# In This Moment Are Now a Major Label Band



## Wings of Obsidian (Feb 5, 2014)

So...as we all remember, In This Moment finally released their fourth album _Blood_ in 2012 and they finally took off into mainstream and became a heavy-hitting juggernaut for Century Media Records. Mad congratulations to the band on their success; however, I feel like _Blood_ was a total letdown of an album. 

For me, personally, the first three albums were amazing. I remember being a kid and discovering_ Beautiful Tragedy _and _The Dream_ (around the time that the latter came out), and I remember thinking that those albums were excellent metal albums. _Beautiful Tragedy _still holds a special place in my heart for personal reasons. Their third album _A Star-Crossed Wasteland _was alright, but a step in the wrong direction musically in my opinion. (Shame that guitarist Blake Bunzel and drummer Jeff Fabb left after this album.) And then of course, the fourth album came around and as I said was a total letdown musically, despite the experimentation, but it broke them into the mainstream and have gotten them headlining a ridiculous amount of tours.

The band released a statement one day ago saying that they are now working on their fifth album already.

Link: In This Moment Begin Work on 'Blood' Follow-Up: 'We Want to Be Very Powerful Next Time' | Billboard

But, in bigger news, now apparently they are a MAJOR label band because they've signed to Atlantic Records. This means that they will be on the same roster as Bruno Mars, B.o.B., Wiz Khalifa, Jason Mraz, etc.

DOES SOMETHING SEEM WRONG HERE? (In summation: metal on a massive pop and rap label?)

Link: In This Moment Are a Major Label Band Now | MetalSucks

Here also is the age-old question as a final thought: is the band now exploiting and cashing in on Maria Brink's sexuality/gender? It seems like ever since she bared her ass nude for that "Whore" promotional picture, the band has taken off at an exponential speed. This leads me to wonder if other female-fronted acts such as The Agonist, Arch Enemy, Epica, Within Temptation, Nightwish, Cerebral Bore, Huntress, etc. should all do the same as a ticket to fame? (Of course, the last band name I mentioned on the list already has done so to a far more severe extent. This probably won't happen with the other bands because their music is not as accessible or viable for radio-play or mainstream success.)


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Feb 5, 2014)

Christ that's a good looking woman.

Not familiar with the music, but i'm guessing label is thinking "EVANESCENCE"


----------



## Randyrhoads123 (Feb 5, 2014)

"is the band now exploiting and cashing in on Maria Brink's sexuality/gender?"

Yes. And I think Revolver magazine has directly contributed to that. Along with all the other "Hottest chicks in metal/hard rock" bands.

I've hated their music for awhile now. Beautiful Tragedy was pretty good, the song at least. Haven't heard the whole album. Regardless, they exist to sell an image now.


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Feb 5, 2014)

Randyrhoads123 said:


> Beautiful Tragedy was pretty good, the song at least. Haven't heard the whole album. Regardless, they exist to sell an image now.



Just a little nudge-nudge, give a listen to the whole album. It seriously is great, and like I said, holds a special place in my heart for very personal reasons (which makes me slightly biased). But to save you some time: "Ashes", "Daddy's Falling Angel", "He Said Eternity", "Prayers", and "Beautiful Tragedy". In that order. 



VBCheeseGrater said:


> Christ that's a good looking woman.



What is scary is that she had her son at the age of 15. ("Whore" comments anyone?) And now she is 36, meaning her son is 21......my age. O.O


----------



## thrsher (Feb 5, 2014)

sex sells. age old marketing


----------



## thrsher (Feb 5, 2014)

shadows fall went to Atlantic too after century media, look where that got them. 

Atlantic doesn't know how to market metal


----------



## Scattered Messiah (Feb 5, 2014)

Ah, this explains why I never again heard of ShadowFalls ... xD


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Feb 5, 2014)

Have never listened to this band. But that Rolling Stones cover...


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 5, 2014)

Wings of Obsidian said:


> Here also is the age-old question as a final thought: is the band now exploiting and cashing in on Maria Brink's sexuality/gender?


They are clearly and blatantly doing that.


Wings of Obsidian said:


> It seems like ever since she bared her ass nude for that "Whore" promotional picture, the band has taken off at an exponential speed. This leads me to wonder if other female-fronted acts such as The Agonist, Arch Enemy, Epica, Within Temptation, Nightwish, Cerebral Bore, Huntress, etc. should all do the same as a ticket to fame?


Are you serious? Are you viewing this as though sexualizing female band members for the sole purpose of generating fame and attention is not only acceptable, but _laudable_?


----------



## ByDesign (Feb 5, 2014)

Wings of Obsidian said:


> Just a little nudge-nudge, give a listen to the whole album. It seriously is great, and like I said, holds a special place in my heart for very personal reasons (which makes me slightly biased). But to save you some time: "Ashes", "Daddy's Falling Angel", "He Said Eternity", "Prayers", and "Beautiful Tragedy"



I just listened to 'Ashes' for the first time, it sounded like a remix of Rose of Sharyn


----------



## fps (Feb 5, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> They are clearly and blatantly doing that.
> 
> Are you serious? Are you viewing this as though sexualizing female band members for the sole purpose of generating fame and attention is not only acceptable, but _laudable_?



I think he's just asking whether these women want to use their looks to sell records, and that's an age-old issue. Whoever In This Moment are, they've been smart enough to know what the audience wants from them in particular.


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Feb 5, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> Are you serious? Are you viewing this as though sexualizing female band members for the sole purpose of generating fame and attention is not only acceptable, but _laudable_?



No man, I am in no way condoning this, nor saying that it deserves praise. Read FPS's reply above. (Thanks man.) I was just asking if they "want" to do this said act. Or if they think that they "should" be doing this said act.


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 5, 2014)

^Gotcha.


fps said:


> Whoever In This Moment are, they've been smart enough to know what the audience wants from them in particular.


I think their success is more of an indicator of how female musicians aren't taken seriously than a measure of how smart In This Moment is for noticing this trend and cashing in on it. The music should be the forefront of consideration, not what gender, race, or sexual preference any of the band members happen to be. I'm personally biased because I think this band's music is terrible, but even if I genuinely liked the music I still wouldn't approve of a group of musicians receiving undue attention due traits that are irrelevant to the music itself. I think things like this and Revolver's "hottest chicks in metal" tabloid material send the wrong message to young female musicians and from a big picture perspective it perpetuates the overwhelming minority of female musicians, especially in more musically demanding genres, by teaching women either A: they won't make it as a musician unless they're physically attractive or B: if they do somehow manage to make it as a musician, more time will be spent discussing how attractive they are than will be spent discussing their musical abilities.


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Feb 5, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> ^Gotcha.
> The music should be the forefront of consideration, not what gender, race, or sexual preference any of the band members happen to be.



Which is true, and far more fair, not only to the band, but to other bands competing with them. Put everyone on an even playing field regardless of sexuality/gender.

I mean, I can prove that this band is talented. (See video below courtesy of EMG studios.)





The ProfEscher said:


> but even if I genuinely liked the music I still wouldn't approve of a group of musicians receiving undue attention due traits that are irrelevant to the music itself. I think things like this and Revolver's "hottest chicks in metal" tabloid material send the wrong message to young female musicians and from a big picture perspective it perpetuates the overwhelming minority of female musicians, especially in more musically demanding genres, by teaching women either A: they won't make it as a musician unless they're physically attractive or B: if they do somehow manage to make it as a musician, more time will be spent discussing how attractive they are than will be spent discussing their musical abilities.



Been wanting to say that for a long time now. Just wasn't sure how to word/phrase it.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 5, 2014)

While that acoustic video suggests she eventually at least started to get vocal lessons, Beautiful Tragedy is my vote for single worst metal vocals of all time. No, scratch that, I guess they're better than the clean vocals on the title track of De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas. Definitely the worst female vocals I've heard on a professional release, though. It's just SO bad sounding, it's like they recorded the vocals, realized they were completely lifeless, and had her overdub the exact same line like 3 or 4 times to attempt to give it some aural CPR. You can hear on the verses, it's like one line will be single, and then it gets overdubbed on the next phrase. The choruses are entirely overdubbed like that but occasionally throw in some harmony overdubs too. Anyway, it didn't work and just creates a loud wall of offkey moaning. Basically all the high notes sound like her throat's about to give out. There's absolutely no way they hired her for her singing skills over her looks, since the rest of the band sounds completely competent and slick.



While I think marketing their band based on how hot their singer is is somewhat reprehensible, I'm OK with it when they at least sound like an actual band. This is the worst example of "hey check out this hot chick" I can think of just cause she's SO much worse than the rest of the band and everything sounds like they're just making an attempt to compensate for her.

EDIT: Missed the question posed in the OP. Yes, they are cashing in on her sexuality, but I think that was their goal from day one so I don't think they sold out now, they started out with this goal in mind. Kudos for finally managing to get her some attention by having a song called "Whore" :/


----------



## rastachild (Feb 5, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> ^Gotcha.
> 
> I think their success is more of an indicator of how female musicians aren't taken seriously than a measure of how smart In This Moment is for noticing this trend and cashing in on it. The music should be the forefront of consideration, not what gender, race, or sexual preference any of the band members happen to be. I'm personally biased because I think this band's music is terrible, but even if I genuinely liked the music I still wouldn't approve of a group of musicians receiving undue attention due traits that are irrelevant to the music itself. I think things like this and Revolver's "hottest chicks in metal" tabloid material send the wrong message to young female musicians and from a big picture perspective it perpetuates the overwhelming minority of female musicians, especially in more musically demanding genres, by teaching women either A: they won't make it as a musician unless they're physically attractive or B: if they do somehow manage to make it as a musician, more time will be spent discussing how attractive they are than will be spent discussing their musical abilities.


 
+1

although it's nothing new. music has been image driven ever since the record companies discovered they could clone the success of an artist/band. the sad thing is that the majority of the public pretty much expects this. meaning, if the music isn't accompanied by the appropriate image, then it's not worth listening to.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 5, 2014)

It bugs me way more with a band like this than a band like say, Paramore or No Doubt or even Lacuna Coil since at least those bands the vocals are all totally appropriate to the music and the singers sound like real singers! If they then get more attention for how hot they are, then whatever, it's unfortunate but I'm not about to declare them gimmick bands. In This Moment, on the other hand...


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Feb 5, 2014)

wankerness said:


> This is the worst example of "hey check out this hot chick" I can think of just cause she's SO much worse than the rest of the band and everything sounds like they're just making an attempt to compensate for her.



You clearly have not heard of Huntress. Zero talent in the vocal or instrument department. ZERO. (The chick who is the vocalist was a topless DJ, and only did it for attention, before she tried to become a vocalist. I'm sensing a few "topless vocalist" appearances coming soon...)



wankerness said:


> Kudos for finally managing to get her some attention by having a song called "Whore" :/



Lol. (I know, I shouldn't be laughing at that. And I in no way condone this.) But if you had a kid at the age of 15, I'm sure you'd hear that insult quite a bit too. So, hey, song inspiration. :/


----------



## TylerEstes (Feb 5, 2014)

Randyrhoads123 said:


> "is the band now exploiting and cashing in on Maria Brink's sexuality/gender?"








They have her naked with "WHORE" scrawled on her back. That says everything. They put her on a pedestal (with that stool it's so close to being literal) while obviously not respecting her as a musician. It's like her fans expect a blowjob for buying an album. 

Metal is a sausagefest. Fact. It's just plain full of dudes. But every time there's a woman being musical, they put her on a pedestal like that. Sometimes they want it to be that way. I have no problem respecting a female as a musician, no matter her skill level, as long as she isn't "Teehee, look at me playing guitar while having boobs. I hope my boobs don't get in the way of my guitar. Boobs." But then all the guys shower her with praise, no matter how attractive or skilled she is. A troll with tits vaguely strumming something with strings? Suddenly a prodigy. 

The vocalist for In This Moment isn't even attractive and her vocals sound like ass. She looks like Lady Gaga got into Tool and Metallica. Her band is a gimmick, and it's like she wants to be seen as such. But hey, it got them signed. So good for them, I guess.

Treat female musicians like you treat male ones. This isn't 1952, you don't have to pet a woman on the head every time she tries to be artistic. Have some respect for them. Jeez. 

Don't walk up to Tobin Abasi and say "Hey man, kudos for being black and a metal guitarist" and don't walk up to Maria Brink and say "You're so totally hot and talented just because you're a woman in metal. Will you blow me?" Have some respect. For your sake and theirs. 

Now, if Maria was just like "Yeah, I sing in a metal band but whatever" instead of "I hope my dress and boobs don't get in the way of my microphone. Also, don't pay attention to those guys with guitars. Just background noise." then I'd respect her. How many of you guys would like this band if it was a dude doing vocals? She pulls out the gender card and it got her what she wanted. Kinda lame. You're only a gimmick if you act like it. And she does. 

I don't mean to talk shit. But damn, she is soooooooooooo overrated. Is it because of the vocal range or am I missing something? I hope nobody labels me as sexist for saying "Only respect an artist as an artist if they don't pull out the gender/race/sexual orientation card."


----------



## wankerness (Feb 5, 2014)

TylerEstes said:


> The vocalist for In This Moment isn't even attractive and her vocals sound like ass. She looks like Lady Gaga got into Tool and Metallica. Her band is a gimmick, and it's like she wants to be seen as such. But hey, it got them signed. So good for them, I guess.








C'mon, really? She's definitely not an unattractive person physically. Her vocals are bad enough to trash on their own merits IMHO! And Lady Gaga is incredibly attractive! Plus, her vocals are at least 500x better than this chick's. >:O

I find it hard to get mad at her for any of this, but I really don't know how they've developed over time. On the first album, though, it seemed like she might not even have been aware that she was terrible and the rest of the band were being the cynical exploiters of gender. I certainly am no expert on this band, though.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 5, 2014)

Wings of Obsidian said:


> You clearly have not heard of Huntress. Zero talent in the vocal or instrument department. ZERO. (The chick who is the vocalist was a topless DJ, and only did it for attention, before she tried to become a vocalist. I'm sensing a few "topless vocalist" appearances coming soon...)



