T1B

They should have all overdosed after "For Those About To Rock."

or "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap".

War Wagon wrote:or "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap".

That was basically the story.

Doesn't matter. All of these dusty classic rock bands are basically just brands. They'll recruit replacements off YouTube and form overpriced cover bands, which all the baby boomers will happily shell out $150 to see.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Doesn't matter. All of these dusty classic rock bands are basically just brands. They'll recruit replacements off YouTube and form overpriced cover bands, which all the baby boomers will happily shell out $150 to see.

You got it!

Sincerely,

Sudden Sam

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Doesn't matter. All of these dusty classic rock bands are basically just brands. They'll recruit replacements off YouTube and form overpriced cover bands, which all the baby boomers will happily shell out $150 to see.

It was the so called greatest generation that started that crap. You can still see the Glen Miller Orchestra. http://glennmillerorchestra.com/. Never mind that none of the band members even met Miller or were even alive when his plane went down.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Doesn't matter. All of these dusty classic rock bands are basically just brands. They'll recruit replacements off YouTube and form overpriced cover bands, which all the baby boomers will happily shell out $150 to see.

So freaking true. There are few things sadder than watching these old dinosaur bands stumbling around onstage like Joe Namath in the backfield for the Rams. Being suckered in to watch one or two original members creak by as they're backed up by some no-name scrubs is a waste of time and money. I love me some classic 60 and 70's rock music, but damn...hang it up already.

Same here Sam. Seeing The Who stumble all over the stage attempting to turn Quadrophinia into a Broadway show back in 97 cured me.

I see a jailbreak in his future.

But what do I know...I'm just a fly on the wall.

No matter how far AC/DC has sunk, you have to admit they were a great fucking band back in the day.





Dig the bagpipes.

Papa Willie wrote:http://ultimateclassicrock.com/pink-flo ... pre-order/

It's not all bad. People are starved for good shit, not the current shit being force-fed to them.

That's why we got to keep a stiff upper lip...

So...





...just me then, huh?


:|

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:I see a jailbreak in his future.

That would require some big balls for the band's problem child. Perhaps he can get a reduced sentence if he turns squealer.

Popular music history is full of "brands" as Bri pointed out with Glen Miller. The R and B groups like the Platters, Coasters, et al did the same with 50's tunes. Now groups of the 70's and 80's are playing the same game.

play this one for me when I'm on my deathbed.

Not the biggest ac/dc fan but anyone who doesn't think whole lotta Rosie isn't one of the ass kickingest rock songs Evah is a homosexual

Jay in Phoenix wrote: I love me some classic 60 and 70's rock music, but damn...hang it up already.

Fuck off, dumbass.

The Stones have grossed nearly a billion dollars on their last three tours. They will make well over 100 million on the current tour. Who in their right mind is going to pass on that kind of scratch?

"Oh, no. Keep your hundreds of millions of dollars. We're old and stuff now so just forget it."

Idiot.

No, he was clearly talking about old "dinosaurs" stumbling around the stage.

mvscal wrote:Fuck off, dumbass.

The Stones have grossed nearly a billion dollars on their last three tours. They will make well over 100 million on the current tour. Who in their right mind is going to pass on that kind of scratch?

A merry go fuck yourself too cock breath.

The one point I was going to make in my first post but didn't was the exception...to a point, of the Stones. Of all of the bands from the early era, they are the only one that has a semblance of their former greatness. There are a couple of others, like Sabbath, but the examples are few. They (The Stones) can still rock, but they are old as hell and the end, as they say, is nigh. As far as it goes though, name me one other band that can even come close, or has at least 4/5ths of its original players still around.

So the Stones make a shitbox full of money to this day, so what? The Beatles and Elvis still draw huge dollars and I don't see them performing anywhere. It isn't about making scratch, it's about being relevant, about not hanging on to memories and selling out for a few more dollars. The Stones are walking that fine line, but they haven't crossed it.

Yet.

