Some bands last. Others don’t. This is one undeniable fact of the fickle and ever-evolving music industry that has remained a given across generations. Longevity has got to be the ultimate music accolade; what better proof of your success than to still be appealing to listeners, say, twenty-five years after beginning? Subjective opinions aside, even the most heard-hearted critic must have to concede defeat after so many years of touring, recording and sustained popularity.
But what is the defining factor in deeming a band or artist to have lasted? Is it just a straight case of counting years – a band still together X number of years later? Does the artist have to be producing ‘new’ music, or can popularity of their hits in the ’70s count towards awarding them the ‘lasted’ title?
Some examples spring to mind. Established in 1989 , Blur are about to release ‘The Box’, a super-album comprising all of the preceding seven studio albums plus no less than sixty-five new songs. With a BAFTA appearance under their belt already this year, and a very smart promotions team, Blur seem to be running at full steam with no sign whatsoever of slowing down.
Then there is Madonna. Pop artist supreme, this woman’s disturbingly ageless face and yet consistently youthful ‘look’ (and music videos) are matched only by her seemingly effortless attempts to grace the charts, well, whenever she feels like it really. Modern pop culture had seen nothing like it until perhaps the entrance of Lady Gaga, a comparison which Madge allegedly cannot stand by the way.
So far simply being alive has been one of the criteria giving the yes or no to an artist or band’s enduring appeal. Perhaps overwhelming success in a band’s lifetime ought to be an indicator of what might have been, if it hadn’t been cut short by an untimely death or two; who knows what Nirvana, The Beatles, Elvis… (the list is endless) might have done with the rest of their careers. One thing’s for sure their music has definitely lasted, so maybe it’s irrelevant to ask is the band still touring/recording, if people are still listening then the box is ticked.
A discussion such as this inevitably leads to fondly wondering which musical stars of today will still be popular with our grandchildren, or even our grandchildren’s grandchildren, as they load up their super-small super-fast probably-only-a-chip-in-their-ear ipods. Will Beyonce still be wowing with her bootilicious dance moves and ever-increasing range of vocal key changes? Or will (heaven please, please, forbid) the likes of Justin Bieber and One Direction have produced seven or eight platinum rated albums and be about to embark on their 15th world tour?
Personally if I was a betting woman (which I’m not), I would be looking at bands such as The Arctic Monkeys, whose ability to reinvent their sound while maintaining enough originality through Turner’s dulcet Sheffield tones to retain original fans, may just give them a fighting chance. Or Adele, whose already timeless voice reminiscent of early soul, is coupled with a charisma which will continue to endear her to millions.
The debate could range for pages, as of course there are millions of worthy bands across genres and ranging from the global superstars to the niche cult followings; remember there is nothing in the rules to say you have to be big to achieve longevity. Happily as the bands of the world battle it out between them, we can sit back and enjoy their efforts safe in the clichéd knowledge that only time will tell.
I agree with your Artic Monkeys prediction. Their name alone is brilliant enough to achieve immortality. The one obvious example missing from your excellent piece, however, is Bruce Springsteen. Whatever it takes to be remembered and revered and enjoyed, he has it. If you haven’t seen him live, do it before its too late.