http://www.thewrap.com/article/u2-no-money-horizon-gamble-9033

When you've got to play 42 concerts and gross 300 million dollars just to break even because of the cost of your 'equipment' (the stage), haven't we lost sight of what 'making music' is all about? Is this why we all wanted to be musicians when we grew up (the fact that we never grew up is incidental)? Somewhere, somehow, something must have gone terribly wrong. Does it really take this much to convince our audience that our music is any good? Man oh man, where will it end? Could be why I've always felt that Rock was more about show than about musical substance.

chas

cgiles,

Your quote
“When you've got to play 42 concerts and gross 300 million dollars just to break even because of the cost of your 'equipment”

It is no longer music that satisfies the audience, it is the dimension of the show.

Your quote
“Somewhere, somehow, something must have gone terribly wrong. Does it really take this much to convince our audience that our music is any good? “

Many of our values have gone from value to glitter. We are now faced with “What’s really real”. Can he really play the Guitar or keyboard or sing or is it being enhanced in some other way? Is that not the question that is being asked of arranger keyboards?

John C.

"Could be why I've always felt that Rock was more about show than about musical substance."

You've got to do something to make those same three chords interesting (ok 4 or 5 sometimes).

All you have to do is look at sports.
Basketball
Football
Baseball

Major league music is just following suit.

Eddie

It seems like in ANY entertainment venue a new show has to be bigger and more extravagant than what went before it ...
great question chas, when DID it stop being about the music ?!? ...

I think 'Broadway' is about the only entertainment venue that hasn't changed all that much ... while there are still some grand productions, i.e. "The Lion King", most of 'Broadway' is still about the play: the characters, the plot, the words recited ...
And chas, why is it we don't see elaborate productions in Jazz ... I guess there it STILL is about the music - thankfully ...

t.

Economy of scale... pure and simple. When 3 million people WANT to see you play in a year, you CAN'T play small clubs (do the math).

When jazz musicians have audiences that large, they'll play stadiums, too. I seem to recall Montreaux or Newport Jazzfest getting pretty big, but that's ONE WEEK. These guys pull that number twice a week

Anyway, this is not unique in any way. Anyone remember the scale of ELP's touring rig? Stadium rock is its' own experience. No, it's not a theater or a small club. It is its' own musical experience, different, but still enjoyable. Like seeing a small high school football match, then going to see a huge college or pro game. Same game, utterly different experience...

I have a feeling that, at this point in U2's career, that they aren't all that desperate to make money Playing to the most people, letting the majority of their fans that WANT to see them be able to, even if it means a lumbering, expensive touring system, seems fair enough...

Trust me, music all through the ages has been about money as well as art. Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi, none of these guys were immune to the commercial considerations of actually making MONEY while trying to produce 'art'.... This is more of the same, just ramped up for 21st C technology. I guarantee Liszt would have played to this number of people if he could have!

Somewhere along the line you've got to be able to differentiate Show Business from Musical Performance.

Then you make your pick as to which of those two you want to practice.


--Mac

Diki qoute

"Trust me, music all through the ages has been about money as well as art".

I feel they loved their music and their performances,but they used money to keep score.

John C.

Jazz and Country seem to be the least affected by pomp and circumstance...they are also my two favorite music genres.

They are usually only about the music, although there are exceptions.

No, folk music hasn't changed much. A guy and a guitar. Which I love... with the right guy/gal.

Well what about Classical Music and Andre Rieu?
Last time I looked, HIS show was pretty elaborate and Showbizzy...!

And Ian, I think Country Music has been GREATLY affected by 20th/21st Century Money Making.

Look at Garth Brooks' Events/Concerts - and many other Country Artists that have followed Suit since then.
Even the very nature of the Form has Crossed FIRMLY over into the Mainstream Pop Territory.

I find this a worthy Topic in General, but let's not make it about whoever's favourite Genre is less affected by the "Evils" of the Corporate world, and is therefore *ahem* "better".

I actually agree with Diki's take on this.

Yes, that's true, HB, but I did say there were exceptions ...come to think of it, there ain't a lot of purity left in Country....I hardly even class some Country artists as "Country" anymore...like you said, it's more "Pop" and perhaps, a bit of "Rock".

I liked the "old" stuff better...Hank Williams, Floyd Cramer...

But, I think Jazz has mainly stayed true to form.

And...as SemiLive said, folk music hasn't changed much either.



[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 10-25-2009).]

There's purity, honesty and heart left in any genre... Thing is, we're talking about a band that achieved incredible success. Worldwide success. I see no more 'purity' in commercial jazz, or commercial country, or commercial Classical. They are all doing it for exactly the same reason that U2 are...

In fact, if you consider that U2 aren't even breaking even on the tour, yet, that shows a LOT more 'purity' than many others. How many jazz stars, or classical stars, or country stars will keep a tour going on that scale (or any, really ) if it doesn't make them some money PRONTO..?

Looks to me like U2 like playing more than they like money... that's pretty 'pure' in MY book...

That sounds like a lot of us here on SZ...we alwaysthink about the music first, and then the money....don't we?

At the rate I'm going, I should be able to retire comfortably at 97.