I didn't bring up the Stones because most everyone knows they are a different case. It's assumed. But go ahead, mvsgenius, give us some more examples of 60's era rock bands that aren't creaking around on walkers and canes and screwing up their standards in casinos and state fairs.

"Oh, no. Keep your hundreds of millions of dollars. We're old and stuff now so just forget it."

Idiot.

No, please let them keep the money they've earned. Enjoy it. Just stop performing when you can't any longer. I want to remember the bands like the Who as what they were, not the shadows they have become.

Moron.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:I didn't bring up the Stones because most everyone knows they are a different case. It's assumed. But go ahead, mvsgenius, give us some more examples of 60's era rock bands that aren't creaking around on walkers and canes and screwing up their standards in casinos and state fairs.

Rush.

Not quite 60s, but most of the 70s. And they fit the normally accepted "classic rock" definition. And they rock every bit as well if not better than they did 40 years ago.

And the most amazing thing is they actually look better today, not that that is saying much.

The Who reference was Brian's, but I concurred with him. You bring up some good examples Sam, both pro and con, but I'm sticking with the 60's era and early 70's. But even with that said, are these bands actually the same as they once were? Do we really need to see ZZ Top or America plunking and strumming at the Talking Stick Resort and Casino? Yeah, they can still play but it isn't the same, and frankly, personally, I don't want to watch them anymore.

Good point about Rush 'holic. Once again, I am thinking Stones and Beatles era bands though.

That's what albums, cd's and the internet is for, listening to them as they were.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:So the Stones make a shitbox full of money to this day, so what?

So why the fuck would they hang it up?

It isn't about making scratch, it's about being relevant, about not hanging on to memories and selling out for a few more dollars.

What a load of shit. Easy for the guy not making hundreds of millions to say.

Sudden Sam wrote:It would be cool to see someone like Leslie West, or Mick Taylor, or Peter Frampton, or Angus Young do a solo gig. Sitting on a stool in a small theater...just playing guitar.

I saw BB King about 20 years ago at Austin City Limits. Pretty much that exact set up. He had a band backing him the first set. The second set he came out with 'Lucille,' sat down on a stool and just shredded.

mvscal wrote:

Jay in Phoenix wrote:So the Stones make a shitbox full of money to this day, so what?

So why the fuck would they hang it up?

I didn't say the Stones should, not just yet. That sentiment was for the other bands that can't hang anymore.

What a load of shit. Easy for the guy not making hundreds of millions to say.

So you're all about selling out? Figures. As you know all about rolling in the millions, well in your imagination anyway, go ahead and roll around in your own tired bullshit while you're at it. Music isn't all about money you fucking retard. It's about craft and inspiration and entertaining. Money is a huge part of the benefit, but most artists perform for the love of the craft. If it's only about money and the bottom line, fuck all to the spirit of music, then you're welcome to hold hands and sing freaking kum-buy-ya-a-yacht with your tired, old, has-been hero's of yore.

Nothing wrong with a fat payday, but if that is ALL you are after in the music or entertainment biz, then who wants or needs it.

Jay in Phoenix wrote: Music isn't all about money you fucking retard. It's about craft and inspiration and entertaining. Money is a huge part of the benefit, but most artists perform for the love of the craft. If it's only about money and the bottom line, fuck all to the spirit of music, then you're welcome to hold hands and sing freaking kum-buy-ya-a-yacht with your tired, old, has-been hero's of yore.

Nothing wrong with a fat payday, but if that is ALL you are after in the music or entertainment biz, then who wants or needs it.

Yes and no.

You might be right about the craft and entertaining and whatnot for bands/artists on the rise. But as soon as they sign that first big contract with the label it is all about the money. Don't want to chase the dollar, then don't sign the big money deal. Sell a couple 10 million albums and you can go back to the craft and entertaining bit and the label will answer to you on your next contract.

If it was all about the music and entertaining the fans there would be no arena shows. Everything would be in small theaters where the true sound could be heard. There wouldn't be any elaborate lights, smoke, flames, stages, choreographers, dancing, etc. Instead it would be a George Strait show, a guy on a stool with his guitar and a mic.

