What sustains a bands popularity

Sure, but again, we're talking about that tiny minority of bands who acheive global success - it's not sensible to base a career plan on making it in a famous band. I have no doubt that Pantera listened (or were made to listen) to other people's input when it came to evolving their sound in order to keep selling records.
 
A lot of good points, some do stray from the 'sustaining' aspect of the question though.

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.

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
 
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.

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.
 
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

Yeah Bermuda! Sometimes I forget how long it has been for Weird Al. I remember clearly when he was a solo act playing his accordion in a bathroom doing songs that got played on Dr. Demento. Man, that was a long time ago. Congrats on being part of that act for all this time.
 
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.

One word...marketing.
 
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

Thanks for giving your thoughts.

The question then becomes how can a band stay relevant and consistent while staying true to their musical vision?
 
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.

Thats why i did not talk about those albums. It took them awhile to find their sound. I dont think they followed any trends though. They pretty much started the style of groove metal that they did. Then lots of bands tried to copy them (Fight comes to mind with Halford). But they also kept expanding their sound from Vulgar through Reinvening the steel. They kept growing which was what kept them fresh sounding. But they stayed true to their musical vision from what i can tell. I also want the band that im in to keep expanding our sound while staying true to our musical vision. Growing is a good thing as long as a band is expanding their sound for the right reason/reasons.

I do think that bands experiment with new directions all the time. As long as they are doing it because thats what they really want to do and not because thats what they are being told to do and not because they are trying to jump on a trend to cash in then i think it can be a good thing.
 
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


Your post reminded me of Johnny Maestro who had one hit with Jimmy Webb's I Heard You're Getting Married back in '68 when the Brooklyn Bridge were a pseudo R and B doo-wop vocal group already playing in a style past the current trends. But Johnny remained a respected talent and even became a legend, singing until he died earlier this year at 70.

You have so many bands and musicians out there that have been doing this for forty or fifty years. People tend to get caught in the glamor of the biz, having a big name band and having an impact. But most musicians are doing what they love, regardless of trends, regardless of mainstream popularity. They find their niche and they stay with it. Sometimes they may have an unexpected hit or revival. That is a hard feat even for those who become mega hit super groups. The Four Seasons, "Oh, What a Night" comes to mind, or the revue on Broadway. The Eagles hit with Capaldi/Carrack's Love Will Keep Us Alive in another or John Fogerty's Centerfield. I would wonder if there were ever a one hit wonder group who stayed the course and had another hit ten or twenty years later.
 
Last edited:
Well, coming back to Pantera, they did very well financially.

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.
 
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.

You're both right.

Many bands careers fell off because the label stopped supporting them, dumped, them, went out of business, or some other thing. We saw a lot of that at the end of the 80's.

I had a buddy who's band got signed to a huge deal with Warner Brothers in the early 90's. Then the head of the label was fired, so their A&R man left with him, and the band's CD ended up in 99 cent bin, even though they had no control over the situation.

As Bo said, it can be done, but the same level of success is hard to come by. Millions of bands are out there supporting themselves to an extent using the internet as their main marketing tool, but many of them have day jobs on the side as well. The ones that do it really well are the ones who had prior fame, and can afford to do their own marketing.
Boozio could never do what's he's doing now if he hadn't already had an established career with Zappa, Missing Person's, Jeff Beck, etc.
 
personally I think it's down to consistently being active where people don't 'forget' about you, i.e. tour dates, radio play, apperances.
 
personally I think it's down to consistently being active where people don't 'forget' about you, i.e. tour dates, radio play, apperances.

I have to agree with this as well.

Even if a band never gets on the radio or gets video play i think that doing lots of touring (and now using the internet) that these are huge ways to stay out there so people wont forget about your band.
 
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.

But they have stayed hugely popular even though they broke up. And they stayed hugely popular the whole time they were together. And they stayed true to their musical vision that they started from their major label album (while growing and expanding and refining their sound).

I remember hearing on a recording Phil talking in a live concert about the state of heavy metal (when grunge was really big). How people were saying that metal was dead, but yet there were a ton of people at the pantera show that night. So i do think that they are a good case study because they overcame trends and stayed on top (until they broke up). But they did not brake upt because nobody cared about them anymore or because they became irrelevant. They broke up because of Phil and his drug problems and other problems that he was causing.
 
as has been mentioned already - genre has a lot to do with it.

Pop being arguably the most ephemeral genre of them all requires more of a chameleon to keep people on the hook. Hence - an artist like Madonna has maintained an impressive run of long term popularity while many others have shone brightly and then burned out. I guess we could have quite a debate over how much of her success is because of the quality of her work and how much is due to her manipulation of image and playing the game of cultural trendsetter/rule-breaker.

I'm not really a fan of country music, but it does seem to me that some of their artists have been able to maintain their popularity for quite a long time. I know acts like Brooks and Dunn and Brad Paisley having been taking home CMA's for what seems like forever. I guess country music has a certain stable/traditional following that rewards consistency more than other genres. Not to say that there aren't plenty of flash in the pan, next big things that come and go as well, and the trend has probably been that country is losing some of it's traditional constituency as it becomes less distiguishable from pop and rock.

At the same time - how do we distinguish between bands that have long term success, are true to their vision, and remain vital without being kind of a glorified tribute band to themselves?

anyway - just a coupla' thoughts, not sure if I really have a point here

<sorry for posting>
 
Back
Top