Do you think....

[Lucas]

hasnt been a truly great band since Radiohead. is like something wrong with the kids these days. in 70s & 80s great new bands were poppin up every few seconds

 

While I do agree that the 70s and 80s were extremely fertile periods for bands and music, I disagree with the notion of there being no great bands nowadays ..

 

It is different now, yes - but much of that has to do with the fact that record companies can no longer nurture and support bands and develop them ..

 

Anyone who ever downloaded songs for nothing is to blame

 

 

.

 

.

A few quotes from some friends of mine in their early 30s...

 

"Who buys music these days anyways?"

 

"Why would I buy a cd?!"

 

"I'm never buying another album again."

 

"They might as well get rid of all record shops."

 

"I don't remember the last time I've been in a record shop."

 

You can feel a sense of entitlement or arrogance in those words. Not evil or anything but definitely a bit of greed.

Not greed, from my perspective, but common sense. And I'm one of those people. Why pay when everything from Bach to Basie to Boston to Beck is at my fingers for free on YouTube?

 

Goose, you can't be serious

 

That's like going into a supermarket and just walking out with a cart full of food when you know you can get away with it

How is streaming music on YouTube akin to shoplifting?

 

My comment was directed at Goose's "why pay" comment

 

I love youtube - it is an absolute goldmine - for both me, and the artists that I have discovered there .. I have bought literally hundreds of CDs because of youtube since its inception ..

 

That does not fall under the "why pay" banner though

 

 

[Mosher]

Dedicated fandom hasn't disappeared nor will it.

 

We remain fundamentally the same animal we were for the last several millennia.

 

Music isn't going anywhere, it isn't getting worse, it is merely different.

 

There is a huge problem with cultivating a climate where a band can be successful, especially bands that offer something outside of the approved mold, and that does water things down.

 

But there will always be artists who must create, and there will always be people who require music to be healthy.

 

People should pay the artist for their art. If you like the art, presumably you want that artist to keep at it. Eventually they will choose eating over making free music, and when that happens a band's music disappears. Since the problem of free music isn't going anywhere, it becomes even more vital to go see bands when they tour. And when you do, buy a t-shirt once in awhile. The band would love to return from the road having at least broke even.

 

But some bands will make it bigger. Some bands will become THE band for some group of kids, and those kids will keep listening to that band for decades. Most kids never had a band they followed intently. I've got dozens. Some kids require music as the only sure solace for their teenage issues, and their will continue to be bands that fill that.

[Disembodied Spirit]

In the documentary, there's a man from Argentina. He says, if I understood correctly, the no matter what is going on - even if it is a family or financial crisis - if Rush is going on tour, they drop everything and go. No matter what. That's the kind of loyalty I'm talking about.

 

As much as we like to think that's just special to Rush's fanbase, there are plenty of bands that have fans like that. Both old and new bands inspire that kind of devotion. I remembering reading an interview with James Hetfield of Metallica where he says that they've been seeing a lot of the same fans showing up at their shows for years. Including some fans that got into them back in the early 80s when they were just a small club band.

 

Yes, Rush fans are a very loyal bunch. But that loyalty is not exclusive to them.

I am sorry I gave the impression that I thought it was just Rush that had loyal fans. I don't. Just was wondering if any band today will have the same fans in forty years. If the band even lasts forty years itself.

 

I think this is the key ... Obviously, if a band has a career that spans 40 years, that means that fans have stuck around ( how else would a band last that long ? ) ...

 

Yes, new fans will come on at different times - as was the case with Rush - but I think it is safe to assume that there will be diehards who've been there all along ..

 

One of the first performers that came to mind when I saw this thread was Stevie Ray Vaughan .. Had tragedy never struck, he would be 62 years old now, and I'm sure, still going strong ..

 

Stevie was an amazing, dedicated performer and I think that is what will keep the fans ... If the band or performer is there, I am sure the fans will be too ...

 

I know that in my case, I am still as obsessive as ever in regards to interest

 

 

.

 

.

Lucas this goes back to my theory. Had musicians lived we are not sure what would have happened.

Had Elvis and Jimi Hendrix lived, they both may have been judges on American Idol

We may not see Disembodied Spirit on this site anymore. Pretty sure he was struck by lightening after that comment.

Your 410 posts do not frighten me and I stand by my comment.

Elvis and Jimi on American Idol

Jim Morrison would have sobered up and been the Michael Bolton of 1982

Janis would have...well Janis was overrated and would have been on that plane with Lynyrd Skynyrd..so no big loss

[JohnnyBlaze]

In the documentary, there's a man from Argentina. He says, if I understood correctly, the no matter what is going on - even if it is a family or financial crisis - if Rush is going on tour, they drop everything and go. No matter what. That's the kind of loyalty I'm talking about.

