GATEKEEPERS!!!! ... or: the butthurt modern listeners.

Vaenyr said:
The main issue with the points raised in the original post is the underlying judgement often seen by people who make those statements. Saying Ghost is a gimmick band (just like Maiden btw ;) ) is fine; saying "they are a gimmick band, which is a negative thing", well that's where people start disagreeing.
Click to expand...
My impression is: people start already after the first sentence.
Vaenyr said:
I'll just copy/paste what I wrote in the other thread:

Calling someone out for being elitist or a gatekeeper is a valid criticism.
Click to expand...
It depends. It CAN be valid. It can also be the opposite.
Vaenyr said:
I'm not a fan of Ghost. I've maybe heard three of their songs to this day (despite seeing them open for Maiden in 2013 and hating them lol) and one of those was their cover of Phantom of the Opera. Despite that, I believe reducing them to being a "gimmick band" is in fact elitist.
Click to expand...
Depends on your definition of eltitist. But let's assume we mean the same thing: REDUCING them to being gimmicky may be elitist. Merely saying they are gimmicky is not, because the band factually is gimmicky.
Vaenyr said:
The visual presentation of them is obviously a big part of their appeal. Is it gimmicky? Sure, in the same sense that Maiden's theatrics and the entire existence of Eddie is gimmicky as well.
Click to expand...
I disagree. It is not in the same way. It is at least one level higher / more extreme. It is a different level of imagery. You see no roleplaying or fictional lore in Maiden. I honestly think it can not be compared, even though Maiden uses gimmicks too.
Vaenyr said:
The walking and big Eddies during concerts are a gimmick. An entertaining one, but a gimmick none the less.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are gimmicks. But they are PART of the show. They don't define they show! That's the difference.
Vaenyr said:
Truth is visuals have always played a large role in something becoming popular.
Click to expand...
Never disputed this! Visuals define an image, and image goes along with the music. Always. However, there is a HUGE difference wether music or image is the focal point, and a HUGE difference which one gets more attention in both reception and work by the artist. In my eyes, you are generalizing too much here.

Vaenyr said:
As I mentioned, I'm not a fan of Ghost and don't care about their music, but many people clearly enjoy their music. You can have the best visual gimmick; if the music isn't pulling its weight you won't be able to keep and grow an audience.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that if GWAR and Marilyn Manson never wore their costumes, never had these outrages stage shows and images, and had just been some regular guys in t-shirts and jeans, but had done the same music, they would be just as big (or at least big at all)? I highly doubt that they would have made it past small-club-status (and I love GWAR). I am 100% sure that gimmicks can make a below average band huge. Maybe not if they are TOTAL shit, but below average? Definitely!
Vaenyr said:
They must be doing something right.
Click to expand...
They do! But that's not what is disputed here.
Vaenyr said:
Half the appeal for certain metal subgenres is the over-the-top mentality and theatricality at play. We were raving about a bunch of 60 year olds standing on a stage playing a song while a giant inflatable airplane balloon was hanging over their heads. So, anyone trying to pull the "Ghost are gimmicky and that's actually a bad thing" card in a Maiden fan forum of all things looks a bit silly in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I did not claim in this thread that it's a bad thing. In this thread, I mocked fans that can't stand hearing someone calling Ghost / their fave band gimmicky. Or fans that deny the band is gimmicky. It's ridiculous to deny that. Wether that's good or bad is not the question here.

Vaenyr said:
Like what you like folks, dislike what you don't enjoy. But there are certainly more productive ways of discussing various bands without shitting on the tastes of other people. Also, y'all are heathens for disrespecing Virtual XI anyway.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And that's EXACTLY the reason why calling someone a hater / gatekeeper just because he says "band XY is gimmicky and commercial" is just dumb.
 
Vaenyr said:
Also, there's something so incredibly hypocritical, ironic and hilarious about going out of your way
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean by going out of way....

