Yesterday I lent "Coupled With" to a guy I work with. Third WH item he's borrowed - in teh past he was lukewarm at best to WH07 and FFL but then the guy likes Disturbed. I didn't outwardly indicate as much, but I took slight exception to his sneer when he said "how many albums do they have? because I've never heard of them." when I got back to my desk I decided to write an email to him... it turned into quite the essay so I thought I'd post it here.... your thoughts?
------------------------
It's all about exposure. Bands that you would hear on the radio nowadays are all on a major label. The label has invested serious amounts of money in studio time, high-cost producers, worldwide distribution, and, most importantly, advertising. Not to mention that all radio stations accept money from labels to play certain artists and songs a certain amount of times per day (how else do you explain Staind?) so certain bands get an artificial hype generated for them and the perception among easily impressionable people becomes "well, if the radio plays this all the time it must be the hot music that everyone likes right now" and if they're not to hot on it the first few times they'll still get 100 more chances to like it, and for many, it will eventually click. Not for a huge percentage of people, but since the number of people exposed to it is so high, even a small percentage buying singles and albums makes the efforts by the labels pay off.
It creates a cycle where people aren't exactly sure why, but they'd rather hear a song they've heard 100 times before, or something by that same band, or something that at least sounds very much like them. Unfortunately, the two things feed into eachother. The labels wouldn't behave this way if the masses didn't eat it up and the masses wouldn't eat it up if the labels didn't behave this way. This also creates an unfair perception and general resistance to new and original music that one has never heard, or heard of, before. Because if you haven't heard it on the radio or seen its video on much music, how could it possibly be good, right? The problem as well, is that this does tend to be true… lots of great bands get major label exposure, and the reason lots of other bands haven't been heard of is because they just suck. But countless bands fall out of these two stereotypes (i.e. they are good but don't get exposure or they get exposure even though they suck)
There are countless bands in the world competing with eachother for the public's ears. The Wildhearts are one of the many, many artists without major label exposure or worldwide distribution. They actually were on a major label from 1992-1997 but eventually split with them because the label were dicking them around and the band was, admittedly, far too volatile to be contained or controlled by an outside entity. Today, they actually own their own record label just for the purpose of releasing their own albums, singles, and side projects. This is a benefit, musically, because they are their own bosses and have nobody breathing down their necks, telling them they need to sell more, or they should sound like this or that, or they should do an ad for Mr. Clean to get more money or exposure. They are able to stay true to the music and nothing else. (another good example of this is punk legends NoFX, who own Fat Wreck Chords)
Without billion-dollar backing it is impossible to get mainstream exposure unless you get extremely lucky, but that kind of luck is so rare that I can't think of a single band in the last decade who has succeeded in that regard. They could also luck out and get signed to a major label, but there are two problems with this: 1) They don't sound like everything else on the radio (this is a good thing!) - in fact, they are so unique that I can't think of another single band on the radio today that is comparable. Some major label bands have some of The Wildhearts' elements, like Foo Fighters, Queens Of the Stone Age, Green Day, and Metallica. 2) If they did get signed to a major label, the label would pressure and threaten until they changed their sound to suit the times in hopes of selling more. If they didn't, they'd hire a producer to do "damage control". They'd water it down, make it less heavy, more girl, kid, and parent friendly, and make them write singles made for radio play. This has happened to bands like Nickelback, The Goo Goo Dolls, Blink 182, and even Good Charlotte used to be good before the labels got a hold of them (believe it or not!) The Wildhearts would never stand for this so they are married to their own independent label forever unless record label strategies change… and they're making money, so why would they?
