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

OK, then I'm out.

If the thread is going to be that unfocused, I don't see anything productive coming from it.

There's a big difference between a band's name and a band's image IMO.

Getting back to the point: names do influence people. I doubt too Christian Death is popular at the CMR

another band I didn't really give a chance for a long time was Decapitated.

I basically thought meh just another grindcore band but when I heard their stuff I changed my opinion - in fact I suggest checking them out if you like the Morbid Angel breed of death metal bands. Not quite as catchy but not overly noisy and blast beat driven either.

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

another band I didn't really give a chance for a long time was Decapitated.

I basically thought meh just another grindcore band but when I heard their stuff I changed my opinion - in fact I suggest checking them out if you like the Morbid Angel breed of death metal bands. Not quite as catchy but not overly noisy and blast beat driven either.

Classic example.

A band with a name like "Decapitated" I automatically know will not appeal to me. I can't imagine a band with a name like that playing glam/sleaze or anything other than death metal.

Not that the name holds them back; it just delineates the type of music they most likely play.

Which again was not what I thought this thread was originally about.

I think this is morphing more into a "Does a band's name influence your listening habits"

tohostudios wrote:

Alex Dee Rokket wrote:

another band I didn't really give a chance for a long time was Decapitated.

I basically thought meh just another grindcore band but when I heard their stuff I changed my opinion - in fact I suggest checking them out if you like the Morbid Angel breed of death metal bands. Not quite as catchy but not overly noisy and blast beat driven either.

Classic example.

A band with a name like "Decapitated" I automatically know will not appeal to me. I can't imagine a band with a name like that playing glam/sleaze or anything other than death metal.

Not that the name holds them back; it just delineates the type of music they most likely play.

Which again was not what I thought this thread was originally about.

I think this is morphing more into a "Does a band's name influence your listening habits"

it is true - death metal band names are not too hard to spot.

I'm not sure why the sudden disturbance with this thread Toho.

It's more or less an open discussion on things relating to the initial idea. Even if the initial idea has morphed the premise hasn't which is about our perceptions when it comes to listening to music.

No problem Alex. Just trying to establish what this thread is about so any of my posts make sense.

I think there are a few basic name concepts that could affect things.

1. Is the name unpronounceable or overly complex?
2. Is the band logo legible?
3. Is the band name offensive, thus limiting marketing possibilities (see Goblin rooster, Anal C*nt)?
4. Is the name too esoteric for the general populace? (King's X)

I agree

1. Is the name unpronounceable or overly complex?
Bands with names that are not in English are likely to have a harder time convincing English speakers. That is not to say that they do not stand out - Dimmu Borgir is a perfect example of a band whose name is foreign yet has gained a massive following around the world. There are many other examples where a foreign name is not at all an undoing but a means for the band to stand out. Yet it also depends on how easy it is to read and pronounce. Some Finnish bands tend to have unpronounceable names.

2. Is the band logo legible?
Can be an undoing when there are too many other bands using illegible logos. When this trend started (and I believe it was with a handful of death and black metal bands) it seemed kinda cool giving the band mystique and a separate identity from others but with so many other extreme metal bands jumping no this bandwagon it has made it a lot harder to tell who the f*ck is who...

3. Is the band name offensive, thus limiting marketing possibilities (see Goblin rooster, Anal C*nt)?
Those are perfect examples and many more can be added. Suffice to say that a majority of these bands do not get signed to any of the major metal distributors / labels and often times do not have their albums distributed via any music stores. Their music can be bought online but mostly via obscure and niche webstores or through the band's web site. Grindcore comes to mind here because it delves into over the top grotesque imagery - with each band competing for shock value. Inevitably all this limits exposure and creates a niche fanbase - it may however be the goal these bands have after all.


4. Is the name too esoteric for the general populace? (King's X)

This is a tough one - depends on the type of music listener. I think people who like rock and metal are more musically adventurous and will check out a variety of different bands even if the name is a bit strange. The problem I see is where the band name suggests a particular style but the band's actual music is of a whole different nature. It also however depends on personal understanding and perception.

Yeah, MORBID SIN - utterly generic death metal band name for a killer power metal outfit.

Extreme - you know... the popular glam/hair band of the 80s ... when I first heard the name I thought they were a thrash band ...

Sinner - this is a band whose name can sound very deceiving depending on which album you listen to ... but it's also one of those band names that works on a lot of levels - Sinner the glam band, Sinner the power metal band ... and so on

I think bands with unusual names tend to get more attention rather than less. I mean, really, is anyone interested in another power metal band with Dragon or Fire somewhere in the name? Probably not. Now, if you had a awesome, raging death metal band called Fluffy Bunny then you'd get some buzz going in the underground scene. I realize I'm being ridiculous but it demonstrates my point.