You're right, I never heard of them. Now that I look them up on youtube, I'm sorry that you told me about them! Her vocals are hilarious but they sound like a really silly Halford impersonation, it's not the thin, strained, overdubbed garbage of In This Moment's first album. I mean, I hate them, but they don't suck from a technical standpoint nearly as much, haha. The rest of the band and the songs are far worse, however.


----------



## lucasreis (Feb 5, 2014)

I like some of their old stuff and I really enjoy the single "The Promise" featuring the vocalist of Otherwise. After that, I didn't really enjoy the stuff on Blood, it sounds like they're trying to do a lot of different genres while not succeeding in any of them... 

And they are exploiting Maria's image to the maximum. It sucks... they are a talented bunch but if ....ing sucks when a band capitalizes on the image of a female singer. many bands are just as talented or way more and they don't get the same exposure...

Also, Maria's voice sucks most of them time.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 5, 2014)

Oh jesus christ, I just listened to "Blood." I'll give her credit for at least sounding like an actual singer now. I mean, the vocals are awful, but it no longer sounds like they're just trying to compensate for her. They sure jumped genres until they found one that was marketable, I guess?

It kind of reminds me of Brokencyde.



EDIT: Whore is similar! I basically can't stand it, but at least it sounds like a band trying to do something, as opposed to the early stuff, which sounded like a metalcore band desperately tryng to make the hottest chick they could find work as a singer so people would pay attention to them. They improved!


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Feb 5, 2014)

Hey guys, just wanted to say, I understand the extreme overt sexualization of women within a certain industry (especially such as the music industry) can be a touchy topic, so thanks for keeping it level and rational thus far. (And thanks for not saying "Boobs. Boobs. Boobs." and nothing else.) You guys have helped keep this topic mature and interesting. 

@wankerness: alright...we get the point... -.-'

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But let's take a second to look past the makeup and look past the "perfect" photogenic lighting for a few real-life shots (and not some Photoshopped magazine-esque pic). 

And in this moment, a few hotness points were definitely lost...


----------



## JoeyBTL (Feb 5, 2014)

TylerEstes said:


> It's like her fans expect a blowjob for buying an album.



Sounds like a preorder package from merch connection.


----------



## abandonist (Feb 5, 2014)

I've never heard this band's music and I don't need to to know I don't care for it.

This whole thread is really just about wish fulfillment as pertains to women in music.


----------



## spawnofthesith (Feb 5, 2014)

Don't care for the band. Vocalist is hawt as ..... About all I have to say on the matter


----------



## MikeyLawless (Feb 5, 2014)

Shes hot..,thats about all i see here.


----------



## JohnIce (Feb 5, 2014)

I dig the band. Her over-the-top stage persona, which ties with the lyrics that intently, makes it _genuine_ for me. It makes artistic sense.

Just like Kiss, Rammstein, Marilyn Manson, Alice Cooper or whothefvckever, there's a place in art for the provocative, the grossness, obscenity, perversion and plain sexuality. Not everyone gets it, but none of the bands I mentioned would make as much sense (and therefore be as interesting) without those things. And they ALL got shit for it of course, that can be expected, but as soon as a girl is involved, she has to take some extra gender-related shit for doing that exact same type of art. I don't, _honestly don't_, see why. Yeah she has boobs, women do, and if complete non-studs like Mick Jagger, Gene Simmons or Steven Tyler are allowed to maximize their sexual appeal then Maria Brink can be butt-naked onstage for all I care. It's about the music and making a captivating performance that fits that music, how much or little the artist gets laid on the side doesn't interest me in the least. Good for them if they do though 

And no, it would make NO sense artistically for Within Temptation, Epica or Lacuna Coil to do what Maria Brink does, just like it wouldn't make artistic sense for Porcupine Tree to do what Rammstein does. They're men with electric guitars that play rock music, that's not enough similarity to generalize like that IMO. Bands with women in them should be no different.

TL;DR: I think In This Moment makes art that appeals to me. Boobs, oh yeah, women have them.

- NOTE - btw, might as well clarify that I'm not calling any previous poster in this thread a sexist. I'm sure some might think I did but I didn't so defense speeches are unnecessary, debate on the other hand is welcome


----------



## Louis Cypher (Feb 6, 2014)

Bands exploiting their sexy female lead singer thing again, this is such a dead horse that's now rotten to fcuk..... but hey lets kick it one more time..... 

I really like them, Beautiful Tragedy is really good album, the rest since not quite touched that one but still they are a far better band than a lot out there right now that are "successful" so I would def say they deserve it, and Maria is a very good lead singer actually, especially live. She knows how to put on a proper live performance. 

And yeah she is gorgeous. I always thought she was incredibly good looking and sexy, and if you have someone so stunning looking out front of your band why not push that to the teenage boys, no diff to what bands like Bon Jovi or Skid Row did to teenage girls back in the day, and tbh if its good enough for every other genre to market a band or artist based on its sexy singer (male or female) then why should metal be exempt? Long as its a choice for her to do it and its nor forced on her by the band or label and she feels she its ok to say no I don't wanna sit naked for this cover or whatever then its all good by me. Think sometimes people confuse the difference between exploiting the public through clever/blatant marketing and the exploitation of an individual against their will or better judgement. This is the former to me. Coz its working, we all talking bout In This Moment and people who would never have bothered or heard of them are now checking out the videos and songs and at the same time the pics of Maria wearing fcuk all....


----------



## lemeker (Feb 6, 2014)

Just saw these guys a couple of months ago outside of Chicago. Good show, and a good band for what they are, a hard rock/(light)metal band.

After a few record's, I don't think they really need a major label to carry them. 
I also think it will work better for them because they already have a wider audience than Shadow's Fall ever did.


----------



## fps (Feb 6, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> ^Gotcha.
> 
> I think their success is more of an indicator of how female musicians aren't taken seriously than a measure of how smart In This Moment is for noticing this trend and cashing in on it. The music should be the forefront of consideration, not what gender, race, or sexual preference any of the band members happen to be. I'm personally biased because I think this band's music is terrible, but even if I genuinely liked the music I still wouldn't approve of a group of musicians receiving undue attention due traits that are irrelevant to the music itself. I think things like this and Revolver's "hottest chicks in metal" tabloid material send the wrong message to young female musicians and from a big picture perspective it perpetuates the overwhelming minority of female musicians, especially in more musically demanding genres, by teaching women either A: they won't make it as a musician unless they're physically attractive or B: if they do somehow manage to make it as a musician, more time will be spent discussing how attractive they are than will be spent discussing their musical abilities.



It's tricky though, because even as guys enjoying the music of other guys, those bands thet get major label big have a certain magnetism about them, for the most part. Their frontmen use their image, their physicality, if not sexuality, though definitely sometimes sexuality (80s Axl Rose?) and they do without it being a consideration whether or not they're doing it. At which point there's a certain amount of identification and wish fulfilment in terms of BEING that guy on stage, having that perceived magnetism, which is playing on the audience.

This band, as you say, I don't think they'd have got anywhere without this flaunting of their singer. But it's not like they're denying another female-fronted band a major label shot by being on there. And there are some, maybe not enough, awesome female singers who just get on and do their thing, without having to resort to this, Angela Gossow and Laura Pleasants springing to mind. 

Do you think this singer should be taken seriously for her talent? If not, then given that she in particular wants a career in music, why should she not take another route to being noticed? You're not taking her seriously for her talent anyway. She might herself be pretty angry at being stereotyped as *hot metal woman*, if she has a certain look that's attractive, she can't exactly help that can she, and why would she actively downplay it? 

To draw a comparison, actresses don't willingly downplay their looks, at least not until they're already established as being beautiful, it's another string to the bow. Scarlett Johansson can act like anything, but she knows she's gotta look good too. The same goes for Daniel Craig on the men's side though. Only one will be judged for that in a negative manner due to the overtly sexualised nature of the male gaze.


----------



## rectifryer (Feb 6, 2014)

sexualization of metal


----------



## Randy (Feb 6, 2014)

I dabbled in In This Moment a little a few years back, but I couldn't really get into them. Musically, I'd consider them very unique but how much of that is deliberate, I'm not really sure because there's not much there that paints a vivid or interesting picture for me. 

As far as the stuff about Maria Brink and her nudity/sexualization, that doesn't really bother me because women doing that in music is a dime a dozen. The thing that I personally find offensive about In This Moment is that there's a stereotype out there about women and theatrics/sexualization in musicm and the thing about In This Moment that got me into them in the first place is that they seemed to be trying to leverage being forceful, unapologetic heavy metal band AGAINST those stereotypes and now they've kinda evolved into embodying them.

This is the kinda stuff I'm talking about:



...jesus christ, just come out and play your songs. This is so far removed from what I want in a rock concert. 

We get it Maria, you consider yourself very creative and inspired with visuals (yep, running makeup, smeared blood and bondage apparatus are under utilized )... go write a rock opera and come back to the metal scene when you're prepared to put on a rock show and ditch the dance routine and the props.


----------



## wat (Feb 6, 2014)

who cares? it's showbusiness, and we're talking about a pop-metal band here.

male rock stars have been doing the same thing(garnering attention through sexuality) for as long as rock existed and now it becomes a big deal when women do it? a hot scantily clad chick fronting the band adds a lot of excitement to the visual element of a live show and 5 ugly dudes in black T-shirts banging their head only goes so far


----------



## Randy (Feb 6, 2014)

wat said:


> a hot scantily clad chick fronting the band adds a lot of excitement to the visual element of a live show



And I actually bought their CD when they were that.

This shit with dry humping mannequins and doing choreographed dance moves is the epitome of 'non-metal' and it _personally_ feels like they just use the tits as the spoonful of sugar to get you to swallow that shitty medicine that has become their music/stageshow.


----------



## Nats (Feb 6, 2014)

This is great news for anyone that loves listening to nails on a chalkboard!


----------



## wankerness (Feb 6, 2014)

Randy said:


> This shit with dry humping mannequins and doing choreographed dance moves is the epitome of 'non-metal' and it _personally_ feels like they just use the tits as the spoonful of sugar to get you to swallow that shitty medicine that has become their music/stageshow.



Based on "Blood" and "Whore" they're not really trying to be "metal" anymore anyway. I think a silly stage show is totally justified with music like this. It's basically just really dirty, nasty pop music. I don't like it but I can appreciate what they're doing.


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 6, 2014)

Louis Cypher said:


> and tbh if its good enough for every other genre to market a band or artist based on its sexy singer (male or female) then why should metal be exempt?


This is not the right way to look at the blatant sexualization of women. What you're attempting to do with this statement is the same as a toddler pointing his finger at a handful of other kids and screaming "THEY DID IT TOO!" in order to justify his actions when confronted with them. I know sex sells, but that is due to and contributes to the self-fulfilling prophecy that is the male-dominated music scene. Why do YOU think there aren't nearly as many female musicians as male musicians, and why the heavier and more technical genres in particular are essentially sausage fests?


Louis Cypher said:


> Long as its a choice for her to do it and its nor forced on her by the band or label and she feels she its ok to say no I don't wanna sit naked for this cover or whatever then its all good by me. Think sometimes people confuse the difference between exploiting the public through clever/blatant marketing and the exploitation of an individual against their will or better judgement.


Yeah, I know it's consensual, I'm not accusing the rest of the band of exploiting her image against her will. I'm accusing her along WITH her band of intentionally using her image to draw attention to their music, in ways that are entirely irrelevant to their music. 


fps said:


> Do you think this singer should be taken seriously for her talent?


Yes, but having listened to a few of the band's songs I don't personally find she stands out to me enough to have received the amount of attention she has received.


fps said:


> If not, then given that she in particular wants a career in music, why should she not take another route to being noticed?


If she wants a career in music, she should make music. If she wants a modeling/porn career, she should pursue a modeling/porn career. The two have nothing to do with each other, unless In This Moment is writing concept albums about naked women in dunce caps. The bottom line is, it's a gimmick, just like metal bands featuring celebrities or techno breakdowns in every song. The reason I have less of an issue with those is that they have vastly less influence on our mainstream culture and our ideas about women.


fps said:


> You're not taking her seriously for her talent anyway. She might herself be pretty angry at being stereotyped as *hot metal woman*, if she has a certain look that's attractive, she can't exactly help that can she, and why would she actively downplay it?


I'm not saying she should _downplay_ her looks. You mentioned yourself several other female vocalists who managed to distinguish themselves without posing naked for a magazine cover. I think what she's doing is the opposite of downplaying, and I think if she wants to garner attention for herself and her band she should do so primarily with her voice and not her body. If she happens to gain fans as a side product of her physical traits then so be it, but to actively flaunt them for that sole purpose isn't anything to commend.


----------



## Jonathan20022 (Feb 6, 2014)

One word to describe this band, downward spiral.

Their first album was odd, because Maria's screams sound like she's shrieking. "Forever", "Lost at Sea", and "The Promise" are the only songs that come to mind when I think of this band because I genuinely like those songs. But guess what, their live show has turned focus on the lead singer and away from the band.

She isn't some talented vocalist and songwriter to have the fanbase idolize HER while "her" band becomes background noise. .... that shit, the pay must be great when your songs basically become pop rock with a spoonful of edgy feminism. I'd like to imagine that the musicians who left had at least a shred of self respect to leave their involvement with the band up until their music became a manufactured CD with a pair of breasts on the cover of every copy.


----------



## JohnIce (Feb 6, 2014)

I guess a lot of this discussion revolves around what is art and what is gimmick. Then there's entertainment also which many would separate from art, but not everyone. Some would argue music and visual art don't belong together. With shock rock like this, there's a moral element as well. Is blood ok? Nudity? Nazi references? Killing animals?

