MR

Check out this post from the JOurney forum
http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/vie ... hp?t=27180

While it's mainly a Def Leppard slanted argument, and I agree they haven't given up the ghost and are running their train into the ground, the three acts combined pulled 55%. If I'm not mistaken, this is the venue Styx played alone in 96 and 97.

DDY has the same problem to some degree (so jump down my throat - he's not selling out 15k+ venues, either), but even I wouldn't think a bill like Styx/Foreigner/DL would only pull 55%.

StyxCollector wrote:Check out this post from the JOurney forum
http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/vie ... hp?t=27180

While it's mainly a Def Leppard slanted argument, and I agree they haven't given up the ghost and are running their train into the ground, the three acts combined pulled 55%. If I'm not mistaken, this is the venue Styx played alone in 96 and 97.

DDY has the same problem to some degree (so jump down my throat - he's not selling out 15k+ venues, either), but even I wouldn't think a bill like Styx/Foreigner/DL would only pull 55%.

I remember seeing Styx in '96 in Clarkston, Michigan. I had never seen the venue that packed as it was that day. People were camped on the side of the hill facing away from the stage. Because the lawn was packed. They only heard the show. Unbelievable. Dennis' vocal performance was the best I've ever heard live from anyone.

Isn't touring Styx's economic model these days? When its one of your main guys source of income, I guess its the only way to make the big bucks. Obviously, it dilutes the brand and there is no end in site. In the interview of Ricky on this website, Ricky indicates that touring until TS and JY drop is the route they are going.

blt man wrote: In the interview of Ricky on this website, Ricky indicates that touring until TS and JY drop is the route they are going.

Which, let's face it, could be any time. I mean, they all seem healthy enough, but still.

I'd like them to take some time off to make a new record or two while they still (theoretically) have that in them, but these are not young guys and there is no rainy day coming that would require a shoring up of the "brand." RTP already took care of that moment and it ain't coming again, no matter how much time they take off in the interim or who's in the lineup when they re-emerge.

There seems to be more bitching than usual going on right now about the excessive touring, but I say let 'em spend the time they have left doing what they love and leave it all out on the field, if that's what pleases them. Who is it hurting?

StyxCollector wrote:Check out this post from the JOurney forum
http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/vie ... hp?t=27180

While it's mainly a Def Leppard slanted argument, and I agree they haven't given up the ghost and are running their train into the ground, the three acts combined pulled 55%. If I'm not mistaken, this is the venue Styx played alone in 96 and 97.

DDY has the same problem to some degree (so jump down my throat - he's not selling out 15k+ venues, either), but even I wouldn't think a bill like Styx/Foreigner/DL would only pull 55%.

Good article - and a very good (yet sad) point.

I think we need to remember though that all of these groups are <B>human beings</B> with real emotions, thoughts and feelings. Let's face it:
DDY doesn't get along with JY and TS
Lou Gramm and Mick Jones don't get along
Steve Perry and everyone else in Journey don't get along.

Why should anyone force any of these people to be around people that they don't get along with just so other people (fans) can be happier?

Yes, none of these groups make as much money as when the classic lineups were together, but the sad thing is, is that money doesn't bring happiness. At least all of the current lineups seem to be "happy", at least <I>happier</I>. Since most of these guys are well into their 50's, my utmost wish is for all of them to find happiness. Life is too short (Brad Delp, anyone?)

Cinj

blt man wrote:Isn't touring Styx's economic model these days? When its one of your main guys source of income, I guess its the only way to make the big bucks. Obviously, it dilutes the brand and there is no end in site. In the interview of Ricky on this website, Ricky indicates that touring until TS and JY drop is the route they are going.

There's a lot of truth to that. The fact is, bands from that era are not selling enough records to make recording a viable source of income, so touring is where they are making their money. It puts them in a weird position, because fans naturally want to hear the old hits, but some fans who have already seen the band also want some new music, a new reason to see the band and not have the shows just be the same old thing they've already seen. That's tricky.

When I saw the show at the Ryman in 2005, they played "One With Everything" and "More Love For The Money". "More Love" was the first newer song in the set, and it caused an enormous beer/bathroom break, but those who stayed to hear it seemed to like it well enough. OWE was well-received. That was just prior to the release of the covers record, and they came out and played four covers in a row for the encore before closing up with "Renegade", which was a disastrous choice. People were leaving in droves by the time they played the second cover. By the time they got to "Renegade" it seemed like a third of the audience had left. I always thought that doing that covers record was for two reasons: to get a record out quick to try to capitalize on the "Walrus" thing, and to try to inject some new life into the shows. But I also thought it was a sideways step instead of a step forward.

