Why Didn't New Model Army Ever Become Big?

[JohnnyM]

If it was as easy as doing what THE MAN says - it would be no prooblem to be a massive band. But its not. So i dont really buy Heno's argument/rant.

[Heno]

never said it was easy

[Space]

the successful bands can be kept on a leash, controlled, manipulated, too ******* thick to figure it out.

You're dead wrong on that. Sure, Katy Perry and Michael Jackson and Huey Lewis and the News set out to please the company  before they please themselves with their music. They are kept on a leash, controlled and manipulated as you say. But I can name some mega-successful bands that were never on a leash and were bigger than Katy Perry will ever be.

Beatles -- you think the company holding the leash was happy that the Fab Four followed "Sgt. Peppers" with an acoustic driven double album that had no title and nothing but white on the album cover? No. Beatles never were led by a corporate leash. They were successful because they made quality records and singles. A very rare case of quality selling to the masses.

Metallica -- you think that band was led by a corporate leash? Nope. Their success was simply due tp the fact that there exists a large group of young people that do like aggressive music over spandex and teased hair.

U2 -- you think the corporate leash was happy when U2 moved from Steve Lillywhite's stadium friendly production to Brian Eno? No. U2's succes was not due to pandering to the record company. (It was actually due to Bono's pandering to the masses. Waving white flags. Oh, man, when I first saw him do that live I knew this guy was as big a sell-out as Katy Perry could ever be. Waving white flags, lowest denominator crowd pleasing bullcrap was the key to U2's success.)

The Clash -- that band broke big in America without ever following corporate orders. Just give the six-sided "Sandinista" a listen and you'll see that band sure did whatever the hell they wanted and still achieved big success.

Bands can make it and make it BIG on their own terms without following company orders. The fact that NMA didn't play the corporate game does not explain their lack of big time success.

(And if you do win your Patriots bet and I was the bookie, I wouldn't pay you. Until this deflated ball cheating business is sorted out, no way would I pay out any winning Patriot bet.)

[Amandistan]

Sorry but these bands did not have "Vengeance" as an early single.

Plus All but maybe the Clash cooperated more with record companies than NMA.
These bands also were from different backgrounds and eras not really comparable.

You talk as if NMA are not successful, when they have sold out many shows in Germany, the U.K. and one in Sweden last year. It's 35 years into their career and they can still sell out. Just because they did not make it big in America, does not mean they are not successful.  They were first of all denied visas and second they did not have connections here. The majority of European bands do not make it big in America. and does it really matter?  as long as you like the music and they keep making creating.

[pjevac]

The question is what "making it big" really means... Having a carreer that long, staying true to themselves and the fans, being able to touch so many people's hearts, being a great live act all along, writing and recording still new great songs after all that time and making it all without any major compromises is more then big to me!

[jackroadkill]

The question is what "making it big" really means... Having a carreer that long, staying true to themselves and the fans, being able to touch so many people's hearts, being a great live act all along, writing and recording still new great songs after all that time and making it all without any major compromises is more then big to me!

I agree; there is more to a band than record sales.

[Spudthemariner]

The question is what "making it big" really means... Having a carreer that long, staying true to themselves and the fans, being able to touch so many people's hearts, being a great live act all along, writing and recording still new great songs after all that time and making it all without any major compromises is more then big to me!

I agree; there is more to a band than record sales.

I guess if you wanted to quantify it, most would say that to have made it 'big', that the members of a band would not have to keep second jobs. Somthing that I don't believe NMA's members have generally ever been able to do sadly (I'll stand corrected of course).

[Rusco]

I guess if you wanted to quantify it, most would say that to have made it 'big', that the members of a band would not have to keep second jobs.

I noticed last year they were touring that much that there were only few months (2 or 3) when they probably were able to do what they wanted to, meet families etc.

What I know, quite many of the professional artists do some work to other quarters too as a second job: other artists, music industry, compositions, productions, "film" music. If they can be somehow in touch with music in general they'll often choose it.

[Heno]

the successful bands can be kept on a leash, controlled, manipulated, too ******* thick to figure it out.

You're dead wrong on that. Sure, Katy Perry and Michael Jackson and Huey Lewis and the News set out to please the company  before they please themselves with their music. They are kept on a leash, controlled and manipulated as you say. But I can name some mega-successful bands that were never on a leash and were bigger than Katy Perry will ever be.

Beatles -- you think the company holding the leash was happy that the Fab Four followed "Sgt. Peppers" with an acoustic driven double album that had no title and nothing but white on the album cover? No. Beatles never were led by a corporate leash. They were successful because they made quality records and singles. A very rare case of quality selling to the masses.

Metallica -- you think that band was led by a corporate leash? Nope. Their success was simply due tp the fact that there exists a large group of young people that do like aggressive music over spandex and teased hair.

U2 -- you think the corporate leash was happy when U2 moved from Steve Lillywhite's stadium friendly production to Brian Eno? No. U2's succes was not due to pandering to the record company. (It was actually due to Bono's pandering to the masses. Waving white flags. Oh, man, when I first saw him do that live I knew this guy was as big a sell-out as Katy Perry could ever be. Waving white flags, lowest denominator crowd pleasing bullcrap was the key to U2's success.)

