The Biggest Challenge For Live's Future Success Is... Options

[FishOutaWater]

In my opinion, the biggest challenge to Live's future success is the fact that sadly, for some reason that I don't understand, Rock seems to be almost dead. A rock band cannot get any traction anymore, unless it has a 30 year following like Van Halen, Springstein, U2, Metallica, etc. Apart from the Foo Fighters, Rock n' Roll has been gradually relegated to a specialty genre like jazz and blues. R & B and auto-tune vocalists who are not artists have completely taken over the charts and the record industry is a complete disaster. To me it is really sad because modern music has no heart and soul anymore. And to me, this is the biggest challenge to Live becoming successful again. I would like to see Live be a part of a movement to make rock relevant again.

[Badman]

I think it is less pop music and more electronic music that is really defining music right now. Indie and pop have this component in common. There is something about electronic music that breaks the boundaries of the traditional 4 piece band. Another benefit is oftentimes they only have to pay one guy. One of my favorite artists publishes under the name hot sugar and uses loops of weird things like skulls cracking, hurricanes, and rat's heartbeats to make music that gives me something quite distinct. They would be more an indie group but on the pop side Kesha releases songs like Sleazy which are far more danceable than most 4 piece rock bands could muster. How can they compete? I don't think people like to think deeply about music these days.

This post has been edited by Badman: May 17 2012, 1:20 pm

[FishOutaWater]

I would be interested in reading a discussion of what others think is the biggest challenge for the future success of Live. I think that, like TGF, the issue is not going to be with the quality of the music or the performances. I just think that good rock bands today struggle to find an outlet and to find inroads into the hearts and minds and iPods of the listening public. Were it not for this one frustrating factor, I think that Live could climb the summit once again. If, for example, there was an MTV Unplugged that still exists, and Live could get on there today to perform their old songs and some new songs, I believe that they could sell themselves.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I would be interested in reading a discussion of what others think is the biggest challenge for the future success of Live. I think that, like TGF, the issue is not going to be with the quality of the music or the performances. I just think that good rock bands today struggle to find an outlet and to find inroads into the hearts and minds and iPods of the listening public. Were it not for this one frustrating factor, I think that Live could climb the summit once again. If, for example, there was an MTV Unplugged that still exists, and Live could get on there today to perform their old songs and some new songs, I believe that they could sell themselves.

The target demographic for people to actually by music are the younger folks. They aren't going to want to see a bunch of forty year old guys playing '90s rock music. In order for Live to "climb the summit" they would need to get a little plastic surgery done and make awful music.

That's just the way it is. TGF had some damn fine promotional opportunities but they were mishandled. If Live can get those same opportunities and handle them better we could see them playing to some nice mid-level size crowds again. I doubt you see them busting the charts though.

This post has been edited by thefunkyredcaboose: May 17 2012, 2:25 pm

[Sonic Tonic]

In order for Live to "climb the summit" they would need to get a little plastic surgery done and make awful music.

This is true. Image and looks is a big factor. Like the pretty boy pop bands of the 90s now you have pretty "rock" boy bands. With their perfectly groomed scruffy beards and perfectly styled messy hair.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

This is true. Image and looks is a big factor. Like the pretty boy pop bands of the 90s now you have pretty "rock" boy bands. With their perfectly groomed scruffy beards and perfectly styled messy hair.

You had those in the '90s too, but the grungy look was "in" just like the hairspray look of the '80s.

[Sonic Tonic]

You had those in the '90s too, but the grungy look was "in" just like the hairspray look of the '80s.

Indeed. A cool sexy look sells.

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Indeed. A cool sexy look sells.

As much as people here may hate me for saying it, there's a reason why when you mention Live to people they say "oh the bald guy!!!"

Personally, I think all of that's BS, but I have been in two bands that nearly signed record contracts and both broke down when the issue of sex appeal came up. Since the record industry is dying that is less and less of an issue, but to be a meteoric success you need a look.

[World Dreamer]

As much as people here may hate me for saying it, there's a reason why when you mention Live to people they say "oh the bald guy!!!"

Personally, I think all of that's BS, but I have been in two bands that nearly signed record contracts and both broke down when the issue of sex appeal came up. Since the record industry is dying that is less and less of an issue, but to be a meteoric success you need a look.

I agree, however if you can come up with a great and catchy song that is just incredible then you can still make it. Adele is a good example. Talent and great songs. While I could care less about her "look", you heard it all the time that she was fat and blah blah but she is doing well.

But like I said, I agree with you. It seems much easier to have success with a great/unique image and shitty music than vice versa. Adele is more of the exception than the rule.

The music industry has turned more towards entertainment than good quality music. People would rather see/watch something and have the music be secondary than just have great music. That could be another reason rock music isn't as prominent. It isn't some grand show. It is musicians playing instruments and actually singing. It isn't like the giant productions you see at these award shows.

[Pokey]

I agree, however if you can come up with a great and catchy song that is just incredible then you can still make it. Adele is a good example. Talent and great songs. While I could care less about her "look", you heard it all the time that she was fat and blah blah but she is doing well.

And to be honest I'm pretty skeptical and cynical, I think that is part of "her thing", "oh look shes FAT but she can sing!" .. what a non threatening image to young girls, someone they can like and know they can be prettier than. Its like having your fat flanker when you go out to clubs. So I don't think she has "over come the odds", i think the odds were the exact vehicle that has pushed her because I don't really see her as being anything unique, if she wasn't fat and she was gorgeous, she'd just be another good voice lost in the mix, and there are some out there ... Florence + The Machine for example, she's great, looks great, but nothing mind blowing.

[World Dreamer]

And to be honest I'm pretty skeptical and cynical, I think that is part of "her thing", "oh look shes FAT but she can sing!" .. what a non threatening image to young girls, someone they can like and know they can be prettier than. Its like having your fat flanker when you go out to clubs. So I don't think she has "over come the odds", i think the odds were the exact vehicle that has pushed her because I don't really see her as being anything unique, if she wasn't fat and she was gorgeous, she'd just be another good voice lost in the mix, and there are some out there ... Florence + The Machine for example, she's great, looks great, but nothing mind blowing.

Possible, for sure. Could also be that her talent is just undeniable. That woman can flat out sing.

I just think if you can get another "I, Alone" or "Jeremy" or "Enter Sandman" out there then the recognition will come and you capitalize on it. You gotta put out something that is so good that people HAVE to play it.

That is why I hope Live re-records "Hold Me Up".

What will probably happen is Live will put out a really good album, not get the recognition it should, just like TGF and just like a ton of really good artists, and they will fill up respectable size venues and not have a problem with it and go on making an album here and there with Live and TGF and be perfectly happy.

But if they want to return to, or get close to, what Live used to be, they would have to release a song/songs that end up being the songs that people use to define them.

The ideal situation would be a combination of the last two paragraphs. Do what you want and if you come up with something remarkable then run with it. It is almost like they are back to square one. Maybe they should name thier first Live album "Public Affection". Hell, go with "First Aid", "Action Front", or "Paisley Blues" since those were all pre-Ed names.

This post has been edited by World Dreamer: May 17 2012, 4:17 pm