- yesVote A
- noVote B
- they're the sameVote C
Most Helpful Guy
As someone who has played various gigs in various bands (and therefore gone to a bunch of shows/seen bands), I would say they’re about equal. I’ve seen smaller bands much worse than bigger bands, and I’ve seen smaller bands with tons of talent. Bigger bands, I think, I have a higher average talent, but that’s not to say bigger is necessarily better.
I would also say that bigger bands, in general, have...
— instrument players that can play their material solidly
— solid stage presence
— hit or miss vocalists (I’ve seen less “middle-ground” vocalists for popular bands)
— often times, a defining characteristic that makes their sound unique
Smaller bands, on the other hand, have the full spectrum of talent. I’ve seen really crappy small bands and really good ones. The stage presence can be all over the place too. Unexperienced lineups generally are a bit more timid/don’t move around as much. Likewise, most smaller bands I’d argue have a less unique sound than a lot of bigger bands. Hence, they may be really solid in their style, but they don’t make it big because they don’t stand out.
Image can make a difference too. I mean, just think of how many unnattractive pop stars you know. As sad as it is, if you are unnattractive/overweight as a frontman, you will be fighting an uphill battle— esp. in pop. For metal, you can get away with it more. Just grow a beard and look “gruff” lol
The other problem is that getting big requires a lot more than just good music. It requires getting people to hear your music and being able to promote your stuff. It’s not surprising then to have really solid bands stuck in the weeds. If you don’t have anyone running PR (whether as their set job or collectively as a band), you’re basically relying on being super lucky and impressing someone who can help you out at a gig.1THIS IS NOT RELEVANT ANYMORE
Most Helpful Girl
They are better.0THIS IS NOT RELEVANT ANYMORE