Advertise here: Contact FM.

Spring And By Summer Fall
April 11, 2008 2:18 PM Subscribe

The pop music industry has sadly come to depend on “heritage acts” – wrinkled, dyed-hair, aging stars – to pack houses and make money.

“Whatever a future superstar act will be, it won’t be as ubiquitous as the acts from the ’60s because we were all listening to Top 40 radio.”
posted by The Jesse Helms (54 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

via Art and Letters Daily.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 2:19 PM on April 11

who is Rascal Flatts and why did he/she/it gross $42 million last year? Actually, never mind...
posted by ornate insect at 2:22 PM on April 11

'Cuz, you know, its sad when anyone over 25 is making music.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:24 PM on April 11

Have you guys realized that Kim Gordon is younger than Barack Obama? In fact, it's entirely possible the next president might be younger than 3/4 of Sonic Youth.

That's all I've got on this.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:31 PM on April 11 [2 favorites]

Older. Dammit.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:31 PM on April 11

Huh. Imagine that, people who have disposable income prefer to see acts from their own generation.

Shocking.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:32 PM on April 11

Where will be the Poisons, Ratts and Whitesnakes of tomorrow come from, if they only have My Chemical Romance and Fall Out Boy to inspire them? Doomed, I tell'z ya, we're all doooomed.
posted by psmealey at 2:33 PM on April 11

Your favorite generation of bands sucks.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:34 PM on April 11 [1 favorite]

The upside: diversity!
posted by geoff. at 2:35 PM on April 11

who is Rascal Flatts and why did he/she/it gross $42 million last year?

I was asking myself the same thing. But hey... I'm more of a Flatt & Scruggs kinda girl. I'm not very hep.
posted by miss lynnster at 2:40 PM on April 11

Or maybe I am.
posted by miss lynnster at 2:41 PM on April 11

Flatt & Scruggs is the motherfucking shit. Any shit that cool is hip in any era. You mark my words!!!!
posted by psmealey at 2:43 PM on April 11

psmealey--actually, this (nsfw) is the mfs.
posted by ornate insect at 2:47 PM on April 11 [1 favorite]

one could argue that
country sells real well too
but with an adverb
posted by stubby phillips at 2:47 PM on April 11

Where will be the Poisons, Ratts and Whitesnakes of tomorrow come from...
At a guess, Sweden.
posted by Wolfdog at 2:48 PM on April 11 [1 favorite]

mick and keith are the
motherfucking shit, you guys.
lester and earl too.
posted by stubby phillips at 2:51 PM on April 11 [1 favorite]

stubby--mick and keith were the mfs. Now they are like Bowie in "The Hunger."
posted by ornate insect at 2:53 PM on April 11 [1 favorite]

Hmmm ... a possibly related Mefi post? Yeah, I'm calling them wrinkled, dyed-hair, aging stars.
posted by jabberjaw at 2:54 PM on April 11

Menudo solved this problem a long time ago.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:55 PM on April 11

You make more money off of baby boomers because old people have more money.
posted by smackfu at 2:58 PM on April 11

speaking of age and music, this releases today, and looks promising.
posted by ornate insect at 2:59 PM on April 11

Of the multiple shows I attended last year, The Police ranks as being the best, even though they out the show on at Fenway Park and I was somewhat sober. I also attended Lolapallozer and a host of club shows. That being said, once the promoters realize that people prefer spontaneity over corporately-organized schlock. I do appreciate the quality of the bathrooms nowadays.
posted by jsavimbi at 2:59 PM on April 11

Speaking of Fall Out Boy -- How much fun are the drums on Dead On Arrival to play on Rockband? Damn I love that game.
posted by empath at 3:07 PM on April 11

Recorded music has been around for [much] less.... In the big picture, it’s going to be a blip on the radar

Um, fail. Recorded music is everywhere and easy to get. It's selling it that's the problem; people still want the tracks.
posted by jokeefe at 3:12 PM on April 11

People are going to make music even if they have to give it away.
posted by empath at 3:19 PM on April 11

speaking of age and music, this releases today, and looks promising.

Young@Heart website.

