Fewer recordings needed and more live performances

[maturefan]

An item on the BBC News website today reports that sales of recorded music in Britain continue to fall. Am I right in assuming this is a world-wide trend? I know many Musers were unable to get to a show on the Drones tour because the tour didn't come to a place they could easily travel to. I think a young, healthy band like Muse will need to record less and tour more. I'm sure Musers would be happy to see a simple, stripped down performance if it means they get to see the band live. If I had a choice between seeing them live and waiting one more year for the next album or having an album every three years but only seeing them every six years, I would choose the former. What does everyone else think?

[Hat]

I don't understand, are you saying that they should tour more because they don't make any money making records anyway, or that touring more would raise the record sales?

 

And Muse are neither young nor healthy enough for more touring. Matt needed like 6 vocal breaks at every gig, and sounded like he was well on his way to getting nodules.

 

And why would you only see them every 6 years? Muse tour Europe constantly. In Britain you had loads of chances to see them in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016. I mean it even says in your sig that you've seen them 3 times in 3 years.

[FabriPav]

A young, healthy band? What is this, 2003?

[maturefan]

A young, healthy band? What is this, 2003?

 

What does 2003 have to do with it? I love a lot of the bands who were young in the 1960s and still tour although they are in their 70s. There is less chance of a musician in his thirties having health problems than a man in his seventies. A lot of the older guys need the money and have no option but Muse clearly love performing live so it wouldn't be a chore if only they didn't feel they had to have a show that requires a massive stage and crew every time they go on tour.

 

Now, Fabri, do you have anything intelligent to say or do you HAVE to post every five seconds because your adoring public expects it?

[Hat]

What does 2003 have to do with it? I love a lot of the bands who were young in the 1960s and still tour although they are in their 70s. There is less chance of a musician in his thirties having health problems than a man in his seventies. A lot of the older guys need the money and have no option but Muse clearly love performing live so it wouldn't be a chore if only they didn't feel they had to have a show that requires a massive stage and crew every time they go on tour.

 

Now, Fabri, do you have anything intelligent to say or do you HAVE to post every five seconds because your adoring public expects it?

Smart. Ignore my post until AFTER you've replied to Fabri. I mean, you would look like a fool if you had to address his existing touring issues when shutting down Fabri's point.

[denise3112]

now, fabri, do you have anything intelligent to say or do you have to post every five seconds because your adoring public expects it?

 

:LOL:

[serpentsatellite]

Not like every issue facing touring musicians is age related in the first place. "Young" or not, Matt's clearly facing some pretty noticeable issues, and I started to believe they weren't all due to being out of shape and out of breath.

Like Tjet says, there's too many vocal breaks as it is; I have no desire to see Muse take the 30 Seconds to Mars route where I listen to the crowd sing entire songs.

 

I also didn't see much evidence of Muse clearly loving to tour, unfortunately. (Unless you mean they love the money and exotic vacations.)

While the tour was up and down, even at its best, it didn't really hold a candle to the energy of even T2L. Was waiting to see the non-360 gigs return to the former glory... and they just didn't. Much of the latter festival tour felt like the band was already mentally on vacation, from what I've read.

 

And without a new album to tour, I sort of despair to think of what those set lists would look like; the band is playing a significant amount of new material, combined with the radio hits. They've told fans that they will not play a song that doesn't get a big reaction.

Without that new material (and big stage show) I feel like the US (if they came here) would be in for like a 10 song set.

 

I also unfortunately do believe their "fan" base would dwindle without the stage show, because while yes WE would love a stripped back show, they've spent like a decade now promoting themselves as the "last great rock spectacle" and people very much do go to the gigs just for that.

 

Which I guess is a long way of saying I wish Muse would release more music, and I could care less if they ever tour again (obvs not going to happen due to money, but this is makebelieve anyways.)

Maybe not being concerned about selling 10k tickets a gig would make them more comfortable putting out music that didn't need to be "accessible"... In a perfect world.

[denise3112]

 

And Muse are neither young nor healthy enough for more touring. Matt needed like 6 vocal breaks at every gig, and sounded like he was well on his way to getting nodules.

 

And why would you only see them every 6 years? Muse tour Europe constantly. In Britain you had loads of chances to see them in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016. I mean it even says in your sig that you've seen them 3 times in 3 years.

 

Yes. Matt's voice shows signs of wear; and he's not fit. We've been really lucky in the UK with the number of gigs on offer.

OK, age 38 seems young compared with 70, but it's still middle-aged, not young. They have family lives and, presumably, money in the bank. Can't see why they'd want to go on more gruelling tours, stripped back stage or not.

 

I'd rather see them spend their time and effort on some high quality song-writing, not thrashing themselves on the road.

[haze015]

Article in question - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37317172

 

Considering it states that live music has also had a drop in revenue, I'm not sure what recording less and touring more would achieve.

[maturefan]

Smart. Ignore my post until AFTER you've replied to Fabri. I mean, you would look like a fool if you had to address his existing touring issues when shutting down Fabri's point.

 

I didn't ignore your post; I didn't see it. I could have sworn that Fabri's post came directly after mine. Something strange is happening in my brain!

