On being an ageing prog act

[bondegezou]

The most important thing to remember as an ageing prog act is that audiences want nostalgia. You make money, you exist, because of the old material, your classic repertoire. Next key point is that live work makes more money than studio work. With these two basic principles, everything else follows:

Play live: tour, on your own or with another act; play festivals; go on a cruise. Maybe all of those: just get out there and sell tickets. When you play, play the old stuff. At least 50% of your set should be classic material. Preferably more. 100% old is fine. If you want, you can play around with the format: play an album from beginning to end; do new arrangements (but not too much). That can provide a marketing hook to differentiate one tour from another, sell a few more tickets. A musical based on your work is useful because you don't even need to perform! A few new tunes are OK. If you can tie them to the old material, like a sequel piece, that's better.

On to releases... again, it's the old material that rules. So re-release those classic albums, but you need something to make people buy them again. A new remaster used to be enough: no more, you'll need a remix, 5.1, bonus tracks. And think big. Deluxe editions. Sell something expensive to a few, because you won't be able to sell something cheap to many.

Live albums: same principles apply. Focus on the old material. Archival releases of when you were young are a good idea, or you can do new recordings as long as you're playing the old songs.

The band name, the brand identity is vital. If you don't own the band name, litigate. A compromise is fine if that's the best you can get. "Band name featuring..." If you can't get that, use the band name in the marketing anyway: "plays the music of" and similar phrases. If you're lucky, your own personal name(s) is famous enough, so you don't need a band name.

If you insist on doing new music, as I said, connect it somehow to the old music. A sequel to a concept album or a famous track, for example. Or use some old recordings as your base. Or just cover the old classics; re-interpret them if you want. Another option is to pile on some guest stars. If you're not using a recognised band name, get guest stars from famous bands so you can still mention those band names in your marketing.

Do all this and you can have enough income to do whatever other things you want. Do all this and some fans will complain as well(!), but all this ultimately follows from fans' behaviour.

Henry

[Lebofsky]

A progressive band that relies on playing old material is, by definition, not progressive.

- Matt

[RapidRefresh]

^Do you really expect someone like Dave Cousins, at age seventy something and has been ill recently, to actually make new Strawbs music? Please think this through before responding.

[Gizmotron]

A progressive band that relies on playing old material is, by definition, not progressive.

- Matt

And if there is one thing that the members of Progressive Ears agree on, its the "definition" of Progressive music.

Oh, wait, I meant to say: almost on one here agrees on the definition of progressive music.

[Scrotum Scissor]

And if there is one thing that the members of Progressive Ears agree on, its the "definition" of Progressive music.

Well, it's good to know then that the term 'Progressive music' in reality existed long before "rock" ever got hold of it, so that the definition - which one for some strange reason seem to think is debatable - is actually granted.

[simon moon]

The suggestions in the OP may be ways to stay in business, but not very conducive to creating new, vital music.

I guess if your intention is to become a 'museum piece' of your band's music, then have at it.

But this is one of the main reasons why I am much more interested in new bands, than aging ones.

Another thing, I could care less about nostalgia. I do not connect nostalgia to music. Either the music holds up on its own merit, or it doesn't.

[markwoll]

Why would it matter if it is a"Prog" band or any other aging artist or band. Our system requires money to survive. Do what you must.

[Esoteric]

the OP clearly understands the realities, anyone commenting negatively understands the more 'progressive thinkers' or the younger end of the spectrum who may come on here, they don't understand the realities of 80% of the audience who go to these shows and have never heard of this site. Otherwise Steve Hackett wouldn't have been able to tour Genesis revisited as successfully and for so long

[Gizmotron]

the OP clearly understands the realities, anyone commenting negatively understands the more 'progressive thinkers' or the younger end of the spectrum who may come on here, they don't understand the realities of 80% of the audience who go to these shows and have never heard of this site. Otherwise Steve Hackett wouldn't have been able to tour Genesis revisited as successfully and for so long

Yup, if anyone understands the reality of the successes and failures of older Art Rock artists in today's world, it is Henry.
I believe he is addressing the financial pressures impinging on these acts, not suggesting a course to chart that allows a new band to achieve artistic integrity and personal fulfillment.

