Support Matt Good

[Prometheon]

I've always kind of disliked the chorus to ASR as well, but the rest of the lyrics to that song are fantastic.

 

Edit: OK, maybe not "I ask but the store clerk needen't check." WTF was that all about?

Edited September 4, 2006 by Prometheon

[no yu begin wher i end]

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.

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.

 

(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*

 

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.

[Matt]

If anything it takes a real talent to write vague lyrics and still be able to associate them to something else. It's not about how obvious you are, anyone can be obvious, it's far tougher to write something that the listener has to decipher. I saw Universal push Matthew Good's solo stuff and The Band's AOB, I saw ads and whatnot, no more or less than anyone else. He was political before, however, he wasn't so in anyone's face so much about it unless that's what the listener wanted. Alert Status Red was a bunch of catch phrases thrown together, that's not all that tough to do. He may as well been writing a Nickleback, Lohan, etc. song.

[no yu begin wher i end]

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?

[cringleman]

You know, after spending a year or so watching some of the best competetive debaters in Canada, I can tell you whose arguments are floundering pretty sadly.

 

NYBWIE (sorry, that's a long damn name to type in its entirety) has formed several clear paths of rational argumentation that you have yet to address, Matt, and I think your shield of 'this opinion is subjective' is wearing quite thin.

 

Let me launch at one specific leg of your ridiculous pedestal of bubbling ire: the subjectivity of artistic quality, as it relates to commercial success.

 

There is no authoritative arbiter of artisitc quality. You can dance around claiming that anything you like is 'good,' but despite the intense (and admitted) subjectivity of art (and music, specifically, as we're talking, here), if you want to enter into debate about something you have to offer rational justification.

 

If you're going to offer justification, it has to be supportable with either pure logic or with fact. You offer commercial success and marketability as your only evidence (despite claiming that sales and marketing don't offer a true perspective on musical quality). Clearly, no one believes that record sales directly reflect an album's quality, or this would be a Nickelback messageboard. In fact, cleary there is no absolute scale of quality for music, because if there were, we'd all listen to whatever was 'best' (why would you listen to less, unless somehow you couldn't?).

 

I've established subjectivity, but here's the kicker: that's not going to stop debate. In fact, subjectivity is the only thing that allows for debate; you can't debate objective facts, and their presentation in a situation like this is only as supporting evidence.

 

Sadly, however, Matt, you've chosen a loaded expression ('past his prime'), and a spurious correlation between that and your 'evidence' (which I'm taking as being marketing force vs. record sales, as you've presented it) to make your point.

 

In summation, I certainly wouldn't have the cohones to say that you have no point; that remains to be seen. What you have is a poorly-constructed and -supported vein of argumentation to support your idea. If you want to say something contentious, like suggesting that Matt Good is past his prime, while surrounded by fans who are dedicated enough to belong to a messageboard beholden to his existence, then you'd probably better have a well-formed concept of exactly why you think that.

 

If you don't like the new songs, that's cool. You don't really need a reason for that -- it's purely intangible. If you think Matthew Good's past his prime because you haven't been particularly enthralled by his music since his split with the band, then that's fine, but you won't get far trying to justify yourself on that one (again, pure opinion -- merely personal taste).

 

When you say he's 'past his prime,' and you really mean that he's past his peak of commercial success (which is foolish, because lots of groups and artists have made surprise comebacks, commercially), then you're just being misleading. That's just like saying, 'hamburgers suck,' when you really mean that you don't like MacDonald's: the two things are only marginally related, and certainly not interchangeable.

 

So: certainly, this is subjective, but if you wish to defend your point of view (which you've been doing, rather defiantly, and admirably so), then you forfeit rights to that as a defence.

 

Can Matt Good write a hit if he wants to? Who knows? I don't think anyone can just sit down and decide to write a hit. Even the marketing committees that are responsble for material like Paris Hilton's and Britney Spears' have difficulty doing so, and, really, only Lennon and McCartney have been more successful at it, this past century, than the marketers.