 

As much as we like to think that's just special to Rush's fanbase, there are plenty of bands that have fans like that. Both old and new bands inspire that kind of devotion. I remembering reading an interview with James Hetfield of Metallica where he says that they've been seeing a lot of the same fans showing up at their shows for years. Including some fans that got into them back in the early 80s when they were just a small club band.

 

Yes, Rush fans are a very loyal bunch. But that loyalty is not exclusive to them.

I am sorry I gave the impression that I thought it was just Rush that had loyal fans. I don't. Just was wondering if any band today will have the same fans in forty years. If the band even lasts forty years itself.

 

I think this is the key ... Obviously, if a band has a career that spans 40 years, that means that fans have stuck around ( how else would a band last that long ? ) ...

 

Yes, new fans will come on at different times - as was the case with Rush - but I think it is safe to assume that there will be diehards who've been there all along ..

 

One of the first performers that came to mind when I saw this thread was Stevie Ray Vaughan .. Had tragedy never struck, he would be 62 years old now, and I'm sure, still going strong ..

 

Stevie was an amazing, dedicated performer and I think that is what will keep the fans ... If the band or performer is there, I am sure the fans will be too ...

 

I know that in my case, I am still as obsessive as ever in regards to interest

 

 

.

 

.

Lucas this goes back to my theory. Had musicians lived we are not sure what would have happened.

Had Elvis and Jimi Hendrix lived, they both may have been judges on American Idol

We may not see Disembodied Spirit on this site anymore. Pretty sure he was struck by lightening after that comment.

Your 410 posts do not frighten me and I stand by my comment.

Elvis and Jimi on American Idol

Jim Morrison would have sobered up and been the Michael Bolton of 1982

Janis would have...well Janis was overrated and would have been on that plane with Lynyrd Skynyrd..so no big loss

I think Elvis would only have made a couple of guest appearances on American Idol. Mostly, he would've ridden the Vegas show circuit for decades because millions of people believe that steak buffet, slot machines, and a Vegas show constitutes a fantastic vacation. The King and David Lee Roth would've grown to be best buddies, they would've co-headlined several shows together, and together they would've been arrested for doing lines of coke off some hooker's rump in a cheesy Circus Circus hotel. That's my guess anyway.

 

Jimi's another story.

[Disembodied Spirit]

In the documentary, there's a man from Argentina. He says, if I understood correctly, the no matter what is going on - even if it is a family or financial crisis - if Rush is going on tour, they drop everything and go. No matter what. That's the kind of loyalty I'm talking about.

 

As much as we like to think that's just special to Rush's fanbase, there are plenty of bands that have fans like that. Both old and new bands inspire that kind of devotion. I remembering reading an interview with James Hetfield of Metallica where he says that they've been seeing a lot of the same fans showing up at their shows for years. Including some fans that got into them back in the early 80s when they were just a small club band.

 

Yes, Rush fans are a very loyal bunch. But that loyalty is not exclusive to them.

I am sorry I gave the impression that I thought it was just Rush that had loyal fans. I don't. Just was wondering if any band today will have the same fans in forty years. If the band even lasts forty years itself.

 

I think this is the key ... Obviously, if a band has a career that spans 40 years, that means that fans have stuck around ( how else would a band last that long ? ) ...

 

Yes, new fans will come on at different times - as was the case with Rush - but I think it is safe to assume that there will be diehards who've been there all along ..

 

One of the first performers that came to mind when I saw this thread was Stevie Ray Vaughan .. Had tragedy never struck, he would be 62 years old now, and I'm sure, still going strong ..

 

Stevie was an amazing, dedicated performer and I think that is what will keep the fans ... If the band or performer is there, I am sure the fans will be too ...

 

I know that in my case, I am still as obsessive as ever in regards to interest

 

 

.

 

.

Lucas this goes back to my theory. Had musicians lived we are not sure what would have happened.

Had Elvis and Jimi Hendrix lived, they both may have been judges on American Idol

We may not see Disembodied Spirit on this site anymore. Pretty sure he was struck by lightening after that comment.

Your 410 posts do not frighten me and I stand by my comment.

Elvis and Jimi on American Idol

Jim Morrison would have sobered up and been the Michael Bolton of 1982

Janis would have...well Janis was overrated and would have been on that plane with Lynyrd Skynyrd..so no big loss

I think Elvis would only have made a couple of guest appearances on American Idol. Mostly, he would've ridden the Vegas show circuit for decades because millions of people believe that steak buffet, slot machines, and a Vegas show constitutes a fantastic vacation. The King and David Lee Roth would've grown to be best buddies, they would've co-headlined several shows together, and together they would've been arrested for doing lines of coke off some hooker's rump in a cheesy Circus Circus hotel. That's my guess anyway.