The Clash -- that band broke big in America without ever following corporate orders. Just give the six-sided "Sandinista" a listen and you'll see that band sure did whatever the hell they wanted and still achieved big success.

Bands can make it and make it BIG on their own terms without following company orders. The fact that NMA didn't play the corporate game does not explain their lack of big time success.

(And if you do win your Patriots bet and I was the bookie, I wouldn't pay you. Until this deflated ball cheating business is sorted out, no way would I pay out any winning Patriot bet.)

you were doing ok until you said U2.

the beatles were around for what - 8 years? hahahahaha, nma 30 odd years. which is bigger?

metallica - sure, sure they hit a nerve with a certain type of fan. but not really mass appeal. you are either into that or you are not. do genre specific but not big

U2 - ruined your point even mentioning them and only reaffirms you status of Space - beware - troll alert

the clash - i never bought sandinista to be honest. i had lost faith listening to most of the songs on london calling. didn't they decline rapidly after they released that self indulgent 6 record. and combat rock had a song or two, and then they fade out. and then the rights to pop songs used for tv commercials. taking the mickey if that was intentional?

[JohnnyM]

metallica - sure, sure they hit a nerve with a certain type of fan. but not really mass appeal. you are either into that or you are not. do genre specific but not big

Have alook at the venues Metallica play - i reckon playing Wembley *stadium* or headlining Glastonbury is a lot bigger than genre big. Their rise to the top has been well managed though by a heavy duty management company (Peter Mensch - husband of the alluring even-though-she's-a-Tory Louise Mensh). Around the time of the Black album their "look" suddenly went from thrash to very much mainstream rock - as did their sound - it wasnt coincidence.. it is the music *business*

[Space]

metallica - sure, sure they hit a nerve with a certain type of fan. but not really mass appeal. you are either into that or you are not. do genre specific but not big

Have a look at the venues Metallica play - i reckon playing Wembley *stadium* or headlining Glastonbury is a lot bigger than genre big.

Thanks, Johnny M, for pointing out the obvious to Heno. Heno is, I'll be polite, not exactly this board's Einstein. He believes Metallica is simply genre big. A band that plays the biggest stadiums on Earth, is constantly on TV, in the press, sells platinum upon platinum record, makes feature films...Heno thinks they achieve that only because of their genre. Just a niche band.

Heno also states that New Model Army's 30 year career makes them bigger than The Beatles. As I said, not exactly Einstein.

[Shush]

Well, at least you are now making a stated  effort to be polite Space 

Better to trade opinions rather than insults 

[dilla]

IMHO the Beatles may be big but they are static.They are not going to be writing new songs are they?
NMA are an on going entity and therefore much more relevant.If you could only ever listen to one bands music,I'm sure you'd soon get pissed off listening to repeats of all the Beatles songs,whereas with NMA there's always the next new song to wait for.Beatles are history,NMA are present and a work in progress

[Heno]

einstein? lol man. you've lost me with that reference. i don't think i'm capable of accidentally discovering a revered theory that looks more and likely to be flawed and then spend lots of time helping develop weapons of mass destruction.

i guess my point is that the bands you mention as being big are actually huge. some for reasons of being pioneers of pop music, the worlds first self contained band, and being brilliant songwriters, while others dominate a genre. u2 just play on peoples desire to sing karaoke while bono runs around with a flag.

nma being nma makes them bigger for me space. they have been alongside me on this journey since i first heard them. so yeah, bigger than the beatles every day of the week.

and in a way i am selfishly happy that they haven't gone mega huge yet. means that i got to talk to some of them and got a feeling that they believe in what they do and say. and that the forum isn't overrun with trolls just looking for a reaction. i've been to gigs with less than 50 people. and i've experienced the fact that they put just as much effort into that small venue as they do into the big ones. and a lot of venues they played at their own expense because the number just didn't add up. thats big.

you know, in a way, big is to keep going through the bad times and the tough times. big is pushing on and believing that what you say means something to the people that listen to it. big is having fans engaged enough over 30 odd years and remembering who those fans are. and having a fan base that respect the band. and are always delighted to meet new, and often younger fans, at gigs and welcome them

in all those aspects nma are the biggest band in the world. none to touch them.

[Space]

NMA are an on going entity and therefore much more relevant than The Beatles.

For the first decade of the 2000s, you know who the biggest selling band in the world was? Uhh, it was The Beatles. Wasn't U2, wasn't Metallica, errr, wasn't New Model Army. The band that sold the most records in the '00s was a band that broke up 45 years ago.

And I have news for you. I guarantee you that just this past week The Beatles sold more records than New Model Army did. On what planet are you living in which New Model Army are more relevant than The Beatles? My God, yeah, maybe on your turntable in your bedroom NMA are more relevant; but the world is more than your bedroom, and in that world (we call it Earth) The Beatles are more relevant than New Model Army.

New Model Army are more relevant than The Beatles?!? Man, at first I thought this place was a Motley Crue forum; now I realize it is a Twilight Zone forum.