|
Post by markquo on Mar 24, 2016 11:34:36 GMT
Been thinking,what with Acdc rumoured to be getting Axl Rose in to sing,has Quo now just become a brand name and not really a rock n roll band ? Kiss seem to have marketed themselves in this way,with only two of the original band left and less emphasis on the live gigs. They have so many products out,ACDC are the same and now with only Angus Young remaining. Will it go this way with Quo? I feel they have lost sight of what made them great in the first place and will now put the name to anything for a few quid . Thoughts please Cheers
|
|
|
Post by wolfman on Mar 24, 2016 13:22:16 GMT
if axl joining acdc..pantodc..
|
|
|
Post by I Ain't Complaining on Mar 24, 2016 13:25:00 GMT
I think you could probably say the same for most art forms and professions that people get into because they're passionate about it. To start with you love what you do and it's not about money, and over time the love diminishes and the money takes more prominence. I'm not saying everyone is like that but I reckon a large percentage are.
Look at all the money that everyone associated with Quo have earned since 1986. Take away Quo Mark II and no-one would have earned that money (from Quo). If AC/DC quit now, it stops earning money for it's members. So I would say that after early successes, all bands become a money making brand. There are very very few bands who don't have a change of members or style or both, if that's what it takes to keep going and keep earning money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2016 18:02:41 GMT
As far as I am aware, AC/DC have evolved fully in the world audience eye, at the same pace as their recorded history has evolved, and irrespective of band member change. In other words, their full career is adequately represented on the stage and they haven't existed over so many years as a copy act of the Bon Scott days
That is, irrespective of the present situation with the outlook for the band
|
|
|
Post by Railroad17 on Mar 24, 2016 18:05:48 GMT
Been thinking,what with Acdc rumoured to be getting Axl Rose in to sing,has Quo now just become a brand name and not really a rock n roll band ? Kiss seem to have marketed themselves in this way,with only two of the original band left and less emphasis on the live gigs. They have so many products out,ACDC are the same and now with only Angus Young remaining. Will it go this way with Quo? I feel they have lost sight of what made them great in the first place and will now put the name to anything for a few quid . Thoughts please Cheers Questioning if Quo has become a brand is insulting to all the loyal Quo customers fans everywhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 7:54:29 GMT
Didn't Rossi and Rick acknowledge the Brand in XS All Areas under Walker's management? ......that and the poor albums they produced.
|
|
|
Post by Railroad17 on Mar 25, 2016 8:08:46 GMT
"The No 1 rock n roll brand in the land,will you welcome.......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 8:33:58 GMT
I see the Rolling Stones Brand are playing to 500,000 in Cuba
|
|
|
Post by lazypokerblues on Mar 25, 2016 8:55:22 GMT
They've been a brand since 1986.
Ever since they started using the image of just Rossi & Parfitt, twin guitars etc.
The single artwork for Rollin' Home in 86: just two denim clad bums, with Status Quo written at the top.
The group has 5 people in it, but they're not acknowledged: even now right to the end: it's just Rossi & Parfitt.
So it is a brand. Has been for 30 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 10:00:54 GMT
So it is a brand. Has been for 30 years. But the question remains. What does it represent?
|
|
|
Post by curiousgirl on Mar 25, 2016 10:05:19 GMT
I don't know about being a brand since 86 - I think that was more of an image/sound change. But I do remember in general that branding took off and became more than simply coke or pepsi or washing powder. When I was a kid you didn't have wear a specific brand of trainers for example. Any make would do. I found this from a long article on branding. " But in the early 1990s, things started to change. The previous commoditization of product quality was followed by an almost equal push for build real brands. One by one the big retailers started to realize that they had an opportunity to also play the branding game and that by selling more, higher quality, but particularly better-branded products, they could not only dramatically improve their margin mix, but that they could raise the profile and reputation of their own brand as a whole." link to whole article. So I don't think we should surprised that all rock bands have evolved into brands. There are now so many to choose from, they have to hustle for our attention somehow. Like many on here though, I do find this sad and disappointing. I like groups for their music and not for their image or brand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 10:14:03 GMT
Like many on here though, I do find this sad and disappointing. I like groups for their music and not for their image or brand. In a nutshell, yes this is the truth.
However, back in the very beginning both the image and the music were perfectly aligned together.
|
|
|
Post by lazypokerblues on Mar 25, 2016 10:42:53 GMT
Well I think most successful businesses rely on their brand image to keep their awareness going.
The Beatles finished in 1970 but their brand is still going strong.
You could even say that the Stone Roses is relying on a nostalgic view of the Madchester scene to keep their brand alive, even though they are functioning as the original line up.
So at some point, a band changes from being seen as an original group with integrity to its own brand - this is especially true when the original band breaks up but the business name carries on, being carried by a couple of remaining members, and some savvy PR/management support.
That's why CQ still plays all the old hits as opposed to You'll Come Round, Dust to Gold, because that's what the consumer wants from the brand.
If you want to go and see Rhino in a band then go see Rhino's Revenge.
Or Rossi's solo tour outing felt like a real band. It was so refreshing. And of course, the FF.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 12:25:34 GMT
Well I think most successful businesses rely on their brand image to keep their awareness going. The Beatles finished in 1970 but their brand is still going strong. You could even say that the Stone Roses is relying on a nostalgic view of the Madchester scene to keep their brand alive, even though they are functioning as the original line up. So at some point, a band changes from being seen as an original group with integrity to its own brand - this is especially true when the original band breaks up but the business name carries on, being carried by a couple of remaining members, and some savvy PR/management support. That's why CQ still plays all the old hits as opposed to You'll Come Round, Dust to Gold, because that's what the consumer wants from the brand. If you want to go and see Rhino in a band then go see Rhino's Revenge. Or Rossi's solo tour outing felt like a real band. It was so refreshing. And of course, the FF. Clearly, plenty of 'consumers' are not fans then. Who decides who the consumers are exactly anyway??
I must admit, a lot of this makes no sense whatsoever at all to my logical little brain
I became a fan of Quo because of the music and the way the band came across playing the music, not to be part of some successful bullsh1t business admiration society. Bugger that basically
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2016 12:35:05 GMT
Also, what use is 'awareness'?
You can attract awareness in spades, but not necessarily for all the right reasons. This claptrap boardroom theory stuff should be kept under lock and key and away from microphones and speakers
|
|