How To Tell If A Band Is In It For The Money

Time to kick off September with a short little opinion piece!
When dealing with fans from practically any mainstream Rock band, you'll always have a bunch insisting that said band have sold out. Whether it's a Grunge band going Alternative or a Thrash Metal band going Heavy Metal, any stylistic changes to a band's sound will always result in grumpy fans arguing that they've lost their way and "forgotten about the real fans".
So how can you tell if a band have really sold out or if they're simply adapting their material into a new sound because they don't want to become stale? How can you tell if a band are still going because they care about their fans enough to challenge themselves into recording quality music or because they need some way of paying off various mortgages and lawsuits?
Hopefully, this blog post will help answer those questions!

Let's start with one sure-fire way of telling if a band is after the cash; deluxe albums.
I've mentioned my hatred of deluxe edition albums via Twitter and this blog before, something I doubt I will ever apologise for. Deluxe editions are something I can tolerate if they were released decades after the original album, containing never before heard demos or various edits/live versions on a second disc. If a band chose to rerelease their material in order to introduce younger fans to a classic album whilst also giving older fans something new to enjoy, that's understandable...provided it happened before services like iTunes and Spotify came about.
However, now there's a trend of bands releasing deluxe editions alongside the standard editions. Not only that but the deluxe editions contain brand new studio versions of tracks that, for some reason, the band chose to omit from the original album. Any band that does that is categorically doing it for the money or, at the very least, isn't big enough to tell their record producers (who are absolutely in it for the money) not to cash in off their fans.
So what should a band do if they have too much material to fit on one album but don't want to rush through writing a new album for the sake of three filler tracks? Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you...the double album!

Let's look at a few recent examples. Iron Maiden released their first double album this time last year, claiming that their decision was based around having longer songs that wouldn't all fit on one disc. Since they wanted to release all of the music they'd written in one package, they chose to make The Book Of Souls a double album. No deluxe edition, no Best Buy version, just the album you paid for. Iron Maiden are definitely in it for the fans and a love of their craft.
Now let's look at an upcoming album, Metallica's long awaited Hardwired...To Self-Destruct; also a double album. They first teased this album a couple of years ago with the track "Lords Of Summer", a solid Thrash tune that followed the Metallica formula and got fans excited, even though they only officially released a demo version of it (if you're not counting the times fans filmed them playing it live). Cut to a month or so ago where Metallica announced the date, title and lead single off the album; title track "Hardwired".
It's a mediocre album opener, title track and lead single compared to "Lords Of Summer" that sounds like it was one of the last songs written for the album after Hetfield and Hammett ran out of the epic riffs they usually load their songs with. But enough dishing about that, let's dish about something else. Turns out "Lords Of Summer" isn't on the main tracklist. Instead, it's been relocated to the first track on the third disc of the deluxe edition, shortly before a shitload of random crap from the studio, certainly worth the £6 extra you'll have to pay!
Hey, Metallica, the whole point of a double album is to include ALL the songs you record. If you've got too many to fit even on a double album, maybe don't wait eight goddamn years between album releases! Alternatively, release one as a non-album single and wait until the next album to release the other (assuming you've only got a couple of extra tracks spilling onto the deluxe edition, which is always the fucking case). The point is Metallica may have some integrity and their new album will probably be good but as far as squeezing hardcore fans for more pennies goes, they're as crooked as a crone's fingers and that's WITHOUT the whole Napster thing entering the equation.

Another way of working out if a band are actively trying to make their album as commercial as possible is by counting the number of versions of each song. Some bands will record an album, release it and not touch those tracks until it's time for a live or remastered album. Others will release demo versions, live versions, single edits, clean edits, alternate takes, extended cuts, deep dishes, stuffed crusts, hot dog stuffed crusts, burger stuffed crusts, tearaway cheesy bites, quadruple stuffed bacon and oreo wrapped crusts and studio outtakes.
You could argue most of these are for the fans (especially hot dog stuffed crusts) but when a band releases a clean single edit for radio play before the extended and/or explicit album version, you know they want that chart money. The best example I can think of right now would be Tenacious D recording two different versions of their Rize Of The Fenix album; one with original lyrics, the other with clean, radio/licensing friendly ones. I'm assuming the reason for this is because of the financial loss they took after The Pick Of Destiny album, tour and film so I can forgive them for wanting to make a bit of dosh back by playing it safe.
I suppose now's as good a time as any to remind you that there's nothing wrong with more modern bands starting out wanting to make more money so they can take off and have more creative freedom for future records. Hell, there's nothing wrong with a band wanting money at all. I mean, this is their career. However, there will always be a difference between a worker who has a genuine love of what they do and one who is counting down the hours until clocking off. When it gets to the point that these clockwatchers are conning the fans with old rope masquerading as rare studio cuts, that's when you can put the tiny violins away.

Finally, the last surefire way of telling if bands are in it for the money is the amount of Greatest Hits tours they go on. Most tours are in aid of promoting a new album (not a cynical money grab as it's still providing a service and giving fans what they want) and some bands will fill a live setlist with hits because they're playing various festivals, the perfect venue for fan favourites. However, bands that repeatedly go on tour just to play the same twelve chart singles without any new material are fuelled by a desire to make enough cash to afford a new car.
The difference between these bands and bands that go on anniversary tours, plugging a rerelease or remaster, are that the latter bands will be playing filler tracks that they haven't played live in decades. Most fans, old and new, won't have heard these songs live before and the band will have to relearn them after years of neglect. That requires effort on their part, unlike acts that are going through the motions on stage each night because it's all they know and all anyone else wants.
Of course, some fans can argue that they only want to hear the hits and that the band are giving them exactly what they want. Guess what? Those aren't fans. Fans can name filler tracks, fans are aware of a band's career outside of maybe two well known songs. If you go to see a band on their own tour and spend the entire gig waiting for them to play their signature song at the end, you're a glory supporter and have no right to dictate what a band includes on their setlist. On an unrelated note, there's a difference between fans who see a band live just to hear one song and fans who see a band live only knowing one song but hoping to discover more.

There are, of course, other ways to tell if a band are more interested in cash than reaching new fans (for example, excessive licensing to shitty ads/TV shows/films/games) but they're more or less alternate versions of what I've just said and I'm not interested in undermining everything above, thank you very much.
Be that as it may, there's a chance I may have missed some glaring signs that a band have made the transition from Rock icons to marketing whores. If that's the case, feel free to educate me via Twitter or the comment section. Don't tell me about reality TV shows though as they only create/promote Pop bands and the only Pop bands not in it for money are in it for fame and awards too.
I hope you enjoyed reading this piece and if you're wondering when I'm going to start reviewing new albums again, the answer is hopefully this month and the next!