and altered their perception.
They started to play the ‘fuck you’ music of SP - YF through to Shameless, which were much less commercially acceptable, but a full on rock ‘n’ roll albums.
Now, on High Anxiety, yoiu can hear a slight return to the earlier days, with If It Kills Me, Stand In Line, and Hey Satan! You Rock, for example, proving that they’ve had their darker period, and now they want to go back to the slightly more fun, typical Therapy? style - awesome lyrics, great versus and kick ass choruses.
To me, that’s what T? have always been about, from Punishment Kiss, Dancin’ With Manson and Potato Junkie through the singles laden Troublegum, right up to now.
Even the so called darker albums had their single potential moments - Jam Jar JaiI and I Am The Money for example - and if the music industry wasn’t as fucked up as it is, these would have enjoyed massive airplay because they’re awesome and unlike all other music out there.
Posted on Wed, 3 December 2003 at 15:37
JSar666 wrote:
Tell me about it Gemil. I used to work at a radio station and we’d get all these singles by pre-manufactured pop shite and these indie losers who where hyped as “the future of rock music. <Insert band name> sound like the best bits of the Stones and the Byrds played with the fury of the Clash” when in reality it should have said “4 skinny guys in bad jeans playing one chord over and over with one string slighty out of tune with drumming that sounds like Phil Collins”. I never get why a band like T? or say Machine Head aren’t all over the charts. I thought “I Am The Money” would be a fairly big hit.
I mean, you get the odd good band on a major label, hell is for heroes are pretty good and they’re on EMI, but the majors don’t seem to want to plug any rock good bands on the radio :( :mad:
Posted on Wed, 3 December 2003 at 20:05
Kids Stuff wrote:
Gemil wrote:
Andy has gone on record as saying he doesn’t really like Infernal Love, and you could construe that as an admission that they did make the wrong album after Troublegum.
But hasn’t Andy also criticised Troublegum and Semi-Detached at various points as well? I certainly got the impression on the SP - YF tour that at that point in time he wasn’t that impressed with either…at the Camden gig he definitely said something along the lines that they only still played Troublegum stuff because that’s what we wanted hear (the implication being that they didn’t actually want to play them). The cynic in me would suggest that the fact that all throughout the tour they were getting crowd members to sing Nowhere (and in one instance, play the guitar parts) indicates that they, or Andy at least, didn’t really want to be playing that song in particular. Thus, I wouldn’t necessarily take that as an admission that Infernal Love was the wrong album to make.
In fact, I’ve always considered Infernal Love a pretty successful album…admitedly it didn’t send T? stratospheric, and it probably didn’t retain some of the fans of Troublegum, but the singles didn’t do too badly, and in terms of profile within the rock industry, I reckon the Infernal Love period was when they were at the biggest. I think the gap between IF and SD and the whole A&M thing was probably more damaging.
And thinking about it, I don’t really like the term “wrong album”. It does sort of imply that the music isn’t all that matters. And I don’t think that’s ever been the case with T? Infernal Love is simply the natural sound of the band at that point in time (Fyfe becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the fame thing; Andy in his own words “losing it a bit”)…I don’t think they could have made a different album if they tried. And besides, something that good can’t be wrong! :)
Posted on Wed, 3 December 2003 at 23:41
zero nero wrote:
i dont think anyone has mentioned this yet..
therapy? arnt exactly “sexually attractive”,(well not very) as individuals.
and its a shame but thats what sells, sex and machoism for the boys and slutty and leggy for the girls.
if i’m remembering correctly someone in A+M said the following of andy,
“he’s not goodlooking, they will never make it”
imho, therapy? are a huge sucess, how a band can stay together as long as they have, and still be fresh and sell out concerts, make albums, influence other bands, survive record various companies, and still have a fantastic future in prospect is totally amazing and a credit to them as people.
These others you think are making millions, well they are but for someone else. Its a big charade, all these popstar cribs you see, are owned by the companies, these pop shits have a shelf life and it ends very quickly for them.
Another band still doin what they want and for the last 25 years and regularly take shit from the press and cunts, are stiff little fingers, true punk if you ask me, doin exactly what they want and still writing new music all these years on.
Besides, album sales make money just for the companies, and singles actually lose money. The money for the band is in gigs and merchandise, complete respect to t?, true twisted punk metal, doin their own thing when and where they want.
T? fans remind me in some bizarre way of man’o’war fans, fiercely loyal but in t?’s case have a brain.
Posted on Thu, 4 December 2003 at 00:06
Superunknown wrote:
Liam & Noel Gallagher, Thom Yorke, James Dean Bradfield, Bruce Dickinson… are they good looking?
And to whoever said Andy doesn’t want to sing “Nowhere” anymore: I think that’s what he wanted to tell us by singing “I’m sick and tired of Going Nowhere!”.
