tegs07

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.

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.

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

Grey Day - Madness

Mad World- tears for fears