old bands - you've made your money now go away

Rigsby

[/QUOTE]

Many of those kids are going to see Led Zep cos they're being told that Zeplin are a great band, they're not discovering it for themselves. They're being handed 'best bands ever' lists by magazines and treating them like gospel,

[/QUOTE]

You are completely missing the point here IMO. What difference does it make why they are going. The crucial point is they are going. As for being handed "best ever " lists : this is how the music industry has worked for time in memorial.

Get over it

ShawnRaven

klaus flouride wrote:

Many of those kids are going to see Led Zep cos they're being told that Zeplin are a great band, they're not discovering it for themselves. They're being handed 'best bands ever' lists by magazines and treating them like gospel, even though those lists are drawn up by record labels trying to promote their latest batch of rereleases. Music is meant to be a journey, not a list of bands you're 'supposed' to listen to, just so millionaires like Robert Plant can put more money in their account.

And you're a speaker for the current generation of music fans? I weep for the future!
You know this for a fact, right? You know that they're heading to these gigs because they read in Magazines rather than their own free will?! With all due respect, that just sounds like sour grapes to me.

The Who singing 'My Generation' when they're 60 - gimme a f**kin break.

Yeah, which is why Oasis covered it? And there's still worse than that. Fred Durst and Limp Bizkit coming out with a song with the same title. Only problem there was the majority of Dursts listeners at the time were about 2 generations behind his generation!

VR!

klaus flouride

You are completely missing the point here IMO. What difference does it make why they are going. The crucial point is they are going. As for being handed "best ever " lists : this is how the music industry has worked for time in memorial.

Get over it [/QUOTE]

It makes a difference cos i think people should go and see a band cos they discovered the music and decided that they liked it, not because they feel they must go because 'this is one of the best bands ever'. Concerts aren't just about how big the band is, the best gigs are done by small bands in small venues - unfortunately alot of young people getting into music aren't going to experience this because they're being told by people, who should know better, that they're better off going to see a bunch of 50 year olds churning out songs that don't sound anywhere near as good as they did years ago. Many of these Music journalists (and their are many who are well into their 50s and still writing about young peoples music) just want ot have their own musical tastes vindicated.

As for those who claim that theres nothing good to listen to these days; do you think that every band that came out during the 60s and 70s were great? Cos i can categorically state now that that isn''t the case- there were plenty of sh1t bands back then, just as there is now- but as is the case in any art form its up to yourself to weed out the good from the bad.

Even comedians change their acts as they get older- although i guess thats what this reformation craze is really, a f**kin comedy show.

Xavi6

U2 haven't even broken up yet so it means we have to go through all that then the reformation. Oh God.

ShawnRaven

klaus flouride wrote:

that they're better off going to see a bunch of 50 year olds churning out songs that don't sound anywhere near as good as they did years ago. Many of these Music journalists (and their are many who are well into their 50s and still writing about young peoples music) just want ot have their own musical tastes vindicated.

Have you any idea how f*cking ridiculous you sound here? Since when did music have an age limit? Or did I fall asleep at that particular meeting? As for music journalists being well into their 50s still writing about "young peoples music"? You do realise that off the top of my head, some huge selling names to this day are the likes of Queen, Bob Marley and even 2Pac. All of which are either dead or the key members are. Now does that make them young peoples or old people music?

Wake up and smell the coffee m'lad. Music doesn't have a f*cking age limit. It never did, and it never will. Look at classical music for christ sake. You know, strings and an orchestra? Is Mozart old peoples music? Is chamber music "old peoples music"? If your answer is yes, my question is why is the national concert hall packing out week after week with people of all ages?

As for those who claim that theres nothing good to listen to these days; do you think that every band that came out during the 60s and 70s were great? Cos i can categorically state now that that isn''t the case- there were plenty of sh1t bands back then, just as there is now- but as is the case in any art form its up to yourself to weed out the good from the bad.