[stickman393]

Change the title to "aging, creatively-bankrupt Prog group" and I'll agree.

Evidence: RUSH (40 years counts as aging, right?)

[Garden Dreamer]

Yes, but Rush hasn't been relying on their 70's hits as a nostalgia act. They've consistently played 3/4 of their new album whenever they tour, even albums that bear no resemblance to their 70's sound.

[Jay.Dee]

What goes around, comes around. Every act reap the kind of audience they sowed themselves.

[yesman1955]

I think that Henry's blueprint could be called: "The Yes Plan"
Yes as a whole and their various "revolving-door" members
have utilized most or all of the techniques listed above starting back
in the late 80's with ABWH and their "Evening of Yes Music Live"

[veteranof1000psychicwars]

Progressive Rock nowadays falls into the following categories:

1) New bands conscious of prog rock history, taking some of the great elements of it, and redefining what has traditionally been viewed as progressive rock. Making it their own.

2) Existing bands/artists who attempt to replicate what was great and unique about '70s progressive symphonic prog.

3) Bands that were on the cutting edge of prog in the 70s, that haven't been progressive for 40 years, yet still record CDs and play live, for a dedicated audience that clings onto the idea that "they are still a great band", which is fine, but it is a charade to think that they are still creating music relevant to the type of music we discuss here.

4) Bands and artists that were on the cutting edge of prog in the 70s, and are STILL creating great, innovative 'progressive rock'.

5) Bands/artists who aren't even aware the fact that they are 'prog', and could care less...those are always the best progressive bands.

[Facelift]

Lots of different reasons why this is the case; not the least of which is that the albums from the last 30 years by the classic bands aren't generally held in very high regard; to some extent, it's a prison built by the artists themselves for not being able to make music in later decades that people want to hear. To that end, you can't blame audiences for wanting the '70s stuff, since it was of such a higher quality. Bands that produced better material in their later years (Rush, King Crimson) aren't so indebted to a handful of albums.

Then, there's the issue of maximizing profits. Bands that were once really big can continue to exist today at the highest level of profitability if they do so as a nostalgia act. But that doesn't mean other avenues aren't available. It's just that those other avenues might not yield the most monetary return. Why is it that Yes has to do things a certain way, but Hugh Hopper could do whatever he wanted until he died?

Musicians who made something of themselves other than just being in a rock band their whole lives have creative advantages, too. True, Ian Anderson had Jethro Tull playing Aqualung and Locomotive Breath every night, but Anderson also voluntarily gave up the Tull name when he split with Martin Barre and strongly features his recent work since that time. And even with Tull in the 2000s, the back catalog got mined pretty well for lots of songs that had never been hits of any sort. Anderson has been wealthy enough to not need to be a part of Jethro Tull at all, for decades, so he has the ability to take chances.

I guess the summary would be that if you are a band that once had a good amount of popularity and which had limited post-70s success, and which never acquired a vocation other than playing in the band, and who wants to continue in music (because there is no other choice) and wants to make the most amount $ doing so, then we do have a recipe for this in post #1. I don't have much interest in this sort of thing personally, though.

[timmy]

Henry, are there invisible <sarcasm> tags wrapped around this advice?

[notallwhowander]

I don't know how the OP's description is particular to prog. Doesn't this apply to any pop group/musician that had their popularity peak forty, thirty, twenty-odd years ago?

[bRETT]

^Do you really expect someone like Dave Cousins, at age seventy something and has been ill recently, to actually make new Strawbs music? Please think this through before responding.

He managed it in 2008 and 2009, so why not? Wasn't aware he was ill though, really hope he gets better soon.