Posted on Thu, 4 December 2003 at 00:39
tatty seaside town wrote:
For some girls for sure … And the music industry knows that … this is the reason they sell more!
Some girls even want a “Noel Gallagher” … don´t know why … perhaps his eyes?
arghhh … iehhhhhhhhh …
Posted on Thu, 4 December 2003 at 00:48
up_in_flames (Tom) wrote:
In my personal view it was the gap between IL and SD that killed the band big-moneywise…and for my taste IL was way too clean produced, but wtf??
but, you have to bear in mind that this gap was provoked by a drummer-change and the introducing of a second guitarist. (and that’s good, ‘cos when I listen to old bootlegs nowadays they soud empty and somehow boring without martin).
I consider their so called come-back SP-YF as their best album so far, even if it didn’t sell millions of copies. just because it’s honest and has a ‘fuck you attitude’ if there is one.
oh, and I like it the way it is now, that they constantly release great music and tour, including the close fan contact without turing into so called ‘rock stars’ (as a certain robie williams is entiteled to)
well, they don’t make shitloads of money like linkin-korn or other buttheads, but they seem to have fun and make a living out of their music, so KEEP ON ROCKIN’ lads.
cheers, it’S late, dawn is closing in…
Posted on Thu, 4 December 2003 at 00:50
D4AMick wrote:
JSar666 wrote:
they’re not willing to suck enough cock (metaphorically) and become one of those awful thrift-store bands
And I am sure they are not really in for sucking the right cocks (literally)… :)
PS: But attitude - you don´t like us, here, see what this finger means? Yes, you are a dickhead - is good enough. BTW T? are not sexy? Please our gay friends! Speak up! Is Eminem any sexier than T??? Not sure…
Posted on Thu, 4 December 2003 at 00:59
Roni wrote:
it’s all about the singles !!!!!!
this i am sure of !!!!!
“diane” was not a mistake - it was the first t? single ever to get into the top 20 mtv european chart!
“church of noise” shouldn’t have been a single !!!!
that’s the first and biggest mistake.
if “lonely cryin only” was the first single to come out, things could have been very different right now!
second big mistake - i still don’t understand how “6 mile water” wasn’t a single ?!?!?!? it’s the perfect charts song!!
let’s face it guys, our own favorite songs are not the songs that most people out there would like and that’s why i think that we all did a damage to the band by voting “hey satan you rock” to be next single cause that’s not something people would like - “nobody here but us” could go to MTV with no problems with the right promotion.
Posted on Thu, 4 December 2003 at 09:37
JSar666 wrote:
First of all, thank you guys for giving me something interesting to read every day at work:)
zero nero, you are completely right about single sales. Not only is the recording expensive, especially with pop stars who need to retake and tweak the track over and over until it suits 14-year-old girls’ taste, but the videos, artwork, adverts and other promotion, retail mark-up etc etc means that singles lose money, unless you’re someone like Cliff Richards who sells so many copies that these overhead costs are pushed down.
Albums are apparently not so high on profit either. I saw a shocking statistic on http://www.riaa.com (or was it http://www.ifpi.com ?) that VERY few new albums make a profit. In fact, profits traditionally come from having a strong-selling back catalogue where all the promotional and recording costs have been sunk. This is why new labels usually have years of loss until profits are obtained.
These popstars make the labels a lot of money, but without the grass-roots fan base of a band like Therapy?, as soon as they get too old to appeal to teens and their album sales drop, they’re dropped too, while a band like T? can go on for a much longer period. I mean, they’re not on a major playing enormodomes, but they’re still professional musicians. As opposed to that band Hear’Say, whose only lines are now probably “do you want fries with that?”
Think about it. Black Sabbath formed in 1969 and while they’ve kinda split up, their albums still sell at a solid rate and are considered legends. Name me ONE pop band of that era (and I’m not talking bands like the Beatles, I mean full-on crap like the Carpenters) that has that kind of appeal and legendary status.
I was actually reading an interview with T? in Select Magazine from 1997 last night and Michael was quoted as saying “what we do on one album, we shy away from on the next”. I definitely got the impression that during the SP-YF period, Andy didn’t like Troublegum or IL. Btw, how were the live renditions of “Nowhere” across the tour? In Glasgow the kid that sung was too nervous to sing anything apart from “Going Nowhere” over and over, while the guitarist didn’t play the correct rhythmn and couldn’t play the solo. I’d have offered my services myself, but I’m left-handed :) *cough*excuses, excuses*cough*
I always think the high profile of the IL album was due to the success of Troublegum. I think that no matter what they’d released as a follow-up to Troublegum, especially one released so closely to it, it would have gathered a media stir. Big bands can release crap and it will still get attention (you know who these are :) ) I remember reading an interview with Andy and he said that during the IL days when he did coke and other drugs, he once ended up sitting on a beach speaking to geese and they were actually speaking back :) :rolleyes:
And yes, I’m sure none of the T? boys suck actual cock either ;)
Oh and the Gallagher brothers ARE considered something of an acquired taste, but they do have admirers.
