I was thinking about what it means to be a successful band recently. This was brought to the fore when I watched a documentary on Tom Petty, a four hour documentary on Tom Petty - four fucking hours. I am going to write about Tom Petty specifically in another post, but here is a band/ performer who has been going for around 40 years, large amounts of selling albums success, critical acclaim, has worked with some of the greatest and yet seems to fall out of any argument of anything like greatest/ best/ most successful. I wonder if that is a reflection of the age we live in or the more niche aspect of his music?
So what is success and which are the most successful bands in that case?
I remember, and think I have mentioned before that I have heard Tommy Lee, he of Motley Crue,say that there are varying types of success. he puts Motley Crue up there as one of the most successful bands of all time as they sold out literally thousands of shows and that is a type of success that is different from album sales and critical acclaim.
It is hard to put the Crue into this conversation, I have no doubt that they were (are? ) a successful band. They are far more successful then almost all of the rest of the Hair/ Glam metal bands of their era. Indeed if you exclude Guns and Roses, who many will argue did not really ever fit into this category in any case, then it is hard to think of anyone more successful than the Crue. That said, being the most successful of what is an oft derided genre does not necessarily mean that they should be considered in an all time discussion.
Down that path lies a lot of pretenders. I mean Barry Manilow is perhaps the most successful of the 70s love song proponents . . . well maybe. I have a great story about Barry. Relatively recently, in the car parks of Brighton England they had an issue with young kids hanging out and doing 'bad' things. . In order to stop this so called anti social behaviour they started playing Barry's music through the loudspeakers in the car parks. This stopped the kids hanging out there. When told of this Barry said ' that would make them want to dance not leave' You have to feel for him a bit, I mean what was he going to say...
Anyway back to success, and the argument that it comes down to sales. This a clear line of distinction because if people are prepared to spend their money on your albums then obviously you are successful. The more albums the more successful. This was the music industry model until the late 1990's early 2000's when suddenly people started downloading music. It also means that no one from that period is comparable with anyone from earlier periods because the data is flawed. Interestingly, also, most of the biggest selling records of all time are end of the 70s early 80s records. Rumours, Thriller, Frampton comes alive. Eagles greatest hits etc. This perhaps needs a whole extra post about the diversification of music and the way that it became more specific and less general public listening to the standard type of stuff. Anyway, if we look at sales Michael Jackson the Beatles and Led Zeppelin are massively up there along with the Rolling stones.
This is where it starts to get interesting. As far as I can see two other areas of success would be , longevity and impact. No one beats the Rolling Stones for longevity. Sad as it is they are still going. Still selling out huge concerts. They actually released a new album recently. I haven't listened to it yet, but will now I have written this. They made a big impact when they started. Was it as big an impact as the Beatles? Possibly not. They were the perfect foil for a band that was so clearly mainstream and safe that their impact is intertwined for all time.
What about Zeppelin I hear you sort of murmur. . Well, large impact for sure. Hugely successful, roughly 10 years of longevity, sold out concerts to an extent rarely seen. So massively successful. A lot of people will argue better than Beatles or Stones as the music whilst not massively relevant anymore still holds up a bit better than the others.
The difficult part for me is this conversation then needs to include the absolute mainstream. The Take That's, Coldplay's, U2's , insert everything uninteresting but hugely hugely popular. I acknowledge their immense success with a sigh and almost a tear at the sadness involved in the masses choices. Time wasted people. . time wasted.
Bands like Oasis have to be considered very successful, but honestly, their output is so limited, arguably to two albums, that they fit into a category occupied by so many great bands. A short output but very good and for a time the biggest musical act in the world.
Which leads me on almost inevitably to Metallica. I heard someone say once probably around 2005 that it doesn't matter who you think the biggest band in the world are because it is Metallica, and has been since 1992 and the general release of the Black album. Since then, they could go anywhere in the world and sell out whatever stadium they wanted to. They just need electricity and people would come. I think this is probably right. They are the new Rolling Stones. In fact the parallels are interesting between the two of them. Although they possibly don't have a foil other than the general music industry.
So the conversation has turned into what is success to listing successful bands. I think it is difficult because as much as music is subjective then the measure of success is also very subjective. If a song reaches out to you on a hugely personal emotional level then that is also success isnt it. Indeed, that is the sort of success that many people dream of. One such song is My Way by Mr Sinatra. It is still the song played at most funerals. Sung at karaoke bars around the world. Still speaks to people on a level that very few other songs ever have. i could go on, but I dont need to because you have heard it, know it, and whether you like it or not it speaks to every single person on some level because it is about the individual.
ps. I listened to the Stones new album and as a blues album it is pretty good.
