Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
James Kirk

Quote
reg thorpe

Quote
James Kirk
How many times are people going to pay to hear Only the Good Die Young, Allentown, It's Still Rock and Roll to Me etc...I'd only have interest if he was playing some new music.

Lots of people will

I guess, but to me it feels like Joel is just going through the motions. There are many artists of Joel's generation (Bruce Springsteen,Paul Simon,Paul McCartney etc..) who still put out quality new music that they play live.

Billy Joel seems happy with being nothing more than an oldies act. He is no better than Frankie Valli these days. It's ashame, because Joel has so much to offer and could be one of the few artists alive today that has the gravitas combined with the commercial appeal to make rock and roll music grow up. Instead of living up to the challenge he is going to play New York State of Mind and Uptown Girl...AGAIN! To me that's just boring and I won't be paying to see him unless he does something new.

I for one expect more of Billy Joel.

I understand that opinion, but I also feel that if he had new music, we'd never really hear it anyway. Past 2000, he'd only be able to allot like 4 slots of the show to them, which would probably decrease as the tour went on. Also, they would be the songs people go to the bathroom for unless he had a big hit. Its the same with the Stones, its the same with Paul, its the same with Elton. They are ALL oldies acts. Just because Joel doesn't ruin his career with albums worth of songs, where most likely you'd only find 5 good ones from a span of each 3 albums, I admire that. I'd prefer him to stop if he doesn't have another excellent album in him, than getting 7 more albums at this point like the Stones where its really just 2-3 good songs per record. And again, you'd never get those songs played live anyway for the most part, so these current shows really aren't that much different than what they would be had he had more albums.

I don't get the argument you need to keep making albums. Joel doesn't tour that much, and when he does he gets around to probably 60 different songs, a respectable amount for an act of his age. Making albums that suck doesn't keep you relevant so I don't know why people feel everyone needs to do that. Maybe it is alittle lazy, but there's also something to be admired about closing the book on your career if you think you can't top what you already have. Hardly anyone does that, and a lot should.

Actually, that is not the case. Oldies acts don't have #1 albums and sellout stadiums...Springsteen, McCartney, Simon, The Eagles, Dylan as examples have played large chunks of their new albums live. The Stones on the other hand simply play the same old warhorses with a couple of new tunes on their usual tours.

Lets not forget either that a lot of the new music by these iconic artists sells fairly well. Example: Springsteen's last few albums have gone to #1. The Eagles last studio album a few years back went to #1. Dylan has spent time at #1 recently, McCartney got to #3 on the charts and stayed in the top 20 global charts for a month.

While it is clear that pop radio is not going to play new music by Bob Dylan or Paul Simon, that does not mean that new material isn't going to perform on the album charts. An album of all new material from Billy Joel would not get much airplay, but it would sell a ton of albums (much like the Eagles last cd) which would validate his playing the new material...That said if he feels he no longer has the ability to make quality music I can understand, but as a longtime fan I don't care to see the same thing over and over.

The thing is Springsteen and Dylan are different. They live on putting out new albums.

McCartney - well yeah, he likes to put out new albums, but most of them suck and you hear one or two of the songs live because he has so much Beatles stuff to play. So really his shows wouldn't be that different had he not released an album since 93.

Paul Simon - he's released like one good album in the last 20 years. That one should be played a lot, and if Billy had an album like that I'm sure he'd be very happy. But Simon went through shitty albums to get there and Billy doesn't feel the need to deal with that.

The Eagles - They put out one album since breaking out and now never play anything from it. Sure they "had" to play it when it came out, but no one really cared, and it only sold because they hadn't released an album since 1980.

I know what you mean, I really do. I'm just saying that rarely do these older artists actually put out good albums, or ones they stick with in a live setting. So really, Joel isn't that different, except that he hasn't tried to make new albums, either out of laziness or no inspiration. Yet, he also tours a lot less than those other guys, so that kind of legitimizes it. He's really not that different than his contemporaries, except that he hasn't tried releasing new albums and people feel the need to always bring that up. But even if he did, the setlists of today would look similar to how they already do, so I don't know why people really want the new music. When he tours, its nice nostalgia. Otherwise there are tons of other older artists making subpar albums to fill Joel's void.

Quote
James Kirk

Quote
reg thorpe

Quote
James Kirk
How many times are people going to pay to hear Only the Good Die Young, Allentown, It's Still Rock and Roll to Me etc...I'd only have interest if he was playing some new music.

Lots of people will

I guess, but to me it feels like Joel is just going through the motions. There are many artists of Joel's generation (Bruce Springsteen,Paul Simon,Paul McCartney etc..) who still put out quality new music that they play live.

Billy Joel seems happy with being nothing more than an oldies act. He is no better than Frankie Valli these days. It's ashame, because Joel has so much to offer and could be one of the few artists alive today that has the gravitas combined with the commercial appeal to make rock and roll music grow up. Instead of living up to the challenge he is going to play New York State of Mind and Uptown Girl...AGAIN! To me that's just boring and I won't be paying to see him unless he does something new.