Having said that, what else is there for a band like Styx at this point in its career? It would take a bizarre fluke to have the band actually move forward in terms of sales or building a new brand identity. Instead, there are essentially two options: go out and tour and capitalize on the past by playing your hits whenever and wherever you can, or give up and go home. This band has had a great run, but now they are up against the wall and have to make that decision that every band eventually makes. Is it time to hang it up, or is there still anything left in the well? And only they know the answer to that. I hope that they will make another record, a great one that the band and fans can be proud of (working with an outside producer), and go out and give it their very best shot.

What I hope they WON'T do is accept any more short sets opening for a band whose demographic is not a good fit to begin with, playing an abbreviated set of the same old hits. I'll make no bones about the fact that even if this tour were coming to my back yard, I would not go see it. However, later this year I'll be thrilled to see the band by itself at the Wildhorse Saloon. For me personally, I'd even rather see Styx step down to headlining clubs - which is the next step down - than have to sit through these packages that don't make much sense. At least in that setting there's the freedom to do what they want to do artistically. I honestly see this Def Leppard tour as a miscalculation. I can't imagine for one minute that it's going to do anything terribly significant in the way of introducing an older brand to a new demographic. But I guess we'll see.


Sterling

cinj wrote:

StyxCollector wrote:Check out this post from the JOurney forum
http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/vie ... hp?t=27180

While it's mainly a Def Leppard slanted argument, and I agree they haven't given up the ghost and are running their train into the ground, the three acts combined pulled 55%. If I'm not mistaken, this is the venue Styx played alone in 96 and 97.

DDY has the same problem to some degree (so jump down my throat - he's not selling out 15k+ venues, either), but even I wouldn't think a bill like Styx/Foreigner/DL would only pull 55%.

Good article - and a very good (yet sad) point.

I think we need to remember though that all of these groups are <B>human beings</B> with real emotions, thoughts and feelings. Let's face it:
DDY doesn't get along with JY and TS
Lou Gramm and Mick Jones don't get along
Steve Perry and everyone else in Journey don't get along.

Why should anyone force any of these people to be around people that they don't get along with just so other people (fans) can be happier?

Yes, none of these groups make as much money as when the classic lineups were together, but the sad thing is, is that money doesn't bring happiness. At least all of the current lineups seem to be "happy", at least <I>happier</I>. Since most of these guys are well into their 50's, my utmost wish is for all of them to find happiness. Life is too short (Brad Delp, anyone?)

Cinj

I've heard that argument a thosand and one times - you know, "We're happier and better off without (fill in the blank of your favorite ex-singer here)". And I understand why it ends up that way, I really do. Bands are very, very difficult, and the personalities involved are inherently wacky because they are artists. Put them together under pressure and viola! It's a recipe for conflict every time. I understand why, in the later years of someone's life, they would choose to forego that and make some changes.

But the other side of the argument is a simple one, in my view. Picture this: you go to McDonald's, pull into the drive through and order a Bic Mac, fries and a Coke. Same meal you've had ten trillion times, right? That's why people go to Mcdonald's, to acquire the products that they associate with the brand. Well, what if the guy at the window said, "Sorry, we don't serve Big Macs, fries or Cokes anymore." Then you'd think - and rightfully so - "What the hell kind of McDonald's doesn't serve Big Macs, fries and Cokes? Those are the flagship items of McDonald's, the reasons I've been coming here thirty years." And they would say, "Well, to be honest, there were some problems with Ronald that you never knew about. He's gone now, and Big Macs, fries and Cokes were really his thing. The rest of us, we've really always wanted to serve tacos. Now that we've got our new clown, Zippy Mc Donald, on board, we're going to finally have the chance to pursue our dream of serving tacos, the dream that Ronald denied us. Here, let me get you a McTaco with a side order of refried beans."

You, of course, would then say, "I didn't come here for a taco and beans, I want a burger and fries like I've always had. That's why I come here. That's what McDonald's means to me."

