|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 17, 2020 19:12:08 GMT
For some reason I've been on a kick of listening to interviews with the hard rock artists (mostly) of my youth: old episodes of That Metal Show and just various others I find on YouTube. One thing that definitely does come up from time to time is, some of these guys simply don't have the knowledge, skills, or desire to do other things.
Now with the super-famous legacy artists--the kinds of people mentioned above--they don't have to do other things, either. They could retire any time. But many-to-most artists, including a lot of people we've heard of who sold huge quantities of albums at some point, simply don't have that option. So for many of them, what the hell else are they going to do?
For example, among guys I've heard interviewed are people like Mark Slaughter (formerly of Slaughter), Mike Tramp (formerly of White Lion), and Tracii Guns (formerly of LA Guns, among others). And they talk about their modern careers as driving themselves to gigs around the country (and world), loading and unloading their own gear, selling merch themselves.
Slaughter's debut album went double platinum and spawned three Top 40 singles, while their second album went gold. White Lion's first American release went double platinum and hit #11 on the charts, with three top 70 singles (two of which were Top 10); its follow-up went gold and spawned two Top 60 singles. LA Guns had a string of at least three Top 50, gold or better albums in the late 80s and early 90s. So we aren't talking about fifth-rate nobodies who had bands after high school or something.
But presumably for a lot of these guys, there comes a point where the big success dries up, yet you've got to do something. You're 30, 35, 40 years old. Are you going to take temp jobs in offices? Work at the local hardware store? Maybe: some guys do that, too. (Actually if I'm not mistaken, LA Guns's best known lead singer Phil Lewis did exactly that, working office jobs. Dee Snider of Twisted Sister has said he worked in call centers after his big 80s success.)
But some guys, they're going to keep playing and keep recording because that's what they do. And if their audiences want to hear a hit from 1987 (or 1967) instead of their latest number, I'm guessing a lot of guys are just happy they want to hear anything at all anymore.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Dec 17, 2020 19:31:33 GMT
For some reason I've been on a kick of listening to interviews with the hard rock artists (mostly) of my youth: old episodes of That Metal Show and just various others I find on YouTube. One thing that definitely does come up from time to time is, some of these guys simply don't have the knowledge, skills, or desire to do other things.
Now with the super-famous legacy artists--the kinds of people mentioned above--they don't have to do other things, either. They could retire any time. But many-to-most artists, including a lot of people we've heard of who sold huge quantities of albums at some point, simply don't have that option. So for many of them, what the hell else are they going to do?
For example, among guys I've heard interviewed are people like Mark Slaughter (formerly of Slaughter), Mike Tramp (formerly of White Lion), and Tracii Guns (formerly of LA Guns, among others). And they talk about their modern careers as driving themselves to gigs around the country (and world), loading and unloading their own gear, selling merch themselves.
Slaughter's debut album went double platinum and spawned three Top 40 singles, while their second album went gold. White Lion's first American release went double platinum and hit #11 on the charts, with three top 70 singles (two of which were Top 10); its follow-up went gold and spawned two Top 60 singles. LA Guns had a string of at least three Top 50, gold or better albums in the late 80s and early 90s. So we aren't talking about fifth-rate nobodies who had bands after high school or something.
But presumably for a lot of these guys, there comes a point where the big success dries up, yet you've got to do something. You're 30, 35, 40 years old. Are you going to take temp jobs in offices? Work at the local hardware store? Maybe: some guys do that, too. (Actually if I'm not mistaken, LA Guns's best known lead singer Phil Lewis did exactly that, working office jobs. Dee Snider of Twisted Sister has said he worked in call centers after his big 80s success.)
But some guys, they're going to keep playing and keep recording because that's what they do. And if their audiences want to hear a hit from 1987 (or 1967) instead of their latest number, I'm guessing a lot of guys are just happy they want to hear anything at all anymore.