And to an extent i would agree, but there was a lot more to choose from then. There was good music out of the sh*t. Nowadays it's just sh*t, sh*t, and more sh*t. And the funny thing is, RIAA, IMRO etc are blaming music downloaders for the decline of the industry. Which is utter toss. If there was more new stuff being release actually worth grabbing a hold of, and buying, Instead of this years American Idol or X-Factor winner, sales would probably increase. But there isn't, so it won't.

Even comedians change their acts as they get older- although i guess thats what this reformation craze is really, a f**kin comedy show.

Wrong again. Most comedians end up ripping off other comedians jokes and putting a different spin on it. One of the reasons i actually don't find Billy Connolly funny anymore.

VR!

DerekD Goldfish

I buy at least 10 albums by "New" artists a month and yet only 3 albums by new bands released this century would make it into my top 50 albums.
(British Sea Power-The Decline of BSP, Drift - Nocumena, 65 Days of Static-The Fall of Math)
If I want to go see an old fart I dont see the problem.
most music I like if from a good while ago its not like I dont give new bands a chance its just most of the time they dissapoint me.
I have also gone and seen artists long past their best because its as close as im going to get to seeing them during their height till I invent a time machine.
You seem to have this obsession with young people and young music I dont understand the fascination with youth as much as I also get annoyed with pointless nostalgia as well.
Some of the recent reformations seem pointless but if seeing the Police and Genises and other dinosaurs means as much to people as me seeing Tom Verlaine then who am I to say they shouldn't.
Some Artists go on producing great stuff long into thier 60's should they stop just because space needs to be made for new bands?

I can understand partally where you are comming form but your execution was poor.
Yes far to many people give into pointless nostalgia but I dont think it has a significant decremental effect on new music.
I dont think all past music is great at any given time around 5% of music is listinable but while their are mnay good bands now there are few great ones few who's albums will be talked about in decades to come few who we will be telling grandkids of, few who kids getting into music for the first time in 2020 will be desperate to try.
Music is not terrible now on average its as good as it ever was its just far to many artists have become lazy and the public accept far to much mediocrity.

klaus flouride

Since when did music have an age limit? Or did I fall asleep at that particular meeting?

Its got nothing to do with their age (although most of them are in their 50s and 60s) its to do with the fact that they're sh1t now in comparison to what they were - and thats not fair on bands who put in a genuine effort. But nobody wants to say they're sh1t for fear of being told that they know nothing about music.

You do realise that off the top of my head, some huge selling names to this day are the likes of Queen, Bob Marley and even 2Pac.

Yeah but 2pac and Marley aren't reforming to do gigs - a good record will always sound good, a live performance is going to be sh1t if the only reason the band is doing the gig is so they can pay the bills on their retirement home.

Look at classical music for christ sake. You know, strings and an orchestra? Is Mozart old peoples music? Is chamber music "old peoples music"?

It takes years to train and be any good at playing classical music - some don't reach perfection till their in their late 20s. And when classical musicians get a bit old and slow they go on to become conductors or orchestra directors etc (they still play a part in the creation of the music) they don't go on stage at the age of 60 and try to play like they are 25 (unlike many rock guitarists), because that would never work. Classical music is on a higher plain to any other form music - i don't think you can compare the two.
But I understand your point.

If there was more new stuff being release actually worth grabbing a hold of, and buying, Instead of this years American Idol or X-Factor winner, sales would probably increase. But there isn't, so it won't.

But take a look at where you're looking for good music; television, radio? In the 70s there were plenty of bands who were extremely good but who got virtually no air play (Black Sabbath, Deep Purple etc.). Stairway to heaven has got lots off airplay, but which other Led Zep songs have gotten that treatment?

Wrong again. Most comedians end up ripping off other comedians jokes and putting a different spin on it. One of the reasons i actually don't find Billy Connolly funny anymore.

Hey, I said changed!

ShawnRaven

klaus flouride wrote:

Its got nothing to do with their age (although most of them are in their 50s and 60s) its to do with the fact that they're sh1t now in comparison to what they were - and thats not fair on bands who put in a genuine effort. But nobody wants to say they're sh1t for fear of being told that they know nothing about music.

