Monsterboard

I think being a part of the fan base of Lordi is just awesome because they are still such a "new" band if you know what I mean. They're really early in their career. And I think it's kind of cool to slowly watch them grow and go through many different situations (Eurovision, Costume changes, new albums, etc.) and become the successful monsters that they are.

I guess my point is: Isn't it kind of cool to be a fan that's not quite caught on to everyone else? I know Lordi is popular in Europe, but no where near as popular in the U.S. . What do you guys think of being fans of a band that still has a looong way to go through their career?

The beuaty lies in the music, not in how big they are. I am into some bands that pretty much no-one has heard about, and yeah, it's something cool about knowing about a new, unknown band, but it certainly doesn't matter if they get big.

- Linus

I agree with Linus but I agree with you also, Doomality. I have to say that a gig becomes a cooler experience when a band isn't well known in your country. Take Children of Bodom for example, they weren't too popular in Canada until Are You Dead Yet? came out. It was nicer to see them in Montreal in a smaller club then it it was for me at Wacken. This could be a bad thing for Lordi though, most smaller clubs don't allow pyros and I think I'd like to see them again with the "full Lordi experience". And yeah, it's a great thing watching a band evolve.

Agrees with Linus and Doomality.

It´s about the music and not how big something is.
Even though it is nice to be famous and big. But I love their music more than anything else and everything about the band and every monster behind it.

But something I really like is to watch how this band is growing and how it is going for this band. It is more or less like to see a child growing up.
So I will look forward how it will go for this band and one thing is sure: However they develop, I will support them to the end.

I think if the UK would open up enough, they'd be huge here...

For me, i don't care if Lordi are famous or not. As long as the music is kick ass, i will never let them down.

I agree with MBL.

Today's world is full of piracy. Many artists/bands don't get their money they should get. And I think that if a band is famous like Lordi he has done a good job. In Finland there's band called Sunrise Avenue. Does someone know that band? Although their onliest album has got golden album only in 4-5 countries (like "The Arockalypse"), they are still famous than Lordi (this season). Or Finnish should know band like Metsatöll (Spinefarm Records dealed the contract with them). They have been played in USA, Finland, and Some places in Europe. All their 4 (or something like that) albums have been "transformed" into the vinyl too. You think they are famous for pyro effects and stadion gigs with 8000 peoples? No. They also play in a local clubs. I have to say, that they have the same success like Lordi have. Maybe Lordi have a little bit better carieer.
What I would like to say with it?
For b all bands: don't look for a big stadium at your first tour. The onliest felicity is, when you have fans who help you in a good and bad times. And if you see that more and more people like you, then look for a bigger place to perform. But the biggest "godsend" is a fan.

(yeah, like i would like to say something with that text )

Today's world is full of piracy. Many artists/bands don't get their money they should get.

If a band is good, they will get enough money, piracy or not. Don't say that band don't get money because people download...

filc wrote:

Today's world is full of piracy. Many artists/bands don't get their money they should get.

If a band is good, they will get enough money, piracy or not. Don't say that band don't get money because people download...

I think he meant that if it wasn´t for downloading and piracy: The band would had a little more money than with piracy.

Count a band get let say 1 euro on a cd (I dunno how much they get, I take a number so).

Count that piracy it's easy 100 peoples (very very very easy 100), it's then 100 euro that a band lose since it's 100 cd less sale

Let's say that some buy the cd after, let's being generous and say 70 peoples do, they still lose 30 euro

Ok here I take less number but in reality it's should be more in the 300 maybe 3000 than 30 euro. (I don't know exactly)

But it's for say that even on one album they lose

Also for that label and so on, continue help a band, they need sale and how more pirace, how less you sale and label don't begin count how much you SHOULD had could sale but how much you REALLY sale.

Then like Mr. Lordi say

If you like the album buy it
If you don't like it, delete it
If you don't buy a album you like, you kill the music you like

Well, I knew people would get side tracked from record sales and popularity and whatnot, but that's not really what I meant. I'm kind of referring to the age of the band.

Lordi started in 2002, (well, they released their first album and started doing gigs then). They ARE a pretty new band. The year of 2009 is almost here, making the band almost 7 year old. SEVEN YEARS? Man, I found out about the band in 2008, and it feels like almost a decade since I've known about them. I can't imagine how long it feels for a person who found out about them in the Get-Heavy era.

I feel that I'm having a difficult time getting my point across. I think my main point is this: In these past 7 years, soooooo many things have happened to this band. (some good, some bad) And there's no doubt that there will be more things will happen.

Maybe that's why I like this band so much. There's never a dull moment with them. Then again, maybe I'm just over analyzing this.

In reality it's seven years since get heavy but if I remember correctly, the band exist since 1996 what make not seven but 12 years

I mean there, that yes a lot happen for them last years, certainly much more after 2006 but during 6 years they had hard, in fact it's 50% of the time they exist. Just for say that I found wrong to say "they always had this succes".

They work for be where they are, they ameliorate, they become bigger, their was a evolution.

MBL wrote:For me, i don't care if Lordi are famous or not. As long as the music is kick ass, i will never let them down.

I totally agree. You couldn't have said it any better.

