U2 working with pop songwriter for new album

[Niceman]

There are several reasons why "the man on the street" (does he know joe the plumber?) won't know about albums by old people, and they're the same reasons he probably won't know the last album by younger artists: Unless you seek out new rock music, you're not going to find it because it's not on the radio, and it's not on TV. It's online, and only if you want it.

That's a very important point.

 

[Hollow Island]

Think about it for a second. When you go see a rock band you want to see youth, it's much more obvious when there are four or five aging individuals vs one. When you're a solo artist you have yourself to answer to, when you're in a band you have 3 to 4 others that have to come along for the ride. So it's much easier for Bowie to make a drastic change than it is an entire band.

Now think about the solo artists that are close to the same age as U2 or older and that have done well.

They usually write more from a first person story telling narrative rather than a universal narrative. Springsteen can write about growing old and you know he's writing about himself, U2 write about growing old and it starts to make it difficult to sing along to.

When Johnny Cash was getting older it would have been quite ridiculous to see him coming out on stage with his black suits trying to kick out the stage lights with a full piece backing band behind him. So he went almost entirely acoustic, brought everything to a bare bones intimate sound and production. That's much easier for a solo artist than a band to be able to do.

There are a dozen reasons why it doesn't effect solo artists as much as bands, some are much more implicit than others. But just take a look around, it's pretty obvious.

You're just explaining why solo artists have it easier creatively. These points are all true but they are unrelated to your claim that ageism doesn't affect solo artists as much as bands.

Once again you fail to really mention any bands that are the same age as U2 with the exception as DM and their critical claim has dropped quite a bit. They are surviving doing what they do best, they haven't really been(dare I say it) relevant in long while.

I'm not sure where you are getting that Pearl Jam had a #1 in 2009, but you are right it did pretty well. Mainly because they decided to actually do promotions for it, so it was almost a coming out of retirement for the casual audience.

Green Day, a bit younger, and I'm pretty sure they'll start feeling it soon. It's difficult for me to take a 40 year old seriously when he's wearing skinny jeans and eyeliner.

Chili Peppers have definitely seen a drop in their appeal but are still performing pretty strong. They may be close to the only band that proves your point. As far as appeal and "relevance" I would say they are pretty close to U2 in today's market.

Metallica, their last two albums have been completely panned by the critics. I'm suprised you even brought them up.

They're all old bands, all massive, and their recent material is successful. Just look at the stats. The debate isn't about how old they are - some are the same age as U2, some are younger but still old. The debate is about ageism, and presumably it affects all old bands.

Pearl Jam had a number one album. You're not sure where I'm getting that from but you'll concede it did well? Thank you. Now please come to the land of facts with me: Pearl Jam's spark is back! The revitalized alt-rock sound of the SPIN cover boys' latest album, Backspacer, has secured the Seattle band the No. 1 position on the Billboard Top 200 Chart, with 189,000 album copies sold in the first week of release!

Now, if you think a band of 40 year olds isn't old, you should consider that when Bowie put out Outside he was 48, and old. When the Stones put out Steel Wheels, they were old. Page and Plant were old in 94, 25 years after Zep 1. Pearl Jam and Green Day are 21 and 22. Radiohead are 20. They're all in their 40s, some closer to 50. Metallica and the Chilis (Josh aside) are the same age as U2, and have been putting out records for a comparable amount of time. You're splitting hairs in an attempt to ignore the point.

Death Magnetic: 78 on metacritic. Bomb and ATYCLB got 79, and they were praised, so I don't see how you can seriously say it was "ompletely panned by the critics."

Do you see what you're doing? You say DMs critical standing has dropped, but you previously said that critical acclaim want' valuable, so I introduced commercial success...and you comment on relevance. If you have hits and play big shows you're relevant. That's the only concrete way to define it.

You discount green day because Billy Joe's fashion but you ignore the evidence that shows that they, as an old band, are successful. I'd say that if teens who got into them in 90, or 94, now have children they can take to American Idiot means that Greed Day are old.

