Why Level 42 Failed

[inanimate_carb]

Yep, it's a completely organized and engineered effort by nefarious forces to ensure that Level 42 would not repeat their earlier commercial successes. Has to be - even though they had international hits and opened up for an entire Madonna tour, their downturn can't be due to changing tastes, lack consistent of promotion, lack of appreciation by American audiences, lack of a devastatingly handsome frontman, or anything like that. Nothing like this sort of over-the-top success arc ever happens organically to similarly talented groups.

I'm sending an email to Alex Jones now. He'll get to the bottom of this.

 

[Worldeeeter]

"Failed" is a strong word for their situation. They definitely rode a wave in the 80s and early 90s, had a somewhat-cult following, bolstered by some commercial success from Running...Family. I have bass-player friends that still listen to them all the time, and worship Mark King as a god.
Mark has had signature basses with Alembic, Jaydee, and Status. Wow!

Yes, Mark and Level 42 are synonymous. They were all talented, but Mark was an unassuming front man big-time. They outlasted all the hair bands, too. I don't know what kinda cash they pulled in, but I think the band did extremely well in their time, and they continue to gig and sell out small/medium venues. Not too shabby!

 

[rtslinger]

Yes, I'm well acquainted with the band's history. What you posted doesn't change the fact that Level 42 was not known to the public as a band which played strictly instrumental music.

Okay, but Level 42 who may not have been commercially know outside of the Uk, in 1979 they were at the beginning of their career, a jazz-funk fusion band, contemporaries of fellow Brit funk groups like Atmosfear, Light of the World, Incognito, and Beggar & Co and it was in there public appearance playing jazz-funk fusion that they landed the record deal. Because a band isn't known outside of their own country doesn't mean they weren't a household name in theirs. The Beatles are a fine example of this. to say they didn't have notoriety even without a record deal or crossing the pond would be wrong. Level 42 in the jazz funk instrumental days were big crowd pleasers if they weren't no Record company would have pay any attention to them this is my point.

 

[dan1952]

I recall an interview with Paul Simon, who was trying to understand why, as he became a better songwriter and wrote better songs (of course in his opinion), his new music wasn't more popular than his older music. Success (per your definition) requires all of the stars to align, and it happens for very very few bands, and is not directly related to skills. Very few of those bands that were successful in the 80's can still be successful or come back to success in 2018.

^^^^This.

 

[Wasnex]

My thesis - the Level 42 that existed from 1985 to about 1988 gained enough global notoriety to fuel the balance of their careers from then to now. But we were lied to - when you consider the overall body of work, it's obvious they were getting a lot of help during their "greatest hits" years.

With only 1 top ten US hit I think your thesis may be flawed. I played World Machine and Running in the Family end to end for years. It's likely I have listened to these albums more than any others...but this did not start until 1997 when I went through divorce. Previously I had a bootleg cassette of Running in the Family that I had pretty much worn out, and the only song I had heard from World Machine was Something About You. In 97 I bought fresh CDs of both and listened to them incessantly to still my mind. The rhythms of the tracks are very good for this.

The sound and style of these two albums was kinda out on a fringe that I don't think a lot of people in the US got into. Maybe the UK had a scene for this style, but I don't think there was a core in the US. The albums kinda fit in generically with dance music which had become passe in the US. Consider the direction music was moving in the mid 80s. People were beginning to reject sophisticated music and would soon begin turning to grunge.

It sounds like a lot more was spent on production for these two albums than some of the other Level 42 material I have listened to. I haven't found any of their early material to my liking...I don't necessarily get a sense of continuity that led from their beginnings to World Machine and Running in the Family. There are a few later releases I enjoy that show stylistic connection with these albums but IMHO at a lower composition and production quality...perhaps the songs I like were rejects that were later recycled. Track to track consistency on the later albums I have listened to is IMHO all over the place.

I am not sure if this is accurate, but I think I remember reading that Mark King could be a real tool and there was a lot of interpersonal conflict. The band probably peaked in popularity about the same time it was imploding upon itself, and the stress of success just pushed it to Super Nova. All the pity. World Machine and Running in the Family are both awesome albums in my view.

 

[ThinCrappyTone]

I discovered Level 42 when I was 15. At 47, I'm now a lifelong Level 42 fan, but I contend they were much less successful than they should have been. I'd like to discuss why.

My thesis - the Level 42 that existed from 1985 to about 1988 gained enough global notoriety to fuel the balance of their careers from then to now. But we were lied to - when you consider the overall body of work, it's obvious they were getting a lot of help during their "greatest hits" years.

