In the first installment of Reaping What You Sow, I addressed why record labels should invest more into their artist rosters. This investment can take on many forms whether it be marketing dollars, financial resources to help fund touring and practice facilities, collaborating with their artists’ management to draft together a structured and cohesive business strategy, or, perhaps most often overlooked, the time investment it takes to allow an artist to develop. And the list goes on. While I was writing and discussing the article, an interesting question dawned on Moe and I; namely, how much leverage should record labels allow their artists; should labels be in the business of grooming artists or is it more advantageous to let all recording artists retain full artistic control and work independently?
These are tough questions and I feel the answer is completely dependent on that artist’s vision and what they personally want to get out of the music business. If someone prefers to be a YouTube phenomenon and never tour, frankly they don’t need the assistance of a record label and can continue to produce material independently, maintaining complete control of their creative vision. However, some artists are still enamored with the lofty yet antiquated ambition of becoming arena gods, desiring to play in front of thousands of people and sell millions of records. This may or may not be feasible in the current music business climate, but if the possibility exists at all, it’s imperative to have some kind of financial backing via a corporate sponsor or a traditional record label.
And then there are those artists who don’t necessarily feel the need or desire to get caught up in all the trappings of fame and fortune, but still want to be able to record and tour steadily and make a career by earning a livable income from their music. There are, of course, different paths to success, each with their own benefits and pitfalls. As a resident of Atlanta I want to examine a few bands from my city that I feel are successful, and that can be analyzed as music business case studies.
The first group is progressive metal band Mastodon. Mastodon was formed in Atlanta over a decade ago by a relatively seasoned group of musicians who had performed in various metal bands across the Southeast. In the beginning phases, they utilized a completely DIY approach: booking their own tours, recording their own EPs and releasing a 7-inch on a very small indie label. As a result of their hard work, they were picked up by a bigger indie label (Relapse) and released a masterpiece record called Leviathan that garnered the band international acclaim. After the critical and popular success of Leviathan, Mastodon signed to Warner Bros, released two huge records, and have since transformed into a gigantic and hulking beast, crushing stadium audiences worldwide.
From a managerial/record label perspective, I feel bands like Mastodon need autonomy. Metal is a genre that formed out of the DIY punk/thrash scenes and metal musicians tend to want to write their own material, book their own shows, create their own promotional devices, etc. For all their many strengths, Mastodon is not a “radio-ready” band. Honestly, I didn’t feel they were the slightest bit radio friendly until the release of “Blood and Thunder,” but even that was mostly college/alternative radio. None of Mastodon’s singles appeal to the mainstream pop crowd so stylistically fashioning them after a pop/soft rock group is a bad strategy. Moreover, bands like Mastodon don’t require a gimmick or any other selling point aside from their live show. One cannot fully understand their crushing power until you see them live and the stage is meant to be the home for bands like them. Too much label interference with the creative process or pushing the group to endorse products they don’t believe — that’s futile. I feel in these cases, it’s pertinent for record labels to allow the artist more breathing room and place them in situations where they can gain more exposure and revenue from a heavy touring schedule.
The second artist I want to look at is B.o.B. B.o.B is a rapper/singer from Decatur and his origins are a bit more nebulous. After establishing himself and gaining some momentum in the hip hop underground, his 2010 debut record produced three popular singles. Two of them — “Nothin on You” and “Airplanes” — hit the number one slot on the Billboard charts that year. It’s very rare for grassroots acts to achieve this level of success, which leads me to believe B.o.B was manufactured to some degree prior to the release of these singles. Because he is a pop artist and creates catchy songs meant to capture the greatest possible audiences, B.o.B can and should be marketed as a product.
One can already see with his deal with Adidas and songs appearing on ESPN, that he is being pushed as a franchise. I feel this is an amazing strategy for these kinds of artists; it’s not about sincerity, it is about sales. What better way to drive up the demand than to have the artist move into other entertainment/multimedia ventures, and judging from the careers of similar artists like Justin Bieber, Ke$ha and Hayley Williams of Paramore fame, that is the sole intent of their labels and management. In these scenarios, record labels seek almost complete control over the artist. The artist has already agreed to be marketed and sold strictly as a product, not a cultural or creative phenomenon, and I’m a firm believer in good business — market the product anyway you can. Many of my peers do not agree with this strategy, but my perspective is that most recording artists operating in the 21st century understand what they are getting into prior to signing these kinds of deals. In the end, you get what you ask for.
