no yu begin wher i end

I had just got to my first class after running club in grade 8 when a friend of mine told me what happened. I really didn't appreciate the enormity of it at that moment, suffice it to say.

It's funny because the first time I heard Rock Machine on the radio, I thought it was Treble Charger. True story.

Christian > Dave, IMO, from what I've heard with Matt.

I remember exactly. I was watching Much on Demand, and someone had sent in a Vote-o-matic dealie to commemmorate their break-up or something like that. I didn't look too much into it at the time, since I was only in grade 8 at the time, and I really only bought AoB for the singles (yeah, I used to be one of them). But the cool thing was, was that I liked a few other songs on it and put it away for about 6 months or so, then later I took it out again around when Weapon came on the radio and listened to it and it totally blew me away.

Similar to how Nirvana "ripped off" the Pixies. Arcade Fire were the band that really opened the door for a lot of Canadian indie bands. Just as an example of that, Time magazine had a cover story on them, which was followed by a 5 page feature on Canadian indie bands such as Stars, The Organ, DFA 1979, Metric, etc. Of course. Getting back somewhat to the original topic of this thread, I would love to see some of my favourite indie bands getting the recognition I feel they deserve. That's part of what being a fan is about (and quite frankly, it feels good to share music with friends).

I fail to see how those bands (MGB, OLP, Moist, etc.) are carbon copies of each other and got famous by replicating each other's sound. Just saying that they were all alternative bands is, at best, grasping at loose ends. You might as well then say that the Stars are ripping off the Arcade Fire because both bands are from the same scene that Arcade Fire made popular around the world. I don't find anything wrong with a musician opening doors for others to follow through, it happens all the time (hmm...probably should've saved the Nirvana example for this post). You've said time and time again that Matthew Good is not marketable because he cannot make quality music. Not in those exact words, and I'm not putting words in your mouth. I couldn't agree more. This is probably why the big labels are starting to lose money on their "investments" and we're seeing a resurgence in indie bands gaining mainstream exposure.

Oh, then I don't know. I do know that Big City Life was leaked about a month before it was released, if that helps you at all.

You'll never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator. This is what is wrong with the big labels. It's why the mainstream is continually fed musicians without an ounce of diversity. What the majority of people like changes every few years. They liked hair metal and 80s pop, then grunge, then bubblegum pop, then rap-rock, post grunge and pop punk, now hip hop and rap. Every so often, an innovative/influential musician such as Kurt Cobain or Eminem will come along with something new and fresh that will sell on its artistic merit and literally dozens of imitators will spring up to capitalise on their popularity. Backstreet Boys were molded from the same formula as the New Kids on the Block. Virtually every popular rock band today are sonically indebted to Green Day or Pearl Jam in one way or another. Why mess with success? Why take chances? Interesting fact: it's cheaper for a record label to support a band that may only have one hit album in them as compared to supporting the career of a moderately performing star. I think that it's been proven time and again that the music-buying majority are sheep. After Nirvana, there was Pearl Jam (Ten had actually been out for about year before Nevermind was released), STP, etc. Not that I'm slighting those bands, but a large part of their popularity had to do with Nirvana's initial success. After Backstreet Boys there was N'Sync, 98

A couple commercials, and a promo site. That's about the extent of it.

I always thought of it as him saying, "I'm doing this for you, dear," So I guess that's why I find it romantic. Fair enough, everyone interprets things differently. That's the great thing about music. ;)

I always thought of it as him saying, "I'm doing this for you, dear," So I guess that's why I find it romantic. I also think that it has a bit of a sense of desperation to it, where he's begging her not to leave him.

I have a feeling that Song for the Girl won't be played at many shows in the future.

Romantic, nostaligic, I think the two can often be connected (as in Suburbia, for example). Romantic songs: It's Been A While Since I Was Your Man, Song For The Girl, Fearless, Jenni's Song, Truffle Pigs, The Rat Who Would Be King, Inescapable Us. Probably more. Generation X-Wing.

Oh snap, and I own that one, too ;) !

