http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150414-are-brands-bigger-than-bands
On the Record
| 14 April 2015
The Who? When the brand is bigger than the band
Greg Kot
Several acts will go on huge arena-filling tours this year – without many of their key members. Why doesn’t the public care? Greg Kot takes a look.
The Who may be half of what they once were, but their bank account will keep expanding on tour this summer.
Last time around, in 2012-13, the paydays were pretty spectacular: $3m (£2m) in gross revenue for two nights’ work at the 02 Arena in London, $1.2m (£820,000) for a single show at Madison Square Garden in New York, and $1.7m (£1.16m) for two nights at the Allstate Arena outside Chicago. Overall, the 2013 US tour raked in more than $13m (£8.8m).
Not bad for a group that is now more about the brand than the band.
The Who – even with two founding members long gone – kick off what is sure to be a massively successful tour on Wednesday (15 April). And other bands who are missing key players from the eras when they scored their biggest hits and built their arena-filling reputations are touring like royalty in 2015, including AC/DC, Journey, Queen and The Smashing Pumpkins
The Who have lost drummer Keith Moon, who died in 1978, and bassist John Entwistle, who died in 2002. Who fanatics know that even though Pete Townshend wrote the songs and Roger Daltrey often sang them, Entwistle and especially Moon were critical ingredients in the band’s most indelible tracks. The distinctive contributions of Moon and Entwistle to the likes of Won’t Get Fooled Again and My Generation make them virtually impossible to replace. Is The Who really The Who without them? Yet their fans don’t seem to care or notice. They’re happy to pay top dollar for what is essentially a very good Who cover band.
No logo
“I can’t explain,” the more sceptical Who diehard might say of this phenomenon, while quoting one of the band’s classic singles. Author Naomi Klein provided some insight into this trend in her ground-breaking 2000 book No Logo. Decades ago, marketing gurus for major corporations began tapping into “a psychological/anthropological examination of what brands mean to the culture and to people's lives,” she wrote. Companies thrive by producing “images of their brands” and consumers buy in.
The Who have released only one album of new music in the last 30 years, but their brand remains powerful, thanks to constant recycling of their oldies on TV commercials and programmes, Broadway plays, live albums and greatest-hits repackages and tours.
The Who are hardly the only band cashing in on the power of their brand, and the exceptions are few. Robert Plant has rejected multimillion-dollar Led Zeppelin reunion shows partly because he believes that Zeppelin isn’t Zeppelin without drummer John Bonham, who died in 1980. But losing a key musician or two hasn’t stopped other bands from forging on with replacements.
Even though AC/DC are without founding guitarist and riff master Malcolm Young and drummer Phil Rudd, the show will go on this summer with a stadium tour that launched last weekend (10 April) at the Coachella music festival in California. The face of the band remains guitarist Angus Young in his schoolboy outfit, but in many ways he’s presiding over a hard-rock machine that barely resembles its classic ‘70s incarnation, with only one other member remaining from that era: bassist Cliff Williams.
The Smashing Pumpkins roll on with only Billy Corgan left from the quartet’s ‘90s hit-making days. They’re headlining arenas and amphitheatres with Marilyn Manson this summer. Even without the distinctive voice of lead singer Steve Perry, the remaining members of Journey – including Perry soundalike vocalist Arnel Pineda – are still touring as Journey and playing a May residency in Las Vegas for tickets as high as $450 (£300) a night. Freddy Mercury died in 1991 and bassist John Deacon retired, but Queen continues to fill arenas as Queen with guitarist Brian May, drummer Roger Taylor and a prominently co-billed Mercury fill-in, whether Paul Rodgers or, more recently, Adam Lambert.
Going solo
What’s in a name? Artists, their managers and record companies have long known that the answer is ‘everything’. Vocal groups would splinter in the ‘50s and ‘60s and often compete for the brand name that gave them a glimmer of fame. The most notorious example might be The Platters, whose hit-making line-ups broke up numerous times, leading to a complicated 1965 legal tussle over which band members could tour under The Platters moniker. The lawsuits continued to fly for the next 50 years.
