tegs07

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

24 minutes ago, Skybone said:

That and what @Woodinblack said about "music being valueless".

It also seems that genres are more rigidly defined, bands have to "fit into a category", rather than just doing their own thing. Thanks to Myspace & Facebook for distilling what already seemed to be happening in music.

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?

19 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

How would you classify Chuck Berry and Elvis?

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. 

12 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

Ed Sheeran? 

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?

53 minutes ago, Skybone said:

You also need to factor in the decimation of Venues that put on Live Music.

20 years or so ago, there were far more venues operating than there are now, and a lot of them actively put on and promoted new & upcoming bands, playing original music.

It seems that fewer venues are willing to take the risk of putting on bands, and those that do, want bands that'll play known music (popular covers) in order to get the punters through the door.

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.

19 minutes ago, SumOne said:

wouldn't discount the likes of stadium filling pop stars like Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga,  Beyonce, Lana Del Ray,  Ed Sheeran, Lorde, Adele etc. they often have live backing bands/session musicians and aren't really doing things that differently to the way

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.

1 minute ago, SumOne said:

Also, to get to the point of being big enough to fill stadiums takes a long time, over the last 20 years or so there have been bands formed like Ghost, The Strokes, Royal Blood, Arctic Monkeys, Maroon 5, Biffy Clyro, Arcade Fire, Bring me the Horizon, Mumford & Sons, Florence and the Machine etc. that all fill big venues and headline festivals. I guess if they can stay together and make a couple more well received albums they'll be filling stadiums in a few years.  

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 

9 minutes ago, chris_b said:

Just like all the Motown artists.

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?

11 minutes ago, Al Krow said:

Off the top of my head: Ariana Grande, Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran and Dua Lipa. IMO they would all easily outsell RHCP today.

In the late 90s (say 1998) they were 5, 9, 7 and 3 years old respectively.

Ok not rock bands but superstars with backing groups. But why doesn't that count?

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

7 minutes ago, Cato said:

Arctic Monkeys released their debut in 2006 and have gone on to sell out arenas and headline festivals all over the world.

I can't really think of any more recent acts that have forced their way into the big boys club though.

 

 

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.

Just now, Woodinblack said:

I believe (litteraly like on the other thread, genre unspecific), its not the old school approaches or that rock dinosaurs are still going strong, its that those old rock groups have a following that I don't think it is possible to get today. They got their following when it was still possible to get it.

This is why there is no one to replace them and why groups today doing exactly the same thing as groups did before won't get anything like the following that those groups got.

Not just rock, how many groups are there actually? Look at the charts, how many groups get in the charts at all? Its mostly solo singers (or singers featuring..).

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.

12 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

Now music is basically valueless, you can hear it everywhere, and the tribalism and intense listening to one group is not really something that does the same now. Music shows are about some singer, as the only one that matters (hense the lack of groups), and xfactor type shows are shown as the way to get famous.

Its just the age it is now, the era of the band is sort of over

This is possibly true. I do wonder if too much emphasis is put on social media by bands and festival promoters though in terms of reaching audiences and booking bands. A band may have a lot of followers and a well produced album but if they can’t deliver something magic live they won’t succeed unlike the pop world where hired guns and visuals and choreography go a long way.

On top of this without the camaraderie and fun experiences of touring bands won’t last long as the financial rewards from record sales and streaming just aren’t there.

5 minutes ago, Merton said:

Similar theme to this thread (though that is focussed on British bands only): 

 

Hi yes that’s the one I referred to. I was thinking rock in general and more about touring and not relying on social media and festivals which appear to be the route in these days. The problem is rock audiences don’t just want the Spotify stream reproduced live and minor bands on the festival circuit tend to be ignored by media and festival goers as alike. Didn’t comment on that thread as it’s British rock only with a metal emphasis.

After watching “What drives us” documentary something Flea said chimes with the thread on here about Download festival and the dinosaur mega bands.

Flea commented on how all the big rock bands such as RHCP, Metallica, Foo Fighters, U2 are still going and are the only bands that can fill big arenas. As if a wall was erected in the late 90’s and no one can get over it.

The documentary focussed on reaching an audience the old school way. On the road in a van, forging bonds with your band mates and just getting good through constantly playing and direct audience feedback.

Is the rock icon dead? Or do bands need to go back to basics to break down that wall?

Edit: have put constantly in bold as it’s what these guys did. Not a couple of 10 date tours a year. Constantly playing, improving and learning to get along with each other.

One inch man - Kyuss

1999 - Prince

The End - Doors 

Free to run - Gomez

9 million rainy days- JAMC