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

klaus flouride

LEDZEP REFORMATION;

yeah, you're right, they are going ahead with it - after 27 years of not going ahead with it; there are reasons why it took so long, i explained the main one earlier.

ShawnRaven

klaus flouride wrote:

LEDZEP REFORMATION;

yeah, you're right, they are going ahead with it - after 27 years of not going ahead with it; there are reasons why it took so long, i explained the main one earlier.

Ok, let me put this in a language... that you can understand.
Music is an industry, it is a business. People are in this business to make Money. Again, what is understood need not be discussed. That's the end of that.

And quite frankly, all of those legendary bands, who have paid their dues to the business, are going for a couple of last tours before jacking it in. Where's the problem? Newer fans (by that i mean over the last 15-20 years) get to see their heroes live, the band get enough to retire on. They sell out a few dates, it's not like a lot of them are releasing new studio albums keeping "Your new heroes" down in the album charts. They have earned their position in the business. They're certainly not doing anything you wouldn't be doing if you were in the position to.

Shaun

Rigsby

klaus flouride wrote:

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.

The fact still remains that you name bands to enhance your argument yet wont name the ones you think are being neglected.

Maybe secretly you dont think they are up to the mark



Also as "validreasoning" said above, music is a buisness and therefore a "dog eat dog" environment. With your "I feel hard done by" attidude maybe it's not for you.

the_syco

It almost sounds like klaus flouride was in a band that never made it out of their bedroom.

klaus flouride

Of course its a business; but normally a spade gets called a spade and everyone has a general idea of what to avoid. Everyone knows that commercial pop acts must be avoided if you want to hear good proper original music. But, for reasons already explained, this reformation scam is being treated as though its a great thing by critics (and the young people getting into music pay alot of attention to these critics, cos most of them don't have anywhere else to get good advice on what to listen to)- and the only reason that the critics are doing this is to futher their own careers. As I said before the rec. labels have a big interest in redistributing their back catalogue.

If its good business sense that you admire in Music, then why are you listening to Led Zeppelin? There are countless other acts down through the years that have sold far more records than Led Zep, i wouldn't bother listening to most of these acts but in a business sense they have been more successfull.

I wouldn't allow a bunch of dinosaur wash-ups and their lick-arse reviewers put me out of the music business; You're always going to get people following a fashion or a trend, the important thing is to recognise a fashion or a trend for the bullsh1t that it actually is.

I've avoided mentioning the names of bands I like 'cos, as I said, I don't want this to turn into a bunch of people saying this and that about this band and that band; However I will give one hypothetical scenario:

If a person, who had only recently started to listen to music and maybe play the guitar, said to me; ''I want to see a really good guitarist live in action, who should I go and see?'' I wouldn't say ''go and see Led Zeppellin'' or ''go and see the Police'' (and don't get me wrong both those bands have good guitarists)- I'd probably say ''go and see Preston Reed, you won't have to pay 120.00EUR for a ticket and you won't have to be stuck at the back of an overcrowded stadium trying to look over everybody's head''. Preston R. is as good a guitarist as you'll ever see, and he doesn't try and pretend to be something he's not (i.e. a 50 year old trying to act like he's 25) - I'm not saying he's completely flawless, or even the best that there is, but at least he's original and honest.

ShawnRaven

klaus flouride wrote:

(and the young people getting into music pay alot of attention to these critics, cos most of them don't have anywhere else to get good advice on what to listen to

Yeah, because young people getting into music can't make their own minds up. Sorry but that's utter toss, and you know it. It's also an insult to anyone under the age of 25 reading your posts.

If its good business sense that you admire in Music, then why are you listening to Led Zeppelin? There are countless other acts down through the years that have sold far more records than Led Zep, i wouldn't bother listening to most of these acts but in a business sense they have been more successfull.

They've still earned the title of being one of the best british rock acts of the 70s, probably something that obviously gets on your nerves. And they've produced some damn good tunes. And i do admire the business aspect of the industry, but that doesn't mean that is the only aspect of it that I admire. It is possible to enjoy music for more than one reason.... You do know this, right?