 

Perhaps it's the current model of the music industry that's long past its prime.

[Blender]

Just to address all of the people who have been saying Matt doesn't get the radio time he deserves and what not...I Don't even listen to the radio...maybe a total of 25 mins a day.. and I have heard Matt Good over 20 times in this week alone, 2 different song on 2 different stations 10 minutes ago. The man gets radio time!

[Matt]

I think past his prime is appropriate, record sales drive the industry, when has there even been an industry based on something that cannot sell? A musician is an investment, very few record companies are looking at making music over making money. It's not about what people like or dislike, it's about what the majority of people like. If it was about how much good music someone can make then bands would not be dropped for selling so few albums. Art may be subjective, but when rationalizing arguments we need to find objective reasons, my reasoning is objective, thus making it an actual arguement. It is nigh impossible to argue subjectives, first year English should teach you that.

[no yu begin wher i end]

A musician is an investment, very few record companies are looking at making music over making money. It's not about what people like or dislike, it's about what the majority of people like.

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

[cringleman]

I think no_yu_begin_wher_i_end just hit the nail on the head. You can legitimately explain a subjective position on a matter (sometimes; at others, you must simply admit that your opinion is just a gut thing), but no one's going to get anywhere, here, talking past each other.

 

NYBWIE and I are working from a different starting point: that the record industry is not the arbiter of quality, as far as music goes. Certainly that's obvious: critics hated Zep (Rolling Stone panned IV, badly), and the industry never did a thing for Dispatch, but you'll find that at their final concert, 100 000 people showed up to an auditorium in Boston based on word of mouth and a posting on an official messageboard (for a free show).

 

The industry dicates neither quality nor popularity, though they try to tell us both (if they could, they'd have found that proverbial golden-egg-laying bird).

 

Perhaps your attempted use of a quantitative measurement makes you feel objective, but you could very well be citing spurious corellations. I'm doing just fine at holding onto my first-year lessons, thank you very much.

 

Industry success = quality? Justify.

[Matt]

I never said industry success equals quality, that's what you two keep assuming. I think when the topic is about getting Matthew Good more popular, calling into question how marketable he still is is very relevant. Going on and on about quality is not. It has nothing to do with what people think about his current songs who already like him, it's the people who do not care for his new stuff that counts at this point.

 

Also the Matthew Good Band pretty much rode the coattails of several other band's success, first the Odds had started the type of Alternative they played. Then there was Our Lady Peace, oh and Moist, heck even Everclear could be thrown in there. Perhaps, Matthew Good (with or without the band) is nothing more than the Puddle of Mudd, or Lifehouse, etc. of his time.

[cringleman]

That's a pretty rough summation.

 

I'm not going to type (comparatively) much because this is getting stale, and, at this point, we're admittedly talking past each other, here.

 

In terms of marketability, I don't think that Matt Good or the Band are or ever were the type of music that the record industry generally puts its big marketing muscle behind without proof of independent success (though lots of artists continue to manage reasonable success without being promoted very much at all, just like Matthew Good).

 

If you think that all musical acts are marketed equally, then you need to shake your head. It simply isn't true. Have you ever heard of Thrush Hermit? They were a Halifax band out at the same time as Sloan, also signed by a major. Most people can't remember them, now, but they rocked.

 

I'll even give you the point that Matt Good might be past what most professional market shysters would call his 'prime,' but if that's the case, then you should make it for all of real, from-the-heart rock 'n' roll. Who marketed the last Tom Petty record? Pretty much no one.

 

It's 'cause it's not built, from the ground up, by a corporation, and so their control over it is lower. Rock is not about selling records. That's why I despise Nickelback (aside from some other reasons). It's about sweet tunes that you tell your friends about, which is the difference between this thread's topic and what you're talking about.

 

The Rolling Stones should not be able to afford a private jet. There should be no multi-billion dollar industry.