"No, sorry, no can do. Here's your taco and beans. I put some extra sour cream in there for you, too. You know, it's for the best. Ronald . . . this isn't disparagement, but he just went off in his own direction, and it was never what the rest of us wanted. Grimace has been unhappy for years, and don't even get me started on the Hamburgler. You ought to hear him rant privately! Ultimately this is for the best. Zippy is a better clown anyway . . . he cooks the burgers left-handed and with his back to the grill. The truth is, Big Macs make me want to throw up. I can't even imagine why you ever wanted to eat them in the first place. You'e gonna like the McTaco a lot better, it's the best thing we've ever served. It blows Big Macs away, and we're happier than we've been in decades. Grimace and the Hamburgler are as giddy as schoolgirls, and just last night we all went and hung out at Mayor McCheese's house. We never used to do that."

See what I mean? It seems silly, doesn't it, not to serve your customer base what they want, when they want it. It's a bit self-defeating, and from the perspective of someone sitting in the drive through expecting their burger, money in hand, what do they care if you're happy or not? They want what they want, and they're the ones that are paying for and consuming it. Do they not have a reasonable expectation to dictate the terms of the transaction?

I don't know if you can apply that completely to art because there is an indefinable quality to art that transcends it being a product, but at the same time, one you start branding it, advertising it and charging money for its consumption, it becomes a product as well. Do the people purchasing and consuming that product not have a reasonable expectation of getting what they want, regardless? I've always thought that was a fascinating conundrum.


Sterling

I never thopught that the Def Leppard demographic was rally that much younger than the Styx demographic. Maybe 8-10 years younger at best. Young enough to remember Roboto, but not the deeper catalog. I also never really thought of DL as classic rock, but more as 80's rock. (which to me are different_

I'm with you on the pairing. I thought it was odd when we heard it as the summer package. But it does bring them a bigger audience and probably a bigger paycheck. In some ways, even though they have a smaller set, this tour probably allows them to afford to do the smaller venue throughout the year.

In future years, I hope they go to pairings that their fans have been screaming for, for almost a decade - Night Ranger & Styx and all the other incarnations that go with that.

BUt you are right. Royalty money is all but dried up for acts of their age and this is virtually the only way they have a paycheck going forward. Whether peeps want to admit it or not, it is their livelyhood and they are teh ones that have to live with there touring schedule and its effects on the overall market.

styxfanNH wrote:I never thopught that the Def Leppard demographic was rally that much younger than the Styx demographic. Maybe 8-10 years younger at best. Young enough to remember Roboto, but not the deeper catalog. I also never really thought of DL as classic rock, but more as 80's rock. (which to me are different_

I'm with you on the pairing. I thought it was odd when we heard it as the summer package. But it does bring them a bigger audience and probably a bigger paycheck. In some ways, even though they have a smaller set, this tour probably allows them to afford to do the smaller venue throughout the year.

In future years, I hope they go to pairings that their fans have been screaming for, for almost a decade - Night Ranger & Styx and all the other incarnations that go with that.

BUt you are right. Royalty money is all but dried up for acts of their age and this is virtually the only way they have a paycheck going forward. Whether peeps want to admit it or not, it is their livelyhood and they are teh ones that have to live with there touring schedule and its effects on the overall market.

I'm not so sure about that. There are still a lot of stations playing Styx and DL's music ... Heck I heard Animal and Pour Some Sugar on Me on the radio here just yesterday (one of those JACK FM stations). I do hear Styx every now and then. When I do it's usually Come Sail Away, Grand Illusion, Renegade or Sing for the Day. I imagine for JY, tour money is where it's at since his royalties are a lot smaller than Tommy's and Dennis' - but the other two guys likely do pretty well of their residuals.

styxfanNH wrote:BUt you are right. Royalty money is all but dried up for acts of their age and this is virtually the only way they have a paycheck going forward. Whether peeps want to admit it or not, it is their livelyhood and they are teh ones that have to live with there touring schedule and its effects on the overall market.

Not for everyone: http://jam.canoe.ca/Music/2007/07/17/4346577-ap.html

RockWriter wrote:See what I mean? It seems silly, doesn't it, not to serve your customer base what they want, when they want it. It's a bit self-defeating, and from the perspective of someone sitting in the drive through expecting their burger, money in hand, what do they care if you're happy or not? They want what they want, and they're the ones that are paying for and consuming it. Do they not have a reasonable expectation to dictate the terms of the transaction?