[quoteI wouldn't allow a bunch of dinosaur wash-ups and their lick-arse reviewers put me out of the music business[/quote]

Sounds by your posts that you are already doing so.

I've avoided mentioning the names of bands I like 'cos, as I said, I don't want this to turn into a bunch of people saying this and that about this band and that band; However I will give one hypothetical scenario:

But you're more than happy to list a rake of bands you want out, risking the same argument, so i'm sorry but that's a complete cop-out. And you know this.

Preston R. is as good a guitarist as you'll ever see, and he doesn't try and pretend to be something he's not (i.e. a 50 year old trying to act like he's 25) - I'm not saying he's completely flawless, or even the best that there is, but at least he's original and honest.

Which is fine, but not all of us are strictly into acoustic tastes. Which is pretty much all he's done throughout his career! No wonder he doesn't pack out 80,000+ arenas worldwide!

VR!

Driver 8

To be honest, all your talk about lick arse reviewers and trends reminds me far more of the new, NME flavour of the month bands like the horrors, the gossip etc etc than older bands.

When i hear about older bands, i'm thinking about the likes of neil young, springsteen etc who had worked near constantly since the 60s and 70s, sometimes in fashion, sometimes not, but always producing music. I'll take Born to Run or Harvest (or, before someone says it-Magic or Living with War) over whatever Pete Doherty's churned out this month.

I like new bands, I do my best to seek out exciting new music, and go to gigs. But certain artists have earned our respect, and shouldn't be scrapped simply because they're over a certain age.

klaus flouride

I think alot of young people read those magazines and take them seriously because its what I did when I started to listen to proper music years ago; it wasn't long before I wisened up.
I have no problem with Led Zeppelin being called one of the best rock bands ever because I would agree with that statement; You seem to think that I dislike Led Zep, i don't at all- but that doesn' mean I have any interest in seeing their wrinkley holes hobbling back and fourth on a stage trying to act like they're 25 years younger than they are.
I recommended Preston Reed cos Preston Reed has to put on good preformances to earn a living; he plays the absolute boll1x off himself everytime he does a gig- he has to, you're guaranteed a great performance everytime. Led Zep don't need to do that. You said that Pres. Reed is'n't filling out 82,000 capacity stadiums because he doesn't play an electric guitar- i don't quite get that, James Taylor fills out stadiums every year. But like I said, I'm not going to get into an argument over whose bands ar better - its up to you to figure that out.
As for Driver 8- I don't like pete doherty either, but there is good music out there (the indie scene wouldn't be the best place to look); Unfortunately many people seem to be more interested in bad performances from artists who are well past it rather than listening to something original and good.

Its not the artists who are reforming that I have a problem with (I like most of them); its this ongoing craze for reformations - and the subsequent effects that it is having- that i don't like. I'm shocked at how much people are lapping it up.

grumpytrousers

klaus flouride wrote:

I think alot of young people read those magazines and take them seriously because its what I did when I started to listen to proper music years ago; it wasn't long before I wisened up.
I have no problem with Led Zeppelin being called one of the best rock bands ever because I would agree with that statement; You seem to think that I dislike Led Zep, i don't at all- but that doesn' mean I have any interest in seeing their wrinkley holes hobbling back and fourth on a stage trying to act like they're 25 years younger than they are.
I recommended Preston Reed cos Preston Reed has to put on good preformances to earn a living; he plays the absolute boll1x off himself everytime he does a gig- he has to, you're guaranteed a great performance everytime. Led Zep don't need to do that. You said that Pres. Reed is'n't filling out 82,000 capacity stadiums because he doesn't play an electric guitar- i don't quite get that, James Taylor fills out stadiums every year. But like I said, I'm not going to get into an argument over whose bands ar better - its up to you to figure that out.
As for Driver 8- I don't like pete doherty either, but there is good music out there (the indie scene wouldn't be the best place to look); Unfortunately many people seem to be more interested in bad performances from artists who are well past it rather than listening to something original and good.