[no yu begin wher i end]

Also the Matthew Good Band pretty much rode the coattails of several other band's success, first the Odds had started the type of Alternative they played. Then there was Our Lady Peace, oh and Moist, heck even Everclear could be thrown in there. Perhaps, Matthew Good (with or without the band) is nothing more than the Puddle of Mudd, or Lifehouse, etc. of his time.

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).

 

I never said industry success equals quality, that's what you two keep assuming. I think when the topic is about getting Matthew Good more popular, calling into question how marketable he still is is very relevant.

 

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.

 

It's 'cause it's not built, from the ground up, by a corporation, and so their control over it is lower. Rock is not about selling records. That's why I despise Nickelback (aside from some other reasons). It's about sweet tunes that you tell your friends about, which is the difference between this thread's topic and what you're talking about.

 

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.

Edited September 11, 2006 by no yu begin wher i end

[strummer]

matt could all of canada and america to support him if he wanted to by pulling a nickelback and having cheasy pop songs to go to #1, but he'd rather have his dignity

i love it! You say what we think...wierd.

[Matt]

The Arcade Fire is a carbon copy of Broken Social Scene for starters. Also, OLP, Moist, MGB, and the first LL album, all sound similar to one another. The style comes mainly from the Odds who opened the door for that sound. Matthew Good does have the marketing muscle behind him is the difference between him and other lesser knowns, it's simply that he can't sell. But not all indie bands that make it big are good either, and there are plenty of problems with the idea of indie bands getting big. Eastern Canadian indie bands maybe, but look at the west coast, we have some pretty cool ones, like The Feminists who don't get a whole bunch of attention outside of Vancouver. There's so many, but how many West Coast indie bands there are making it big right now? Not too many if there are any at all, yet the East has Metric, BSS, The Arcade Fire, DFA 1979, etc. A lot of it relies on where people seem to be situated these days too, perhaps this could be another problem for someone from Vancouver on a big label or not.

[no yu begin wher i end]

The Arcade Fire is a carbon copy of Broken Social Scene for starters.

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.

 

But not all indie bands that make it big are good either, and there are plenty of problems with the idea of indie bands getting big.

 

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).

[cringleman]

Agreed. As much as I love that, as an example, Good's music is like a big secret we all share, I'd rather be able to sing Strange Days at a party, and have someone else ask, 'Do you know Rabbits?'

 

I still don't see any evidence offered that Matt's got the same marketing power behind his work as a Nickelback. He certainly gets more promotion than lots of local acts, but there are obviously degrees of promotion.

 

As an aside, relating to the Arcade Fire/Broken Social Scene example, ignoring that, often, groups influence each other (there is rarely a single inventor of a "sound"): when you beef that BSS had to ride onto the scene after Arcade Fire, despite being around longer, you really need to go back to the root. BSS is a collaboration -- almost a side project -- of people in other bands and artists in that scene (like Stars, Metric and Leslie Feist, if I'm not mistaken). Should they be angry? No.

 

Everyone always cites the Pixies as showing Nirvana et al. the way, but everyone forgets groups like Temple of the Dog and Green River (and countless others -- Meat Puppets, anyone?). You can't distill a scene down to a single band (like The Odds), because it's not that simple.

 

Besides: listen to Eat My Brain by The Odds, and tell me how that's similar to pretty much any OLP, Limblifter, Moist or MG song.

[no yu begin wher i end]

Everyone always cites the Pixies as showing Nirvana et al. the way, but everyone forgets groups like Temple of the Dog and Green River (and countless others -- Meat Puppets, anyone?). You can't distill a scene down to a single band (like The Odds), because it's not that simple.

I was thinking about the Meat Puppets, actually, but I think the Pixies were probably better to use because Cobain wanted 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' to sound like a Pixies song (and that was the song that really broke it into the mainstream).