You're introducing a bunch of opinions, interpretations, biases, and fallacies, all the while ignoring facts that counter your opinion.

 

[Hollow Island]

Yeah, I heard them loudly exclaiming that they were shunning fame, but their album releases were just as loud and public as ever. I kinda think the fact that their music wasn't that great is the only reason they weren't bigger after the second album.

They stopped doing interviews, videos, and went years without a big tour. Vitalogy was massive. You're letting your opinion get in the way of facts. But, as someone said, that's how things go on interference.

 

[Niceman]

They stopped doing interviews, videos, and went years without a big tour. Vitalogy was massive. You're letting your opinion get in the way of facts. But, as someone said, that's how things go on interference.

I guess I'm sharing my perspective. They may have gone quiet for a while after the second album, but I didn't miss them. Then they made noise again and again over the years after that. I haven't called them sell outs, but they tried to sell their work, the same as other bands. Heck, even U2 went pretty quiet from 1993-1997, but no one suggests they walked away from anything...

I kinda think it should be okay to post on here that I think they only had one good album without some posters personally insulting me for it. I don't think they're one of the best bands of the last 20 years. Mostly they bore me. Dat's all.

 

[Niceman]

Now, if you think a band of 40 year olds isn't old, you should consider that when Bowie put out Outside he was 48, and old. When the Stones put out Steel Wheels, they were old. Page and Plant were old in 94, 25 years after Zep 1. Pearl Jam and Green Day are 21 and 22. Radiohead are 20. They're all in their 40s, some closer to 50. Metallica and the Chilis (Josh aside) are the same age as U2, and have been putting out records for a comparable amount of time. You're splitting hairs in an attempt to ignore the point.

Forgive me for asking, but how old are you? Bowie at 48 was middle aged. Sure, closer to the end of his career than the beginning, but I wouldn't call him an old man.

 

[DevilsShoes]

McCartney has had a lot of solo albums critically lauded which didn't deserve it. I don't know if his latest is any good, but he may be suffering from boy who cried wolf syndrome.

Possibly, or maybe after giving his stuff such a kicking throughout the 80's and 90's, they feel they should give him his due for simply stiill being around, still making music and still touring. Oh, and the ex-Beatle thing too.

The mainstream doesn't care about Elton, Rod, or Paul because of the kind of music they make, not the fact that they're old.

You could be right, but why though? Let's be honest, all three have a particular style and they've stuck to it pretty much throughout their whole career and done very well from it. Do people not enjoy syrupy piano ballads anymore? They do when Adele sings them.

There are several reasons why "the man on the street" (does he know joe the plumber?) won't know about albums by old people, and they're the same reasons he probably won't know the last album by younger artists: Unless you seek out new rock music, you're not going to find it because it's not on the radio, and it's not on TV. It's online, and only if you want it.

But it's more than probable that he'll know about Noel Gallagher's first solo release. Critically and commercially, that surpassed everybody's expectations.

When Johnny Cash was getting older it would have been quite ridiculous to see him coming out on stage with his black suits trying to kick out the stage lights with a full piece backing band behind him.

Funnily enough, that just reminded me of that moment on the From The Sky Down DVD when during his acoustic version of The Fly, Bono randomly kicks over a chair. Oh, I did cringe, it just felt so calculated.

 

[Hollow Island]

Forgive me for asking, but how old are you? Bowie at 48 was middle aged. Sure, closer to the end of his career than the beginning, but I wouldn't call him an old man.

Obviously he wasn't an old man, but he was considered an old artist, particularly by teenagers. Yet the Chilis are older than Bowie was and they're not considered old, at least not in a dismissive way. I think that older artists are probably treated better now than in the past because we're seeing the second or third generation grow old and continue to put out quality music.

 

[Niceman]

But it's more than probable that he'll know about Noel Gallagher's first solo release. Critically and commercially, that surpassed everybody's expectations.