I find about nine kinds of fault with that McDonalds analogy, but even taking it at face value it all comes down to which customers you're serving, and how one defines "reasonable." You can't please all of the people all of the time, and after a while it becomes futile to even contemplate trying. In order for something to be "self-defeating," at some point one has to admit defeat. I don't see that happening with this band.

RockWriter wrote:What I hope they WON'T do is accept any more short sets opening for a band whose demographic is not a good fit to begin with, playing an abbreviated set of the same old hits. I'll make no bones about the fact that even if this tour were coming to my back yard, I would not go see it. However, later this year I'll be thrilled to see the band by itself at the Wildhorse Saloon. For me personally, I'd even rather see Styx step down to headlining clubs - which is the next step down - than have to sit through these packages that don't make much sense. At least in that setting there's the freedom to do what they want to do artistically.

I do agree on the package tours. I won't see Styx with DL & Foreigner, just like I didn't see them with REO & Journey, just like I didn't see them with Nelson & Frampton. For me, it's pointless to pay that much money to have to sit through bands that I don't care about, only to get an abbreviated Styx set.

That said, I can make this decision because I know there will be an Evening With show right around the corner -- I saw them play The Depot (a small, HOB-type venue) in Salt Lake City by themselves earlier this year and the show was fantastic. I too would rather see more of that type of thing, which convinces me that the package tours -- miscalculation or not -- are not aimed at me as a die-hard Styx fan, but at widening the audience. As such, whether it works well enough to be worth their while isn't really my call to make.

Rockwriter wrote:However, later this year I'll be thrilled to see the band by itself at the Wildhorse Saloon. For me personally, I'd even rather see Styx step down to headlining clubs - which is the next step down - than have to sit through these packages that don't make much sense. At least in that setting there's the freedom to do what they want to do artistically. I honestly see this Def Leppard tour as a miscalculation. I can't imagine for one minute that it's going to do anything terribly significant in the way of introducing an older brand to a new demographic. But I guess we'll see.
Sterling

A lot of my favorite artists are now playing clubs at least some of the time and I'll tell you what... I've seen many of my all-time favorite shows in small intimate venues.

Styx may be well served to do a small club / intimate casino tour, however, I still don't think it affords them all that much freedom as people still won't want to hear their new stuff... they want to hear the old stuff. The biggest well to pull from are Dennis songs and since he's not there they're not going to dig deep in the catalog (i.e. Wooden Nickel, etc).

I just think we're coming to the end of the line... the need to take a 3-4 years off... and then re-emerge with one final reunion tour. In a perfect world, that would involve a classic album too... but I don't see that happening unless they can decide ahead of time exactly how they're going to approach it... lay down the rules/roles etc and then do it without problems.

styxfanNH wrote:I never thopught that the Def Leppard demographic was rally that much younger than the Styx demographic. Maybe 8-10 years younger at best. Young enough to remember Roboto, but not the deeper catalog. I also never really thought of DL as classic rock, but more as 80's rock. (which to me are different_

I'm with you on the pairing. I thought it was odd when we heard it as the summer package. But it does bring them a bigger audience and probably a bigger paycheck. In some ways, even though they have a smaller set, this tour probably allows them to afford to do the smaller venue throughout the year.

In future years, I hope they go to pairings that their fans have been screaming for, for almost a decade - Night Ranger & Styx and all the other incarnations that go with that.

BUt you are right. Royalty money is all but dried up for acts of their age and this is virtually the only way they have a paycheck going forward. Whether peeps want to admit it or not, it is their livelyhood and they are teh ones that have to live with there touring schedule and its effects on the overall market.

You're right about the demographic age difference being 8-10 years for the most part, but you have to remember, in radio that's a generation. Def Leppard came to prominence around the time that Styx was dying down, and played to a whole different set of junior high and high school kids. So yes, classic rock radio plays them both, but that doesn't mean there's substantial overlap in their fan bases. I mean, classic rock radio plays Yes, too, but I don't expect to see Yes and Def Leppard any time soon. (I wonder if there's enough overlap for Yes and Styx? I suspect that the hardcore Yes fans would eat Styx for lunch, but who knows?)

