ATM9000 said:

---

Diggity said:

---

I would argue that very few people are going to see them for songs written in the past 20 years.

Can't fault the guys for touring. Maybe they could have gone the Billy Joel route and just stopped releasing music?

---

Name me the bands out there who are writing new songs and album in years 21-40 where people are going to see them for that music. I'll wait.

---

Rolling Stones. Technically beyond year 40, but their latest album is pretty great.

thriller03 said:

---

Screaming Trees as well...since we are talking about "ratedness", they always seem underrated to me. They are kind of forgotten in the whole Seattle scene, but they had some good songs/albums, and Lanegan's voice and delivery are some of my favorites. They had nowhere near the impact the other 4 did - or success - but they had quality contributions to the sound and the era.

---

I nearly lost you there...but in the end I agree.

ATM9000 said:

---

Diggity said:

---

I would argue that very few people are going to see them for songs written in the past 20 years.

Can't fault the guys for touring. Maybe they could have gone the Billy Joel route and just stopped releasing music?

---

Name me the bands out there who are writing new songs and album in years 21-40 where people are going to see them for that music. I'll wait.

---

Rush was pulling pretty big crowds for their last release "Clockwork Angels". Obviously none sense then due to the death of Neil and them essentially breaking up.

Iron Maiden still puts out new stuff and it pulls big crowds around the world. For some odd reason the USA audience just doesn't want to hear their new stuff. It is really odd but there it is.

Most hard rock/pre-grunge fans are stuck in their formative music era. Personally I'm a huge fan of a ton of new rock bands in that same style but they don't get as much traction as I wish they did.

KidDoc said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Diggity said:

---

I would argue that very few people are going to see them for songs written in the past 20 years.

Can't fault the guys for touring. Maybe they could have gone the Billy Joel route and just stopped releasing music?

---

Name me the bands out there who are writing new songs and album in years 21-40 where people are going to see them for that music. I'll wait.

---

Rush was pulling pretty big crowds for their last release "Clockwork Angels". Obviously none sense then due to the death of Neil and them essentially breaking up.

Iron Maiden still puts out new stuff and it pulls big crowds around the world. For some odd reason the USA audience just doesn't want to hear their new stuff. It is really odd but there it is.

Most hard rock/pre-grunge fans are stuck in their formative music era. Personally I'm a huge fan of a ton of new rock bands in that same style but they don't get as much traction as I wish they did.

---

No one went to those shows solely because of Clockwork Angels material. Come on.

Sister just saw U2 at the Sphere in Vegas. Said it was awesome and she doesn't even like them.

One thing unrelated to whether they were "overrated" or not, Nirvana was one of the last bands to record during the golden age of recording (meaning, studio engineering). Late 70s to early 90s recordings were all analog and mastered like no other time. Digitally sourced music just doesn't sound the same. If you're into that sort of thing, watch the Sound City documentary. It's pretty great. When Sound City closed, Dave Grohl bought the Neve board(s) to use in his own studio.

Know Your Enemy said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Diggity said:

---

I would argue that very few people are going to see them for songs written in the past 20 years.

Can't fault the guys for touring. Maybe they could have gone the Billy Joel route and just stopped releasing music?

---

Name me the bands out there who are writing new songs and album in years 21-40 where people are going to see them for that music. I'll wait.

---

Rush was pulling pretty big crowds for their last release "Clockwork Angels". Obviously none sense then due to the death of Neil and them essentially breaking up.

Iron Maiden still puts out new stuff and it pulls big crowds around the world. For some odd reason the USA audience just doesn't want to hear their new stuff. It is really odd but there it is.

Most hard rock/pre-grunge fans are stuck in their formative music era. Personally I'm a huge fan of a ton of new rock bands in that same style but they don't get as much traction as I wish they did.

---

No one went to those shows solely because of Clockwork Angels material. Come on.