Thom Yorke.. I went to see radiohead play on their last UK tour in May.. ish and you would not believe the amount of female admirers he has. The girl I went with said that he is the most beautiful man she has ever seen and my ex-gf thought I looked like him. It was meant as a compliment :p
(For the record, I look nothing like him.)
James Dean Bradfield - one of my friends is a Manics nut and while she loves Richey and Nickey, she does have a wall in her bedroom full of James photos. I shit you not.
Bruce Dickinson - same Manics fan thinks he’s gorgeous. Especially in his fencing outfit. She doesn’t like Iron Maiden though.
Although having said that, Michael was in Gagging For A Shagging in Kerrang! when S-D came out and there were actually two girls throwing love-letters to him when they played the Liquid Rooms in Edinburgh on the Shameless tour.
And while I was leafing through an old issue of Kerrang!, someone described Graham Hopkins as “cute”.
I’ve not heard anyone say anything very flattering about Andy’s looks though, and I guess having a good-looking frontman is more important, seeing as he’s the one who’s the natural focus at gigs and in videos.
Posted on Thu, 4 December 2003 at 09:44
Don't Call Me Honey wrote:
I think you’re missing the point a bit about the attractivity thing.
every member of every band has some female admirers (*suppresses urge to throw in gratuitous “except < insert arseface of your choice here >”-type comment*) - creativity is attractive, and then… horses for courses, and all that. I mean, Thom Yorke? I’d run a mile, but there you go. and the therapy?-lads are certainly no less attractive than any other bunch of random blokes in a band.
but they’re not poster boys - they’re never going to sell records because of their looks. that doesn’t have much to do with what they actually look like, I don’t think; it’s more that you have to be the right kind of person to allow yourself to be marketed like that. (having no personality and enjoying being a bit of a facade seem to help here…).
this may well reduce t?’s appeal in the 14-year-old teenage girl market, but I don’t think that’s the kind of success anyone here is talking about anyway ;)
Posted on Thu, 4 December 2003 at 15:19
motherh666 wrote:
I think they are poster boys in a more psychotic way with glaring eyes and cheeky grins. Nothing a girl would flick herself off to (I would imagine), but still photogenic to some degree.
I believe the record company should really have tried a little harder with the single release and put a good video behind it. If you watch T? videos, 75% of them are just videos of them rocking in different coloured rooms, this time a blue-screen with images behind them. The video seems cheap and rushed. The videos for Loose and Diane were, in my humble opinion, works of art. Whatever anyone thought of the music, the videos were definitely a talking point and interesting to watch. If it kills me is a cracking tune, but the video is shite. As you can easily see on MTV2 and the others is that you do not need a lot of cash to make an interesting and cool video, you just need some effort and a good idea, which I think is why we never saw it as much as we should have.
A bit more effort on the next video and some more concerted effort from the record company would go a long way.
I might be talking out my arse so excuse me. :)
Posted on Thu, 4 December 2003 at 15:29
JSar666 wrote:
Hey Gwyneth Paltrow is banging Chris Martin, so who the fuck am I to criticise anyone? :)
I agree with you Don’t Call Me Honey about looks, but I do think T? have quite a good image. Black-clad rockers that seem to enjoy rocking out more than life itself might not be a very original image, but I have to admit that when I look onstage at a T? gig it does make me excited. Not in that way :p :rolleyes:
And I also agree that some T? videos have been perhaps a bit lacking. I think the video poll on this board speaks for itself. The old ones have something of a comedy value though ;)
Posted on Thu, 4 December 2003 at 17:03
Citizen Erased wrote:
zero nero wrote:
take shit from the… cunts
Well you didn’t get an A in biology did you?
Sarcasm aside, you raise some good points, although I think that the looks thing hasn’t necessarily been quite such a drawback as it would be for Take That or someone “aiming” at that type of market.
Choice of singles though… hmm, we could argue this one back and forth as no doubt between us all most T? songs would get at least one vote (except Dance, sorry BB :))
Videos - yeah the Church of Noise and L,CO ones were good, but not pushed enough. The ones of the ‘3/4 guys playing’ were never going to do that much for helping the sales roll in though.
As for the success of IL - I <think> it went top 5 or at least top 10 in the UK, but didn’t outsell Troublegum - if it had, then I suspect A&M’s subsequent treatment of the band may have been better.
Posted on Thu, 4 December 2003 at 17:23
Create a free account and become a member of the message boards. Sign in if you’re already a member.