Its not the artists who are reforming that I have a problem with (I like most of them); its this ongoing craze for reformations - and the subsequent effects that it is having- that i don't like. I'm shocked at how much people are lapping it up.

right - i've had three goes at replying to this post and each time i've banged my head on the desk in frustration at the nnnnngh'ness of it!

Klaus. Humour me. Humour all of us....

I'd like you to pretend that there's a genie here. He'll grant you all the wishes you want *related* to this thread.

List your wishes, and then tell us HOW exactly they'll improve the lot of 'up and coming' acts - cos that's what this is all about.

Do that...go on!

ShawnRaven

klaus flouride wrote:

I think alot of young people read those magazines and take them seriously because its what I did when I started to listen to proper music years ago; it wasn't long before I wisened up.

So you're saying that a lot of young people don't have the sense to make up their own minds and judge solely on Magazines because you couldn't? I personally think that's a load of bollox but it at least explains your mentality![/quote]

I have no problem with Led Zeppelin being called one of the best rock bands ever because I would agree with that statement; You seem to think that I dislike Led Zep, i don't at all- but that doesn' mean I have any interest in seeing their wrinkley holes hobbling back and fourth on a stage trying to act like they're 25 years younger than they are.

How are they acting like they're 25 years younger? Because they're playing songs that are older than that? And if you go to a gig to look at musicians asses, then uuuh, whatever floats your boat i guess! Wouldn't be my scene personally but we can live and let live.

I recommended Preston Reed cos Preston Reed has to put on good preformances to earn a living; he plays the absolute boll1x off himself everytime he does a gig- he has to, you're guaranteed a great performance everytime. Led Zep don't need to do that. You said that Pres. Reed is'n't filling out 82,000 capacity stadiums because he doesn't play an electric guitar- i don't quite get that, James Taylor fills out stadiums every year. But like I said, I'm not going to get into an argument over whose bands ar better - its up to you to figure that out.

I'm still trying to figure out why you used Preston Reed as an example for young up and coming talent when he was around the same time as Zeppelin. I kinda gave up after that.

Like i say, give us a list of bands you're trying to actually defend, as opposed to a list to **** on. In debate, consistancy is a must. And it's something you clearly do not have to back up your points. You're fighting a losing battle and you know it.
VR!

Rigsby

klaus flouride wrote:

I

Its not the artists who are reforming that I have a problem with (I like most of them); its this ongoing craze for reformations - and the subsequent effects that it is having- that i don't like. I'm shocked at how much people are lapping it up.

So, what would you like to see done

Maybe ban all bands over 20 years old from reforming ??


Also why slag off the bands if you have no problem with them ? From what you say your frustration lies at the buisness/marketing end of things.

klaus flouride

Rigsby wrote:

So, what would you like to see done

Maybe ban all bands over 20 years old from reforming ??


Also why slag off the bands if you have no problem with them ? From what you say your frustration lies at the buisness/marketing end of things.

I think Micheal Jackson was a musical genius when he was good (early days of his career), but I also think that he's a bit of a freak (i think most people think this); The fact that he's a bit weird wouldn't stop me liking his music and the fact that I like his music wouldn't stop me from slagging him off. Theres lots of examples of this; Phil Anselmo (Pantera), perhaps he's a bit of an inbred racist redneck- but he still made great music. I could list off countless examples of bands/artists I like but who I wouldn't have any problem in slagging off.

What should happen?

Ban Boxsets - you're not getting ''amazing new material'', you're getting several hours of sh1te, if it was any good the artist would have released it already.

Older rock musicians (j. page and R. plant for example) should involve themselves in the production of music for younger acts, pass on their skills and show them how a proper rock record should sound- but thats not what these guys are doing they're thinking "No way, I'm not giving away my secrets - I can still do it!''. They can't, they're past it- there is a place for them in the world of music (a producer's role can be very important or even the business side might suit some of them) but that place is not on a stage trying to pretend they're 30 years younger.

