GypsyHeartgirl
POP for GIRLS
I am starting this thread in response to some posts I saw on other threads (which I do not want to bump) I think it is a topic that needs attention. Apparently, some of you feel a band cannot be 'relevant' or largely successful without being a huge force with teenagers, or at least the under 30 crowd.
Wrong.
Here's why:
1. Please note that older people buy music too. Please don't get the idea that when someone is over 30, they are so eat up with kids, jobs, problems, etc. that they don't buy CD's- WE DO!! AND we have more money to spend on them than teenagers! AND we are less likely to share and 'burn' copies off of friends or the internet, or even steal them (sorry) than younger people.
2. Unlike the 'old' people of earlier generations, we have not 'outgrown' music. I can't speak for everyone, but all the people I know are still rocking, still playing rock radio stations, still buying CD's and going to concerts. We still love it as much as when we were young. Of course you may have less time to devote to music the more responsibilites and the less free time you have, but that doesn't mean 'old' people are not into music and buy it when they can.
3. What is relevant to teenagers? I have a sixteen year old son and a 13 year old daughter. I asked them and their friends to define this, and to list bands that 'matter.' You know what they said? There is no way to measure this, because teenagers, like every other age group, have varying tastes. (For the record my son loves U2 and lots of 60's and 70's bands and my daughter is one of those who only likes new people and won't like 'old' bands) Just because someone is a 'teenager' doesn't mean they all flock to the same thing. That may have been true in the 60's for the most part but not anymore. I thought about when I was a teenager. I was into old stuff, my friends and I liked The Who, Stones and Beatles and their solo acts, but also Boston, KISS, Cheap Trick, the Cars and more new stuff. Lots of kids were into Skynrd and southern rock, some even country. Some liked disco and some even liked Leo Sayer and crap like that. Punk? It was never a factor in my area, but the U2 members are the age of me and the people I was in high school with and they were very into punk, and glam, which had no impact in my area that I ever saw. So you have it, different strokes for different folks, and today it is even more splintered to the point where NO band is the big thing people flock behind. Some teens will like U2, some will not. You can't aim things at people whose tastes are so splintered. It's not just teens, everyone's tastes are like that now. The only thing you can do is make a good album and hope enough good people appreciate it.
4. By this, I do not mean to say that U2 is targeting 'old' people and not young ones. I really don't think they are targeting anyone. But they are older now, and the stuff that comes out of their hearts and souls is going to be that of a 40+ person now, because that's what they are. They have a lot to share, and I'm sure it will be something that touches a lot of people a lot of different ages. But if it does 'touch' my age group overall more than others, that will not be a bad thing for the band. We love them and we have money to buy their stuff, and we appreciate it. They are the 'voice' of their generation remember, and who else do we have? Can't we have U2? But everyone will always have U2 if they have enough taste for quality!
5. Many youths will refuse a band just for being too 'old.' Once a band is 'old' there will be some teens and young people who sadly will reject them for their age alone, and there is nothing they can do to appeal to those people so they shouldn't even bother. Some teens will like what they do, whatever it is, and some will not, no matter what it is. So that market can never be counted on as a significant factor in sales. If they come, great, but if they don't, it's their loss, but the band can't let that change what they're doing since there will NEVER be enough of them to make an impact.
6. It's really not the age, but the person, the taste, the personality, and you really can't label that just by when someone was born.
Wrong.
Here's why:
1. Please note that older people buy music too. Please don't get the idea that when someone is over 30, they are so eat up with kids, jobs, problems, etc. that they don't buy CD's- WE DO!! AND we have more money to spend on them than teenagers! AND we are less likely to share and 'burn' copies off of friends or the internet, or even steal them (sorry) than younger people.
2. Unlike the 'old' people of earlier generations, we have not 'outgrown' music. I can't speak for everyone, but all the people I know are still rocking, still playing rock radio stations, still buying CD's and going to concerts. We still love it as much as when we were young. Of course you may have less time to devote to music the more responsibilites and the less free time you have, but that doesn't mean 'old' people are not into music and buy it when they can.
3. What is relevant to teenagers? I have a sixteen year old son and a 13 year old daughter. I asked them and their friends to define this, and to list bands that 'matter.' You know what they said? There is no way to measure this, because teenagers, like every other age group, have varying tastes. (For the record my son loves U2 and lots of 60's and 70's bands and my daughter is one of those who only likes new people and won't like 'old' bands) Just because someone is a 'teenager' doesn't mean they all flock to the same thing. That may have been true in the 60's for the most part but not anymore. I thought about when I was a teenager. I was into old stuff, my friends and I liked The Who, Stones and Beatles and their solo acts, but also Boston, KISS, Cheap Trick, the Cars and more new stuff. Lots of kids were into Skynrd and southern rock, some even country. Some liked disco and some even liked Leo Sayer and crap like that. Punk? It was never a factor in my area, but the U2 members are the age of me and the people I was in high school with and they were very into punk, and glam, which had no impact in my area that I ever saw. So you have it, different strokes for different folks, and today it is even more splintered to the point where NO band is the big thing people flock behind. Some teens will like U2, some will not. You can't aim things at people whose tastes are so splintered. It's not just teens, everyone's tastes are like that now. The only thing you can do is make a good album and hope enough good people appreciate it.
4. By this, I do not mean to say that U2 is targeting 'old' people and not young ones. I really don't think they are targeting anyone. But they are older now, and the stuff that comes out of their hearts and souls is going to be that of a 40+ person now, because that's what they are. They have a lot to share, and I'm sure it will be something that touches a lot of people a lot of different ages. But if it does 'touch' my age group overall more than others, that will not be a bad thing for the band. We love them and we have money to buy their stuff, and we appreciate it. They are the 'voice' of their generation remember, and who else do we have? Can't we have U2? But everyone will always have U2 if they have enough taste for quality!
5. Many youths will refuse a band just for being too 'old.' Once a band is 'old' there will be some teens and young people who sadly will reject them for their age alone, and there is nothing they can do to appeal to those people so they shouldn't even bother. Some teens will like what they do, whatever it is, and some will not, no matter what it is. So that market can never be counted on as a significant factor in sales. If they come, great, but if they don't, it's their loss, but the band can't let that change what they're doing since there will NEVER be enough of them to make an impact.
6. It's really not the age, but the person, the taste, the personality, and you really can't label that just by when someone was born.
Last edited:
I know I'm only 20, but that is so true!!!
I do not know....