I kinda think that if the true demand were there for a Styx/Night Ranger/Damn Yankees bill, it would have happened already. The fact is, they put different bands together because they draw different fan bases, but hopefully with enough overlap to make it viable. But I kinda doubt there's that much fan base overlap between Styx and Night Ranger, and the fan base for Damn Yankees IS the split fan base for Styx and Night Ranger. So it's not much extra draw. If Ted appeared solo, again there's probably not much overlap between his base fans and those of either Styx or Night Ranger. It's a bill that I'm not at all convinced would work, not to mention how exhausting it would be for the players to perform multiple sets in different bands. I'd be willing to bet that's why it hasn't happened. There's a series of question marks involved, and promoters don't like question marks.

I don't know, maybe I'm looking at it all wrong. What does everyone else think, would this be a workable bill that most would want to see?


Sterling

DarwinNebraska wrote:

Rockwriter wrote:However, later this year I'll be thrilled to see the band by itself at the Wildhorse Saloon. For me personally, I'd even rather see Styx step down to headlining clubs - which is the next step down - than have to sit through these packages that don't make much sense. At least in that setting there's the freedom to do what they want to do artistically. I honestly see this Def Leppard tour as a miscalculation. I can't imagine for one minute that it's going to do anything terribly significant in the way of introducing an older brand to a new demographic. But I guess we'll see.
Sterling

A lot of my favorite artists are now playing clubs at least some of the time and I'll tell you what... I've seen many of my all-time favorite shows in small intimate venues.

Styx may be well served to do a small club / intimate casino tour, however, I still don't think it affords them all that much freedom as people still won't want to hear their new stuff... they want to hear the old stuff. The biggest well to pull from are Dennis songs and since he's not there they're not going to dig deep in the catalog (i.e. Wooden Nickel, etc).

I just think we're coming to the end of the line... the need to take a 3-4 years off... and then re-emerge with one final reunion tour. In a perfect world, that would involve a classic album too... but I don't see that happening unless they can decide ahead of time exactly how they're going to approach it... lay down the rules/roles etc and then do it without problems.

I'd take seeing my favorite musicians/bands in a more intimate venue over any 2,000+ seating venue any day!! I'd have to say one of the BEST concerts that I've ever seen was Dennis at the HOB in Chicago!! To me it was perfect!! Especially hearing "Unfinished Song", a song that I thought I'd never hear live, ever! Oh and then "Borrowed Time" WOW!! Just to be up close in a relaxed atmosphere really made it.

Rockwriter wrote: I've heard that argument a thosand and one times - you know, "We're happier and better off without (fill in the blank of your favorite ex-singer here)". And I understand why it ends up that way, I really do. Bands are very, very difficult, and the personalities involved are inherently wacky because they are artists. Put them together under pressure and viola! It's a recipe for conflict every time. I understand why, in the later years of someone's life, they would choose to forego that and make some changes.

But the other side of the argument is a simple one, in my view. Picture this: you go to McDonald's, pull into the drive through and order a Bic Mac, fries and a Coke. Same meal you've had ten trillion times, right? That's why people go to Mcdonald's, to acquire the products that they associate with the brand. Well, what if the guy at the window said, "Sorry, we don't serve Big Macs, fries or Cokes anymore." Then you'd think - and rightfully so - "What the hell kind of McDonald's doesn't serve Big Macs, fries and Cokes? Those are the flagship items of McDonald's, the reasons I've been coming here thirty years." And they would say, "Well, to be honest, there were some problems with Ronald that you never knew about. He's gone now, and Big Macs, fries and Cokes were really his thing. The rest of us, we've really always wanted to serve tacos. Now that we've got our new clown, Zippy Mc Donald, on board, we're going to finally have the chance to pursue our dream of serving tacos, the dream that Ronald denied us. Here, let me get you a McTaco with a side order of refried beans."

You, of course, would then say, "I didn't come here for a taco and beans, I want a burger and fries like I've always had. That's why I come here. That's what McDonald's means to me."

"No, sorry, no can do. Here's your taco and beans. I put some extra sour cream in there for you, too. You know, it's for the best. Ronald . . . this isn't disparagement, but he just went off in his own direction, and it was never what the rest of us wanted. Grimace has been unhappy for years, and don't even get me started on the Hamburgler. You ought to hear him rant privately! Ultimately this is for the best. Zippy is a better clown anyway . . . he cooks the burgers left-handed and with his back to the grill. The truth is, Big Macs make me want to throw up. I can't even imagine why you ever wanted to eat them in the first place. You'e gonna like the McTaco a lot better, it's the best thing we've ever served. It blows Big Macs away, and we're happier than we've been in decades. Grimace and the Hamburgler are as giddy as schoolgirls, and just last night we all went and hung out at Mayor McCheese's house. We never used to do that."

