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.