Jesse Rutherford Starts Hardcore Band

I like it. People still care about credibility in the hardcore scene? lol. Shit never changes.

 

Hardcore can be so silly.

 

Hardcore scene is notorious for gatekeeping. Turnstile got unfair flack for getting big off of Glow On and for its poppier elements. BUT the reason it was unfair is because it was a genuine evolution for Turnstile and they came from a humble genuine beginning and local scene.

The reason why I think ppl are rightfully skeptical or worse about this, is it feels like it was created to CAPITALIZE on Turnstile's success and the potential trend they are setting. The difference is genuine or not. When you have pop stars like Chorus.fm favorite Taylor Swifts music factory of songwriters switching genres to max profit based on market research, ppl are assuming the industry is using one of their faithful soldiers in the Neighborhood and Eilish fame to create a new product to extort money from because they sound like things ppl already.

What the younger generation (and ppl on this site) needs is to start valuing music that is genuine vs music that is calculated. Both can sound good and you may not even be able to tell the difference right away, but it matters. One is real and will last. The other is plastic, soulless, and gets stale fast.

 

So sick!! And sounds like turnstile

 

lmfao. come on

 

didn't this dude like essentially groom Billie Eilish and then wrote some really gross lyrics about her? that's a pass for me

 

three things: 1) to me, the demo ain't good. we'll leave it that. 2) if we're going to get really pedantic about it, neighborhood dude actually has some hardcore cred in my eyes as he's played in some socal hardcore/metal bands in the past namely curicula. anyone gatekeeping based on the fact he's had some commercial success is a dolt. no one in hardcore bats a fucking eye when andy hurley goes back to play with sect or racetraitor after having success with fall out boy. hardcore and metal dudes go play in pop bands all the time, so i don't see why this wouldn't be any different. 3) i'm still gonna avoid anything with this dude in it because he arguably groomed Billie Eilish, which is something i did not know about before looking him up because of his involvement with valley girl so that's that in my eyes.

 

Only drama I've heard about the guy is that apparently he's a pedo

 

This is why we can’t have nice things

 

Its like the discussion on AI generated art. My point is, its not art when you calculate and produce things with the intent of capital gains. And people who care about depth and arent sold superficially notice it even if it isnt explicit in an end-product result. Although it kind is explicit, as its all sounding the same now so you can tell more easily. Im sorry that I needed to use Taylor Swift as a textbook example of factory made music. Maybe you think AI-generated or music factory corporate market researched produced music is art because you think the ends justify the means But I personally dont think that.

 

@Craig Manning

 

Ah yes, the old "If you want to make money off your art, you're a soulless sellout!" argument. I thought we left this idiotic bullshit behind in the 1990s.

 

I do enjoy the thought of like a recording of myself alone in my closet that will make no money having more artistic merit than a taylor swift or fall out boy song. Suck it, taylor!

 

She aint a sellout. She is corporate created. I know yall understand the difference. This is no different than yall supporting "artists" like the Backstreet Boys in the late 90s, lol.

Ive been with Blink 182 since 1997 and saw them blow up, same with Phoenix in the early 2000s, and Tame Impala in 2010s. Was happy when they blew up, and it was genuine. I made it very clear in my original post bout Turnstile not deserving backlash from the gatekeepers for getting huge. Like crystal clear.

Anyways, ill leave yall to scour the internet for a Taylor Swift album sales number update to post about.

 

How did a corporation create her? Is she a robot? Was she animated by spark a la Frankenstein's monster?

These terms don't mean anything! They're just an excuse for people to feel holier-than-thou in disliking things that are popular. I can promise you that every musician you listen to would like to have more "capital gain" from their art. That doesn't mean their art can't be genuine, or that the collaborators they work with/the genre shifts they pursue are solely motivated by wanting to "max profit based on market research." No one's "maximize profits" strategy for Taylor Swift in 2020 was "Call up the guy from The National."

 

You're right man. She's genuine, and not calculated. Her sales really reflect her innovation and songwriting. A trailblazer. We have heard nothing like her before and no one does it quite like her. Technically even more "great" than the Beatles, technically. She really got to this level fair and square. Im just a jealous person who wants everyone to be broke to prove to me they are real artists.

Really great talk Craig, maybe yall can bring in more Chorus staff to chime in and gang up my post about genuine artists and how Taylor Swift (lol) isnt one. xoxo

 

Once again reminding you that this is not my point, and that I was crystal clear that this isnt a "artists should not want or try to make money" post. Extremely disingenuous interpretation of the point im making, or maybe you are just doing mental gymnastics in order to get Tates approval and save face for Chorus.fms bizarre interest in Taylor Swift, as if we can even avoid news updates from her if we tried.

 

Quick question, how does one tell when an artist including "poppier" elements is a "genuine evolution" as opposed to "switching genres to max profit based on market research"?

And as a follow-up, does the answer depend on whether undesirables like the artist in question or not?

 

Also, when I first read the headline, I assumed this story was about the guy from Bring It On and Clockstoppers.

Was honestly a bit disappointed that dude wasn't starting a hardcore band.

 

You are a complete buffoon.

 

If you had "been with" Taylor Swift since she was a teenager making rough demos in her bedroom, would her evolution be "genuine" to you? Like, what gives Blink-182 a pass but not the female singer/songwriter?

Never mind, I just answered my own question.

 

Blink-182 have talked AT LENGTH about all the things they did specifically to get huge and for the industry. The singles the label told them to write, the aesthetic, the tours, the press, the machine that they became and are still apart of ... all the "not genuine" shit they did. I'm sorry, this is hilarious. The band is on the record as doing exactly what Taylor Swift is being "accused of" here for whatever reason.

 

I agree that Taylor updates don’t fit this site but I’m not the owner.
With that said, how is it wrong or calculated to do what she’s doing? The bigger anyone or anything gets, the more complex it becomes. Art and complexity are not mutually exclusive.