Musicians knowing their "peak" is over

[KevShmev]

I was having this conversation the other day with a friend, about how that has to be rough being a musician and knowing your peak is in the past and you will never get there again.  We discussed in the sense of the many classic rock bands who still tour, but draw a fraction of what they used to.  That has to be galling to know you used to be able to draw 15-20K on your own and be lucky to get more than 2K in pubs nowadays.  At least if you are one of those bands that does the tours with two or three other bands, you can still play in front of a lot of people, even if it took 3-4 names on the bill to draw that many people, but for the ones who still brave it alone as a main act, it has to be a tough pill to swallow.

[Kotowboy]

Insert Spinal Tap " Their appeal is simply becoming more selective " GIF here  ...

[Kotowboy]

I think..If i'd been in a huge band for a long time and money was no longer a problem... I think that I would just enjoy playing live...

[King Postwhore]

Kev, there are some that can't handle it.  Some that are happy to play for less and some that understand that they are still making a living doing what they love.

[Dr. DTVT]

I wonder how Axl handles it...

[Adami]

I wonder how Axl handles it...

I'm pretty sure sold out stadiums he is currently playing with Guns n Roses, when he's not fronting sold out stadiums for AC/DC holds him over just fine.

[wolfking]

I wonder how Axl handles it...

I'm pretty sure sold out stadiums he is currently playing with Guns n Roses, when he's not fronting sold out stadiums for AC/DC holds him over just fine.

This is beside the point and has nothing to do with the topic IMO.

[Zantera]

If we're talking peak as in popularity, then sure, it must be tough realizing that people don't care as much anymore. But even so, if you were popular once, you can still be popular. Plenty of bands who have their best 20-30 years ago, whether it's Metallica or AC/DC are still selling out stadiums. If we're talking peak as in ability to write good music, I think that is entirely up to the musician. There are musicians who have delivered strong albums in their 50s&60s or even 70s. Neil Young put out a really great album in 2012, the last 3 Swans albums have been 3 of their best reviewed albums, 35 years into their career, and the most recent Iron Maiden album got good reviews and good reception. I think it's more about spark than anything else. Some artists seem to lose their spark whereas others are constantly pushing to achieve greatness again. Sure, Maiden will never get an album run as good as the one they had in the 80s again, but they're still filling stadiums as big as back then, they're making good albums that fans and critics are enjoying.

But yeah, if you don't have the spark, it must suck to realize your best days are behind you. 

[Elite]

Fish
Geoff Tate
Queen (to a certain extent)
Paul McCartney

[ariich]

I wonder how Axl handles it...

I'm pretty sure sold out stadiums he is currently playing with Guns n Roses, when he's not fronting sold out stadiums for AC/DC holds him over just fine.

This is beside the point and has nothing to do with the topic IMO.

Er, did you read the OP or just the title? It has everything to do with the topic.

[King Postwhore]

Idk about McCartney.   The man sells out shows to this day. He's in rare air.  People treat the Beatles different.

[wolfking]

I wonder how Axl handles it...

I'm pretty sure sold out stadiums he is currently playing with Guns n Roses, when he's not fronting sold out stadiums for AC/DC holds him over just fine.

This is beside the point and has nothing to do with the topic IMO.

Er, did you read the OP or just the title? It has everything to do with the topic.

Fair enough, you're right, I jumped the gun but when I think of the subject title, I automatically think of musical ability and accomplishments, but fair enough with the OP.  I should have put more thought into it.  I think if we are talking popularity, it would be easy to see from the musicians eyes that their popularity and concert attendance is diminishing. 

As Elite said, Tate on the other hand.

[Elite]

Idk about McCartney.   The man sells out shows to this day. He's in rare air.  People treat the Beatles different.

Yes, but he's not bringing anything new to the table. He's been reliving his 'peak' for the past couple of decades. I'm sure he's well aware that his peak (at least in terms of writing music) is over.

[wolfking]

Idk about McCartney.   The man sells out shows to this day. He's in rare air.  People treat the Beatles different.

Yes, but he's not bringing anything new to the table. He's been reliving his 'peak' for the past couple of decades. I'm sure he's well aware that his peak (at least in terms of writing music) is over.

This is sort of how I'm looking at the subject too.

[King Postwhore]

But he still is creative releasing new music and he has a vibrant young band.

I look more at bands touring and not releasing new music.  They do the package tours.

Paul does not think like them.  They have to tour, Paul doesn't have to but wants too.