The last two artists I want to look at are Deerhunter and the Zac Brown Band. Despite being in two completely different genres, Zac Brown and Deerhunter followed a similar evolution as artists. Zac Brown played local venues for years and I recall seeing his name on the Georgia Theatre banner in Athens, GA as far back as 2006. His band performed all over the East Coast, booking as many as 180-200 tour dates a year. In addition, Zac Brown released his recordings under his own label Home Grown, which would eventually change names to Southern Ground.
Although he did very well for himself as an independent DIY performer, it wasn’t until he signed to Live Nation Records and then Atlantic Records that Zac Brown’s career really took off. The signing allowed him to venture into bigger new media deals, including a lucrative contract with Ustream in which they streamed a live performance at the Red Rocks Amphitheatre. In 2009 and 2010, Zac Brown received several CMA and Grammy nominations and won the 2010 Grammy for “Best New Artist.” He has scored five #1 hits on the Billboard country charts. Without a doubt, the Georgia-bred country/Americana singer has kicked open the door to the mainstream.
Despite his corporate success, however, Zac Brown has not forgotten his independent past or his entrepreneurial spirit. Using his significant popularity as leverage, he has attached Southern Ground to a variety of ventures, from a successful line of BBQ rubs and sauces to a pair of festivals — the Southern Ground Music and Food Festival and Sailing Southern Ground, a floating musical festival cruise hosted by the band. Earlier this month, he announced the launch of Southern Ground Artists, Inc., a new record label “…dedicated to developing, introducing and promoting some of Georgia’s brightest rising stars.” This is a terrific example of an artist refusing to rest on his laurels and using his success and marketing savvy to create new business and financial opportunities for himself. Yet, if you analyze his audience and target demographic, it’s doubtful that any of it would have been possible without major label support. Indeed, out of all these case studies, I feel Zac Brown and Mastodon represent the two groups that took the most traditional routes to success in the music business.
Experimental shoegaze-pop/Pitchfork Media darlings Deerhunter achieved success in a similar fashion: they built their fan base organically by touring all over the East Coast and eventually were recognized on a few major blogs. Shortly after releasing their third studio album Microcastle, Deerhunter opened for Nine Inch Nails and the rest is history. From a managerial perspective, I would personally push for Deerhunter to make that final step onto mainstream radio. Their music is very catchy and full of friendly pop hooks; Deerhunter has already been played in several commercials. In my honest opinion, their live show is not stellar; their recordings are where they really shine and as a record label I would push that aspect of the band most. Certain new media partnerships and ventures could also be highly beneficial. I could see them as spokesmen for a cause or an alternative brand that they believe in, utilizing their music as the medium. Personally, I would like to see a more beefed up and epic live show from Deerhunter, complete with visuals and movies. But ultimately, I feel the band is in a great place considering the cultural climate in our nation. They straddle the line between being labeled as a “sell-out” or indie phenomenon, and they remind me a lot of Sonic Youth in that sense. Either way I feel this group will triumph.
Overall, it’s tough dictating how much involvement a record label should have in an artist’s career. In some cases it can be highly beneficial and in other cases extremely detrimental. All of this must be fine-tuned to the artist’s vision and career goals, and management is absolutely crucial in determining these factors. In the past, record labels have attempted to create formulas to market all their artists as type A, B or C as if the music business can be boiled down to alchemy or science. I feel this is a recipe for disaster; it’s crucial for an artist to pinpoint what they want and figure out if the label can help them reach their goals.
These are a couple of points to consider/remember: (I’m not entirely disagreeing with what you’ve laid out here, I’m just adding in another perspective)
i think the thing these bands have in common is that their music already had a solidified market, making them easier for major labels to pick up and also making it easy for them to actually gain an audience. When you make music like theirs, no it’s not exactly pop mainstream music, but let’s not forget, it’s still mainstream. There’s a huge audience out there for fans of music like mastodon, and a huge audience out there for fans of music like Deerhunter’s. So despite the DIY approach to get their names out there, (and I use DIY very loosely b/c it’s thrown around a lot nowadays despite corners that are cut… like using publicists and relying on promoters), marketability and profitable futures were always in their destiny. It simply becomes a matter of putting in the work to get a return on their investment.