That 80s hard rock era was an era that was very "of the time" rather than "timeless." When the merchants of cool deemed that type of music as obsolete in the wake of grunge, the demand dried up super fast. So bands either went their separate ways, took hiatuses and patiently waited for the uprising of 80s nostalgia, or tried to contemporize their sounds (there is very little in the history of rock music that is more cringe worthy than an 80s party anthem band trying to sound dark and edgy in the 90s). The one band that was really able to hold on to relevancy in the 21st Century was probably Bon Jovi. When they reformed in 2000, they slowly changed their music to suit the modern rock landscape. It was quite successful, but their change did start to render their music as almost unrecognizable compared to their earlier material. But, as much as long time fans might complain about it (myself included), it hasn't affected their bottom line too much. Def Leppard, Poison, and Motley Crue can still play big venues, but don't do much in the way of new music. Def Leppard tried a few clunky attempts at modernization before releasing a throwback self titled album in 2015, but they lean very heavily on their 80s songs to fill setlists. Poison pretty much gave up on the idea of new music, save for a covers album. Crue have only attempted one full length album since their 2004 reunion. But, most of the bands from that era feed purely off nostalgia, and rely on double or triple bills or nostalgia fests like the M3 in Maryland or Rocklahoma. Several of them still release new material, but you'll likely not hear much or any of it live.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 17, 2020 19:51:23 GMT
And it's that last sentence that really puts them squarely into this discussion. Some (but not all) are still making new music, but almost all lean very heavily on their old music. And that isn't just so they can sell out stadiums (which almost none can, especially on their own), but just to sell tickets wherever they play: smaller clubs, theaters, summer festivals, or package stadium tours.
For a lot of these musicians--and here I mean the ones who do still put out new music--to insist on playing only their new music and not their hits would very quickly leave them unable to be booked at all. The choice is very often to play what you are known for or not to be paid to play at all.
Just thought it was worth bringing in the reality that not all "legacy artists" are the McCartneys and Wilsons of the world, and that even some once-big names with big sellers face this issue. And for them it is a matter of making ends meet.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Dec 17, 2020 20:00:24 GMT
And it's that last sentence that really puts them squarely into this discussion. Some (but not all) are still making new music, but almost all lean very heavily on their old music. And that isn't just so they can sell out stadiums (which almost none can, especially on their own), but just to sell tickets wherever they play: smaller clubs, theaters, summer festivals, or package stadium tours.
For a lot of these musicians--and here I mean the ones who do still put out new music--to insist on playing only their new music and not their hits would very quickly leave them unable to be booked at all. The choice is very often to play what you are known for or not to be paid to play at all.
Just thought it was worth bringing in the reality that not all "legacy artists" are the McCartneys and Wilsons of the world, and that even some once-big names with big sellers face this issue. And for them it is a matter of making ends meet.
I also think it's tough for the Dokkens and Ratts of the world whose classic material isn't even deemed "worthy" of the mainstream like some of the artists from the 60s or 70s. I could be wrong, but I feel like their core demo is even less interested in hearing new music than the fans who attend a Paul or Brian show.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Dec 18, 2020 0:26:32 GMT
My feelings are pretty straightforward. I basically look at two criteria: A) Do they really WANT to be active and aren't being influenced/persuaded/manipulated for inappropriate reasons (whatever you consider as inappropriate), and B) Can they "deliver the goods"?
Is criteria A relevant to many artists? It is, but I would imagine it becomes more relevant as the artist ages. When the legacy artist is young(er), their talent and drive can carry them through. Eventually, they can even find a way to meet obligations (concerts/recordings) just by surrounding themselves with the right people, people who are ready and willing to do the heavy lifting. But I think a funny thing slowly but surely enters the picture - life. All of a sudden our heroes have other things to confront, not just a fickle audience and fan base, but health concerns (arthritis, cardiovascular, autoimmune disease, basic aging), family concerns (divorce, children problems, death of family members, death of bandmates), and other distractions (moving/relocating, the changing music business, just wanting to get away and settle down). I would think a combination of these factors could affect an artist to question whether he/she wants to get back in the game. Of course, those same factors could also lead an artist back, to try to overcome those factors affecting their life.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Dec 19, 2020 0:31:57 GMT
Here is a relatively lengthy discussion with former Extreme and Van Halen singer Gary Cherone (with Mitch Lafon) on the topic of that relationship between new music and fan favorites. They bring stories about Aerosmith, The Knack, Van Halen, and of course Extreme on the topic.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 11, 2021 18:15:31 GMT
At the end of his autobiography, Paul Stanley was pretty realistic about fan perception of new material. He said "Hell or Hallelujah (off 2012's Monster) will never be Love Gun." But immediately after that, he back peddled a bit and said "Lick It Up was a new song once, now audiences go crazy for it. Psycho Circus was new, and now it's a show opener."
