MR

Here's something to think about...

U2 just broke all attendance records at the Georgia Dome last week. That includes attendance for the olympics in 1996. U2 released their first album 29 years ago. What was Styx doing 29 years after THEIR first album was released. If memory serves, they had released the "Yesterday and Today" album and were playing at the Duluth County Fair.
Hmmmmm...

Ok

Critically and Monetarily, U2 blows Styx away. They are media darlings, Bono the crusader for all Oprah worthy projects, and still touring as a Headliner with their major players still on board with no interruption. For me, their music sounds dated in the 80's and doesn't seem to make the jump to "Classic" rock. They are in kind of a no-man's land. Too hip to be "Classic", not relevant enough for Top 40.

right after I read 'U2 blows' I quit reading.

You are 100% correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

chowhall wrote:Critically and Monetarily, U2 blows Styx away. They are media darlings, Bono the crusader for all Oprah worthy projects, and still touring as a Headliner with their major players still on board with no interruption. For me, their music sounds dated in the 80's and doesn't seem to make the jump to "Classic" rock. They are in kind of a no-man's land. Too hip to be "Classic", not relevant enough for Top 40.

...and yet still breaking all kinds of records in their "no man's land". I hope that their dated '80s music (which didn't sound '80s even in the '80s) continues to keep them from being "classic". I'd hate to see an "Arch Allies" with U2 and REM.

Higgy wrote:Here's something to think about...

U2 just broke all attendance records at the Georgia Dome last week. That includes attendance for the olympics in 1996. U2 released their first album 29 years ago. What was Styx doing 29 years after THEIR first album was released. If memory serves, they had released the "Yesterday and Today" album and were playing at the Duluth County Fair.
Hmmmmm...

Well duh, U2 is top dog. They beat anybody according to your criteria. What's your fucking point exactly?

Higgy wrote:

chowhall wrote:Critically and Monetarily, U2 blows Styx away. They are media darlings, Bono the crusader for all Oprah worthy projects, and still touring as a Headliner with their major players still on board with no interruption. For me, their music sounds dated in the 80's and doesn't seem to make the jump to "Classic" rock. They are in kind of a no-man's land. Too hip to be "Classic", not relevant enough for Top 40.

...and yet still breaking all kinds of records in their "no man's land". I hope that their dated '80s music (which didn't sound '80s even in the '80s) continues to keep them from being "classic". I'd hate to see an "Arch Allies" with U2 and REM.

Dude,

This is a Styx Board. If you want to "Blow" Bono and U2, be my quest. The last good thing they did IMO was Gloria. Downhill from there for me.

Higgy wrote:

chowhall wrote:Critically and Monetarily, U2 blows Styx away. They are media darlings, Bono the crusader for all Oprah worthy projects, and still touring as a Headliner with their major players still on board with no interruption. For me, their music sounds dated in the 80's and doesn't seem to make the jump to "Classic" rock. They are in kind of a no-man's land. Too hip to be "Classic", not relevant enough for Top 40.

...and yet still breaking all kinds of records in their "no man's land". I hope that their dated '80s music (which didn't sound '80s even in the '80s) continues to keep them from being "classic". I'd hate to see an "Arch Allies" with U2 and REM.

REM SUCKS.

U2 played "jerryworld" aka cowboys stadium tonight. a friend of mine went. i'm sure i'll get a full report tomorrow

There are so many really "huge" bands that musically do nothing for me. U2 is one of them. I like exactly one song from them. Ditto Springsteen, the Stones, REM and a few others. Would not walk down the street to see any of them live and own only a few individual songs that I like of theirs.

I am a fan of great melodies, terrific harmonies, and really, really good voices. Thus: Classic Styx, Journey, The Beatles, Foreigner, to name a few.


Bugsy

I really think U2 is a great band, but I don't see what the original poster was getting at. U2 is one of the few bands fortunate enough to transcend time, for whatever reason.

Ehwmatt wrote:I really think U2 is a great band, but I don't see what the original poster was getting at. U2 is one of the few bands fortunate enough to transcend time, for whatever reason.

It was just an observation. When I read the report on U2 breaking all sorts of tour records this late into their career it made me remember how amazed I always am that U2 continues to be relevant for so long. Then I was kind of lamenting other classic bands who have fallen so incredibly much from their glory years. The biggest example of this is Styx. I don't think you can get a bigger fall from grace than Styx from 1977 to the present. So - my post was a reflection on this and a lament on what has happened to one of my favorite bands.

Higgy wrote:

Ehwmatt wrote:I really think U2 is a great band, but I don't see what the original poster was getting at. U2 is one of the few bands fortunate enough to transcend time, for whatever reason.

