Iced Earth

I told this story on here before, I had a mate, who's sadly deceased, who was a music journalist. He was a total wind up merchant, who loved nothing more than causing arguments, and would always take a contrary position on sensitive issues. He also wasn't a Metal fan as such bar maybe Motorhead. Maiden flew him out to Canada to do a piece for one of the Irish papers when DOD was released, as publicity for the Dublin gig on that tour, the first in Ireland since very disappointing gigs on the X Factour.

If Maiden had even shown one iota of dodginess, or being cunts etc. he would have loved nothing more than to rub that in my face anytime he seen me. But instead he had nothing but praise about them being gentlemanly, down to earth and clever.
 
Perun said:
Maiden fans can be very obsessive. Remember [..] Or how people were snooping around in Clive Burr's private life to figure out when his father died so they could know when he was kicked from the band?
Click to expand...
Some suggested that Nicko might have played gigs in 1982, others thought Clive played all live concerts until he was replaced.
There was "the Clive article", which was disputed here. Via some factfinding in different directons, it became clear what happened. I'd say it is not that obsessive to learn more. For people into Maiden(('s concert / bandmember) history) it was good to know what was true and what not. Looking up when someone's father died, that is not widely regarded as such a sin, is it? Or that private? Apparently it is public info (when one pays for it).
 
Last edited:
Evidently we've run out of ways to call Jon Schaffer a turd and are straying off topic. As a fan of (at least Alive in Athens-era) Iced Earth, this is disappointing, and I don't love the "cancel culture" reaction of the label dropping Iced Earth and Demons & Wizards from its website, but it's fair to say that, whatever consequences are coming his way, Mr. Schaffer has earned them.
 
It means they will almost certainly be dropping the bands from their label, as to not do so would be very bad press.

As far as “cancel culture” goes, I feel like we’ve just come up with an objectionable phrase that means, “experiencing consequences for poor decisions.” If Jon Schaffer had stormed the capitol building before shopping for a record label for his band, he’d have no luck. This is simply the opposite. He made poor choices and he’s paying the price. Labelling it “cancel culture” just feels like a throwaway.
 
Cancel culture? No way. If Schaffer had only been saying some positive things about the rioters and then suffered these consequences, that would be "cancel culture". But Schaffer has committed crime. He took part in acts of violence and deserves the flak he is now receiving.

Cancel culture, just like any other expression used to describe a loosely defined phenomenon, looses all meaning if is applied to such cases. It is like calling people snowflakes for pointing out actual harassment, or sarcastically labeling someone a "woke SJW" for pointing out blatant discrimination.
 
"Cancel culture" is basically a slogan people use to block the discussion and avoid actually thinking about morally ambiguous situations.
 
Cancel culture is a silly slogan. But besides that, this isn’t even an example of it. Jon Schaffer has been saying and doing “politically incorrect” things for years and for most people it hasn’t been a problem.

I think you would struggle to find a workplace that wouldn’t fire an employee (and that’s what Jon is to Century Media) after they were arrested by the FBI for participating in an insurrection at the US capitol.
 
The correct term is "consequences culture".

Midnight said:
No, I meant, "What does a band need a label for?" Is it promotion?
Click to expand...
Helps them navigate legal stuff too, so like handling registering trademarks and protecting copyright, etc.
Absent a release from Century Media it seems likely they pulled down the band from their active roster but they almost certainly haven't dropped the band officially.
 
Besides. It's people's choice what they want to do with their money on a market. If they don't want to support an artist, an actor or whatever, and the label/production company catches on, then that's just raw capitalism for you, in a sense. And isn't that celebrated here in the western world?
 
Yax said:
Besides. It's people's choice what they want to do with their money on a market. If they don't want to support an artist, an actor or whatever, and the label/production company catches on, then that's just raw capitalism for you, in a sense. And isn't that celebrated here in the western world?
Click to expand...
It is in theory, but money rules and most companies would rather eliminate an employee that is “bad for business” versus keeping them and hoping that enough consumers agree with that employee.
 
I also wouldn't want to put money into marketing someone who's flakey enough to join in an attack on somewhere like the Capitol and get himself banged up. That wouldn't be good just before a tour.
 
I must say though, that I think there are problematic sides to the phenomenon called cancel culture.

When someone becomes a taboo just because they say something that can be seen as controversial - or as supporting someone controversial - freedom of speech suffers.

Right now, as an example, there's a debate going on in the newspaper Aftenposten between some who think a library should drop Harry Potter-themed events due to things JK Rowling has said about transsexual people, and those who think they shouldn't.

That's going too far, I think.
 
Cancel culture is in itself an extension of freedom of speech and a free market. It is consumer power and that can be frightening for people more powerful than the person next door.
 
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
I must say though, that I think there are problematic sides to the phenomenon called cancel culture.

When someone becomes a taboo just because they say something that can be seen as controversial - or as supporting someone controversial - freedom of speech suffers.

Right now, as an example, there's a debate going on in the newspaper Aftenposten between some who think a library should drop Harry Potter-themed events due to things JK Rowling has said about transsexual people, and those who think they shouldn't.

That's going too far, I think.
Click to expand...

To comment specifically on the JK Rowling example: I think it would go too far if, say, the "cancel" faction would start blocking the library, picketing library goers and so forth. However, I don't think having a debate is going too far in and of itself. Obviously, I don't know what the tone of the debate is and where it is on the spectrum between chimps throwing shit at each other and turtleneck wearers politely disagreeing over a glass of red wine. But I think having a debate is the best possible outcome of a controversy.
 
Mosh said:
Recording, promoting, distributing, tour packages, etc
Click to expand...
I think Schaffer could continue to record without a label. Depending on his own work ethic, motivation, knowledge and / or dependencies from knowledgeble people. The rest seems pretty (or more) tough without a label.

It is easy to release music without a label as well. It all depends on what his goal is and what his definition of done is. If he wants to release stuff, stay creative, spread music, a message, he can.
If he wants the same sales numbers, he mostprobably cannot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top