See what I mean? It seems silly, doesn't it, not to serve your customer base what they want, when they want it. It's a bit self-defeating, and from the perspective of someone sitting in the drive through expecting their burger, money in hand, what do they care if you're happy or not? They want what they want, and they're the ones that are paying for and consuming it. Do they not have a reasonable expectation to dictate the terms of the transaction?

I don't know if you can apply that completely to art because there is an indefinable quality to art that transcends it being a product, but at the same time, one you start branding it, advertising it and charging money for its consumption, it becomes a product as well. Do the people purchasing and consuming that product not have a reasonable expectation of getting what they want, regardless? I've always thought that was a fascinating conundrum.


Sterling

Sterling, I think your analogy is BEAUTIFUL! (You must be a writer or something ) Could you maybe e-mail this analogy to J.Y.?

To use your McDonalds example as it pertains to Styx, I honestly believe that JY and TS are perfectly happy selling McTacos and don't care that they have alienated a large core of their fans (where have I heard <I>that</I> phrase before !?) by not serving the fans what they really love - and I honestly think they <B>know</B> a reunion with DDY would bring in tons of money. They've chose not to - and your point about the fans being disillusioned by not getting what they know and love is well taken, but I think it had more substance back in 1999 then it does 8 years later. I think every classic rock fan (that cares about such things) <I>knows</I> DDY is no longer with them and that the brand <I>has</I> changed - which goes back to the original point of them not selling tickets like they used to. We'll see what the future brings.

To sum it up - JY and TS seem very happy selling McTacos to a half-filled restaurant.

Cinj

Rockwriter wrote:

cinj wrote:

StyxCollector wrote:Check out this post from the JOurney forum
http://forums.melodicrock.com/phpBB/vie ... hp?t=27180

While it's mainly a Def Leppard slanted argument, and I agree they haven't given up the ghost and are running their train into the ground, the three acts combined pulled 55%. If I'm not mistaken, this is the venue Styx played alone in 96 and 97.

DDY has the same problem to some degree (so jump down my throat - he's not selling out 15k+ venues, either), but even I wouldn't think a bill like Styx/Foreigner/DL would only pull 55%.

Good article - and a very good (yet sad) point.

I think we need to remember though that all of these groups are <B>human beings</B> with real emotions, thoughts and feelings. Let's face it:
DDY doesn't get along with JY and TS
Lou Gramm and Mick Jones don't get along
Steve Perry and everyone else in Journey don't get along.

Why should anyone force any of these people to be around people that they don't get along with just so other people (fans) can be happier?

Yes, none of these groups make as much money as when the classic lineups were together, but the sad thing is, is that money doesn't bring happiness. At least all of the current lineups seem to be "happy", at least <I>happier</I>. Since most of these guys are well into their 50's, my utmost wish is for all of them to find happiness. Life is too short (Brad Delp, anyone?)

Cinj

I've heard that argument a thosand and one times - you know, "We're happier and better off without (fill in the blank of your favorite ex-singer here)". And I understand why it ends up that way, I really do. Bands are very, very difficult, and the personalities involved are inherently wacky because they are artists. Put them together under pressure and viola! It's a recipe for conflict every time. I understand why, in the later years of someone's life, they would choose to forego that and make some changes.

But the other side of the argument is a simple one, in my view. Picture this: you go to McDonald's, pull into the drive through and order a Bic Mac, fries and a Coke. Same meal you've had ten trillion times, right? That's why people go to Mcdonald's, to acquire the products that they associate with the brand. Well, what if the guy at the window said, "Sorry, we don't serve Big Macs, fries or Cokes anymore." Then you'd think - and rightfully so - "What the hell kind of McDonald's doesn't serve Big Macs, fries and Cokes? Those are the flagship items of McDonald's, the reasons I've been coming here thirty years." And they would say, "Well, to be honest, there were some problems with Ronald that you never knew about. He's gone now, and Big Macs, fries and Cokes were really his thing. The rest of us, we've really always wanted to serve tacos. Now that we've got our new clown, Zippy Mc Donald, on board, we're going to finally have the chance to pursue our dream of serving tacos, the dream that Ronald denied us. Here, let me get you a McTaco with a side order of refried beans."

