New Album Discussion 10 - Songs of Sir, this is a Wendy's, durr

[womanfish]

the whole idea of "legacy acts" is kinda bullshit anyways.

eventually everyone becomes a legacy act, whether you want to or not. at some point every great artist crosses a threshold where it does not matter what they put out - people want to hear the hits.

yes - blackstar was critically acclaimed. three weeks after its release (and bowie's death) "Best of Bowie" replaced it at the top of the UK charts. because people love the hits.

his final concert set - https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/david-bowie/2004/eichenring-scheessel-germany-3bd5f8b0.html

pure legacy act. he knew. he gave the people the hits. because that's what the people want. they want the hits.


it's the inevitable end of life cycle an aging artist.

Agreed, and our band has outdone the regular life cycle.

Let's be honest. The way the music biz is today, Adele is a legacy act. Her last album came out of the gate fast and fell flat almost as quickly. People wanna hear Hello, Rolling in the Deep and Rumor Has It.
34 year old Rhianna is now the richest musician on the planet (because of cosmetics) and is playing a medley of hits at the super bowl.
35 year old Britney Spears played the hits in Vegas for 4 years.

Yes, U2 is not like these artists in many ways. But to have a career in the same music industry as these artists, where rock has been dead for a good 10-15 years, a band in their 60's that have been together for around 46 years, they are in a unique position of being able to straddle the line of legacy act and still the biggest rock band in the world that is releasing new material.
And guess what? They are leveraging both sides of the line, which I completely and fully support. They've earned this shit. People act like they have to go out and earn money to make the rent next month or something, so they are selling out playing vegas!! aaaaahhhh!!!
They keep going because they love what they do and still chase the song. Good for them. I'm here for the gems in the mud of whatever they release from now until they call it quits.

 

[PopFly]

I think it's totally fine to have both of these opinions....

a) it's perfectly understandable why U2 would want to be the premier act for these Sphere concerts, and it's a normal reflection of where they're at in the year 2023 or where popular music is in 2023

b) it's still a bummer that Edge, Bono, and Adam are doing these shows without Larry, since it represents such a change to the band's ethos for all these decades. A big series of "U2 concerts" are being planned months in advance for a "not really" version of U2. Even acknowledging all the realities of the situation and even if Larry is truly okay with it, it's still weird.

 

[ascender_RS]

Radiohead are a good example of a band who have achieved massive commercial and critical success with a couple of albums which, like JT and AB are widely considered to be masterpieces - The Bends and OK Computer. They also gained a huge amount of fans during that period in the 90s, not all of whom would go on to appreciate their subsequent albums. But they've also picked up new fans along the way.

What you can say about Radiohead is that they seem to be more experimental in the approach to their sound on every album. I think all (?) of their members have done varied solo projects and they do seem to push back against some of the more mainstream/commercial things they could have done. I guess that's why they often seem to be labelled as an "art school" band despite being massively successful. They're just very different to U2 in so many ways, but lots of bands are.

You'll get that with any band though and the longer the go on, if they continue to enjoy any sort of continued success, you'll get fans saying that they've sold out, they're not making the sort of music they used to etc. Which is utter nonsense because they're not the same people they were when they released their debut albums.

Legacy to me means a band living off past glories. Literally touring the greatest hits in smaller and smaller venues, having not released any new music in years, or even decades. There's nothing wrong with that, but clearly U2 aren't there yet. They're still releasing new albums which are of an objectively good quality and I think much better quality as a fan, than we should expect from a band who've been around for 40+ years with the same lineup and have enjoyed massive success.

This whole Vegas thing with or without Larry has presumably come about initially because the new high-tech venue + U2 makes for a perfect combination. It's a no-brainer. It's also not a 6 month residency in a Vegas casino. It's also not a greatest hits show.

Larry's absence has come about due to contracts, delays, covid, real-life, unpredictability of medical issues etc. It's just one of those things.

And of course they're going to get paid for it.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I’m not sure how I feel about describing Radiohead as a “massive commercial success.” Maybe in the UK?

 

[ascender_RS]

I’m not sure how I feel about describing Radiohead as a “massive commercial success.” Maybe in the UK?

The Bends and OK Computer were huge in the UK, but maybe not worldwide?

In some ways the success of those seemed to make them determined to go out of their way to be less mainstream in the way they made and marketed their music.

They went for ages without touring at all (or was it very very limited gigs) didn't they but continued to release music?

