What Everyone Gets Wrong About Their Favorite Artist

Long careers in music are rare today because the industry has shifted back to its roots, where artists often appeal to younger audiences who age out of fandom, leaving artists to chase the next generation.

Hey everybody! I have Jim Barber back for the third time on the channel. Welcome, Jim!

Thank you, Rick. So, Jim and I were talking the other day, remember? I was sitting out in the backyard, and we were having this conversation about why young artists don't have long careers anymore. It's uncommon to have long careers now. Jim said, "I think it's really strange that we grew up in an era where people had such long careers; the anomaly is the end of the 60s through the end of the 20th century, and not the way things are now." He continued, "Now we're sort of back to normal, the way things were in the 30s, the 40s, the 50s, up into most of the 60s." I thought, "Wow, that's such an interesting take," and I suggested we should really talk about that.

So, let's pick a group that had an incredibly long career and discuss that. Who comes to mind? I think we should talk about The Rolling Stones or Bob Dylan, two artists who are both still out touring. I'm not sure if they've made relevant records recently, but Dylan probably made some relevant records well into his fourth decade. He made some bad records in between, but with the Stones, we were talking about "Start Me Up." When I think of relevant records, I think of when they had a big single in 1981. So, from 1963 to 1965, "Satisfaction" came out, and I think it's really wild that they had important records for almost 20 years. However, you say that this is actually not the norm and is quite unusual.

For most of the history of the record business, the audience has been teenagers. Once a generation of teenagers aged out, grew up, and got a job, they quit buying records, and you had to capture the next generation.

Now, let's talk about a different band, U2. The people who started following U2, let's say they were 18 and 19 in 1980. Bono was born in 1960, so he was 20, while the other two guys were 19. The two of them were 22 or 19 in the band, and their audience was primarily teenagers and people in their 20s at the beginning. I have a pretty negative take on that; I actually think U2 was the one band of their generation that was adopted and approved by the generation before. The Jan Wenner Rolling Stone crowd decided, "Hey, U2's a band we can get behind," and their fans were probably older. U2 fans were not Duran Duran fans, who were a band that really did appeal to young people.

When I went to see U2 back in the day—however many years ago I can't even remember—I was their age. So, when I attended their concerts, it was people my age. I was contemporary with the band. Historically, however, bands would be older than their audience.

Let's talk about that for a second. Why is that? When the Beatles came up, their fans were definitely younger than they were. Part of it was that music was for kids; popular music was. Frank Sinatra's fans were younger than he was in the 1940s. He may be the first artist to reinvent himself and have a longer career because when he came back on Capitol Records in the 1950s, he sort of created an adult market for music that had never existed before. Then the next generation came along, and when rock artists started making albums, they said, "Oh, we can graduate."

So, if we go back to U2, let's say that their average listener in 1980 was around 20 years old. By 2004, those people would be 24. I would say that the demographic for U2 by the time they released The Unforgettable Fire was such that their audience had aged significantly. People who were 5, 10, or even 15 years older were still in the record-buying market and were fans of U2.

Would you say the same thing about R.E.M.?

No, I think R.E.M. actually did not cooperate with the powers that be as well as U2 did. We love U2; we know how much people love them. But U2 definitely played into the iconography of what people expected a '70s rock band to be. In contrast, R.E.M. followed their own muse a bit more, which may have been to their creative benefit but to their career detriment over time. That's a band that I look at who did exactly what they wanted, and maybe U2 did exactly what they wanted too, but whatever they were doing fit their elders' ideal of what a rock band should be.

In R.E.M.'s career, from 1981 to 1996, they obviously put out records after that, and some of them were big hits.

=> 00:05:06

Staying true to your creative vision can lead to artistic growth, even if it means sacrificing mainstream success.

In discussing the evolution of rock bands, one cannot help but draw comparisons between U2 and R.E.M. When asked if they would say the same about R.E.M. as they do about U2, the response was clear: "No, I think RM actually did not cooperate with the powers that be as well as U2 did." While both bands have garnered immense love from fans, it is noted that U2 "definitely played into the iconography of what people expected a rock band to be." In contrast, R.E.M. "followed their own muse a bit more," which may have been to their creative benefit but arguably to their career detriment over time.

R.E.M.'s career spanned from 1981 to 1996, during which they released several records that achieved significant success, particularly in Europe. While they had big hits in America, it is fair to say that their success was not as pronounced as in Europe, especially through their album Monster. This creates an interesting parallel between the two bands, as they emerged from the same moment and generation of music. They represent a new generation distinct from the 60s and early 70s Boomer bands, marking a shift in the musical landscape.

The crossover between their audiences is noteworthy. By 1990, with the release of Out of Time, and then Automatic for the People in 1992, both bands became staples of college radio, appealing to the kids of the 80s. They were described as the "two Twin Towers of College radio in that era." When it came to weathering the grunge movement, it seems R.E.M. fared slightly better. The reason cited was that Kurt Cobain was not associating with Bono but rather with Michael Stipe. During this period, R.E.M. was producing some of their best records, while U2 seemed to lose their way for a few years after the release of Achtung Baby.