You're going to say this is a terrible comparison - but give it a think;
What do football players do after they retire from playing but wish to continue their involvement in the sport? They go into coaching, working with younger players and showing them the ropes - or they might go into the business side of it (media/club administration). This is what older musicians should be able to do in their chosen industry (some have, but the number is very small).

klaus flouride

validreasoning! wrote:

So you're saying that a lot of young people don't have the sense to make up their own minds and judge solely on Magazines because you couldn't? I personally think that's a load of bollox but it at least explains your mentality!

I think thats what happens to alot of young people beginning to listen to music - I'm sure, like anything, there are exceptions.



How are they acting like they're 25 years younger? Because they're playing songs that are older than that? And if you go to a gig to look at musicians asses, then uuuh, whatever floats your boat i guess! Wouldn't be my scene personally but we can live and let live.

The arses thing was a joke, I'm not a homosexual and I have no problem with homosexuals- I don't think insinuating that somebody is a homosexual is a clever way of insulting somebody, I certainly don't find it insulting; but hey, 'whatever floats your boat'.

I'm still trying to figure out why you used Preston Reed as an example for young up and coming talent when he was around the same time as Zeppelin. I kinda gave up after that.

I used preston reed as an example of somebody who acts their age and is honest, he doesn't try to be something he isn't- for instance acting as though he's younger than he is, the way Led Zep do.

Like i say, give us a list of bands you're trying to actually defend, as opposed to a list to **** on. In debate, consistancy is a must. And it's something you clearly do not have to back up your points. You're fighting a losing battle and you know it.
VR![/QUOTE]

'A list of bands'- There is nothing more annoying than when you log onto this site and for whatever reason theres some cvnt giving a big list of bands he thinks are great- as though I can't decide for myself. The minute I see 'a list of bands' in somebody's post I just skip it- I'm not going to lower myself to that.

ShawnRaven

klaus flouride wrote: »

I think thats what happens to alot of young people beginning to listen to music - I'm sure, like anything, there are exceptions.

Hahah, you THINK?? So you don't actually know then. That solves that.

I used preston reed as an example of somebody who acts their age and is honest, he doesn't try to be something he isn't- for instance acting as though he's younger than he is, the way Led Zep do.

You haven't seen Zeppelins recent actions, so who are you to judge? Or are you basing that like your whole entire argument? On assumption?

'A list of bands'- There is nothing more annoying than when you log onto this site and for whatever reason theres some cvnt giving a big list of bands he thinks are great- as though I can't decide for myself. The minute I see 'a list of bands' in somebody's post I just skip it- I'm not going to lower myself to that.

Probably because the list you have in mind are as talentless as they come, as i can't see any other reason for listing a load of bands that shouldn't be there, but can't be bothered listing his idea of prime examples.

It's plain to see you don't have a leg to stand on as far as your argument goes, and you're just merely prolonging the issue.

VR!

Rigsby

klaus flouride wrote: »

I think Micheal Jackson was a musical genius when he was good (early days of his career), but I also think that he's a bit of a freak (i think most people think this); The fact that he's a bit weird wouldn't stop me liking his music and the fact that I like his music wouldn't stop me from slagging him off. Theres lots of examples of this; Phil Anselmo (Pantera), perhaps he's a bit of an inbred racist redneck- but he still made great music. I could list off countless examples of bands/artists I like but who I wouldn't have any problem in slagging off.

Once again you are missing the point or maybe I did not explain properly.