Whereas U2 have said they don't really get motivated to record music unless they know they can tour it.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

The Bends and OK Computer were huge in the UK, but maybe not worldwide?



In some ways the success of those seemed to make them determined to go out of their way to be less mainstream in the way they made and marketed their music.



They went for ages without touring at all (or was it very very limited gigs) didn't they but continued to release music?



Whereas U2 have said they don't really get motivated to record music unless they know they can tour it.

Idk. It’s weird because we are still talking about a band that has indeed sold like 20-30 million albums worldwide. But also a band that most certainly did not cash in on their potential to be commercially successful. They got off to a huge start and otherwise yes, as you say, they kind of did their own thing and avoided being seen as in the mainstream.

 

[Gonna Run 2 U]

I never “got” Radiohead. They always seemed like a band that hipster music snobs loved with a little commercial success that still made it ok for said hipster music snobs to like them.

 

[deltau922]

Is it getting better?

No

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

radiohead is to music snobs what pearl jam is to 90s grunge kids

both got really big quickly and purposefully backed out of the spotlight.

eddie seems to have grown more comfortable in his own skin as the years have gone by - while still shunning pushes for popular relevancy.

thom still wants to hide in the shadows.

quality of output is subjective to personal preference.

neither have been "popular" since they first began - but both are deeply beloved and defended by their respective fan bases.

 

[Salome]

I admire Radiohead's approach to both music and the music business.
I don't like their music much, though.

People who think U2 and Radiohead truly are comparable must not be aware of how big U2 really was in the 80s.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I admire Radiohead's approach to both music and the music business.
I don't like their music much, though.

People who think U2 and Radiohead truly are comparable must not be aware of how big U2 really was in the 80s.

there has never been a band as commercially and critically successful for as long as U2.

they were the biggest band on the planet on three separate occasions.

 

[womanfish]

there has never been a band as commercially and critically successful for as long as U2.

they were the biggest band on the planet on three separate occasions.

With Coldplay calling it quits, is there a bigger rock band currently than U2 that is putting out new material?
Any that can fill stadiums in any country in the world without 2 or 3 other fairly big name "openers?"

Possibly Metallica is in the ballpark...

 

[LuckyNumber7]

With Coldplay calling it quits,

Strangely premature statement

 

[Joey788]

Yeah, Metallica can definitely play on the same scale as U2 in many locations. They're the closest when it comes to their age and commercial success. Metallica never really got the critical acclaim in the early 2000s that U2 received.

Personally, I'm seeing Metallica playing two nights at Metlife Stadium with completely unique setlists (hmmm, sounds like a familiar plan that a certain band pulled back from for some reason). I'm excited for it!

Another band with a similar career path, though not as big as U2, is Depeche Mode. They had a similar rise through the 80s and 90s. They haven't really had breakthrough hits since the mid-2000s either, but it seems that they have no interest in chasing hits. (Plus, Dave Gahan seems to be embracing aging gracefully. Bono should take notes.)

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

With Coldplay calling it quits, is there a bigger rock band currently than U2 that is putting out new material?
Any that can fill stadiums in any country in the world without 2 or 3 other fairly big name "openers?"

Possibly Metallica is in the ballpark...

in the US... might be different in europe or elsewhere... but it's more or less this...

rock acts...
Metallica
Springsteen
U2
Coldplay
Rolling Stones
RHCP
Billy Joel
Paul McCartney

Pearl Jam has done well in select baseball stadiums - so i'm sure they could sell football stadiums in, say, Seattle, Boston, New York, Chicago, LA.

Radiohead could probably do it in the major markets as well.

Foo Fighters maybe?

Bon Jovi could do it in, well, New Jersey.

non rock acts...

BTS
Garth Brooks
Taylor Swift
Ed Sheeran
Beyonce
Pink
Jay-Z
Morgan Wallen (albeit with a lot of openers)
random country acts


i'm sure i'm missing someone.

 

[DeVaul]

If the Foos don’t play a mix of football and baseball stadiums next proper tour, they’re leaving money on the table.

 

[trevgreg]

Yeah, the Foos are absolutely a Top 10 act in the U.S. by this point (and probably elsewhere in some places). Before Taylor passed, they had quite a few stadium shows lined up, and were playing those somewhat consistently in the years beforehand.

 

[DaveC]

Yeah, the Foos are absolutely a Top 10 act in the U.S. by this point (and probably elsewhere in some places). Before Taylor passed, they had quite a few stadium shows lined up, and were playing those somewhat consistently in the years beforehand.

right, but there are people like me who had bought tickets for a show last summer, but now have basically zero interest in seeing them without taylor hawkins on drums.