 

Jimi's another story.

A sober Jim Morrison may have replaced Roth in Van Halen too

[JohnnyBlaze]

In the documentary, there's a man from Argentina. He says, if I understood correctly, the no matter what is going on - even if it is a family or financial crisis - if Rush is going on tour, they drop everything and go. No matter what. That's the kind of loyalty I'm talking about.

 

As much as we like to think that's just special to Rush's fanbase, there are plenty of bands that have fans like that. Both old and new bands inspire that kind of devotion. I remembering reading an interview with James Hetfield of Metallica where he says that they've been seeing a lot of the same fans showing up at their shows for years. Including some fans that got into them back in the early 80s when they were just a small club band.

 

Yes, Rush fans are a very loyal bunch. But that loyalty is not exclusive to them.

I am sorry I gave the impression that I thought it was just Rush that had loyal fans. I don't. Just was wondering if any band today will have the same fans in forty years. If the band even lasts forty years itself.

 

I think this is the key ... Obviously, if a band has a career that spans 40 years, that means that fans have stuck around ( how else would a band last that long ? ) ...

 

Yes, new fans will come on at different times - as was the case with Rush - but I think it is safe to assume that there will be diehards who've been there all along ..

 

One of the first performers that came to mind when I saw this thread was Stevie Ray Vaughan .. Had tragedy never struck, he would be 62 years old now, and I'm sure, still going strong ..

 

Stevie was an amazing, dedicated performer and I think that is what will keep the fans ... If the band or performer is there, I am sure the fans will be too ...

 

I know that in my case, I am still as obsessive as ever in regards to interest

 

 

.

 

.

Lucas this goes back to my theory. Had musicians lived we are not sure what would have happened.

Had Elvis and Jimi Hendrix lived, they both may have been judges on American Idol

We may not see Disembodied Spirit on this site anymore. Pretty sure he was struck by lightening after that comment.

Your 410 posts do not frighten me and I stand by my comment.

Elvis and Jimi on American Idol

Jim Morrison would have sobered up and been the Michael Bolton of 1982

Janis would have...well Janis was overrated and would have been on that plane with Lynyrd Skynyrd..so no big loss

I think Elvis would only have made a couple of guest appearances on American Idol. Mostly, he would've ridden the Vegas show circuit for decades because millions of people believe that steak buffet, slot machines, and a Vegas show constitutes a fantastic vacation. The King and David Lee Roth would've grown to be best buddies, they would've co-headlined several shows together, and together they would've been arrested for doing lines of coke off some hooker's rump in a cheesy Circus Circus hotel. That's my guess anyway.

 

Jimi's another story.

A sober Jim Morrison may have replaced Roth in Van Halen too

Could be.

IMHO, Morrison would've written several volumes of poetry, widely panned by critics and worshipped by fans. He also would've turned to Hollywood. Many would've deemed him one of the worst actors of the late 20th century. Nevertheless, his roles in movies would've been prolific. His movie to poetry book to solo album release would've followed a 3-2-1 pattern: 3 shitty movies followed by 2 shitty poetry books followed by 1 shitty solo album then back again to 3 shitty movies.

[Disembodied Spirit]

In the documentary, there's a man from Argentina. He says, if I understood correctly, the no matter what is going on - even if it is a family or financial crisis - if Rush is going on tour, they drop everything and go. No matter what. That's the kind of loyalty I'm talking about.

 

As much as we like to think that's just special to Rush's fanbase, there are plenty of bands that have fans like that. Both old and new bands inspire that kind of devotion. I remembering reading an interview with James Hetfield of Metallica where he says that they've been seeing a lot of the same fans showing up at their shows for years. Including some fans that got into them back in the early 80s when they were just a small club band.

 

Yes, Rush fans are a very loyal bunch. But that loyalty is not exclusive to them.

I am sorry I gave the impression that I thought it was just Rush that had loyal fans. I don't. Just was wondering if any band today will have the same fans in forty years. If the band even lasts forty years itself.

 

I think this is the key ... Obviously, if a band has a career that spans 40 years, that means that fans have stuck around ( how else would a band last that long ? ) ...

 

Yes, new fans will come on at different times - as was the case with Rush - but I think it is safe to assume that there will be diehards who've been there all along ..