You still avoided my question. Since when does music have an age limit. And none of the examples you have provided have been proven to be "sh*t now in comparison to what they were". Zeppelin haven't even been given the benefit of the doubt. And thats the only example you have provided.

Now would you like to keep digging yourself deeper into this hole?

Yeah but 2pac and Marley aren't reforming to do gigs - a good record will always sound good, a live performance is going to be sh1t if the only reason the band is doing the gig is so they can pay the bills on their retirement home.

Again, i'd like you to send the proof this way. I've seen several bands that you could consider "past their prime", most recent example being the Police at Croke Park and they tore the house down in my honest opinion. I've also seen Bon Jovi, U2, Bryan Adams, all of which you would consider past their prime and they have all put on amazing performances live. Here's the shovel, Klaus. Keep digging.

It takes years to train and be any good at playing classical music - some don't reach perfection till their in their late 20s. And when classical musicians get a bit old and slow they go on to become conductors or orchestra directors etc (they still play a part in the creation of the music) they don't go on stage at the age of 60 and try to play like they are 25 (unlike many rock guitarists), because that would never work. Classical music is on a higher plain to any other form music - i don't think you can compare the two.
But I understand your point.

How old was Pavarotti when he played his last gig again? But you understand my point, and what is understood need not be discussed.

But take a look at where you're looking for good music; television, radio? In the 70s there were plenty of bands who were extremely good but who got virtually no air play (Black Sabbath, Deep Purple etc.). Stairway to heaven has got lots off airplay, but which other Led Zep songs have gotten that treatment?

TV and Radio where you might be looking for new music. Personally if i want to hear something different, i'll trapse around record shops or bars and i like what i hear, i'll go up and ask. Without that method i'd have never heard of The National, Red House Painters, Idlewild or Broken Social Scene. You won't hear much of any of those mentioned (and neither are under the "past their prime" category!) on TV or Radio. So don't be surprised if you don't hear Deep Purple or Black Sabbath on the radio.

VR!

nij

If anyone should push over and make room for new acts, it's the hoards of rappers, r&b pop tarts and talentless corporate robots. But the music industry is not quality-driven. You seem to have this idea, Klaus, that music MUST change just so it sounds different from a previous decade. But there is no such rule, and I would personally be delighted if there was a revival of 80's metal, as most of today's acts are beyond boring.

Take any indie-pop/rock 'star' of today - none of them can sing or play their instruments properly. All I see are guys with bad haircuts banging out repetitive power chords while trying to strain their voices into pseudo-emotion, and the are convinced they are showing us something we haven't seen before, but we're all yawning.

People like Madonna who open a magazine every day to see what's 'trendy' are nothing but sell-out teenage-crowd-pleasers.

Few sights are more ridiculous than Justin Timberlake squeaking out his latest 'song' while awkwardly bopping around like a moron.

Can anyone say Britney Spears' 'comeback' performance was any less laughable than what she usually does?

The golden age of music is gone. Led Zep and the like sell tickets because they are still vastly superior to ANY modern act, and if you think they should push over to let your band in, you'll have to prove your kung fu is better.

grumpytrousers

DerekD Goldfish wrote:

I have also gone and seen artists long past their best because its as close as im going to get to seeing them during their height till I invent a time machine.

Nail/Head interface here. The market for 'old farts' and 'young turks' aren't mutually exclusive. Part of the sodding problem is the amount of 'new' bands who constantly go and namecheck older artists. Can you bloody blame the Rolling Stones for having sell out gigs when Bobby Gillespie from Primal Scream won't shut up about 'em!

klaus flouride

validreasoning! wrote:

You still avoided my question. Since when does music have an age limit.

It has an age limit when the person attempting to play the music is not physically capable of doing it - whats termed as 'losing it'. Have you heard Page and Plant (jimmy page and r. plant's imaginitivaley titled duo act)? Complete and absolute crap, certainly a far cry from what they once created.

