Does a band's name prevent it from becoming popular?

There are many bands out there with weird names. The first band name that comes to mind is Pretty Maids - musically these guys are as good as the better well known bands but they've never had a break. Sure Future World gave them some exposure but for as long as I've known of them people are reluctant to check them out because of the band's name. When someone hears Pretty Maids, they instantly associate the band with some sort of glam/hair metal band like Poison.

Pretty Maids is an easy and obvious example of good bands being held back because of their name.

But I also think this occurs on a more subtle level, especially when the music doesn't match the image a band's name conjures up.

Best example I can think of is Armored Saint. When I first heard of the band, well before I heard their music I instantly thought they were a power metal band. At the time I discovered them they had just released Revelations - even the album cover looked power metal, and in addition their older album covers what with knights also screamed power metal. When I finally heard the music I thought I was listening to the wrong band.

I like all of the band's albums but Revelations holds a special place for me because it was my first Armored Saint album. I cannot help but think that had it been released under a different name it could have done a lot better. I'm not suggesting Armored Saint is a bad name or that the band should change anything - it's more about how people react to things that don't quite fit.

if not for their name, Anal C*nt would probably be multiple Grammy winners by now.

For Pretty Maids, I don't think having a 27 year career with 12 studio albums, 6 EPs, 2 live albums and 2 best-of comps is the same as being "held back"...

I think you're putting too much stock into names...bands hit or don't hit because of timing and luck...nothing else.

Pink Cream 69........... I never gave them the time of day, until I walked into a local metal cd shop(which is now closed) and he was playing the Thunderdome album... "Who is this?" I asked. WHO?!??!?! I was HOOKED!

Yes

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

For Pretty Maids, I don't think having a 27 year career with 12 studio albums, 6 EPs, 2 live albums and 2 best-of comps is the same as being "held back"...

I think you're putting too much stock into names...bands hit or don't hit because of timing and luck...nothing else.

I agree that timing and luck are factors but you cannot discount the impact a name makes. Pretty Maids also came out around the same time when most other now classic metal bands were starting their careers so they had the timing right. For a long time I thought maybe it was the fact they were out of Denmark but given the couple of popular Danish metal musicians in the U.S. (i.e. King Diamond and Lars Ulrich) that would not have impacted much if at all.

But I do see your point, there are many other "bad" band names that have made it and it's all due to luck and circumstance. Cannibal Corpse would probably still be deep in the underground had it not been for their appearance on Ace Ventura. They are now the most 'commercially successful' death metal band.

Armored Saint's problem, at least initially, wasn't that they had a "bad" name. It was that they were signed to a label (Chrysalis Records) who had no experience whatsoever in Metal and just signed 'em because they were from L.A. ... then they wondered why they weren't selling zillions of records like Motley Crue, Ratt, or Quiet Riot. Duh.

I remember reading something about Death Angel's record company wanting the band to go by just D.A, as they felt the name would hurt their chances of gaining a bigger audience. I think that was sometime after "Frolic Through the Park"? Unfortunately the name was the least of its worries, as the unfortunate bus accident (w/Andy Galeon getting badly hurt) derailed the band for almost a decade and a half.

All good but I'm talking more about from the listeners pov.

What the listener perceives.

It's a bit too easy at times to blame timing, circumstance and labels.

chewie wrote:

Pink Cream 69........... I never gave them the time of day, until I walked into a local metal cd shop(which is now closed) and he was playing the Thunderdome album... "Who is this?" I asked. WHO?!??!?! I was HOOKED!

me too. I think names can be deceptive but I think if bands name themselves in a vulgar way it turns some poeple off.

These guys could be the greatest bunch of musicians to ever assemble and play music greater than any band that ever existed. But I'll never know.

metalinmyveins wrote:

I remember reading something about Death Angel's record company wanting the band to go by just D.A, as they felt the name would hurt their chances of gaining a bigger audience. I think that was sometime after "Frolic Through the Park"? Unfortunately the name was the least of its worries, as the unfortunate bus accident (w/Andy Galeon getting badly hurt) derailed the band for almost a decade and a half.

Good example. Until I actually heard them, I always thought they were a death metal band with growly vocals so I never bothered with them. Nowadays it's much easier to just check out samples on-line. But back in the day, who knows if others thought like me and avoided them.