It was just an observation. When I read the report on U2 breaking all sorts of tour records this late into their career it made me remember how amazed I always am that U2 continues to be relevant for so long. Then I was kind of lamenting other classic bands who have fallen so incredibly much from their glory years. The biggest example of this is Styx. I don't think you can get a bigger fall from grace than Styx from 1977 to the present. So - my post was a reflection on this and a lament on what has happened to one of my favorite bands.

I got what you were getting at, but it is SO apples and oranges in every way. There is no way to compare anything about U2 and Styx from the type of music, to the critical responses to their work, to the band dynamics, to the fact that U2 is still performing with its original members, to anything, really. The only valid comparison one can make is that both were/are bands.

Bugsy

Bugsy I could not agree with you more. I actually prefer REM more than the Boss or U2. U2 New Years Day and Sunday Bloody Sunday were their best songs. They lost me after that. I remember Boner in an interview talking about what a great singer he is. You remember the show where they inducted Frank Sinartra into some hall of fame. He is up on stage rambling, making no since, smoking one of those thin ladies cigaretts. I think he consumed most of old blue eyes time. The best was Beavis and Butthead ripping on a U2 video, "heh heh, somebody needs to tell Boner he can't sing, heh heh", "Yeah he sucks"....

Other name bands/acts that do nothing for me: Grateful Dead, Rolling Stones (from the 80s on), Bob Dylan, Madonna, AC/DC....

chowhall wrote:Critically and Monetarily, U2 blows Styx away. They are media darlings, Bono the crusader for all Oprah worthy projects, and still touring as a Headliner with their major players still on board with no interruption. For me, their music sounds dated in the 80's and doesn't seem to make the jump to "Classic" rock. They are in kind of a no-man's land. Too hip to be "Classic", not relevant enough for Top 40.

U2 not relevant? You've got to be joking.

U2 continues to succeed because they are willing to stretch things out from their classic formula while still sounding like U2. The lyrics and melodies are great and the guitarwork original. There's a lot to love about U2.

shaka wrote:

chowhall wrote:Critically and Monetarily, U2 blows Styx away. They are media darlings, Bono the crusader for all Oprah worthy projects, and still touring as a Headliner with their major players still on board with no interruption. For me, their music sounds dated in the 80's and doesn't seem to make the jump to "Classic" rock. They are in kind of a no-man's land. Too hip to be "Classic", not relevant enough for Top 40.

U2 not relevant? You've got to be joking.

U2 continues to succeed because they are willing to stretch things out from their classic formula while still sounding like U2. The lyrics and melodies are great and the guitarwork original. There's a lot to love about U2.

Shaka,

I'm asking an honest question. Who are they relevant to? Not teenagers. Not College students. Not Hard Rock stations that are thriving. Yes they still have a huge following but how old is their following. They might cross two demographics from Baby Boomers to Gen X, but that crowd is not out buying CDs anymore.

chowhall wrote:

shaka wrote:

chowhall wrote:Critically and Monetarily, U2 blows Styx away. They are media darlings, Bono the crusader for all Oprah worthy projects, and still touring as a Headliner with their major players still on board with no interruption. For me, their music sounds dated in the 80's and doesn't seem to make the jump to "Classic" rock. They are in kind of a no-man's land. Too hip to be "Classic", not relevant enough for Top 40.

U2 not relevant? You've got to be joking.

U2 continues to succeed because they are willing to stretch things out from their classic formula while still sounding like U2. The lyrics and melodies are great and the guitarwork original. There's a lot to love about U2.

Shaka,

I'm asking an honest question. Who are they relevant to? Not teenagers. Not College students. Not Hard Rock stations that are thriving. Yes they still have a huge following but how old is their following. They might cross two demographics from Baby Boomers to Gen X, but that crowd is not out buying CDs anymore.

As a Styx fan, you are actually asking this? Are you honestly trying to make a point that U2 are not popular anymore? Have you seen the tour gross? That isn't just a bunch of nostalgic gen x'rs. If that was the case, they could ply casinos and county fairs. Plenty of high school and college kids were at the concert.

If you are REALLY trying to make the arguement that U2, as a nostalgia act, can sell out the seats AND floor of every stadium in this country, then Styx and journey are REALLY doing something wrong.

Higgy wrote:

chowhall wrote:

shaka wrote:

chowhall wrote:Critically and Monetarily, U2 blows Styx away. They are media darlings, Bono the crusader for all Oprah worthy projects, and still touring as a Headliner with their major players still on board with no interruption. For me, their music sounds dated in the 80's and doesn't seem to make the jump to "Classic" rock. They are in kind of a no-man's land. Too hip to be "Classic", not relevant enough for Top 40.