My point was not so much the slagging as such, but that you are venting your frustration against the wrong people i.e. the bands when in fact it is the marketing/buisness side of the industry you should be targeting. What earthly reason is there for a band ( of any age ) not to play to an audience who are willing to pay to see them

I think this is the crux of this thread, and in all your longish posts thus far you have failed to answer this.

p to the e

i don't believe there is a black or white area on this which is the basis of music. personal opinions dictate each individual taste. so for example i would not in a million years agree that a band of the calibre that could fill a stadium should just up and go. they spent their years grafting just like the bands of modern. if anything they deserve respect.

it can clearly be seen that there are modern bands getting their dues and i'm also sure of bands (i am fans of some) that have slipped through but don't you think that when the likes of Queen, The Who, Led Zepelin etc. were starting they were mumbling about the big bands (i don't know elvis or buddy holly or something) who stole the limelight.

the simple plain fact is the basic economics of supply and demand. there's still a substantial following for these talented musicians that so very much annoy you who want nothing more than to see a band that they grew up with. and i for one would gladly pay to see some of my mega famous favourites. just aside i'm going to see Bruce "the boss" Springsteen in Belfast. so there!

nij

Validreasoning asked:

How are they acting like they're 25 years younger? Because they're playing songs that are older than that? And if you go to a gig to look at musicians asses, then uuuh, whatever floats your boat i guess! Wouldn't be my scene personally but we can live and let live.

Klaus Floride answered:

The arses thing was a joke, I'm not a homosexual and I have no problem with homosexuals- I don't think insinuating that somebody is a homosexual is a clever way of insulting somebody, I certainly don't find it insulting; but hey, 'whatever floats your boat'.

Very evasive - you still haven't answered his question. I'd also like to know what 'acting like you're 25 years younger' is.

klaus flouride

validreasoning! wrote: »

Hahah, you THINK?? So you don't actually know then. That solves that.

What proof do you have that this doesn't happen?

You haven't seen Zeppelins recent actions, so who are you to judge? Or are you basing that like your whole entire argument? On assumption?

'Zeppelin's recent actions' haven't been brilliant; some bad albums, r. plant's voice not being able to do what it once did, he can still sing though- nowadays they're nothing but a novelty act; i like led Zep to the point that i don't want to see the fine art that they created cheapened and fvcked up by their own greed. Do you think the surviving members of Led zep. want to play these gigs for any other reason than the money? I don't think they do, if they were still happy to play those songs then surely they would have done so before this.



Probably because the list you have in mind are as talentless as they come, as i can't see any other reason for listing a load of bands that shouldn't be there, but can't be bothered listing his idea of prime examples.

No, lists are boring- and i'm certain that any list i give will then be countered by a list you have made, which in turn will result in a list from someone else and so on; pointless really.

When Zeplin were in their early career days they wrote lyrics like that found in 'The Lemon Song' on Led Zep. ii; Immature lyrics and somewhat demeaning towards women, nowadays they're probably a bit embarrassed about it- but usually a band doesn't have to worry too much about having to sing songs such as this, because since then they've written more mature lyrics and their musical styles have developed. But Led Zep. can't do that, not that their styles haven't developed, or that they haven't had tragedies and experiences in their lives that they could sing about- but because they've been lumped with what must be the worst contingent of fans in the history of music; Fans who are interested in nothing else but hearing songs that page and plant wrote when they were little more than kids. Do you think Page and plant sit at home listening to heavy rock records, of course not they've grown out of it they're at a different stage in their lives.

klaus flouride

p to the e wrote: »

i don't believe there is a black or white area on this which is the basis of music. personal opinions dictate each individual taste. so for example i would not in a million years agree that a band of the calibre that could fill a stadium should just up and go. they spent their years grafting just like the bands of modern. if anything they deserve respect.

I'm not saying they should up and go, i'm saying they should play the music that they want to play, the music that they are writing and listening to now; not stuff they wrote years ago - and just because a bunch of fat-arsed americans, who have more money then sense and want to seem 'cool'.

it can clearly be seen that there are modern bands getting their dues and i'm also sure of bands (i am fans of some) that have slipped through but don't you think that when the likes of Queen, The Who, Led Zepelin etc. were starting they were mumbling about the big bands (i don't know elvis or buddy holly or something) who stole the limelight.