I don't believe there is any right or wrong to any of it, it's all subjective.

But kinky, gruesome, controversial and sacriligious themes have always found their way into art and always will most likely. And nudity is STILL the most taboo thing of all 

I mean come on, mankind has gone to war, murdered, tortured, and enslaved each other for thousands of years. But taking off the loincloth so others can see your peepee, no that's where we draw the line


----------



## spawnofthesith (Feb 6, 2014)

Whenever all the hyperbole comes up in these discussions on here that's allegedly supposed to be "anti-sexist" or whatever....


I'm not gonna lie, it comes across as extremely sexist


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Feb 6, 2014)

wankerness said:


> It's basically just really dirty, nasty pop music.



^ Based on the production and what they were trying to do with all this "experimentation" on the album with incorporating "pop" sounds, I agree with this.



The ProfEscher said:


> If she wants a career in music, she should make music. If she wants a modeling/porn career, she should pursue a modeling/porn career. The two have nothing to do with each other, unless In This Moment is writing concept albums about naked women in dunce caps.



And "Whore" is about...well...being called a "whore", right? No dunce cap concept there, right?

I completely agree with this statement, ProfEscher.


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Feb 6, 2014)

Jonathan20022 said:


> One word to describe this band, downward spiral.
> 
> Their first album was odd, because Maria's screams sound like she's shrieking. "Forever", "Lost at Sea", and "The Promise" are the only songs that come to mind when I think of this band because I genuinely like those songs. But guess what, their live show has turned focus on the lead singer and away from the band.



Amen. The first album was odd, but it was my favorite and was heavier, and like I said in my OP, it holds a special place in my heart for personal reasons.

The second album, _The Dream_, which contained the three songs you listed, was more commercially successful and had actual charting singles that propelled the band. (I mean, they weren't like "Top Billboard Pop" shit, but they were still popular hard rock/metal tracks.)

The live show is actually a smart idea being that it is integrated theater and music, meaning it gives the audience more bang-for-the-buck entertainment (like Devin Townsend's Retinal Circus, right?) However, the fact that the focus is now on Maria (and her ALONE as an object of feminism) is now ridiculous because she is abusing her position as a vocalist to ram shit down the throats of fans, meanwhile using her tits (*cough*, meant "looks", sorry) to help sell/justify this for the band and their new label.

(Pardon me if I interpreted that wrong. That is merely what I got from reading the five posts above yours, Jonathan.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I utterly HATE now though is that in an interview back when _Blood_ was released, Maria and guitarist Chris Howorth explicitly said that the band has become a background thing, not trying to stand out in anyway (which is why they all dress the same and don't talk much).

This is leading me to the conclusion that the band MAYBE was signed for one reason: Maria. - Anyone remember Paramore? Turns out that they were signed for one reason: vocalist Hayley Williams, whom the label wanted to turn into a female pop juggernaut. Eventually, the original band (who tagged along with her) got sick and tired of the shit and left her one-by-one. Now, the only member of Paramore left is Hayley Williams. In the past two years, it has been a continuous revolving door of musicians coming in to try to fill some shoes, but being dissatisfied and leaving because they don't want to be a background part of "The Hayley Williams Show". - Once the Round 2 hype for Paramore (*cough* I mean "Williams") dies down, I foresee the bandname taking a big nosedive into the dirt as some other pop diva comes and begins to dominate the charts again. - With that thought process, could we say the same thing for In This Moment right now with the signing to Atlantic Records?

I'm half tempted to message up some of the past members (especially guitarist Blake Bunzel who is the master of the ambient rhythm guitar textures from the first two albums) to ask them what their thoughts were and what was up. Like Jonathan said, I like to see them as "musicians who left had at least a shred of self respect" before they left.


----------



## UrchineSLICE (Feb 6, 2014)

I can't say I'm a huge fan of In This Moment. There are times where they came on Hard Attack and I enjoyed some tracks, but they didn't really stick with me. That being said, I do believe that this is a bad career choice based on the only other time that a metal band signed to Atlantic: Shadows Fall.

When Shadows Fall were on Century Media, they had 2 gold albums, one of which debuted in the top 20 of the Billboard. Not only that, but they were featured on big tours like Ozzfest, Sounds of the Underground and they opened for Slipknot on the Vol.3 tour. I believe at one point they also opened for Metallica. They also had a couple of Grammy nominations, and were featured in Guitar Hero, and were on the cover of magazines like Revolver, and Metal Hammer and shit like that. Shadows Fall were going places.

Than they signed to Atlantic, who hired Nick Razsculniks (who is hit or miss with metal. I.E Triviums Shogun \m/, and Stone Sours Audio Secrecy *fart*) to produce their record, Threads of Life, instead of Zeus, causing it to have a very mainstream sound, compared to their earlier work which was like Gothenberg meets hardcore, which alienated their fanbase. They also did .... all to promote the album and it tanked, fading Shadows Fall into obscuriy. Their albums after that were much better, and heavier, but they got dropped by Atlantic and never really recovered.

I don't see signing with Atlantic being a good move for In This Moment, I'd like to be proven wrong, but these days metal bands don't really have much staying power and In This Moment seem like a flavor of the week kind of band. Even if they go in a more mainstream direction, that doesn't always spell instant success for a metal band. 

I mean look at what happened to Mudvayne. Heavy-ish band right? Had an album debut at number 2 behind Nickelback or some shit? Than they put out an album littered with acoustic guitars and ballads and doesn't do shit for them. 

Remember last year when Trivium decided to make the monumentally terrible decision to use David Monkey Draiman to produce their record and it was the first Trivium record not to out chart it's previous release. And everyone hated it.

I don't see Atlantic being a good home for In This Moment. If they wanted to go on a major label, why not Universal, or Roadrunner? I mean do we really expect to see In This Moment tour with Kid Rock and Bruno Mars?


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 6, 2014)

Wings of Obsidian said:


> And "Whore" is about...well...being called a "whore", right? No dunce cap concept there, right?
> 
> I completely agree with this statement, ProfEscher.


I didn't realize that was a thing. I thought I was being facetious, haha. I've already admitted I'm only listened to a handful of material.


----------



## themike (Feb 6, 2014)

We've shot a few videos for them and they are all great people. Regarding the discussion at hand my personal belief is that they started in the smallest bars playing metal - they climbed the latter and unlike 99% of bands in this genre made it to the top so even if its your thing or not, I back it. Go for broke and who knows, they could be the first band on pop radio playing 7 strings! haha

In regards to her hotness.... shes in her late 30s with a son probably the same age as a majority of you - I didn't look that good in my late (legal) teens, 20s and almost guaranteed I wont in my 30s through death


----------



## xCaptainx (Feb 6, 2014)

That Blood video above might as well be a Lady Gaga song/performance. Very odd.


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Feb 6, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> I didn't realize that was a thing. I thought I was being facetious, haha. I've already admitted I'm only listened to a handful of material.



I was just referring to the Rolling Stones magazine cover, but ok.

Fellow North Carolinians think alike. 



themike said:


> In regards to her hotness.... shes in her late 30s with a son probably the same age as a majority of you - I didn't look that good in my late (legal) teens, 20s and almost guaranteed I wont in my 30s through death



Yeah man, like I said on page 1 of this thread. She had a kid at 15. She is 37 now, putting her kid at 21...my age! O.O (And she's looking like THIS?)


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 6, 2014)

Wings of Obsidian said:


> I was just referring to the Rolling Stones magazine cover, but ok.


....Oh. I thought you were countering my point by bringing up a song she'd written about her gender controversy and I was surprised such a thing existed. Uhhhh, never mind then, lol.


----------



## abandonist (Feb 7, 2014)

Wings of Obsidian said:


> Yeah man, like I said on page 1 of this thread. She had a kid at 15. She is 37 now, putting her kid at 21...my age! O.O (And she's looking like THIS?)



Don't be a puritan. If she feels good dressing like that then good on her. And if kids want to buy her records because she portrays a fantasy for them, then good on her again. My wife is 34. When she dresses slutty it's hot.


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 7, 2014)

I think he was attempting to express awe at the fact that she's still attractive at her age after having a child, not conservative outrage at her choice of attire.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Feb 7, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> This is not the right way to look at the blatant sexualization of women. What you're attempting to do with this statement is the same as a toddler pointing his finger at a handful of other kids and screaming "THEY DID IT TOO!" in order to justify his actions when confronted with them. I know sex sells, but that is due to and contributes to the self-fulfilling prophecy that is the male-dominated music scene. Why do YOU think there aren't nearly as many female musicians as male musicians, and why the heavier and more technical genres in particular are essentially sausage fests?
> 
> Yeah, I know it's consensual, I'm not accusing the rest of the band of exploiting her image against her will. I'm accusing her along WITH her band of intentionally using her image to draw attention to their music, in ways that are entirely irrelevant to their music.
> 
> ...



To be fair I agree with you in a sense, in a ideal musical world everyone would be judged on how good they are musically and selling your music by using you sexuality or sex wouldn't make you money or sell a single record. But its not an ideal world. Fact is sex sells and that goes for both Men and Women. If In this Moment's music was really that bad then the only people in to them and buying their music would the 14 & 15 yr old boys who will buy what their hormones are decide whats good and whats not. The rest of us buy their music based on whether its any good or not. To me Maria can pose naked or do porn or become a puritan nun and homeless dog sanctuary founder, won't make a difference as to whether I buy the next album or not. 

There are two issues I think your post actually hihglights, one is the general sexualisation of music by both male and female artists, which is out of control in some cases and the industry needs to look at itself across the board as to what they promote and how in regards to both Men and Women. 

Then the one which this thread and many others show, that every good looking woman in metal especially for some reason, is somehow only selling records coz of the looks or coz they are some kind of model/porn star first and a singer/guitarist second. No one questions a man when he uses his sexuallity to sell or promote a record. 30 Seconds to Mars, if weren't for Jared Leto, where woudl they be? Very good looking man, selling himself and his success in his other career as a movie star with overtly sexual magazine ps and articles in order to promote his band. No one gets in to a rant abotu that. Another really blatant example I can think of is D'Angelo's Untitled video for his Voodoo album. If you not seen it check it out as first and foremost it is an incredible song, second he is naked in the whole video, one long filmed sequence of him looking buff as hell dripping with sweat and water and mega close ups of his body, even down almost as far as his c0ck. Thats Ok though coz he is a man. Even though he is doing nothing different to what Maria Brink is doing with the Rolling Stone cover. But for both don't matter how much they promote their music via sex if the music is sh1t the music is sh1t and the record buying public are not so stupid as to not realize this. 

In This Moment are doing well coz their music is actually pretty good. Same as Rhianna & Beyonce and One Direction and Usher, Nelly and all the countless others who have used and exploited their own sexuality or sex to sell records are successful, coz the music is good. If the music was sh1t no amount of naked pics would help sell records.

In answer to your question their aren't that many women in metal because of threads liek this, coz they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. No one takes them seriously, especially if they are good looking and sexy, because as is the favorite mantra on here at times, "they are only famous coz the lead singer is hot!" Alot of the posts on this thread have slated the band and Maria no end but then added, I have only heard a couple of tunes or I have never listened to them but.... If I knew no matter how good I was as a guitarist or a musician no one would take me seriously or even give my music a serious chance BECAUSE I was a good looking woman who didn't dress like a nun, then would you bother? Metal is still unfortunately as misogynistic as ever when it comes to female bands and artists.

How do you think a band with a good looking female member should promote themselves in order to avoid having a thread like this one written about them or have their integrity called in to question just coz they have a sexy female band member? To me it shouldn't matter and doesn't. But seems to matter to everyone else

Edit: Rant over! LOL!


----------



## Andromalia (Feb 7, 2014)

wankerness said:


> C'mon, really? She's definitely not an unattractive person physically.



Personal taste, etc. I find most pornstars ugly.


----------



## Ckackley (Feb 7, 2014)

I think the majority of this thread has totally missed the point and are actually falling for the trap cleverly designed by the band. 
The imagery, the pop elements, the stage show- All point to a band selling out, selling sex, and generally using their lead singers looks. (Who by the way I think is damned attractive)
Anyway... The lyrics on the other hand totally turn the tables on all of this. I personally love the song "Whore". It sounds like pop metal, the look surrounding the song and video is demeaning towards women. But the lyrics are a complete ".... you" to that entire ideal. The video especially points this out. It starts out comically bad and by the end of the video the tables have turned and Maria Brink is sitting on a couch looking satisfied while her "fan" is tied up and made a fool of. 
You guys are falling for it. This whole thread proves the point. Be shocking, be provocative and people notice and talk about you. Hide your rage in bows and ribbons and before you know it a song slamming the entire establishment is getting heavy radio play.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Feb 7, 2014)

Ckackley said:


> I think the majority of this thread has totally missed the point and are actually falling for the trap cleverly designed by the band.
> The imagery, the pop elements, the stage show- All point to a band selling out, selling sex, and generally using their lead singers looks. (Who by the way I think is damned attractive)
> Anyway... The lyrics on the other hand totally turn the tables on all of this. I personally love the song "Whore". It sounds like pop metal, the look surrounding the song and video is demeaning towards women. But the lyrics are a complete ".... you" to that entire ideal. The video especially points this out. It starts out comically bad and by the end of the video the tables have turned and Maria Brink is sitting on a couch looking satisfied while her "fan" is tied up and made a fool of.
> You guys are falling for it. This whole thread proves the point. Be shocking, be provocative and people notice and talk about you. Hide your rage in bows and ribbons and before you know it a song slamming the entire establishment is getting heavy radio play.