Again, i'd like you to send the proof this way. I've seen several bands that you could consider "past their prime", most recent example being the Police at Croke Park and they tore the house down in my honest opinion.

But what are you comparing these performances to? Have you seen these bands before now?

How old was Pavarotti when he played his last gig again? But you understand my point, and what is understood need not be discussed.

I don't know anything about Opera singing, but I would imagine its a skill which takes years of training much like alot of other classical music - plus he'd been gigging all his life, he didn't bugger off the scene, get all fvcked up on drugs and then return a shadow of his former self.

TV and Radio where you might be looking for new music.

You mentioned 'The X factor', which is a t.v. programme, thats why i said it. I don't go anywhere near t.v. for music.

klaus flouride

grumpytrousers wrote:

Nail/Head interface here. The market for 'old farts' and 'young turks' aren't mutually exclusive. Part of the sodding problem is the amount of 'new' bands who constantly go and namecheck older artists. Can you bloody blame the Rolling Stones for having sell out gigs when Bobby Gillespie from Primal Scream won't shut up about 'em!

Yeah, thats true - can't blame them though, if you like a band you are going to name drop them.

klaus flouride

nij wrote:

If anyone should push over and make room for new acts, it's the hoards of rappers, r&b pop tarts and talentless corporate robots. But the music industry is not quality-driven. You seem to have this idea, Klaus, that music MUST change just so it sounds different from a previous decade. But there is no such rule, and I would personally be delighted if there was a revival of 80's metal, as most of today's acts are beyond boring.

Take any indie-pop/rock 'star' of today - none of them can sing or play their instruments properly. All I see are guys with bad haircuts banging out repetitive power chords while trying to strain their voices into pseudo-emotion, and the are convinced they are showing us something we haven't seen before, but we're all yawning.

People like Madonna who open a magazine every day to see what's 'trendy' are nothing but sell-out teenage-crowd-pleasers.



Few sights are more ridiculous than Justin Timberlake squeaking out his latest 'song' while awkwardly bopping around like a moron.

Can anyone say Britney Spears' 'comeback' performance was any less laughable than what she usually does?

The golden age of music is gone. Led Zep and the like sell tickets because they are still vastly superior to ANY modern act, and if you think they should push over to let your band in, you'll have to prove your kung fu is better.

What Golden age? The 70s? With such fine acts as The Osmonds, The Bee Gees, Dana (Irish Eurovision entry), anyone for some Barry Manilow? Every 'age' had their lot of crap radio - friendly acts. The 70s also had Led Zep, Deep Purple and Black Sabbath; and they were good because they had the energy to do it and were ambitious - now they're just going through the motions. Led Zep sell tickets cos there are no shortage of middle-aged men who can't wait to get down with the kids.

the_syco

I'm sick of the crap bands that think they are any good.

Iron Maiden still do an excellent show, and still produce albums.

Rigsby

[/QUOTE]

It makes a difference cos i think people should go and see a band cos they discovered the music and decided that they liked it, not because they feel they must go because 'this is one of the best bands ever'. [/QUOTE]

Since when did teenagers ever allow themselves to be told what to do by the previous generation, especially with regards to the music they listen to .

Besides, how can you be so sure that they did n't "discover" these bands already by listening to their parent's record collection. With a teenager there's no such thing as "feeling you must go to a concert". They go because they want to for whatever reason.

ShawnRaven

klaus flouride wrote:

It has an age limit when the person attempting to play the music is not physically capable of doing it - whats termed as 'losing it'. Have you heard Page and Plant (jimmy page and r. plant's imaginitivaley titled duo act)? Complete and absolute crap, certainly a far cry from what they once created.

I'm assuming you're referring to No Quarter, the legendary acoustic performance they had in 1994. If you can call that performanc crap, then you're obviously not a music fan. The versions of Gallows Pole and The Battle Of Evermore managed to be improved over the originals with only half the original band there! I think you're insane!

But what are you comparing these performances to? Have you seen these bands before now?

