Support Matt Good

[guitarchick]

Naw people know about Matt. They are just too afraid to admit that they listen to him because he's emoish.

[cringleman]

Personally, I take most exception to the idea that's been brought up that if Matt Good could write nothing but hit singles, regardless of what that would mean, artistically, he would.

 

This is an arrogant, trite, and puerile assertion with no backing rationale. Clearly, many very talented musicians, and artists in general, have intentionally produced music and other kinds of art that were meant for things other than financial success. To put it in a less reverent way, if some would prefer, lots of artists are self-righteous enough to intentionally spurn commercial pandering.

 

Beside that, a well-trained monkey could successfully arrange the necessary "musical" components necessary for the instrumental portions of your stock pop-diva hit, and the South Park manatees could write the words.

[ReaperACI]

Naw people know about Matt. They are just too afraid to admit that they listen to him because he's emoish.

He's 'emoish'? How so? I wouldn't say that.

 

Personally, I take most exception to the idea that's been brought up that if Matt Good could write nothing but hit singles, regardless of what that would mean, artistically, he would.

 

This is an arrogant, trite, and puerile assertion with no backing rationale. Clearly, many very talented musicians, and artists in general, have intentionally produced music and other kinds of art that were meant for things other than financial success. To put it in a less reverent way, if some would prefer, lots of artists are self-righteous enough to intentionally spurn commercial pandering.

 

Beside that, a well-trained monkey could successfully arrange the necessary "musical" components necessary for the instrumental portions of your stock pop-diva hit, and the South Park manatees could write the words.

 

I couldn't agree more. Matt Good is good because he's unique and his music has meaning and (bad choice of wording?) can move any given listener much more than the 'mindless' crap out on the radio now.

 

(Thinks back to Matt Good's MMM rant about rap videos)

[soundless_space]

Naw people know about Matt. They are just too afraid to admit that they listen to him because he's emoish.

Haha! Is that supposed to be sarcasm? I'm not good at reading that sort of stuff over the internet.

[Matt]

Matthew Good is no different than your average top 40 rock bands, his music is pretty poppy as is. Beyond that, do you really believe that all "manufactured" songs sell? Of course not, everything's hit, miss, or moderate success in the music industry. Moderate success seems to becoming more miss these days though. But, to say Matthew Good is somehow better than other musicians because of his lyrics is just ridiculous. Take Johnny Cash for example, he wrote tons of social inspired lyrics in with stuff that wasn't so much, and he's far better than Matthew Good is. Billy Talent, Sum 41, etc. write political lyrics and they're popular. K-OS writes "thinking man" lyrics, and he's popular. It's not impossible to be popular and write insightful lyrics. It's simply Matthew Good has not been all that capable lately of connecting with a lot more people.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Matt

[Blender]

no yu begin wher i end

 

that was probably the best way to describe how i feel on this subject..well put!

[Guest Prosis]

Who cares if he's popular or not and why...If you like the music then enjoy! If you don't, you don't...I don't see the debate here...trying to explain the reasons why masses do this or don't do that or listen to this but not that is pointless because there are so many variables involved...

 

I think we should just content ourselves of enjoying what we like!

[guitarchick]

Naw people know about Matt. They are just too afraid to admit that they listen to him because he's emoish.

Haha! Is that supposed to be sarcasm? I'm not good at reading that sort of stuff over the internet.

Yes. It was a joke.

Laugh people.

[Moonlight_Graham]

I think that if Matt Good was capable of chart toppers in the U.S., he'd write them, but he's not. Beyond that, I think he's well past his prime and without the band he's not what he was because the band was the band.

Well past his prime??? He's doing his best stuff right now, along with Avalanche. Doesn't need a band, only for backup.

 

Anyways, it took me about 10 years but i finally made my sister a fan of Matt Good. I stick lots of songs & videos of MG on my MySpace, thats about all i can do right now.

[Shiri]

Who cares if he's popular or not and why...If you like the music then enjoy! If you don't, you don't...I don't see the debate here...trying to explain the reasons why masses do this or don't do that or listen to this but not that is pointless because there are so many variables involved...

 

I think we should just content ourselves of enjoying what we like!

I totally agree.

[andydanger]

i doubt matt wants the kind of popularity he used to have... when the band was big their shtick was strippers, monkey masks, and getting as many people as possible to flip them off at their shows. I don't think a thirty five year old man who we've all come to know in a completely differently light thanks to the blog would want to return to a fanbase like that after having collecting and converting such a different new audience. It may be smaller, but it's probably what he wants.

And anyway i don't think he's been thinking about his own music much lately anyway..

[Matt]

I think that if Matt Good was capable of chart toppers in the U.S., he'd write them, but he's not. Beyond that, I think he's well past his prime and without the band he's not what he was because the band was the band.

Well past his prime??? He's doing his best stuff right now, along with Avalanche. Doesn't need a band, only for backup.

 

Anyways, it took me about 10 years but i finally made my sister a fan of Matt Good. I stick lots of songs & videos of MG on my MySpace, thats about all i can do right now.

His solo stuff is incredibly bland if anything else actually.

[ToadMan]

I wouldn't use bland... it's simply different... raw perhaps, lyrical, deeper...

[no yu begin wher i end]

Whatever. The difference between opinion and fact is being blurred. I'm sure there's a ton of people who could say that Limblifter is bland or Johnny Cash is bland and there'd be an equal amount of people to disagree (I'd be one of them).

[Matt]

My point was that bands could have deep meanings to their lyrics and still be popular, and how did LL get into this? Their lyrics are not all that deep...