I think a band's name can definitely mislead potential listeners into buying or not buying an album. My best example of this is Vicious Rumors, which for me is a name that evokes glam metal. I didn't listen to them until the late 90's at which point I couldn't believe they were a straight-up metal band. All those years I could have been supporting them but I chose not to because of their name. Oh well. I think this might happen less now just because of the ease with which one can listen to clips of an unknown band's music online.

Some names are really "METAL", such as Judas Priest, UDO, Iron Maiden, Metal Church, Slayer, Exodus, Annihilator...

Others don't seem metal at all. The first one to pop in my mind is ACCEPT, which IMO sounds more like one of those popular boys pop bands

The weirdest and ugliest name for a metal band (that is if you can call them metal) must be Bullet for my Valentine

Metallica's name was absolutely the main reason for their success. I always thought their name reminded me of the Orwellian countries of Oceania,Eurasia and Eastasia. Metallica's name seems to say "all things metal", the final authority of the metal industry.

I always thought that Laaz Rockit and Vicious Rumors sounded like LA glam band names. Obviously neither band are glam, so their names may have cost them a few sales, initially.

Also, I remember the NWOBHM band Satan talking about how their name really held them back. They would even get barred from gigs because of their name. Sad thing is, their lyrics didn't really reflect that name. So in that case, the band's poor choice of name definitely held them back.

I think it depends, I consider myself open minded about music but for the longest time I never bothered listening to bands such as Pink Cream 69 and Edguy because I felt the names where so stupid that it must also reflect the type of music they are. Of course if I had bothered to listen to them I would have known that is not the case.

But then I always thought the names Smashing Pumpkins and Goo Goo Dolls where pretty stupid names it has not seemed to have affected their success.

If Jon Oliva was to weigh in on the subject, I'm pretty sure he'd have a lot to say about the name 'Savatage' and how it was nothing but an obstacle in the '90s.

Smindas wrote:

If Jon Oliva was to weigh in on the subject, I'm pretty sure he'd have a lot to say about the name 'Savatage' and how it was nothing but an obstacle in the '90s.

Why is that?

There's a handful of interviews where Oliva comes across a bit bitter about the fact that TSO did so well with Christmas Eve / Sarajevo 12/24, whereas Savatage's version got brushed by the wayside. On Wikipedia, it says "Oliva has stated however that he was saddened about the success of the record, citing the fact that the same song was released by both bands, yet TSO's rendition became a bigger hit. This led Jon to believe that the biggest barrier to success would be the Savatage name."

As a whole, Jon doesn't seem so keen on the Savatage name nowadays just because of all the misfortune and toil he's had associated with it. It's fair enough, really. Shame though.

ultmetal wrote:

Smindas wrote:

If Jon Oliva was to weigh in on the subject, I'm pretty sure he'd have a lot to say about the name 'Savatage' and how it was nothing but an obstacle in the '90s.

Why is that?

My

An easy case scenario is the tune "Christmas Eve(Sarajevo12/24)". Went unnoticed as a Savatage tune and a year later, the same tune was re-released under TSO and was a big hit. This brings up the issue of which thing do I focus on more. Common sense would dictate the thing that is making money, but on the other hand there is a kinda/sorta tradition aspect to the other thing. Not to mention carryng on to honor and give respect to
what had been started with his late brother. This of course is mere speculation on all accounts by me, but it does make some sense. I suppose ?

Seems somebody had the same idea and posted before me

manny wrote:

I think it depends, I consider myself open minded about music but for the longest time I never bothered listening to bands such as Pink Cream 69 and Edguy because I felt the names where so stupid that it must also reflect the type of music they are. Of course if I had bothered to listen to them I would have known that is not the case.

But then I always thought the names Smashing Pumpkins and Goo Goo Dolls where pretty stupid names it has not seemed to have affected their success.

I felt the same about both bands.

In fact the only reason I checked PC69 out was because of Andi Derris - since I knew him from Helloween - and Edguy ... well in early 2004 when they released Hellfire Club I heard the song which featured Mille Petrozza from Kreator.

That was why I bought the album and subsequently became a fan of the band lol - a bit ironic since the reason I checked them out was because of the singer from Kreator.

A couple of quick points:

- whether a band's name is cool or not is highly subjective

- bands with unusual names have succeeded over and over again...Toad The Wet Sprocket, Hootie & The Blowfish, Smashing Pumpkins, Goo Goo Dolls, Job For A Cowboy, Lady Gaga, Puddle Of Mudd...etc These bands/artists were obviously not held back because of their names.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

- bands with unusual names have succeeded over and over again...Toad The Wet Sprocket, Hootie & The Blowfish, Smashing Pumpkins, Goo Goo Dolls, Job For A Cowboy, Lady Gaga, Puddle Of Mudd...etc These bands/artists were obviously not held back because of their names.

...Lamb of God.

There are a lot of reasons why a band may not become successful, but there is no doubt that a poorly chosen name can do some harm.