black keys presale question

[i am gay and i like cats]

you believe money you give to charities . . . actually goes to the charity?  hahahahahahahahaha

[RatBastard]

you believe money you give to charities . . . actually goes to the charity?  hahahahahahahahaha

Much more than the money some people choose to give to scalpers does and a WHOLE lot more than the portion of my taxes that bammy sends out to the lazy people.

[azaghal1981]

The vast majority of instances in which a band "breaks" is due to the fact that they completely change their sound to pander to the masses. There are some obvious exceptions but the Black Keys are a prime example of such an instance. I love to see a band I like get huge if it's not because of some big label douche saying "we need a radio single!" You are a big Dead Milkmen fan. Would you mind if they drastically changed their sound to appeal to every bro who wears Axe and an Abercromby shirt or would you rather they get big doing what they do their way (which sadly probably will not happen)?

i think it boils down to this

if a person does not like a particular band . . . then they never should become famous or allowed to do anything except work at mcdonalds.

if a person likes a particular band . . . then they better not become famous, because they are "that person's" band to follow from the beginning when all that mattered was that "they" liked them and nobody else did. they put in all the "hard work" of liking the band.  the particular band was important because they liked them before anybody else and now all these other people like them, and it is not fair and i'm not so important any more . . . so now that bands sucks now.  the end.

[Seth Hurwitz]

bands are supposed to evolve

whether you like how they change is a matter of taste but, you are right to some degree...sometimes it's that change that catches on, and sometimes it's just the tipping point from what they had been building all along

bands will get bigger by nature...that's just the physics of word of mouth

[Brian_Wallace]

I think Baby Boomer/60's rock got a bigger pass on this but there's tipping point where a band/artist has to change a quantum amount to stay interesting but not too much to loose their fans.

Examples.

I don't think Oasis ever changed at all.  They hit a Grand Slam on their first album and then because it was so successful, never felt the need to and they had a lot of drugs so, why bother?

Blur's first album was sort of baggy, then they did three mock-Kinks story albums, then an indie/Pavement-ish one (the one with "Song 2"), an out there, almost Spirtualized-one ("13") and then a world-beat influenced one.  So they changed in all the ways Oasis didn't.  Now, Blur aren't as popular as Oasis and Noel Gallagher for some reason can charge $100 for muso "Dear Prudence"/"All The Young Dudes" ripoffs but you have to evolve or die.

Also, I think the Black Keys can get away with it because of the authenticity/credibility issue.  The Black Key have percevied authenticity/credibility.  The White Stripes do.  Radiohead does.  They change their sound and it's welcome and accepted and makes their art stronger.  But someone like Panic! At the Disco or......The Streets or someone.  Even the Arctic Monkeys.  They get cut less slack.

Brian

[Mobius]

I don't think Oasis ever changed at all.  They hit a Grand Slam on their first album and then because it was so successful, never felt the need to and they had a lot of drugs so, why bother?

Brian

Oasis changed quite a lot . . .like from water to steam.  The substance was gone after Morning Glory. 

I think the trick is whether the evolution is organic and not either forced or a blatant attempt at commerciality.   Seems like success found the Black Keys and they have rolled with it.   Their career looks like Phoenix's last tour . . .starting small and ending up selling out MSG just doing what they did over time.