[wilcox660]

Still waiting on new Brahms material. I'll settle for the old numbers until then.

[Scrotum Scissor]

the OP clearly understands the realities, anyone commenting negatively understands the more 'progressive thinkers' or the younger end of the spectrum who may come on here, they don't understand the realities of 80% of the audience who go to these shows and have never heard of this site.

Vicky, believe me; it's not that anyone commenting in what you perceive as a negative tense "don't understand the realities of 80% of the audience" - it's that the comment itself (in this case from Matt L.) had a different objective from the main intention of the OP. Yes, even artists who were ardently small-p progressive or even avant-garde in their heyday tend to return to their back catalog (and thus express outright nostalgia) when they get older - and shamelessly so. But this is beside the initial point; you can be welcomed to revisit your past if your artistic craft also next to this exhibits at least a minimum of will (if not ability) to come to grips with the present and possible future. For this to be at all doable, you first have to express an equally potent interest in such a present and/or future. For a process of cognitive-artistic evolution to simply be halted, whether it's the artist itself or this artist's audience - there's the more than viable term 'stagnation'. Which was never flattering, be it in literature, music, film or any other aesthetic manifestation. Alas the future usually belongs to the Young, there's no clue without a past - yet the question will always concern the manner in which the past is being managed.

[JJ88]

Yes, but Rush hasn't been relying on their 70's hits as a nostalgia act. They've consistently played 3/4 of their new album whenever they tour, even albums that bear no resemblance to their 70's sound.

Well, it helps that Rush have never not had major label backing. They are able to get their new stuff heard by a wider audience as a result.

Marillion also do this though they have been independent for a long time. They don't have that same 'classic rock' audience but have doubtless figured those who are still buying the albums are the same ones who are still attending their concerts, and stratify the set accordingly. The vast majority of the Fish-era material is not played.

I never went but Steve Hackett's current tour has a whole lot of new material amongst the nostalgia.

Of course, one can question the quality of the new material older bands are putting out. It's very telling that Yes have barely touched Heaven And Earth live. Did they even play more than a couple of songs?

[spacefreak]

Alas the future usually belongs to the Young, there's no clue without a past - yet the question will always concern the manner in which the past is being managed.

Exactly. And managment through nostalgia factor is -artistically- the worst path to trade.

[bondegezou]

Yup, if anyone understands the reality of the successes and failures of older Art Rock artists in today's world, it is Henry.
I believe he is addressing the financial pressures impinging on these acts, not suggesting a course to chart that allows a new band to achieve artistic integrity and personal fulfillment.

Indeed. My point is not to critique, or condone, but to open a discussion of the commercial realities for these acts. And those realities are dictated by us, what we, as fans, want.

Change the title to "aging, creatively-bankrupt Prog group" and I'll agree.

Evidence: RUSH (40 years counts as aging, right?)

I think that Henry's blueprint could be called: "The Yes Plan"
Yes as a whole and their various "revolving-door" members
have utilized most or all of the techniques listed above starting back
in the late 80's with ABWH and their "Evening of Yes Music Live"

There are exceptions, but not many I think. You can call it the Yes plan, but it applies as much to King Crimson, Genesis/Steve Hackett, ELP and the individual members, Jethro Tull/Ian Anderson, Pink Floyd/Roger Waters, UK/Eddie Jobson &c.

Rush -- who are somewhat younger (in terms of their peak popularity) than those others -- have done better at keeping new music to the fore, but even Rush have, in the last few years, done tours without a new album, and tours with more emphasis on old material.

Henry

[bondegezou]

I don't know how the OP's description is particular to prog. Doesn't this apply to any pop group/musician that had their popularity peak forty, thirty, twenty-odd years ago?

True.

Henry

[JJ88]

^I wouldn't put Genesis as part of this category, simply because their own nostalgia tour was always intended as a one-off really (well, one for Europe and one for the US). It's their absence which allowed Steve Hackett to do so well playing that material, I think.