[no yu begin wher i end]

My point was that bands could have deep meanings to their lyrics and still be popular, and how did LL get into this? Their lyrics are not all that deep...

That was a point you made, and I agree with it to a certain extent. The bands you mentioned (Sum 41 and Billy Talent) both didn't make it big with songs that had real deep lyrical content. Only once they established themselves with songs about pretty much little more than teen angst and relationships did their more thoughtful music get released as singles. The truth is, is that today there aren't many new musicians with something to say who are popular.

 

Your other point (and the one I'm really taking exception to) was that if a musician could write hits, then they would. This is just ignorant. What makes a hit? Think of Paranoid Android, Stairway to Heaven, November Rain. They were all hits and all well over the 6 minute mark, more than twice the length of the average single. Do you mean accessibility? Again, Paranoid Android comes to mind, as does Weapon and the entire Avalanche record. It is far less accessible than WLR&RR, yet was far more popular. Why was that? Declining interest in his music? Probably. Why did interest in his music decline? That horse has been beaten to death over and over here so I won't get into it, but it's certainly not because, as you imply, his songs aren't catchy enough to be hits. WLR&RR is chock full o' hooks, as are several other albums that don't get mainstream exposure. As you rightly pointed out, it's hit and miss most of the time, which directly contradicts your statement that if MG could write a hit, he would.

Edited August 27, 2006 by no yu begin wher i end

[Matt]

All right, I never once said there was a box musicians pull stuff out of to write a hit. But why does a musician write music? It's not so it DOESN'T SELL. To act like Matt Good doesn't want his music to sell well is ridiculous, however, he is well past his prime and simply doesn't have anything really more to say.

[no yu begin wher i end]

All right, I never once said there was a box musicians pull stuff out of to write a hit.

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.

 

But why does a musician write music? It's not so it DOESN'T SELL. To act like Matt Good doesn't want his music to sell well is ridiculous

 

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.

 

he is well past his prime

 

I vehemently disagree with your opinion.

 

and simply doesn't have anything really more to say.

 

Anything more to say to you.

[X-Rated Truffle Pig]

Honestly, I'm selfish when it comes to music. I am perfectly fine with being the only person that I know who listens to Matthew Good.

you got it.

 

that is one of the reasons MGB broke up. matt didn't wanna play those pop songs anymore.

 

he wnats to write and play the songs he likes.

[euphonious]

I would like to turn some more people on to his music, because it does suck when people ask you who your favorite artist is and they havent the slightest idea. but I appreciate not having his music played out on the radio.... and the off chance I do hear something of his it definately stops me in my tracks

 

anyway bland is a miserable way to describe his new stuff. its like what radiohead did, went from rock to a more ambient/electronic basis for songs.

[Matt]

All right, I never once said there was a box musicians pull stuff out of to write a hit.

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.

 

But why does a musician write music? It's not so it DOESN'T SELL. To act like Matt Good doesn't want his music to sell well is ridiculous

 

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.

 

he is well past his prime

 

I vehemently disagree with your opinion.

 

and simply doesn't have anything really more to say.

 

Anything more to say to you.

Yes, Limblifter is past their prime, they have not topped their first CD to date as best I know in sales. That doesn't mean I think it's their best, but my opinion does not matter because it is subjective, the only objective test of if someone is past their prime is through the numbers. Being past ones prime only means they are no longer marketable, Matthew Good is well past that point. However, if he could be marketable in somewhere like the U.S., he would not object, and I doubt being on his own terms would matter either. I never said that there was a box, nor did I imply all I have said is that Matthew Good would if he could. I never said there was a formula, you did. no yu begin wher i end, you can put words in my mouth all you like, but they are your words, not mine. If you like Good's new stuff, that's fine, but an entire marketing maching helped push him and failed to do much, doesn't that say something? Weapon got played a ton on Much and other stations, it's not like he's not getting radioplay, however, he simply does not write a majority of songs that relate to enough people to make him sell more records.

[no yu begin wher i end]

Being past ones prime only means they are no longer marketable, Matthew Good is well past that point.

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.

 

However, if he could be marketable in somewhere like the U.S., he would not object, and I doubt being on his own terms would matter either.

 

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 said that there was a box, nor did I imply all I have said is that Matthew Good would if he could. I never said there was a formula, you did.

 

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.

 

no yu begin wher i end, you can put words in my mouth all you like, but they are your words, not mine

 

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.

 

but an entire marketing maching helped push him and failed to do much, doesn't that say something?

 

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.

 

he simply does not write a majority of songs that relate to enough people to make him sell more records.

 

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.

[Foogle-11]

I think he actually has real lyrics, and mainstream music isnt so much like that.

[Matt]

First off "...Alert Status Red, but the sun comes up instead..." is no more better than any of the current mainstream bands' lyrics, Foogle-11.

 

Also, Matthew Good has the same marketing maching behind him, they did try, but there's only so much you can do with a broken record. Matthew Good has always been outspoken, nothings different, however, he just can't sell. He can't sell though. Why, because he's no longer interesting. He's becoming a broken record, and his music has started to lag in recent years, especially since the band left.

[nerd glasses]

First off "...Alert Status Red, but the sun comes up instead..." is no more better than any of the current mainstream bands' lyrics, Foogle-11.

(Slight hijack, sorry.) I think the simplicity of that lyric is great. He's stating a situation ("ASR") and the 2nd half of the lyric defies what that situation represents to a lot of people easily swayed by governmental propaganda.

Compared to the current mainstream, I have no qualms saying that it's superior. It's a simple, common sense response to something that lacks common sense entirely.

 

*steps off the soapbox*