So, since there’s already a solidified audience for the music they’re making, it makes hopping onto a label a lot easier, and it makes making a living off of their music a lot easier. It also makes artistic/creative freedom a hell of a lot easier to retain. Warner Brothers isn’t exactly knocking down Ahleuchastitas’ door for a reason you know? Nor will they be doing it 10 years from now.
It takes years for a major label to realize that they can capitalize off a genre/sub-genre of music, and usually by the time that has happened, the movement has come and gone and has already been replaced. Mastodon is the perfect example. Labels realized there’s a huge audience for Mastodon’s type of music. Their metal is the mainstream metal. (Idk why I can’t get people to realize that each genre has a mainstream, including/especially metal) No, we may not hear them on the radio, however this doesn’t mean that they aren’t very marketable, and it doesn’t mean that the road for their success is anymore intangible or harder than Hayley Williams from Paramour.
At the end of the day, their chance at success is just as likely as any other radio friendly artists. You may not see gimmicks but there definitely are. Not in live performance but in the structure and technicalities of their music, there are gimmicks. (like omg…those vocals for one thing. ugh. don’t even get me started, if they ever went instrumental, it’d be an upgrade).There is a formula that is adhered to, and honestly has been done many years before Mastodon hit. I’m not knocking the band by any means I’m just keeping it real. Labels realized long ago that there was a solidified big audience for their music, so they capitalize off of it. Bands also realize there’s a solidified market for their kind of music, and they capitalize off of it.(not saying it’s a bad thing by any means, it’s just realism and not pretending like there’s some hurdle of non-recognition of artistic purpose they have to go through to gain an audience.)
No one is going to hear their music and think it’s so progressive that they’re not going to be able to get into it. This is a hurdle they don’t have to consider. No one will ever question what the hell they’re doing. Let’s keep it real. Like, if you don’t get Zac Brown band then what the hell are you on… right?
If Mastodon were on the more progressive side of metal, like Pig Destroyer or Psyopus (and honestly even that prog is now debatable), they definitely would not be playing arenas in 2011. They’d barely be able to consistently tour hence why it’s so hard to catch a flippin’ Psyopus show. (Are they even still together)? By the time WB realized there’s a market for Mastodon, Mastodon was already label ready, because their version of metal had come and passed through the underground metal scene like 20 years ago. Just look at people attending their shows or the shows of metal bands like them. They’re not packed with highschoolers. They’re packed with people at the minimum aged 25-26 and older. And more overwhelmingly middle aged Bro-dudes or cheesy \m/ dudes trying to get in touch with their dark defiant sides. (making really great LOL material for me when I was in highschool as I’m rocking out to sounds of kids screaming their vocal chords out over samples of screaming chicks getting raped and pig squeals (not literally of course).
I mean, there’s a reason why bands like Naked City are now defunct and still mind fucking people’s minds, despite them forming over 20 years ago.
Bands like Mastodon do not even need a DIY model nowadays because they’re not so progressive anymore. There are auto-tuned bubble gum screamo bands that quite frankly have a more aggressive/progressive sound and formula. (Flyleaf anyone? omg the travesty right)? These kind of bands are being groomed by labels right now as we speak in the same manner as K$sha and B.o.B.
Just something to think about.
Artists that are innovating have to keep it real, and realize that it may be 20 years before their kind of music becomes somewhat marketable, and by the time it comes, they’d be lucky to be remembered and be able to rake it in. But maybe this traditional view isn’t even true anymore with downloads and the internet making it so much easier to become familiar with newer music (which is why i can’t fathom why it’s so hard for music journalist and major labels to keep up with what’s going on. Research should be in the job description, if it were, more artists would live comfortably because there’s someone out there explaining and introducing what they’re all about…but i digress).
We have to keep in mind when discussing business markets for musicians and band that not all music being made currently is always profitable in the manner that we’d like it to be. So what is it that the artist who wants to innovate, create, and approach music with a fresh idea need to do? The goal at this point for artists such as these, is just getting their music out into the world so they can have some hope of gaining and building an audience. This usually means foregoing hopes of a profit for a decent amount of time, and realizing they may have to put 15 years of work in before retaining a decent profit. I’m not saying it can’t be done in a shorter time frame, I’m just saying it can’t be done without realizing it’ll be years before they can ever hope to coast and rest easy, and not worry about their finances 5 years down the road when they’re ready to retire. It’s a lot harder for those who are introducing something new to an audience that isn’t familiar with what they’re all about.