Exactly. Shows that too many are pre judging based on the pictures and the articles without actually really giving the band and the music a chance. Like I said above so many people have passed judgement on the quality of the music based on her looks and the sexual elements but then said something along the lines of, ...only heard a couple of tracks or not interested in pop metal sh1t.... All this is no different to Marilyn Manson and the like, be shocking and even perverse or provoke people but under that superficial layer of shock there are genuine and very well thought out points being made about society or politics or sexism or whatever. It takes a reasonable amount of intelligence on part of the band or artist to actually do that successfully, and being what seems to be one of the few on this thread who actually owns some of their albums, imo In This Moment actually do a good job of that with songs liek Whore.


----------



## JohnIce (Feb 7, 2014)

About "using sex to get attention"... What about using violent imagery, or religious/anti-religious imagery? Scary imagery? Isn't that all to get attention as well? Because it certainly does.

Cannibal Corpse get attention for their grotesque album covers. Vulgar Display of Power got attention, Iron Maiden get attention for using a scary monster on album covers. How many bands have used Satan, pentagrams and inverted crosses to get attention?

How is any of that less immoral, or less attention seeking, or more "about the music" than sexual themes?  how is having three demons gutting a priest on your album cover less attention seeking than showing cleavage?

In my opinion, if you want your image to be "about the music", then put on a shirt that says Gibson, pose with your guitar on your album cover and do f*ck all beyond that. Then you can cast the first stone about others not being "about the music"


----------



## Louis Cypher (Feb 7, 2014)

Sorry to double post but I just thought of this

Everyone seems to be p1ssed that a woman here is using blatant sexualization of herself in order to promote her band and music. Surely as a woman she has the right to do that the same way a man does? Its a choice, its her band and her music she can promote it anyway she feels comfortable doing, if that included a naked Rolling Stone cover shoot then that's her prerogative in a free world as she lives in. Same as its then up to you to either be upset with it, hate it, love it or not give two fcuks.

In the context of this thread, the same cannot be said for something like the Blurred Lines video and track. That really IS the blatant sexualization of women in pursuit of promoting an artist and song. The video is incredibly sexist and misogynistic and the women are no more than naked (at times) objects for the fully clothed men to play with, with ice cream and little bikes. How many other videos exploit women as object like this? Too many to count. But again, I don't see a thread on this forum ripping in to Robin Thicke...... 

This whole thread about Maria Brink using sexuality compared to the Robin Thicke's use of women's sexuality is apples and oranges, Only one really deserves everyone's vilification.



JohnIce said:


> About "using sex to get attention"... What about using violent imagery, or religious/anti-religious imagery? Scary imagery? Isn't that all to get attention as well? Because it certainly does.
> 
> Cannibal Corpse get attention for their grotesque album covers. Vulgar Display of Power got attention, Iron Maiden get attention for using a scary monster on album covers. How many bands have used Satan, pentagrams and inverted crosses to get attention?
> 
> How is any of that less immoral, or less attention seeking, or more "about the music" than sexual themes?  how is having three demons gutting a priest on your album cover less attention seeking than showing cleavage?



To me this is even more fake and more annoying because 99.9% of the bands using that Satanic or anti-religious imagery aren't even believers in it or actually non believers in any of it! LOL! Least that's one thing you can say about Glen Burton he rants on about Satan and Satanism when he is actually a practicing Satanist! LOL!

Also no one seems to really care that a lot of the violent imagery is actually directed at or on to women. Again I think if I was a woman I woudl be more offended by a song abotu how somone was gonan kidnap me, torture me and kill me and then r*pe my rotten corpse and c*m in my entrails than a good looking woman naked on a magazine cover..... funny how its actually the opposite in reality


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Feb 7, 2014)

abandonist said:


> Don't be a puritan. If she feels good dressing like that then good on her. And if kids want to buy her records because she portrays a fantasy for them, then good on her again. My wife is 34. When she dresses slutty it's hot.



Didn't mean it like that. 
(In reference to your wife: she IS YOUR WIFE. So you'd better find her hot/attractive since you're stuck with her, man. )



The ProfEscher said:


> I think he was attempting to express awe at the fact that she's still attractive at her age after having a child, not conservative outrage at her choice of attire.



Thank you. ^


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Feb 7, 2014)

Louis Cypher said:


> _~Really long rant on post #53 that made me sit and think.~_



Shout-out: hey Louis Cypher, I got to say, you made some points that I've never thought of before. Thanks.  However, in reference to post #58, you do bring up the point that Satanic imagery is never taken seriously behind bands and they indeed are not practicing Satanists. I mean, no one takes the images on brutal slam death metal album covers seriously. (You just can't because it's so violent and repugnant beyond imagination.) But with the nudity of women and such on album artwork, people tend to take it seriously because (I guess) it's either a more touchy topic (because of our centuries of misogyny as a human race) or because it IS NOT beyond the imagination...in fact...it leaves very little, if NOTHING, to the imagination (meaning male imagination here).

Now maybe you can explain the value (if any) behind Brink's feminist reinterpretation of the words "Whore" to mean: "_*W*_omen _*H*_onoring _*O*_ne another _*R*_ising _*E*_ternally". (Which again, conceptually seems to have nothing to do with nudity and a dunce cap. I'm still lost there.) And where is the "*A*" in "Whore"?


----------



## cwhitey2 (Feb 7, 2014)

They went from having decent music at best, to a flaming bag of 


I have seen them 3 times. My opinion is relevant.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Feb 7, 2014)

Wings of Obsidian said:


> I mean, no one takes the images on brutal slam death metal album covers seriously. (You just can't because it's so violent and repugnant beyond imagination.) But with the nudity of women and such on album artwork, people tend to take it seriously because (I guess) it's either a more touchy topic (because of our centuries of misogyny as a human race) or because it IS NOT beyond the imagination...in fact...it leaves very little, if NOTHING, to the imagination (meaning male imagination here).



I think your totally right mate. The Death metal covers kinda cross the line of profanity so far they now exist more in the realms of comedy to most people. 




Wings of Obsidian said:


> Now maybe you can explain the value (if any) behind Brink's feminist reinterpretation of the words "Whore" to mean: "_*W*_omen _*H*_onoring _*O*_ne another _*R*_ising _*E*_ternally". (Which again, conceptually seems to have nothing to do with nudity and a dunce cap. I'm still lost there.) And where is the "*A*" in "Whore"?



TBH.......... I got nothing! 
Specially as to where the A comes from?!? LOL!


----------



## cwhitey2 (Feb 7, 2014)

abandonist said:


> Don't be a puritan. If she feels good dressing like that then good on her. And if kids want to buy her records because she portrays a fantasy for them, then good on her again. My wife is 34. When she dresses slutty it's hot.


----------



## warpedsoul (Feb 7, 2014)

Wings of Obsidian said:


> ^ Based on the production and what they were trying to do with all this "experimentation" on the album with incorporating "pop" sounds, I agree with this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Whore" isn't about being called a "whore". Whore is actually an acronym. Women Honoring One (another) Rise Eternally.

From an interview "I am so proud and excited for the world to hear Whore!!!! This is an honest and raw movement that needs to be heard!!!!!!" exclaims singer Maria Brink. "The message behind this song is taking back control. It is about taking the power from a disgusting and degrading word and turning it back around on the accuser. It's about self empowerment, love, and liberation.

"The imagery the band has created around the release of "Whore" is just as provocative as the word itself, yet all goes back to the important message the band has created. Singer Maria Brink explains, "I decided to pose nude for the visual art for 'Whore' to evoke a raw vulnerable emotion. The word WHORE written down my back, and the dunce cap symbolize me placing myself on the stake for those who are suffering and I can only hope to encourage at least one person to find the self worth and love they deserve to transcend out of a painful situation into a beautiful one. It is about finding our power and taking a stand. We are resilient beings and need to realize our incredible strengths. I will not bow down to others perceptions of me; I will only rise in the name of art, love and music. "

Century Media Records - In This Moment: : "WHORE" TAKES ON NEW MEANING


I'm a big ITM fan. I'm a Maria fan. I'm a fan of the musicians. I don't see them as selling sex like most bands do. Its more of personal liberation like she mentioned int he interview. It may not work for everyone, which is fine. They aren't going to appeal to everyone.

As for their live show, I do agree that it isn't the best though. I would like to see the band more involved, and Maria to quit doing the same moves over and over. But it is what it is. I enjoy the music, and thats all that matters to me. 

I'm not sure how this Atlantic Records thing will turn out. I hope for the better. But in this digital age, a major record label isn't really needed. They came this far without one. But, it is still a big deal and more power to them. As long as they keep putting out music I like, it doesn't matter who they sign with.


----------



## lucasreis (Feb 7, 2014)

Wings of Obsidian said:


> Shout-out: hey Louis Cypher, I got to say, you made some points that I've never thought of before. Thanks.  However, in reference to post #58, you do bring up the point that Satanic imagery is never taken seriously behind bands and they indeed are not practicing Satanists. I mean, no one takes the images on brutal slam death metal album covers seriously. (You just can't because it's so violent and repugnant beyond imagination.) But with the nudity of women and such on album artwork, people tend to take it seriously because (I guess) it's either a more touchy topic (because of our centuries of misogyny as a human race) or because it IS NOT beyond the imagination...in fact...it leaves very little, if NOTHING, to the imagination (meaning male imagination here).
> 
> Now maybe you can explain the value (if any) behind Brink's feminist reinterpretation of the words "Whore" to mean: "_*W*_omen _*H*_onoring _*O*_ne another _*R*_ising _*E*_ternally". (Which again, conceptually seems to have nothing to do with nudity and a dunce cap. I'm still lost there.) And where is the "*A*" in "Whore"?



This whole interpretation of the word Whore, to me, in my humble opinion, is BS. It's like a highschool girl acronym, and it's dumb, because there is no A in the acronym. To me, everything they do is to sell this sex image and they always have this "purpose" behind it, but I call it phoney. Next, she is going to be completely naked in a video and she's going to make up some excuse call it a feminist liberation or whatever the ....


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 7, 2014)

Not surprised they went major... Blood was a typical "polished" album that fit all the requirements of a major label band. Don't get me wrong, I actually bought Blood cause I liked it. However, within only days I grew so sick of it that I haven't listened to it since. Every song is the same old verse/chorus then copy/paste 3-4 times... I haaate that shit and it's so disgustingly lazy.

As for her sexuality being exploited, of course it is - but if you ask me she's doing it intentionally rather than being taken advantage of. Let's look at it like this, she makes a living off of music and doesn't have to sit in a cubicle. I think she's quite happy being objectified and even praised by many for her looks, which personally I honestly can't see what some other guys see in her. Sure she's got boobs, so what? 

The question now that they're major is are they going to soften up. Chances are overwhelmingly YES despite them saying they want the next album to be harder. I've seen that statement before just to see a much lighter album.


Rev.


----------



## ArtDecade (Feb 7, 2014)

Wings of Obsidian said:


> And where is the "*A*" in "Whore"?



I could draw you a map...


----------



## ghostred7 (Feb 7, 2014)

Honestly...who gives a shit?! The point of making records is to get people to buy them. If putting my junk on the front of a cover would get more exposure/sales...then excuse my while I drop my pants.

End of the day...it's a business. Business models are only successful if there is profit. If her being sexy is bringing profit...good on them. She *could* have said no...but she gets it.


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 7, 2014)

Louis Cypher said:


> Then the one which this thread and many others show, that every good looking woman in metal especially for some reason, is somehow only selling records coz of the looks or coz they are some kind of model/porn star first and a singer/guitarist second. No one questions a man when he uses his sexuallity to sell or promote a record. 30 Seconds to Mars, if weren't for Jared Leto, where woudl they be? Very good looking man, selling himself and his success in his other career as a movie star with overtly sexual magazine ps and articles in order to promote his band. No one gets in to a rant abotu that. Another really blatant example I can think of is D'Angelo's Untitled video for his Voodoo album. If you not seen it check it out as first and foremost it is an incredible song, second he is naked in the whole video, one long filmed sequence of him looking buff as hell dripping with sweat and water and mega close ups of his body, even down almost as far as his c0ck. Thats Ok though coz he is a man. Even though he is doing nothing different to what Maria Brink is doing with the Rolling Stone cover. But for both don't matter how much they promote their music via sex if the music is sh1t the music is sh1t and the record buying public are not so stupid as to not realize this.


Just because I didn't specifically bring up male sexuality doesn't mean I condone it. I'm not blaming Mara Brink and In This Moment personally for the objectification of women in music, I'm simply singling them out because this thread is specifically about them. There are numerous other examples, however, the most currently relevant one being the buzz around Huntress's vocalist.


Louis Cypher said:


> In This Moment are doing well coz their music is actually pretty good. Same as Rhianna & Beyonce and One Direction and Usher, Nelly and all the countless others who have used and exploited their own sexuality or sex to sell records are successful, coz the music is good. If the music was sh1t no amount of naked pics would help sell records.


I don't really agree with any of this, lol.


Louis Cypher said:


> In answer to your question their aren't that many women in metal because of threads liek this, coz they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. No one takes them seriously, especially if they are good looking and sexy, because as is the favorite mantra on here at times, "they are only famous coz the lead singer is hot!"


That's not true. Several other posters have already name-dropped other female vocalists who happen to be physically attractive but don't blatantly use that as a gimmick. 


Louis Cypher said:


> How do you think a band with a good looking female member should promote themselves in order to avoid having a thread like this one written about them or have their integrity called in to question just coz they have a sexy female band member?


The same way every other band out there promotes themselves. By writing music they believe in and working hard to make it heard. I think it's a good thing if you listen to a song you've never heard before and you're really into it and not once does the idea even enter your head to consider what gender any of the band members are (and in this case I'm extending the issue to women playing instruments, because that's even rarer than female vocalists), or if the vocals are obviously female then you are able to enjoy the music for itself without ever knowing what the vocalist looks like. If you discover a band by being assaulted by sexualized images right off the bat, your first thought is immediately about the woman and her body, and only _then_ do you think "I wonder what her music sounds like." The music becomes secondary to sexual attention, which in my opinion cheapens it.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Feb 7, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> I don't really agree with any of this, lol.