Several bootlegs and official video releases, not to mention their original studio albums. Probably exactly the same things you're comparing them to. The essential difference is i've actually seen them live.

I don't know anything about Opera singing, but I would imagine its a skill which takes years of training much like alot of other classical music - plus he'd been gigging all his life, he didn't bugger off the scene, get all fvcked up on drugs and then return a shadow of his former self.

But most of the bands, you're refering to are shadows for their former selves. Only in your warped little mind (as i'm obviously not the only one disagreeing with you, surely we can't all be wrong?!). Btw, Jovi, The Police, and U2 haven't buggered off the scene and get f*cked up on drugs either. They all remained in the music scene in some way or another. Again, all examples i have brought up. All you seem to be able to bring up is Zeppelin, your obvious grudge.

You mentioned 'The X factor', which is a t.v. programme, thats why i said it. I don't go anywhere near t.v. for music.

Neither do I, but thats where the record companies are generally headed. The sad truth unfortunately, and about the only thing we're set to agree on in this thread.

VR!

klaus flouride

I was referring to albums such as 'Walking into Clarkesdale' by Page and Plant which was released around 98 / 99 - sh1t. They should play acoustic gigs cos they're probably more suited to it, its the kind of thing old guys do and why not? I reckon it would be better than them trying to pretend they're 25 again.

Bon jovi and U2 are terrible nowadays - old age has most certainly made them worse.

I mention Led Zep alot cos they're a band everyone knows and its probably the biggest of all the reformations.

Fact is alot of people paid good money to go and see these dinosaur shows - they don't want to be told that they've just thrown their money away on a bag of sh1te.

If you want an end to the indie bullsh1t then encourage young bands to play good music and stop buying tickets to go and see well established acts giving bad performances.

ShawnRaven

klaus flouride wrote:

I was referring to albums such as 'Walking into Clarkesdale' by Page and Plant which was released around 98 / 99 - sh1t. They should play acoustic gigs cos they're probably more suited to it, its the kind of thing old guys do and why not? I reckon it would be better than them trying to pretend they're 25 again.

You're really banging on the age thing, not to mention showing your ignorance. Walking Into Clarkesdale was a bad example too. It didn't do great over this side of the pond I admit, but over the US it didn't do too bad, entered on the billboard charts at #8 and Most High won a grammy. Not bad for a crap album by two British hasbeens.

Bon jovi and U2 are terrible nowadays - old age has most certainly made them worse.

Go see them live, then come back to me, until then it's strictly you're opinion. Please do no confuse this as fact.

I mention Led Zep alot cos they're a band everyone knows and its probably the biggest of all the reformations.

Debatable. I remember the same hullabaloo about Queen's reforming two years ago.

Fact is alot of people paid good money to go and see these dinosaur shows - they don't want to be told that they've just thrown their money away on a bag of sh1te.

Again, strictly your opinion and not to be confusd as fact. A lot of people have paid good money to see legendary bands that came out enjoying the shows too, not to mention those who fell into the "born too late" syndrome that got to see their heroes for the first time. Again, another element you conveniently brushed off, no nobody's surprise. First sign of losing an argument really. But keep going.

If you want an end to the indie bullsh1t then encourage young bands to play good music and stop buying tickets to go and see well established acts giving bad performances.

I will, when they start doing so. I notice you keep preaching this, but give some examples of who we should be encouraging. At least that way we might have an idea where you're trying to come from!

VR!

nij

klaus flouride wrote:

I was referring to albums such as 'Walking into Clarkesdale' by Page and Plant which was released around 98 / 99 - sh1t. They should play acoustic gigs cos they're probably more suited to it, its the kind of thing old guys do and why not? I reckon it would be better than them trying to pretend they're 25 again.

Bon jovi and U2 are terrible nowadays - old age has most certainly made them worse.

I mention Led Zep alot cos they're a band everyone knows and its probably the biggest of all the reformations.

Fact is alot of people paid good money to go and see these dinosaur shows - they don't want to be told that they've just thrown their money away on a bag of sh1te.