 

[womanfish]

Strangely premature statement

LOL. Yes, you are correct! I thought that they were calling it quits after 1 more album. But after the last one, I guess it was just wishful thinking.

 

[womanfish]

in the US... might be different in europe or elsewhere... but it's more or less this...

rock acts...
Metallica
Springsteen
U2
Coldplay
Rolling Stones
RHCP
Billy Joel
Paul McCartney

Pearl Jam has done well in select baseball stadiums - so i'm sure they could sell football stadiums in, say, Seattle, Boston, New York, Chicago, LA.

Radiohead could probably do it in the major markets as well.

Foo Fighters maybe?

Bon Jovi could do it in, well, New Jersey.

non rock acts...

BTS
Garth Brooks
Taylor Swift
Ed Sheeran
Beyonce
Pink
Jay-Z
Morgan Wallen (albeit with a lot of openers)
random country acts


i'm sure i'm missing someone.

Sorry, I thought Coldplay was retiring much sooner than they are. LOL. So for now, if you take sales/streams/tickets into account, I would say Coldplay is now the biggest rock band around.

I wasn't including single artists, cause I know Springsteen can do it, and really single artists seem to have an easier time with it, probably because hardly any are rock artists.

I don't think Pink can fill a stadium anymore, but definitely the others on your list, and probably Harry Styles could at the moment as well.

I didn't really know if the Stones were still putting anything new out. If so, then they would be right along or above U2.
The Chili Peppers were playing to a stadium setup that used about 65% of the available space and had other well known artists playing with them, so I don't think they are in the same tier as U2.

I didn't think about the Foo's since I always thought they played arenas, but they did announce and then cancel a Stadium tour a year or two ago cause of Covid.

So I'd say Coldplay at the top, then U2/Metallica/Foos are around the same "bigness" right now.

 

[Rich79]

Agreed, and our band has outdone the regular life cycle.

Let's be honest. The way the music biz is today, Adele is a legacy act. Her last album came out of the gate fast and fell flat almost as quickly. People wanna hear Hello, Rolling in the Deep and Rumor Has It.
34 year old Rhianna is now the richest musician on the planet (because of cosmetics) and is playing a medley of hits at the super bowl.
35 year old Britney Spears played the hits in Vegas for 4 years.

Yes, U2 is not like these artists in many ways. But to have a career in the same music industry as these artists, where rock has been dead for a good 10-15 years, a band in their 60's that have been together for around 46 years, they are in a unique position of being able to straddle the line of legacy act and still the biggest rock band in the world that is releasing new material.
And guess what? They are leveraging both sides of the line, which I completely and fully support. They've earned this shit. People act like they have to go out and earn money to make the rent next month or something, so they are selling out playing vegas!! aaaaahhhh!!!
They keep going because they love what they do and still chase the song. Good for them. I'm here for the gems in the mud of whatever they release from now until they call it quits.

A thousand times yes! Well said.

Doing this for a Vegas Payday?! Really, the band that grossed the highest in ticket sales in what...the past 40 years with a lead singer coming off a successful autobiography release and book tour while releasing a retrospect album that, let's face it, will sell better than any greatest hits album will in this age of streaming when you can compile your own best of playlists any time you want. I don't buy it. These guys could have retired twenty years ago and been fine.

On the flipside, I'm not going to snuggle up with the sugar-coated, heartwarming story of doing this all for us and the fans. So, yeah, ego in regards to being the openers for an innovative new venue and the attention that comes with it, absolutely a motivator. They've been wanting to show love to this album's importance and it originally came out when Bono started getting the itch to be on the forefront of new technology in music. They'd be foolish not to jump at this opportunity.

I also think (speculation of course) the idea of quitting now is probably hitting them the same as anyone who has done one thing their entire career and thought about stopping. It leaves a void. Sure, they're not obligated to do this by anything other than maybe contractual terms at this point, but don't you think a lot of bands/musicians as they age might think "Well, what now? Am I supposed to go away and die, maybe show up to collect a lifetime achievement award or two?"

I have too many thoughts for one forum post. So I'll stop here for now; but I think wishing a band would stop just because you feel like they've peaked and are too old to do anything worthwhile is madness and adds to the stigma that aging in the music industry is a poison and a career-killer.