Edited September 12, 2016 by maturefan

[maturefan]

I don't understand, are you saying that they should tour more because they don't make any money making records anyway, or that touring more would raise the record sales?

 

And Muse are neither young nor healthy enough for more touring. Matt needed like 6 vocal breaks at every gig, and sounded like he was well on his way to getting nodules.

 

And why would you only see them every 6 years? Muse tour Europe constantly. In Britain you had loads of chances to see them in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016. I mean it even says in your sig that you've seen them 3 times in 3 years.

 

I wasn't saying Muse don't make any money from record sales, really. Read my original post. I was asking if people thought it was a worldwide trend that bands are making less and less from record sales and would be better touring more and recording less. I have seen Muse three times in three years because I live very close to one of the venues where they did one of there intimate and stripped down gigs in 2015 and I was lucky enough to get tickets. It wasn't a regular thing. The gig I saw in 2013 was part of the 2nd Law Tour and the gig I saw this year was part of the Drones tour. I am well aware that Muse tour Europe regularly and I wasn't complaining that I don't have opportunities to see them. I wasn't complaining at all, in fact. I said that SOME fans were disappointed because Muse didn't perform anywhere that was close enough for them to get to. Was I incorrect in stating that? I said that I wouldn't mind if I had to wait longer than three years for each album if I could get to see them every three years. I was putting myself in the place of the fans who weren't able to see them at all this time. All clear now?

[maturefan]

Article in question - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-37317172

 

Considering it states that live music has also had a drop in revenue, I'm not sure what recording less and touring more would achieve.

 

Fair point. Now I'll probably get a warning for multiple posting/spam because I can only reply to one post at a time 'cos my brain is knackered.

 

Fair point about Matt's vocal issues. One of the bands I love is The Zombies. Both Colin Blunstone and Rod Argent have a vocal coach and do warm-ups before each performance and vocal exercises every day. Does Matt have a vocal coach or has he knackered his voice by not taking care of it as well as overuse? I certainly hope not.

 

Of course, why should they perform more when they don't need the money? I just feel sad for all the people who weren't able to see them this time.

[haze015]

Of course, why should they perform more when they don't need the money? I just feel sad for all the people who weren't able to see them this time.

 

Its not about whether they need the money, but the figures there show that the revenue generated from live music has dropped more than recorded music, which happens to have a sector in huge growth (streaming).

 

Bands such as Muse already record very little, 10 songs every few years is seriously low output, slowly that down further would likely do more damage than good.

 

The larger drop in revenue from live music might be an indication that its past its peak with nowhere to go at present. Recorded music is in a state of transition and will be interesting to see where it can go.

[Hat]

I'm just gonna move straight to the point and not dwell on minor things that you misunderstood, so:

Fair point about Matt's vocal issues. One of the bands I love is The Zombies. Both Colin Blunstone and Rod Argent have a vocal coach and do warm-ups before each performance and vocal exercises every day. Does Matt have a vocal coach or has he knackered his voice by not taking care of it as well as overuse? I certainly hope not.

 

Of course, why should they perform more when they don't need the money? I just feel sad for all the people who weren't able to see them this time.

The conclusion then is that the sales for tours are down, just as they are for records, so no incentive there.

 

And Matt is not in a healthy state to be touring for more gigs than he currently is, which was very clear during the last few shows.

 

So what this basically comes down to: Shouldn't everyone get the opportunity to see Muse live without too much hassle?

 

My opinion: Meh, not really. Muse tour more than enough, and if there is somewhere they haven't been, there's probably a reason for that. I'd prefer it if they focused on music, and honestly they are due a long break from touring.

[Hat]

I've been thinking about this thing with the rate at which artists are releasing music, and it's interesting how things have changed. Muse put out 10-12 songs every 3 years, Radiohead even less. In fact, most popular rock bands these days seem to take about 2-4 years between albums.

 

But if we go back a few decades, The Beatles released 12 albums in 7 years (much shorter albums ofc). Queen released 15 albums in 22 years, Depeche Mode released 7 albums in their first 9 years.

 

In comparison, Muse have released 7 albums in 16 years.

[Jobby]

Muse clearly love performing live so it wouldn't be a chore

 

...how closely did you pay attention to this tour?

[haze015]

I've been thinking about this thing with the rate at which artists are releasing music, and it's interesting how things have changed. Muse put out 10-12 songs every 3 years, Radiohead even less. In fact, most popular rock bands these days seem to take about 2-4 years between albums.

 

But if we go back a few decades, The Beatles released 12 albums in 7 years (much shorter albums ofc). Queen released 15 albums in 22 years, Depeche Mode released 7 albums in their first 9 years.

 

In comparison, Muse have released 7 albums in 16 years.

 

Another thing to consider is non-album singles/EPs and B-sides. The amount released during Showbiz & OOS is likely more than Muse have done in the last 10 years.

[Hat]

Another thing to consider is non-album singles/EPs and B-sides. The amount released during Showbiz & OOS is likely more than Muse have done in the last 10 years.