---

Agreed. And nobody goes to a Maiden show to hear Senjutsu tracks. They're going for the classic 80's material up through Seventh Son.

Know Your Enemy said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Diggity said:

---

I would argue that very few people are going to see them for songs written in the past 20 years.

Can't fault the guys for touring. Maybe they could have gone the Billy Joel route and just stopped releasing music?

---

Name me the bands out there who are writing new songs and album in years 21-40 where people are going to see them for that music. I'll wait.

---

Rush was pulling pretty big crowds for their last release "Clockwork Angels". Obviously none sense then due to the death of Neil and them essentially breaking up.

Iron Maiden still puts out new stuff and it pulls big crowds around the world. For some odd reason the USA audience just doesn't want to hear their new stuff. It is really odd but there it is.

Most hard rock/pre-grunge fans are stuck in their formative music era. Personally I'm a huge fan of a ton of new rock bands in that same style but they don't get as much traction as I wish they did.

---

No one went to those shows solely because of Clockwork Angels material. Come on.

---

Well then the sold out shows would have been a massive disappointment as they played almost the entire thing. Ticket sales did not seem to decline though despite "nobody" wanting to hear the new music.

Clockwork Angels Tour - Wikipedia

For Iron Maiden they tend to alternate years of classic and new stuff. They often just barely touch USA with the new stuff as it doesn't sell as well despite doing well world wide. Just for an example this is the link to their 2017 tour with mostly Book of Souls stuff:
Iron Maiden Average Setlists of year: 2017 | setlist.fm

Compared to 2018 which was more of a classic through early 2000s.
Iron Maiden Average Setlists of year: 2018 | setlist.fm

Enzo The Baker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I think it's insane to say Nirvana and U2 are overrated.

Radiohead is, of course, very overrated.

---

Radiohead's music has spanned three decades and has evolved in that time in an incredibly unique way. They write highly technical and complex music that is created to stand the test of time and to remain fresh upon many listens. I still notice new things in their music to this day. Furthermore, artists today are still heavily influenced by their work that is over two decades old. I get how it may not be your cup of tea but saying they are overrated shows you're pretty out of touch with music.

---

Exhibit A of why they're overrated.

Enzo The Baker said:

---

TXAG 05 said:

---

Enzo The Baker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I think it's insane to say Nirvana and U2 are overrated.

Radiohead is, of course, very overrated.

---

Radiohead's music has spanned three decades and has evolved in that time in an incredibly unique way. They write highly technical and complex music that is created to stand the test of time and to remain fresh upon many listens. I still notice new things in their music to this day. Furthermore, artists today are still heavily influenced by their work that is over two decades old. I get how it may not be your cup of tea but saying they are overrated shows you're pretty out of touch with music.

---

Sounds like you are just trying to defend a crap band. Creep is their best song.

---

lol it's clear what people still play early 90s music on repeat in this thread. There's more music out there people.

---

Every time I venture out though I'm met with a lot of crap I don't like so I head back to my safe space….

I think they're overrated. IF Kurt didn't look like a male model and IF he hadn't died, I think they'd be considered just one of a pack of grunge bands that made a few awesome songs and a lot of forgettable ones. SLTS is truly one of those songs and videos that just has that "it" factor, put them on the map and deservedly so. Their lyrics are boring nonsense, nothing great in terms of instruments, not a lot in terms of impressive songwriting, BUT, some great melodies, really hit and helped define the early 90s grunge zeitgeist, and when you've got a grunge icon who looks like a GAP model who then dies at his peak, your band is going to be put on a pedestal it doesn't belong on.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

I think they're overrated. IF Kurt didn't look like a male model and IF he hadn't died, I think they'd be considered just one of a pack of grunge bands that made a few awesome songs and a lot of forgettable ones. SLTS is truly one of those songs and videos that just has that "it" factor, put them on the map and deservedly so. Their lyrics are boring nonsense, nothing great in terms of instruments, nothing impressive in terms of songwriting, BUT, some great melodies, really hit and helped define the early 90s grunge zeitgeist, and when you've got a grunge icon who looks like a GAP model who then dies at his peak, your band is going to be put on a pedestal it doesn't belong on.