 

One of the first performers that came to mind when I saw this thread was Stevie Ray Vaughan .. Had tragedy never struck, he would be 62 years old now, and I'm sure, still going strong ..

 

Stevie was an amazing, dedicated performer and I think that is what will keep the fans ... If the band or performer is there, I am sure the fans will be too ...

 

I know that in my case, I am still as obsessive as ever in regards to interest

 

 

.

 

.

Lucas this goes back to my theory. Had musicians lived we are not sure what would have happened.

Had Elvis and Jimi Hendrix lived, they both may have been judges on American Idol

We may not see Disembodied Spirit on this site anymore. Pretty sure he was struck by lightening after that comment.

Your 410 posts do not frighten me and I stand by my comment.

Elvis and Jimi on American Idol

Jim Morrison would have sobered up and been the Michael Bolton of 1982

Janis would have...well Janis was overrated and would have been on that plane with Lynyrd Skynyrd..so no big loss

I think Elvis would only have made a couple of guest appearances on American Idol. Mostly, he would've ridden the Vegas show circuit for decades because millions of people believe that steak buffet, slot machines, and a Vegas show constitutes a fantastic vacation. The King and David Lee Roth would've grown to be best buddies, they would've co-headlined several shows together, and together they would've been arrested for doing lines of coke off some hooker's rump in a cheesy Circus Circus hotel. That's my guess anyway.

 

Jimi's another story.

A sober Jim Morrison may have replaced Roth in Van Halen too

Could be.

IMHO, Morrison would've written several volumes of poetry, widely panned by critics and worshipped by fans. He also would've turned to Hollywood. Many would've deemed him one of the worst actors of the late 20th century. Nevertheless, his roles in movies would've been prolific. His movie to poetry book to solo album release would've followed a 3-2-1 pattern: 3 shitty movies followed by 2 shitty poetry books followed by 1 shitty solo album then back again to 3 shitty movies.

Maybe he would have written books about motorcycling across various continents???

I mean that would have been a very original idea in 1973

[Duke1]

I think the loyalty is kind of connected to how I felt when I first heard them and if there was some emotional connection. For me Rush was a discovery of fine music and especially the drumming, being an amateur drummer myself, back in early 1980 at the age of 16. Being in New Zealand I'd always hoped Rush would visit here. I bought each new album and together with a handful of bands Rush were a band I'd always wanted to see live. After 32 years I was in a position to travel to see them for the Clockwork Angels tour, a tour for album that I loved. I had no interest in meeting them or being right up front of the stage, just to see them play live and be part of the experience in Las Vegas November 2012 was just incredible.

 

When I look back it it, music was an escape for me in the 70's, we had no internet, mobile phones, social media and for me music took up a large expanse amount of my spare time. And the album format gave me a bit more of a connection and insight to a band / artist than singles.

 

I think today there are many other things that young ones are into and in terms of music it seems more about individual songs than necessarily albums or artists.

 

Having said that, Adele has just sold out 3 nights at a 40,000 seater here in Auckland NZ. (That's a record for us). So there are still some artists that possibly still hold an emotional connection.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Duke1

[JohnnyBlaze]

In the documentary, there's a man from Argentina. He says, if I understood correctly, the no matter what is going on - even if it is a family or financial crisis - if Rush is going on tour, they drop everything and go. No matter what. That's the kind of loyalty I'm talking about.

 

As much as we like to think that's just special to Rush's fanbase, there are plenty of bands that have fans like that. Both old and new bands inspire that kind of devotion. I remembering reading an interview with James Hetfield of Metallica where he says that they've been seeing a lot of the same fans showing up at their shows for years. Including some fans that got into them back in the early 80s when they were just a small club band.

 

Yes, Rush fans are a very loyal bunch. But that loyalty is not exclusive to them.

I am sorry I gave the impression that I thought it was just Rush that had loyal fans. I don't. Just was wondering if any band today will have the same fans in forty years. If the band even lasts forty years itself.

 

I think this is the key ... Obviously, if a band has a career that spans 40 years, that means that fans have stuck around ( how else would a band last that long ? ) ...

 

Yes, new fans will come on at different times - as was the case with Rush - but I think it is safe to assume that there will be diehards who've been there all along ..

 

One of the first performers that came to mind when I saw this thread was Stevie Ray Vaughan .. Had tragedy never struck, he would be 62 years old now, and I'm sure, still going strong ..

 

Stevie was an amazing, dedicated performer and I think that is what will keep the fans ... If the band or performer is there, I am sure the fans will be too ...

 

I know that in my case, I am still as obsessive as ever in regards to interest

 

 

.

 

.