True, but in that case it's mostly a collection of songs which they wrote in the 90s but didn't record at the time. But yeah they did write a lot more in the early 00s. And it's not like their quality control has gotten better.

[haze015]

True, but in that case it's mostly a collection of songs which they wrote in the 90s but didn't record at the time. But yeah they did write a lot more in the early 00s. And it's not like their quality control has gotten better.

 

Well there was a bit more to it than that, between OOS and Absolution there was a change in the definition of what a 'single' was, forcing less B-sides, so the EP/Mini-album length releases that were common didn't count as singles anymore.

 

So less recorded material was required for album cycles. The shift to downloads meant less was required as well.

[Hat]

Well there was a bit more to it than that, between OOS and Absolution there was a change in the definition of what a 'single' was, forcing less B-sides, so the EP/Mini-album length releases that were common didn't count as singles anymore.

 

So less recorded material was required for album cycles. The shift to downloads meant less was required as well.

Oh yes, definitely. I think we're talking about slightly different things, but nevermind.

[maturefan]

A lot more people bought records in the sixties than people buy recorded music now because there was no other way to hear it other than to buy records or wait until it was played on the radio. Radios weren't as sophisticated so the sound was bloody awful (I'm old enough to remember.) Artists had to sell an astonishing amount of singles to get into the charts. I thought Prince was very clever giving copies of one of his albums to people who bought tickets to see his live shows. Do I remember rightly that people knew in advance? I was a bit annoyed that Muse didn't tell us they were going to do that this time but, actually, it was pretty clever of them. Those of us who had bought the album before we bought the tickets now had a spare album we could give to someone who hadn't bought it. That person might now want to buy more Muse albums and see them live so they have increased their fanbase. On the other hand, some fans found the price of tickets for the shows very expensive and probably would have preferred no 'free' album and a cheaper ticket for the gig. There was pressure on artists in the sixties to release albums and singles very frequently. A lot of them were badly served by their managers and many were defrauded so, as artists took charge of their careers, they were better able to do what they wanted, at least, the ones who were established and popular and were in a position to stand up to the suits.

[serpentsatellite]

I guess I *would* argue that they should have done more gigs in the US, at the very least (not to mention Australia,) but that's down to the band's decision to put the big dumb stage show over doing a tour with decent coverage.

 

And I really don't see the album "give away" thing as anything more than a way to artificially inflate album sales, and raise the chart positions.

[haze015]

A lot more people bought records in the sixties than people buy recorded music now because there was no other way to hear it other than to buy records or wait until it was played on the radio. Radios weren't as sophisticated so the sound was bloody awful (I'm old enough to remember.) Artists had to sell an astonishing amount of singles to get into the charts. I thought Prince was very clever giving copies of one of his albums to people who bought tickets to see his live shows. Do I remember rightly that people knew in advance? I was a bit annoyed that Muse didn't tell us they were going to do that this time but, actually, it was pretty clever of them. Those of us who had bought the album before we bought the tickets now had a spare album we could give to someone who hadn't bought it. That person might now want to buy more Muse albums and see them live so they have increased their fanbase. On the other hand, some fans found the price of tickets for the shows very expensive and probably would have preferred no 'free' album and a cheaper ticket for the gig. There was pressure on artists in the sixties to release albums and singles very frequently. A lot of them were badly served by their managers and many were defrauded so, as artists took charge of their careers, they were better able to do what they wanted, at least, the ones who were established and popular and were in a position to stand up to the suits.

 

There is quite a lot wrong in this.

We can't realistically compare the sixties to today, as how people consume music is very different now and has changed throughout the decades. The music industry didn't peak in the 60's at all.

Your last paragraph is mostly nonsense, plenty of musicians are screwed over in all sorts of different ways. Large successful bands got away with more in the 60's & 70's than they do today. The bands who make a stand are the DIY/Indie types, not the Muse's or Radiohead's of this world (Regardless of however much Thom Yorke pretends)

[maturefan]

There is quite a lot wrong in this.

We can't realistically compare the sixties to today, as how people consume music is very different now and has changed throughout the decades. The music industry didn't peak in the 60's at all.

Your last paragraph is mostly nonsense, plenty of musicians are screwed over in all sorts of different ways. Large successful bands got away with more in the 60's & 70's than they do today. The bands who make a stand are the DIY/Indie types, not the Muse's or Radiohead's of this world (Regardless of however much Thom Yorke pretends)

 

I didn't say the music industry peaked in the sixties. I wasn't intending to compare the sixties to today but I should have quoted the post to which I was responding which mentioned how many albums sixties and seventies artists released and how frequently they released them in comparison to the number of albums which are released by current artists.

 

When I said that a lot of artists in the sixties were badly treated by their management, of course I wasn't referring to the big, successful bands. If they had been defrauded, they might not have become big and successful. The Zombies, for example, just didn't catch on in the UK and only really became big in the USA after they had split up. Only the songwriters did well out of their sixties success; the rest were broke. I'm sure the same thing happens now but I'm guessing artists are more savvy than they were back then.

[serpentsatellite]

There were actually quite a lot of big bands/groups that were defrauded by their management. And I'm sure many more that never went public with it.