Yeah, AoB, with the band (which I thought we weren't discussing). Of course the label would try to push AoB after seeing what a big seller Beautiful Midnight was. Its singles weren't very radio-friendly. I remember seeing a few Avalanche promos, but hardly one for WLR&RR, and a couple TV spots for In A Coma. Another aspect of support comes in the form of a website. The only actual website that the label supported was the AoB-era site. The Avalanche secret site died because MG didn't want to write exclusive material. The IaC website was a good step, but chances are that if you weren't a reader of his blog then you wouldn't have heard about it as easily. The quirky butterflies ate their way to kingdom come. They pranced on yellow candystick plutonium rods. I wrote that in 4 seconds. It could probably be interpreted in a number of different ways, but I can tell you right now that it took zero talent to come up with that. You probably wouldn't call it genius. I'm sure if I was Thom Yorke, most people would. I take it from your last bit then that you don't dig Lohan or Nickelback. Why did they succeed in selling so many records then if, as you put it, MG received "no more, and no less than anyone else" in terms of support from the label? It's all fun to grumble "he might as well be writing Nickelback and Lohan songs," but with what else you had to say, you really didn't address my reply. Besides, if he was writing those songs, would he sell more? If you look at most of the newer, popular Canadian artists who're making a name for themselves on the international level, you'll find that most of them are on indie labels. Why is that, do you think? I'd assume that it's because "major Canadian" labels are bound to their foreign parent companies to push the large American acts, saving very little resources left to be spent on the smaller names. Again, why spend time and money on aging alt-rockers when you can spend it on a bodacious blonde or redhead who is willing to pop out of her top and wail out of tune pop songs?

12/10 Colbert rocks my socks.

You're serious. Ummm...ok...so I suppose that WLR&RR and Avalanche were given the same amount of marketing, money, and advertising time as, say, Lindsay Lohan or the Pussycat Dolls? The answer is no. How many ads did you see on TV or in magazines or heard on the radio for MG, and then compare that to Pussycat Dolls and Lindsay Lohan. I'm assuming for a moment that you don't hold those two in very high regard, although you're saying that a good record will sell, regardless of marketing. If not, then what do you mean? The same company was behind him, but that doesn't mean that they devoted themselves equally to him. WLR&RR was not promoted out the wazoo. I saw the Alert Status Red video once on MMM, and the rest of the promotion was strictly radio play. Avalanche was better, and it sold reasonably well for being so unaccessible. Sure, the videos were in medium rotation, but other than that and the radio play they got, there wasn't much else. By broken record, do you mean every song sounding the same? Every song being overtly political? PS - I assume you find Nickelback, Creed, Limp Bizkit, 50 Cent, Hillary Duff, Simple Plan, Good Charlotte et al. interesting then? If so, then I apologize for my tirade. Bingo. Just because a lyric isn't difficult to interpret doesn't make it bland or stupid. WLR&RR is a blunt record for, "blunt times" (from an some interview). In my opinion, he's forcefully speaking his mind, and when one does that, they don't bandy about with multiple interpretation and obscure metaphors. They say, "this is what I'm thinking. Deal with it." And come back on the soapbox. The more the merrier.

ha ha! I like that. I've listened to Matt since the very beginning. I think that music was right for it's time, and for the age he was then. I can understand the idea that the dynamic between the band members may have brought some inspiration Matt wouldn't have had solo; but the SONGS were written by him. It doesn't matter who is around, if his style of writing (and taste in music) has completely changed. You're right - the style and form of songs of the Beautiful Midnight era were fitting for the time of its release. But, didn't Genn co-write a lot of the music? Yeah, he co-wrote most of it.

Noise 678

I think maybe why a lot of people aren't really digging the new tracks is because of how they were debuted, which was, of course, solo acoustic, but that's probably the only reason why they are solo acoustic. I'm pretty sure that he'd fill them out somehow, with a band or what have you. His new songs have some asolutely killer lyrics and melodies, so really I think all your "fears" are for naught.

Sea men 78

Yeah, and I like how the Democrat who smacked her down was pretty hot.

Mine's bigger.

