tegs07

Sweetest thing- U2

Indeed there are some. Kasabian are getting long in the tooth now but managed it. Royal Blood are 2 blokes though so maybe the books balance better?

This is all true but I do think bands need to tour a lot, be on the road and go through all the life experiences of touring as a band to become a decent live act. Simply reproducing a well put together recording live is not going to satisfy most mature audiences (they want a little more) doing so may even be a struggle if a band can’t afford the addition musicians on a live tour.

It’s all over now, baby blue- Bob Dylan

It’s not so much about filling stadiums but being able to survive long enough to get really good. If the chilli peppers are used as an example the first couple of albums were great in terms of energy and they were good musicians. They didn’t really come into their own as song writers until Blood, Sugar, Sex, Magic. The same could be said of U2 with the Joshua Tree being as breakthrough album. Surviving to album 3 or 4 historically has been really hard. I’m not really sure it’s even possible anymore even for signed bands, which is a huge loss to music.

Some good points @mike257 Personally I think the major stumbling blocks for bands now is financial. Lack of venues willing to book new music, “pay to play”, revenue streams lost like selling tapes and CD’s at gigs and little in the way of squats and affordable accommodation being some factors. Even when bands are signed and getting some recognition revenue from streaming and physical sales is fairly paltry compared with the cost of living. Surviving long enough to break through must be very tricky for a band compared to a solo artist.

Superfast jellyfish - Gorillaz

Nice thanks. My current project is a MIJ Geddy Lee and this will save me a little time and effort.

So is the secret to success be a solo artist, keep costs to the minimum and use digital platforms to reach your audience?

Paradise city - G&R

We need another punk and early hip hop epiphany where people start a more DIY approach to entertainment where the audience is as important to the scene as the artists. Was Manchester and grunge the final throw of the dice?

Much more routed in blues, gospel and rock and roll. There is obviously a cross over to pop (in that it’s popular music) but would put those guys in a bracket that transcends demographics and age in the same way as Amy Winehouse. They played the bars and small venues and slogged about on the freeways long before they were household names.

He is an exception as said previously as in he is a prolific songwriter. He also cut his teeth the hard way doing many gigs until he was finally signed having mastered live performances, which is the thrust of this thread. Edit: I guess it depends if you see Ed Sheehan as a pop star or an old school singer /songwriter /performer that has managed to relate to a younger audience?

This is very true and very sad. Trying to get an audience to watch music they don’t already know is increasingly difficult. Hence the proliferation of tribute bands and venues closing all over the place. I don’t know the remedy for this sadly.

Boys from the county hell - pogues

I think for the majority of pop stars being attractive, well connected and having a significant amount of financial backing is imperative. Driving up and down the country and abroad in an old van until you finally break through isn’t really going to work as you will no longer be youthful and beautiful! Plus a large proportion of your audience are likely to still be in school or college.

I’m not really including pop stars in the discussion as I think (possibly erroneously) that their route to success is a different beast entirely.

This is a key point. It takes a long time. Persistence, the ability to weather changing trends and fashions, being able to take the ups and downs, financial and emotional. Pretty much all of the guys interviewed for the documentary said if it wasn’t for the formative years touring in a band and getting to know and trust each other musically as well as personally they would never have lasted the test of time.

Batdance - Prince

Indeed. A lot of their acts toured extensively and were very good musicians but with little success until the song writers and media savvy Motown guys put them on the map. My basic point is until the late 1960’s musicians were rarely rich. It was a vocation and lifestyle choice. This changed for 30 years or so but has/is reverting to type. A living however can be made still but playing live and hitting the road is crucial.

She will. She is a US country musician that has crossed over into pop. Her audience in the US alone is massive. Garth Brooks anyone?

They are all pop stars though, aside from the possible exception of Ed Sheerhan. I think the pop audience has different expectations and the artists have a shorter life span. Good looks, good session musicians, hired song writers, big shows etc The audience tends to be younger and have come to hear their favourite songs reproduced live. Edit: They also have the financial backing to get the PR and prime time shows and media exposure. Clothes designers, make up artists, life coaches etc they are selling a lifestyle not just music IMO

I was going to reference them as well as Idles who before Covid were banging on the gates. Both have a unique sound and can cut it live.

I think the old school guys got on the road to escape the tedium of every day life and see a bit of the world and have a laugh. They started of as not particularly good, with little expectations of a career let alone any money and got great through repetition and creating their own scenes. This (after Covid) must still be achievable. The motivation can’t be record sales anymore as they don’t really exist even if the bands are household names.

Sorry I started this one feel free to merge/delete as appropriate. I am interested in old school approaches such as touring and small gigs rather than festivals and social media as a possible reason why the old rock dinosaurs are still going strong.