Young@Heart sing 'Fix You' by Coldplay

Young@Heart sing 'Schizophrenia' by Sonic Youth

Young@Heart & David Byrne - One Fine Day

Young @ Heart: Staying Alive

Previous MeFi thread: Goodbye 20th Centegenarians.
posted by ericb at 3:45 PM on April 11

Rascal Flatts, looks like the boy band version of Hanna Montana ((shudder)).
posted by doctor_negative at 3:52 PM on April 11

The blip is the big money. No one is going to earn like that anymore. As most musicians have always done, musicians in the era after buying records will keep their day jobs. Maybe they'll go on the road and make a living if they're very good and lucky. Their recordings may be works of art, but financially they will be advertisements for and souvenirs of the shows, not a direct source of revenue.
posted by pracowity at 3:56 PM on April 11

This is stupid. 40-60 year olds are the only ones who are willing to spend $200 to relive their mispent youths. Now it's Madonna, U2 and the Rolling stones, in 10 years, it'll be Radiohead, Pearl Jam, the Smashing Pumpkins and Britney Spears. In 20 years it'll be JayZ and Paul Oakenfold. Seriously, whatever.

40-60-year-olds, by and large, are the only ones who can afford to spend two hundred dollars on a concert. But younger people do scrape it together, too...not because of the nostalgia factor, but rather the last-chance-to-see aspect. Even if the Rolling Stones aren't what they used to be, if this is a band you love and you want to see live, the odds are good that you may not get a second chance. At least not with that lineup. Your Favorite Band -- if they debuted five, ten, fifteen years ago, let's say -- there just isn't that kind of pressure. (Mind you, if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have passed on that Halloween '93 Nirvana show, but...) So yeah, these old school bands charge these prices because they can. I don't see anything sad or surprising about any of this, personally.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 4:00 PM on April 11

Until that fatefu day comes when you can download pussy, I am fairly certain that dudes will continue to make and perform music.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 4:11 PM on April 11 [4 favorites]

Even if the Rolling Stones aren't what they used to be, if this is a band you love and you want to see live

I did want to, until I saw them at the superbowl halftime show. No more regrets!
posted by IndigoJones at 4:14 PM on April 11

In the '60s, when "we were all listening to Top 40 Radio", there was a thing called MOR (Middle Of the Road) radio that featured the old, non-hip musical acts: Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett, Nat King Cole (yes, they played music by black folks!), as well as Broadway Showtunes (of the Rogers and Hammerstein variety) and Big Band Music. And Barbra Streisand got airplay there long before she got a real "Top 40" hit (by hanging out with a Bee Gee). The audience was mostly over 40 because, well, it was the music THEY had grown up with. But in total audience, MOR often outrated Top 40. THIS IS NOTHING NEW. Now get off my ~~lawn~~ music.
posted by wendell at 5:20 PM on April 11

With quality cover acts like Lez Zeppelin around, it's hard to justify the expense of seeing your favorite legend(z) either subtended at 1/10th degree or on the Jumbotron. Sometimes better to see young and hungry acts pretending to be acts of 30 years ago when they were young and hungry.

Of course, I keed -- I travelled across the country to see the fully armed and operational Pixies when they started touring. As John Wesley Harding said -- I bought the product, I loved it.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 5:21 PM on April 11

i think some of you may not be getting the point... the recent trend industry-wide is an increase in total dollar sales, but a decrease in tickets sold. meaning that fewer people are paying more to see the same stuff as ever.

the question the main article is asking is, in an era of fragmented audience and declining record sales, what is the entity that will develop any act into an arena-filler? it just doesn't exist. so what happens when the current (old-ass) arena fillers are no longer touring? the largest segment of the concert business ceases to exist.

this is the furthest thing from "same as it ever was." it's a sea-change in the way the concert business has worked for 30+ years.
posted by Hat Maui at 6:18 PM on April 11

this is the furthest thing from "same as it ever was." it's a sea-change in the way the concert business has worked for 30+ years.

Yeah, but it's not a sea change for the music business, which with the exception of the past 30 years, has worked pretty much the same for centuries.

