The biggest coasters in rock

Cafe Society
1

I’ve posted this some years before, but I’m interested in a current answer.

Who are the biggest coasters in rock music? The formula is money earned / years since a significant album.
My personal winner is the Rolling Stones. Except for a blip in about 1993, they haven’t truly mattered since about 1981, but they’ve grossed probably about a billion dollars since then.

Metallica places perhaps second, since none of their albums have truly resonated since 1991, but they continue to fill 20K halls.

The Who, although one of my all time rock heros, place fairly highly, as they haven’t even attempted a new album in over 15 years, and even then the results were spotty. The reason they may not place so high is they didn’t pretend much to be a current rock act, but just toured to keep up the nostalgia factor and the band members’ lifestyles.

U2 is very low on the list, as they had a genuine popular and critical hit in 2000 with “All That You Can’t Leave Behind”. Their most recent album didn’t contain songs for the ages, but it didn’t feel mailed in, either.

Your nominations?

2

Pink Floyd

3

But they haven’t done anything as “Pink Floyd” in over a decade. (A one time only, 4 song set at Live 8 doesn’t count.) And the real Pink Floyd (with Roger Waters) put out their last album in 1983, only 4 years after The Wall.

Now the individual members of Pink Floyd might count. I went to a Roger Waters concert last weekend and heard approximately 20 Pink Floyd songs and 2 Waters solo songs. I imagine a David Gilmour concert would be much the same.

And the Rolling Stones win this thread as a matter of course. But some other names to consider: Aerosmith, R.E.M., Paul McCartney, Queen, and Elton John.

4

Well, of course there’s always The Coasters.

5

Elton John has a new album out which has been very well received.
(I have not heard it, myself.)
There’s Crosby, Stills and Nash (emphatically NOT Young.)
The Rolling Stones are the champs.

6

Dare I say it…Pearl Jam.

Every album, they claim that they’re “getting back to their roots”, and yet it’s just another platter of banal, putrid crap. They haven’t had a decent record since Vitalogy – and yet, they continue to tour and make money.

Queen shouldn’t be on the list, because the lead singer is like, you know, dead. Granted, the last three Queen records were rather abysmal…

How about Deep Purple? Not as big a money-maker in concerts these days, but their albums have totally sucked ever since Perfect Strangers (and some would say even before then!) They don’t even have Ritchie Blackmore anymore.

And don’t forget Van Halen! (Do they even HAVE a lead singer now??)

7

That said, the last Stones album was, actually, pretty good…

I’d say CS&N over the Stones - a new Stones ablum was still big news up to about 1982, CS&N (much as i love the guys) not so much since 1970.

mm

8

I’d push U2 up higher on the list. All that you can’t leave behind was well recieved, but I think that was just people desperate to hear the Joshua Tree or anything like it. The album was retread pop rock.

9

The Moody Blues might be on the list somewhere. How many overlapping Best-of compilations have they released?

10

ABBA is still making huge bucks, despite not having done anything together since the 1980’s.

11

Billy Joel comes to mind now. He still tours, but hasn’t even attempted an album since, what, 1991?

As for U2, it’s very possible I’m just biased, but I give them some bonus artistic credit for trying. “Pop” was a real failure, and I don’t own it, and they don’t even play anything from it at many shows, but I think they weren’t just mailing it in, either. “Vertigo” gave them a genuine rock radio hit again, so I think they saved themselves a bit there, too.

The Rolling Stones have had something like half a radio hit in over 20 years. I can’t recall anything except that one that sounded so much like K.D. Lang that they had to give her co-writing credit.

Deep Purple are a good nomination, hampered only by the fact that they haven’t managed to make Joel or Stones money on their nostagia tours. I thought I heard the “Bananas” album was well receieved, but it’s hard to tell, because the fanboys will lick their boots at every turn. I don’t know where to find a real review. Rolling Stone mag doesn’t seem to have one.

Van Halen only counts a little bit, I think, because while they were fading a bit at the end of Sammy’s tenure, they only made the one bad album after he left, and have toured, what, once since Gary left? Making money off the back catalog doesn’t count here. We’re looking for bad albums for suckers and big grossing tours based on decades old content.

Paul McCartney is a very good nomination. He hasn’t had a radio hit since 1982, has he? Maybe that awful Spies Like Us single was after that, but that was already coasting. If Paul toured and only played solo material from the past 20 years, people would actually think about throwing stuff at the stage. They’re going to see a Beatle.

12

I don’t think the formula really works. The Stones tour heavily, and they still put out albums fairly regularly. Just because none of them have hit big doesn’t mean they’re coasting.

If ABBA counts, so does Elvis and the Beatles.

13

The Beatles…still earn heaps, no new material for years, 3 of them are dead. What could more typify coasting than being dead? Ringo is carrying them.

14

When did Sir Paul die and why wasn’t it in the news?

15
16

Maybe not a radio hit, but his last album sold quite well and made it into the top ten, as did Flaming Pie back in the 90s.

And while I agree that a McCartney concert consisting solely of '80s-and-later work would be pretty thin, I’d be perfectly happy to see him retire the Beatles stuff and just play his own songs; he’s written more than enough good ones.

17

Maybe Tom Petty. He did have that Last Dance With Mary Jane when I was in high school, but not much since then and jay-sus do I hear him on the radio four or five times a day.

I’d maybe consider David Bowie and Led Zep too.

18

I think “coasting” is when a real band slowly morphs into a cover band of themselves. They go up on stage, play the hits they had 20 years ago, or 30 years ago, or heck, 40 years ago (40 years ago was 1966). If a band has only the lead singer left out of the original group, are they really the same group, or are they a cover band that manage to hire the lead singer from the original band?

Eh, I understand the desire to make some money, I understand the desire to get back on stage. But don’t the guys who used to play stadiums and have number one singles die a little inside when they tour casinos and state fairs? I guess if you like performing you’re gonna want to perform your entire life, you’ll never give it up voluntarily even if you have to play on a streetcorner with your hat on the sidewalk.

19

How about The Four Tops?:

They’ve been together 50 years. They did their best work 40 years ago. (And, in my opinion, their best work was as good as anything else in the 1960’s.) They’re still performing together today.

20

You know who’s really coasting? Steve Miller. Still tours all the time just doing a greatest hits show, hasn’t done anything noteworthy since “Abracadabra”.