Well what about Classical Music and Andre Rieu?
Last time I looked, HIS show was pretty elaborate and Showbizzy...!

And Ian, I think Country Music has been GREATLY affected by 20th/21st Century Money Making.

Look at Garth Brooks' Events/Concerts - and many other Country Artists that have followed Suit since then.
Even the very nature of the Form has Crossed FIRMLY over into the Mainstream Pop Territory.

I find this a worthy Topic in General, but let's not make it about whoever's favourite Genre is less affected by the "Evils" of the Corporate world, and is therefore *ahem* "better".

I actually agree with Diki's take on this.

Yes, that's true, HB, but I did say there were exceptions ...come to think of it, there ain't a lot of purity left in Country....I hardly even class some Country artists as "Country" anymore...like you said, it's more "Pop" and perhaps, a bit of "Rock".

I liked the "old" stuff better...Hank Williams, Floyd Cramer...

But, I think Jazz has mainly stayed true to form.

And...as SemiLive said, folk music hasn't changed much either.



[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 10-25-2009).]

There's purity, honesty and heart left in any genre... Thing is, we're talking about a band that achieved incredible success. Worldwide success. I see no more 'purity' in commercial jazz, or commercial country, or commercial Classical. They are all doing it for exactly the same reason that U2 are...

In fact, if you consider that U2 aren't even breaking even on the tour, yet, that shows a LOT more 'purity' than many others. How many jazz stars, or classical stars, or country stars will keep a tour going on that scale (or any, really ) if it doesn't make them some money PRONTO..?

Looks to me like U2 like playing more than they like money... that's pretty 'pure' in MY book...

That sounds like a lot of us here on SZ...we alwaysthink about the music first, and then the money....don't we?

At the rate I'm going, I should be able to retire comfortably at 97.

My retirement plan is to die on stage.

One less load-out...

There's always an upside to anything!

What I read of the article led me to believe that while U2 had not YET made any profit, future concerts would put them over the hump ... PLUS, we don't really know what 'expenses' might be included in the total ...

t.

I thought the same thing... it might take them several months to break even but then, they make $XXX million profit.

Don't know if I agree with you on that. Unless when you say 'playing', you mean 'staying in the spotlight', 'being adored by millions of fans', 'worshiped as gods', 'constantly being told that they are as good or better than ever, even when way past their prime (Rolling Stones?)', 'satisfying the need to (continue to) feel young and relevant', or maybe just testing the waters to see if they've still 'got it'.

I think the guys that still "like playing more than they like money" are the ones that, despite their wealth and fame, will drop by the local pub and sit in with the house band. Happens frequently in Jazz, 'though few jazz musicians have the fame, wealth, recognition, notoriety, and star power of the average rock star (could be part of the price you pay for putting 'the music' first). Of course, there IS something to be said for tooling around in your own jet, owning castles in the south of France, banging supermodels and movie stars, and trashing hotel rooms with impunity. I guess it just depends on what's important to you.

So, what's it going to be, 20+ years of being Janet Joplin, Jim Morrison, Jimmi Hendrix, OR 70+ years of being say, Quincy Jones.

chas

I love it when guys like Eric Clapton play small venues, even doing some acoustic sets, or get a bunch of guys together for what ends up to be a 'blues' jam ...
BTW, Springsteen has been known to do an unpublicized set or two in a small club in NJ on occasion ...
t.

This is exactly what Donny has been saying all along. It's not about the equipment. It's about the music we produce.

Tom