My retirement plan is to die on stage.

One less load-out...

There's always an upside to anything!

What I read of the article led me to believe that while U2 had not YET made any profit, future concerts would put them over the hump ... PLUS, we don't really know what 'expenses' might be included in the total ...

t.

I thought the same thing... it might take them several months to break even but then, they make $XXX million profit.

Don't know if I agree with you on that. Unless when you say 'playing', you mean 'staying in the spotlight', 'being adored by millions of fans', 'worshiped as gods', 'constantly being told that they are as good or better than ever, even when way past their prime (Rolling Stones?)', 'satisfying the need to (continue to) feel young and relevant', or maybe just testing the waters to see if they've still 'got it'.

I think the guys that still "like playing more than they like money" are the ones that, despite their wealth and fame, will drop by the local pub and sit in with the house band. Happens frequently in Jazz, 'though few jazz musicians have the fame, wealth, recognition, notoriety, and star power of the average rock star (could be part of the price you pay for putting 'the music' first). Of course, there IS something to be said for tooling around in your own jet, owning castles in the south of France, banging supermodels and movie stars, and trashing hotel rooms with impunity. I guess it just depends on what's important to you.

So, what's it going to be, 20+ years of being Janet Joplin, Jim Morrison, Jimmi Hendrix, OR 70+ years of being say, Quincy Jones.

chas

I love it when guys like Eric Clapton play small venues, even doing some acoustic sets, or get a bunch of guys together for what ends up to be a 'blues' jam ...
BTW, Springsteen has been known to do an unpublicized set or two in a small club in NJ on occasion ...
t.

This is exactly what Donny has been saying all along. It's not about the equipment. It's about the music we produce.

Tom

??????????????????

I realised a long time ago that what you make people feel is just as important as what you play.

Everyone starts out playing for fun. Then, IF success comes along, it can turn out to be playing for the money. Guys like the Stones, I think, end up where the wheel has turned full circle. The larger part of what they do now is for the fun aspect. And, like many people, what else do they know.

I think it was John Lennon who, when asked a question along the lines of fun vs. money, said, "We started out playing for kicks, then it was for the money, and now it's back to playing for kicks again."

How true.

Playing for kicks is fun, but getting paid to play for kicks is BETTER!

Good post, Chas.


Russ

Or maybe 70 years of being Frank Sinatra, who toured WELL after his heyday, banged models and movie stars (and even marrying a few!) from here to Timbuktu..

No sector of the music biz is immune from those a bit past their shelf life. I could probably name a dozen of your greatest influences that toured bombed out of their brains on junk simply for the money, when they weren't capable of playing as well as their heyday...

For every Quincy Jones, there's a Charlie Parker

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 10-26-2009).]

In the unlikely event of such a sad occasion, would it be possible for you to carry with you something like a donor card directing that that last payday be directed to me, which I will use to start a Diki Memorial fund and post-a-thon. I have already recruited Dominique (Liontracs) as a (eager) sponsor. Fran will be kicking things off with his own inimitable version of 'St. James Infirmary' on his nearly-current Mediastation (just needs a new motherboard). Donny will be accompanying him on his new Audya with AJ waiting in the wings with a toolkit and the latest copy of the soon-to-be-completed instruction manual. The understanding is that a eulogy will not be necessary as you have already written and recorded it and that it will be available as sample content on most new Open system keyboards with at least 5 terabytes of sample memory. .....wait, am I going too far, here???



chas

I take your point Chas, but funny you mention The Stones. Have you seen Martin Scorcesse's "Shine a Light"?
Amazing.

I think musical performance is a part of show business. Unless you're playing in a vacuum somehwere there is the non musical part to playing music. Who are we to suggest they don't still love performing and likely doing it just for money?

We don't have to pick between the two.

------------------
Bill in Dayton

Ok, I think the question has drifted a little bit. The original post questioned whether it was necessary to spend $300,000,000.00 to create the proper environment for you to enjoy a piece of music. I'm thinking that with a set THAT extravagant, even I could walk out on stage nude, scream incoherently into the mike, play a couple of factory arps from my Fantom G7 (at earsplitting volume, of course), and quite a few people would leave the concert thinking they had experienced something remarkable. I mean, how much should you have to spend to keep the sight of Tori Spelling from making you want to barf? Why not just start out with Meagan Fox? Shouldn't good music be it's own reward? I know there is supposed to be good and bad music in every genre', but (and call me old fashioned) I have not, as yet, been able to put a qualitative value on Punk Rock, Heavy Metal, Trance, etc. There is no 0 to 10. There's just zero. Therefore to sell it (I'm not necessarily talking about U2 here, before someone gets upset), we have to create this incredibly expensive fantasy experience, of which 1% is the actual music.

I guess I'm just old and out of touch, but it seems to me that that kind of visual extravaganza would actually DETRACT from the music instead of enhancing it. And isn't that what it's supposed to be all about, isn't that why we come, the MUSIC.

chas

Don't you hate it when you start to sound like your parents?

Yup!

it stopped being about the music when the Musician was paid via an agent and he nolonger was responsible for directly negociating his fees