Not in the US. Believe it or not I found out he'd released the solo album watching Graham Norton on BBC America! Is it good? I miss when Oasis were good...

 

[Niceman]

Obviously he wasn't an old man, but he was considered an old artist, particularly by teenagers. Yet the Chilis are older than Bowie was and they're not considered old, at least not in a dismissive way. I think that older artists are probably treated better now than in the past because we're seeing the second or third generation grow old and continue to put out quality music.

Wow. Surprising to realize the Chili Peppers are older now than Bowie was when he did Outside....

 

[BVS]

You're just explaining why solo artists have it easier creatively. These points are all true but they are unrelated to your claim that ageism doesn't affect solo artists as much as bands.

If you're not interested in a discussion then I can't help you.

They're all old bands, all massive, and their recent material is successful. Just look at the stats. The debate isn't about how old they are - some are the same age as U2, some are younger but still old. The debate is about ageism, and presumably it affects all old bands.

U2's stats are impressive as well, but that's not really what we're talking about. I would have thought you would have caught on by now. We're talking about their ability to reach beyond their already established audience, the ability to still be a relevant force in the overall musical landscape.

Pearl Jam had a number one album. You're not sure where I'm getting that from but you'll concede it did well? Thank you. Now please come to the land of facts with me: Pearl Jam's spark is back! The revitalized alt-rock sound of the SPIN cover boys' latest album, Backspacer, has secured the Seattle band the No. 1 position on the Billboard Top 200 Chart, with 189,000 album copies sold in the first week of release!

I got lazy and was looking at wikipedia that was stating it reached number 8 on the charts, so I was just asking.

Now, if you think a band of 40 year olds isn't old, you should consider that when Bowie put out Outside he was 48, and old. When the Stones put out Steel Wheels, they were old. Page and Plant were old in 94, 25 years after Zep 1. Pearl Jam and Green Day are 21 and 22. Radiohead are 20. They're all in their 40s, some closer to 50. Metallica and the Chilis (Josh aside) are the same age as U2, and have been putting out records for a comparable amount of time. You're splitting hairs in an attempt to ignore the point.

No, I'm not splitting hairs. I just think there's a big difference between the second and third decade of a band. It's between those two decades where we usually see a band start to lose their ability to be relevant, now they still may be successful but they start to notice they aren't really making a difference anymore in the industry.

Death Magnetic: 78 on metacritic. Bomb and ATYCLB got 79, and they were praised, so I don't see how you can seriously say it was "ompletely panned by the critics."

You're right, I was thinking St Anger.

Do you see what you're doing? You say DMs critical standing has dropped, but you previously said that critical acclaim want' valuable, so I introduced commercial success...and you comment on relevance. If you have hits and play big shows you're relevant. That's the only concrete way to define it.

What?! I never said critical acclaim wasn't valuable. I don't think big shows are a sign of relevance. There are plenty of bands able to headline festivals and do big tours soley based on their back catalog. Back to the DM interview I mentioned.

You discount green day because Billy Joe's fashion but you ignore the evidence that shows that they, as an old band, are successful. I'd say that if teens who got into them in 90, or 94, now have children they can take to American Idiot means that Greed Day are old.

Where did I say that I discount Green Day because of Billy Joe's fashion? You're really missing the point here. You're talking about size, putting words in people's mouth, twisting, and ignoring what people are really talking about.

My point about Billy Joe's attire was a point of relatability, and aging bands. Similiar to my point earlier about Robert Smith, he's now a caricature, hence why NME is using 10 year old pictures of him on their cover.

 

[Hollow Island]

You could be right, but why though? Let's be honest, all three have a particular style and they've stuck to it pretty much throughout their whole career and done very well from it. Do people not enjoy syrupy piano ballads anymore? They do when Adele sings them.

Maybe their lack of variation is a problem?

