bands that would have been in stadiums if it...

[dontask]

wasnt for the internet..


fire away!...kasabian are my first suggestion.

[sirmavers]

I'd assume that you mean bands that people don't bother seeing because they have the internet. No more come to mind, loads of bands would be bigger if it weren't for the internet, The Coral for example are awesome, but they wouldn't do stadiums. Not sure myself, other than Kasabian.

[benraul]

Sorry dontask, i might be being idiotic here but I dont really understand the question.

How has the internet stopped bands performing to big venues?

And Ant, dont you think if it was not for the internet bands like the Coral would be lesser known? I am sure circulation from chat rooms such as this has led people to discover more music. Didnt you discover the La's on here? Or was it someone else discovering another act?

[sirmavers]

Sure people have discovered other bands on here, but I haven't specifically on here, but from The Courteeners music I have yeh, The La's get mentioned in 'Please Don't', that's how I got to know of them, and they are now my favourite band. I kind of know what he's getting at, he just means that some bands don't get the attention because no one can be arsed seeing them because of the internet, but it does work different for some bands, and the can thank the internet for their stardum.

[benraul]

I really cant think of any example of what dontask is refering to. If a band is good people will get hold of it. Music loving people are always going to want to see their favourite acts. Nothing beats going to a live gig. Its an amazing buzz. I dont think the lack of internet would have propelled any act to the heights of performing in a stadium.

but then again, I am still not sure I get the question so ;-)

[dontask]

okay ill explain what i mean abit

since the explosion of the internet, there has been a real lack of bands making the jump to stadium. i think i can think of muse, coldplay and foo fighters, maybe soon kings of leon. let me think of the best example. when the arctic monkeys emerged they were huge right? the biggest new band in recent memory but if you compare them to oasis from when the internet wasnt such a big thing. oasis pretty much strolled into the stadiums whereas arctics still havent cracked arenas. but because the internet dilutes everything, its hard for a band to get the sort of instant success in the same way oasis has and it wont happen again as long as the internet is around.


so yes id say the arctic monkeys are another example of what im talking about. like kasabian. struggling to think of another example to be honest!

the internet helps alot of bands get noticed n have their moderate success but it stops epic success in the way that say rolling stones, beatles, oasis, led zep, u2 have.

[benraul]

Would you not say those bands you listed at the bottom there, which included the likes of rolling stones, beatles, oasis, led zep and u2 have alot in common? They all have massive tunes that cater to a wide audiance and especially an American one (excluding oasis of course). Had the internet been around back when these bands were at their peak I doubt they would have been lost in the wilderness of the internet. Probably just made them even bigger.

Kasabian are one of my favourite bands but there is no way they would be able to do a stadium tour in my opinion. They dont have a broad enough spectrum to do so. Maybe I will be proved wrong.

Arctic Monkeys are probably the newest band that would be able to play to a stadium audiance, and they have infact done so, headlining their own 'festival' at Old Trafford Cricket Stadium over 2 days. I went the first day. Badly run event if ever there was one. But they came at a time when indie music was at its most popular. It became a scene thing. There is so much choice out there now.

I imagine it also costs alot to put on a massive show like that so unless companies can guarantee a band has had commercial success they are going to be reluctant to put on a big stadium gig.

Oasis entered the music world when we were under a conservative leadership. Everything was dull. Music was boring and there was nothing for people to do. Brit pop sort of emerged and gave the kids a new lease of life (I was probably to young to rmeember mind) Blur were massive as well and there was an excitment about this new rivalry. There was not as much competition as there is today.

I am at work, so not had time to read through that post properly so if it doesnt make sense I apologise.

[sirmavers]

Sorry but I must say, no way can we say that Arctic Monkeys would be bigger and playing in stadiums without the internet, THEY WOULDN'T EVER HAVE GOT THIS BIG WITHOUT THE INTERNET!! The internet halped Arctic Monkeys get as big as they are now and it's how word spread about them. So never blame the lack of Arctic Monkeys stadium gigs on the internet, they owe what they have to alot of help from the internet.

As Ben said though, I couldn't imagine many of modern bands in stadiums anyway, they don't have big enough tunes like U2 and the likes do.

And for the record, Beatles a stadium band?? They hardly played live anyway, they belong in the studio, even if they played more live, they wouldn't have been Wembley anyway, the songs don't fit right in stadiums.

[dontask]

you missed the point with the beatles...although...shea stadium!...its more that they were a huge enough band to fill whatever they want.

and thats why i picked kasabian. stuff like club foot, empire, fire, doberman...etc are all perfect examples of big stadium tunes. massive sing along chorus's etc.

and oasis were doing stadiums on just definitely maybe werent they? to be fair thats hardly a broad enough spectrum but they got it done.

i still think the internet has had a big effect, it offers us a great deal of choice so theres no need to just like focus on one band like alot of people did with oasis, cus then theres a great deal of other similars who you could see for cheaper or whatever n its easy to find them cus of internet.

and you should have read what i said ant, i said the internet can help bands have moderate success (although i agree arcitc monkeys might be pushin the term moderate) but stops them getting into the stadiums. i agree theyve got it to thank but i think AM would have been big either way, and i think they would have flourished had they been the band to fill the gap that oasis did.

[chezza]

Do you think that is down to the internet or other factors including the times (it's not the 1990s), the fact maybe not as many bands have the same appeal as oasis did, there is a wider variety of music more widely available (largely due to the internet).....

[benraul]

The whole thing regardin Arctic Monkeys and the internet has been blown way our of proportion. They didnt even have a myspace when everyone was talking about them. Just handing out demo's and word of mouth spread like it does with any act. The reason people took more notice is because for their age their tunes were bang on.

[dontask]

well i cant really comment on oasis appeal cus i never got it, not even in the same way i understand why people like hiphop etc.

[upton]

I don't get modern Hip Hop love Rakim, Krs, Beastie Boys, Run Dmc ect.

[sirmavers]

I don't get hip hop, rap, dance, trance, any of that stuff. I mean, no instruments, no singing, just synths and talking pretty damn quickly, very very annoying. Like, just lok at the charts now, it's pretty embarassing to be honest, it's so annoying seeing all the talentless dross that people in our country listen to.

But it's a long rant and a long story, all very annoying.

[dontask]

to some it up upton, people like to think there hard and can get ladies, and thats the subject matter of modern hip hop. oh and hailey =p.

dont be a snob ant =p alot of fans of all that jazz would condemn rock music? although i do in a way agree i guess. lady gaga for example can f*ck right off