Not sure why you don't agree.... whether you like them or not they are all extremely successful artists who have all at one time or all the time used sex to sell or market themselves. One Direction right now are the biggest boy band on the planet coz they have the best writers writing them the best pop songs right now, plus every teenage girl loves them and plenty of mums due to Harry's Styles well voiced thing for older women....



The ProfEscher said:


> The same way every other band out there promotes themselves. By writing music they believe in and working hard to make it heard. I think it's a good thing if you listen to a song you've never heard before and you're really into it and not once does the idea even enter your head to consider what gender any of the band members are (and in this case I'm extending the issue to women playing instruments, because that's even rarer than female vocalists), or if the vocals are obviously female then you are able to enjoy the music for itself without ever knowing what the vocalist looks like. If you discover a band by being assaulted by sexualized images right off the bat, your first thought is immediately about the woman and her body, and only _then_ do you think "I wonder what her music sounds like." The music becomes secondary to sexual attention, which in my opinion cheapens it.



So why aren't In This Moment doing the same thing, working hard to write music they believe in? It's not possible for them to be doing that in your opinion because they are using the sexualization of their singer to market themselves? 

I appreciate you clearly aren't a fan based on what little you have heard and that fine. But either way its still down to whether the music is any good or not, and that I think reading between the lines from your posts is where we are agreeing. People are not that stupid that they will buy any old sh1t long as its marketed by naked women. As I said before, I couldn't care less what she does won't encourage me to buy their music. I brought their first album from reading a review in Metal Hammer I think it was. you have to give "most" people credit that they are capable of not acting/thinking like 14 yr old boys and seeing through marketing hype, sexual or otherwise and deciding for themselves if they are in to it or. I think the % of metal fans who would spend hard earned money on a album they don't like just coz they think the lead singer is hot or loved her naked Rolling Stone shoot won't account for many sales. 

Whether a band is using sex to help sell records doesn't mean they have no integrity or desire to play and write music they believe in 200% and believe that their is an audience for their music.


----------



## fps (Feb 7, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> If she wants a career in music, she should make music. If she wants a modeling/porn career, she should pursue a modeling/porn career. The two have nothing to do with each other, unless In This Moment is writing concept albums about naked women in dunce caps. The bottom line is, it's a gimmick, just like metal bands featuring celebrities or techno breakdowns in every song. The reason I have less of an issue with those is that they have vastly less influence on our mainstream culture and our ideas about women.
> 
> I'm not saying she should _downplay_ her looks. You mentioned yourself several other female vocalists who managed to distinguish themselves without posing naked for a magazine cover. I think what she's doing is the opposite of downplaying, and I think if she wants to garner attention for herself and her band she should do so primarily with her voice and not her body. If she happens to gain fans as a side product of her physical traits then so be it, but to actively flaunt them for that sole purpose isn't anything to commend.



So male singers in bands take their shirts off on-stage and this is OK, but a woman shows some flesh and it's just flaunting her sexuality to sell records? Sorry but they're both doing whatever the hell they want, the behaviour is the same, it's your judgment of them based only on their sex that's changed. Sounds to me like you're suggesting men continue doing whatever they want with their bodies, but the women should cover up and restrict how they use their bodies if they want to be taken seriously. That's.... not cool!


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 7, 2014)

EDIT: accidental double post


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 7, 2014)

Louis Cypher said:


> So why aren't In This Moment doing the same thing, working hard to write music they believe in? It's not possible for them to be doing that in your opinion because they are using the sexualization of their singer to market themselves?


Not really, I just don't connect with their music on a personal level, and I think if they really cared about their music and believed in it they would want to present it as their first and foremost product.


Louis Cypher said:


> you have to give "most" people credit that they are capable of not acting/thinking like 14 yr old boys and seeing through marketing hype, sexual or otherwise and deciding for themselves if they are in to it or.


This is another point on which we disagree, especially in a broader context. The vast majority of people who buy albums are not musicians and people who genuinely care about the creation of music, they're casual listeners, and a whole plethora of social factors external to the music itself influence their music-buying decisions. In my opinion, this is best exemplified by the string of popular artists you listed a couple posts ago-- artists who, in my opinion, most people wouldn't bother with a second listen if they weren't already familiar with them and never saw any sort of media hype or celebrity propaganda surrounding them.


fps said:


> So male singers in bands take their shirts off on-stage and this is OK, but a woman shows some flesh and it's just flaunting her sexuality to sell records? Sorry but they're both doing whatever the hell they want, the behaviour is the same, it's your judgment of them based only on their sex that's changed. Sounds to me like you're suggesting men continue doing whatever they want with their bodies, but the women should cover up and restrict how they use their bodies if they want to be taken seriously. That's.... not cool!


I didn't say that, you just inferred it. Allow me to quote myself:


The ProfEscher said:


> Just because I didn't specifically bring up male sexuality doesn't mean I condone it. I'm not blaming Mara Brink and In This Moment personally for the objectification of women in music, I'm simply singling them out because this thread is specifically about them.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Feb 7, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> Not really, I just don't connect with their music on a personal level, and I think if they really cared about their music and believed in it they would want to present it as their first and foremost product.
> This is another point on which we disagree, especially in a broader context. The vast majority of people who buy albums are not musicians and people who genuinely care about the creation of music, they're casual listeners, and a whole plethora of social factors external to the music itself influence their music-buying decisions. In my opinion, this is best exemplified by the string of popular artists you listed a couple posts ago-- artists who, in my opinion, most people wouldn't bother with a second listen if they weren't already familiar with them and never saw any sort of media hype or celebrity propaganda surrounding them.



That's fine you don't connect with their music and don't agree with they way they are presenting it. But to say that because of the way they are presenting it they therefore don't believe in what they are doing or have no integrity is harsh at best and at worst.... well.... 

So basically your saying that someone like Beyonce, who I mentioned earlier is only so famous and an artist who has sold over 180 million records and has 17 Grammy's because all the people who have brought her music are just casual listeners who because they aren't musicians or "genuinely care about the creation of music" have so easily been brain washed by the hype and propaganda and if it weren't for that no one would have given her or Destiny's Child a second listen???? OK


----------



## rectifryer (Feb 7, 2014)

Wow another band using women's rights as a vehicle to excuse them of appealing mainly through sex. This does not help women.

Sexualization of any genre is low brow due to its obvious and general appeal. We may as well just start handing hot girls off the street grammies at this point. Arguing in absolutes only serves to ignore the degree in which one bases their career on a gimmick. Its obvious, that the only thing that sets ITM apart is the singer as they have stated.

This is neither unique or interesting, but I will fap to it. Not the music, though.


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 7, 2014)

Louis Cypher said:


> So basically your saying that someone like Beyonce, who I mentioned earlier is only so famous and an artist who has sold over 180 million records and has 17 Grammy's because all the people who have brought her music are just casual listeners who because they aren't musicians or "genuinely care about the creation of music" have so easily been brain washed by the hype and propaganda and if it weren't for that no one would have given her or Destiny's Child a second listen???? OK


Nope. I was speaking in very general terms. You are applying very specific conditions to my statements in order to make it seem as though I'm universally applying them to every artist ever. You are doing the exact same thing when you imply that I think any woman who has ever been a musician only received any recognition because of her tits.

Let me be clear: I'm generalizing. Obviously there are exceptions and special cases, but we're talking two ends of a spectrum here, not two sides of a coin.

EDIT: Also the Grammys are a popularity contest, not a gauge of quality, but that's an entirely different discussion.


----------



## GunpointMetal (Feb 7, 2014)

maybe when you make mediocre music you need a little schtick....


----------



## Louis Cypher (Feb 8, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> Nope. I was speaking in very general terms. You are applying very specific conditions to my statements in order to make it seem as though I'm universally applying them to every artist ever. You are doing the exact same thing when you imply that I think any woman who has ever been a musician only received any recognition because of her tits.
> 
> Let me be clear: I'm generalizing. Obviously there are exceptions and special cases, but we're talking two ends of a spectrum here, not two sides of a coin.
> 
> EDIT: Also the Grammys are a popularity contest, not a gauge of quality, but that's an entirely different discussion.



Ok


----------



## Leveebreaks (Feb 8, 2014)

Wings of Obsidian said:


> So...as we all remember, In This Moment finally released their fourth album _Blood_ in 2012 and they finally took off into mainstream and became a heavy-hitting juggernaut for Century Media Records. Mad congratulations to the band on their success; however, I feel like _Blood_ was a total letdown of an album.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Led Zeppelin anyone? I would be proud as hell to be on that label, even if times have changed significantly since Ahmet Ertegun's time.
You also get to say..."but I'm on the same label as PHIL COLLINS" 
(*cue hushed, awed silence* )



Wings of Obsidian said:


> Here also is the age-old question as a final thought: is the band now exploiting and cashing in on Maria Brink's sexuality/gender?


 
Of course. Maria Brink is cashing in, it's not the band, they all look like mechanics who stumbled into a steampunk paint factory.
Show me one band that doesn't play on its image in some way to create attention or sell records. She's beautiful, she can sing. She can present herself anyway she likes, and she has said herself that she comes up with all of her design ideas so you can't blame it on the pernicious influence of the pesky major labels.


----------



## fps (Feb 8, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> I didn't say that, you just inferred it. Allow me to quote myself:
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by The ProfEscher
> Just because I didn't specifically bring up male sexuality doesn't mean I condone it. I'm not blaming Mara Brink and In This Moment personally for the objectification of women in music, I'm simply singling them out because this thread is specifically about them.



Sorry, this argument just doesn't work out. Frontmen, frontwomen, a large part of their success is down to objectification of them by their fans. It is impossible to separate out a singer's charisma and use of their body, their appearance, from their performance and identity, and metal is about self-expression, however you want to go about expressing yourself. You can't then separate that "sexual" part of a performer from the part that sings, that appears on stage, the part that writes lyrics. It's a complete package. And there is nothing wrong with dressing up your music with a stage show that enhances the music and often provides the setting and power for the music to shine. Alice Cooper, Rob Zombie, Rammstein, all better acts for their appearance and use of make-up, costume, props. And all presenting themselves in what is to a lot of women who are metal fans, at least in part, a sexual way, dark, mysterious, powerful, evil. 

You talk about talent to sell records, but again, to take a male example, would Guns N Roses have sold as many records with Axl not looking and acting like he did, with his tight clothes, bandana etc? These things cannot be separated out, if the man had sung and performed in exactly the same way but looked like Mitt Romney there wouldn't have been the same objectification or willingness to listen and relate to the experiences he shared through his lyrics. The music would not be as appreciated by as many people as a result. The hassle he gets for being fat now demonstrates that his appearance, his youth too, was a large part of the appeal in the first place.

Self-expression matters. She's doing what she wants to do and it's working, and judging her for that sounds like sour grapes.


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 8, 2014)

You're acting like I'm saying there are only two possible scenarios: A- female musician gains recognition based on talent alone without anyone ever seeing her face/body or B- female musician receives recognition based on looks alone without being talented whatsoever.

That's not what I'm saying. This is what I mean when I say there's a spectrum. The two are not mutually exclusive and obviously an image is going to come into play at least a LITTLE because that's just the way humans and their interests work. I'm simply saying that In This Moment are overdoing it. They're FURTHER toward scenario B in the spectrum, and I wish you and others would stop acting like those two scenarios are the only two possible.


----------



## rectifryer (Feb 8, 2014)

fps said:


> ...


ITM uses sex pretty much exclusively to sell their music. Your false equating of GNR to ITM is hilarious. Just because some bands use a little sex appeal doesn't mean its just as honorable to use sex appeal alone to sell music. 

You have a special appeal in your argument in that anything could be considered self expression. In that sense, arguing from that position is worthless as it adds nothing to the discussion other than stating the obvious.


----------



## fps (Feb 8, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> ITM uses sex pretty much exclusively to sell their music. Your false equating of GNR to ITM is hilarious. Just because some bands use a little sex appeal doesn't mean its just as honorable to use sex appeal alone to sell music.
> 
> You have a special appeal in your argument in that anything could be considered self expression. In that sense, arguing from that position is worthless as it adds nothing to the discussion other than stating the obvious.



I've added plenty to the argument, read my posts. I'm saying there's a double standard being drawn here where men can do whatever they want with their bodies, and everyone is excused how they present themselves if you happen to like their music, which isn't the issue here, but women dressing in a way that flaunts their bodies is judged under the male gaze, and if people happen not to like the music, that's used as a stick to beat them with. And I've drawn a parallel with the judgement that is placed on actresses' appearance, and their need to be "sexy", and how make actors also have to look good but this somehow doesn't fall under the same banner, purely because as men we're not judging them as sexual objects, when we are still making judgments about them based on their appearance, in relation to idealisation of them, which is a more subtle thing. Seriously, I've posted several times, keep up. Define using *sex appeal alone*. You'll tie yourself in knots trying!


----------



## fps (Feb 8, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> You're acting like I'm saying there are only two possible scenarios: A- female musician gains recognition based on talent alone without anyone ever seeing her face/body or B- female musician receives recognition based on looks alone without being talented whatsoever.
> 
> That's not what I'm saying. This is what I mean when I say there's a spectrum. The two are not mutually exclusive and obviously an image is going to come into play at least a LITTLE because that's just the way humans and their interests work. I'm simply saying that In This Moment are overdoing it. They're FURTHER toward scenario B in the spectrum, and I wish you and others would stop acting like those two scenarios are the only two possible.



I'm not saying there are two possible scenarios, at all, I'm saying there's no way to separate music from its performers (ie our favourite songs wouldn't be the same if other people were performing them) and that once a band is out there, there is no way to separate out music from how those performers choose to present themselves, I'm saying it's all part of the same show. So this complaint is like if we said *oh, that Rammstein, using their flamethrowers and their cauldrons to sell their music*. If In This Moment lady dressed how she does, and you liked the music, I don't think you'd be telling her to tone it down, but fully accept I may be wrong in that presumption.