Adel's music sounds modern, she has a new voice, and Rod Stewart and Elton John are a bit shameful. Particularly Rod. How long has he been a joke for? Every new Elton song I've heard since Lion King has been bland as pigeon shit.

It's too bad Rod is such a git, because the Faces were awesome.

 

[DevilsShoes]

Not in the US. Believe it or not I found out he'd released the solo album watching Graham Norton on BBC America! Is it good? I miss when Oasis were good...

Oh right, it made quite an impact in the UK, at one point you couldn't go into the newsagents without seeing yet another interview with Gallagher about the state of the charts.

It's not a bad album you know, if you can, check out Wanna Live In a Dream (Record Machine), admittedly it was written during the Oasis days, but it's the standout tune for me, plus Everybody's On The Run feels suitably epic too.

 

[DevilsShoes]

Maybe their lack of variation is a problem?

Adel's music sounds modern, she has a new voice, and Rod Stewart and Elton John are a bit shameful. Particularly Rod. How long has he been a joke for? Every new Elton song I've heard since Lion King has been bland as pigeon shit.

It's too bad Rod is such a git, because the Faces were awesome.

I think people still love the syrupy piano ballad as much as ever, but only when it's done well.

It comes back to an earlier point I made that most of the big bands or solo artists from the 60's and 70's have already written all their iconic tunes. Nobody has a limitless number of Hey Judes in the can do they? There comes a point when you're just...fresh out. It's only fair, give somebody else a go.

 

[Hollow Island]

If you're not interested in a discussion then I can't help you.

U2's stats are impressive as well, but that's not really what we're talking about. I would have thought you would have caught on by now. We're talking about their ability to reach beyond their already established audience, the ability to still be a relevant force in the overall musical landscape.

I got lazy and was looking at wikipedia that was stating it reached number 8 on the charts, so I was just asking.

No, I'm not splitting hairs. I just think there's a big difference between the second and third decade of a band. It's between those two decades where we usually see a band start to lose their ability to be relevant, now they still may be successful but they start to notice they aren't really making a difference anymore in the industry.

You're right, I was thinking St Anger.

What?! I never said critical acclaim wasn't valuable. I don't think big shows are a sign of relevance. There are plenty of bands able to headline festivals and do big tours soley based on their back catalog. Back to the DM interview I mentioned.

Where did I say that I discount Green Day because of Billy Joe's fashion? You're really missing the point here. You're talking about size, putting words in people's mouth, twisting, and ignoring what people are really talking about.

My point about Billy Joe's attire was a point of relatability, and aging bands. Similiar to my point earlier about Robert Smith, he's now a caricature, hence why NME is using 10 year old pictures of him on their cover.

The relative ease of being a solo artist has no bearing on how the public treats "old" artists. It's a discussion worth having, but it's unrelated to ageism.

If ageism was a huge problem - if the public didn't accept old artists - then it would work for bands and solo artists because they're doing the same thing: making music. There is no reason why the public - fans or critics - would say "Weller made his best record" and then use age against U2 because they're the same age. If age was a weapon it would be used against everybody. There is no logical reason to think that solo artists would be exempt from that judgement.

This whole ageism thing you and Von Snoopy are talking about (it was he who decried critical success, sorry) is based purely on speculation and ignoring solo artists because they're solo (arbitrary and based on how they work, not their age), as well as bands as old as U2 because they're not big enough, like Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds or Sonic Youth (who are one of the most culturally significant rock bands of all time).

Bands younger than U2 don't count because they're too young, but I remember when bands became irrelevant after 10 years. In the 90s there weren't many bands from the 70s, or even 80s, who were relevant.

If the audience is sizable and their current work is popular and respected, then they are relevant. There are many reasons why artists lose their relevance, and I don't think age is much of an issue compared to other factors such as changing tastes, demographics, media landscape, artists running out of new ideas, etc. The latter is related to age, but not ageism.

