concerts by "mature" groups

[Joseph E. Smith]

It upsets me that Chas would skip over Cher, when she is a better example of an than many of the people he mentioned.

Well, not trying to speak for Chas, here, but perhaps he just doesn't listen to Cher, so her name didn't pop into his head. I wouldn't be so offended at her being left off, as there are countless other artists who fit the example just as well who were also left off.

Like Anthony Newely, for instance.

[Bloomfield]

It's true that Cher is a legend but she's also not taken seriously by a lot of people, and that makes me very very sad and angry. Surely her musical career, if not clearly more outstanding than Debbie Harry's or Stevie Nicks, is at least comparable?

And she's hotter.

I am not sure that Cher is a legend (Beowulf is a legend). I am curious why you would be so emotionally invested in the common regard for Cher. Surely there are many people who deserve recognition who don't get it and others who don't deserve it are hailed as stars or legends.

As for Cher's musical career: She can't hold the water to Debbie Harry or Stevie Nicks. Both were parts of seminal bands that defined a sound, marked an era, and influenced many musicians who came after them. Cher, while I'll happily concede that she's a good singer and performer, never made noteworthy music. As for your comment that she's hotter, I think no one watched Cher's show in the sixties for her singing: It was all the racy outfits. I don't think much has changed since. Not that there is anything wrong with racy outfits.

[gonzo914]

Cher has always been a sort of niche singer, though, attracting a respectably-sized and very adamant fan base, regardless of what she puts out. I'd say she's more of an institution than a performer, at this point. But that's me.

And just what is this "adament fan base," praytell?

Contrary to popular belief, it's not only drag queens and their faghags who go to see Cher perform. If that were true, like you said, she would have a very niched-following and would be incapable of surpassing all the records she has and she certainly wouldn't have a recording career that is on its way to reaching the half-century mark!

Since the early 1960s, old ladies have gone to see Cher, grown [heterosexual] men, black people, white people--it's not a niched following at all. You have a multitude of 70 year olds and 17 year olds standing in line together to get Cher tickets.

My, are we in a snit today or what.

How about instead of the phrase "adamant fan base," with its associated drag queen connotations, we substitute the phrase "people with plebeian tastes in music"?

(And Debbie Harry is way, way hotter than Cher, even the young, bare-midfiffed Cher.)

[dwinterfield]

Cher has always been a sort of niche singer, though, attracting a respectably-sized and very adamant fan base, regardless of what she puts out. I'd say she's more of an institution than a performer, at this point. But that's me.

And just what is this "adament fan base," praytell?

Contrary to popular belief, it's not only drag queens and their faghags who go to see Cher perform. If that were true, like you said, she would have a very niched-following and would be incapable of surpassing all the records she has and she certainly wouldn't have a recording career that is on its way to reaching the half-century mark!

Since the early 1960s, old ladies have gone to see Cher, grown [heterosexual] men, black people, white people--it's not a niched following at all. You have a multitude of 70 year olds and 17 year olds standing in line together to get Cher tickets.

My, are we in a snit today or what.

I don't think he was talking about "drag queens and their fag hags" when he made reference to Cher's "adamant fan base." I suspect what he meant was "people with plebeian tastes in music."

(And Debbie Harry is way, way hotter than Cher, even the young, bare-midfiffed Cher.)

Cher was/is hot!!! Never occured to me. She's one of those rare performers who isn't great at anything but just delivers no matter what she's doing. I've always liked her and never understood or cared why.

[Jack]

[Cher is] one of those rare performers who isn't great at anything but just delivers no matter what she's doing. I've always liked her and never understood or cared why.

This is the correct answer.

[djm]

It may be just my perception, but it seems to me that groups today are based more often on one or two songs that make it big, as opposed to coming out with a new sound. That's not to say that there aren't groups coming out with their own sound, but these types of groups have almost always been relegated to obscurity due to their own sound not being palatable to the majority. There doesn't seem (to me) to be such a wide acceptance to new sounds as there was thirty or forty years ago. New groups seem to me to be trying to find their place within existing sounds/styles/genres, thus their need to get one or more hits within that style.

I saw a video clip recently of Crosby and Nash doing backing vocals for David Gilmour, and they are looking totally ancient - frizzy white white hair on both.

I have never liked listening to Cher's bellowing. I do not understand the attraction.

djm

[fearfaoin]

The Decemberists come immediately to mind: they have sort of a classic rock aesthetic, but infused with something old world. It's like rock that calls to mind dirigible balloons and whale bone corsets and Dr. Catskill's Miraculous Cure-All Tonic Water.

