But you're missing the point on almost all of them. You kept saying: "Age has an effect of the sales, but not on critical standing, and not on public perception." But it does. If it didn't you could list more bands like U2, and the truth is you can't.
You listed who? Primal Scream, The Cure, and Depeche Mode?
First of all, no one outside the UK under the age of 30 know who Primal Scream are. The Cure? How many people know any of their from the 12 years or so? A recent NME magazine cover had Robert Smith on the cover, guess what the picture was 10 years old. Age isn't a factor? You're blind if you can't see that.
Depeche Mode is probably the closest you can get to an apples to apples comparison out of all on your list and age has definitely played a factor on their success. They're the first ones to admit it, a recent interview with Gore talks about how frustrating it is that they have to rely so much on their back catalog when he thinks their latest stuff is just as good or better.
That's kinda the point. Age is a much bigger factor when it comes to bands than it is solo acts, that's why so many of them don't make it.
The point is that old bands can have success. These days they don't have success like they did when they were younger because almost NO rock band does. However, there are old artists - band, solo, it doesn't matter because the issue is AGE, not the type of artist.
Band/solo artist is a different discussion.
You can say that nobody under 30 outside the UK knows who primal scream is, but that doesn't change the fact that within the UK they are hugely successful, and they're an old band.
So what if the NME used an old photo? That says nothing about the Cure's ability to draw a huge crowd, most of whom are young. Speaking of which, I saw the line up for the Scream last year and they were all teens and 20 years olds. And DM may draw on their back catelogue, but their new records are well received, sell well, and I bet they could play mostly new stuff and people would love it because A) it's good, and B) DM are gods live. And "Wrong" was a hit. Not bad for an old band making music that doesn't fit the radio climate.
You say that age is a factor when it comes to bands more than solo artists, but you're referring to my point that bands don't get old because they break up so there are relatively few examples. It doesn't have anything to do with your claim that ageism prevents "success."
There are a lot of reasons that old bands don't have the success that they had when they were younger, and reducing it to age is far to simple and ignores other reasons (such as style of music, changing tastes, changes in radio, the lack of monoculture, the evening of the playing field, the general lack of monolithic artists), and you also choose to ignore evidence that old artists DO have substantial success, and I don't understand why. It's fucked up.
If a young artist headlined Glastonburry, sold out arenas, got great reviews, and won awards I think they'd be considered successful. But because they're named Weller, Depeche Mode, Radiohead, Primal Scream,Pearl Jam it doesn't count? That doesn't make any sense whats so ever. Because they're an old solo artist that success isn't as valid as if they're a band? It may seem that old bands have a harder time than solo artists, but that's only because there are fewer older bands. Solo artists generally don't retire.
The fact is that there are very few arena rock bands now, and even fewer stadium bands. Rock is moving back to the theatres, so-called "indie" success is becoming the norm; indie rock is the now mainstream, just like alternative became mainstream 20 years ago, but at a time when rock still shared that space. It doesn't any more, and I think Dre and Snoop headlining Coechella (MORE OLD FUCKERS!) attests to that.
If you want to go with simplistic reasons why old bands don't have the success they once did, go ahead and ignore reality, or accept that old artists don't face stigma anymore (look at the solid reviews, hit song, and sell out shows for Van Halen). I've provided plenty of evidence for it, and nobody has been able to refute it aside from saying it's not ENOUGH success when it's actually the normal amount of success for rock bands these days.