Metallica got slammed for St Anger, and then praised for Death Magnetic. If you do good work it will be recognized, and an older band doing good work has a much easier time getting heard than a young one.

If you're looking for rock to be a powerful force in the musical landscape you can thank Limp Bizkit for killing it.

Seriously, fuck them.

But really, there is no single musical landscape any more. It's a bunch of subcultures, and there are a few media creations running around annoying everyone but making up for it by being a bit sexy sometimes.

 

[Hollow Island]

I think people still love the syrupy piano ballad as much as ever, but only when it's done well.

It comes back to an earlier point I made that most of the big bands or solo artists from the 60's and 70's have already written all their iconic tunes. Nobody has a limitless number of Hey Judes in the can do they? There comes a point when you're just...fresh out. It's only fair, give somebody else a go.

Yeah, people run out of songs. It'll happen to everyone. Another thing I think gives the lie to the ageism claim is that we expect Rod et al to be as good as they were. If we really didn't give the old fuckers a chance we wouldn't expect - or want - them to be good. I doubt there's anyone who wouldn't was Rod or Elton or Paul to put out a really good record, because everyone likes good music.

 

[Registered Dude]

BORING

 

[DevilsShoes]

If you do good work it will be recognized.

I agree, and I hate to say it but that's kind of why I feel NLOTH didn't make any real impact with the public. I'm one of the very few people on this board who wouldn't put it anywhere near JT or AB, it has a couple of interesting and brave moments but an awful lot of it feels far too generic IMO. Boots is only partially to blame AFAIC. I tend to feel good work finds a way to creep out and call attention to itself, no matter how low-key the release.

Yeah, people run out of songs. It'll happen to everyone. Another thing I think gives the lie to the ageism claim is that we expect Rod et al to be as good as they were. If we really didn't give the old fuckers a chance we wouldn't expect - or want - them to be good. I doubt there's anyone who wouldn't was Rod or Elton or Paul to put out a really good record, because everyone likes good music.

McCartney still talks about writing one last classic, that's his mission. I can't see it happening but it doesn't stop me from willing him on.

 

[BVS]

The relative ease of being a solo artist has no bearing on how the public treats "old" artists. It's a discussion worth having, but it's unrelated to ageism.

I wasn't talking soley about the ease, I was talking about how accepting the audience is with bands vs solo artists, and then I was giving you some reasons why solo artists are able to avoid issues of ageism vs bands. But stay the course and cover your eyes if a real discussion doesn't work for you.

If ageism was a huge problem - if the public didn't accept old artists - then it would work for bands and solo artists because they're doing the same thing: making music. There is no reason why the public - fans or critics - would say "Weller made his best record" and then use age against U2 because they're the same age. If age was a weapon it would be used against everybody. There is no logical reason to think that solo artists would be exempt from that judgement.

Where have you been? In what Utopia do you live in where society doesn't place different rules upon different types of people?

Sorry, but I'm talking about reality. Reality is that society is kinder with men than they are on women when it comes to age, and they are kinder to solo artist than they are bands. This is just a reality. It doesn't have to have logic.

There's a reason you don't see many bands in U2's shoes.

Pearl Jam, Radiohead, Green Day, etc they are all approaching a pretty critical time in their careers and it will be up to them how they approach it, but I have serious doubts as to how many will make it there.

I think Pearl Jam will because their approach to music has always been fairly straight forward, they don't really have an aesthetic, they haven't really been known for their experimentation, and their tours are never really new album focused so just cranking out solid songs and putting on good shows will be able to sustain them.

Radiohead will have a harder time. Radiohead's career is based on the fact that the public sees them as experimental and cutting edge. I already think they've become settled into their own sound and aren't doing too much new these days, but will the audience be satisfied with that for another decade? I don't know. Will the audience look to them as pioneers when someone younger and more cutting edge comes and takes their spot?

Green Day I think will have the hardest time. They went from obnoxious fun punk band to defiant political punk band, but will people take them serious when they're a bunch of old rich guys yelling at Mitt Romney? Or will they have to mellow down and do another transformation, and if so how will that effect their future shows when the audience wants their back catalog?

