I remember reading somewhere awhile back that oldies groups have had the highest grossing concert revenues for a few years. I don’t mean groups doing oldies music, but the goups like the Rolling Stones, Fleetwood Mac, Jackson Browne, Blondie, Aerosmith, etc., who made their marks in the 60’s and 70’s and largely appeal to baby boomers. The argument made in the article is that the audience has come of age and has the disposable income to support going to high-priced concerts.
I just saw a concert by John Fogerty on the tube. Several things struck me. First, there were LOTS of young people in the audience. I dunno what he’s done in the last 5-10 years, and I know he had some solo success in the 80’s, but it seemed to me that couldn’t explain the large number of people probably around 20-25 years old in the audience singing along with Creedence songs.
Second, boy can that guy play a guitar, and he’s okay on the harp too.
Last, he seems to have lost very little. Compared to someone like Fleetwood Mac, with Stevie having lost 90% of her vocal range and 99% of the beautiful timbre she once had, and Lindsey regaining his vocals by pure cussedness (Not to mention poor Dionne Warwick on Idol), this guy could just as well be 25 again.
So, my question: does anyone think the older groups are having a resurgence because they’re somehow better than almost everything that’s out there, or is it just because a lot of their fans have finally finished raising their kids and have the free time and cash to go to shows?
Cher has been singing for going on FIFTY years now (much longer than some of the people you mentioned) and her latest tour was one of the most successful tours of all time for any artist in the world throughout all of history!!! Please don’t forget her.
Of course I wasn’t around in the 1960s, so I don’t remember directly, but I think if a singer (Stevie Nicks) really did lose 90% of her vocal range, she wouldn’t still be touring?
Cher has always been a sort of niche singer, though, attracting a respectably-sized and very adamant fan base, regardless of what she puts out. I’d say she’s more of an institution than a performer, at this point. But that’s me.
Well, speaking as an almost-20 who loves the types of music in question, I can give my story:
My father introduced me to music. At the time, I was starving for something, anything substantial and interesting, and I couldn’t find it on the radio. He kindly pointed me at the local classic rock station, and thus it has remained.
So, in answer to your question: Yes. I think it’s both, in varying degrees.
In the 80s, the majors got a very firm grip on the pop market. Part of the control mechanism was to depend less on musicians and more on synths and drum machines. This had the effect of channelling tastes in a direction that could be controlled and supplied predictably. Their main market got younger—went from teenagers to pre-teens.
At that time, rock became more and more a batch of alternative styles aimed at niche markets—punk, metal, grunge, hard rock appealed only to fans and were more remote from mainstream pop than rock had ever been before. After punk, rock had nowhere revolutionary to go any more. The 80s also saw the beginning of the endless stream of retro movements which take their place alongside whoever is continuing the punk and metal traditions as minority tastes—ska, mod, freakbeat, rockabilly, blues, folk-rock. Styles that had some street cred were no longer popular and no longer melodic enough for mainstream success.
I’m often surprised when I see film of a Stones concert and see young kids bopping along. I probably shouldn’t be. I know the Stones are old and tired and I’ve seen them play much better, but very few young people are hitting the spot they hit. Who exactly—maybe the White Stripes and Ben Harper. When I was a kid I went to see blues and jazz musicians old enough to be my grandparents. It remains to be seen how today’s rock and pop acts fare. I like quite a lot of young musicians but most of them play accoustic music or some older style of rock. Only a small number play in a newish style.
My son (age 19) would MUCH rather listen to 70’s rock and southern rock then anything “current”. I’ve had to fight him for many of MY CD’s!! Most of his friends are the same way.
He said the most attended concert in the Norfolk VA area since he’s been there was the Lynard Skynard one (with whatever the kids call their group). I haven’t kept up with them enough to know who’s actually playing in the group in place of those lost in the crash.
Def Leopard/Journey are coming here in July, and the lawn tickets were sold out in less then 10 minutes. I wound up having to get mine from a scalper. And that’s Journey WITHOUT Steve Perry!
If you look at the listing for the outside concerts here, you could be in the late 70’s, early 80’s and have the same listing.
I think there are several forces at work. Many of the bands mentioned above have been working at it for years. They have their stagecraft and musician-ship down cold. Also, they are safe and predictable. It’s the same thing with stage shows. Most of the current success is reruns of things that worked in the past. Same with movies.
We have been going to “older” rocker shows for years. A few observations from recent years. David Crosby can still sing. Stills and Nash, age is showing. Stills & Young playing guitar together is very good. They keep getting better. Eagles tickets were very expensive and the show was just okay. Springsteen seems to be having more fun than ever and still delivers 2 1/2 hr, no intermission, high energy shows.
