…to be of advanced years.
A cursory look at some of the biggest selling acts of that most misunderstood of decades reveals the fact that we’re not talking boy-band or X-Factor territory. Opinion as to their musical merits clearly varies but the likes of Bruce Springsteen, Paul Simon, Fleetwood Mac, Phil Collins, Tina Turner, Lionel Richie all had huge-selling cross-generational success at the time. Hard to imagine a similar scenario these days.
Presume it’s because any act able to reach that level in those days had to have ‘put in a shift’ to get there. These days, it’s all changed. Changed utterly…
…for better or worse, natch.
Kid Dynamite says
To use just one yardstick, the gigs at Wembley Stadium this summer are Foo Fighters (Dave Grohl now in his mid forties, almost twenty five years since Nevermind), AC/DC ( combined age of fourteen million), and Ed Sheeran ( young, but definitely put in his dues on the toilet circuit). Even thirty years on, I reckon Bruce and Fleetwood Mac would sell out multiple nights there.
Kid Dynamite says
So, shifts very much put in, is what I meant to say
retropath2 says
If it was Ok to be of advanced age in the 80s, clearly it’s acceptable now to be ancient, as all the ones you mention are still touring……
DougieJ says
was thinking of record sales / mass pop culture appeal but probably my theory needs some work 😉
The Good Doctor says
I don’t think you can judge anything by “record sales” these days. The mainstream pop kids don’t buy records, they stream it via YouTube, Spotify etc. The “kids” have limitless access to a vast catalogue of music. They *are* listening to all sorts of stuff..new and old and they are probably listening to all the acts you mention..and indeed a Glee cover or an X Factor peformance can still push an old Genesis or Chicago tune back into the charts and the record label doesn’t even have to bother re-pressing it since the music is just sitting there waiting to be picked…. but ultimately shouldn’t the big hits be by young artists playing music for a young audience?
On the other hand the live arena is massively dominated by “heritage acts” all being encouraged to go back on the road by their accoutants as the penny drops that the revenue from CD sales is drying up. The olds are as big as they ever were.
Black Celebration says
I worked for an insurance company in 1985 and pop stars were allowed to declare “retirement” at 45. I don’t know of any pop star that has voluntarily said “cheers then” and just stopped.
James EB says
@black-celebration Mark Hollis out of Talk Talk? He’s probably the exception to the rule though.
Black Celebration says
Has he said he’s stopped, then?
James EB says
Pretty much, yes. Nothing notable since 1998. Plays a lot of golf.
Harry Tufnell says
Let’s not forget the multi-faceted diamond that is Andrew Ridgely, has he done anything other than drive fast cars and water-ski since Wham ?
davebigpicture says
Marry one of Bananarama, bastard.
SixDog says
I think Joe Pesci officially actually retired.
But he’s an actor chap rather than your Bona fide pop sensation
SteveT says
Please explain how Bruce Springsteen was of advanced years in the 80’s. If we take the median year of say 1985 that would have put him at 35. If that is advanced I might as well put myself in my box now.
VincePacket says
I’m with @dr-volume here. The charts are mostly a recent hits (epecially the streaming chart). Which is as it should be. The plastic disc bubble has popped – a bubble that hit new heights with the 80s format shift to CD. So now, that old measurement of success – the top 40 album, is propped up by us, the older generation who still buy stuff, and the occasional break-out of the singles charts like Hozier or Gotye.
All those old mega-acts, they make a metric f*ck-tonne more money today than any of the new artists (outliers like Taylor swift and Bruno Mars aside) simply through touring.