I was lucky about to learn about the Wildhearts in 2000 from a guy I was chatting with on Napster. I was able to find a few mp3s and through an open mind, I was able to recognize that this band was better than almost everything I had ever heard before. Their musical talent is excellent. The songwriting is second to none; there are hundreds of examples of this. The songs are about life and all its warts. The good and the bad, the happy times, the downtime, and the people around us. It's feel-good music that just makes you say "yeah, they're right, why are some people like that?" It's real, genuine music where every song has a meaning and there is no filler. (you really think Hoobastank's "the reason" was written through real feelings and thoughts going through the songwriter's mind?) The melodies are so sweet that they could be used for the next Britney Spears single. The choruses (and in many cases, even the verses) are so catchy that they will stick in your head permanently after two listens (sometimes after just one!) The song structures are unlike anything we have heard over here, with multiple guitar riffs used in a song, numerous tempo changes, and patterns that are difficult to catch the first couple of times. Sometimes they have so many riffs in one song, that a lesser band could take that song and make a whole album out of it, using one riff per song, but they have so many original riffs that they can afford to splurge and just spit them out left and right. Simply put, it's challenging music, but if you are up to the challenge, the reward is a higher level of rock and roll enlightenment that you may not have ever felt until now.
And it's not hard for anyone to see that if you put this band on the same level playing field as bands like Staind, Hoobastank, Three Days Grace, Disturbed, Linkin Park, and other bands that dominate hard rock airwaves right now, that they would achieve the same popularity and more, except that they'd have a better shelf life because they'll remain fresh mainly because they can do anything while the above bands (and those like them) are for the most part, one-trick ponies. And I mean, just look at the percentages. The huge online legion of fans that The Wildhearts have online represents a very fair percentage of people that have actually had the chance to hear the band. Whereas the above bands have thousands, maybe millions of fans but that's a very small percentage of the 1 Billion (seriously, think about the USA, UK, Japan, and then a few other markets scattered throughout Asia and europe, its easily 1 Billion) people who have been exposed to them. That has to say something!
So if someone like you has not heard of the Wildhearts or any other band, it may or may not have anything to do with whether they're any good or not, but it has everything to do with exposure. If their songs are not on the radio or MuchMusic in Canada, and you can't go into HMV and hear or buy their albums, how on earth would you know about them? It's not your fault but collectively it is the public's fault that the cream doesn't always rise to the top. If success was all about music, I have no doubt that a band like the Wildhearts would achieve international fame, but it's not about the music at all. It's about image, it's about sales, and it's about following trends, it's about doing what you're told.
Most people are not like me. They're not passionate about music. It's just there. It's on the radio and provides an easy soundtrack to their lives in the car and at work. They don't feel compelled to find something better, or they don't realize that anything better exists. They trust that the media is bringing them the very best that the world of music has to offer. (nothing could be further from the truth) - In essence, these people need to be told what to listen to. They can't (or don't care to) go out and find good music that appeals to them on their own. They're not going to turn to the indie station "just for a change", they won't read music websites online and find something that interests them; they won't go to a major label's concert and give the opening band a fighting chance, they won't hit a local $10 show or free festival, they won't find out what other fans of their favourite bands listen to, and they won't learn by word of mouth because they're programmed to be skeptical of anything that they haven't heard of before. It's human nature to be fearful of the unknown and comfortable with the familiar. But those are the ways to really discover good music. If you rely on the radio and Much Music, all you're going to discover is the same flavour of the month that everyone else is discovering.
If you give The Wildhearts a serious chance, chances are very good that they will win you over, and if they don't, well, at least you had an open mind, and it's good that everyone is different and has different tastes. But I know you're into the same kind of stuff I was into in 2000 before the Wildhearts rewrote the rulebook for me on what constitutes good rock and roll. I lucked out when I learned about them on Napster. Now I'm doing you a favour too.
Challenge yourself. Spread your wings and fly!
I agree, it's quite an essay 
no joking aside you've hit the nail right on the head and made some very good points i'll give you A- for that because in life i think there is always room for improvement. (shouts in angry boss voice) NOW GET SOME WORK DONE LORDY AND STOP PISSING ABOUT ON THE COMPUTER