In the ‘80s, Roger Waters and his former bandmates David Gilmour, Rick Wright and Nick Mason fought a protracted court battle over the rights to the Pink Floyd name. Gilmour’s side eventually got to keep the name, and toured stadiums under the Floyd banner for the next decade, while Waters primarily played theatres. The difference in income was enormous. Even though Waters wrote the majority of Floyd’s music, his first solo tour in 1984 lost money, according to the bassist, whereas three years later his ex-bandmates pulled in $135m (£92m) touring as Pink Floyd.
Promoters note that while solo tours by musicians from prominent bands can do decent business, ticket sales rarely approach those piled up by their more famous brand-name bands. The Who’s Daltrey and Townshend know the score. As solo acts, promoters say, Daltrey can fill a club or a small theatre, and Townshend could probably draw enough to play slightly larger venues. But they can’t match the box-office haul brought by branding their collaboration as The Who, no matter how many replacement musicians they have to hire. They know that it’s the brand that matters, not who’s in the broken band.
Greg Kot is the music critic at the Chicago Tribune. His work can be found here.
I have mixed emotions.
Other than the Beatles, there is (was) probably not another band so identifiably stamped with the personality of the individual members. I always thought Pete kinda outlined this within the story behind Quadraphenia.
Keith Moon's presence, John Entwistle's stoicism (does that term work?) were as essential to the Who as Ringo and George were to the Fab 4.
Some bands can go on with a virtual entire new crew. Lynnard Skynnard (I still can't spell the name!) is probably the best example, but there are tons of others. Bands like Grand Funk Railroad, Foghat, Steppenwolf, Ten Years After, the Beach Boys and others still play shows billed under the original name but usually show up as skeleton crews with a bunch of sidemen. Fans either take it or leave it.
I accept that Pete and Roger are out there presenting the music of the Who. From what I've seen on television, they do an acceptable job.
They're almost like Bob Dylan in the sense that any move that they make seems to be done in an original style or vein. When Pete was smashing guitars it was done with artistic intent. They even made "selling out" an artistic statement.
That article is drivel.
Nonetheless - I have come to the conclusion, just my opinion, that all these Classic Rockers that are still touring, regardless if they are still original or have suffered band member losses, are only out there for fans that have not seen them, but want to.
I love The Who or The Two or whatever you wish to call them, but I am passing on this tour, simply because I have seen them several times.
Same with The Stones, seen them several times, am passing.
Those tours will be wildly successful - and I hope people that have never seen them, but have always wanted to, go - spend the money - have a good time.
It is a pointless argument to discuss why The Who is still calling themselves by that name.
A ton of bands fit into this category, a pointless argument, in my opinion.
Agree that the article is drivel. I can give a pass to a band whose number is decreased by death (as opposed to say kicking out an integral original member reducing it too to 1/2 of its originals).
People should hear live Who music, and who better to present that than the remaining originals who have the greatest motivation to present a good show?
What is funny about the article is that at least where I am, there was a Groupon for the slow-selling Who show months ago and now the venue is selling a significant amount of tix at half price. Doesn't seem to support the brand hypothesis.
Finally, whether they call it Daltrey-Townshend or the Who, what difference does it make musically? None. I'll be seeing them next week.
This argument about bands missing original members and going on tour has been recycled here so many times that it's really tired.
Regarding The Who, I saw their last tour in February 2013. It was GREAT. As long as a band can still bring it, what's the harm done? No one is going to tell me that with Roger and Pete on board, it's not still The Who.
I don't hear too many people complaining about The Allman Brothers Band touring the last 15 years of their career with only 3 of 6 original members and neither of the original two guitar players on board. And this, from a "guitar band". Because it was obvious.........THEY COULD STILL BRING IT.
What I DO have a problem with is a band like Van Halen making a money grab with a singer who acts like a clown and sounds as ridiculously bad as David Lee Roth. And we all know that Roth is their original lead singer.