---

I almost spit out my water as I was reading this. Someone's got a crush on Kurt.

Rocagnante said:

---

Enzo The Baker said:

---

TXAG 05 said:

---

Enzo The Baker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I think it's insane to say Nirvana and U2 are overrated.

Radiohead is, of course, very overrated.

---

Radiohead's music has spanned three decades and has evolved in that time in an incredibly unique way. They write highly technical and complex music that is created to stand the test of time and to remain fresh upon many listens. I still notice new things in their music to this day. Furthermore, artists today are still heavily influenced by their work that is over two decades old. I get how it may not be your cup of tea but saying they are overrated shows you're pretty out of touch with music.

---

Sounds like you are just trying to defend a crap band. Creep is their best song.

---

lol it's clear what people still play early 90s music on repeat in this thread. There's more music out there people.

---

Every time I venture out though I'm met with a lot of crap I don't like so I head back to my safe space….

---

Try Dirty Honey, Crazy Lixx, The Pretty Reckless, Eclipse (Sweden) just to get started on new great rock.

Enzo The Baker said:

---

Cliff.Booth said:

---

I think they're overrated. IF Kurt didn't look like a male model and IF he hadn't died, I think they'd be considered just one of a pack of grunge bands that made a few awesome songs and a lot of forgettable ones. SLTS is truly one of those songs and videos that just has that "it" factor, put them on the map and deservedly so. Their lyrics are boring nonsense, nothing great in terms of instruments, nothing impressive in terms of songwriting, BUT, some great melodies, really hit and helped define the early 90s grunge zeitgeist, and when you've got a grunge icon who looks like a GAP model who then dies at his peak, your band is going to be put on a pedestal it doesn't belong on.

---

I almost spit out my water as I was reading this. Someone's got a crush on Kurt.

---

If you mean 100% of 90s girls who liked alt rock, you're starting to get my point.

I agree with the OP. The only reason they're famous is because Kurt Cobain killed himself.

chick79 said:

---

I agree with the OP. The only reason they're famous is because Kurt Cobain killed himself.

---

Huh? He was famous before he killed himself.

Enzo The Baker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I think it's insane to say Nirvana and U2 are overrated.

Radiohead is, of course, very overrated.

---

Radiohead's music has spanned three decades and has evolved in that time in an incredibly unique way. They write highly technical and complex music that is created to stand the test of time and to remain fresh upon many listens. I still notice new things in their music to this day. Furthermore, artists today are still heavily influenced by their work that is over two decades old. I get how it may not be your cup of tea but saying they are overrated shows you're pretty out of touch with music.

---

When it comes music, I'm more out of touch than you can possibly imagine.

I've recently discovered an entire sub genre of groups that make 80s acoustic synth type stuff though. Really digging that. It has a name I think. Dark something. And I like some group called Gunship.

So I'm sort of cool in my own mind.

YouBet said:

---

Enzo The Baker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I think it's insane to say Nirvana and U2 are overrated.

Radiohead is, of course, very overrated.

---

Radiohead's music has spanned three decades and has evolved in that time in an incredibly unique way. They write highly technical and complex music that is created to stand the test of time and to remain fresh upon many listens. I still notice new things in their music to this day. Furthermore, artists today are still heavily influenced by their work that is over two decades old. I get how it may not be your cup of tea but saying they are overrated shows you're pretty out of touch with music.

---

When it comes music, I'm more out of touch than you can possibly imagine.

I've recently discovered an entire sub genre of groups that make 80s acoustic synth type stuff though. Really digging that. It has a name I think. Dark something. And I like some group called Gunship.

So I'm sort of cool in my own mind.