U2 not relevant? You've got to be joking.

U2 continues to succeed because they are willing to stretch things out from their classic formula while still sounding like U2. The lyrics and melodies are great and the guitarwork original. There's a lot to love about U2.

Shaka,

I'm asking an honest question. Who are they relevant to? Not teenagers. Not College students. Not Hard Rock stations that are thriving. Yes they still have a huge following but how old is their following. They might cross two demographics from Baby Boomers to Gen X, but that crowd is not out buying CDs anymore.

As a Styx fan, you are actually asking this? Are you honestly trying to make a point that U2 are not popular anymore? Have you seen the tour gross? That isn't just a bunch of nostalgic gen x'rs. If that was the case, they could ply casinos and county fairs. Plenty of high school and college kids were at the concert.

If you are REALLY trying to make the arguement that U2, as a nostalgia act, can sell out the seats AND floor of every stadium in this country, then Styx and journey are REALLY doing something wrong.

That's not my point. The Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, and THe Who can sell out any venue they choose and they are no more relevant than Styx at this point. U2 is hugely popular as is Jimmy Buffet, which one is still relevant? Now of those two no question it would be U2, but my point is neither.

chowhall wrote:The Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, and THe Who can sell out any venue they choose and they are no more relevant than Styx at this point.

yeah...

Rolling Stone, Paul (Beatles), The Who, U2, not a fan of any of them

chowhall wrote:That's not my point. The Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, and THe Who can sell out any venue they choose and they are no more relevant than Styx at this point.

Pretty sure that alone makes them more relevant than Styx...

And The Who cannot sell out any venue they choose. The types of venues they have been booked into has gotten smaller at the same rate as Roger Daltrey's voice has gotten weaker.

WHY is so freaking important to folks as to how many seats STYX is capable of selling these days?

YES, we all know that they are incapable of drawing an arena sized crowd on their own these days....so what?

they are still capable of making a pretty dang good living going out and touring 100 plus dates per year each and every year. the last several times I saw them on their own they drew anywhere from 2500-5000....not bad in opinion at this point in their career.

when they have been part of a double or triple bill the number has been well above 10,000.

i personally think that is great.....everyone needs to realize that 99% of all the bands of all recorded history never get big enough to even play an arena much less sell it out....nor do they usually last much more than few years or a decade not nearly 4 decades (in any capacity).

why on God's earth would anyone expect them to still be selling 15,000 seats on their own....I will absolutely, gurantee you that if Dennis were still with the band that they would not be consistently doing those numbers.....they may up their attendence by about 2000 per night with Dennis back in.

It's awesome that U2 and a few others can still play the enormo domes these days but they are the lucky few.

there are many "current" artists that do quite well selling cd's and cant get a promoter to touch them on a big tour....so for styx and other older acts to still be getting work....i say more power to them....they like to play music and still enjoy it so i say go for it.

Okay, take a deep breath...relax...now exhale...

masque wrote:WHY is so freaking important to folks as to how many seats STYX is capable of selling these days?

YES, we all know that they are incapable of drawing an arena sized crowd on their own these days....so what?

The types of venues Styx is booked into is simply an indicator of how promoters feel about Styx in 2009. It really doesn't mean anything, but you can judge a band's popularity by looking at where they are playing.

Back to the third post:

U2 blows, on a bloody Sunday, plus every other day of the week.

Personally I wouldnt walk across the street to see them if it were free and I was in the front row!!

fightingilliniJRNY wrote:Okay, take a deep breath...relax...now exhale...

masque wrote:WHY is so freaking important to folks as to how many seats STYX is capable of selling these days?

YES, we all know that they are incapable of drawing an arena sized crowd on their own these days....so what?

The types of venues Styx is booked into is simply an indicator of how promoters feel about Styx in 2009. It really doesn't mean anything, but you can judge a band's popularity by looking at where they are playing.

yes I am totally aware of that.....my point is that why are folks surprised that a band entering into it's 4th decade of existnece isnt as popular as it was in it's heyday? styx played high schools, clubs and small halls for years until they got "popular"....rode that wave for many many years.....now they arent quite as popular as their glory days....what is surprising about that? and why do some folks think that is embarasing or a reason to hang it up? that's just silly in my opinion.

masque wrote:

fightingilliniJRNY wrote:Okay, take a deep breath...relax...now exhale...

masque wrote:WHY is so freaking important to folks as to how many seats STYX is capable of selling these days?