Steampunk rock? Music to listen to whilst reading Girl Genius?
You have piqued my interest, sir!

[Congratulations]

The Decemberists come immediately to mind: they have sort of a classic rock aesthetic, but infused with something old world. It's like rock that calls to mind dirigible balloons and whale bone corsets and Dr. Catskill's Miraculous Cure-All Tonic Water.

Steampunk rock? Music to listen to whilst reading Girl Genius?
You have piqued my interest, sir!

The Decemberists are my latest crush. I'd suggest the Her Majesty album, but anything you can get your hands on is gold.

[Wormdiet]

I haven;t really souhgt any remotely mainstream for the past year.5 (too much homework on trad to have time to) but the only rock bands I'd pay much money to see these days are Sleater Kinney, The Shins, and maybe Opeth.

Somebody mentioned craving "substance" a while back and finding it in classic rock. I think I grew up when Classic Rock had totally oversaturated radio and, if you were in high school, it was extremely difficult to find much else. So I burned out on it and can;t listen to 99% of it. That doesn;t make it bad, per se, rather, stuff I can;t listen to.

Radiohead was a fairly ground-breaking band. Too bad watered down knockoffs like Coldplay have gotten more popular.

[rh]

Here's one of my favorite mature musicians... way better than Cher, in my book...

[Congratulations]

The Shins

Everyone's in love with the Shins, recently. I've got several of their albums, and when I listen to them I say, "That's good," but I just can't get all worked up about it. And when they come up on random in iTunes, I normally skip them. I'm not sure why.

[izzarina]

Radiohead was a fairly ground-breaking band. Too bad watered down knockoffs like Coldplay have gotten more popular.

Dale doesn't like Coldplay

[Congratulations]

Radiohead was a fairly ground-breaking band. Too bad watered down knockoffs like Coldplay have gotten more popular.

Dale doesn't like Coldplay

That's because he enjoys listening to music.

[The Sporting Pitchfork]

The first time I heard Coldplay on the radio, I thought "Damn! Dave Matthews sounds cheesier than ever!" Yecch...

I saw Echo & The Bunnymen a few months back and the audience ranged in age from teens to people in their 50s or maybe even 60s...The vast bulk seemed to be in the 28-35 range. Good show, though. Ian McCulloch's voice & hair hadn't changed at all and Will Seargent really pounded out some fantastic stuff on his Vox Phantom and Fender Jaguar...

All the Post-Punk/New Wave bands have been reuniting lately. Talking Heads did a one-off reunion a couple of years back when they were inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Gang of Four got back together recently and have been blowing all the young "it" bands of the moment off the stage at recent festival appearances. Depeche Mode, The Cure, and New Order are all sweaty old buggers now (especially New Order) but they're still doing quite well touring and managing to write decent new music to boot. Elvis Costello's still sounding fantastic...Nick Lowe has gotten praised for putting out "the album of his career" for his last three albums in a row...He put on a nice show in Portland a while back as well.

Camper Van Beethoven, Hall & Oates, Duran Duran, Madness, rumor has it maybe The Specials...There is money to be made among the late-30-something-ex-coke-snorting-hip-'80s-teenager-crowd.

The only band that hasn't gotten on the reunion bandwagon is The Smiths and that's never going to happen...

[GaryKelly]

So, my question: does anyone think the older groups are having a resurgence because they're somehow better than almost everything that's out there, or is it just because a lot of their fans have finally finished raising their kids and have the free time and cash to go to shows?

Back in the good old days, bands actually played their instruments, composed their own music, wrote their own lyrics. Then along came the record companies and shyte like "The Bay City Rollers", groups who couldn't actually play the instruments they posed with, but who the money-grubbing weasel record companies could hype to the barely pubescent market they targeted. Thus were "pop stars" born, as Wombat briefly alluded to.

The 'mature groups' still playing 30 or more years on have the benefit of all those years of playing and performing behind them, whereas the pop idols of today are, generally speaking, one-hit wonders that'll rake in a few tens of millions for gits like the Sony Entertainment Corporation before they're dumped and disappear into obscurity, while the computer-generated backing tracks and Stock, Aitken and Waterman-style poopy lyrics sadly endure.

The movie industry is very similar. Seems that Hollywood and its writers are incapable of producing anything original with any degree of quality, and thus churns out over-FXed chuddy re-makes to generate fresh income, regardless of the fact that the originals (starring actors who could act) are superior, even in black and white.

"They don't make them like they used to" probably has more to do with the popularity of 'the old supergroups' today than fans having more disposable income in middle age, I reckon.