I think bands who are on the innovation route cannot ever hope to rely on a label, unless that label isn’t concerned with profitability. How many labels do we know of are like that? Not many. It’s why so many mathcore bands make music for 5-10 years before they hang it up, get tired, and let the younger ones who’ve become influenced by them, take the lead and help spread news of the direction they’re going in with their form of music.
Innovative artists are better off realizing they can do the work of a label without an actual label. Especially in this day and age. Musicians can and often do, perform the work of a label themselves. Lucky is the band that finds a label that says, “screw profits and do what you want because we trust your genius. We’ll put it out there”
And let’s also realize how flaky and useless the term “indie label” is nowadays, considering that there are so many indie labels that operate in the same manner as major labels: over marketing shoddy products, and grooming young artists into making guaranteed audience ready marketable music. A guaranteed profit in other words. I only consider a label indie if they have artists who are making a product with a small audience, with no real hopes on maintaining profitability. They don’t have to lose money, but their overall concern is just being able to break even. In other words labels who work solely in the interest of the artist. And I do mean solely.
It was kind of difficult to get all of my points across. Hopefully it’s somewhat understandable. lol.
My summary: keep your day job and screw labels if you’re innovating/performing unpopular music, unless you’ve got a friend willing to invest. Again just look at SH. If I’m not mistaken the owner has some sort of day job, right? The time has come where we are in an age of needing the non-profit record label, Like a non-profit arts center. This is how an artist can be sure of always having artistic control and freedom. Or bands need to be their own record label in other words I guess.
@kt, Wow that was a mouthful! I don’t even know where to start, um thanks for reading the article and giving some feedback, always good to get a response.
You said,
“Innovative artists are better off realizing they can do the work of a label without an actual label. Especially in this day and age. Musicians can and often do, perform the work of a label themselves”
AND
“since there’s already a solidified audience for the music they’re making, it makes hopping onto a label a lot easier, and it makes making a living off of their music a lot easier”
Wouldn’t you argue that if a group or musician were trying to make a living off music they would pursue artistic endeavors that have a built in demand and fanbase? I’m a little bit confused about what you’re getting at
No I wouldn’t argue that. Just because an artist wants to make a living off of their music doesn’t mean they should have to make music with a built in demand. Innovative artists have to groom their fan base and build their own demand. Again, look at SH bands like Zach Hill, Hella, Tera Melos.
Also look to bands on Hello Sir Records. They’re another great example.
The reason my diatribe ended up being so long is because it stemmed from statements like this:
“From a managerial/record label perspective, I feel bands like Mastodon need autonomy. Metal is a genre that formed out of the DIY punk/thrash scenes and metal musicians tend to want to write their own material, book their own shows, create their own promotional devices, etc. For all their many strengths, Mastodon is not a “radio-ready” band.”
I severely disagree with this statement. Bands like Mastodon don’t need autonomy. Period. They’re making semi-generic metal music. The market for their kind of music is definitely there and not only that, but metal musicians don’t always DIY it nowadays. Again look at the metal bands signed to major labels and even smaller metal labels. Metal bands are currently being groomed in the same manner as major label popstars.
“Moreover, bands like Mastodon don’t require a gimmick or any other selling point aside from their live show. ”
Bands like Mastodon tend to be pretty gimmicky, I don’t know if you realize this. Like I said before there are modern bands playing a more updated metal than Mastodon who are nothing but gimmicks. Listen to the technicalities of the music. They have proggy bits as in the use of odd time signatures but the sludge and vocals and diddlying (lol) makes it palatable. The contemporary equivalent is the plethora of young metal bands now and their over use of breakdowns to be impactful.
“Zac Brown played local venues for years and I recall seeing his name on the Georgia Theatre banner in Athens, GA as far back as 2006. His band performed all over the East Coast, booking as many as 180-200 tour dates a year. In addition, Zac Brown released his recordings under his own label Home Grown, which would eventually change names to Southern Ground.”
then you state:
“Without a doubt, the Georgia-bred country/Americana singer has kicked open the door to the mainstream. ”
He didn’t kick open the door to mainstream. He was already mainstream. His music was already mainstream so booking those tours was a lot easier. There was a huge audience already prepared for what he was bringing to the table. Major labels were always in his future. It simply becomes a matter of putting in work and getting the name out there.
