Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 20:26:54 GMT
Can the artist or band really be considered a successful artist\band ?
|
|
|
|
Post by darknessfish on Mar 1, 2017 20:53:40 GMT
Yep.
|
|
TheSowIsMine
Junior Member
@thesowismine
Posts: 2,652
Likes: 1,684
|
Post by TheSowIsMine on Mar 1, 2017 21:01:30 GMT
Of course they can.
|
|
tekpop
New Member
@tekpop
Posts: 46
Likes: 20
 
|
Post by tekpop on Mar 1, 2017 21:10:26 GMT
Sure.Why not?
|
|
misternick
Sophomore
@misternick
Posts: 174
Likes: 62
|
Post by misternick on Mar 1, 2017 21:17:10 GMT
You might be surprised but there is an entire world out there beyond the United States of America.
|
|
|
|
Post by marco26 on Mar 1, 2017 22:35:51 GMT
No, they can not be considered great.
If an artist never breaks big in America they are simply a local phenom. Let's look at history. Beatles in 1963 were a local phenom. Had a good sized following in parts of England and parts of Germany. Wow. So the boys had girls chasing them, made some BBC radio sessions, appeared on small time TV shows that reached a couple of thousand people. Big effing deal.
Ah, but then came an appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show in the USA. Now the boys were known and loved by millions. Think about this: that February night in 1964, those four lads from Liverpool were seen by SEVENTY-FOUR MILLION people!
From there, the rest is history. Because of America, instead of playing to a hundred people in a Cavern Club, they were a band that was actually playing monstrous sports stadiums...Shea Stadium! Because of America, the boys became rich beyond there wildest dreams. Because of America the boys became a legendary global band instead of a local phenomena.
If The Beatles had never had success in America, The Beatles would have been nothing more than Freddie And The Dreamers or Robbie Williams.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 0:00:53 GMT
You might be surprised but there is an entire world out there beyond the United States of America. Yes but does the world outside the United States really matter ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 0:02:59 GMT
No, they can not be considered great. If an artist never breaks big in America they are simply a local phenom. Let's look at history. Beatles in 1963 were a local phenom. Had a good sized following in parts of England and parts of Germany. Wow. So the boys had girls chasing them, made some BBC radio sessions, appeared on small time TV shows that reached a couple of thousand people. Big effing deal. Ah, but then came an appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show in the USA. Now the boys were known and loved by millions. Think about this: that February night in 1964, those four lads from Liverpool were seen by SEVENTY-FOUR MILLION people! From there, the rest is history. Because of America, instead of playing to a hundred people in a Cavern Club, they were a band that was actually playing monstrous sports stadiums...Shea Stadium! Because of America, the boys became rich beyond there wildest dreams. Because of America the boys became a legendary global band instead of a local phenomena. If The Beatles had never had success in America, The Beatles would have been nothing more than Freddie And The Dreamers or Robbie Williams. I did not ask if they could be considered great. I asked if they could be considered successful. Which is not necessarily the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by alpha128 on Mar 2, 2017 0:17:28 GMT
It depends on your definition of success.
Most of the albums I've purchased recently are recorded by bands that aren't based in the United States. Germany is my #1 source of music by far. The U.S. is #2, and Sweden is not far behind at #3.
I doubt if any of these bands, even the U.S. based ones, are considered "big". But I'm picky and in each case their album was good enough to make me open my wallet, so IMO that makes them a successful band.
|
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Mar 2, 2017 0:27:31 GMT
Kate Bush was pretty successful without a big crossover. Cliff Richard as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 2:29:05 GMT
Can the artist or band really be considered a successful artist\band ? Why would you only mark success by monetary gain, and then only consider success in the U.S.? I'm sure there's plenty of artists who do plenty of coin in their home country or areas of the world. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 2:29:54 GMT
Kate Bush was pretty successful without a big crossover. She was great at boxing out, though. |
|
|
|
Post by marco26 on Mar 2, 2017 2:50:09 GMT
Kate Bush was pretty successful without a big crossover. She was great at boxing out, though. Yeah, and her fine step back move made it so she didn't need that big crossover. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 12:12:03 GMT
Can the artist or band really be considered a successful artist\band ? Why would you only mark success by monetary gain, and then only consider success in the U.S.? I'm sure there's plenty of artists who do plenty of coin in their home country or areas of the world. The point is could they be considered a world success without being big in the US. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 2, 2017 12:55:22 GMT
Re "local" versus a "world success" that would just depend on how many different countries they were popular in. And that would go just as well for artists who are only big in the US, but not in other countries.
|
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Mar 2, 2017 13:37:31 GMT
No, they can not be considered great. If an artist never breaks big in America they are simply a local phenom. Let's look at history. Beatles in 1963 were a local phenom. Had a good sized following in parts of England and parts of Germany. Wow. So the boys had girls chasing them, made some BBC radio sessions, appeared on small time TV shows that reached a couple of thousand people. Big effing deal. Ah, but then came an appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show in the USA. Now the boys were known and loved by millions. Think about this: that February night in 1964, those four lads from Liverpool were seen by SEVENTY-FOUR MILLION people! From there, the rest is history. Because of America, instead of playing to a hundred people in a Cavern Club, they were a band that was actually playing monstrous sports stadiums...Shea Stadium! Because of America, the boys became rich beyond there wildest dreams. Because of America the boys became a legendary global band instead of a local phenomena. If The Beatles had never had success in America, The Beatles would have been nothing more than Freddie And The Dreamers or Robbie Williams. They were more than a local phenomenon by the end of ' 63...they already had number 1's in UK (x4), Australia (x4), Canada (x3), Norway (x2), USA (x4), Germany, France,New Zealand, Ireland...as well as numerous Top 10 hits. And 21 million viewers during their Royal Variety Performance in 1963 is far from "small time TV shows". The boys were already loved by millions by the time they appeared on the Ed Sullivan show...why do you think they had the highest viewing figures up til' that time. Wouldn't you say a band that drew a record breaking TV audience and had 4 number one singles in the US had already "broke" America? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 13:38:59 GMT
They can never be considered legendary if they don't take off in the US though.
|
|
|
|
Post by sostie on Mar 2, 2017 14:17:19 GMT
Of course they can. Robbie Williams has sold 75m+ worldwide...around the same figure as The Police, Nirvana and Kiss. Ditto Kylie Minogue
Would someone who only had success in North America (Reba McEntire for instance) be considered unsuccessful?
|
|
|
|
Post by darknessfish on Mar 2, 2017 15:07:01 GMT
They can never be considered legendary if they don't take off in the US though. Yeah, Latte Mangeshkar, Asha Bhosle, and Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan are insignificant little footnotes. |
|