The really early stuff from 1980-1984, the straightforward funk workout tunes - that stuff was great for what it was and I would have gone berzerk had I walked into some club in London in 1983 and heard that for the first time. But it was not marketable and the songwriting was mostly weak.

Then came Wally Badarou and whomever else Polydor used uncredited to produce "World Machine" and "Running in the Family." Those people must have had more to do with the product than anyone let on, because the songwriting quality on those records is WAY better than anything that came before or after - and the musical arrangement choices were much more effectively done for radio. Even the deep cuts on those albums are better than the lead-ins on most of the other albums. "Sleepwalkers" for example is a masterful song.

Then band started crumbling internally, like bands do, and the next album "Staring at the Sun" was a musical disaster. Personnel churn got worse, not better, and the record labels gave up by about 1990.

Level 42 has only released 4 albums of new music since 1990:

1. "Guaranteed" sounded like it could have been a whole album of tunes that got cut from the "RITF" sessions. It was still Wally Badarou producing, and it does sort of sound like "RITF" in the production - but there was a lot of personnel change and this album definitely misses Phil and Boon Gould's writing contribution.
2. "Forever Now" was a very good outing, and maybe one of the band's best albums overall, but was buried by an insignificant record label that did nothing to promote it. It is a solid album that nobody heard; worth seeking out solely to hear Mark King play a Stingray, which really works well and I wonder why he didn't use it more. Not surprisingly, Wally Badarou was back as producer.
3. "Retroglide" sounds like a Mark King solo album that he recorded using the Level 42 name, which in this case I don't mean in a good way.
4. "Sirens" is some kind of strange attempt to fuse styles that doesn't work well to my ears.

None of those albums felt like "a great band later in life," maybe like the last few Pearl Jam albums have. These albums sounded like a band that had lost a lot of ingredients, only some of which were band members.

SO -

My prognosis is that Level 42 was a Wally Badarou project and that the quality of their music overall varied directly with his involvement.

They were a group of good players who caught a little Brit-funk wave. They got signed and had big-time writers and producers thrown at their product - especially Wally Badarou. That gave us "Something About You", "Lessons In Love", and 99.99% of what most people have heard.

The label investment dried up and Phil Gould left the band, which had a striking effect on song quality in retrospect. After that, Level 42 weren't talented enough to keep themselves going beyond being a tribute band of themselves.

I still listen though.

Great band. I just assumed they disappeared because they were still wearing shoulderpads when everyone else had switched to flannel.

 

[MD Stingray]

Note: Level 42 sold 30 million albums.

Not a failure in my book.

 

[Wisebass]

We both know this one!

Hi InhumanResource

Don' t panic!!!!

Wise

 

[DrummerwStrings]

No, but the complete lack of commercial success in the 30 years that followed those two hits probably is.

Two sides of a coin: in order to fall off, you had to have been high up. Critique an act for not creating more global hits, ok; doesn't negate the hits the act made.

How many global hits were there in the late 80s: Michael Jackson & George Michael's Faith album off the top of my head, Prince's "Kiss" probably was a hit other than in the US, Swing Out Sister's "Breakout" charted in US, Japan & Europe, not sure it was a 'major' worldwide hit,...point is you can count them. Acts that made global hits consistently over the years is a smaller list; the acts that couldn't keep hitting grand slams were Failures?

Previous posts have established that Level 42 has had more than a complete lack of commercial success in recent years. Not as much as they once had; I wouldn't call that a failure.

 

[Altitude]

I'm actually surprised about the 30 million albums. I wouldn't have guessed anywhere near that.

 

[MD Stingray]

I'm actually surprised about the 30 million albums. I wouldn't have guessed anywhere near that.

 

[Altitude]

^ not saying I didn't believe you, just that the number is higher than I thought.

 

[NeilGB]

This is a good discussion and an example of why I like talkbass. 3 pages of constructive discussion on a difficult subject and no harsh words.

I have been a Level 42 fan since since the early 80's in England and MK is the reason I took up bass (can't play like him though). Back then they were part of the UK Jazz Funk movement which was very small. Bands like Incognito (mentioned previously) and Shakatak had the highest profiles. My expectation at the time is that they would not be commercially successful but the hits started and they became much more successful than their original trajectory. Were they successful in their own terms? I think they were. They made great music, inspired many others and paid their bills with their string of hits.

I doubt anyone, including the band themselves, expected they would a global mega band. So yes, they failed in that sense but then so did most people.