[Matt]

As for the Odds, listen to the CDs and you can hear a lot more of what they sound like, most of their singles are not very represenational of their CDs. The Odds are the ones who opened the door was my only point, not that they created the sound. Their sound came from a lot more of the classic rock than anything else at the time, but they also had a The Hip vibe to them. My point was more or less that the old MGB rode a wave much like a lot of grunge bands like no yu begin wher i end used as an example. The MGB were only really high atop the Canadian charts for about a year and a half to two years maybe really anyways. Not really a long standing successful act, eh?

 

As for indie bands, there's bands who go indie later on in their career, such as the Barenaked Ladies. Why did they do it? Well if I remember correctly it was because they are at a point in their career where a major label is not as big of a help to them anymore and they want to own their masters. There's lots of reasons why bands are indie bands, not just because the big labels are so bad, it could just be that's it's not the right time for the band to be with one.

[cringleman]

You use the word "bad" as if it has a simple meaning that we could all agree upon. I would urge the opinion that major labels are interested only in cash cows, and I agree that an established group like BNL can do very well by returning to a sort of indie state once they've made a name. Of course, at one point they had the most successful independent release in Canadian music history (the Yellow Tape went gold on its own, I believe).

 

With the 'rode the coattails' rhetoric, if you're just saying that a single band usually breaks into the mainstream from a certain scene first, opening the door for others to follow, then you're right. That's neither positive or negative -- it's just how it works. It's happened in painting and sculpture, too. In fact, it happens with lots of things. I don't know what relevence this has to our discussion.

 

The door to that scene may, very well, have been opened by The Odds, if those bands do, actually, have anything in common aside from the genre label, 'alternative' (which I believe is a non-label, and a bunch of crap), but every single one of those groups you named has, if it still exists, evolved in their sound to a point where references to the old days are almost pointless.

 

Change happens. Now if you simply want to argue that the Matthew Good Band's old sound was more marketable than Good's solo material, you may be right, but, then, that doesn't explain why Good still sells out shows from Victoria to Halifax.

 

[Edited for punctuation.]

Edited September 13, 2006 by cringleman

[Matt]

The Matthew Good Band at their peak either came close too or sold out the Pacific Coliseum back in the Underdogs days. That's about a 1600 seat stadium. Today, Matthew Good plays small little club shows, like a couple hundred people, maybe five hundred at the most. Is it that he's still selling out shows or that the shows are becoming much more smaller? The latter is what is actually happening.

 

I never said riding coattails was good or bad, I was simply saying that bands who did that have a limited time before they are out the door, like a couple years at most.

 

The Barenaked Ladies came into their own with Stunt, they had already had lots of success, but it's the album that made them a household name and not just in Canada. To act like the major label didn't help them out a lot is kind have wrong. A lot of it comes from pure talent, but it still takes a lot of luck and work on the band and their label's part.

[WinstonSmith357]

how many West Coast indie bands there are making it big right now?

 

Destroyer, Run Chico Run, Geoff Berner, Frog Eyes, Swan Lake, Sunset Rubdown, P:ano, The New Pornographers, You Say Party We Say Die...

 

Of course none of these artists could be considered "big" in terms of record sales or radio play.

 

But they are good nonetheless...and worth mentioning.

[Matt]

I'm talking about in success though. My point was simply that all the big indie bands are not coming from out here, they're all coming from the East.

[cringleman]

I don't think I can see what your point is, anymore, Matt.

 

Record companies put money behind certain artists or groups, and those groups or artists tend to sell something (singles, at least). This is just a truism.

 

Independent groups from Ontario and Qu

[Matt]

Record Companies are an investor, they have to put their money behind what might sell is my point. Any company is out to maximize profits too. Matthew Good doesn't sell as much as he used too, therefore he is past his prime, as I've been saying all along.

 

My point about indie artists selling, is it's people from a select area, so to say indie artists are selling well is a bit mis-leading. There are lots of cool bands that are only big within their scene in their city and a lot of the time most bands don't even have that. My other point was Matthew Good is from out West, perhaps that is playing into why he can't sell records these days.

[Emer]

matt good needs to play some shows in the east////He was supposed to come to play George Street but got rained out/// i was rotted