I think you should check out this article: http://thequietus.com/articles/06318-how-the-music-industry-is-killing-music-and-blaming-the-fans
It’s one of the best examinations on the current climate of the music industry today, and the author makes a point I feel ATL musicians and music writers don’t often acknowledge:
——-”The first hurdle any musician must now leap is financial: can they afford to pursue the dream?
The majority that succeed will be those well connected enough to receive funding, or those from financially comfortable backgrounds. This might explain the number of upper middle class artists that have made their mark recently, “——–
I’m quite sure if you look at the background of ATL artist who’ve made it, they’ll have this in common. Prime example: Black Lips.
This isn’t a negative fact on the part of the musicians, but it is a negative effect on the industry with particular regards to innovation. I think that this is exactly what we’re seeing with the ATL music scene right now. Take a poll of the currently touring bands in the city, and i’m sure we’ll see that this is the case. Of course there are exceptions,(please note that i’m saying there are DEFINITELY exceptions), but I think the majority of the touring bands have the benefit of coming from a decent financial background.
so when you say: “His band performed all over the East Coast, booking as many as 180-200 tour dates a year. In addition, Zac Brown released his recordings under his own label Home Grown, which would eventually change names to Southern Ground. ”
When you’re booking that many shows without a label, how is it getting funded? If I’m not mistaken when Zac Brown started out, he and his father kind of worked together through his father’s restaurant right? (hence the bbq sauces and rubs). I’m not sure of course, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he was able to have some sort of backing by his father.
The bands that make it here tend to live in within the city, East ATL in particular and spend their time at the local bar/venue. Like most people say, we have more of a social scene than music scene right? All the musicians go to each others shows for the most part. Well what about the musicians who can’t afford to spend their money and take off time from work to go hang out at whatever shows are going on in a particular night. What happens then? They kinda get swept under. Which is why I think we had the problem in the first place of certain music sources being so skewered. Not to mention the fact that a band can play repeatedly in ATL, and won’t have as much of an impact unless they’re living in the city (which is another huge expense) and socializing with other bands. I know I’m going a little off topic here, but I think it’s good to look at all factors of the music industry from the ground up when talking about making money from music. We must also look at the obstacles that are in the way.
@ K.T, good points – I feel that you have some sort of beef with Mastodon that has little to do with their music business strategy and brand and more to do with their sound.
In terms of you listing innovative artists, you can play weird math rock and still maintain a fanbase, but it doesn’t make you innovative in my book. I’m a huge fan of Don Cab and Drive Like Jehu, but they aren’t entirely original, they’re just fantastic within their genre. And who’s to say someone who writes pop music is a “sellout or mainstream,” not everyone writes like Burt Bacharach and can sit at a piano and craft pop masterpieces. Some people pick up a guitar and their emotions translate to something more aggressive sounding or edgy, but the intent may be the same – they may want to craft a pop hit like Burt. But Burt’s music or their music doesn’t hold any more or less merit, that comes off as a slightly immature statement.
No, the core of the music business is not situated around “innovation” or at least innovation in your terms of making weird, oddball music. Innovation in the music business is the “Radiohead model” or what Prince did when he released his lp with copies of a large mainstream newspaper. You use the word innovation, but what are you really saying?
@kt – The article was not titled “The Sad Lack of Innovation in Modern Music,” it was an examination of how labels and artists use one another to be successful. It then used four Atlanta artists as case studies. Considering all the shit Sargent House does for their bands it appears that you agree with his major premise, despite your protests. Also, your points about Mastodon might be relevant now, but the band started to break almost a decade ago. What you consider to be mainstream now was made that way partially by their efforts. Any commercially successful band would appear to be mainstream four studio albums and several EPs into their career.
1. I only had a problem with certain statements like I stated above. I also stated in my first comment that I wasn’t entirely disagreeing with what was laid out in the article, I just think with certain statements there were things that should have been stated/highlighted. So I did it.
2. There are a plethora of Mastodon-like bands out there, and there were a good many of ones like them when they started. Fact. Just like there are currently a plethora of math rock bands out there. I just found it a little bewildering when you say bands like them prefer DIY. I was pointing out that it is just not true in this day and age. Again, as I stated before, there are metal bands that are being groomed in the same manner as major label popstars. This is a fact and has nothing to do with my personal taste. Let’s also consider that a bands music business/ “brand” is always related to their sound. Always. I don’t see how it is not. Also certain DIY approaches like the Zach Brown band and Deerhunter, require a substantial amount of startup money, which is why they were able to tour so heavily in the early stages of their career. To me, this is a point that is absolutely necessary to bring out. I don’t think you’re disagreeing with me, and I’m not disagreeing with you except when I explicitly state it. So… no harm no foul, right?
