I think you mean lots of bands have signed a recording contract giving the record company some say in what material goes on the album or begin to be less driven by artistic desires and lured by money. It doesn't have to be that way but more often than not it is and if the music they subsequently output is not as good as the original material then I would say it makes them a worse band IMHO. Not that I have any opinion either way as in the case of KOL as I've never heard a noteworthy track by them
Red Hot Chili Peppers have never been hard rock, and they aren't "soft rock commercial" now. One of the best bands around.
RE: I think you mean all down to bands attitude. seen many a band go down the mainstream route while many of their peers stuck to their roots. most notable example is green day and rancid.green day got shunned by the folks who were their at the start but its not done them any harm and have gone from strength to strength.and have never lost it in my opinion. where as rancid stood by the label that broke them,never achieved mainstream success but have gone on to become legends in that particular circle. loved kol 1st 2 cds but the more popular they became it all sounded less heartfelt and more written towards what will sell. just hope they don't let it go to their heads and turn into parodies of themselves like what u2 n coldplay are. they are far more talented than either of those bands.
RE: Red Hot Chili Peppers have never been hard rock, and they aren't "soft rock commercial" now. They might not be soft commercial rock, but they are middle aged men peddling crap funk. And whoever bought Anthony Kiedis a rhyming dictionary should take it back off him.
Whats age got to do with it?? They are still talented, especially Flea and John. They will always be better than any of the bands mentioned in this thread. Well apart from U2
In an attempt to be popular I once tried making some middle of the road music... but the police moved me on for creating a traffic disturbance. I know KoL must now be mainstream because even I've started liking them and I didn't like any of their old albums.
Go ballax Poisoned Electrick Head are far better, and older! Not too fussed about RHCP but they have done some fantastic tracks, better than most though its a bit "samey" and I do get annoyed at times with the vocal style.
RE: My observation of this band is.... There's a reason why they had those beards in the first place. I rememebr an interview on MTV2 asking them about the beards and they said they grew them to make them look older because record companies were not interested in a clean shaven family band who dished out rock, didnt sit well with many record companies. So they did it to look older and more appealing to the market. Couild it be thet now the market has changed or they always wanted to look this way.
I wouldn't say they were as good as Foos. Saw them both at Arena, thought Foos were awesome. KOL were pretty good but not as good as Foos. I never really thought much to KOL, apart from about 5 songs, before seeing them live, then got all their old albums to listen to and some of the songs are awesome. Aha Shake Heartbreak probably being the best one for me.
RE: My observation of this band is.... Reminds me of just how Bon Jovi went,,,,not the beards or the southern rock stuff, but one of the best debut albums I'd heard, a good follow up and then they came out with a pop album and broke into the mainstream.
Agreed Anthony Kiedis = very poor man's Mike Patton</p> Faith no more are infinitely better than RHCP could ever be </p>
RE: Kings Of Leon, The Killers et al are typical of what's popular at the moment James, who do you like music-wise?
You obviously haven't heard pre Californication by the Chilis................ Albums like Blood Sugar Sex Magik, Mothers Milk, Freaky Styley, and their self titled album. Brilliant vocals from Kiedis at his best. Now he sings rather than raps and the By the way album is a masterpiece of ballads. Californication put them on the map again. And stadium arcadium is probs their weakest yet but still full of great songs. They will always be better than a band who arent even around now.
RE: You obviously haven't heard pre Californication by the Chilis................ Fraid I've heard the lot mate, had a lot of friends who were big RHCP fans, but Faith no More are just a much more talented/varied band (of roughly the same ilk).</p> Plus Mr Kiedis is a utter lovely person anyway - he kicked Mr Bungle (side project of Patton) off a load of European dates/festivals because of some pathetic grudge. He often threatened to pull RHCP from festivals if Mr Bungle played </p> I just can't agree on them being better than Faith No More, or Mr Bungle, or Fantomas or anything Patton has done. He has it all as a front man, a great voice (something Kiedis will never have), a great variety - he even does opera! He has appeared with such a range of different acts/artists.</p> Faith no More didn't split because of ability, so them 'not being about anymore' has nothing to do with comparison. RHCP are a bland 'rock' band who should've packed it in years ago. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate Flea, and I like some of John Frusciante's solo stuff, but I just have never liked RHCP. I just see them as another boring 'old' band, writing songs to sell records and for no other reason. </p>
Well we'll have to agree to disagree mate......... Chili's are my fave band lol and Flea is one of the best bassist's around. John Frusciante is a great guitarist and Chad a great drummer, loads of talent their. Anthony is a good lead singer but he is knocking abit. And all that about him having a grudge, it worked kicking them off the tour because the Chili's are a bigger band.
RE: Well we'll have to agree to disagree mate......... Aye, that's fair enough mate</p> Are you familiar with Faith no More or Mike Patton?</p> Check them/him out. You won't be dissappointed</p> </p>