|
|||||||
| Register | Blogging | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#12 (permalink) |
|
excitabl pink
|
There does seem to be some correlation between age and exposure. The Flaming Lips present an interesting case though. Right now they are as big as they've ever been, and Wayne Coyne is 45 years old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 (permalink) |
|
The Sexual Intellectual
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 16,691
|
I don't really think you can count the Flaming Lips they've been getting mainstream exposure in one form or another since the early 90s.
I think someone like Seasick Steve would be a much better example.
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 (permalink) | |
|
daddy don't
|
Quote:
In response to the guy who started this thread, if you hit 30 (and look any older than early-mid 20's) and still haven't 'made it', i wouldn't get your hopes up. If you were to get signed by a major tomorrow and they touted you as 'the next whoever' and you sold tickets, and managed to do so consistently over a few years, you could conceivably maintain a career out of it a la Flaming Lips. So the only way to get around the ageism in pop/rock music (with the odd exception) is to already be well established and have a loyal fanbase. Unless you're seasick f*cking steve. And i can't think of any examples but i'm sure there are plenty of thirty-somethings doing well in less conspicuous genres like electronica (where the performance/exposure aspect is minimal)... I know there are one or two successful DJs out there who were in failed 90's indie bands. But yeah, f*cked if i can remember who they are. Appleblim is one possibly. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Tags |
| age, bands, limit |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|