Really, that's through no fault of his own. Universal also has Lindsay Lohan, Hillary Duff, Audioslave, Nelly Furtado, G-Unit, and a ton more. What makes these musicians more marketable than MG? Hint: you will never go broke appealing to the lowest common denominator. Album sales mean jack, artistically speaking. Personally, I think that if an "unmarketable" musician wants to sell more records, then they're better off on an indie label who doesn't have the big budget that Universal or Sony do, and therefore have to find ways to market their artists competitivly other than big budget videos and huge marketing campaigns. There wasn't a whole lot of marketing done for In A Coma or WLR&RR, but hey. Why advertise an outspoken musician who's doing what he wants - whether it falls into the mainstream or not - when you can send a beautiful redhead out to all the talkshows to bare her assets and sing syrupy songs that anyone can understand without exerted an ounce of brainpower. A Britney Spears music video has a budget in the millions. MG got $60,000 for Alert Status Red, and that video didn't end up the way he wanted at all. I saw the video once on Much More Music. Matt - and a myriad of other musicians - are unmarketable not through anything they're doing, but more because of what the big label is doing. He probably wouldn't mind it, but would be indifferent to it. MGB did have a Top 40 hit with Hello Time Bomb, although it didn't get very far because the band themselves didn't do a whole lot to support it. I recall an interview where he said that he, in effect, sabotaged the release of Beautiful Midnight in the US so it wouldn't be a hit (messed up tracklisting, no real tour) and he could stay in Canada. Breaking big into the US brings additional pressure onto an artist and really, there's not much room for creative diversity once you're out there. Of course, there are exceptions, but once you're pigeon-holed, you're pretty much stuck. Several people on here have commented that the like his music because each album has its own unique sound and doesn't sound like the last one. Would he have creative freedom like that if he made it big in the US? I never once said there was a formula. He would if he could? You still haven't told me what a hit song is. You just don't sit down and say, "hmm...I think I'll write a song that will appeal to the masses." There is no way to guarantee that a song will sell, no matter how good it is. "Hit" has an ever-changing definition, as anything could be a hit. Earlier, you rightly said that it's hit and miss. This is a contradiction of you saying that if someone could write hit songs, then they would. If a song has the potential to be a hit, but it doesn't become one, then it's not a hit. I'm not putting words in your mouth. How did you think "past his prime" would be taken? 99.9% of the people reading this probably didn't think it meant he was no longer marketable. Of course he's no longer marketable, but not for the reasons you offer up. You offer up no explanation for "if he could write a hit, he would," other than just repeating it verbatim. That statement is ignorant and insulting, not just to MG, but to every other artist who struggles in the music business trying to get a break. An entire marketing machine? Seriously? And no, it doesn't really say much, unless you're willing to say similar things about the Pussycat Dolls, 50 Cent, Backstreet Boys, Nickelback, Simple Plan, Good Charlotte, Avril Lavigne, Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson, Paris Hilton, Limp Bizkit, etc. That's only part of it. There's more to it than that, and it's been beaten to death plenty of times on this board. People are willing to buy socially concious music, as you correctly stated earlier with Sum 41 and Billy Talent. People can relate to his music.

You pretty much did with this: "I think that if Matt Good was capable of chart toppers in the U.S., he'd write them, but he's not." What do you mean by that, if you don't mean that there isn't a specific formula to a guaranteed hit? To offer up the suggestion that it indicates Matthew Good is past his prime is ignorant and completely ignores that there is literally tons of great music that follows the same formula as a generic pop song of verse-chorus-verse but never receives recognition. Let's take a look at 'Jumbo Jet Headache' by Limblifter for a second as an example. It follows a pretty clear formula followed by a good deal of hits. It's a pretty good tune, but how high did it chart in the US? In Canada? Does this mean that LL are past their prime? BTW to answer your question as to why I brought them up, it's because you're a fan of them, and they aren't popular in the mainstream anymore like MG is. There's a difference between not wanting your music to sell well and not caring if it sells well or not. Take for example the album 'Yankee Hotel Foxtrot' by Wilco. They were dropped by a major label for refusing to make it more accessible, and were picked up by a small indie label. The record went on to be at or near the top of most critic's Best Of lists for 2002 and has sold quite well. I never said that MG is trying to write music that won't sell. I'm saying that just because some music isn't immediately accessible doesn't mean it can't be a hit. I vehemently disagree with your opinion. Anything more to say to you.