A pivotal moment for U2 came in 1997 with the release of the Pop record, which was considered a commercial failure in the U.S. This led them to embrace Euro dance music, a decision that some argue was perhaps "10 years too early." This shift mirrored what Coldplay would later do, as they moved away from American rock music to appeal more to European audiences. However, U2 made a strategic retreat with the album All That You Can't Leave Behind, which won a Grammy for Record of the Year with the song Beautiful Day. This album was a return to form, appealing to fans who had loved them a decade earlier, effectively dialing back to a sound that resonated with their earlier audience.

Reflecting on the longevity of bands, it's noted that The Beatles had an eight-year career before moving on to solo projects. This was considered the norm at the time, and the British press found it odd that The Beatles lasted into 1967. Their audience managed to grow with them, which was a new path for the music business. As the next generation of executives entered the industry, they recognized the potential of selling records to an aging audience, who continued to buy music well into their 40s, especially after the transition to CDs in the 80s.

Artists like Billy Joel also adapted to changing musical styles. His album Glass Houses was a new wave record that showcased his ability to co-opt contemporary styles successfully. Similarly, The Rolling Stones embraced disco, demonstrating that older artists could adapt rather than be replaced by new talent. This adaptability contrasts sharply with the past, where once a sound was deemed over, artists would typically move on. The era we grew up in allowed for incredibly long careers, challenging the notion that artists must continually reinvent themselves to remain relevant.

=> 00:09:27

Music evolves, and so do audiences; what mattered to us as teens is often irrelevant to the next generation. Embrace the change.

In the 80s, the music scene saw artists like Billy Joel embracing new styles. Joel, for instance, made the Glass Houses record, which was a new wave record during the height of the New Wave movement. Artists often adapted their sounds to co-opt new styles, and Joel's guitar-driven record was a hugely successful endeavor for him. Similarly, The Rolling Stones ventured into disco, showcasing how older artists would adapt their styles rather than making way for new artists. This phenomenon is quite peculiar, especially considering that in 1966, it was almost unthinkable for an artist to change their sound once it had peaked; they would simply move on to the next trend.

We grew up in an era where artists enjoyed incredibly long careers. For instance, the fact that Santana had a hit record over 30 years after his first one is inconceivable. This might be one of the largest gaps in music history, with Santana selling 12 million records well into his career. Another band worth mentioning is Coldplay, which has a new record out now featuring several co-writes, including contributions from Max Martin. Coldplay has been together since the mid-90s, with their first record released around 1999. Now, 25 years into their career, Chris Martin has announced that they plan to retire next year. They have reinvented themselves by working with outside writers, similar to what Aerosmith has done in the past. However, it seems that at some point, Coldplay stopped being a rock band. By 2010 or 2012, it became unclear who their audience was, as many people I know who liked Coldplay's first three records began to abandon them around the time of the X&Y album.

Another band that illustrates the oddities of this music evolution is Pearl Jam. After just one record, Pearl Jam completely abandoned the traditional notions of what it meant to be a successful rock band. They turned their backs on radio and didn’t focus on writing singles for their albums, even though they did have great singles. Notably, they chose not to make videos for these singles, which meant they never crossed back over to mainstream pop. Despite this, they have maintained a loyal fan base, selling out 25,000-seat venues, akin to the Grateful Dead. Their long career has been built on a refusal to conform to the mainstream music scene.

Now, let's talk about one of your favorite bands, the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Jim, who doesn't particularly enjoy the Chili Peppers, acknowledges that they have had hit records since the late 80s, thanks to their collaboration with Rick Rubin. They have managed to weather the storms of changing musical landscapes and have had successful singles, but it’s hard to gauge whether their audience is growing or if they are attracting younger fans.

Reflecting on the past, if we were teenagers in the early 80s, it would have been baffling to consider listening to music from 1942. Back then, music from 40 years ago felt completely irrelevant to us. We were exposed to music from 20 or 25 years earlier, which was already a stretch. However, today’s kids are listening to music that their grandparents might have enjoyed. This raises the question: does it even matter to kids if they are listening to older music? In 1962, it certainly mattered to kids. For example, I played a Coldplay song for my daughter, Leila, and she immediately recognized Chris Martin's voice, even though she doesn’t listen to Coldplay regularly.

Leila's musical tastes lean more towards contemporary artists like Sabrina Carpenter and Billie Eilish, but she also enjoys classics like The Police. Our kids have been raised in households filled with diverse music, which may not be a fair comparison to our own experiences. If I consider what her friends are interested in, it’s mostly what’s trending on TikTok.

It’s important to remember that once people turn 40, they often start complaining about young bands and the music scene. However, it’s crucial to recognize that music is not always meant for them; things change, and the younger generation doesn’t necessarily care about the opinions of those who came before them. If you don’t understand the current music landscape, that’s probably not a bad thing. I would love to know your thoughts on this topic, so feel free to leave a comment. Also, check out Jim's Substack, "Stars after Stars after Stars." Thanks for watching!