---

Gunship is cool. Check out the midnight if you haven't already.

Enzo The Baker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Enzo The Baker said:

---

YouBet said:

---

I think it's insane to say Nirvana and U2 are overrated.

Radiohead is, of course, very overrated.

---

Radiohead's music has spanned three decades and has evolved in that time in an incredibly unique way. They write highly technical and complex music that is created to stand the test of time and to remain fresh upon many listens. I still notice new things in their music to this day. Furthermore, artists today are still heavily influenced by their work that is over two decades old. I get how it may not be your cup of tea but saying they are overrated shows you're pretty out of touch with music.

---

When it comes music, I'm more out of touch than you can possibly imagine.

I've recently discovered an entire sub genre of groups that make 80s acoustic synth type stuff though. Really digging that. It has a name I think. Dark something. And I like some group called Gunship.

So I'm sort of cool in my own mind.

---

Gunship is cool. Check out the midnight if you haven't already.

---

I know who that is! I'm basically 18 again. Hell yea.

Yes Nirvana is way overrated

Thanks for the suggestions!

chick79 said:

---

I agree with the OP. The only reason they're famous is because Kurt Cobain killed himself.

---

Lol so we're just making **** up now?

Claude! said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Diggity said:

---

I would argue that very few people are going to see them for songs written in the past 20 years.

Can't fault the guys for touring. Maybe they could have gone the Billy Joel route and just stopped releasing music?

---

Name me the bands out there who are writing new songs and album in years 21-40 where people are going to see them for that music. I'll wait.

---

Rolling Stones. Technically beyond year 40, but their latest album is pretty great.

---

Nobody is going to see The Rolling Stones to listen to Hackney Diamonds songs.

ATM9000 said:

---

Claude! said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Diggity said:

---

I would argue that very few people are going to see them for songs written in the past 20 years.

Can't fault the guys for touring. Maybe they could have gone the Billy Joel route and just stopped releasing music?

---

Name me the bands out there who are writing new songs and album in years 21-40 where people are going to see them for that music. I'll wait.

---

Rolling Stones. Technically beyond year 40, but their latest album is pretty great.

---

Nobody is going to see The Rolling Stones to listen to Hackney Diamonds songs.

---

I'm going to see them for all their music. Someone mentioned Iron Maiden; I saw them a year or so ago - I didn't go only to hear them play songs from Senjutsu, but I knew they were going to and wasn't pissed when they played Writing on the Wall. I went for the whole package, including the new stuff.

ATM9000 said:

---

Claude! said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Diggity said:

---

I would argue that very few people are going to see them for songs written in the past 20 years.

Can't fault the guys for touring. Maybe they could have gone the Billy Joel route and just stopped releasing music?

---

Name me the bands out there who are writing new songs and album in years 21-40 where people are going to see them for that music. I'll wait.

---

Rolling Stones. Technically beyond year 40, but their latest album is pretty great.

---

Nobody is going to see The Rolling Stones to listen to Hackney Diamonds songs.

---

I love Hacknew Diamonds yet completely agree with this post. I'd actually like to hear 2-3 songs off the album but I'd still go even if I knew they weren't going to play anything from the album.

ATM9000 said:

---

Claude! said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Diggity said:

---

I would argue that very few people are going to see them for songs written in the past 20 years.

Can't fault the guys for touring. Maybe they could have gone the Billy Joel route and just stopped releasing music?

---

Name me the bands out there who are writing new songs and album in years 21-40 where people are going to see them for that music. I'll wait.

---

Rolling Stones. Technically beyond year 40, but their latest album is pretty great.

---

Nobody is going to see The Rolling Stones to listen to Hackney Diamonds songs.

---

This song is surprisingly great.

Claude! said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Claude! said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Diggity said:

---

I would argue that very few people are going to see them for songs written in the past 20 years.

Can't fault the guys for touring. Maybe they could have gone the Billy Joel route and just stopped releasing music?