I think buddy was dead! but I'm not being smart I understand what you're saying; They may have given out about big acts; but i don't think they had to deal with an immense wave of reformations like the one we have now.

the simple plain fact is the basic economics of supply and demand. there's still a substantial following for these talented musicians that so very much annoy you who want nothing more than to see a band that they grew up with. and i for one would gladly pay to see some of my mega famous favourites. just aside i'm going to see Bruce "the boss" Springsteen in Belfast. so there!

Of course its down to supply and demand- thats what i've been saying; there is no other reason why they would be playing together after so long. Bands should play together cos they are currently writing and producing new and good material- not cos they knocked out a few hits 30 years ago.

Bruce isn't the worst for it; at least he's producing new material.

klaus flouride

If your mother came down the stairs dressed like a 20 year old and was talking about doing coke and going to nightclubs; would you not think it a bit weird? You might say to her "your too old for that, its embarrasing'' and she could reply ''yeah but i don't care- theres a demand for the product I offer'' and sure enough outside the front door is a queue of dirty oul fellas all dying for a ride. Wheres the dignity in that?

This is what Led Zep. and their ilk are trying to do; someone should inform them on how to grow old gracefully and not turn themselves into a stage performance of humiliation and embarrasment.

grumpytrousers

maybe i've got this wrong, but Zep are re-forming, as things stand, for ONE gig, in the rather sedate setting of the o2 arena in London.

AFAIK copious drug taking, motor cycle racing in the hotel corridors, whiskey-reservoir emptying and groupie troubling are probably off the menu....

ShawnRaven

klaus flouride wrote: »

What proof do you have that this doesn't happen?

About as much proof that you have that it does, the essential difference is i'm not the one trying to beat a dead horse!

'Zeppelin's recent actions' haven't been brilliant; some bad albums, r. plant's voice not being able to do what it once did, he can still sing though- nowadays they're nothing but a novelty act; i like led Zep to the point that i don't want to see the fine art that they created cheapened and fvcked up by their own greed. Do you think the surviving members of Led zep. want to play these gigs for any other reason than the money? I don't think they do, if they were still happy to play those songs then surely they would have done so before this.

I don't buy that for a second. Watch Genesis performance on VH1's Rock Honours earlier this year, you'll probably find it floating on youtube somewhere. Is Phil Collins voice what it was? No. Can he hit the hight notes as well as he once did, no. Can the band still put on the performance of a lifetime. Certainly, and the Rock Honours show was the proof of the pudding.

Now you can complain that money being the reason. Boo hoo, money is the reason why a lot of people bring out albums and go on tour. FACT! As stated earlier, music is a business. And people are in business to make money.

No, lists are boring- and i'm certain that any list i give will then be countered by a list you have made, which in turn will result in a list from someone else and so on; pointless really.

But thats already happened with your sh*t list. So if it so pointless klaus, why are you still replying?

Led Zep. can't do that, not that their styles haven't developed, or that they haven't had tragedies and experiences in their lives that they could sing about- but because they've been lumped with what must be the worst contingent of fans in the history of music; Fans who are interested in nothing else but hearing songs that page and plant wrote when they were little more than kids.

Obviously never listened to Robert Plant's Fate Of Nations, or Coverdale/Page then?

Do you think Page and plant sit at home listening to heavy rock records, of course not they've grown out of it they're at a different stage in their lives.

And you know this for a fact? You are really grasping at straws now.
VR!

klaus flouride

grumpytrousers wrote: »

maybe i've got this wrong, but Zep are re-forming, as things stand, for ONE gig, in the rather sedate setting of the o2 arena in London.

AFAIK copious drug taking, motor cycle racing in the hotel corridors, whiskey-reservoir emptying and groupie troubling are probably off the menu....

Yeah, true, but they're playing the music of a distant past.
Bands like this always say they're just going to do a 'one off show', next thing you know they're announcing a world tour (i.e. Kiss).

klaus flouride

validreasoning! wrote: »

About as much proof that you have that it does, the essential difference is i'm not the one trying to beat a dead horse!