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

It's a bit too easy at times to blame timing, circumstance and labels.

Agreed.

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

All good but I'm talking more about from the listeners pov.

What the listener perceives.

It's a bit too easy at times to blame timing, circumstance and labels.

It's even easier to blame it on a band name...

I don't think it prevents the becoming popular but like a lot have already said it might stop people from listening to it unless someone else recommends them or they hear a sample of a song somewhere. Pink Cream 69 always comes up and rightfully so because its such a silly name, but is that the whole idea? make a silly name to get recognized? Maybe... Look at Edguy their name doesn't mean anything. Its just something they used to call a school teacher and decided to use it for a band name. GWAR too another name that doesn't mean anything but it made people wonder what they were all about.

I wanted to name my hard rock project Clit. But I saw nothing but blank stares.

It's all a matter of perception.

In the pre-internet days, image and name were always a decider for me in checking out a band. At first I couldn't get into glam because I found it weird being fan of guys who looked like drag queens but once I heard Motley Crue they became one of my favorite bands of all time (well at least up until Dr Feelgood don't care so much for the newer albums).

With band names, certain - as was mentioned above vulgar or overly violent names - also prevented me from time to time from checking out a band. In hindsight it's silly some of the stuff I passed up initially - for example, I didn't check out Nile because they had a song called "Masturbating the War God" and for some reason I thought of Marduk and the F*ck Me Jesus album cover. I was repulsed by such stuff and to some extent still am (when it comes to really gory or overly sexual imagery) but thinking back now I dunno why I was so put off by Nile.

Ironically, Nile have since become one of my favorite death metal bands.


The other thing about death metal is I didn't like the satanic lyrics some bands sported. I still do not like Deicide - but at the time I also didn't like Slayer. I found Slayer to be too violent and evil - and cut me some slack I was 15 - 16 years old. I liked themes that Metallica and Megadeth dealt with better than stuff like Slayer and Deicide. With Slayer I've grown to look past the satanic lyrics, I treat them more like comic book stuff same as with Venom but I cannot get into bands like Deicide at all.

I'm not big on Christianity - I never go to church or anything like that but Deicide and similar such bands just strike me the wrong way. I find their stuff offensive for the sake of offending more than comical.

Definitely.

Pink Cream 69 and Pretty Maids are good examples.

Another way a band's name can hold them back is if it's difficult to pronounce (at least in English). Like Naio Ssaion, Eluveitie, Kiuas or the classic example Peroxwhy?gen (Jeff Hardy of TNA Wrestling's band).

The sad truth is that the majority of people judge music on superficial criteria (band names, album covers, the way the band looks, rumors/controversial personalities/public comments/interviews/, media hype, etc.) and not the actually sound waves coming out of the speakers.

Temple of Blood wrote:

The sad truth is that the majority of people judge music on superficial criteria (band names, album covers, the way the band looks, rumors/controversial personalities/public comments/interviews/, media hype, etc.) and not the actually sound waves coming out of the speakers.

I think it's just human nature more than anything. It's the way we are whether we like it or not. It's difficult to look past a lot of the superficial elements.

For metal, one of the most accessible examples is the feud between Mustaine and Metallica. For as long as I've listened to both bands, I've seen people who will not check out any of Megadeth's albums because they think Dave Mustaine is an a$$hole. However they don't even know why they think he is one, they just heard it on the rumour mill. Megadeth keeps getting a bad rep because of something that happened 3 decades ago, something that has never been well documented anywhere either because of bias or because it's just an incident blown way out of proportion.

Once you look past the superficial matters and hear the music you form a very different opinion. I assume that is what happened to most people who became fans of Megadeth throughout the years.