[Edited on 4/14/2015 by robslob]
... I don't hear too many people complaining about The Allman Brothers Band touring the last 15 years of their career with only 3 of 6 original members ...
Whahuhhhh? You never heard anybody complain? 😉
what I can't figure is who is on tour these days? roger and pete, brian wilson, steve winwood, stevie wonder, dylan & the stones. is this 2015 or 1965?? if somebody had told me back then all these folks would still be around much less touring, I would have been very surprised...
I look at this article as more about selling a brand and not about money grabs or moving on without members.
“I can’t explain,” the more sceptical Who diehard might say of this phenomenon, while quoting one of the band’s classic singles. Author Naomi Klein provided some insight into this trend in her ground-breaking 2000 book No Logo. Decades ago, marketing gurus for major corporations began tapping into “a psychological/anthropological examination of what brands mean to the culture and to people's lives,” she wrote. Companies thrive by producing “images of their brands” and consumers buy in.
but I do agree the author didn't follow thru very well with explaining and just started listing bands on tour.
The Who has always been Daltrey/ Townsend just as the Stones will always be Jagger/ Richards.
As long as those Duo's are alive and want to tour the bands live on.
Maybe never the same as the originals but let's face it these guys are in their 70's and decades away from releasing any memorable music so if they want to continue touring and people want to see them why should they stop?
Those tours will be wildly successful - and I hope people that have never seen them, but have always wanted to, go - spend the money - have a good time.
Imho, a lot of this "success" is driven by social media and the fans need to inform everyone where they are going only to be followed by a lousy hand held device recording posted on Facebook. The music is just not that important anymore; it has evolved into a sing a long with the tunes you know from overplay on classic rock radio. Does it even matter who is on stage these days?... I don't believe so. Not as long as the singer is on key. Hell, it doesn't even matter who is singing, just ask Journey.
"I was there!... here is two minutes of 'Who are you' filmed from 300 feet away"!!!
Imho, a lot of this "success" is driven by social media
It has nothing to do with Baby Boomers wanting to take a night to relive their youth for a few hours? 😉
as far as bands as brands, can the big brands continue to tour and market the band after all of the members are dead and replaced?
are the members of the band as important as the brand itself? images and copyrighted material are sold long after the artists are dead, could new members be inserted and say the ABB go on forever? if a band/brand wanted to work it that way?
as far as bands as brands, can the big brands continue to tour and market the band after all of the members are dead and replaced?
Gene Simmons is already planning on that very thing with Kiss.
Two bands stand out in my mind as frauds that still tour and should be ashamed of themselves.
The notlaws and Marshall Tucker.
so glad I got to see the original Who-Keith Moon is irreplacable,though Kenny Jones was good.
The original Lynard Skynard opened for the Who once and belive me they don't compare to the Skynard touring now. Grand Funk without Farner is just..not..grand funk. The original Allman Bros were stand alone w/Duane but the recent mix was great too. Sometimes things work & others they don't. Page & Plant were great but Zeppelin were gamechanging. Where it goes off the rails is when the current inferior lineup of bands is being sold to younger fans (who don't know the difference) & using it as a cash cow for so many middle men. There's a name for that -Rip*$f. The Who without Moon was good,but with Entwistle & Moon gone & Daltry looking the way he does...there's just so many other good shows out there to see at 1/4 to1/10th the price..Galactic,Korn,Godsmack...
quote:
Imho, a lot of this "success" is driven by social mediaIt has nothing to do with Baby Boomers wanting to take a night to relive their youth for a few hours?
And Baby Boomers having the money to spend on a few hours of fun.
My problem with the Who is that Ticketmaster will not let me pick my own seats. I'm going to have to go to the Verizon Center to pick where I want to sit. Because of that hassle I can easily see myself not going to the show.
I didn't go see the Quadrophenia tour and regret missing the concert. Not because of the quality of the Daltry's vocals, or Pete's playing, but simply because of that amazing album performed in total.