I'm willing to bet that 20 years from now when all the acts that are currently filling arenas at $200 a seat are gone, I will still be able to go to a local venue and see fine local and regional acts for the price of a couple of drinks. And that's really all I want.
posted by echo target at 6:36 PM on April 11

If you like music, you like music. It doesn't matter how old you are. I'm 58 and I play drums in a working rock band. We can get upwards of $1500 a gig in certain venues, and we rarely perform for less than $500. We played in Philly last Saturday at the Union League (private party) for $2000, and we're doing much the same tomorrow night (Saturday) in Lawrenceville NJ. There are five of us in the band. We play some clubs and bars, but also weddings and parties. The main point is, we may not be rock stars, but we're playing and having fun -- and people come to see us. I never got to be a rock star like I wanted to be in my twenties, but damn -- I am still playing, because I love it!

Am I too old to be doing this? Hey, fuck you. I am not making a living off this, but my hobby pays some bills. Does yours?
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 6:50 PM on April 11 [1 favorite]

the question the main article is asking is, in an era of fragmented audience and declining record sales, what is the entity that will develop any act into an arena-filler? it just doesn't exist. so what happens when the current (old-ass) arena fillers are no longer touring? the largest segment of the concert business ceases to exist.

Why is this a bad thing? I don't see a compelling reason to prop up a part of the entertainment industry that ceases to be, well, entertaining. People will still consume live music, it may simply be in smaller venues.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:16 PM on April 11 [1 favorite]

No more overinflated rockstars? More indie music and more music? More music!?

*stands up, pumps his fist in the air and booms out* THANK GOD ALMIGHTY I'M FREE AT LAST!
posted by loquacious at 7:20 PM on April 11 [3 favorites]

The music industry charges 18.99 for shitty CDs with one good song.

CD sales drop.

They charge $200 a ticket for acts that haven't released any good songs since the Reagan Administration.

Ticket sales drop.

Might there be a pattern here?
posted by jason's_planet at 7:29 PM on April 11 [2 favorites]

They charge $200 a ticket for acts that haven't released any good songs since the Reagan Administration.

Seriously, these events are priced well out of proportion for their value. And that doesn't even get into all the ridiculous fees and surcharges for buying a ticket, per ticket. And the price of concessions. And the price of a t-shirt. etc. etc.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:35 PM on April 11

Seriously, these events are priced well out of proportion for their value.

That's what I say... then again it seems like there's not a lot of empty seats to show for the inflated values. Regardless, I'm done with the whole arena rock / Ticketmaster thing... haven't gone since 2002.
posted by crapmatic at 9:23 PM on April 11

Doesn't the Dave Matthews Band (who are more recent than those 'heritage act's) make a truckload of cash touring than through rather than through CD sales?
posted by PenDevil at 10:00 PM on April 11

Oh, please, let this be the last dying gasp of Big Top 40 Music. Please let us stop dumbing down our innate, human musicalities to whatever can satisfy the broadest possible demographic. Please let us replace national Top 40 nostalgia radio with locally-focused radio that plays the best and most original music of one's city or town, as well as the most interesting music being created elsewhere.

If only.

However, I have to disagree with the "nostalgia music" label. Good music is good music no matter what its age is and a lot of the stuff that's stuck has stuck around because it's awesome. Now I'm not about to pay $200 to see any band play but I will willingly and fearlessly posit that, say, ELO is about a million times more enjoyable listen than the Decemberists or any of those other anemic whiny-boy hipster bands that couldn't rock if their lives depended upon it.
posted by Jess the Mess at 12:29 AM on April 12

It's sort of incredible to me that people are still paying to see arena shows that aren't Springsteen. And it pains me when I think about not being able to bring my (future) children to see him.

Seriously, they should just cancel all other ridiculous "heritage" acts and make sure that each and every person in the USoA sees Bruce before his 58-and-growing-year-old-frame can't take the strain anymore.

There's something lost in the fracturing of the music world. Though lots more great music is finding it's way out and to the right audiences, the possibility for music that resonates widely, that tells an American story—that unites and drives and motivates and rings out—seems less. There are no, can't be any, John Hammond's, finding real talent and giving it space to grow and a megaphone.
posted by wemayfreeze at 2:58 AM on April 12

> Doesn't the Dave Matthews Band (who are more recent than those 'heritage act's) make a truckload of cash touring than through rather than through CD sales?