I admit I've seen more than a few bands & artists whose better days were behind them; some were still worth seeing; others, not so much. I remember seeing the Moody Blues 10-15 years ago and thought they were kinda pathetic, even though they still had a few members from their heyday. Seeing old white guys try to pull off choreographed moves onstage like they were vintage Temptations was rather sad - thought one of 'em might break a hip. Saw John Lee Hooker shortly before he died - dude couldn't remember many lyrics and was sitting during the whole show. Johnny Winter couldn't stand the last couple times I saw him, but dude could still shred and his voice was still mostly there. Blue Oyster Cult was still pretty good as of a couple years ago even though they were down to 2 or 3 original members. Seeing Leon Russell open for Ray Charles a few years before Ray died was pretty cool, although Leon acted like he really didn't wanna be there. Ray was still Ray despite his advanced age. Same with BB King - dude had to sit through a lot of the show but could still bring it.

The best performance I've seen by a band that was over the hill was the J. Geils Band a couple years ago at the Fillmore in Silver Spring, MD. They had 4 of the 6 original members (ironically, J. Geils wasn't one of 'em), and they put on a helluva show. Peter Wolf was still a master showman, and the rest of the band was tight and having a good time onstage.

Last time I saw the Stones was during their Steel Wheels tour in '89, and I thought they were nearly washed up then, although they still put on a good show. Clapton joined 'em for "Little Red Rooster," and dusting off "2000 Light Years from Home" was an unexpected bonus.

Anyone who buys tickets to see old guys play and expects them to have the same spark, vitality, and enthusiasm they did when they were relevant is delusional. If you go for the sake of nostalgia to hear songs you grew up with performed by the primary musicians who played them originally, with the understanding that they ain't what they used to be, good times can still be had. And while I agree that reconstituted bands with only one or two (or zero) original members could be considered pretty hokey, what else are they gonna do? Musicians make their living playing music in front of live audiences after no longer being able to get recording deals, and most aren't qualified to do much else. As long as there's a demand for them (however diminished it may be), that's what they'll do. Sophisticated and discriminating consumers like us may not be snapping up the tix, but there are those who will, so the artists will keep on playin'.

Sudden Sam wrote:Back to AC/DC...

Only time I saw 'em was in '79 as an opening act for...Journey! They blew the headliners away, which wasn't terribly difficult since Journey sucked out loud. At the time, cordless electric guitars were somewhat of a novelty. Angus was using one, and got on the shoulders of a roadie who ran him around the perimeter of the arena floor while he wailed away on the axe. Pretty groovy for back then.

Left Seater wrote:Yes and no.

You might be right about the craft and entertaining and whatnot for bands/artists on the rise. But as soon as they sign that first big contract with the label it is all about the money. Don't want to chase the dollar, then don't sign the big money deal. Sell a couple 10 million albums and you can go back to the craft and entertaining bit and the label will answer to you on your next contract.

If it was all about the music and entertaining the fans there would be no arena shows. Everything would be in small theaters where the true sound could be heard. There wouldn't be any elaborate lights, smoke, flames, stages, choreographers, dancing, etc. Instead it would be a George Strait show, a guy on a stool with his guitar and a mic.

Good point and the one I was trying to make. As mvscal went to one extreme, I simply went to the other. Of course musicians and entertainers are all about signing that big contract. Who wouldn't turn down a huge payday. Personally, I've been to huge arena extravaganzas featuring acts like Pink Floyd and small intimate venues with acoustic solo sets by guys like Warren Zevon. I'll take the music over the spectacle every time.

Now then, as to the example of the Stones mvscal gave about that 1 billion...that estimate is over a span of about twenty five years and multiple tours, not just one year of sets, so let's have some perspective. At the beginning of their 2013 tour of North America at Staples, they had to drop ticket prices from $600 to just about $85 due to declining sales. Yes, they still rolled in the money, but diminishing returns were inevitable and are showing.