This summer, we expect to see a lot of Irish music (actually this weekend at local Irish Culture Festival - Paul Brady, Solas, Martin Hayes, John Doyle, Shannon Heaton, Joe Derrane, Maura O’Connell, all on Saturday), Dixie Chicks, Hootie/Blowfish (great bar band are a good show in small venues). I’d love to see Emmy Lou Harris but the date doesn’t work. Same for Bonnie Raitt/Keb Mo.
And just what is this “adament fan base,” praytell?
Contrary to popular belief, it’s not only drag queens and their faghags who go to see Cher perform. If that were true, like you said, she would have a very niched-following and would be incapable of surpassing all the records she has and she certainly wouldn’t have a recording career that is on its way to reaching the half-century mark!
Since the early 1960s, old ladies have gone to see Cher, grown [heterosexual] men, black people, white people–it’s not a niched following at all. You have a multitude of 70 year olds and 17 year olds standing in line together to get Cher tickets.
If anybody is going to bring up still-going groups from the 80s like Blondie, you can’t overlook Cher who was around twenty years before they existed and has surpassed them in every measurable way, multiple times over.
Also, you cannot properly say that Cher is not a “group” anymore than Debbie Harry or Stevie Nicks is not a “group–” each performer has recorded in a group and also recorded on her own. Here she is from some of her “group” days:
Jackson Browne’s still touring? I haven’t heard boo nor peep about him in ages. I’ve seen him a couple of times in concert, but that was back in the early eighties.
There are new bands out there that are pushing the envelope in interesting ways, though. The Decemberists come immediately to mind: they have sort of a classic rock aesthetic, but infused with something old world. It’s like rock that calls to mind dirigible balloons and whale bone corsets and Dr. Catskill’s Miraculous Cure-All Tonic Water.
The Apples In Stereo have always struck me as a band trying their hardest to be a new generation of Beach Boys. They’re very bubblegum pop, but their music has substance (and is created with instruments), while incorporating small elements of modern pop music–just enough to declare themselves relevant. It all comes together very well.
The White Stripes are an interesting choice as an example because their latest album smacks of the minority shift you spoke of–their getting stranger and incorporating new things. Where their appeal (for me) was the simplicity of instrumentation and fairly straightforward delivery of interesting material, they’ve started this stuff with marimbas and what not.
Oh, you misunderstand! I wasn’t referring to her cult status among gays, at all. I was merely saying that she has crossed the threshold into the realm of Legend, where she’s guaranteed a fan base due purely to her status as “Cher” (thus, institution rather than performer). This is not a criticism, as she’s come to this point legitimately–she’s earned it, for sure.
I hadn’t thought at all about that interpretation of what I said, so I apologize for the confusion.
It’s a common sentiment, that whereas all the other people Chas mentioned are somehow “legitimate” musicians, Cher is so often dismissed as a drag queen and not even talked about. It upsets me that Chas would skip over Cher, when she is a better example of an than many of the people he mentioned.
It’s true that Cher is a legend but she’s also not taken seriously by a lot of people, and that makes me very very sad and angry. Surely her musical career, if not clearly more outstanding than Debbie Harry’s or Stevie Nicks, is at least comparable?
Well, not trying to speak for Chas, here, but perhaps he just doesn’t listen to Cher, so her name didn’t pop into his head. I wouldn’t be so offended at her being left off, as there are countless other artists who fit the example just as well who were also left off.
I am not sure that Cher is a legend (Beowulf is a legend). I am curious why you would be so emotionally invested in the common regard for Cher. Surely there are many people who deserve recognition who don’t get it and others who don’t deserve it are hailed as stars or legends.
As for Cher’s musical career: She can’t hold the water to Debbie Harry or Stevie Nicks. Both were parts of seminal bands that defined a sound, marked an era, and influenced many musicians who came after them. Cher, while I’ll happily concede that she’s a good singer and performer, never made noteworthy music. As for your comment that she’s hotter, I think no one watched Cher’s show in the sixties for her singing: It was all the racy outfits. I don’t think much has changed since. Not that there is anything wrong with racy outfits.
How about instead of the phrase “adamant fan base,” with its associated drag queen connotations, we substitute the phrase “people with plebeian tastes in music”?
(And Debbie Harry is way, way hotter than Cher, even the young, bare-midfiffed Cher.)
Cher was/is hot!!! Never occured to me. She’s one of those rare performers who isn’t great at anything but just delivers no matter what she’s doing. I’ve always liked her and never understood or cared why.
