In the early days they were a hybrid of two sorts of group. The first are bands overly obsessed with commercial success and the second is artists who scoffed (or at least pretended to) their noses at trends. They stuck to their guns early on but were commercially successful with it. Later on they became far more mainstream, probably when it stopped being new to them and settled into a very commercially-friendly groove.
[/QUOTE]
madprofessorus · Member since
Sure it was,although in the 70s they combined well commercial success with art,later somehow missed it,and when they came back...Freddie left this world :-((
Nathan H · Member since
If Queen continued their 70s sound throughout the 80s, their music from that period would be forgotten. They had to do it to keep people interested. So, yes as time went on they did go commercial - songs like Radio Ga Ga and I Want To Break Free are certainly more "pop" then Keep Yourself Alive and Liar. I'm not saying their 80s music is bad or used market research to see what people liked, because IMO a lot of their "pop" songs are quite good and seem to have a more timeless quality to them compared to other songs.
But then having said that, they have had more chart success in the UK with albums then singles.
RobbyBloodshed · Member since
Being a “commercial band” can lead to one of two things...Still an amazing band, who’ve kept their overall identity, just trying to adapt to the time’s audience...or it can mean that they lost what their strongpoints were and abandoned what fans fell in love with when they first heard them.
Queen definitely became a commercial band, but in my opinion still sounded like “Queen”. They still kept trademarks (even if they executed them in different styles), but overall adapted to what was needed to sell.
A band like the Ramones, another great example of that. They definitely went “commercial” with Rock N Roll Highschool and Pet Sematary, but still overall sounded like the Ramones.
Bands that went with the times, but totally abandoned what their identities..Green Day, for the past 5 releases. Dookie was considered selling out, but it is still a great pop punk album, which held onto their original roots, but executing it for a mass audience. Their newest releases are 100% catering to the radio and sound like garbage. If you put on their newest release “Father Of All Motherfuckers” there would be no way of identifying it was Green Day. It has none of their trademarks, it is typical radio nonsense.
That’s just my opinion anyways, I just always hear “commercial” and people throw it around with a negative connotation.
brENsKi · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]RobbyBloodshed wrote:[/b]
Being a “commercial band” can lead to one of two things...Still an amazing band, who’ve kept their overall identity, just trying to adapt to the time’s audience...or it can mean that they lost what their strongpoints were and abandoned what fans fell in love with when they first heard them.
Queen definitely became a commercial band, but in my opinion still sounded like “Queen”. They still kept trademarks (even if they executed them in different styles), but overall adapted to what was needed to sell.
A band like the Ramones, another great example of that. They definitely went “commercial” with Rock N Roll Highschool and Pet Sematary, but still overall sounded like the Ramones.
Bands that went with the times, but totally abandoned what their identities..Green Day, for the past 5 releases. Dookie was considered selling out, but it is still a great pop punk album, which held onto their original roots, but executing it for a mass audience. Their newest releases are 100% catering to the radio and sound like garbage. If you put on their newest release “Father Of All Motherfuckers” there would be no way of identifying it was Green Day. It has none of their trademarks, it is typical radio nonsense.
That’s just my opinion anyways, I just always hear “commercial” and people throw it around with a negative connotation. [/QUOTE]
You make a great point - but (IMO) with a bad example.
I've listened to Green Day from 94-to date, and I'd say that only one small period 1998-2002 did they drift a little (identity-wise).
Everything prior to and since this period is recognisable as trademark Green Day. I'd go further and say that when I hear a new Green Day song for the first time, I can usually tell before a radio DJ says who/what it is.
it's not difficult to see the "Green Day" elements in most of their songs.
RobbyBloodshed · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
You make a great point - but (IMO) with a bad example.
I've listened to Green Day from 94-to date, and I'd say that only one small period 1998-2002 did they drift a little (identity-wise).
Everything prior to and since this period is recognisable as trademark Green Day. I'd go further and say that when I hear a new Green Day song for the first time, I can usually tell before a radio DJ says who/what it is.
it's not difficult to see the "Green Day" elements in most of their songs.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t feel Uno, Dos, Tre, Revolution, or this newest record sounds like Green Day. It’s missing all of what made them so enjoyable, at least to me.
Billie sings with almost a John Lennon impersonation with so much distortion over his voice, you don’t hear Mike’s recognizable lead bass playing, and the mixing/production is lacking without Rob Cavallo’s input.
They strayed with sound on Warning, but it still sounded like Green Day, same with American Idiot - it has a lot new elements yet still sounds like GD (even though I’m not a big fan of that album).
All just my opinion and subjective, you can take it with a grain of salt.
Edit: There’s absolutely no way you can tell me this has a recognizable Green Day sound: [url]https://youtu.be/U3cpdkhtGx0[/url]
pittrek · Member since
I'm a fan of their 80's stuff, but 'i think Dookie was their last good album