I don't think this show will be as good. The setlist is pretty much already written. Not a terrible night of songs, but it isn't Quadrophenia.
I Can't Explain
Substitute
The Seeker
Who Are You
The Kids Are Alright
I Can See for Miles
Pictures of Lily
My Generation
Magic Bus
Behind Blue Eyes
Join Together
You Better You Bet
I'm One
Love, Reign O'er Me
Eminence Front
So Sad About Us
A Quick One (While He's Away)
Amazing Journey
Pinball Wizard
Sparks
See Me, Feel Me
Baba O'Riley
Won't Get Fooled Again
Two bands stand out in my mind as frauds that still tour and should be ashamed of themselves.
The notlaws and Marshall Tucker.
Don't forget Skynyrd.
Two bands stand out in my mind as frauds that still tour and should be ashamed of themselves.
The notlaws and Marshall Tucker.
Don't forget Skynyrd.
Skynyrd is a given by default.
quote:
Two bands stand out in my mind as frauds that still tour and should be ashamed of themselves.The notlaws and Marshall Tucker.
Don't forget Skynyrd.
Creedence Clearwater Revisited. But anyone who is dumb enough to buy a ticket for them instead of John Fogerty is getting what they deserve.
i have seen the Who at woodstock then with Entwisitle in the 90s. Thenthe Quadrophia tour a few years ago. I am going again this October to the show. Still a lot of fun and now a tradition-took my son to his first concert ever about a year or 2 before Entwistle passed away and we have seen them ever since. Hope they keep going- still a blast of a night
One thing for sure, they're not gonna die before they get old! 😉
I think one of the issues is vitality and whether the band is trying or mailing it in. Part of what many of us feared the last 2/3 years with the ABB was whether age and health had taken to much of a toll, whether it was Gregg's struggles to remember lyrics, or the sense that Derek was ready to move on.
One of the things I l look for in deciding if I'll shell out for a ticket is whether anything different is showing up in the setlist. Though I would much prefer Mick Taylor to come back to the Stones permanently they have been pulling out oddities for about 10 years. This has made it tolerable even though Ronnie Lane's playing leaves me cold
the other issue is do the replacements have anything to do organically with the band or are they just hired guns. IN the ABB case Derek and Warren were brilliant players who were part of the family. When they announced they were leaving, the only way I cold see for the band to be legitimate moving forward was to bring back Dickey which ain't happening or a lineup with Chuck and Jackie P, which would have been REAL interesting
Linus, I'll agree that Ronnie Laine's playing ain't what it used to be - being dead and all that. 😉
Nonetheless - I have come to the conclusion, just my opinion, that all these Classic Rockers that are still touring, regardless if they are still original or have suffered band member losses, are only out there for fans that have not seen them, but want to.
For the fans that haven't seen them? Well I guess you could say that they hope new people buy tickets and help sell a show out. But Pete/Mick etc don't care who is buying it as long as they do.
They do it for money. Nothing wrong with that as they are musicians. But these guys know that they are sticking it to people with outrageous costs. Laughing all the way to the bank. In a case like Pete, he readily admits to hating The Who. The pay day is just to big to ignore.
If Pete is doing it so some new person can see the band then he sure doesn't like that guy to demand such prices. 😉
Bands are brands. Hendrix, Doors and on and on, all make more money now than ever. Pete would play a hall solo at much lower prices and Roger opened for Clapton. Together 1.7 million for a night as The Who.
Well, I'm taking my sons to see them next month for the first concert. They both really enjoy the music.
That said, I don't have much problem with the Who. They more than make up for it with their
Teenage Cancer trust shows in the UK and the US. A charity near and dear to Roger and Pete has
more than gotten on board with over the years. So to say Pete still hates the Who, from interviews
since Entwistle's death, it would seem he embraces the band more, despite coming to loggerheads
with Roger every now and again.
I've been out priced of the Stones since the 90's. Just sayin'
I chalk the astronomical ticket prices up to music piracy. Bands used to make their big money in the stores; tours were to build up interest in the music. Now the tour itself is the main source of income.