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 8, 2014)

fps said:


> I've added plenty to the argument, read my posts. I'm saying there's a double standard being drawn here where men can do whatever they want with their bodies, and everyone is excused how they present themselves if you happen to like their music, which isn't the issue here, but women dressing in a way that flaunts their bodies is judged under the male gaze, and if people happen not to like the music, that's used as a stick to beat them with.


There is no double standard. I haven't condoned male sexuality as a means to sell music, nor _would_ I. We simply haven't been addressing that because this thread is about In This Moment, specifically.


fps said:


> And I've drawn a parallel with the judgement that is placed on actresses' appearance, and their need to be "sexy", and how make actors also have to look good but this somehow doesn't fall under the same banner, purely because as men we're not judging them as sexual objects, when we are still making judgments about them based on their appearance, in relation to idealisation of them, which is a more subtle thing.


I agree with this but I'm not really sure how it adds to your point. All you seem to be doing here is pointing out another gender imbalance, albeit in a completely different industry.


----------



## fps (Feb 8, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> There is no double standard. I haven't condoned male sexuality as a means to sell music, nor _would_ I. We simply haven't been addressing that because this thread is about In This Moment, specifically.
> 
> I agree with this but I'm not really sure how it adds to your point. All you seem to be doing here is pointing out another gender imbalance, albeit in a completely different industry.



Fair enough, truly.

In terms of relevance? I think this thread about a female-fronted band with a hot woman hitting one of the biggest labels, which has prompted lots of men to say they're up in arms about it, is a good jumping-off point to discuss why it's considered shameful for a woman to use her body how she wants in her band's presentation and stage-show, when male performers would never be judged in this manner. 

If there's no issue there, then all that's left is jealousy at the success of a band whose music most of us don't enjoy becoming successful. And that's just sour grapes.


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 8, 2014)

fps said:


> In terms of relevance? I think this thread about a female-fronted band with a hot woman hitting one of the biggest labels, which has prompted lots of men to say they're up in arms about it, is a good jumping-off point to discuss why it's considered shameful for a woman to use her body how she wants in her band's presentation and stage-show, when male performers would never be judged in this manner.
> 
> If there's no issue there, then all that's left is jealousy at the success of a band whose music most of us don't enjoy becoming successful. And that's just sour grapes.


There IS an issue there. It's just a separate one from the discussion going on in this thread.


fps said:


> I'm not saying there are two possible scenarios, at all, I'm saying there's no way to separate music from its performers (ie our favourite songs wouldn't be the same if other people were performing them) and that once a band is out there, there is no way to separate out music from how those performers choose to present themselves, I'm saying it's all part of the same show. So this complaint is like if we said *oh, that Rammstein, using their flamethrowers and their cauldrons to sell their music*.


The issue here is that Maria Brink could be perceived as a role model for young women and aspiring female musicians, and I believe that she's sending potential role models the wrong message, for reasons I've already outlined. This isn't an issue with things like flamethrowers and cauldrons, which are simply there to enhance a live performance but not to detract attention away from the music itself.

The reason there aren't more female musicians isn't because women are inherently less talented or musically inclined than men. It's because our current society simply _expects_ men to provide the talent and women to provide the eye candy. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Women aren't encouraged to pursue talents and interests that conflict with that viewpoint. If you (or anyone else for that matter) disagree, then simply consider the issue for yourself. Why aren't there more women involved in music? Why does their involvement become ever more scarce when you delve into more metal, heavy, and technical genres? Women are certainly capable of becoming technically proficient at instruments and over the past few years more and more women have become interested in heavy and technical music as fans than when the genres first emerged.

In scenarios like this, I think the message Brink may be sending out (perhaps unintentionally, but that doesn't take away from the point) is that female musicians must be attractive and play into society's popular view of gender roles in order to succeed.

Do you think In This Moment would have eventually been offered a major label record deal if Brink had maintained the image she had circa the release of the band's first album, in which she's featured as physically attractive but still fully clothed and with her voice being the main focus (as well as the other band members), and not primarily her body?


----------



## Demiurge (Feb 8, 2014)

I dunno... if the subject of this thread was the major label deal itself, are we to believe that the major-labels-signing-metal-bands frenzy of the early 90's would have been more successful if there were more boobs involved? Doubtful. Sometimes, a band's image is the proverbial tail that wags the dog, but if the music has limited mainstream appeal, they're only going to go so far.

EDIT: 2500 POSTS OMG U GUIZE


----------



## sylcfh (Feb 9, 2014)

Doesn't their producer write the songs?

Falestorm redux.


----------



## wankerness (Feb 9, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> Do you think In This Moment would have eventually been offered a major label record deal if Brink had maintained the image she had circa the release of the band's first album, in which she's featured as physically attractive but still fully clothed and with her voice being the main focus (as well as the other band members), and not primarily her body?



I think her voice is way more the focus in this new stuff than it was in the old stuff. It's more upfront and distinctive, and the rest of the band is doing way less in the background to distract from it. And plus, since they turned into pop music, it's now acceptable to act like it's just her with the rest of the band as the "back-up" cause that's what it's been like in just about every pop music group throughout time, either male or female fronted. I'm almost surprised they haven't changed from a band name to just her name. Paradoxically I think she's less of a gimmick now than on the early albums. 

Whether it's sexist or not, I don't really know or care. Women seem to love Miley Cyrus and Ke$ha and Nicki Minaj and whatnot and none of them are exactly less sexualized or ridiculous. If exclusively men liked In This Moment and she was 12 years old or something then maybe we'd have a problem, but I don't think we do!


----------



## JohnIce (Feb 9, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> *(1)*The issue here is that Maria Brink could be perceived as a role model for young women and aspiring female musicians, and I believe that she's sending potential role models the wrong message, for reasons I've already outlined. *(2)*This isn't an issue with things like flamethrowers and cauldrons, which are simply there to enhance a live performance but not to detract attention away from the music itself.
> 
> *(3)*The reason there aren't more female musicians isn't because women are inherently less talented or musically inclined than men. It's because our current society simply _expects_ men to provide the talent and women to provide the eye candy.
> 
> ...



1: So she has the potential to be a bad role model but for whom? All my role models as a kid were male rock stars in outrageous stage attire and nearly all of them quite sexualized. Be it cock-tight pants, bare chests, gyrating hips or what have you. From Robert Plant to Paul Stanley to Jon Bon Jovi, these were the dudes that made me want to NOT be an anonymous-looking anti-social shoe-filler but instead be like THEM. Aspire to be likable and talented like them. It taught me that I can be confident going to the local pub in leather pants and eyeliner _and_ make a bunch of new friends should I want to, and not chicken out for fear of being judged. Maybe that's the "wrong message" for you, but not for me.

2: According to you? I am VERY distracted by everything Rammstein does, I love their show but haven't bought a single record. I'm far less distracted by Maria Brink's cleavage than I am of Rammstein simulating anal sex between band members in "Bück Dich" or shooting flames from their own faces. If you can't concentrate on music just because of a little cleavage or legs then that's on you, I can't say I've had that problem.

3: Or because women can appreciate a man's talent and sexuality at the same time, whereas guys lose their concentration as soon as they see tits thus ignoring the talent? Asking women to cover up so as not to break the men's concentration is just ancient, I thought we'd progressed beyond that? Is it too much to ask of the men to instead try a little harder instead of putting the blame on the women? And frankly, men are shamefully good at ignoring the talents of a woman regardless of whether or not she's hot. I think that's the biggest reason why so few women make it as rock musicians.

4: How is drenching yourself in blood and screaming like a possessed banshee playing into the female stereotype? How is being shameless about your body a female stereotype? How often do you see a girl on your way to work dressed in a latex catsuit with eye makeup smeared all over her face?  I think you're confusing "having tits" with fitting a gender stereotype, honestly. I don't know any girl who acts like Maria Brink in public. And my friends are still pretty "out there" by society's standards.

And again, isn't the vast, vast, vast majority of male rock stars also typically attractive and swooned over by their female fans? For every Motörhead and AC/DC there's 3 dozen Jaggers, Springsteens, Bon Jovis, the list goes on. The Beatles and Elvis were arguably the first rock/pop stars and their ridiculous sexual appeal among teenage girls made up for a whole damn lot of that. Again, I think it's on the men to learn to look past the boobs and see the person and the talent, not on women to cover up.

5: Who's focus? Yours? I'm not being full of shit here, as a vocalist I got chills when I heard "Gunshow" the first time. When I heard "Whore" I thought damn that guitar tone is fvcking great! And here I am, a heterosexual male, being able to focus. Who knew


----------



## fps (Feb 9, 2014)

JohnIce said:


> 1: So she has the potential to be a bad role model&#8230; but for whom? All my role models as a kid were male rock stars in outrageous stage attire and nearly all of them quite sexualized. Be it cock-tight pants, bare chests, gyrating hips or what have you. From Robert Plant to Paul Stanley to Jon Bon Jovi, these were the dudes that made me want to NOT be an anonymous-looking anti-social shoe-filler but instead be like THEM. Aspire to be likable and talented like them. It taught me that I can be confident going to the local pub in leather pants and eyeliner _and_ make a bunch of new friends should I want to, and not chicken out for fear of being judged. Maybe that's the "wrong message" for you, but not for me.
> 
> 2: According to you? I am VERY distracted by everything Rammstein does, I love their show but haven't bought a single record. I'm far less distracted by Maria Brink's cleavage than I am of Rammstein simulating anal sex between band members in "Bück Dich" or shooting flames from their own faces. If you can't concentrate on music just because of a little cleavage or legs then that's on you, I can't say I've had that problem.
> 
> ...



Your post contains all my answers, and more, and additionally this means I don't have to write a long post, so brilliant 

With the exception I'd never heard of her before all these deeply proscriptive people here told the woman to go put some clothes on and stop letting down her entire gender by doing whatever she wants to do. Hey, maybe THAT's why there aren't so many women in metal, because when one goes out on a limb and presents herself how she wants, she gets told to get back in her box. 

I don't see anyone telling Marilyn Manson he's letting down his gender. He's just a person doing what he wants artistically and doing anything visually, I mean ANYTHING, to get people to pay attention to him, and people listen or don't listen. Same with this lady. Double standard? Awww hells yeah.


----------



## Obsidian Soul (Feb 9, 2014)

I recommend theneedledrop's video addressing this topic...


----------



## Louis Cypher (Feb 10, 2014)

What would be interesting in this thread is actually how many of the comments so far AGAINST Maria are actually from female ss.org members and how many are men? I am betting that most of the negativity so far is from the men.....

Are the majority of women here genuinely offended and feel Maria is actually degrading herself and females in music by setting a improper and immoral role model for other female metal artists as many seem to believe or how many see it as perfectly acceptable based on how much men use sex to sell their product now and in the past, and as a woman Maria can do whatever she wants.

In reality & my opinion, men really have no right to be judging or passing comment on whether a woman's actions are demeaning her sex or not.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Feb 10, 2014)

Obsidian Soul said:


> I recommend theneedledrop's video addressing this topic...



this one I guess you mean one of these two??
In both he does speaks a hell of a lot of sense

3:48 to end - good questions to everyone who has commented on this thread


----------



## Mprinsje (Feb 10, 2014)

Louis Cypher said:


> What would be interesting in this thread is actually how many of the comments so far AGAINST Maria are actually from female ss.org members and how many are men? I am betting that most of the negativity so far is from the men.....



lol, females on SSO


----------



## Louis Cypher (Feb 10, 2014)

Mprinsje said:


> lol, females on SSO



LOL!! What was I thinking! LOL!


----------



## Obsidian Soul (Feb 10, 2014)

There are a few females in this community,but I surmise that they reserve their words because...well look at this thread.There are a lot of negative attributes when women gain the spotlight.Sarah Longfield has posted many statuses of creepy guys asking to marry her and such.She posted one today talking about a random caller,whom had been calling all week,asking to lick her buttocks early in the morning.

To not derail the topic here,it can be good and bad depending on the perspective.Either way I don't listen to their music,so I could care less about them.From a listener standpoint,I can see how her image may mean nothing in comparison to crap music(imo).When you're working out or such,you're not looking at her body,so music has no crutch.From Maria's viewpoint,she's doing whatever she wants to do,which I think is great.

To whomever saying she's a bad role model for females in music,I don't see how she's different from Ke$ha,Beyonce,Lady Gaga,Miley Cyrus,etc.All of those artists have used their bodies in their music career.I think you should start with them first.

Thank you guys for offering differing and valid viewpoints on the topic.


----------



## BusinessMan (Feb 10, 2014)

I saw them live at a festival back on November. I thought they were very boring and she couldn't even sing after the first two songs of the set. As for that not one member of the band moved around the stage. They stayed,in the same boring positions. She tried to do a ballad singing solo type thing and she couldn't hold a note. It was a embarrassment to metal.


----------



## sylcfh (Feb 10, 2014)

This has nothing to do with gender double standards, and everything to do with being contrived. If it's not an honest artistic expression (and it's not, they don't even write their own music), then how can it be judged as anything but a marketing gimmick?

And yes, men can be objectified too. Otherwise the Backstreet Boys and One Direction wouldn't exist. And that's not art either.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Feb 10, 2014)

sylcfh said:


> they don't even write their own music


Not even a fan of the band, but a quick search shows this is completely false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_(In_This_Moment_album)


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 10, 2014)

Obsidian Soul said:


> To whomever saying she's a bad role model for females in music,I don't see how she's different from Ke$ha,Beyonce,Lady Gaga,Miley Cyrus,etc.All of those artists have used their bodies in their music career.


I don't either.


Obsidian Soul said:


> I think you should start with them first


In a thread specifically about In This Moment? How would that make sense?

