(This could go in the pit or here)

I am writing an essay for uni and the question i am asking is

"Does a bands reputation preceed its music?"

An example being would Chinese democracy got into a high place in the album chart if it hadnt been for all there other albums, therefore are we rating the band or the actual music in charts.

Now you may suddenly think "yes" to that question, researching i can see it is almost a definate yes, but i cant seem to come up with any against reasons about why it might be the music they look at.

So i have the quetion and probably the answer, but i dont know how to get there looking at both sides of the argument.

Any help would be good (sorry for the long post)


Custom Built Pearlescent Red Strat

Alpine White Les Paul Copy
Cream Fender Tele Copy
Vox Amps
I would say yes, because most bands use themselves as an image to sell/promote their music.

EDIT: You could argue no for some artists, saying people get exposed to the music first like in an ad or something.
Last edited by m1tch4444 at Oct 7, 2009,
Yes but only if the band has substantial enough reputation/following, a band with no rep may not have it preceded by its music. Start an argument for bands that rose to the top with just music (eg My chemical romance, 3 albums - Incredibly successful) and then others.
Are you saying you didn't think Chinese Democracy was far better then what it was up against? Considering how poor mainstream music is at the moment I'm pretty sure Chinese Democracy deserved even higher then it did.

But no I don't think a bands reputation precedes their music. Maybe Metallica, but then again they're not up against anything good at the moment. I think at the moment a bands image and marketing far precede their music
Quote by John Petrucci
When it comes to practicing, I would spend about 63 hours a day
Interesting topic for an essay, but I really can't see you answering the question in an academic manner in any way. You need to develop a way of rating music objectively, something that really is impossible. I honestly think you should reconsider the topic of the essay, before running headlong into something you most likely will not be very happy about in the end..
Yes, why do you think people thought Death Magnetic would be good?
The DNA results show that Jeremy Kyle is a nob.

Quote by titsmcgee852
I want to look at your sexual naked body.
it depends. before nirvana glam metal was popular, grunge only had a small following. bleach wasn't very successful, and then they released nevermind and got huge. they didn't even dress in a similar way to other successful bands of the time. so they're an example of a band whose music preceeded their reputation.

there are some where it's a bit blurred...paramore got huge recognition from decode, and while a lot of the hype came from their established fan base, a lot of it came from twilight.

on the other hand, there are bands that sell out venues because their shows are good rather than because people love the music. a lot of people go to see parkway drive because the crowds at their shows are always moshing, so they are preceeded by their reputation.

in other words, it depends on the band.
Quote by B4Dkarma
When you look at a guy and immediately go, "wow, what a douchebag"

that is what girls find attractive.
I say yes. A band can be extremely talented but if the lead singer is a douche, then the band would get **** on. One example is Creed. They were/are a great band, but Stapp had to push his ego...
I think to address the other side of the argument you would have to bring up bands with just like one or two big songs but never really gained recognition as a band. For instance, everyone will know what you're talking about if you mention "smoke on the water" but not as many people will know deep purple wrote that song.