If you want an end to the indie bullsh1t then encourage young bands to play good music and stop buying tickets to go and see well established acts giving bad performances.

Wow, you're definition of 'old' is mid-late 40's?? Christ!

I'm 24 and I've seen quite a few 'dinosaur' shows, and they were among the best shows I've ever seen. Most recently, I saw Manowar (40's-50's) and they simply slaughtered the unholy ass off any 'young' metal band I've seen (and I've seen loads). The vibe was one of tight professionalism and bottomless energy. They really knew what they were doing.

Face it, most of the 'young' acts are either the lip-syncing, over-priced Justins and Britneys, the talentless rappers or the yawn inducing indie-poppers. We don't need some weird 'new' sound - we need some quality.

If you go and see Zep live (if you can! lol) and leave your age prejudices at the door, you might actually enjoy yourself.

Driver 8

As anyone who saw the show in the point last may or november can attest, Springsteen can still tear the house down.

A high energy 165 minute show when most of your new indie pin ups would've finished their encore inside an hour or so, and be in their dressing room whining to the NME about their hectic workload.

Burning Eclipse

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to mention these bands, if not, I apologise! snip as appropriate.

I saw The Rolling Stones and The Police this year. As I don't like the vast majority of modern chart music, I am the epitome of "born late syndrome". Both of these gigs were fantastic imo, and I've seen some amazing bands! I got to see/hear Stewart Copeland play the drums... Live. I didn't go see them so I could tell my friends, or the populous of boards; I went so I could experience this band live, as they split up before I made it to primary school.

klaus flouride, I couldn't disagree more with your comments/sentiment! Also, if you're referring to The Police as a "dinosaur show", I'd bet both Sting and Copeland are in better physical condition than most men half their respective ages!!

ShawnRaven

Burning Eclipse wrote:

I'd bet both Sting and Copeland are in better physical condition than most men half their respective ages!!

Sadly we can't say the same about Summers, he looks like he could spend a few hours on a treadmill, i thought the guitar was superglued to his stomach!

VR!

Rigsby

Klaus : I think we'd all be interested to find out what bands you think are not getting the attention they deserve.

klaus flouride

Rigsby wrote:

Klaus : I think we'd all be interested to find out what bands you think are not getting the attention they deserve.

I don't want to start flinging out band names and artists because that will inevitably turn this into a thread where loads of people start saying 'this band and that band are great'- and it ends up with people debating the merits of certain albums/artists etc.; thats not really what I was trying to get at; I was more interested in discussing the recent spate in reformations and how it may have some negative effects on music in general. Also, look at the explosion in tribute bands, there were always a few around but nowadays you can see tribute acts for all types of music any day of the week - and they're selling alot of tickets, surely this is the ultimate injustice to any band trying to write original material? - nothing wrong with those involved in tribute acts, they're just trying to earn a living.

Thats why Led Zep, The Who etc. reformed - they saw all these tribute acts making money and decided ''Hey, we want that money!'', but before now they all thaught the same thing ''we can't play live anymore, we're not capable of doing it, serious music fans are going to notice the fact that we're well past it'' (They thaught this because most rock stars are stuck very far up their own arses and are convinced that the only people who listen to their music are 'serious music fans'); As it turned out most of the people who wanted to see them live just 'wanted to see them live', regardless of how capable they were of playing the songs - alot of the fans just wanted to be able to make that statement. Led Zep, The Who, The Rolling stns, U2 can go on a stage and play all kinds of absolute crap - they will still get alot of credit because they are big acts.

Worse still, some of these bands are releasing new material; and its clearly bad stuff, but its getting great reviews because of the bands they are.

ShawnRaven

I love the way you'll list off the bands you have a beef with, but couldn't be f*cked listing the bands you're trying to do want to defend, probably most likely because you don't have a case, and haven't had since you started this thread.

And again, you don't know if U2, The Police, The Stones, and Zeppelin can or can't play live, especially if 1) you have no interest in them and 2) have never seen them.

