[punk-coder]

I have a friend that is the drummer in a band that had a couple big hits in the 90’s, not going to drop names, but their contemporaries are bands like Collective Soul, Gin Blossoms, that kind of stuff. They have a few gold records. To this day they still tour every year and make enough money off touring and royalties to make a good living. I grew up on punk and thrash metal, so had never heard of his band, so it surprised me how close to 30 years later they still get booked at Disney and on rock cruises, but happy he still gets to keep doing that.

[golergka]

Once you get into a heart of a teen, you remain there for the rest of his life. Many bands well past their peak have a revival of private bookings now, as people who were teens back then become rich people who can book a band for a party.

[cbsks]

Case in point: https://www.whenwewereyoungfestival.com/

[HPsquared]

This is also how the classic car market works.

[bombcar]

It’s a variation of the “thousand true fans” - https://kk.org/thetechnium/1000-true-fans/

You do not need to be terribly famous at all to make a comfortable living; locally famous or historically know will get you to that level.

[winternett]

As a musician myself, who has also brushed elbows in coming up amongst friends within the industry, one of the most vital skills a musician can learn is that avoiding overexposure is the key to long-term survival, just as much as making great music that endures... I know many artists that were very prominent years ago, but now can barely climb that hill again because of overexposure and huge re-marketing costs, coupled with an ageing fan base.

People who follow trends, and try to sound like others is definitely an indication that their career is short lived, but in this day and age, with the way social media promotion works, too many artists compete to constantly be on trending lists, and that easily burns out audiences on them and their names... It's relatively easy to "look popular" if you dump tons of money into music promotion, and labels love it when an artists dominates online, but that also makes them flood out everyone else, and even more important trending topics than music at times.

There can be a huge backlash for bought popularity, and for promoting yourself as more important than other vital topics people care about in their daily lives, as on social media, there is only one timeline and trending list for everything.

Absence can potentially make the heart grow fonder for listeners towards a music artist when well timed, especially if every time the artist re-emerges they put out consistently great music projects... Modern musicians need to learn how to share the microphone, and social media needs to create a more even playing field for multiple artists to coexist in over time, rather than pushing just 3-7 celebrity artists all of the time... That's the key to longer careers in music in my opinion.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Yeah, one of the things I didn't like about this analysis is that it really didn't do a very good job of differentiating between a band that really is a "one hit wonder" and a band that may only be in the top 40 for a short time but still has a dedicated following and is able to make a good, long career of it.

Take his "prototypical example" of Of Monsters and Men. I am glad that he did mention that the band "has enjoyed continued success since their 2012 breakout", but as a big fan of this band, I'd say they have a really dedicated following. I think in their case they were more of the "quirky band shoots has an immensely mainstream popular single, then goes back to being a quirky band, just with a much bigger following".

Rather than just look at placement in the top 40, which is only going to be songs that have wide applicability and are usually heavily promoted, I think it's more applicable to see how long these folks can have a career in music. As another example, think of someone like Andre 3000. Sure, he may never surpass his fame from Outkast's "Hey Ya" in 2003, but he's been working prominently for 30 years.

[TheOtherHobbes]

There's an entire industry supporting former short-run chart names touring - and often selling out - small/medium venues and playing smaller festivals, nostalgia cruises, and so on.

There's also an entire industry of cover bands and impersonators.

There's far more to it than the Billboard list.

[mc32]

George Thorogood and the Destroyers and others like it are bands that put a lot of hard work into small venue touring but keep on performing into old age. Their big break came when they did their 50/50 in support of the Rolling Stones.

[glenngillen]

So… the Goo Goo Dolls? :P

[vundercind]

I’d guess whatever band it is, is at least one full notch less-prominent and -successful than that one.

[bena]

Are they Better Than some of these other bands? Any connection to Ezra Miller?

Why do I think they're Better Than Ezra? Or possibly Candlebox? That feels about right. Probably more Better Than Ezra because Candlebox feels a little out of the Mouse's wheelhouse.

They were/are solid.