You, of course, would then say, "I didn't come here for a taco and beans, I want a burger and fries like I've always had. That's why I come here. That's what McDonald's means to me."

"No, sorry, no can do. Here's your taco and beans. I put some extra sour cream in there for you, too. You know, it's for the best. Ronald . . . this isn't disparagement, but he just went off in his own direction, and it was never what the rest of us wanted. Grimace has been unhappy for years, and don't even get me started on the Hamburgler. You ought to hear him rant privately! Ultimately this is for the best. Zippy is a better clown anyway . . . he cooks the burgers left-handed and with his back to the grill. The truth is, Big Macs make me want to throw up. I can't even imagine why you ever wanted to eat them in the first place. You'e gonna like the McTaco a lot better, it's the best thing we've ever served. It blows Big Macs away, and we're happier than we've been in decades. Grimace and the Hamburgler are as giddy as schoolgirls, and just last night we all went and hung out at Mayor McCheese's house. We never used to do that."

See what I mean? It seems silly, doesn't it, not to serve your customer base what they want, when they want it. It's a bit self-defeating, and from the perspective of someone sitting in the drive through expecting their burger, money in hand, what do they care if you're happy or not? They want what they want, and they're the ones that are paying for and consuming it. Do they not have a reasonable expectation to dictate the terms of the transaction?

I don't know if you can apply that completely to art because there is an indefinable quality to art that transcends it being a product, but at the same time, one you start branding it, advertising it and charging money for its consumption, it becomes a product as well. Do the people purchasing and consuming that product not have a reasonable expectation of getting what they want, regardless? I've always thought that was a fascinating conundrum.


Sterling

Fantastic analogy.

SuiteMadameBlue wrote:

DarwinNebraska wrote:

Rockwriter wrote:However, later this year I'll be thrilled to see the band by itself at the Wildhorse Saloon. For me personally, I'd even rather see Styx step down to headlining clubs - which is the next step down - than have to sit through these packages that don't make much sense. At least in that setting there's the freedom to do what they want to do artistically. I honestly see this Def Leppard tour as a miscalculation. I can't imagine for one minute that it's going to do anything terribly significant in the way of introducing an older brand to a new demographic. But I guess we'll see.
Sterling

A lot of my favorite artists are now playing clubs at least some of the time and I'll tell you what... I've seen many of my all-time favorite shows in small intimate venues.

Styx may be well served to do a small club / intimate casino tour, however, I still don't think it affords them all that much freedom as people still won't want to hear their new stuff... they want to hear the old stuff. The biggest well to pull from are Dennis songs and since he's not there they're not going to dig deep in the catalog (i.e. Wooden Nickel, etc).

I just think we're coming to the end of the line... the need to take a 3-4 years off... and then re-emerge with one final reunion tour. In a perfect world, that would involve a classic album too... but I don't see that happening unless they can decide ahead of time exactly how they're going to approach it... lay down the rules/roles etc and then do it without problems.

I'd take seeing my favorite musicians/bands in a more intimate venue over any 2,000+ seating venue any day!! I'd have to say one of the BEST concerts that I've ever seen was Dennis at the HOB in Chicago!! To me it was perfect!! Especially hearing "Unfinished Song", a song that I thought I'd never hear live, ever! Oh and then "Borrowed Time" WOW!! Just to be up close in a relaxed atmosphere really made it.

I like how REO did there XM radio DVD deal. Not a big crowd, all acoustic. I also just got finishing watching Meatloaf's VH1 StoryTellers DVD show again and that atmosphere for that show was nice as well.

If they really wanted to mix it up, they could always vary the format of the "Evening WIth " shows and only make a 2+ hour set available. I would think that if that is the only performance ioption available, promoters would have to buy it if they wanted them. If you listen to any of them, they only play for what the promoters want.

cinj wrote:Sterling, I think your analogy is BEAUTIFUL!

rajah2165 wrote:Fantastic analogy.

It's a madhouse.

A madhouse, I tells ya!

stabbim wrote:It's a madhouse.

A madhouse, I tells ya!

BREATHE!