I for one expect more of Billy Joel.

He's lost interest in the commercialism of producing new music...no need for it really..he can live off his catalog and appear once a month at MSG to pay for the bills...I get the feeling he won't be the last to use this approach and I'm surprised others haven't done it already aside from Celine Dion, Meatloaf, Brittney Spears, etc.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-12-05 20:50 by reg thorpe.

Quote
Chris Fountain

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
James Kirk

Quote
reg thorpe

Quote
James Kirk
How many times are people going to pay to hear Only the Good Die Young, Allentown, It's Still Rock and Roll to Me etc...I'd only have interest if he was playing some new music.

Lots of people will

I guess, but to me it feels like Joel is just going through the motions. There are many artists of Joel's generation (Bruce Springsteen,Paul Simon,Paul McCartney etc..) who still put out quality new music that they play live.

Billy Joel seems happy with being nothing more than an oldies act. He is no better than Frankie Valli these days. It's ashame, because Joel has so much to offer and could be one of the few artists alive today that has the gravitas combined with the commercial appeal to make rock and roll music grow up. Instead of living up to the challenge he is going to play New York State of Mind and Uptown Girl...AGAIN! To me that's just boring and I won't be paying to see him unless he does something new.

I for one expect more of Billy Joel.

I understand that opinion, but I also feel that if he had new music, we'd never really hear it anyway. Past 2000, he'd only be able to allot like 4 slots of the show to them, which would probably decrease as the tour went on. Also, they would be the songs people go to the bathroom for unless he had a big hit. Its the same with the Stones, its the same with Paul, its the same with Elton. They are ALL oldies acts. Just because Joel doesn't ruin his career with albums worth of songs, where most likely you'd only find 5 good ones from a span of each 3 albums, I admire that. I'd prefer him to stop if he doesn't have another excellent album in him, than getting 7 more albums at this point like the Stones where its really just 2-3 good songs per record. And again, you'd never get those songs played live anyway for the most part, so these current shows really aren't that much different than what they would be had he had more albums.

I don't get the argument you need to keep making albums. Joel doesn't tour that much, and when he does he gets around to probably 60 different songs, a respectable amount for an act of his age. Making albums that suck doesn't keep you relevant so I don't know why people feel everyone needs to do that. Maybe it is alittle lazy, but there's also something to be admired about closing the book on your career if you think you can't top what you already have. Hardly anyone does that, and a lot should.

Amazingly, he is selling out upcoming concerts in minutes. For example, he has added several shows for Ft Lauderdale, which starts in Jan. I'm not sure it is because of a couple if hits such as Piano Man or Just the way you Are(sic).

Nontheless- fans cherish the past and flock to his concerts. Not for me - but not a bad thing.

Thought I heard Billy had a couple new singles but I could be thinking of Elton. Hope to catch Billy @ MSG next time I'm in NY. Should be nice deal for him. Saw him in Chicago early 80s. He was great @ the Garden during the Hurricane Sandy fundraiser with Mick, Bon Jovi, The Boss, Fergie & the crew. Maybe he'll bring other artists on board.

Met him once. He was pretty friendly & surprisingly down to earth.

Before he takes up permanent residency at MSG, Billy Joel will be honored at the Kennedy Center Honors ceremony at the JFK Center for the Performing Arts in DC tonight. Joel will be joined by Carlos Santana, Herbie Hancock, opera star Martina Arroyo and actress Shirley MacLaine.

The ceremony will be broadcast on Dec. 29th.

[www.politico.com]

Quote
James Kirk
How many times are people going to pay to hear Only the Good Die Young, Allentown, It's Still Rock and Roll to Me etc...I'd only have interest if he was playing some new music.

Probably almost as many times as theyre going to pay more every year to hear Satisfaction, Jumpin Jack Flash and Honky Tonk Women.

You could argue that a certain middle aged audience's lack of willingness to embrace or accept anything their 'favourite' artists have created in the last 20-25 years or so has gone a long way to harming the entire industry. They spend crazy money to hear an oldies show which discourages the act in question from bothering to stay creative and leaves less money to go around for buying tickets to see anyone else.

Quote
BluzDude
I'm curious what Prince charged fans for the O2 run. When Prince played Los Angeles, about a year and a half ago for a (I think) 17 night run, I saw him twice. I paid $25 including service charges. If these were shows with "normal" pricing, I most likely wouldn't have gone even once.

£31.21. The price coincided with the title of his latest album at the time. You also got a copy of his new album with your ticket, so effectively the concert ticket cost about £20-22.

Most tickets were that price - there were a few pricier packages of around £200 which put you beside the stage. The aftershows cost £25, if I remember right.

Stones prices at the same venue that week were £150 (most seats) and £80. It was the only show on the tour where fan club presales couldnt get you in the front few rows (although they didnt tell you that, of course). Those seats were all kept for the Fan Asylum packages, which ran to about £2,000 or thereabouts if I remember right.