Actually, I give the final win to Kiss, whom I had forgotten entirely. In fact, that proves my point.
I am of the firm opinion that Kiss has never been artistically relevant. They succeeded (if I can use that word) on the image and the concert spectacle. Except for a minor league ode to rock and rolling all night party-ing ev-e-ry day, Kiss has not done anything memorable. I don’t care what sales figures they brag of, what concert grosss they’ve reaped, artistically, no one cares. I personally just don’t understand being into that band as an artistic and creative unit. I’ve listened to rock radio for 20 years, and I know literally two Kiss songs, and the other one I can’t even think of right now.
Plus, personally I can’t stand the perpetual state of adolescence they glory in maintaining. At least the Who were funny and personable and one of the greatest bands ever, to go with their tv throwing and hotel hatcheting.
True, I should’ve mentioned his current standards phase. But he did seem to coast on the reputation he made for himself in the early 70’s for about 20 years.
Also see, e.g., the current incarnation of Guns N’ Roses.
I originally thought “Rolling Stones!” but now that Kiss has been introduced to the conversation, I’d like to say that they own this thread.
Everyone has their guilty pleasures, but once someone starts waxing philosophical about the musical contributions of Kiss, I begin to question their sanity and hearing. Image- and theatre-wise, certainly considerable heavyweights. I mean, I know who’s in the band, some of their songs… color me unimpressed.
I agree Kiss wins, but surely **Meat Loaf **deserves an honourable mention for coasting on, what, 2 tracks for 30 years.
And then there’s the truly sad case of Andrew Strong (the lead singer in the film The Commitments) who as of this year is still touring on the strength of his impersonation of **Joe Cocker **doing Mustang Sally.
You know, Cardinal, I think your question is too vague to have a reasonable answer. There are too many ways to measure how significant the band once was. There’s no simple way to decide what the last good album the group put out was. It’s hard to decide whether a band is no longer together or is just taking a long time between tours. There’s no clear line between coasting and just doing their job as long as they can hold out.
Welll… what is “coasting” really? Buffett has a huge following because I’m told (never been to one of his concerts) he puts on one heck of a show and people love it.
If we’re going to say that “coasting” only makes sesne in the context of having had a big career at some point to coast* from*, who isn’t coasting past a certain point? Some are just better at it than others.
The number of big musical stars that keep pushing the envelope past the age of say, 40 is a mighty tiny number.
I was amazed that it took so long for someone to mention The Beach Boys. I was also disappointed, because I was looking forward to being the first to mention it. Thanks a lot, mamboman.
I’d rank the Beach Boys second behind the Stones. At least the Stones still go full-bore into their live show. The Stones still rock when you see them live, from all I’ve heard. But the Beach Boys? Pure nostalgia act, and nothing more. Haven’t had a hit since the dreadful “Kokomo.”
On the other hand, Brian Wilson is decidedly not coasting, having released a critically acclaimed record not long ago.
I’ll agree that those are his weakest, but Robert Altman makes a bad movie from time to time. That’s not coasting, that’s risk taking; willingness to fail.
He “admitted” doing those albums specifically to pay the rent. Not the same thing in my book. He said the same thing about Let’s Dance. Setting out to achieve a specific goal, achieving it, and moving on, is not the same thing as coasting, which I define as repeating old formulae because you’re dried up creatively and don’t want to get a job selling real estate. In any case, in regards to Bowie, I think we’re splitting hairs.