YES, we all know that they are incapable of drawing an arena sized crowd on their own these days....so what?

The types of venues Styx is booked into is simply an indicator of how promoters feel about Styx in 2009. It really doesn't mean anything, but you can judge a band's popularity by looking at where they are playing.

yes I am totally aware of that.....my point is that why are folks surprised that a band entering into it's 4th decade of existnece isnt as popular as it was in it's heyday? styx played high schools, clubs and small halls for years until they got "popular"....rode that wave for many many years.....now they arent quite as popular as their glory days....what is surprising about that? and why do some folks think that is embarasing or a reason to hang it up? that's just silly in my opinion.

The reason for Styx to hang it up happened about 10 years ago...

masque wrote:yes I am totally aware of that.....my point is that why are folks surprised that a band entering into it's 4th decade of existnece isnt as popular as it was in it's heyday? styx played high schools, clubs and small halls for years until they got "popular"....rode that wave for many many years.....now they arent quite as popular as their glory days....what is surprising about that? and why do some folks think that is embarasing or a reason to hang it up? that's just silly in my opinion.

I never even remotely came close to saying that Styx should hang it up. I simply pointed out that it's ridiculous to think that the Rolling Stones, The Who or U2 aren't any more relevant than Styx. They certainly are more relevant - and you can tell by the amount of people buying up their tickets.

It's not embarrassing for Styx, it's not reason to hang it up - but there are bands from the same era that are way more relevant today than Styx is.

chowhall wrote:

shaka wrote:

chowhall wrote:Critically and Monetarily, U2 blows Styx away. They are media darlings, Bono the crusader for all Oprah worthy projects, and still touring as a Headliner with their major players still on board with no interruption. For me, their music sounds dated in the 80's and doesn't seem to make the jump to "Classic" rock. They are in kind of a no-man's land. Too hip to be "Classic", not relevant enough for Top 40.

U2 not relevant? You've got to be joking.

U2 continues to succeed because they are willing to stretch things out from their classic formula while still sounding like U2. The lyrics and melodies are great and the guitarwork original. There's a lot to love about U2.

Shaka,

I'm asking an honest question. Who are they relevant to? Not teenagers. Not College students. Not Hard Rock stations that are thriving. Yes they still have a huge following but how old is their following. They might cross two demographics from Baby Boomers to Gen X, but that crowd is not out buying CDs anymore.

Go to a concert and see the cross section of people who attend. Everyone from grandparents to little kids. U2 has transcended age just like the Beatles did.

Higgy wrote:

chowhall wrote:

shaka wrote:

chowhall wrote:Critically and Monetarily, U2 blows Styx away. They are media darlings, Bono the crusader for all Oprah worthy projects, and still touring as a Headliner with their major players still on board with no interruption. For me, their music sounds dated in the 80's and doesn't seem to make the jump to "Classic" rock. They are in kind of a no-man's land. Too hip to be "Classic", not relevant enough for Top 40.

U2 not relevant? You've got to be joking.

U2 continues to succeed because they are willing to stretch things out from their classic formula while still sounding like U2. The lyrics and melodies are great and the guitarwork original. There's a lot to love about U2.

Shaka,

I'm asking an honest question. Who are they relevant to? Not teenagers. Not College students. Not Hard Rock stations that are thriving. Yes they still have a huge following but how old is their following. They might cross two demographics from Baby Boomers to Gen X, but that crowd is not out buying CDs anymore.

As a Styx fan, you are actually asking this? Are you honestly trying to make a point that U2 are not popular anymore? Have you seen the tour gross? That isn't just a bunch of nostalgic gen x'rs. If that was the case, they could ply casinos and county fairs. Plenty of high school and college kids were at the concert.

If you are REALLY trying to make the arguement that U2, as a nostalgia act, can sell out the seats AND floor of every stadium in this country, then Styx and journey are REALLY doing something wrong.

Can I make a slight correction. U2 not only sells out every stadium in this country, they sell out any stadium anywhere in the world.

I fucking hate U2.

One reason I hate them is that EVERYBODY seems to like them, and have a blank look on their face when I tell them I don't like them. I don't like them for their sanctimonious preaching, the political correctness, and Bono's narcissism. So what if his narcissism is going for "good causes"...it's still aimed at getting people to see him like he's a modern-day Jesus. Hey Bono, shut up and sing.

As for how far Styx has fallen, in their defense I will say that few of their contemporaries are doing well either, many of them are actually worse off. Nazareth can't sell out the 9:30 Club in DC, and no one cares about Kansas or REO any more. I'm sure there are more examples...but there are damn few bands that stay on top for their entire career.