---

Name me the bands out there who are writing new songs and album in years 21-40 where people are going to see them for that music. I'll wait.

---

Rolling Stones. Technically beyond year 40, but their latest album is pretty great.

---

Nobody is going to see The Rolling Stones to listen to Hackney Diamonds songs.

---

I'm going to see them for all their music. Someone mentioned Iron Maiden; I saw them a year or so ago - I didn't go only to hear them play songs from Senjutsu, but I knew they were going to and wasn't pissed when they played Writing on the Wall. I went for the whole package, including the new stuff.

---

This is disingenuous.

Yes Hackney Diamonds is a good album… but you'd never ever pay the prices to go see The Rolling Stones to watch them play that and their catalogue since Bridges of Babylon. You might be ok with hearing songs from those albums… but copping out and saying you are going for all their music is what a poindexter would say to score internet points.

End of the day, I just don't think you can call bands who are talked about a ton still or people pay or would pay big money to see in huge venues years after their peak etc etc 'overrated'… because the market is pretty much making the argument that they are wildly influential. You can however say you don't personally like them… which… again I'll say that's fine but also not that interesting to argue about.

I know people say it is just because Cobain died early… but so did the guy from Sublime… they don't have the same pull as Nirvana does. Amy Winehouse probably won't have the same pull years from now either. I doubt Nirvana would still be together today even if Cobain were still living… Grohl was too talented not to branch out eventually… but I also don't think their influence and continued prominence would actually be that different than it is today.

I like Nirvana but I do agree that Cobain's lyrics were pretty bad.

If Kurt didn't die their popularity would have faded. Going out on top adds to the mystic.

Weird thread where everyone is masturbating to stuff they hate which others like.

Diggity said:

---

thriller03 said:

---

Screaming Trees as well...since we are talking about "ratedness", they always seem underrated to me. They are kind of forgotten in the whole Seattle scene, but they had some good songs/albums, and Lanegan's voice and delivery are some of my favorites. They had nowhere near the impact the other 4 did - or success - but they had quality contributions to the sound and the era.

---

I nearly lost you there...but in the end I agree.

---

Lanegan was definitely more in the shadows during this era, but had a much bigger impact than people realize. I absolutely loved how he mixed with Staley in Mad Season.

Andrew Dufresne said:

---

Bland lyrics, mediocre instrument skills, lots of songs sound the same..

I honestly don't understand the status that they have. They are considered an icon within the rock genre. They still get massive amounts of air play to this day.

---

The legendary bands are often a product of the era, and Nirvana is no different. Their sound was sooooo different to what was being produced at the time. It marked an end of the 80s "box" sound and "hair metal" and ushered in power chords (which, tbh, had had brief moments in previous ages) and a Gen-X fury. The next decade after them saw a flurry of very unique rock, from the rest of the Seattle Four to Green Day's melancholy punk to Blink-182's frenetic, colorful anthems to Coldplay's soft, mellow tones. The 90s were a smorgasbord of sound, and Nirvana pretty much kicked that off.

It was the last great era of rock music.

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Andrew Dufresne said:

---

Bland lyrics, mediocre instrument skills, lots of songs sound the same..

I honestly don't understand the status that they have. They are considered an icon within the rock genre. They still get massive amounts of air play to this day.

---

The legendary bands are often a product of the era, and Nirvana is no different. Their sound was sooooo different to what was being produced at the time. It marked an end of the 80s "box" sound and "hair metal" and ushered in power chords (which, tbh, had had brief moments in previous ages) and a Gen-X fury. The next decade after them saw a flurry of very unique rock, from the rest of the Seattle Four to Green Day's melancholy punk to Blink-182's frenetic, colorful anthems to Coldplay's soft, mellow tones. The 90s were a smorgasbord of sound, and Nirvana pretty much kicked that off.

It was the last great era of rock music.