[Zantera]

I was thinking of a band like Metallica who have basically been touring with the same setlist for 13-14 years now, just switching out a few songs in the setlist. Death Magnetic went over better than St Anger with the fans, but they're still focusing on the old stuff. Sure, you're going out on stage almost every night making people happy because they get to hear the classics, but as musicians, surely you must feel some frustration that you haven't been able to churn out really good new material that would make the crowd just as happy?

[Elite]

If I were Metallica I would definitely be fed up with rehashing the same stuff, indeed. In the same vein as Metallica though, you have AC/DC, Guns 'n Roses, The Rolling Stones,  any band that mainly plays stuff from decades ago when they were 'more' popular.

People probably don't like to hear this, but Iron Maiden fits this moniker as well, to some extent. Yes, they release material every couple of years and they play their new stuff as well, but people mainly want to hear Hallowed be Thy Name, Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Powerslave; these guys play the same bunch of songs (albeit drawn from a much larget pool than for instance Metallica) every tour they do as well.

Then again, how far do you sttretch the term 'peak'? Metallica and Iron Maiden are still insanely popular. People want to hear those same songs. Same goes for McCartney, the Stones, et cetera.

[Elite]

And add Ozzy Osbourne to the list.

[?]

Geoff Tate

First name that came to mind for me.

[Zantera]

I always thought Iron Maiden was a weird one because they have the quality to justify a modern-heavy setlist (with a few older classics), but they go the safe route anyways. With a band like Metallica, there's just not the quality there to make a setlist with 40-50% Death Magnetic/St. Anger songs. I feel like Maiden could take more risks, like they did on the AMOLAD-tour when they played the whole album. Some of their best songs have come in the '00s and forward, like Paschendale, Dance of Death or The Legacy. Some of those other bands, apart from Metallica, like AC/DC and Rolling Stones are all in the boat where the most recent material hasn't been that good, but with Maiden it has been, they just decided to go the safe route, which is a shame.

[TAC]

The only thing I'll say about Maiden is that, like Rush, when they tour a new album, they play gobs of new material. But Maiden's setlist construction of the "non current album's songs" can be maddening as hell.

[jammindude]

Rush is the anomaly that came immediately to my mind.    As a fan since 1982, I'm extremely comfortable in saying that Clockwork Angels is a top 5 all time Rush album.    And then they play nearly the ENTIRE thing to sell out crowds on the subsequent tour.

Maybe that's why I feel they are still the best band out there.   And the fact that they did one last tour to just be a gift to the fans, and now they are hanging it up...   I would say they had a nearly perfect music career, and I cannot think of a single other band in the same league as them.   

[King Postwhore]

It's what I loved about Rush. Promoting new music for a musician is what it's all about.

[TioJorge]

I'll echo other statements that said Tate on the side that perfectly encompass a once potentially amazing (and for a time it was), now horrifically disgusting career that is rife with delusion, and Rush as the band that stomps that same cliche into the ground and then some.

[Anguyen92]

I was thinking of a band like Metallica who have basically been touring with the same setlist for 13-14 years now, just switching out a few songs in the setlist. Death Magnetic went over better than St Anger with the fans, but they're still focusing on the old stuff. Sure, you're going out on stage almost every night making people happy because they get to hear the classics, but as musicians, surely you must feel some frustration that you haven't been able to churn out really good new material that would make the crowd just as happy?

Well, to be fair, when they were doing their World Magnetic Tour, they played 79 different songs in the span of like 180 shows and in those shows they were showcasing around 4-6 Death Magnetic songs.  Also, throughout their headlining shows (non-festivals), it seemed that out of the 18 songs they played a night, they were switching up other songs (different Kill Em All song in the encore, different classic staples, different cover, and maybe different Death Magnetic tracks).  In fact, if you look the setlist.fm on that tour, out of the top 12 songs played on that tour, six of them were from Death Magnetic.  All 10 tracks from that album were at least played once.

That stated, since probably 2013, their setlist has gone incredibly stale.  I like what they were trying to go for in 2014 with the whole "the fans choose the songs," but it backfired since the majority of the fans ended up voting the big songs.  This is one of the consequences of not releasing a new album in a long while and touring the summer festivals like Metallica has done.  Setlists become stale and eventually interest begins to fade away.  Hasn't happened to Metallica yet, but I think it would eventually, which is why this new album could give them the kick they need to make their sets interesting again.

[bl5150]

Geoff Tate

First name that came to mind for me.