3. What I mean by innovative is bringing new sounds/ideas to whatever genre of music an artist is playing in. Challenging an audience/status quo. People like Sun Ra and his electric keyboard in jazz, Miles Davis, Grace Jones, Philip Glass, etc. The business models you laid out, may not necessarily apply to their current equivalent today (not just math rock, I used like 2 bands within this genre as an example but I can use others, and c’mon “oddball” music? Go see ahleuchastitas live and reconsider calling it “oddball.” They’re a combo battles, hella, tribal influenced piece of amazingness. *cue the rabid fangirl* No music is oddball, not even Naked City, aka John Zorn’s experiment with cramming as many genres within a piece of music as he can compose with 5 basic instruments . It’s just innovative, so you just may not understand their purpose/approach.
4. Some points needed to be brought to light like with the Zach Brown “case study” and also if you read the article that I linked to, it brought up other points. suggesting for an artist to go ahead and put their music in car commercials, without going into the compromises one would have to make with their music made me raise my eyebrows a bit. I mean, really?
5. I feel that some points in regards to the climate of touring should have been brought to light when doing this “case study” ; for instance monetary. You didn’t go into how a band is even capable of doing this, and what about bands that don’t want to tour? For example: how often do hip hop artist get to tour before they’re signed to a label? There may not be anything wrong with not touring if the music doesn’t really call for that approach. (However the way certain musicians think in regards to what constitutes as “working” really gets my ire up).
you stated: “And then there are those artists who don’t necessarily feel the need or desire to get caught up in all the trappings of fame and fortune, but still want to be able to record and tour steadily and make a career by earning a livable income from their music.”
There wasn’t an example given for bands within this category. You use bands making mainstream music as an example, who’s goal according to their “brand” of music were always in the market for getting caught up in the trappings of fame and fortune. You didn’t use one example of an Atlanta band not making mainstream/audience ready music as an example (but I admit, finding an example of one is damn near impossible), so I put in a couple of points I think shouldn’t have been left out.
I don’t consider making pop music as “selling out.” I listen to a lot of it, and spend my hard earned money (sometimes school money lol) supporting many local pop bands (in addition to non-pop bands), buying their merch, attending their shows, and bringing groups of friends who don’t know them, or their scene personally, out to do the same. (Why local musicians think they’ll ever break out of ATL by getting all the same people/musicians to attend their shows will never cease to bewilder me especially considering that musicians can save the money they’d spend out at shows every week and put it towards touring…but I digress). All of this is done with the intent of helping to put some dollars in their pockets, and expand their audience through word of mouth. You know, all the things a real fan of music does instead of going to 2 or 3 live shows a month of the same kind of music/scene, then sitting behind a computer and pretending to have a scope on Atlanta music, and compare it to what’s going on in the current climate of music in general that one doesn’t even care to keep up with or take a genuine interest in.
Quite frankly, I think Beyonce is the best damn thing to happen to major label pop music. I proudly blast her anthems good sir. I do realize however that there is a place for her intent/direction with music and recognize it for what it is: pop music that doesn’t challenge her audience or the status quo. (although her recent single re-doing major lazer is quite a step up). I most certainly don’t think that her music is without merit, however I won’t state that because she is a girl power championing artist who somehow manages to get producer/songwriting credits on her albums, that she prefers a DIY approach to starting her career. I won’t say that she kicked open some heavy door to mainstream either. There is nothing wrong with admitting when a band’s sound is mainstream, and it doesn’t mean that I would have a problem with their music. I listen to all types of music and don’t give a rat’s behind about whether it’s mainstream or not. I just like for it to be good and honest, so trying to put me into some silly biased box is kinda pointless. And for the record since you’re wondering, I don’t listen to Mastodon. I really don’t like their vocals. They grate my nerves something awful. It’s like the prog-sludge-metal version of Creed in regards to what I think of those vocals. I do think however that the El Myrr commercial is friggin’ fantastic! lol!
Anywho, good article.
@ kt, I’m glad you enjoyed the article