On the other hand if not for the piracy the groups would play live a lot less frequency. If you remember when CD's first came out and everyone "duplicated" their collections the bands were hardly ever on the road.
I chalk the astronomical ticket prices up to music piracy. Bands used to make their big money in the stores; tours were to build up interest in the music. Now the tour itself is the main source of income.
On the other hand if not for the piracy the groups would play live a lot less frequency. If you remember when CD's first came out and everyone "duplicated" their collections the bands were hardly ever on the road.
To digress slightly and possibly even hijack the thread - you are describing (in part) the self-destruction/collapse of the music industry.
I'll sound like a whining old man, but I'm actually only echoing words that I've heard said from long-time pro musicians. The internet age has produced a generation of consumers who want ... no, EXPECT to get music, movies and literature for free.
The whole "piracy" issue has been aided by CD's and stacked burner/duplication systems. There was a time when if you wanted to make a cassette copy of your new album each copy would have to be made in real time. If there was an hour of music on the album (or tape), it would take an hour to make a copy. With CD's, you just put the original disc in a tray and insert dupe discs (from 4 to 20 depending on your copier) and let her rip. Multiple copies in less time than it would take to play through the first song!
Sony's big noise about piracy literally made me laugh! I remember reading all the articles and glancing over at my Sony CD burner! The company making the biggest noise actually makes and sells the hardware used to carry out the crime!
I guess I can't blame the dinosaur acts of the 60's and 70's for price-gouging. They still have the popularity that they built and worked for. If they can get $100 - $1,000.00 (and beyond) for tickets - more power to 'em ... I guess. Younger acts, upcoming bands and great acts from the earlier eras who never made the critical mass -appeal are still playing to small clubs where there is often no cover charge. If a musician can make $100.00 for playing 5 hours these days, they're doing about as well as can be expected.
Long live rock!
Gaaak!!!!!!!!!!!! Rusty, I can't believe I made that mistake. lol Next thing you know I'll be talking about how Nicky Hopkins is doing such a good job on keyboards for them.
I chalk the astronomical ticket prices up to music piracy. Bands used to make their big money in the stores; tours were to build up interest in the music. Now the tour itself is the main source of income.
On the other hand if not for the piracy the groups would play live a lot less frequency. If you remember when CD's first came out and everyone "duplicated" their collections the bands were hardly ever on the road.
Some flaws with that. The most obvious being that most of these bands don't even release any new material so no cash loss there. Most fans of these bands already have much of their classic material so no loss there. Also piracy is hardly new. How many here ever taped something from a friend or the radio? A simple look at the Vines/Trades section here is a display of piracy as the vast majority of bands did not allow taping and none of the bands are profiting in any way.
Also the big money has never been made off albums. The two biggest money makers for most bands is the gate and especially merchandise. Bands have always used these to pay back the debts of recording and releasing an album. The tour has always been the main source of income.
These "classic" bands charge outrageous prices because they snorted all the cash that they originally made. 😉 They also know that people will pay as they do tour after tour. These guys laugh at how much they can pull in per show now. Profits from a handful of shows matches what an entire tour used to. Again especially for merchandise where the band's cut is much higher than any other royalties.
They are rich and greedy and making it while they can. That is totally their right and I would likely do the same. But you have to call it what it is - greed. Weeks ago Pete stated yet again that he hates the Who. Mick and Keith can't stand each other. Not about the love of their music, it is just that the offers for a tour are too big to resist.
Piracy has nothing to do with the price of a Who/Stones ticket. It is senior citizens padding their bank accounts.
prices are all relative to what everything else costs
I am paying 440 a ticket for my seats to a first round NY Ranger playoff game and should they make the finals, the FACE value on the ticket is 1,025
I ate in a great NYC restaurant for dinner with my wife and the bill was $600 with one bottle of wine
So 200 for a concert ticket does not seem extravagant. Understood that many folks are priced out of the market but the prices are in line with everything else out there and even cheap comparatively speaking