At this point I feel like I've stated all of my opinions pretty clearly and a lot of responses are beginning to go in circles, so I don't really intend to extend the debate.


----------



## sylcfh (Feb 10, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Not even a fan of the band, but a quick search shows this is completely false.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_(In_This_Moment_album)






Their producer Kevin Churko is given writing credit on every single song. I'm willing to bet anyone here he gets the majority of points when the royalty checks arrive in the mail.


----------



## User Name (Feb 10, 2014)

sylcfh said:


> Their producer Kevin Churko is given writing credit on every single song. I'm willing to bet anyone here he gets the majority of points when the royalty checks arrive in the mail.



I actually am friends with Ty, their guitar tech. and i know that this is not in the least bit true. and i am not even a fan either


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Feb 10, 2014)

sylcfh said:


> Their producer Kevin Churko is given writing credit on every single song. I'm willing to bet anyone here he gets the majority of points when the royalty checks arrive in the mail.


Touche, that is most likely true.


----------



## Obsidian Soul (Feb 11, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> I don't either.
> 
> In a thread specifically about In This Moment? How would that make sense?
> 
> At this point I feel like I've stated all of my opinions pretty clearly and a lot of responses are beginning to go in circles, so I don't really intend to extend the debate.



I knew someone would misinterpret what I said.I did not say to bring them up in the thread;I meant that In This Moment is behind a line of artists that have exploited their bodies for fame in the music realm.It would be unjust to single them out on it when it has been going on way before the band's existence.


----------



## Rick (Feb 11, 2014)

User Name said:


> I actually am friends with Ty, their guitar tech. and i know that this is not in the least bit true. and i am not even a fan either





JoshuaVonFlash said:


> Touche, that is most likely true.



The two statements next to one another made me


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Feb 11, 2014)

Rick said:


> The two statements next to one another made me


Eh, I just didn't feel like arguing, none of what he said can really be proven without asking the band and the producer.


----------



## Noxon (Feb 12, 2014)

Why is everyone so fired up about ITM? Its not like they are gonna matter five years from now. Shouldn't we be practicing our craft rather than pissing and moaning about a band that is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of all things metal?


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 12, 2014)

Obsidian Soul said:


> I knew someone would misinterpret what I said.I did not say to bring them up in the thread;I meant that In This Moment is behind a line of artists that have exploited their bodies for fame in the music realm.


I agree with this part.


Obsidian Soul said:


> It would be unjust to single them out on it when it has been going on way before the band's existence.


I don't agree with this part. "It's been happening for a really long time/other people are doing it" may be a reason to do something, but it's definitely not a justification.


----------



## warpedsoul (Feb 12, 2014)

I can see how some may think that she is using her beauty and looks to sell, but with her I actually think its an artistic expression. Or at least that is her intent. I believe we are actually getting her, and not some act. Of course I could be wrong, and she is laughing at me all the way to the bank. 

Not everyone is going to like the band's music, or her performances, but they are doing what they want and getting success from it. I just so happen to like them, so good for them.


----------



## sezna (Feb 12, 2014)

I know nothing about this band, I never listened to them, but I read this thread.

She's no different than _any other _woman in music. She's obviously okay with the image she presents of herself, and if that is how she expresses herself in the genre, or even if it is just for sales, who cares? It's their art, dig it or move on.

I agree with warpedsoul, why should we critique their music based on their singer's image? We hold women to a different standard here. All the beefy dudes that play shirtless or whatever, RHCP freakin' played naked. Who cares? It's their expression.

Dig it or move on.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Feb 12, 2014)

sezna said:


> why should we critique their music based on their singer's image? We hold women to a different standard here.....
> ....Who cares? It's their expression.



This has been my point all along. The Integrity or quality of the music has sweet fcuk all to do with their image in or out of public life or the way a band chooses to promote themselves and their material. If your not comfortable with the way a woman is presenting herself then fine your entitled to that opinion. If you have checked the band out and hate the songs and think they are sh1t then of course you are entitled to that opinion. No problem at all. BUT to say a band is sh1t or cr*p or has no integrity BECAUSE of the image the female member(s) are portraying is unfair at best and prejudiced at worst. 

As another example, there are a number of Rap or Hip Hop videos I have to be honest, I am not comfortable watching or think are just fantastical b0llox that feeds in to the gang culture that really is unhealthy for so many (another thread entirely!). I personally don't like them for either the incredibly glamourised violence or for the utterly degrading way the women in the video are "used" as nothing more than trophies. However, doesn't mean I then automatically think when I see the video, fcuk the song it must be sh1t because I, on a personal level have an issue with the image this artist is portraying.... I am not saying that at a much higher level using sex to sell is the right way to promote things, but thats a mythical world that will never happen so back in the real world, just because it is being used by a female metal artist in the case of this thread OP, does not make her or her band fake or lacking in musical integrity


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 12, 2014)

Louis Cypher said:


> As another example, there are a number of Rap or Hip Hop videos I have to be honest, I am not comfortable watching or think are just fantastical b0llox that feeds in to the gang culture that really is unhealthy for so many (another thread entirely!). I personally don't like them for either the incredibly glamourised violence or for the utterly degrading way the women in the video are "used" as nothing more than trophies. However, doesn't mean I then automatically think when I see the video, fcuk the song it must be sh1t because I, on a personal level have an issue with the image this artist is portraying....


If the song is actually a legitimate and poignant expression of creativity and art, wouldn't wrapping it in a package of gratuitous violence and objectification of women take away from that? If you wrote something that you felt was the best thing you'd ever written and you poured all of your musical expression into it, would you want people to hear it and judge it for its own merit or would you think "hmmmm, I don't know if a lot of people will listen to this, better find a way to incorporate tits and guns"?


Louis Cypher said:


> As another example, there are a number of Rap or Hip Hop videos I have to be honest, I am not comfortable watching or think are just fantastical b0llox that feeds in to the gang culture that really is unhealthy for so many (another thread entirely!).


And just as a side note, this sentence in particular STRONGLY parallels my argument regarding female musicians feeding into patriarchal dominance that is also unhealthy for so many.


----------



## sezna (Feb 12, 2014)

The ProfEscher said:


> If the song is actually a legitimate and poignant expression of creativity and art, wouldn't wrapping it in a package of gratuitous violence and objectification of women take away from that? If you wrote something that you felt was the best thing you'd ever written and you poured all of your musical expression into it, would you want people to hear it and judge it for its own merit or would you think "hmmmm, I don't know if a lot of people will listen to this, better find a way to incorporate tits and guns"?


It doesn't take away from the music itself. We are here to critique the music, there's nothing wrong with musical critique. What we _aren't_ here to do is say "Yeah but I don't really like the music because their singer is kinda slutty". Nothing wrong with the artist wanting to promote their own music, that's perfectly natural. Aesthetics can help a lot.



The ProfEscher said:


> And just as a side note, this sentence in particular STRONGLY parallels my argument regarding female musicians feeding into patriarchal dominance that is also unhealthy for so many.



Care to elaborate?


----------



## The ProfEscher (Feb 12, 2014)

I don't dislike the music because of the image the band is presenting. I simply dislike the music, and also dislike the image the band is presenting. The two can coexist. And even if I was really into the band, I would most likely be disappointed by the way they have chosen to present it. 

I feel like I already _have_ elaborated throughout this thread. I don't really feel like there's anything else I can state about my viewpoint that wouldn't be covering old ground by now.


----------



## WhoThenNow7 (Feb 12, 2014)

Nothing is wrong with that... Unless you want pop, rap, and other crap like that to be in the mainstream. Seems to me the only way rock will reign the mainstream again is if more talented rock bands get major labels.


----------



## Svava (Feb 12, 2014)

How controversial... 

I'll stick to my instrumental prog fetish ><


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 5, 2014)

Necrobump. Not sure if I've posted in this thread (searched it quickly), but I somehow randomly remembered it. Reading through all the comments *now*.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A week or two ago I posted on Facebook about In This Moment and got a large response of people agreeing with my words. (Not sure how many of you would agree based on the comments I'm seeing on this thread.)



> As far as In This Moment goes, nothing they put out will beat their debut album _Beautiful Tragedy_. I'm severely disappointed at what the band has become, especially since the band (and that album in particular) played a REALLY big role in my years as a budding metalhead, and the band was one of my favorite acts for awhile. It's just a shame that it is now the "Maria Brink's Wonderland Pop Project".
> 
> I know that I have some current and past members of the band on my friends list, so I know they might incidentally read this.
> 
> ...


So, this morning while driving, I gave the band a spin for the first time in ages and posted a little follow-up on Facebook. (A follow-up to my previous post from a week or two ago, I mean.) While posting, I learned that the band has a new album coming out in less than two weeks - their first album with Atlantic.



> Following up on a post that I made last week (or the week before?) regarding the transformation of In This Moment from mainstream metal band into a mainstream (sexualized) pop princess act, I decided to go back and listen to the band out of nostalgia this morning on my way to school.
> 
> Man, some of their old songs like "Daddy's Falling Angel", "Ashes", "Prayers", and "He Said Eternity" hold a special place in my heart because I listened to those songs during some very memorable, special experiences and pivotal moments during my senior year of high school. (Of course, I listened to the band way before that time, but not as much or as deeply.) And their back catalogue just solidifies why they were one of my favorite bands from about '09-'10 until the release of _Blood"_
> 
> ...


Hope you dudes all don't hate on me for sharing my thoughts here. They were just one of my favorite bands in my younger years, so you all nostalgic music-lovers who have experienced an ol' fave band go downhill might understand my two posts a bit more.


----------



## BrailleDecibel (Nov 5, 2014)

I absolutely share that feeling of being appalled at what In This Moment has "evolved" into. I mean, it was the smart move for a long-term musical career, since had they stuck with the more metalcore-influenced sound of "Beautiful Tragedy", they would either be dropped and broken up by now, or doing things on a much, MUCH smaller scale as far as album sales and shows go. But as someone who got into ITM with that album, I was incredibly disappointed upon hearing "The Dream" and all of the albums that followed...it sounded like two completely different bands, with Maria Brink's vocals being the only constant. And I guess it pretty much is two different bands at this point, since Maria and Chris Howorth are the only two remaining original members from their first album. 

And upon watching some of their set on the Knotfest live feed, it's quite clear that the "image" aspect of this band has entirely taken over...it seemed like there was a costume change for Maria between damn near every song, with tons of dead space during the changes that pretty much killed any momentum they could have gotten going with their set. But sadly, that's pretty much what people have come to know and appreciate ITM for, basically being Maria Brink's Cabaret Show, with the occasional guitar riff in the background. And while I understand why they did what they did, I am quite disappointed that we didn't get any more awesome albums like "Beautiful Tragedy", and instead wound up with some pop group with heavy guitars.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 5, 2014)

CJLsky said:


> And upon watching some of their set on the Knotfest live feed, it's quite clear that the "image" aspect of this band has entirely taken over...it seemed like there was a costume change for Maria between damn near every song, with tons of dead space during the changes that pretty much killed any momentum they could have gotten going with their set. But sadly, that's pretty much what people have come to know and appreciate ITM for, basically being Maria Brink's Cabaret Show, with the occasional guitar riff in the background. And while I understand why they did what they did, I am quite disappointed that we didn't get any more awesome albums like "Beautiful Tragedy", and instead wound up with some pop group with heavy guitars.



I was in the middle of reading your comment, took a break, found this link about Knotfest, and was going to share it, but you already beat me to discussing it. Haha!

KNOTFEST: IN THIS MOMENT & THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA

It really disgusts me. ("What's up, Britney Spears? How you doin'?" )

This is rather propelling me to go through their whole back catalogue for a few listens and do a guitar cover or two. Maybe I'll do a full-band cover for a song.

I had no problem with all the albums after _Beautiful Tragedy_, but I DID noticeably like each one less and less by a considerable amount. _Blood_ just killed it for me. Upon its initial release, I believed that _Blood_ was going to be the album that:
1.) the band wanted to distance themselves from (everyone flubs right?)
2.) killed their career
3.) changed their career completely
And it ended being Option 3, but not in the way we expected. Yes sir, you are correct, they sold out to being all about the image and sexual exploitation that we've already mentioned.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Nov 5, 2014)

CJLsky said:


> I absolutely share that feeling of being appalled at what In This Moment has "evolved" into. I mean, it was the smart move for a long-term musical career, since had they stuck with the more metalcore-influenced sound of "Beautiful Tragedy", they would either be dropped and broken up by now, or doing things on a much, MUCH smaller scale as far as album sales and shows go. But as someone who got into ITM with that album, I was incredibly disappointed upon hearing "The Dream" and all of the albums that followed...it sounded like two completely different bands, with Maria Brink's vocals being the only constant. And I guess it pretty much is two different bands at this point, since Maria and Chris Howorth are the only two remaining original members from their first album.
> 
> And upon watching some of their set on the Knotfest live feed, it's quite clear that the "image" aspect of this band has entirely taken over...it seemed like there was a costume change for Maria between damn near every song, with tons of dead space during the changes that pretty much killed any momentum they could have gotten going with their set. But sadly, that's pretty much what people have come to know and appreciate ITM for, basically being Maria Brink's Cabaret Show, with the occasional guitar riff in the background. And while I understand why they did what they did, I am quite disappointed that we didn't get any more awesome albums like "Beautiful Tragedy", and instead wound up with some pop group with heavy guitars.



They are possibly the best example of a decent metalcore band that was completely musically ruined by an "image" change.


----------



## wankerness (Nov 5, 2014)

They got LESS gimmicky and "exploitative," not more. At the time, Beautiful Tragedy was the most blatant example I'd ever heard of a singer being hired for nothing more than her appearance, that album has the single worst vocal performance I've ever heard on a metalcore album, it's so flat and lifeless despite all the obvious attempts to beef it up with tons of overdubs, and the videos are all just "oh look at the hot babe in the dress that can't sing." Their albums since then have actually started to write music around her voice, she's massively improved, and she's become an actual creative presence within the band. It's not my thing, but they have a distinctive style that's pretty unique and I think they're much more of a legit band now than when they were cookie-cutter metalcore with atrocious vocals.


