Memnoch wrote:And they really aren't on a "small label", because Spinefarm is a part of Universal Records.
Understood. However, being part of the Universal family and having Universal invested in your success are two very different things (as I suspect you know). A song like the one in question would require a serious push on Top 40 radio for it to be a game-changer and I imagine Universal have bigger fish to fry.
Memnoch wrote:Even if they did try and make music that sells, it's unfair to say that's the band's main motivation. Disco and metal are so far apart that, if anything, daring to mix those two together is stupid from a financial point of view.
What you’re calling “disco”, I would call “pop”. And while distilled versions of each are indeed far, far apart on a musical spectrum, it’s hardly a new idea to dress up pop melodies in a metal aesthetic. It’s actually a combination that’s often proved very financially viable (see the mid to late 1980s).
Memnoch wrote:There's a lot less money in metal, so why on earth would anyone in their right mind use metal to make money?
I think there are bands that view metal as a good place to become a big fish in a small pond, especially those that are commercially minded. It’s also easier to do than to break through the unflinching machinery of the Top 40 universe. That usually requires the types of connections that most musicians simply don’t enjoy.
Memnoch wrote:It would be a lot easier to do what Slayer is doing: make the same album time and time again to get the metalheads' cash.
To say it’s “easier” is to ignore that “Step 1” to getting to make the same album over and over again is you first need to write a genre redefining record. That’s a little tougher. If Amaranthe can churn out a record that rivals “Reign in Blood” I’ll forgive them their transgressions. And while I’ll confess to having never been a Slayer fan, I do give them a pass for writing the same record over and over, as I don’t think they’re capable of much else.
Memnoch wrote:It's almost that, in my opinion, staying true to your roots or style is the money-hungry approach - if you've got that first taste of success with it.
Although I think that’s an interesting thought, I still disagree. Let’s take for example the band most often criticized for writing the same record over and over again; Amon Amarth. For starters, Amon Amarth defined their own sound in a sub-genre where there isn’t a lot of flexibility. Second, they persevered with that style long before it started making them any money. Third, who’s to say they’re capable of sounding any different? Perhaps this is simply who they are? Fourth, although the quality varies from record to record, by and large they keep delivering quality records. And how can anyone consider writing a quality record, which is also the exact type of record the fanbase wants, money-hungry? I mean, does anyone want a record called “Amon Amarth sings the Blues”? Perhaps Amon Amarth presents “Dancehall Days”?
Although I will agree there are bands who release records on a pre-defined cycle to justify another tour and keep the machinery rolling, I don’t view that in the same negative light. I think Slayer (for example) would love to write another classic record, they’re just not capable. They’re being true to who they are. The problem is that who they are just isn’t very good any more.