Yeesh, go away for a few days and people go nuts lol

Seriously, this isn't rocket science, and territory we've covered. Styx doesn't want to play (and really can't ... but that's another whole issue) songs like "The Best of Times". So those coming to the show to hear some of the songs of their youth and memories will be disappointed. Others will love the new "rock" (sic) direction and the lack of "Roboto" and "Babe". As a band that is basically cashing in on its history, they are playing a dangerous game by not playing some of those songs, but it hasn't hurt them too much it seems. I'm sure they lost a few repeat customers, but at least they paid once in 8 years, right?

If Styx gets back to more Evening With shows, I'll see 'em again. This whole 60 - 90 minute two to three band thing is old. As much as I kinda joked about seeing them in smaller venues in the 99 - 01 timeframe, at least I got a lot of tunes in 3 hours. Now? Glorified hits, not much in the way of rarities. Yawn.

Like Sterling, I'd sooner see them stick to clubs or 2000 seat venues and do their own thing than continue to be part of the circus.

Rockwriter wrote:

cinj wrote:

StyxCollector wrote:
I've heard that argument a thosand and one times - you know, "We're happier and better off without (fill in the blank of your favorite ex-singer here)". And I understand why it ends up that way, I really do. Bands are very, very difficult, and the personalities involved are inherently wacky because they are artists. Put them together under pressure and viola! It's a recipe for conflict every time. I understand why, in the later years of someone's life, they would choose to forego that and make some changes.

This same dynamic is at work with sports teams. The Patriots were good under Bill Parcells, who was a tough disciplinarian. Then he left and the players started talking about how much better it was with Pete Carroll, who was a "players coach" and was more relaxed with them, letting them "be themselves."

Well, guess what? The Patriots stunk under Pete Carroll. And the reason for that was that in order to win in the NFL, you NEED a coach like Parcells sometimes. It's the same thing in the music world: Sting wasn't exactly filling stadiums with his boring solo tours, but as soon as he reunited The Police (with two guys he can't stand) all of a sudden he's in front of more people than he ever was.

Sure, Styx are human beings (that's debatable with JY), and it's normal not to want to be around someone you don't like. But some of the most successful bands in history had tension, and some like Aerosmith and The Who just understood how to deal with it better rather than just splitting up. Tension can be used to create dynamic music! Hell, even The Ramones stuck together after the guitarist stole the singer's girlfriend!!

Styx with DDY, TS, and JY gave us some of the best prog rock of the late 70s and early 80s, and they are just diluting their brand name with their current hijinks. Soon they'll be opening for Barry Manilow if they keep up this pace...

Blue Falcon wrote:

Rockwriter wrote:

cinj wrote:

StyxCollector wrote:
I've heard that argument a thosand and one times - you know, "We're happier and better off without (fill in the blank of your favorite ex-singer here)". And I understand why it ends up that way, I really do. Bands are very, very difficult, and the personalities involved are inherently wacky because they are artists. Put them together under pressure and viola! It's a recipe for conflict every time. I understand why, in the later years of someone's life, they would choose to forego that and make some changes.

This same dynamic is at work with sports teams. The Patriots were good under Bill Parcells, who was a tough disciplinarian. Then he left and the players started talking about how much better it was with Pete Carroll, who was a "players coach" and was more relaxed with them, letting them "be themselves."

Well, guess what? The Patriots stunk under Pete Carroll. And the reason for that was that in order to win in the NFL, you NEED a coach like Parcells sometimes. It's the same thing in the music world: Sting wasn't exactly filling stadiums with his boring solo tours, but as soon as he reunited The Police (with two guys he can't stand) all of a sudden he's in front of more people than he ever was.

Sure, Styx are human beings (that's debatable with JY), and it's normal not to want to be around someone you don't like. But some of the most successful bands in history had tension, and some like Aerosmith and The Who just understood how to deal with it better rather than just splitting up. Tension can be used to create dynamic music! Hell, even The Ramones stuck together after the guitarist stole the singer's girlfriend!!

Styx with DDY, TS, and JY gave us some of the best prog rock of the late 70s and early 80s, and they are just diluting their brand name with their current hijinks. Soon they'll be opening for Barry Manilow if they keep up this pace...

Full circle given that First Time was "Barry Manilow territory"....

Blue Falcon wrote:This same dynamic is at work with sports teams. The Patriots...

Sweet Zombie Jebus.

Does no one here know how to compare apples to apples?