-Miss Killjoy- wrote:

MBL wrote:For me, i don't care if Lordi are famous or not. As long as the music is kick ass, i will never let them down.

I totally agree. You couldn't have said it any better.

Here here. One great band that will always count on my support

Have you seen a "funny" thing (it's very wierd):
Although it looks like HIM and Apocalyptica are known than Lordi (they both are finnish bands), Lordi has still sold more albums. Only one HIM's album has got golden album. It means Lordi has still got more fans and them, who likes them music. (Like Mr. Lordi told: "If you like the album buy it").
By the way, Apocalyptica was on US. tour in november, and they mostly played in the same clubs where Lordi did.
So it doesn't matter how famous you are. If you make a good music, then your album will be successful too.

See it on Wikipedia:
Apocalyptica
HIM

And it would be unfear if we compare Lordi with US bands. I think many depneds on a country geographical situation too and how rich is it.

_eesti999_ wrote:Have you seen a "funny" thing (it's very wierd):
Although it looks like HIM and Apocalyptica are known than Lordi (they both are finnish bands), Lordi has still sold more albums. Only one HIM's album has got golden album.

I don't know about Apocalyptica, but I'm pretty sure that HIM has sold more records than Lordi.

HIM is the only Finnish band that has sold gold in the states (500,000 copies).

McQuade wrote:

_eesti999_ wrote:Have you seen a "funny" thing (it's very wierd):
Although it looks like HIM and Apocalyptica are known than Lordi (they both are finnish bands), Lordi has still sold more albums. Only one HIM's album has got golden album.

I don't know about Apocalyptica, but I'm pretty sure that HIM has sold more records than Lordi.

HIM is the only Finnish band that has sold gold in the states (500,000 copies).

But hey think about The Rasmus! Oh my....

_eesti999_ wrote:Have you seen a "funny" thing (it's very wierd):
Although it looks like HIM and Apocalyptica are known than Lordi (they both are finnish bands), Lordi has still sold more albums. Only one HIM's album has got golden album. It means Lordi has still got more fans and them, who likes them music. (Like Mr. Lordi told: "If you like the album buy it").
By the way, Apocalyptica was on US. tour in november, and they mostly played in the same clubs where Lordi did.
So it doesn't matter how famous you are. If you make a good music, then your album will be successful too.

Sorry, but I can´t agree with you. I think Lordi haven´t more fans than e.g. HIM. HIM is more popular in the world (and I´m not their huge fan but I like them). And the same it´s with Apocalyptica. I´m huge fan of them (they belong to my 4 fave bands) but I haven´t their album (I don´t know why ... maybe later). And there are many other finnish band what are more popular e.g. The Rasmus or Nightwish

Isa wrote:In reality it's seven years since get heavy but if I remember correctly, the band exist since 1996 what make not seven but 12 years

I mean there, that yes a lot happen for them last years, certainly much more after 2006 but during 6 years they had hard, in fact it's 50% of the time they exist. Just for say that I found wrong to say "they always had this succes".

They work for be where they are, they ameliorate, they become bigger, their was a evolution.

If I remember it right they started the band in 1992 after they met each other on a Kiss voyage.
And Lordi said in a interview that they wouldn´t do any gigs before they had a record contract and a single and a hit out. But that happened in 2002.

"Mie Oon Lordi" say 1996 on the Kiss cruise

1992 was when Mr Lordi begin the project but I don't count it like begin of the band.

Then yeah both are correct, it depend if you count since begin of project (1992) or begin of band (1996)

Isa wrote:"Mie Oon Lordi" say 1996 on the Kiss cruise

1992 was when Mr Lordi begin the project but I don't count it like begin of the band.

Then yeah both are correct, it depend if you count since begin of project (1992) or begin of band (1996)

That is correct too. But this interview says: That the Kiss cruise was in 1992. I think that magazine made a big mistake there.

I believe better "Mie Oon Lordi" than press even their is mistake in too

Isa wrote:I believe better "Mie Oon Lordi" than press even their is mistake in too

Me too and because of that I´m sure that some stuff is incorrect in that Swedenrock magazine, which I have.

I know that Lordi aren't exactly getting that much publicity here in the U.K., but in all honesty, I don't care one single bit. I like Lordi for their music, and they make some great music. So long as Lordi keeps making fantastic songs, I'll be a fan of theirs for years to come

judge death wrote:

Isa wrote:In reality it's seven years since get heavy but if I remember correctly, the band exist since 1996 what make not seven but 12 years

I mean there, that yes a lot happen for them last years, certainly much more after 2006 but during 6 years they had hard, in fact it's 50% of the time they exist. Just for say that I found wrong to say "they always had this succes".

They work for be where they are, they ameliorate, they become bigger, their was a evolution.

If I remember it right they started the band in 1992 after they met each other on a Kiss voyage.
And Lordi said in a interview that they wouldn´t do any gigs before they had a record contract and a single and a hit out. But that happened in 2002.

Okay, nevermind, so that band isn't so new...I suppose. Damn, you guys have to get so technical with everything.

OKAY, between the years 2002-2008, a lot has happened with the band.

Happy?