I almost wonder if it sometimes has as much to do with the fact that we know arguably way too much about artists these days.
YES. That is a great point. Something I've thought a lot about.
Sam, I meant to post here tonight. I will tomorrow. Lots of thoughts on the subject.
Still waiting my man!
The only instance where this has happened for me was Iced Earth, having watched my favorite musician and band implode via national politics, January 6 and the inevitable cancel culture that followed. I don't listen to their albums much anymore, despite still holding some in high regard. I have moments where I remember the awesome music and personal memories, and moments like now, where I'm just into other bands and going back to Iced Earth doesn't hold my interest.
Grapp, we've talked about this before, but I think you will get back into IE's music more as time goes on. Traumatic things involving music/bands that you identified with...takes a long time to heal/accept. It differs for people, but even my wife, who was as big a QR fan as I was back in the 90s, now listens to the band's original music again and talks about it, after years of basically giving them the middle finger. And trust me, we know about trauma.
I just listened to Horror Show the other day. FANTASTIC album. It's probably my favorite record by Iced Earth.
I haven't made the drift, yet, but I understand that sentiment. And I'm sort of sour on this idea of "brand". It's taken on a meaning that I don't think it ever was intended to have back when I was in business school.
...
Music - the music I generally listen to - isn't there yet, but it's not long in coming. I still have artists I am a "completist" for, but increasingly, I'm into just eras or parts of bands' catalogues. I have SO MUCH music to listen to... I can't listen to everything, and I just, now, stick with music that I like, regardless of artificial rules of what I should be listening to. Classic band with a replacement singer, or replacements for the core member? I'm sure it's great, but I'm going to stick with the classics, thanks.
The "brand" thing has gotten old, and really, where I wanted to jump ship on the whole "band" fandom. But the bold is a point a very much agree with. Think about how much music is thrown at all of us, all the time. How accessible it all is. You don't need a physical medium, just an internet connection and a speaker, and you have access to millions of recordings. In some ways, there's an oversaturation of music. And that has been split apart not just by genre, but by "brand' these days. It's actually an extension of social media, splitting people into narrow groups based on a variety of factors. But it all comes down to brand.
One of the things I constantly talk about to my wife is the amount of music, time to actually listen, and then time to ABSORB it. The latter is in such short supply. But if it has a band's name on it, does that pre-dispose a person to like it or not? I think it does. And for me, I'm trying my hardest to sort of listen an absorb something before I make a commitment to it, because TIME is something I can't get back. For example, the band Unleash the Archers is one that I discovered probably eight or nine years ago. I dove in and devoured the record I discovered them on (Apex), and then immediately bought the next record because of that, Abyss. The latter is good, and I would have bought it, but my reaction was "UTA released another album - buy, buy, buy" because of the band name. I shouldn't have. Again, it's a personal journey of sorts, that to be honest, I haven't really figured out yet.
Since my comment inspired this thread (I'm honored 
) Let me clarify where it came from.
...
But I see what you are saying Samsara. I can certainly say the same about certain bands, but there are some I would still call myself a fan/considered them favorite.
I hope you understand I wasn't attempting to "pick on you" at all, Lonk. Far from it. It just spurred the idea that had been in my head, to make a post about it.
I guess on some level I’ve remained a fan of DT, even though I haven’t bought a new release since Octavarium. They were just that big of an impact on me in my late teens/early 20s, and I’ve still at least followed what they and MP have done since then. So I think you can be a fan of a band even if you only like select albums.
But I also think it’s totally fair to make a distinction between being a fan of a band and a fan of select albums or whatever. I love Empire and a few other QR albums. I don’t think I’ve ever considered myself a fan of the band. Radiohead have three albums I enjoy and think fairly highly of. I am not in any way really a Radiohead fan.
That's the distinction I'm talking about. You love some albums, but not necessarily "all in" on buying everything with the band (brand) name on it.
This is a really interesting thread. I think I take the idea of being a fan more loosely than some others here, based on some posts. Maybe in my mind it's a difference of being a big fan vs a more casual fan. There are a number of bands where I buy all of their albums, like all or almost all of their albums, and make sure to see them on tour. Then there are bands where my interest dropped off, but I still like or love a portion of their work and still consider myself a fan. Queensryche is a good example; during the bad Tate years, maybe I was a lapsed fan? But even then I went to a tour where they were doing half of Rage for Order and it was awesome. No matter how much I disliked whatever album was new at the time. And now... I like them again. I like their new albums, but it's muted. I don't have to hear new stuff right away, but I will listen to it eventually and I'll go see them, but I won't go as out of my way to see them as I would for my favorites. I wish them really well and feel sad about their legal troubles. Then there's bands where maybe I only like a small part of their catalog, but what I like, I like a lot. Pearl Jam fits here - I have no idea how many albums they have now but I still consider myself a fan on some level. If I was on the stand and could only answer yes or no as to whether I liked Pearl Jam, I'd say yes. In a real conversation, I'd explain that it's based on 2 and a half albums, but still.