Lucas this goes back to my theory. Had musicians lived we are not sure what would have happened.

Had Elvis and Jimi Hendrix lived, they both may have been judges on American Idol

We may not see Disembodied Spirit on this site anymore. Pretty sure he was struck by lightening after that comment.

Your 410 posts do not frighten me and I stand by my comment.

Elvis and Jimi on American Idol

Jim Morrison would have sobered up and been the Michael Bolton of 1982

Janis would have...well Janis was overrated and would have been on that plane with Lynyrd Skynyrd..so no big loss

I think Elvis would only have made a couple of guest appearances on American Idol. Mostly, he would've ridden the Vegas show circuit for decades because millions of people believe that steak buffet, slot machines, and a Vegas show constitutes a fantastic vacation. The King and David Lee Roth would've grown to be best buddies, they would've co-headlined several shows together, and together they would've been arrested for doing lines of coke off some hooker's rump in a cheesy Circus Circus hotel. That's my guess anyway.

 

Jimi's another story.

A sober Jim Morrison may have replaced Roth in Van Halen too

Could be.

IMHO, Morrison would've written several volumes of poetry, widely panned by critics and worshipped by fans. He also would've turned to Hollywood. Many would've deemed him one of the worst actors of the late 20th century. Nevertheless, his roles in movies would've been prolific. His movie to poetry book to solo album release would've followed a 3-2-1 pattern: 3 shitty movies followed by 2 shitty poetry books followed by 1 shitty solo album then back again to 3 shitty movies.

Maybe he would have written books about motorcycling across various continents???

I mean that would have been a very original idea in 1973

Zen and the Art of Morrison Maintenance

[Rod in Toronto]

I think that as much as the music business has changed in the past ten years, people will always need idols. I´ve seen VERY devoted fans to bands like Pearl Jam, Muse and Placebo...and by devoted I mean fans who follow these guys around the globe going to concerts. Then again, none of these bands are exactly new. If you ask me which band came up in the past few years who gather this type of attention, i wouldn´t be able to name any.

[Ancient Ways]

hasnt been a truly great band since Radiohead. is like something wrong with the kids these days. in 70s & 80s great new bands were poppin up every few seconds

 

While I do agree that the 70s and 80s were extremely fertile periods for bands and music, I disagree with the notion of there being no great bands nowadays ..

 

It is different now, yes - but much of that has to do with the fact that record companies can no longer nurture and support bands and develop them ..

 

Anyone who ever downloaded songs for nothing is to blame

 

 

.

 

.

A few quotes from some friends of mine in their early 30s...

 

"Who buys music these days anyways?"

 

"Why would I buy a cd?!"

 

"I'm never buying another album again."

 

"They might as well get rid of all record shops."

 

"I don't remember the last time I've been in a record shop."

 

You can feel a sense of entitlement or arrogance in those words. Not evil or anything but definitely a bit of greed.

Not greed, from my perspective, but common sense. And I'm one of those people. Why pay when everything from Bach to Basie to Boston to Beck is at my fingers for free on YouTube?

 

Goose, you can't be serious

 

That's like going into a supermarket and just walking out with a cart full of food when you know you can get away with it

How is streaming music on YouTube akin to shoplifting?

 

My comment was directed at Goose's "why pay" comment

 

I love youtube - it is an absolute goldmine - for both me, and the artists that I have discovered there .. I have bought literally hundreds of CDs because of youtube since its inception ..

 

That does not fall under the "why pay" banner though

I think what you're saying is you like to support artists you discover by buying their work. My questions till stands because if YouTube is akin to stealing then the artists are the ones that need to put a stop to it. I don't think it's up to us to voluntarily try to stop it because the artist needs money.

[Mosher]

If you ask me which band came up in the past few years who gather this type of attention, i wouldn´t be able to name any.

 

The first problem with this is it requires prescience. If the band is new, we can't know yet whether they will gain that level or not.

 

The other is a problem of connection. While I have no idea how connected you are to what teens, especially 'rock' teens are listening to, I know that most of us don't have that connection. My older daughter got into metal really heavily, and a lot of metal bands have similar fandom, even new ones. Of course, their base is far smaller. But the fandom is just as real and avid.

 

I suppose there's nothing out there like Rush, but I wonder if many of us would even notice it yet, considering any new band couldn't be that huge yet. Rush took years to develop a base like they have now.

[Sokkamom]

hasnt been a truly great band since Radiohead. is like something wrong with the kids these days. in 70s & 80s great new bands were poppin up every few seconds

 

They're not really rock, but Snarky Puppy is one of the most innovative groups probably to have ever come along, and they're only about 10 years old. I think though that there's plenty of amazing bands out there, but there isn't the mainstream media exposure to get them the coverage they need (even MTV was running Rush). Kids nowadays are way more open-minded thanks to the availability of music on YouTube and Spotify, so while rock may not be the hottest thing, it's still around.