 

[U2DMfan]

You guys are talking beyond each other.

There are two kinds of 'broader' relevance being talked about. There is the relevance that Springsteen had (and will always have) as he stood on stage and inducted U2 into the RNRHOF. And then there is the relevance he spoke of when being envious of U2 in that same induction speech. One kind of relevance carries a large amount of superficiality, including ageism, and the other doesn't care near as much about such things. The former is also a lot more 'monolithic' culturally, and the same ol' that still gives us 'one-hit-wonders'. And the latter is everything Hollow Island is describing, which appeals to a more diverse culture, or even within its own 'niche'. But there is a big enough audience to keep those older acts relevant to that certain extent.

One relevance is also dependent on critical acclaim or critical derision, and the other is more dependent on what is 'cool', 'trendy' and all the rest. And it's not just young people in the latter group. It's 'groupthink' people. And they exist across all demographics. It's more important to have a cultural personality...and a great ass, like Rihanna than to make good music. It's the same phenomenon that has ALWAYS existed and will always exist. All that has changed (outside of rock irrelevance on a mass scale) is the manner in which we receive the music. The attitudes of the audiences are as fickle as ever. Rock has its own niche and you can be relevant in the rock world and not sniff this other kind of relevance.

There is a difference between having a #1 album and a #1 single. Neil Diamond had the first #1 album of his legendary career not so long ago. Does that make him as relevant as Lady Gaga? Of course not. It's not remotely the same kind of relevance. Vertigo and Beautiful Day were massive, relevant successes as lead singles. And neither of them (in the US) cracked the top 20. All relevance is not equal. Especially if you are almost exclusively talking about (what is now) the rock niche. The rock niche, as I believe Hollow Island is saying, doesn't really give a shit about ageism. I think that is 100% true.

But U2 are not playing (or intending to play) to that niche.
They will have to deal with ageism far more than ANY band mentioned in this thread.
I also think the Stones had to deal with a different cultural beast (where rock was comfortably alongside pop in pop culture), so maybe they aren't a very good analogue to U2 in any sense of a discussion of ageism. But U2, or any rock band that wants crossover appeal has to deal with that superficiality. I think the bands/artists that are aging gracefully don't get the rough end of the stick from the more superficial audience. Much like within the 'rock niche', it's the artists that refuse to be genuine that get the stick.

Moral to the story - it makes no sense for U2 to covet that pop audience. Because in order to do it, they'll have to expose themselves to that ageism. Think: Fifty-something KISS in their clown makeup. Think: Bon Jovi and Sambora in their tight leather pants and dyed hair. They are relevant to the rock niche because they are popular but in terms of crossover, there is a whole lot of 'cringeworthy' ageism in play.

To sum, If you live by the superficial sword, you'll die by the superficial sword.
It's not any more complicated than that. Hello, hello. U2 have been living by it...and you know what happens next if nothing changes. The crowd that would create the kind of relevance U2 desires is absolutely superficial and at least partly participates in ageism.

But U2 could always go away from that - as are all those bands Hollow mentions.

 

[Von Schloopen]

If they can pull it off it will be one of the most amazing things ever. They don't have to go too far out of themselves to do it. A simple pop/rock song ala "Beautiful Day" or "Mysterious Ways." Go right to the essence of their pop songbook, the songs that get played on alternative radio, pop radio, classic rock radio. Something the crowd goes bonkers for in one of those stadium shows. I don't think they can have #1 chart singles anymore, but I don't think that's what they're referencing when they talk "hits." Edge thinks "Beautiful Day" was a bigger hit than "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For." From a charts perspective, well, that's just not true, no matter how you slice it.

 

[BVS]

All relevance is not equal. Especially if you are almost exclusively talking about (what is now) the rock niche. The rock niche, as I believe Hollow Island is saying, doesn't really give a shit about ageism. I think that is 100% true.