I speak from my experiences and what I see- do you think Led Zep. would be as popular as they are amongst young audiences now were it not for every magazine and music critic banging on about how great they were? You can't say media enthusiasm has not played a part in this reformation.

I don't buy that for a second. Watch Genesis performance on VH1's Rock Honours earlier this year, you'll probably find it floating on youtube somewhere. Is Phil Collins voice what it was? No. Can he hit the hight notes as well as he once did, no. Can the band still put on the performance of a lifetime. Certainly, and the Rock Honours show was the proof of the pudding.

'Rock honours', jesus, you're using a programme such as that to support your argument - you're the one clutching at straws.

Now you can complain that money being the reason. Boo hoo, money is the reason why a lot of people bring out albums and go on tour. FACT! As stated earlier, music is a business. And people are in business to make money.

For most people there is f**k all money in the music business, you'll find most bands are in it cos they enjoy it- later on they may start to make cash, but it doesn't mean they're going to sound good. Led Zep. could make good money if they went out and played the music they want to play; Rather than cheapening and trivialising the good music they made in the past.

But thats already happened with your sh*t list. So if it so pointless klaus, why are you still replying?

What s**t list?

Obviously never listened to Robert Plant's Fate Of Nations, or Coverdale/Page then?

They won't be playing any of that material at their reformation gigs.

And you know this for a fact? You are really grasping at straws now.
VR!

Do you listen to the exact same records you listened to when you were 13?

ShawnRaven

klaus flouride wrote: »

Do you listen to the exact same records you listened to when you were 13?

Let me see, I was 13 in 1989, what was in my album collection

GNR - Appetite For Destruction, Lies
Leppard - Pyromania, Hysteria
Iron Maiden - Seventh Son Of A Seventh Son
Bon Jovi - New Jersey

Do i still listen to them? F*cking sure i do, most of these albums are timeless rock/metal classics!

Do you listen to the stuff you did when you were 13? Or did you get forced out by your peers and use the excuse of "I've grown out of that"?

VR!

klaus flouride

Do you listen to the stuff you did when you were 13? Or did you get forced out by your peers and use the excuse of "I've grown out of that"?

I'd still listen to some of the music I listened to when I was 13- but I listen to alot of other stuff now too, I don't listen to the exact same set of records; My tastes have developed, like with anyone who listens to music in a serious way; Eventually you become influenced by music from all quarters, and your music should reflect that, to do anything else would just be playing to please audiences / record labels / investors; and not yourself. Your music is only at its best when you're happy with it.

ShawnRaven

Eventually you become influenced by music from all quarters, and your music should reflect that, to do anything else would just be playing to please audiences / record labels / investors; and not yourself. Your music is only at its best when you're happy with it.

You hit the nail right on the head, which is generally the case with people who are going to see the "dinosaur bands". Mainly because given the timeframe some of the bands were around, a lot of newer fans wouldn't have seen them. As for the older original following who will be there (and believe me, they do be!), they'll also be there.

You asked why the old bands won't go away?You just answered your own question with that statement you just posted. It's just a shame that it took you five pages of arguing, slamming, bashing and disrespecting legendary artists for you to seek the answer out.

But hey... it's the first of the twelve steps, Congratulations!
VR!

klaus flouride

validreasoning! wrote: »

You hit the nail right on the head, which is generally the case with people who are going to see the "dinosaur bands". Mainly because given the timeframe some of the bands were around, a lot of newer fans wouldn't have seen them. As for the older original following who will be there (and believe me, they do be!), they'll also be there.

You asked why the old bands won't go away?You just answered your own question with that statement you just posted. It's just a shame that it took you five pages of arguing, slamming, bashing and disrespecting legendary artists for you to seek the answer out.

But hey... it's the first of the twelve steps, Congratulations!

VR!