 

And back to the main question in terms of endearing fans, Bruce Springsteen is probably gonna keep touring until he dies. So there's that.

[fraroc]

I'd say that there are a lot of people that are full blown Rush fanatics. I mean, most of this forum would see me burn at the stake for criticising Neil's personality and decisions a few times.

[Lucas]

I think that as much as the music business has changed in the past ten years, people will always need idols. I´ve seen VERY devoted fans to bands like Pearl Jam, Muse and Placebo...and by devoted I mean fans who follow these guys around the globe going to concerts. Then again, none of these bands are exactly new. If you ask me which band came up in the past few years who gather this type of attention, i wouldn´t be able to name any.

 

 

Yep, I love Placebo, and I can definitely see the unique bond they have with fans ... They could stay together another 20 years if they wanted and be successful

Edited November 26, 2016 by Lucas

[treeduck]

Well there are younger bands likely do have cult followings. I met people that dedicated huge amounts of time to following the band Ghost to every show in America. These people stayed behind at every show to meet the band for a few moments night after night. Newer bands do have loyal enduring fanbases, but they may not be easy to spot unless they have great success or they've been around for a while.

 

I wasn't around for pre-2000's Rush. Were people as well aware of Rush's enduring fanbase in the 70's, 80's, 90's? Or is this more of a recent thing people picked up on?

 

 

That's a good question. Speaking only for myself, I never met a Rush fan in person in my life, and I'm from the NYC metro area, and I didn't live a hermit existence.

What about when you went to a RUSH concert??

[treeduck]

hasnt been a truly great band since Radiohead. is like something wrong with the kids these days. in 70s & 80s great new bands were poppin up every few seconds

 

While I do agree that the 70s and 80s were extremely fertile periods for bands and music, I disagree with the notion of there being no great bands nowadays ..

 

It is different now, yes - but much of that has to do with the fact that record companies can no longer nurture and support bands and develop them ..

 

Anyone who ever downloaded songs for nothing is to blame

 

 

.

 

.

A few quotes from some friends of mine in their early 30s...

 

"Who buys music these days anyways?"

 

"Why would I buy a cd?!"

 

"I'm never buying another album again."

 

"They might as well get rid of all record shops."

 

"I don't remember the last time I've been in a record shop."

 

You can feel a sense of entitlement or arrogance in those words. Not evil or anything but definitely a bit of greed.

Not greed, from my perspective, but common sense. And I'm one of those people. Why pay when everything from Bach to Basie to Boston to Beck is at my fingers for free on YouTube?

 

Goose, you can't be serious

 

That's like going into a supermarket and just walking out with a cart full of food when you know you can get away with it

More like choosing to legally pick some apples from the tree at a park instead of paying $2.50/lb for the same thing at a supermarket. Nothing illegal going on.

But if everyone did what you do then there wouldn't be any new stuff coming in the future.

[Lucas]

hasnt been a truly great band since Radiohead. is like something wrong with the kids these days. in 70s & 80s great new bands were poppin up every few seconds

 

While I do agree that the 70s and 80s were extremely fertile periods for bands and music, I disagree with the notion of there being no great bands nowadays ..

 

It is different now, yes - but much of that has to do with the fact that record companies can no longer nurture and support bands and develop them ..

 

Anyone who ever downloaded songs for nothing is to blame

 

 

.

 

.

A few quotes from some friends of mine in their early 30s...

 

"Who buys music these days anyways?"

 

"Why would I buy a cd?!"

 

"I'm never buying another album again."

 

"They might as well get rid of all record shops."

 

"I don't remember the last time I've been in a record shop."

 

You can feel a sense of entitlement or arrogance in those words. Not evil or anything but definitely a bit of greed.

Not greed, from my perspective, but common sense. And I'm one of those people. Why pay when everything from Bach to Basie to Boston to Beck is at my fingers for free on YouTube?

 

Goose, you can't be serious

 

That's like going into a supermarket and just walking out with a cart full of food when you know you can get away with it

How is streaming music on YouTube akin to shoplifting?

 

My comment was directed at Goose's "why pay" comment

 

I love youtube - it is an absolute goldmine - for both me, and the artists that I have discovered there .. I have bought literally hundreds of CDs because of youtube since its inception ..