Temple of Blood wrote:

The sad truth is that the majority of people judge music on superficial criteria (band names, album covers, the way the band looks, rumors/controversial personalities/public comments/interviews/, media hype, etc.) and not the actually sound waves coming out of the speakers.

true but in a lot of cases people cannot possibly listen to all the stuff that is coming out. If a band looks/behaves/advertises in a certain manner, that may be the first impression they give to someone. I dont think its superficial at all. The flip side is the band may attract people going for that so it might wash out in the end. There are plenty of people who do go all in for image, even if the music is sub-par.

exact33 wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

The sad truth is that the majority of people judge music on superficial criteria (band names, album covers, the way the band looks, rumors/controversial personalities/public comments/interviews/, media hype, etc.) and not the actually sound waves coming out of the speakers.

true but in a lot of cases people cannot possibly listen to all the stuff that is coming out. If a band looks/behaves/advertises in a certain manner, that may be the first impression they give to someone. I dont think its superficial at all. The flip side is the band may attract people going for that so it might wash out in the end. There are plenty of people who do go all in for image, even if the music is sub-par.

I think Slipknot is a prime example where the image overpowers music. A big reason why Slipknot became popular, and why many checked them out was the novelty factor - a 9 man band all wearing all sorts of cooky outfits with masks, acting like lunatics and playing 'angry sounding music'.

Slipknot, for better or worse, can be considered Generation Y's very own KISS. The music is different but in a sense the premise is almost similar - just that instead of the rebellious sounding rock n roll, listeners are treated to a seemingly watered down Pantera. I say seemingly because I am not disposed to get into a debate about the quality of Slipknot's music but one thing is certain, they are heavily influenced by the type of metal that came out of US during the mid 90s - the groove based Panteras and Machine Heads and the attitudes that followed.

I always thought Armored Saint was a cool name.

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

The sad truth is that the majority of people judge music on superficial criteria (band names, album covers, the way the band looks, rumors/controversial personalities/public comments/interviews/, media hype, etc.) and not the actually sound waves coming out of the speakers.

true but in a lot of cases people cannot possibly listen to all the stuff that is coming out. If a band looks/behaves/advertises in a certain manner, that may be the first impression they give to someone. I dont think its superficial at all. The flip side is the band may attract people going for that so it might wash out in the end. There are plenty of people who do go all in for image, even if the music is sub-par.

I think Slipknot is a prime example where the image overpowers music. A big reason why Slipknot became popular, and why many checked them out was the novelty factor - a 9 man band all wearing all sorts of cooky outfits with masks, acting like lunatics and playing 'angry sounding music'.

Slipknot, for better or worse, can be considered Generation Y's very own KISS. The music is different but in a sense the premise is almost similar - just that instead of the rebellious sounding rock n roll, listeners are treated to a seemingly watered down Pantera. I say seemingly because I am not disposed to get into a debate about the quality of Slipknot's music but one thing is certain, they are heavily influenced by the type of metal that came out of US during the mid 90s - the groove based Panteras and Machine Heads and the attitudes that followed.

I thought the original idea of the thread was do band names hold them back.

There's nothing particularly unusual about a band named "Slipknot"; what makes them unusual are the costumes.

tohostudios wrote:

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Temple of Blood wrote:

The sad truth is that the majority of people judge music on superficial criteria (band names, album covers, the way the band looks, rumors/controversial personalities/public comments/interviews/, media hype, etc.) and not the actually sound waves coming out of the speakers.

true but in a lot of cases people cannot possibly listen to all the stuff that is coming out. If a band looks/behaves/advertises in a certain manner, that may be the first impression they give to someone. I dont think its superficial at all. The flip side is the band may attract people going for that so it might wash out in the end. There are plenty of people who do go all in for image, even if the music is sub-par.

I think Slipknot is a prime example where the image overpowers music. A big reason why Slipknot became popular, and why many checked them out was the novelty factor - a 9 man band all wearing all sorts of cooky outfits with masks, acting like lunatics and playing 'angry sounding music'.

Slipknot, for better or worse, can be considered Generation Y's very own KISS. The music is different but in a sense the premise is almost similar - just that instead of the rebellious sounding rock n roll, listeners are treated to a seemingly watered down Pantera. I say seemingly because I am not disposed to get into a debate about the quality of Slipknot's music but one thing is certain, they are heavily influenced by the type of metal that came out of US during the mid 90s - the groove based Panteras and Machine Heads and the attitudes that followed.

I thought the original idea of the thread was do band names hold them back.

There's nothing particularly unusual about a band named "Slipknot"; what makes them unusual are the costumes.

True that was the original idea but I think we've added image to the mix too.