I'm not sure what you're getting at; I'm not trying to be smart I just genuinely don't understand your point. Fact remains, Reformations do nothing else but trivialise and cheapen the music that these bands created - at least if you go to see a smaller band you don't have to deal with over-enthusiastic fans who lap up whatever sh1te is thrown at them. I never bashed any legendary artist; i slagged off the police a bit- but thats cos sting is a prik.

If these artists want to remain legends then they should stop trying to relive old times - i'm sure they were good times, but they're over now. deal with it.

70s rock bands often committed the following mistakes;

Over-indulgent musicianship, lyrics which could often be sexist and racist or just stupid, elitism (They could often be really stuck up), and in they end they became completely out of touch with what was happening in the real world; singing songs about hobbits and wizards whilst most of the general population stood in dole queues. Many 70s rock artists were undoubtedly talented - but they weren't flawless.

If you want to go see pantomine rock - a set of cliches all on stage at once; then by all means go see Led Zep. But don't treat their reformation as a serious and exciting musical development - Its just a profit-maker for vulnerable fans.

ShawnRaven

klaus flouride wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're getting at; I'm not trying to be smart I just genuinely don't understand your point. Fact remains, Reformations do nothing else but trivialise and cheapen the music that these bands created - at least if you go to see a smaller band you don't have to deal with over-enthusiastic fans who lap up whatever sh1te is thrown at them. I never bashed any legendary artist; i slagged off the police a bit- but thats cos sting is a prik.

Again, strictly you're opinion, and a wrong one as not one person has even attempted to side with you. Obviously biased, and dare i say bitter. And as i say, give me one or two smaller bands to test out, or even attempt to see live and i'll give it a shot. But since you're highly reluctant to do that, that case is closed. But no doubt you'll come back with a retarded statement that you will try to base as fact (when in actual fact, it couldn't be any further from the truth!)

If these artists want to remain legends then they should stop trying to relive old times - i'm sure they were good times, but they're over now. deal with it.

But they're not! There are many bands that have reformed and have released new material (Smashing Pumpkins, The Cult, The Eagles, The Damned, The Stooges... want me to keep going?). That's contributing to a music industry that for all intents and purpose has been slayed by boybands, rappers, technozoids and reality tv. That FACT remains.

Over-indulgent musicianship, lyrics which could often be sexist and racist or just stupid, elitism (They could often be really stuck up), and in they end they became completely out of touch with what was happening in the real world; singing songs about hobbits and wizards whilst most of the general population stood in dole queues. Many 70s rock artists were undoubtedly talented - but they weren't flawless.

Yes because the lyrics of the 80s, 90s and 2000's have been so insightful haven't they. Lets take one of you're young 'uns ok? Damien Dempsey. Have you heard the spew he churns out? I'd like to find out when the last time he lived in the real world. Lets go back to the 90s shall we? Cleopatra! Seriously, are we to take a bunch of 10 year olds serious when they sing about how "Life Ain't Easy", when they haven't even hit puberty yet?

I think you get my point. I could go on further, but it's perfectly understood.

But don't treat their reformation as a serious and exciting musical development - Its just a profit-maker for vulnerable fans.

Strictly you're opinion, and one you're very much alone on. The rest of us can't be wrong surely. And to be honest, myself included. I'd hardly call everyone who has responded to you and called you on every point you tried to make (and yet you dodge bullet after bullet, you should try politics!) young and vunerable.

I'm done with you, m'man. You've been shown up to the point where you can no longer defend your original statement (although you have tried). You are now free to have the last word as far as i am concerned. No, please... i insist!

VR!

klaus flouride

Some people did agree with me - but i think most people are optimists at heart and because of this they want to believe its the 70s all over again; I've news for you folks, it isn't. And no matter how many of these rock dinosaurs decide to get back together the 70s and 80s will never return. Nor should they - music should evolve, otherwise it stops being interesting.

As I stated before;

Nobody can watch The who cough and splutter their way through a butchered version of 'my generation' and then tell me that all these reformations are a good thing.