Yes, they and other acts are still viable and rocking, but are they really the same? Their success and sales are more due to their audiences being creatures of habit and not due to them producing vibrant, new music. I know, I know, they're still making more money than God, so fuck off, right? As Smackie said, if anybody goes to these act and expects them to be the same brilliant, exciting and innovative artists they were, you're kidding yourself. Nostalgia is all well and good, and if that's your game, good for you. I want live music to be something special, an extension or even an improvement on recordings. Buying tickets for the sake of seeing an old and worn out artist just because they are still there, is sad and a waste of time and money.

Why are you offering an opinion when you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about? I said over their last three tours. That timeframe is 2002-2013. That's just the beginning of your stupidity.

So what? What's your point? It's still over a decade, not some overnight gig. This has nothing to do with quality of music or performing viability, it just reflects what creatures of habit concert goers are. More of the same gruel please, just keep re-heating it and serving it up.

Go ahead mvscal, eat it.

Sudden Sam wrote:Hells bells, man, I was thunderstruck when I read the charges.

Rudd can't be that cold hearted a man to hire some big gun to do the dirty deed.

Nice effort right there Sam.

Sudden Sam wrote:Back to AC/DC...

They tore it up in 2009 in Memphis when my wife and I saw them.

And when I took my kids to see them (on a school day...dammit, I can't stop it!) maybe 25 years ago, they were good. Although they did a touch too much of the Highway to Hell album's tunes.

They are still very good in concert and worth the price of admission.

Papa Willie wrote:If you've never played in front of an audience that really likes you, then you wouldn't understand. It's a hell of a buzz and a great feeling. This past Saturday night, I played in front of about a thousand people that absolutely loved us, and that's what makes me keep playing out in front of people. It's something you're not going to get anywhere else.

Preach on brotha. The first time I sang for an audience I was called up to sing one song. I was jacked for the entire rest of the night like nothing I have ever felt before. It was like cocaine. Even after getting shitfaced for 3 hours after the show I couldn't go to sleep. I just sat up twitching for 2 more hours. There is NOTHING like that rush.

Papa Willie wrote:Here's the deal.

1. A lot of these guys are used to living high on the hog. They're not making money off of their music anymore, as everybody steals it off the internet. The only way a lot of them can pay their hefty bills - is to go out and play concerts.

2. If there's still a big audience who goes and sees them, why wouldn't they?

3. If you've never played in front of an audience that really likes you, then you wouldn't understand. It's a hell of a buzz and a great feeling. This past Saturday night, I played in front of about a thousand people that absolutely loved us, and that's what makes me keep playing out in front of people. It's something you're not going to get anywhere else.

Damn Willie, great points and here's my two cents on each one.

1. This is honestly my biggest bugaboo with the state of music today. Streaming and stealing music off the net is raping artists financially these days. I still refuse to take any song or movie off the web and will continue to pay for my entertainment. If this makes me a sucker, so be it. I still enjoy having an album, or book or movie presented just as the artist intended it and don't mind paying for it. As a performer or a film maker, this is understood.

But a brother has to eat and pay the rent, so playing live for a band is a must. It doesn't justify cheating via pre-recorded tracks or lip synching, but I addressed examples of where it's okay in another thread.

2. Agreed, if people will pay, take the money, end of story.

3. There are few things as amazing as a great live performance. Live theater is where entertainment began. The electricity that is generated between a performer and their audience can be transcendent. It can also be embarrassing, but it is always worth the risk, just for the chance to connect with somebody at a live show. The only adrenaline rush I can relate to that would be as great or greater is the one time I went sky diving, in an advance, solo free fall.

The relationship between an artist and their audience live cannot be replicated. It's a unique experience each and every time. No one should ever advocate giving that up, unless of course the performer can no longer do what it was that made them who and what they once were and there is a compromise that affects the relationship. Some artists past their prime are still worth seeing, most others aren't. But if there is somebody willing to pay to see a show, then go ahead and keep giving it to them till the bitter end.

BSmack wrote:It was like cocaine.

Nothing is like cocaine.

:|

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

BSmack wrote:It was like cocaine.

Nothing is like cocaine.

:|

Adderall.