The article mentions them:

"According to Billboard statistics, only one of the top ten box-office draws in the last decade is an act that hit it big after the 1970s. The Dave Matthews Band has grossed more than $500 million in its career and may have the consistent fan base necessary for long-term touring success."
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:50 AM on April 12

I grew up going to Dead shows. Many of them. It was all about live music for me then. It still is. The article talked about how many/most new artists do not know how to put on a show. I beg to differ. I have now seen Robert Randolph and the Family Band about 10 times. He puts on a great show that I think far outshines his studio work. His live at the Wetlands CD is great, but it is a live show. I saw the Drive by Truckers at a smaller venue in NY (Terminal 5 -- great place to see a show) a few weeks ago. Both times I saw them, I was impressed with the show. I actually bought a vinyl album at the NY show. There are bands that can sell tickets and create multiple sources of revenue. I see DMB often and they can easily sell out a big arena. But, who wants to see a big arena show anyway? I never did in my Dead days, but it was all they played. I saw Steve Winwood and Eric Clapton at the Garden and it was a terrific show; quite the opposite of the Cream show I saw when it appeared to me that the band was just trying to get a payday for Ginger Baker.

My point is that while the nostalgia acts will sell, a good live band will too. It is about the performance as much as the music. Being in a band is not just playing it is entertaining. I think some of the younger bands can evolve into mega bands playing large stadiums. I am not sure they want ot either though. For the tens of thousands of struggling artists, the successful ones make a lot of money and they tend toward slowing down and doing their own creative stuff rather than the commercially viable music that got them there.

There will always be a market for good music.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:37 AM on April 12

Not only do older people have more money, but they're also the people that still believe in the myth of the big rock n' roll star and don't see anything wrong with paying $200 for concert tickets. People under 35 or so are the generation that rebelled against that myth. To the people in their 50s and 60s, the Rolling Stones are still the rock n' roll bad boys of their youth. To me and people my age, they've been bloated toads our entire lives and have always been the ultimate punchline to jokes about past-their-prime musicians. Like, I know Exile On Main Street was a great album, but my idea of them is more Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge and $50 a pop to see a shambling pantomime by barely-alive reanimated corpses. For the even younger kids, why would they pay big money to go see some big tour when, even if they like the band, they can just watch it on YouTube? However, they'll still pay a $5 door charge to go see their friend's band and hang out. I'll still pay $15-$20 to see Bob Mould play a club show. I've been to exactly one arena rock show in my life, and that was Rush when I was 12 years old. Sorry, promoters, arena rock is finally, well and truly dead. You'll have to find another source of cocaine money now.
posted by DecemberBoy at 9:44 AM on April 12

JohnnyGunn: Robert Randolph is amazing. Have you seen the Austin City Limits appearance when he played with the older guys from his hometown church? Apparently, he comes from some kind of lost Atlantis of awesome pedal steel players, because these guys were even better than him. He's pretty much singlehandedly re-invented the instrument.
posted by DecemberBoy at 9:49 AM on April 12

similarly to the record business, where most acts lose a label money but the ones that go big will pay for the failures, you have to take certain shows and risks over the course of your relationship with an agent or artist manager that you know or suspect will take a financial hit in order to get the more lucrative stuff. so live nation, or AEG live, or whatever other large promoter that might be producing arena shows needs those "whales," if you will, to make the other stuff viable. so just like in the record business, if the large entities go down, who develops the next big live act? live nation is already facing that reality -- they're divesting themselves of nearly all their outdoor amphitheatres ("sheds") because there aren't the acts to fill them any longer. it's a money-losing segment. the only reason arena shows are still viable despite the small number of acts that can fill them is because most arenas are multiple-use and shared with sports teams.

one of the things that bob lefsetz talks about all the time is that there's much less in the way of mass culture now, due to the decline of terrestrial radio, the decline of record labels, the fragmentation of the audience. everything tends to be much more niche now. that can be a good thing in some ways, but then again, something is lost as well. i mean, shit, everybody* listened to and grew up on and loved the beatles, or zeppelin, or michael jackson, or nirvana, or hell, madonna and that shared love for something great is an important thing that just isn't the same anymore. you cannot "break" acts and create something huge out of the shared interest of the masses. jimi hendrix would be regarded in the same way as *"everybody" used figuratively. hopefully the drift is apparent.

