drummingman
Gold Member
Be prepared to turn down material wealth.
Well, coming back to Pantera, they did very well financially.
Be prepared to turn down material wealth.
I ask this again with the mindset of a band maintaing their musicial vision and not just changing to suit the needs of the fickle public.
For me retaining artistic integrity with my band is of the utmost of importance. I think again of Pantera. They did retain artistic integrity their whole major label career (from cowboays from hell all the way through to reinventing the steel) and they were huge. This is my goal as well. I want to learn how to do these things.
A lot of good points, some do stray from the 'sustaining' aspect of the question though.
And that's the quandary: a band staying their course, while the public changes.
It's important to remember, the public decides how much popularity a band gets, and how long they can keep it. That doesn't mean that a band needs to constantly change its music or style to remain popular, but there's a fine line between sticking to one's roots, and being a chameleon. I don't know of anyone who's sustained a career strictly doing either.
A band that can be relevant and consistent (not to be confused with predictable) has a shot at continued success over the long term. There's obviously never a guarantee, and there are undoubtedly some exceptions, but some of the biggest bands/artists that have transcended a generation or two have done so by maintaining consistency, while staying relevant. The Stones, U2, Rush, Jimmy Buffett, and Neil Diamond come immediately to mind.
Heck, I'm in a band that's done darn well over 27 years of releasing albums and touring! It's easy to say that Weird Al's just a novelty and doesn't compare to mainstream artists, but don't underestimate his ability to fill 6,000 seat halls (and larger.) As I mentioned, there's consistency - always doing parody & satire - and, relevance - parodying music and artists that are current, or at least timeless, and which have mass appeal at any given time. No sell-out, just doing what he's always done, and keeping it fresh at the same. That's also why the demographic is so wide (the proverbial "six to sixty" age group) and what's kept Al going and growing: there are always new fans, yet the the old fans also stick around.
And there we are again, it's the fans - the public - who decides how long a band can successfully stick around.
Bermuda
We have all seen how a band will be the big thing for a little while and then fade away into obscurity. But then there are other bands that are able to remain true to their musical vision and they stay on top forever (i happen to think of metallica and tool for instance).
What is it that allows one band to be popular for years and years through album after album while others just pop up and are big and then just fade away? I ask this again with the mindset of a band maintaing their musicial vision and not just changing to suit the needs of the fickle public.
A lot of good points, some do stray from the 'sustaining' aspect of the question though.
And that's the quandary: a band staying their course, while the public changes.
It's important to remember, the public decides how much popularity a band gets, and how long they can keep it. That doesn't mean that a band needs to constantly change its music or style to remain popular, but there's a fine line between sticking to one's roots, and being a chameleon. I don't know of anyone who's sustained a career strictly doing either.
A band that can be relevant and consistent (not to be confused with predictable) has a shot at continued success over the long term. There's obviously never a guarantee, and there are undoubtedly some exceptions, but some of the biggest bands/artists that have transcended a generation or two have done so by maintaining consistency, while staying relevant. The Stones, U2, Rush, Jimmy Buffett, and Neil Diamond come immediately to mind.
Heck, I'm in a band that's done darn well over 27 years of releasing albums and touring! It's easy to say that Weird Al's just a novelty and doesn't compare to mainstream artists, but don't underestimate his ability to fill 6,000 seat halls (and larger.) As I mentioned, there's consistency - always doing parody & satire - and, relevance - parodying music and artists that are current, or at least timeless, and which have mass appeal at any given time. No sell-out, just doing what he's always done, and keeping it fresh at the same. That's also why the demographic is so wide (the proverbial "six to sixty" age group) and what's kept Al going and growing: there are always new fans, yet the the old fans also stick around.
And there we are again, it's the fans - the public - who decides how long a band can successfully stick around.
Bermuda
Not entirely true. I know you said major label career but don't forget their 4 independent releases. It was really bad hair metal & even the Cowboys From Hell album has a hint of hair metal. Especially Phil's vocals, a la Rob Halford. It wasn't until Vulgar Display that they found their sound & went really heavy groove metal. I guess what I am saying is that they followed trends too, & if they didn't they would not have had as much sucess. Even if it is not blatantly obvious most band either a) follow trends or b) experiment w/ a new direction.
And that's the quandary: a band staying their course, while the public changes.
It's important to remember, the public decides how much popularity a band gets, and how long they can keep it. That doesn't mean that a band needs to constantly change its music or style to remain popular, but there's a fine line between sticking to one's roots, and being a chameleon. I don't know of anyone who's sustained a career strictly doing either.
Bermuda
Well, coming back to Pantera, they did very well financially.
The record labels have a huge amount to do with whether a band stays on top, especially in the mainstream. If the label doesn't have faith that a band's album has potential, they won't touch it, that's happened to some very big acts over the years. Their alternative is to follow label orders as to what an album should sound like - what producer/songwriters to work with, arrangements etc.
There are very few bands that get to release what they want, when they want and maintain success.
I must argue in this case that that may be how it is for some bands and definitely how it's been in the past. But with the advent of the internets and iTunes, I've seen artists just sell their music online and make a pretty good income off of just that.
I know we're talking about mass acceptance, but it is possible to make a living using the DIY approach. Hell, Terry Bozzio said the best thing he ever did was just go off and do his own solo drumming tours - no record label to make happy, and every gig sustained everything he was doing because he was reaping most of the profits. Granted, he's a rare case, but people do it.
personally I think it's down to consistently being active where people don't 'forget' about you, i.e. tour dates, radio play, apperances.
From reading your initial post, I don't think Pantera is part of the conversation. They broke up, and were unable to sustain themselves as a band, and delved into a media war between band members.
Although they have remained very popular for their past accomplishments.