It's definitely more about the music than the people in the band, but I do get curious about band members and general information about them. I think it's interesting to know that JP likes to barbecue and James is the reader in the band, etc. I love reading Geddy's book and getting to know more about him, but I don't think it's a "brand" thing as Stadler alluded to but more... Maybe just enjoying a connection with the creators of music that has been such a part of me.
I always enjoy your posts. Yes, in terms of casual fan vs. big fan. But I guess I'll use this example: I enjoy two albums from the band Disturbed (
Believe and
Ten Thousand Fists). But I wouldn't even call myself a casual fan of them currently. I really love those two albums, but after keeping tabs on their output following those two, and seeing them live, I'm just not a fan. Not even a casual one. But I'll gush about how much I love those two records. Just don't call me a fan of Disturbed.
Queensryche is a harder one for me. Most folks reading this thread realize that I was a "super fan" of the band for decades and I'm a historian and biographer of the group. So it's a little complicated
for me. I've had to separate their output into eras, with the original band era still me being very much a super fan of, as it is the catalog of music I feel is my favorite from any artist, of all-time. The rest varies.
Pearl Jam is another one. I like their first two albums. I wouldn't call myself a Pearl Jam fan. But then again, does Pearl Jam position itself as a brand name? I think there's also that distinction. Are bands using their name to capitalize on things. Merch is one thing. Every band does merch. But how are they using the band's name in a business sense. Are they over-the-top like KISS? I mean, that would turn me off entirely (apologies to those who are KISS fanatics). A complicated, very nuanced question, for sure.
I wonder if it's like in some sports how "true fans" are considered the ones who follow a team for decades, sometimes even in spite of lengthy playoff droughts, compared to what get called "bandwagon fans", who only follow them when they're contenders. I'm sure the analogy breaks down at various points, but some assigning a much greater level of loyalty to the term "fan" might be roughly equivalent. I don't care so much, I listen to whichever periods of an artist's work resonate with me, maybe revisit other albums every now and then to see if my opinion has changed, and use various adjectives and modifiers to describe the amount of fandom I have for an artist. But for me it's a pretty low bar to be a casual fan of an artist.
Yeah, the whole defining of "true" fan has always been a weird one for me. I mean, if you're a fan of a record, you're a fan of a record. If you're a fan of an entire band's catalog and live and breathe everything to do with said band/brand, how do we carve that up. I guess for me, while it is a low bar to be a casual fan of an artist, saying I'm a fan of certain recordings is better than saying I'm a casual fan of a band. (See my Pearl Jam and Disturbed examples.)
Sort of random thought from reading the last several posts here... for me, "fandom" means "music", though. I know a lot of trivia about the bands I like, and certainly I'm not blind or immune from the non-musical aspects of the bands I like, but I never got the idea that these were my "friends" or that I had to somehow admire or emulate them. This is probably a sensitive subject on this forum, but if Geddy Lee calls Alex Lifeson, his lifelong friend, "Lerxst", that doesn't mean I can or should too. I'm not his friend. I'm not his "bud". It's cute between them, but that's it. If the singer decides to vote for a certain candidate, or stump for a certain cause, doesn't mean that I have to agree with it, or that I have to participate. I grew up in a time (the late 80s) where there was a sort of cache about certain bands - U2, REM, Peter Gabriel, Sting - tripping over themselves to have political bona fides, wearing their virtue like a badge. I wanted nothing to do with any of that, and I sort of rejected the idea that loving the album "Murmur" meant that somehow I supported Michael Stipes politics. It did not; it only mean I loved (and still love) the album "Murmur".
This harkens back to the comment earlier about social media. How we as ordinary people and music fans have the ability to know more about artists and how some of us perhaps think that a relationship exists, when it actually doesn't. Bands use that connection though these days, to lure people in, helping to create that problem, you know? I mean, how many bands do we know where they have a third party posting for them on social media all the time, but let people believe it's actually them? Quite a bit. That builds a connection (even if it really doesn't exist). That's peddling of the BRAND of an artist.
Anyway, great comments everyone. Thanks for contributing. Except for Tim, because, well, he's Tim. (Love ya bud.)
Topic: Favorite Bands vs. Favorite Albums (Bands/Brands and Where Your Fandom Is) (Read 1417 times)