cabot_girl Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 This might not be the right place to post this, but I wonder if I'm the only Green Day fan that would like to see Green Day leave reprise/warner. I'm thinking about HEart like a handgrenade not being released...if they had something to do with that. I also think Green Day is such a great band, they don't need them. I would love to see green day being released only on adeline or a smaller label. Just my opinion. What do you guys think?
Four. Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 I think HLAHG isn't released because John Roecker is lazy, but um... no. I wouldn't like them to leave Reprise. I mean, had they not signed in the first place, half the fans here wouldn't be fans because they wouldn't have known about them, myself included.
Kayfabe Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 It sounds idealistic but in truth it's unpractical. The millions of CDs that need to be out there would be tough to, without a big label.
Fuzz Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 HLAHG was not held up by the label. I don't see a reason for them to leave a major label. The label doesn't seem to get in their way in terms of writing or releasing the music they want, and while they could have (and should have) done a better job marketing 21CB, if people complained about it on a major label, I can only imagine how non-existant it would be on a smaller or indie label. I think it'd be pretty awesome to see Green Day on Adeline Records, but I'm sure the band has their reasons for sticking where they are. Letting a major label deal with the stuff they have to is probably the easiest and best solution for them I think HLAHG isn't released because John Roecker is lazy, but um... no. I wouldn't like them to leave Reprise. I mean, had they not signed in the first place, half the fans here wouldn't be fans because they wouldn't have known about them, myself included. There's a topic here where you can talk about you wanting GD to still be independent. I think I'm fine with keeping both topics, since leaving warner/reprise and being "a smaller band" doesn't have to necessarily mean the same thing. There are many of artists on Warner/Reprise that aren't as big as Green Day.
warding_off_regrets Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 Reprise/Warner seems to be the default whipping boy whenever a fan doesn't like something that's happening. It's true the label is in control of many things, but they aren't to blame for everything (just some things ). I personally have no problem with them staying on Reprise. Their creativity hasn't been limited at all, it's actually been allowed to really flourish- they've been able to create new bands and release CDs and do shows as those bands. Also, given the fact that there was 5 years between American Idiot and 21st Century Breakdown, it doesn't seem like they're under a ton of pressure from the label to produceproduceproduce. They're allowed to relax and let the inspiration for new music come organically. The fact that they're such a great band and have a huge fanbase is exactly why moving to a smaller label is impractical. I don't know if a small label could handle the number of CDs that would need to be manufactured and distributed- nevermind promotion. The sentiment behind moving to a smaller label would be really awesome, but they seem to have a good thing,so why mess with it?
IscoredWaddlesgoals Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 HLAHG was not held up by the label. Oooh. So (and correct me if I'm wrong) but if it wasn't John or Warners, that only leaves the band doesn't it? Also, you can't complain about the relative failure of 21CB and want them to be on a tiny label with very little distribution or PR power.
Boston Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 Every band I've seen leave their major label and strike out on their own has pretty much faded into irrelevance, so I'd like to see Green Day stick with Reprise.
cabot_girl Posted August 19, 2011 Author Posted August 19, 2011 I guess I just got a bit sick of all the press they did during AI and 21st, at some point it was a bit too much for me as being a GD fan since '94. I have to admit that the style, clothes, hair and posing for photografers just seemed fake...if I can use that word. And I might have thought that their label wanted them to be more "attractive" to younger fans by doing that. But, I might be completly wrong. Anyways, from what I've heard from the tiki bar, I really have my hopes up for what to come from the guys:-) Billie with short hair and a plain t- shirt. That's what I like. Last gang in town totally rocks!!
Fuzz Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 I can't be the only one who liked seeing Green Day everywhere? I loved seeing when this band was being talked about on every music publication and had the spotlight on them. It's like seeing your friends get successful, and they deserve it. The same way when i went to NYC and saw the American Idiot sign around Time's Square. Just kinda like "yeah! the good guys are getting their dues"
Amanda Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 Anyways, from what I've heard from the tiki bar, I really have my hopes up for what to come from the guys:-) Billie with short hair and a plain t- shirt. That's what I like. Last gang in town totally rocks!! I heard that he was wearing a Pink Floyd t-shirt, turned inside out, and the next album is gonna be prog rock
Boston Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 I heard that he was wearing a Pink Floyd t-shirt, turned inside out, and the next album is gonna be prog rock I keep hearing rumors of dubstep. On a more serious note, as a fan since '94 you were around during the explosion of Green Day. They were in a lot of publications and shows back then, too. Whenever I head Dookie-era fans claiming they sold out with American Idiot I literally want to slam my face into my keyboard, like so: ybhhyh.