I agree all relevance is not equal, and it's why I actually placed it in quotes at times and why it's so difficult to have these conversations because for the most part it's impossible to define in quantitative ways.

But I don't agree that rock is free of ageism.

But U2 could always go away from that - as are all those bands Hollow mentions.

I don't know... how would you propose someone like them doing that? I can understand bands that did a few years being big and being able to re-emerge as a more underground force. But they've basically spent their entire careers there, not only would it be difficult psyche wise(for I think big has always been one of their motivators), but also logistically speaking. For no matter what they would still have a large audience that would want to see them live, so I have a hard time seeing them being able to make music for small spaces and then go play in big spaces.

 

[LemonMelon]

To sum, If you live by the superficial sword, you'll die by the superficial sword.
It's not any more complicated than that. Hello, hello. U2 have been living by it...and you know what happens next if nothing changes. The crowd that would create the kind of relevance U2 desires is absolutely superficial and at least partly participates in ageism.

But U2 could always go away from that - as are all those bands Hollow mentions.

I hadn't bothered to read back through this discussion, but now that I have, I'll say that this is my favorite comment so far. Ageism is a factor in that bands are forced to react to it and adjust. They adjust their sights onto specific audiences, they write music that mirrors the life they live. U2 has done an excellent job of adjusting to their advancing age (as good as any band I could name) and as long as they continue to, I don't see how it should negatively impact their audience numbers or critical standing. And really, what else matters? What else should matter to a band in U2's situation? Certainly not joining One Direction at the top of the billboard hot 100.

 

[mama cass]

BORING

 

[purpleoscar]

if somehow the listener could be convinced those songs were recorded by the next Arcade Fire rather than a "has been" U2 they would have gotten noticed more. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think those songs would have shaken up the industry and taken off to be huge underground hits on the blogoshpere, but they would have gotten much bigger recognition and been a part of the talked about landscape.

Very true.

If U2's new album was actually Coldplay's the critics would come down on them like a ton of bricks. They have to make their best or near best to be taken seriously as relevant.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

just FYI:

please realize that opinion matters more than fact in here. it's simply not possible to not be a fan of a band but at the same time recognize that they are successful, respected, and good at what they do. if we do not like the band then they are terrible and that's all there is to it. you can point to all the ticket sales, album success, TIME magazine covers and cultural impact you want but that's not going to change anything because opinion trumps everything. it doesn't matter how well Backspacer sold in 2009. in my opinion, it didn't sell well. in my opinion, Pearl Jam doesn't sell out arenas and play 2.5 hour shows. it doesn't matter if they do because in my opinion they don't.

 

[LadySpinHead]

BORING

Yep, I lost interest several pages ago.
I used to like Depeche Mode. Glad to hear they're still around. Pearl Jam, too.

 

[kingofsorrow]

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

So, is the2 going to put out a new album? Or....

 

[purpleoscar]

So, is the2 going to put out a new album? Or....

Who will put out an album first? Radiohead or U2?

 

[Hollow Island]

I wasn't talking soley about the ease, I was talking about how accepting the audience is with bands vs solo artists, and then I was giving you some reasons why solo artists are able to avoid issues of ageism vs bands. But stay the course and cover your eyes if a real discussion doesn't work for you.

But there is nothing to suggest that the audience is more "accepting" of solo artists, and you don't provide any evidence to support your theory. You gave reasons why solo artists are able to have longer, more varied careers (all of which I agree with), but that has no bearing on the issue of ageism. If ageism was as large a factor as you claim, the ability of solo artists to change wouldn't matter - their age would. Such is the nature of prejudice.

Older bands can have success, older artists can have success, and if it's not in the same was as in their youth there are many more significant reasons for that than their age. There are more relevant older artists than ever before. They don't rule the culture, and there are a lot of reasons for that, and I've already mentioned them and don't think it's necessary to do so again.