---

Much like Porkchop I was 17 when Nevermind came out. I was a freshmen in college at the time and I'll never forget when I saw the video for Smells…. Stopped me in my tracks and I immediately thought to myself "who the fk is this? And this is who I am!". It was a total new sound and a total new group of adolescence looking for an identity after a very pop riddled 80s. They had this effect on a whole generation. That is what put them on the map, not Corbain's death. And all of the songs sound the same? That is your dad's cliche. Nothing remotely true. Their range within their own music, as well as their rendition of others has been demonstrated time and time again. Don't get me wrong, I can easily see how people wouldn't like them. But that is an artifact of subjective taste. Which is natural. But a very different thing than being one dimensional and untalented. I hate Rush. Not for me. But I also recognize their greatness.

This happens a lot. Guy kills himself and the band receives undue credibility that lasts far longer than the public's taste for their music.

There are some exceptions. Joy Division's Ian Curtis killing himself brought the public's attention to their musical genius, that had he lived, they may not have ever realized it. This is my opinion, of course.

As far as the OP's question, yes, Nirvana is highly overrated.

StinkyPinky said:

---

BassCowboy33 said:

---

Andrew Dufresne said:

---

Bland lyrics, mediocre instrument skills, lots of songs sound the same..

I honestly don't understand the status that they have. They are considered an icon within the rock genre. They still get massive amounts of air play to this day.

---

The legendary bands are often a product of the era, and Nirvana is no different. Their sound was sooooo different to what was being produced at the time. It marked an end of the 80s "box" sound and "hair metal" and ushered in power chords (which, tbh, had had brief moments in previous ages) and a Gen-X fury. The next decade after them saw a flurry of very unique rock, from the rest of the Seattle Four to Green Day's melancholy punk to Blink-182's frenetic, colorful anthems to Coldplay's soft, mellow tones. The 90s were a smorgasbord of sound, and Nirvana pretty much kicked that off.

It was the last great era of rock music.

---

Much like Porkchop I was 17 when Nevermind came out. I was a freshmen in college at the time and I'll never forget when I saw the video for Smells…. Stopped me in my tracks and I immediately thought to myself "who the fk is this? And this is who I am!". It was a total new sound and a total new group of adolescence looking for an identity after a very pop riddled 80s. They had this effect on a whole generation. That is what put them on the map, not Corbain's death. And all of the songs sound the same? That is your dad's cliche. Nothing remotely true. Their range within their own music, as well as their rendition of others has been demonstrated time and time again. Don't get me wrong, I can easily see how people wouldn't like them. But that is an artifact of subjective taste. Which is natural. But a very different thing than being one dimensional and untalented. I hate Rush. Not for me. But I also recognize their greatness.

---

Well said (except for the Rush hate….they kick ass….but you recovered well).

It seems so cliche to talk about it this way today but it really was a jolt to everyone. I heard it described like "accidentally tuning in to a radio station from the future". When you first heard it you were like "damn". Then rapidly followed by releases from PJ, AIC, Soundgarden. It was a great time to be in college! (I was freshman when Teen Spirit was released.)

KidDoc said:

---

Know Your Enemy said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Diggity said:

---

I would argue that very few people are going to see them for songs written in the past 20 years.

Can't fault the guys for touring. Maybe they could have gone the Billy Joel route and just stopped releasing music?

---

Name me the bands out there who are writing new songs and album in years 21-40 where people are going to see them for that music. I'll wait.

---

Rush was pulling pretty big crowds for their last release "Clockwork Angels". Obviously none sense then due to the death of Neil and them essentially breaking up.

Iron Maiden still puts out new stuff and it pulls big crowds around the world. For some odd reason the USA audience just doesn't want to hear their new stuff. It is really odd but there it is.

Most hard rock/pre-grunge fans are stuck in their formative music era. Personally I'm a huge fan of a ton of new rock bands in that same style but they don't get as much traction as I wish they did.