Don't you believe it - the vest is yet to come.

[wolfking]

Geoff Tate

First name that came to mind for me.

Don't you believe it - the vest is yet to come.

Never fucking gets old.

[Kwyjibo]

My first thought was Tate too, but then the big question is, does he know that his peak is over and in fact is over for a long time?

He may recognize that there are fewer people at concerts, but is he realistic enough to see that this is because his music isn't what it used to be and that his voice is almost gone? Or is he so delusional that he blames it on the people that don't understand his artistic value?

[Darkstarshades]

I currently can't think of a band that used to fill the hell out of stadiums but has since reverted to being a club-festival band in such an extreme way as the OP proposes.

I can, however, think of a band that managed to almost be popular and had a fairly considerable popularity peak, and that happens to be Dark Moor. That band has its popularity peak with Tarot and has since been on a constant decline. Sure, their following albums have been great (Autumnal) or average at best (Ancestral Romance/Ars Musica) , but their live performances have suffered greatly.

The venues where they play are small, the stage is also unconfortably small. Their gear and their live recordings are ridiculously amateurish and much of the show is a tape because they have no keyboard player (and their songs abuse of it). It is very odd because I recall being told that their early to mid '00s performances were way above these, and their studio quality is great.
I almost feel sorry for this band, if it wasn't because they're in a great position to reinvent themselves yet they don't, instead they launch albums that get progressively simpler.

[TheCountOfNYC]

I was thinking of a band like Metallica who have basically been touring with the same setlist for 13-14 years now, just switching out a few songs in the setlist. Death Magnetic went over better than St Anger with the fans, but they're still focusing on the old stuff. Sure, you're going out on stage almost every night making people happy because they get to hear the classics, but as musicians, surely you must feel some frustration that you haven't been able to churn out really good new material that would make the crowd just as happy?

They played quite a bit of Death Magnetic on the tour for the album (six songs when I saw them) but when they're not touring for a specific album, of course their going to focus more on their first five albums (and Fuel). It's what the crowd loves. And even then they still throw in a song or two from Load, St. Anger, or Death Magnetic every once in a while. I guarantee that on the upcoming tour for the new album, the setlist will feature plenty of new songs.

[Darkstarshades]

No empire of the clouds tho (thankfully)
Easily the most bloated song I've ever heard and while the vocals and lyrics are great (as well as a certain middle part where the guitar takes a metal riff) it is evidence that not everybody can (or should) write long songs.

[Prog Snob]

Geoff Tate

First name that came to mind for me.

Absolutely.

[Tomislav95]

No empire of the clouds tho (thankfully)
Easily the most bloated song I've ever heard and while the vocals and lyrics are great (as well as a certain middle part where the guitar takes a metal riff) it is evidence that not everybody can (or should) write long songs.

I can't disagree more.

[Stadler]

I think there are two errors in this thread:

- one, lumping all artists in the same bucket; Geoff Tate is an anomaly, because he has shown clear signs that he just doesn't think like other people do.
- two, assuming all aspects of a career are equal, and assuming everyone values each part of that career the same way.


I notice no one has mentioned Billy Joel.    He has been pretty candid (and not a little self-deprecating), saying often that he doesn't have any interest in writing new music because a) he doesn't have the belief it'll be as good as what he's already said, and b) he doesn't have faith that people want to hear it.  So he tours occasionally, does his monthly "one night stand" at MSG, and is widely regaled as the consummate aging artist.   

I don't get the sense that Paul McCartney gives a flying fuck whether his next single is on par with "I Want To Hold Your Hand".   He writes because it's what he knows, it's what he's done every day (not literally, I would guess) for something like 60 years, and isn't really interested in the concept of "past your peak".   Do you stop breathing because you can't get as much oxygen per breath as you used to?   

I look at athletes:  they spend every moment of their lives since they were toddlers pursuing a singular goal, then at age 35 or so they are forced to stop, cold turkey.   Many athletes don't cope with that very well, because their "art" became something that they didn't just want to do, it was something they HAD to do.   I think for most artists this is the case.   This is what I feel about Angus Young.  It's not about anything other than it's what he knows, it's what he does.   Whether it's as big as "Back In Black" or not isn't the point or the intent. 

[DarkLord_Lalinc]

I wonder how Axl handles it...

Yeah, Axl is doing incredibly well. Also, his live performance is pretty awesome for his age these days.

Some 'tier B' bands come to mind, like Whitesnake. At least down here in Mexico City, they're playing some very small venues.