Translation - you be talkin' out of your ass!
VR!

grumpytrousers

Jesus Klaus, will you put a bloody sock in it; your entire thesis can be boiled down to 'I'm convinced that up and coming bands are badly affected by the proliferation of major acts suddenly putting on their touring trousers again'.

You advance no reasoning to bolster this half opinion except a few semi-baked suppositions that wouldn't look out of place in Melody Maker circa 1992.

I'll take your point and indeed agree partially with you that some of these acts producing new music should NOT be allowed to, but as for the live performances being put on, will you please take your general ignorance elsewhere. Fact is that all the acts you cite, to a one, start their tours in the US; if they were 'past it' and crap and so on, the European legs of the tours wouldn't happen 'cos the reviews from the states would tell it like it is, but they don't.

And i'm not talking about wide eyed first timers reviewing gigs, i'm talking about hard bitten rock hacks who can smell a charlatan at 100 paces.

Look, i know your opinion is well intended, but you've provided no basis for an argument. Dinosaur Rock isn't eating into the market of 'up and coming bands'. A simple grasp of Economics 101 should tell you that; the people who want to go see, say, The Police for €130 will NOT, if the gig were not on, suddenly decide to spaff the same €130 on 10 smaller gigs in a few of the cities alternative venues.

It's quite possible that they should, but who do you blame for this? The big performer? You can't....

klaus flouride

I don't agree that these bands wouldn't be able to sell out their Euro dates if they got a bad review- people will go anyway, just to be able to say that they saw them. And they will only get good reviews for a reason i stated before; if you give a big band a bad review they won't give you interviews, access etc. Big band interview = big magazine sales (music mags these days have never had it worse these days what with the interweb and so on); and so they only give glowing reviews. (A similar thing happens with politicians round election time). Plus, these old music hacks have been banging on for years about how all these old bands were great - they're hardly going to back down know, as far as they're concerned (the critics that is) their reputation is at stake.

Hype can go along way if you get enough of it; and theres no shortage of it for these reformations.

Johnny Cash had a great voice, it had great character and sounded like he had lots of experience of life etc. It was the kind of voice an elderly man should have; When I saw the who on t.v. at Glasto, and I saw Daltrey trying to hit high notes he hadn't hit in 20 years - and failing miserably - I felt embarrassed for him. Theres nothing wrong with a 50 year old playing music that he likes - music that reflects his personality and his current point of life, thats completely natural, and can be very enjoyable. However, when a 50 year old gets up on a stage and plays music about youth and tries to perform like a 25 year old, well theres nothing natural about that, its not enjoyable and its complete bullsh1t. Unfortunately too many people have been caught in a wave of hysteria and hype, so much so that they cannot recognise this reformation bo11ox for what it is.

Why were some members of Led Zep reluctant to reform? Because they must have thought to themselves ''If I get up on stage at my age and try to pretend that I'm 25 again, i'll look and sound ridiculous!'' - what they didn't realise was that most of the people going to see them didn't care about how they looked or sounded, they just wanted to be able to say that they saw Led Zep.

ShawnRaven

klaus flouride wrote:

Why were some members of Led Zep reluctant to reform? Because they must have thought to themselves ''If I get up on stage at my age and try to pretend that I'm 25 again, i'll look and sound ridiculous!'' - what they didn't realise was that most of the people going to see them didn't care about how they looked or sounded, they just wanted to be able to say that they saw Led Zep.

Obviously not as reluctant as you make out to be, as they're still going ahead with it!

VR!

Rigsby

klaus flouride wrote:

I don't want to start flinging out band names and artists because that will inevitably turn this into a thread where loads of people start saying 'this band and that band are great'

You dont seem to have any hesitation naming the bands you have a problem with.

klaus flouride

Rigsby wrote:

You dont seem to have any hesitation naming the bands you have a problem with.

I don't have a problem with the bands; I have a problem with their reformation and the fact that its a load of overhyped crap.