The type of bands who chase the money but not the myth.

We're perfectly free to like or dislike any of these bands but I don't think it's fair or accurate to say that these bands are any more or less money motivated than anyone else. I quote David Geffen: "I've dealt closely with Bob Dylan and he's just as interested in money as anyone else."

is being big and overblown, and ever since Absolution they've been doing it in enough of a knowing manner that they've got a get-out clause when it comes to this sort of criticism.

had tunes you could remember or sing along to. Muse to me are the musical equivalent a geek masturbating furiously in a guitar shop.

I think artists in the past could do very well financially without having to play live shows. So they could pick and choose. Some bands are born to play live, it's their reason to be. However, there are others who can take it or leave it. Kraftwerk, for instance, tour far more frequently now than they used to.

Like a footballer, Muse may well be pragmatically assessing how long they can pull in the crowds and earn a great deal of money. The chances are that this will last only a few more years. But they are a good band and I think they will remain good enough to maintain where they are.

Who knows - in ten year's time we might be seeing a nu-Muse revival. So noughties, so retro.

why should it last forever? The internet has changed things slightly but for most of human history the "best sellers" of any era have often been forgotten a generation or so later. There were songs and novels in Victorian times that sold tens of thousands that we've never heard of. Doesn't mean they didn't have any value. Even the likes of Mozart have needed reviving form time to time. So why does it matter if people listen to Muse years hence?

many years ago in Malvern Winter Gardens. From the moment they ran on it was apparent that 'Ver Leps' could see themselves in an Enormodome playing to 50,000 screaming fans.

Up until the first pint glass hit the stage that is :-)

But, the point was, they were always going to suit that enormodome environment - some bands are just built that way. Maybe Muse are one? I never saw them playing in a 500-seater* but maybe they played as if they were in a 50,000 seater.

Every band needs the money - remember, it's how musicians eat and pay the bills! 99.9% of working musicians don't have globe-rogering sales and, just like everyone else, have to play for their living.

*I'd just like to confirm that I've NEVER seen Muse.

muse are godawful end of.

listening to them now.

Even if Muse have broken up, people will still listen to them, because that is the joy of recorded media.

Admittedly there may not be as many, but in some corners of the world, there'll be people still enjoying their music.

For example, people such as Blind Lemon Jefferson who no one listened to whilst alive now have a core listening audience, and are regarded as being influential. And conversely, a pop band like Hear'Say who were really popular, now aren't listened to as much, but if you look on last.fm they're still being listened to.

Just because something isn't around anymore, or isn't as popular, doesn't stop it being listened to. There'll always be teenagers and music geeks picking up things they've recently discovered. And that is the beauty of recorded audio. It can in essence last a long time if not forever.

...on Simple Minds. I still play some of their tracks now and many hold water 20-25 years on. Even when they went overblown (Forget About Me onwards) they had a few great moments (Waterfront, Alive & Kicking).

...the answer is still 'yes', I'm afraid.

... when artists regularly take 4-5 years between albums, whereas in faster-turnover times, a few flop albums in 2-3 years and you were done for. As pocket.calculator sagely points out, Muse have already been going for over 10 years, and if anything are getting more popular as time goes on, so my guess is yes, they'll still be big in 2020 (I'm not a fan, BTW.)

But it's not just a matter of quality as to who survives over the long term - back in 78/79, 5 new bands were exploring vaguely similar epic psychedelic dark new wave rock sounds, and I'd guess a poll taken at that time would rank them in this order:
1) Joy Division
2) Echo & The Bunnymen
3) Teardrop Explodes
4) Simple Minds
5) U2

People might have argued over the first 4, but no-one was in any doubt that U2 were runt-of-the-litter chancers, yet they're still the biggest band in the world*, whereas the rest, while still going in some form or other, have settled either into nostalgia or shrinking cult-dom. Perhaps U2 just wanted it more than the others..?

(* just go with it)

If asked the same question about Stereophonics ten years I can't imagine anyone would have seen them still being listened to in ten years time. They are second on the bill to Eminem at T In The Park this Saturday...

And equally as sure eggs, people who like 'em today will be wondering what they ever saw in them, people who hate 'em today will admit to a grudging respect, a 19 year old in a hip new band will be citing 'em as an influence etc etc.

If I was in a rock band the aim would surely be to get laid as often as possible, get shit faced as often as possible and to make as much money as possible. Unfortunately I am not but don't resent those that are, wanting the rock and roll lifestyle.
REM cd's seem to sell cheaply these days even though they were World conquering not so long ago. Coldplay, Keane and Snow Patrol will all follow.
It is no different to all other walks of life - it is fashion. Dado rails and anaglypta were once trendy.

so will their mates and thousands, probably millions of others. Muse are currently in a category on their own, recognised as the best live band out there and guaranteed million selling albums whatever they release. We all like what we like but I think Muse are the wrong band to ask this question about, Matt Bellamy is enormously talented yet very humble, they are universally loved by the demographic they aim at and of course they are making shit loads of money, who wouldn't if the opportunity was there?