 

That does not fall under the "why pay" banner though

I think what you're saying is you like to support artists you discover by buying their work. My questions till stands because if YouTube is akin to stealing then the artists are the ones that need to put a stop to it. I don't think it's up to us to voluntarily try to stop it because the artist needs money.

 

I think there might be some confusion here, and I probably didn't make myself clear, as I never meant to include youtube in this discussion ....

 

YouTube in my view is sort of a modern day radio station that takes requests ...... What I was replying to was the "Why pay ?" comment .....

 

The quality coming from youtube or from radio is not what you're going to get when you buy what the artist took time, money, and heart to create . . .

 

If someone really enjoys and appreciates what an artist has to offer, the fan should pay for that - that also insures that the artist can and will continue .... Fans support the performer, and that means financially ..

 

This becomes a problem with new music because if everyone has the opinion of "why pay ?", then, there is going to be no new music ....

 

With this in mind, it is baffling when some of the same people complain that music isn't the same anymore, and how they used to love looking at the artwork and album covers, etc ..

 

All that was only possible because why ?? ... Because people would pay for it

Edited November 26, 2016 by Lucas

[JohnnyBlaze]

hasnt been a truly great band since Radiohead. is like something wrong with the kids these days. in 70s & 80s great new bands were poppin up every few seconds

 

While I do agree that the 70s and 80s were extremely fertile periods for bands and music, I disagree with the notion of there being no great bands nowadays ..

 

It is different now, yes - but much of that has to do with the fact that record companies can no longer nurture and support bands and develop them ..

 

Anyone who ever downloaded songs for nothing is to blame

 

 

.

 

.

A few quotes from some friends of mine in their early 30s...

 

"Who buys music these days anyways?"

 

"Why would I buy a cd?!"

 

"I'm never buying another album again."

 

"They might as well get rid of all record shops."

 

"I don't remember the last time I've been in a record shop."

 

You can feel a sense of entitlement or arrogance in those words. Not evil or anything but definitely a bit of greed.

Not greed, from my perspective, but common sense. And I'm one of those people. Why pay when everything from Bach to Basie to Boston to Beck is at my fingers for free on YouTube?

 

Goose, you can't be serious

 

That's like going into a supermarket and just walking out with a cart full of food when you know you can get away with it

How is streaming music on YouTube akin to shoplifting?

 

My comment was directed at Goose's "why pay" comment

 

I love youtube - it is an absolute goldmine - for both me, and the artists that I have discovered there .. I have bought literally hundreds of CDs because of youtube since its inception ..

 

That does not fall under the "why pay" banner though

I think what you're saying is you like to support artists you discover by buying their work. My questions till stands because if YouTube is akin to stealing then the artists are the ones that need to put a stop to it. I don't think it's up to us to voluntarily try to stop it because the artist needs money.

 

I think there might be some confusion here, and I probably didn't make myself clear, as I never meant to include youtube in this discussion ....

 

YouTube in my view is sort of a modern day radio station that takes requests ...... What I was replying to was the "Why pay ?" comment .....

 

The quality coming from youtube or from radio is not what you're going to get when you buy what the artist took time, money, and heart to create . . .

 

If someone really enjoys and appreciates what an artist has to offer, the fan should pay for that - that also insures that the artist can and will continue .... Fans support the performer, and that means financially ..

 

This becomes a problem with new music because if everyone has the opinion of "why pay ?", then, there is going to be no new music ....

 

With this in mind, it is baffling when some of the same people complain that music isn't the same anymore, and how they used to love looking at the artwork and album covers, etc ..

 

All that was only possible because why ?? ... Because people would pay for it

This is where my thought was when I first posted. I wasn't thinking of YouTube. I was thinking of those that never buy anything THEN look down on those that actually DO.

[RUSHHEAD666]

...that the days of a band being able to engender the loyalty of fans for decades as Rush has is over?

 

If so, why?

 

If not, why not?

 

"Engender?"

 

What????

 

Does Bruce Gender love Rush?

 

 

Does not compute.

 

Screw the humans who can't figure out RUSH on their own!

 

It's right there in front of them!!!

 

The way this world is going I don't know how people will "engender" themselves into RUSH!

 

HAHAHA!

 

I can't take it anymore.

 

Really????

 

 

Let the masses stumble in the streets of mass production schemes.

Let them wander into high tech buildings and make a paycheck.

 

If they can't find RUSH on their own "FREEWILL" or by a stranger who isn't even a friend then so be it.

 

I will take my love for this band to the grave.

 

I will never change.

I will never settle on another woman just because......

 

 

Weak.

 

It's all about me and my happiness on this planet of bliss and corruption.

 

Good luck fellow Rush fans.