Hermione Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 I guess I just got a bit sick of all the press they did during AI and 21st, at some point it was a bit too much for me as being a GD fan since '94. I have to admit that the style, clothes, hair and posing for photografers just seemed fake...if I can use that word. And I might have thought that their label wanted them to be more "attractive" to younger fans by doing that. But, I might be completly wrong. Anyways, from what I've heard from the tiki bar, I really have my hopes up for what to come from the guys:-) Billie with short hair and a plain t- shirt. That's what I like. Last gang in town totally rocks!! They attracted young fans just because of their looks during Dookie times too. Looking punky and having blue hair was just as much of a trendy image as wearing suits and eyeliner, back then a lot of people liked them because they looked cool and because Billie was cute. Pulling silly faces because a photographer tells you to is just as "fake" as pulling a serious face because a photographer tells you to, there's no difference there either. And they went on every TV show going when Dookie came out and were all over the press!
farley drexel hatcher Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 They were hardly in the press at all with the last album, but that album did have some rubbish promo for some reason. But no I don't think leaving Warner would benefit the band at all. It doesn't seem to stop them with anything, not like a lot of the fans think. And personally I don't even care about HLAHG. I think John's turned a lot fans against Warner with his stories of them refusing to put it out when in reality I think there's only one thing stopping its release, and it's not the label.
green day is Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 I thought HLAHG wasn't released because John didn't want BIAB overshadowing it? I think he once said that he was gonna wait until afterwards (not like he did).
kristóf Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 I know that Green Day is not that kind of band, but what if Repise banned Cigarettes&Valentines? I mean, you're working 2-3 years in songs and in an album, and when you have all the songs, you say: "no, it's shit". I know, it's not too possible, I was just wondering... Labels are pretty jerks nowadays (for example Sum 41, Klaxons).
Eponine Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 I think that by this point, the label would have enough faith in Green Day to let them do whatever they want. They have made them a shit tonne of money in the past. And besides, you can't really compare how a label treats an indie band like Klaxons, to how it treats a mainstream, well established band like Green Day.
**nobodylikesyou** Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 I heard that he was wearing a Pink Floyd t-shirt, turned inside out, and the next album is gonna be prog rock no he had on a shirt that said Buffalo (talking about NY) a great place to live. I thought HLAHG wasn't released because John didn't want BIAB overshadowing it? I think he once said that he was gonna wait until afterwards (not like he did). people don't always tell the truth.
Malleus Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 I think Green Day is perfect were they are. If Warner means the music gets more distribution and attention, then I'm all for it. I don't feel it takes anything away from their intimacy they have with their fans or the popularity they have with the public.
DoodleBob Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 I'm going to go with a big no on this one. I think that Green Day moving to Adeline would show a bad image. Don't get me wrong, Adeline is a good company, but I don't see how that would work since Billie Joe is the co-owner. I mean, people would start to think that the only reason they moved to Adeline was to get publicity. Also, I think moving to a smaller label would be a step backwards. Like you said, Green Day is a great band, but moving to a smaller record label might not meet Green Day's requirments. I also think that Reprise is one of the few labels that let's Green Day do whatever the hell they want, some labels are 'do it this way, or you get no money.' I would have to see Green Day go autotune or something because the label said so.
Burnout98 Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 No way. If Green Day didn't sign to Warner and stayed with Lookout, Green Day obviously wouldn't have been very well known, and myself and many other fans wouldn't know about them. Even though Warner have done some stupid things over the years with Green Day, they still got the band to where they are today, a very successful band.
WestboundSign! Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 I don't see why they should leave. As long as the major label doesn't affect Green Day in what they're doing and in what they want to do, there's nothing wrong with it, I think.
coco07800 Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 Well actually , they need a big label, because they are proffesinal musicians, and it wouldn't be the samething with little labels like adeline, they need a big one, so they can get help from butch vig or other proffesional peoples who make their album the best as possible.
cabot_girl Posted August 20, 2011 Author Posted August 20, 2011 I guess we just have different opinions about this.....i'm a fan of Rancid and nofx too, both Rancid and nofx release music through their own labels nowadays. Rancid on hellcat and nofx on fat wreck chords. i know that they never went to a major label in the first place, but they manage to distribute their music anyway. It's not that I have a big problem about then being on reprise/ warner, as long as they can do excactly what they want, 110%, and have the possibilities to cooperate with who ever they want to:-)
Hermione Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 It's not that I have a big problem about then being on reprise/ warner, as long as they can do excactly what they want, 110%, and have the possibilities to cooperate with who ever they want to:-) That's how I feel about it too. I guess there's no real way of knowing whether their current label ever prevents them from doing that, and if it does to what extent. If it does I'd be pleased to see them move, if it doesn't no need. But only the band knows if it does or not so It must limit them in some ways, just annoying things like calling the live album Awesome As F**k instead of Awesome As Fuck. But I suppose the band must feel the pluses must outweigh the minuses. I get the impression there's some areas they're just not that interested in (promotion, some single choices etc), so they're happy not to always take control of them even if I wish they would sometimes.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.