Vaenyr said:
to call out certain fanbases (by being obnoxious and deliberately attacking them and their tastes in order to offend them
Click to expand...
Learn to read. I attacked their argumentation, not their tastes. That's what the disclaimer is for. If that isn't clear enough for you, I can not help you, sorry.
Vaenyr said:
and get a reaction) and ranting about "crybabies" and all that, while being so butthurt that people called you out on your bad posts
Click to expand...
Vaenyr said:
that you needed to start a new thread with an enormous opening post crying and whining about why it's actually okay to attack others lol
Click to expand...
No one called me out. Several people in the tour thread spoke negatively about Ghost. Some (not all) fans immediately reacted in that typical fashion I mentioned here: feeling attacked by simple observation. No one attacked Ghost fans in that thread. People just mentioned what they find off-putting about them. But fans immediately go all "hater" about it. I find these constand overreactions both dumb and annoying. So I posted what I did. I don't defend attacking: I say there is no attacking in calling Ghosts gimmicky/commercial/whatever (at least not automatically).
Seems hard to understand, I guess.
I started a new thread because it was going off-topic, and admins already said to move the discussion elsewhere. Which makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Eddie's Uncle said:
So you are saying that if GWAR and Marilyn Manson never wore their costumes, never had these outrages stage shows and images, and had just been some regular guys in t-shirts and jeans, but had done the same music, they would be just as big (or at least big at all)?
Click to expand...
Can't comment on GWAR, but I'm sure that if Maiden didn't have Eddie and their theatrical shows they wouldn't have stood the test of time and wouldn't have become one of the biggest bands in the industry. Good music will only take you so far. Bands that don't put effort into their visual identity tend to get respect and niche followings, but don't break into the mainstream.

Eddie's Uncle said:
Learn to read. I attacked their argumentation, not their tastes. That's what the disclaimer is for. If that isn't clear enough for you, I can not help you, sorry.
Click to expand...
I know how to read. Maybe it wasn't your intention, but then you need to learn to phrase your arguments in a better way, cause the way you presented them doesn't just go after the argumentation of these fans. And that's before we address the fact that you are setting up an enormous strawman and arguing against that.

I'm sorry, but your points don't hold up to scrutiny in my opinion. It is very selective by judging certain things as positive when a band like Maiden does them, but negative when a band like Ghost does them. That said, I don't have anything else of value to add to the discussion, so I'll bow out and let you wrestle with others if that's what you wanna do. The whole thing is getting a bit too silly for my tastes.
 
Vaenyr said:
I'm sure that if Maiden didn't have Eddie and their theatrical shows they wouldn't have stood the test of time and wouldn't have become one of the biggest bands in the industry.
Click to expand...
If Maiden didn't have Eddie then they would still be one of the biggest metal bands of all time. As big as they are, probably not, but there are plenty of bands without mascots that have done alright (Metallica for instance).
 
Diesel 11 said:
If Maiden didn't have Eddie then they would still be one of the biggest metal bands of all time. As big as they are, probably not, but there are plenty of bands without mascots that have done alright (Metallica for instance).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about that. As I mentioned previously, a huge part of the appeal for many fans have always been the artworks. Many say that they only picked up their first Maiden record due to seeing and liking Eddie. I'm not saying that Maiden need something beyond their music to convince people and make fans, but it follows that if fewer people pick up their records to give them a chance, fewer people would become fans in the first place.

It's obviously impossible to tell one way or another though.
 
Vaenyr said:
As I mentioned previously, a huge part of the appeal for many fans have always been the artworks. Many say that they only picked up their first Maiden record due to seeing and liking Eddie.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but in this hypothetical scenario we are only getting rid of Eddie. Maiden could've had other iconic album covers that could have enticed new listeners. Just getting rid of Eddie only opens other doors of marketability, instead of closing off the entire vein.
 
The Garlon said:
This whole "I don't like this band so that means they aren't metal" argument is beyond tiresome.
Click to expand...
Who says that? Probably not even Kerry King would say that. There's no correlation between a band being metal and its quality. I'ts obvious that Ghost can produce a well-crafted, catchy, commercial song. Few people can. If you like it, who cares if it's metal!
Tobias also understands the inherent ridiculous side of their presentation, which is part of why it kind of works. Plus, he seems to be a decent guy.
 
Diesel 11 said:
Absolutely, but in this hypothetical scenario we are only getting rid of Eddie. Maiden could've had other iconic album covers that could have enticed new listeners. Just getting rid of Eddie only opens other doors of marketability, instead of closing off the entire vein.
Click to expand...
I'm also getting rid of Maiden's theatricality when playing live, which would be more detrimental in my opinion. I was going with the "regular guys in jeans and t shirt" and I think that would've hurt Maiden's chances to become big quite a bit.
 
Vaenyr said:
I'd love to get access to your time machine! :P
Click to expand...
Have I ever told you about my time machine?
Sit you down, I'll tell you everywhere I've been
I have lived a long life, life extraordinaire
Let me tell you about it, let me take you there
Does it really matter, it's all in the mind
Let me tell you 'bout it, listen what you'll find
Maiden's not a gimmick-driven band
Certainly not the galloping, oh man
You cannot imagine
What little Eddie's presence has done

I have lived a long life, I have seen the world
I will tell you stories, hair will stand on end
Stand among the front-rowers, stand upon the stage
I have seen Eddie's face, I have no disgrace
I have seen Brucie cry, howling in the wind
Why does Steve write long intros, when does the real song begin?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top