---

No one went to those shows solely because of Clockwork Angels material. Come on.

---

Well then the sold out shows would have been a massive disappointment as they played almost the entire thing. Ticket sales did not seem to decline though despite "nobody" wanting to hear the new music.

Clockwork Angels Tour - Wikipedia

For Iron Maiden they tend to alternate years of classic and new stuff. They often just barely touch USA with the new stuff as it doesn't sell as well despite doing well world wide. Just for an example this is the link to their 2017 tour with mostly Book of Souls stuff:
Iron Maiden Average Setlists of year: 2017 | setlist.fm

Compared to 2018 which was more of a classic through early 2000s.
Iron Maiden Average Setlists of year: 2018 | setlist.fm

---

Yea regarding Rush thats pretty dumb - I was at the last two tours for Clockwork Angels and R40.

BOTH were great and many lifelong fans loved the last release, myself included. Clockwork Angels was their best album since Power windows at least, maybe since Grace Under Pressure.

Both tours were received very well and the crowds were as big as they had ever been really.

And it was widely known in the CA tour they were playing almost the entire Clockwork Angels album (minus BU2B and BU2B2). So 10 of the 12 tracks were played with a string orchestra.

And R40 show was epic - I thin many sensed it was the end - but playing the entire career in reverse chronological order was awesome. Ending with Working Man basically. And the second set from Moving Pictures back through 2112 was just amazing. I took my son to that show his first and only Rush show. He loved it.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

Know Your Enemy said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

ATM9000 said:

---

Diggity said:

---

I would argue that very few people are going to see them for songs written in the past 20 years.

Can't fault the guys for touring. Maybe they could have gone the Billy Joel route and just stopped releasing music?

---

Name me the bands out there who are writing new songs and album in years 21-40 where people are going to see them for that music. I'll wait.

---

Rush was pulling pretty big crowds for their last release "Clockwork Angels". Obviously none sense then due to the death of Neil and them essentially breaking up.

Iron Maiden still puts out new stuff and it pulls big crowds around the world. For some odd reason the USA audience just doesn't want to hear their new stuff. It is really odd but there it is.

Most hard rock/pre-grunge fans are stuck in their formative music era. Personally I'm a huge fan of a ton of new rock bands in that same style but they don't get as much traction as I wish they did.

---

No one went to those shows solely because of Clockwork Angels material. Come on.

---

Well then the sold out shows would have been a massive disappointment as they played almost the entire thing. Ticket sales did not seem to decline though despite "nobody" wanting to hear the new music.

Clockwork Angels Tour - Wikipedia

For Iron Maiden they tend to alternate years of classic and new stuff. They often just barely touch USA with the new stuff as it doesn't sell as well despite doing well world wide. Just for an example this is the link to their 2017 tour with mostly Book of Souls stuff:
Iron Maiden Average Setlists of year: 2017 | setlist.fm

Compared to 2018 which was more of a classic through early 2000s.
Iron Maiden Average Setlists of year: 2018 | setlist.fm

---

Yea regarding Rush thats pretty dumb - I was at the last two tours for Clockwork Angels and R40.

BOTH were great and many lifelong fans loved the last release, myself included. Clockwork Angels was their best album since Power windows at least, maybe since Grace Under Pressure.

Both tours were received very well and the crowds were as big as they had ever been really.

And it was widely known in the CA tour they were playing almost the entire Clockwork Angels album (minus BU2B and BU2B2). So 10 of the 12 tracks were played with a string orchestra.

And R40 show was epic - I thin many sensed it was the end - but playing the entire career in reverse chronological order was awesome. Ending with Working Man basically. And the second set from Moving Pictures back through 2112 was just amazing. I took my son to that show his first and only Rush show. He loved it.

---

One of the best subtle touch on the R40 tour was the stage retrogression from a big arena style show to a high school gym at the end!