 

I am only a pin prick in the realm of Rush but I have left my mark.

 

May The Force Be With You mortals.

 

I'm so lucky. So blessed.

 

Yet so cursed.........

 

 

 

 

 

(to be continued.....)

Edited November 26, 2016 by RUSHHEAD666

[Stormtron]

When's the Gathering of the Rushalos going down? WHOOP WHOOP.

[Grover]

I doubt that Rush has the biggest hard core fan base out there. There are probably a bunch of artists and bands that have a similar or larger hard core fan base. Where Rush stand out from the crowd but are probably not unique is that they built a big enough fan base to play arena sized venues without much mainstream radio play or press, they sustained it for 35+ years, and their hardcore fans are a big chunk of their audience. Some bands and artists were much bigger than Rush for a period of time, but it didn't last and they now play fairs, theatres and casinos. Some may have a similar hard core fan base as Rush, but enjoyed much more mainstream success and exposure so the hard core base that is left was a smaller percentage of a much larger peak. The fact that they avoided record company interference and maintained their relative independence is something many bands would love to have had. Asia had just come off a 10 million selling debut album and yet the record for company edited the songs on the band's second album without permission. They've had a career most musicians would dream of, being quite succesful doing what they want and not so succesful that they can't live relatively anonymous fulfilling lives.

[JARG]

...that the days of a band being able to engender the loyalty of fans for decades as Rush has is over?

 

Probably.

 

Why?

 

I think there was a bit of a "perfect storm" going on with Rush and their early days. Musically, Rush combined the noodling aspect of Yes with the heaviness of bands like Zep and Sabbath, and that covered a wide swath of potential fans.

 

Geddy and Alex struck gold with Neil in that he had a penchant for cinematic lyrics and story telling. By Tor and The Snow Dog would almost certainly never have become a fully realized song if Neil had been interested in writing about being horny, so there was this great synthesis of cinematic lyrics to inspire cinematic musical pieces and/or vice versa.

 

Tolkien enjoyed a big surge in popularity in the late 60s/early 70s and Rush was right there to capitalize on it, which earned them their initial core of fans. By 2112 Neil had managed to weave a sci-fi tale with very clear-cut good guys and bad guys, and wouldn't you know it, Star Wars came out just a short time later. So by 1977 or so, you had the fantasy geeks of the 60s rubbing elbows with Star Wars geeks of the 70s, and both groups rubbing elbows with fans of hard rock and progressive rock.

 

And that core has stayed with Rush, more or less, ever since then. Certainly Rush hit popularity pay dirt when MP came out, but many of those fans were just fans for the short time, but the core geeks have remained pretty loyal. I don't see all those same elements coming together for any bands that are on the rise these days. It used to be that Rush was like a private club, and that was in part due to the fact that they didn't have a lot of mass exposure, but these days, bands can easily get far more exposure in a much shorter time than Rush did, so there's no "secret club" feeling any more. Or least that's the way it seems to me.

[canadianice]

...that the days of a band being able to engender the loyalty of fans for decades as Rush has is over?

 

Probably.

 

Why?

 

I think there was a bit of a "perfect storm" going on with Rush and their early days. Musically, Rush combined the noodling aspect of Yes with the heaviness of bands like Zep and Sabbath, and that covered a wide swath of potential fans.

 

Geddy and Alex struck gold with Neil in that he had a penchant for cinematic lyrics and story telling. By Tor and The Snow Dog would almost certainly never have become a fully realized song if Neil had been interested in writing about being horny, so there was this great synthesis of cinematic lyrics to inspire cinematic musical pieces and/or vice versa.

 

Tolkien enjoyed a big surge in popularity in the late 60s/early 70s and Rush was right there to capitalize on it, which earned them their initial core of fans. By 2112 Neil had managed to weave a sci-fi tale with very clear-cut good guys and bad guys, and wouldn't you know it, Star Wars came out just a short time later. So by 1977 or so, you had the fantasy geeks of the 60s rubbing elbows with Star Wars geeks of the 70s, and both groups rubbing elbows with fans of hard rock and progressive rock.

 

And that core has stayed with Rush, more or less, ever since then. Certainly Rush hit popularity pay dirt when MP came out, but many of those fans were just fans for the short time, but the core geeks have remained pretty loyal. I don't see all those same elements coming together for any bands that are on the rise these days. It used to be that Rush was like a private club, and that was in part due to the fact that they didn't have a lot of mass exposure, but these days, bands can easily get far more exposure in a much shorter time than Rush did, so there's no "secret club" feeling any more. Or least that's the way it seems to me.

A complete load of hogwash!

[Lorraine]

:o