 

[Skybone]

Fashions change, tastes change. Unfortunately, Level 42 were synonymous of the 80's "funky, clean cut pop music" of the era. Not forgetting that the late 80's / early 90's saw the rise of Hip Hop & "Dance" music, so bands like Level 42 became less popular because they refused to conform to the latest musical style.

 

[India_Sierra]

The Level 42 star waned because they experienced explosive success with a couple of records which were defined by the 80's sound. In the UK, the 80's pop sound and style quickly fell out of fashion as the 90's began and a variety of new new pop styles emerged. It was effectively the end of the road for many big 80's groups.

Mark never made any secret of his desire for success and his ambition was what drove Level 42 to the top of the charts. Some folk criticised Mark and the band for 'selling out' and leaving behind their fusion influenced roots. It's understandable that the band realised eventually that catchy tunes on the radio pays the bills better than 7 minute instrumental chop displays, no matter how great you are as a fusion outfit. Naturally, the wave would come to and end. By the time of 'Guaranteed', a good record, I think, the popular music landscape was so different that the buying public had lost interest. Level 42 did not attempt to follow the emerging trends for rubbish like new-soul and dance/house. After twelve years working their arses off, they took their foot off the gas.

They remain a cult band and did not fail. They experienced success far beyond the dreams of most musicians. They maintain a dedicated fanbase in Europe. Allan Holdsworth was a member at one point! Mark in particular has shown a continuing appetite for work and continues to be regarded as one of the best players in the world.

They haven't done too badly at all. Like most groups who find pop success, they found that continuing to do what they're good at just isn't enough to maintain and evergreen place at the top of the charts. I'd be happy with their lot.

 

[Altitude]

The one part of my OP that nobody on the other side of my position is addressing is the relative lack of new material in the past 25 years.

A large aspect of my argument is that bands that replay their decades-old hits over and over again for their existing fan base and at nostalgia festivals are in a different category from bands who continue to write, record, and express - even when they do that in relative obscurity compared to the height of their popularity.

Mostly I just wish there were more Level 42 albums for me to listen to.

 

[Bob_Ross]

A large aspect of my argument is that bands that replay their decades-old hits over and over again for their existing fan base and at nostalgia festivals are in a different category from bands who continue to write, record, and express - even when they do that in relative obscurity compared to the height of their popularity.

Um...who exactly would you contend is in that latter category?

I'm trying to think of any band that has had a successful career spanning ~25 years that's still as productive (to say nothing of still being as creative) in year 25 as they were in year 1. Artists just don't release as many albums nowadays as they did 2+ decades ago. It's a different world.

 

[bass12]

The one part of my OP that nobody on the other side of my position is addressing is the relative lack of new material in the past 25 years.

A large aspect of my argument is that bands that replay their decades-old hits over and over again for their existing fan base and at nostalgia festivals are in a different category from bands who continue to write, record, and express - even when they do that in relative obscurity compared to the height of their popularity.

Mostly I just wish there were more Level 42 albums for me to listen to.

The lack of productivity recordings-wise could be for any number of reasons. Sometimes people just get caught up in other things (like family) or they just don't feel motivated to write - especially if there isn't a label breathing down one's neck and demanding product. I get it. I've been in bands where we had very creative and productive periods followed by periods where writing felt like lifting a lead weight. I'm just happy Level 42 produced as many good albums as they did - and that they're continuing to play out (even if it isn't the original line-up). I'm just about to buy tickets for their upcoming UK tour. Of course, I'd prefer to see the band as they were in '85 but thirty plus years on I'm happy to settle for the current line-up.

 

[Ben B]

Interesting read. Other than Something About You, I had not heard their songs, and knew nothing about the band. I guess they were bigger in the UK than in the USA.

 

[Altitude]

Um...who exactly would you contend is in that latter category?

I'm trying to think of any band that has had a successful career spanning ~25 years that's still as productive (to say nothing of still being as creative) in year 25 as they were in year 1. Artists just don't release as many albums nowadays as they did 2+ decades ago. It's a different world.

First, you're quite right; let's separate "productive" from "creative" lest the discussion goes totally subjective.

The Tragically Hip. From 1987 through 2016, they released a new album about every 2 years. And I call them a good comparable since they were much more popular locally in Canada than they ever were globally, and they remained fairly close to their original style even as musical trends around them changed. Total album sales between 6 and 8 million, which is about where I _thought_ Level 42 was.

Tragically Hip is a rock solid example. Some obvious others are the mega-bands like Rush, U2, the Foo Fighters, possibly Green Day. Clearly all of those bands reached a different plateau than Level 42 did, but remember that my fundamental question is what makes Level 42 different from bands at that next plateau and why they did not get there.