Just serves to remind me why I have never been able to take Matt Bellamy seriously.
Because he is a doppleganger for Alan Parker Urban Warrior, the 'radical', Sham 69-obsessed, comedy character created by stand-up Simon Munnery in the 80s.

... in 10 years? - no - because most of the people who like them will have died of old age.

I'm still listening to Man, Caravan and Gong now so....probably. Yes

...but they put on a great live show, and there's no denying they all know their way around their various instruments. I can't see anyone having a problem with that, especially in this Cowell-era of manufactured bands and the curse that is autotune.

but there's a lack of warmth in the voice that I think hampers any designs on real greatness.That goes for the songs too. Even Freddie with all his knowing campness could pull off a track like You're My Best Friend which exudes the kind of simple-but-affecting pop brilliance that Muse are strangers to.

I'm sure their mums will still be listening.
And that's the main thing.

...but they've made some genuinely cracking tunes, and give outstanding live show. I can think of far more worthy targets for a long-term kicking than Muse. They're just a highly competent rock band, and I imagine no more careerist or money-grubbing than the next group.

I have no idea where we got the idea that musicians should play for us purely out of musical philanthropy. All the negative ideas about "careerism" and "selling out" are often cited by the "I shouldn't have to pay for anything" lobby, and it drives me gently nuts. Musicians have as much right to set their sights high in terms of material reward as anyone else. Does it make me less of a "credible" teacher, for example, that I would like to be a deputy head or possibly even a head one day? I'd hope not.

I have no problem with people making music with a large audience in mind, and in fact I'd argue it's often more impressive to be able to craft something that tons of people love than it is to make a challenging soundscape of bleeps, giraffe noises and feedback.

So yeah. Not a huge Muse fan, but I'd take them over any number of supposedly more "credible" acts, and wish them every success as they continue to hump the world's stadiums. Good on you, chaps.

Has its moments.

Not a fan but New Born and Plug In Baby are excellent tunes.

as I abhor Queen, have scant regard for Simple Minds and no time at all for the Killers/Green Day axis of burnished effluvia - to which acts they are often compared - I like Muse.

Especially "Supermassive Black Hole". Which strikes me as preposterous and funny and weirdly poignant - a bit like T.Rex and like all great pop.

NO!

why they create so much antipathy

Whilst tastes here vary, with the music industry in its current state isn't it good that there is a British rock band that sells out stadia here and around the world? That produces music that is original sounding - they have a distinctive sound, yes you can identify different influences but they have delivered a 'Muse' sound that is exciting in the home and live environment.

OK I happily admit to being a fan (seen them 3 times) and am looking forward to take Tunes Jr (11yo) to the Wembley gig - but I think there are worse bands to get someone into the whole rock experience.

The Glastonbury set was also fantastically presented by the BBC

to return briefly to that particular subject, always wanted it more than any of their contemporaries and when playing in the early days in Dublin would perform to a dozen people as if they were stadium headliners. Especially the front man. Some bands, as has been pointed out above, shape up to be huge, enormodome-type acts and then work bloody hard to achieve that status. Much as I dislike most of their output and attendant bombast, I can't deny they put in the hard yards for a long time especially in the early years when it was deeply unfashionable to appear so ambitious. Muse would appear to be cut from the same cloth.

I don't own any of their records (and probably never will), and wouldn't say I'm an enormous fan of their music (though a bunch of their songs I really like), but I definately think the world would be a much duller place without Muse in it. They're one of the few guitar bands who are attempting (and pulling off) the really big, overblown stuff, particularly in their live show with the stage sets, lighting, etc. I fully understand why they're so popular, and if I were 10 years younger, I'd probably love them to pieces.

Glastonbury Festival, New Bands Tent, 1999:

Friday: Airbus, Stroke, Muse, NT, David Gray, Tin Star, One Lady Owner, Dark Star, Add N to(X), Built to Spill, Gay Dad

Saturday: Little Mothers, Venini, Nojahoda, Sub Circus, Annie Christian, Ooberman, Dot Allison, Shack, Death in Vegas, Ultrasound, Patti Smith

Sunday: Crazyface, Hither Green People, Astrid, Coldplay, Merz, Chicks, Dodgy, Kitachi, Delakota, Regular Fries, Cornelius, Sneaker Pimps

Muse (and Coldplay) are pretty much the only (new) bands we're still listening to 11 years later....