----------



## BrailleDecibel (Nov 5, 2014)

wankerness said:


> They got LESS gimmicky and "exploitative," not more. At the time, Beautiful Tragedy was the most blatant example I'd ever heard of a singer being hired for nothing more than her appearance, that album has the single worst vocal performance I've ever heard on a metalcore album, it's so flat and lifeless despite all the obvious attempts to beef it up with tons of overdubs, and the videos are all just "oh look at the hot babe in the dress that can't sing." Their albums since then have actually started to write music around her voice, she's massively improved, and she's become an actual creative presence within the band. It's not my thing, but they have a distinctive style that's pretty unique and I think they're much more of a legit band now than when they were cookie-cutter metalcore with atrocious vocals.



Honestly, looking at it from that side of the coin, I see what you mean there. The main thing about the "Beautiful Tragedy" sound that I miss is definitely the musical part of it, and you're right, the vocals on that album were pretty damn iffy indeed. The vocal side of things has drastically improved since that album, but the music that they're being applied over just doesn't do all that much for me. But in the end, I guess it's better to look at it from the point that there is a heavy (by "mainstream" terms  ) band slowly infiltrating the world of major-label music, as opposed to another cookie-cutter diva or rapper that no one is gonna remember a year or two from now, and looking at it that way, it is definitely a plus.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 5, 2014)

wankerness said:


> Their albums since then have actually started to write music around her voice, she's massively improved, and she's become an actual creative presence within the band.


Actually, she's majority of, if not the only, creative presence now. It's her solo act with just some nameless dudes in the background as part of the act...like the nameless background dancers. It's the "Maria Brink's Wonderland Pop Project".

Think about when a band first forms, when they are young and just starting out, ready to take on the world. The group dynamic is "iffy" (meaning not totally solid) as they are feeling each other out, but they split creative control to everyone and are always fair. Being that I've been in multiple bands, I can tell you that this has been the case for me EVERY SINGLE TIME. And then once a band is older and has been together for awhile, they aren't afraid to step on each other's toes and make sacrifices creatively or for the sake of selling albums (especially when a producer tells them to cut something).

I'm sure the band always had a balanced creative control and each member had input in the overall structure and soundscape of a song. (You can tell that Blake Bunzel's input and sound left when he ditched the band. The sound really changed.) You are right in that the band now writes music centered around Maria's voice, but I think that is more having to do with the input and advising from the producer(s). Their early stuff wasn't monotone, but it was tough because I'm sure the band wrote the stuff on their own then had Maria come into the room and throw vocals and lyrics on when they were done (the typical band process). So she had to work around some things while also showing off her range, control, etc. And she's always done a great job.


----------



## BrailleDecibel (Nov 5, 2014)

Just listened to that song, and despite my positive outlook in my prior post in this thread, I just threw up in my mouth a little after hearing that.


----------



## Jonathan20022 (Nov 5, 2014)




----------



## xCaptainx (Nov 5, 2014)

Not usually one to comment on this, but did not realise that she's 36!


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 6, 2014)

xCaptainx said:


> Not usually one to comment on this, but did not realise that she's 36!


It's scary for me because I (and many fans who purchase ITM's albums) think she is attractive; yet...she has a son the same age as me! o.o 

Dafuq.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Nov 10, 2014)

I really like this new song off their new album Black Widow


----------



## Defi (Nov 10, 2014)

Wow, this might actually be worse than bif naked


----------



## Randy (Nov 10, 2014)

My thoughts (take 'em or leave 'em):

They've sold out to being a pop band. There's nothing wrong with that. You're free to do whatever you want to make money or free to create whatever music you feel like creating. HOWEVER, there are some seriously BIG shoes to fill when it comes to quality song writing in pop music and, even though they chose to join a genre with a much 'higher ceiling' for success, the quality of their writing is just not on par with their peers in that genre.


----------



## Splenetic (Nov 10, 2014)

Hahahah what? Are we talking about prog or pop here? Pop music is more formulaic than it's EVER been. What are these big shoes you speak of?


----------



## JohnIce (Nov 10, 2014)

Malevolent_Croatian said:


> Hahahah what? Are we talking about prog or pop here? Pop music is more formulaic than it's EVER been. What are these big shoes you speak of?



Depends entirely on where you choose to look for formulas (formulae?). As far as harmony: yes. It's typically entirely diatonic with generic chord progressions. As far as sounds? No. Metal is and always has been far more formulaic with sounds than most other genres ("What amp is good for metal guys?" "Get a 5150, bro!" "K thanks dude!")

There are more examples. But in short, mainstream music is made to appeal to the listener who says: "You're the artist, surprise me!". Underground music listeners on the other hand typically have criteria, basically a checklist, of things they want to hear in a band. "I need guitar solos, no clean vocals, the drumming needs to be fast but not quantized" etc. etc. but the more criteria filled the less room for innovation. In This Moment _used to_ appeal to such people, by being more generically metalcore. But they can't anymore because they're busy trying to appeal to the mainstream listeners instead. And appealing to someone who doesn't know what they want, can be much more creatively exciting and satisfying than giving someone exactly what they asked for.

I should also point out that "mainstream listeners" is not a bad word to me, they could easily be reformed "underground listeners" too. I'm one of those. I've known what I like long enough to get bored with it, so now I want to be surprised instead. ITM did that for me which is why I find them more interesting than a lot of bands who're just continuing in an already saturated genre.


----------



## Randy (Nov 11, 2014)

Malevolent_Croatian said:


> Hahahah what? Are we talking about prog or pop here? Pop music is more formulaic than it's EVER been. What are these big shoes you speak of?



Pop music is catchy and 'toe-tapping' music that has potential to get stuck in your head. ITM's "pop" songs are decidedly lacking in hooks and Maria's voice sounds like nail on a chalkboard with literally zero replay value.

I like pop music, I like metal music, I'm an open minded person and I hate ITM's music. YMMV.


----------



## Kwirk (Nov 11, 2014)

The chorus in Sick Like Me is pretty good. Has a great hook and melody. She sounds like Katy Perry.. which is a good thing. To me, anyway.


----------



## SD83 (Nov 11, 2014)

Yeah, she sounds like Katy Perry and looks like Lady Gagas older sister, just with huge tits. And I have to say I found it rather catchy. This is totally subjective, obviously, but it's one of the 2 or 3 only good songs I've ever heard of them, which came as a suprise after reading the thread


----------



## Splenetic (Nov 11, 2014)

Randy said:


> Pop music is catchy and 'toe-tapping' music that has potential to get stuck in your head. ITM's "pop" songs are decidedly lacking in hooks and Maria's voice sounds like nail on a chalkboard with literally zero replay value.
> 
> I like pop music, I like metal music, I'm an open minded person and I hate ITM's music. YMMV.



Don't get me wrong.....from what I've heard of this band, it's definitely not my thing either. Your comment just kinda threw me off cause I don't really see many BIG SHOES in pop music beyond older artists and a small fraction of newcomers. What I do see/hear is pop music getting worse and worse every year, so I don't really see anyone having to fill any shoes as long as they follow the success formula, same one that makes clusters of artists all sound virtually identical, and the same one that's taken the musical aspects of pop and is reducing it to the most elementary level melodies and hooks (with the occasional glitch/electronics spin on it)..... Now, in regards to this band, I don't know how they fit in to that, haven't heard enough to judge, nor will I, so I'll take your word for it.  

Then again, I haven't listened to radio or watched any music channels in a few years, maybe shit's changed and I just don't see it. Kinda doubt it though.


----------



## RevDrucifer (Nov 12, 2014)

Every time I think I'm checking out a new ITM song, I get confused because they're all starting to sound the same. Whisper/sultry voice + megaphone effect for the verses then a big, or attempt at a big chorus. 

I dug some of the last record and Maria's a great vocalist, they just need to stop writing the same damn song over and over.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 12, 2014)

Related to the topic: rig rundown in (early?) 2011 back when the band had Blake Bunzel. Never noticed the Axe-Fx chilling in the rack under the TC Electronics G-Major until now.

(Whoops...did I say "Axe-FX"? 0.o All the fanboys on this forum come swarming. o.o)


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 13, 2014)

RevDrucifer said:


> Every time I think I'm checking out a new ITM song, I get confused because they're all starting to sound the same. Whisper/sultry voice + megaphone effect for the verses then a big, or attempt at a big chorus.



^^^  That right there, took the words right out of my mouth. I bought their last album after hearing Blood then a few other tracks and thinking it was good enough to purchase. Listened to it a few times and just never have again. I got so sick of the same repetition of verse/chorus/verse/chorus/verse/small break or solo/chorus. I know it's very common these days but I honestly get sick and f'ing tired of songs where I'm subjected to the same exact verse and chorus three times in a row. It's why I keep skipping Slipknot's The Devil In I. 

Gave this new album a listen since in interviews they'd said they wanted to go heavier. To me it sounds even more generic than the last and the whisper parts then into the reverb saturated "made to sound huge" choruses are just so predictable and really not that epic as the band seems to think they are.

But, it has it's market and will likely sell well so kudos to them. As musicians I'm guessing most of us just require more to be won over.


Rev.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 13, 2014)

...soooo...since it's coming down to nothing but this...who has a better ass to bare on the cover of a magazine: Kim Kardashian (_Paper_) or Maria Brink (_Rolling Stone_)?


----------



## SD83 (Nov 13, 2014)

Obviously Benji from Skindred  (possibly NSFW https://www.facebook.com/skindredofficial?fref=photo&sk=photos ). Might even have the better band. What's the problem with all the show and sexual stuff about In this moment? Male bands have been doing this for ages. Rammstein made an entire career out of setting things on fire, and every bandphoto of Manowar has more nudity than Maria Brinks entire career (I wish it was the other way around  ). Problably no one would have heard of them if it wasn't for her, but I don't mind a simple pop-metal song now and then, even if it's the same verse-chorus-verse stuff over and over again (maybe that's why I absolutly love 'The devil in I'), and I don't mind looking at attractive people, although her face... well, who cares


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 14, 2014)

xCaptainx said:


> Not usually one to comment on this, but did not realise that she's 36!



One day every man realises teenagers aren't where it's at.


----------



## Krullnar (Nov 14, 2014)

This stuff is terrible.


----------



## ghostred7 (Nov 14, 2014)

I have no problem with her being naked on a mag cover, or dressing risque, etc.

I do think that the RS cover pretty much epitomizes what it means to be on a national label in present day. The bass player for my band has been a major label signee for 30+ years and isn't shy about sharing horror stories. At least for Metal Blade - Signing to a label, you are basically a 'whore' for them. You'll get called to be in state 'x' the next day, on your own dime, and hoping you walk away with enough money to buy some crackers or a protein bar to hold you to next gig...unless you're pulling fans/ticket sales/swag sales/etc of arena-level bands on your own accord (festivals don't count).

Her dress/clothes may be a label-driven thing, but honestly, being a label-slave, they need what they can in order to get enough people to break even, else they're contract-bound to slavery.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 26, 2014)

So, I went to Best Buy and got the band's new CD today for like next to nothing. (Still on sale even though it dropped last week, price marked down further since the store has more copies than they know what to do with, then I had a $2 coupon from the "Sick Like Me" CD single that was given to me.)

Today was my first time listening to any of their new material from the new CD. I'm not sure if it's better than what I expected or worse than what I expected. But it's definitely not what I expected. "Sick Like Me" seems to be the only good song. (It kind of eclipses everything else that it all just leagues of synths, drum machines, and "blah" vocal effects.)

One thought: where did the screams go?

Got home, opened up Yahoo to check my email, and I found that they are streaming a live show tonight on Yahoo via LiveNation. I might check it out just because I'm not doing anything tonight.
https://screen.yahoo.com/live/event/in-this-moment


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 26, 2014)

Streaming live now.
https://screen.yahoo.com/live/event/in-this-moment

Five minute costume changes in between each song = energy ruined. The vocal backing track takes over too much. And the retarded, spastic choreography...ugh... Kind of makes me feel sick from watching this. 

Every song on the setlist is from _Blood_ or _Black Widow_. None of the old stuff at all.


----------



## Splenetic (Nov 27, 2014)

aaaaahahhah watching that live vid....I gotta be honest, I'd nail her in a NY minute. That said, wow this band is terrible.


----------



## Louis Cypher (Nov 27, 2014)

Got Black Widow earlier this week, I'm loving it


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 27, 2014)

Malevolent_Croatian said:


> aaaaahahhah watching that live vid....I gotta be honest, *I'd nail her in a NY minute*. That said, wow this band is terrible.


^ And that right there is the reason the band still sells so much, man.

It's weird though because I was thinking that same thing last night (as all us men do) and then.......I remembered that she has a son who is my age. (Her son, he's one of those white kids whom you would say tries too hard to be in the African-American culture...if you catch my drift. No offense to anyone. Sorry, didn't know how to describe it.)


----------



## Splenetic (Nov 27, 2014)

She's only 8 years older than me, which is alllllll good.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine (Nov 28, 2014)

New video that they released earlier today is actually pretty f-ing metal. Quite a surprise! (This song didn't sound anywhere as good or as heavy during the live concert stream the other night.) VERY NICE! \m/


----------



## Louis Cypher (Dec 1, 2014)

Emperor Guillotine said:


> New video that they released earlier today is actually pretty f-ing metal. Quite a surprise! (This song didn't sound anywhere as good or as heavy during the live concert stream the other night.) VERY NICE! \m/



Currently my favorite song on the album. I really am loving this CD. a little Nu Metaly with a little early industrialesque Manson....


----------