Oh, please, let this be the last dying gasp of Big Top 40 Music. Please let us stop dumbing down our innate, human musicalities to whatever can satisfy the broadest possible demographic.

you apparently have no concept of the value of pop music or the musical worth of a hit single. yes, there is some stuff that is dumbed-down, but think of all the great pop music that does not fit that description, that became "Top 40" by dint of its sheer merits, or "innate human musicalities" if you prefer. if you cannot think of any such music, i am sad for you.

Yeah, but it's not a sea change for the music business, which with the exception of the past 30 years, has worked pretty much the same for centuries.

uh, there really wasn't a "music business," per se, until the 20th century. we can talk about luthiers and troubadours if you like, but i'd prefer to compare apples to apples.

And that's really all I want.

that's all well and good, but it's not all about you.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:37 PM on April 12

uh, there really wasn't a "music business," per se, until the 20th century. we can talk about luthiers and troubadours if you like, but i'd prefer to compare apples to apples.

And really, I thought of this after I posted: there was no such thing as big arena rock tours until about the early 70s. The idea began with The Beatles (like nearly everything else in pop music) at Shea, then had its heyday in the late 70s-mid 80s, and started to die out in the mid-late 90s. Now it's on its last legs. The future, I think, is festivals like Austin City Limits, Coachella, etc. Get a whole bunch of different bands to where at least one will appeal to everyone, run it for a few days to a week, and you're done, rather than trotting out some middle-of-the-road rock dinosaur or faceless kiddie-pinup all over the country. These festivals make as much money as an average arena tour does in 6 months in a few days.
posted by DecemberBoy at 2:27 PM on April 12

DecemberBoy writes "Like, I know Exile On Main Street was a great album, but my idea of them is more Steel Wheels and Voodoo Lounge and $50 a pop to see a shambling pantomime by barely-alive reanimated corpses."

Well, far be it for me to be the guy to defend the Stones, but I am told that they really do know what they are doing and consistently put on good shows. I don't see anything wrong with people playing music until they keel over. But I've never seen the Rolling Stones, and I haven't been to a stadium show in quite a while. I guess the last was Willie Nelson a year or so ago, and before that Ozzfest, both at the Journal Pavilion in Albuquerque. It's really an amphitheater, not a stadium, but the capacity is pretty close. I used to see a lot of people play at the Paolo Soleri in Santa Fe, which is big enough to attract some good musicians, but small enough at 2900 capacity to make everyone happy, and the location and architecture are always conducive to great events.

But in recent years I'm really less interested in huge events and more interested in hearing good music in intimate venues. Or going somewhere to dance. The Stones tours always struck me as overpriced anyway, at least since the '80s. They put on a good show, but I could make that money go a lot further on other music.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:01 PM on April 12

DecemberBoy: I did not see that Austin performance, but I am going to look for it!! RR is a great live small venue band. The only other band I saw that got the house rocking and participating like RR (I am about to date myself) is NRBQ. RR is opening for Clapton on this tour and I hope he gets some of the exposure he deserves.

RR is more like the Dead in that he has a great live performance act including the audience girls on stage, picking someone from the crowd to play guitar and just rocking good long songs, but he struggles in the studio. A friend who works for his management company told me they worked really hard on his latest studio release to make it more commercially viable and to try to get the essence of his energy on the tracks.

As for the arena shows, I will only go to shows where I think the musician is still performing at a superior level and where I am close enough to see his hands and him play. Maybe that is snobby, but no sense paying $200 to see the Eagles ever, but seeing Clapton from the 10th row and watching him pick is worth every dime.

One of my favorite shows ever was at the Turning Point when Jourma sat 3 feet in front of me and just played and I mean PLAYED his acoustic for 2 hours. No arena show can ever do that.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 6:59 PM on April 12

« Older Lolgrues... | Dancing lessons!... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Spring And By Summer Fall April 11, 2008 2:18 PM Subscribe

Spring And By Summer Fall
April 11, 2008 2:18 PM Subscribe