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 11, 2021 18:28:08 GMT
Hmmm ... his point isn't quite wrong, but it isn't quite so much a "you never know, anything could happen!" as that sounds.
Sure, every song was new once. But when "Lick It Up" was released, the band was only 10 years old, and their commercial drought was really only a few years long. It isn't so crazy to think that their fans embraced a return to heavier music--especially considering the genre getting big around the same time.
But "Psycho Circus" as an opener? OK, tell me, if we polled everyone who attended the past 10 years of KISS concerts and asked them to create a 25-song set (which seems a little longer than their actual sets), how many of those fans would have that song in there? I can't imagine that song breaks the top 40, 50 songs that would come up.
That is a little bit like Beach Boys fans. Sure, some fans (like us) want obscure old songs or otherwise ignored new ones, but almost everyone there wants the hits and long-time favorites. If "Psycho Circus" is their opener, it's because they think they can get away with it and might sell a few albums that way.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 11, 2021 19:22:19 GMT
Hmmm ... his point isn't quite wrong, but it isn't quite so much a "you never know, anything could happen!" as that sounds.
Sure, every song was new once. But when "Lick It Up" was released, the band was only 10 years old, and their commercial drought was really only a few years long. It isn't so crazy to think that their fans embraced a return to heavier music--especially considering the genre getting big around the same time.
But "Psycho Circus" as an opener? OK, tell me, if we polled everyone who attended the past 10 years of KISS concerts and asked them to create a 25-song set (which seems a little longer than their actual sets), how many of those fans would have that song in there? I can't imagine that song breaks the top 40, 50 songs that would come up.
That is a little bit like Beach Boys fans. Sure, some fans (like us) want obscure old songs or otherwise ignored new ones, but almost everyone there wants the hits and long-time favorites. If "Psycho Circus" is their opener, it's because they think they can get away with it and might sell a few albums that way.
That's why I thought Lick It Up might not have been a great example there. Psycho Circus made sense as an opener on that tour, but I was surprised to read Paul say that, and confirm (on setlist.fm) that the song did indeed open a lot of show around 2013. I thought they'd pretty much stuck with Detroit Rock City over the last 20 years. I actually do think Psycho Circus is quite good, and after listening to that album recently, one of the few Make Up Years 2.0 songs I think has any staying power, but I wouldn't open any shows with it. Paul did go on to mention that the fans wants want the hits, and whether we want to admit it or not (sorry, lonelysummer) that is why people are still paying good money to see bands like KISS, on their second farewell tour.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 11, 2021 19:30:20 GMT
If there is one thing that KISS, and Gene & Paul in particular, have always been good (or bad!) about, it's understanding how that works. If you're trying to be a commercial success, do what fans want over what critics want, what you want...or even what your most devoted, hardcore fans want (unless they're so wealthy that their support makes up for losing the more casual fans' support).
They could look at it like this:
A) Play a hits-heavy setlist to 15,000 people a night; or B) Play a rarities setlist to 2,000 people a night.
I mean, which scenario leads to higher revenues? Even if you inflate ticket prices for (B), are you going to charge 7.5x more!? (You could of course do both, alternating tours, etc. I'm just simplifying.)
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 11, 2021 19:43:13 GMT
If there is one thing that KISS, and Gene & Paul in particular, have always been good (or bad!) about, it's understanding how that works. If you're trying to be a commercial success, do what fans want over what critics want, what you want...or even what your most devoted, hardcore fans want (unless they're so wealthy that their support makes up for losing the more casual fans' support).
They could look at it like this:
A) Play a hits-heavy setlist to 15,000 people a night; or B) Play a rarities setlist to 2,000 people a night.
I mean, which scenario leads to higher revenues? Even if you inflate ticket prices for (B), are you going to charge 7.5x more!? (You could of course do both, alternating tours, etc. I'm just simplifying.)
Apparently, according to Paul, KISS was having their cake and eating it too. He mentioned at their meet and greets, they'd do a short non make up acoustic set with more obscure songs for the hardcore fans, while playing the full make up hits friendly show for the masses.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 11, 2021 19:50:01 GMT
Smart, I must say. Though I feel bad for the hardcore fans without the cash!
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 11, 2021 20:21:51 GMT
Smart, I must say. Though I feel bad for the hardcore fans without the cash! Same here. Although, at least the ones with cash are getting a lot more than just a quick photo op.
|
|