 

[trevgreg]

I have too many thoughts for one forum post. So I'll stop here for now; but I think wishing a band would stop just because you feel like they've peaked and are too old to do anything worthwhile is madness and adds to the stigma that aging in the music industry is a poison and a career-killer.

Billy Corgan has sometimes brought up a more extreme example he came across once: he once read fans openly discussing if the Smashing Pumpkins and his songwriting would have been more respected in present-day if he had died before writing his later albums.

Obviously, other opinions will never be nearly as bad as that one. But I think in the end, you either like the newer material/shows or you don't. If not, then great, find something else you like now or listen to the older stuff. It hasn't gone anywhere.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Sorry, I thought Coldplay was retiring much sooner than they are. LOL. So for now, if you take sales/streams/tickets into account, I would say Coldplay is now the biggest rock band around.

I wasn't including single artists, cause I know Springsteen can do it, and really single artists seem to have an easier time with it, probably because hardly any are rock artists.

I don't think Pink can fill a stadium anymore, but definitely the others on your list, and probably Harry Styles could at the moment as well.

I didn't really know if the Stones were still putting anything new out. If so, then they would be right along or above U2.
The Chili Peppers were playing to a stadium setup that used about 65% of the available space and had other well known artists playing with them, so I don't think they are in the same tier as U2.

I didn't think about the Foo's since I always thought they played arenas, but they did announce and then cancel a Stadium tour a year or two ago cause of Covid.

So I'd say Coldplay at the top, then U2/Metallica/Foos are around the same "bigness" right now.

Pink is touring stadiums in late summer / early fall. Mostly baseball stadiums - so smaller in scale - but with a few football stadiums tossed in.

i wasn't ranking - merely saying who could or couldn't.

but yea - i think you're probably right. Coldplay / U2 / Metallica are probably (still) the biggest rock (if we're still calling Coldplay rock) draws in the US. Springsteen just announced a stadium tour for late summer / fall - with a mix of baseball and football stadiums.

I don't discount RHCP just because they had, say, The Strokes open for them. But they're certainly a notch below U2.

Foo Fighters are absolutely stadium sized - they just haven't done a wide scale stadium tour yet (although they did have one planned). To Dave's point - we'll see what the reaction is without Taylor - but i suspect they'll do just fine.

Billy Joel plays mostly arenas - but I saw him at a sold out Camden Yards right before COVID, and he sold out Allegiant Stadium in Vegas not too long ago (Metallica sold out the next night... quite the back to back show lineup).

but the list is small and getting smaller - especially on the rock side. i can't think of a single young rock act who seems destined for stadium success. every one of them we mentioned are 50 and over.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Billy Corgan has sometimes brought up a more extreme example he came across once: he once read fans openly discussing if the Smashing Pumpkins and his songwriting would have been more respected in present-day if he had died before writing his later albums.

Obviously, other opinions will never be nearly as bad as that one. But I think in the end, you either like the newer material/shows or you don't. If not, then great, find something else you like now or listen to the older stuff. It hasn't gone anywhere.

a young man once wrote the following about rock fans and aging rock stars...

they want you to be jesus
they'll go down on one knee
but they'll want your money back
if you're alive at 33

i wonder what happened to that fella.

 

[DaveC]

a young man once wrote the following about rock fans and aging rock stars...

they want you to be jesus
they'll go down on one knee
but they'll want your money back
if you're alive at 33

i wonder what happened to that fella.

fun fact: i was 10 when this song came out and until i was about 16 i really thought the line was "they want their money back if you're a lyin' honeybee".

 

[trevgreg]

a young man once wrote the following about rock fans and aging rock stars...

they want you to be jesus
they'll go down on one knee
but they'll want your money back
if you're alive at 33

i wonder what happened to that fella.

Indeed. Great lyric, regardless!

fun fact: i was 10 when this song came out and until i was about 16 i really thought the line was "they want their money back if you're a lyin' honeybee".

 

[Rich79]

a young man once wrote the following about rock fans and aging rock stars...

they want you to be jesus
they'll go down on one knee
but they'll want your money back
if you're alive at 33

i wonder what happened to that fella.

Maybe there'll be a really great album of letters to that guy from his older self one day...one that's not awkwardly interrupted by Refu-Jesus, Lincoln's Ghost, Democracy lying down, or Ned and Zed.

 

[david]

Wait, Bono and Edge did a NPR Tiny Desk show?

 

[JWR1992]

Wait, Bono and Edge did a NPR Tiny Desk show?

Yep it was filmed yesterday and should be up on YouTube this week.

 

[david]

Sickkkkk.