jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (17 posts)

Rock & Roll Bands and Comebacks: for Love or for Profit?

  1. 6 String Veteran profile image86
    6 String Veteranposted 5 years ago

    The Rolling Stones. The Who. Led Zeppelin, and more. To them "R" doesn't mean retire, it means "reunion". While admirable, is there something more to it than love of the road (and the perks thereabout)?

    Have they blown all their dough over the years, are in debt, trying to milk the last drops of fortune from their fame?

    Are they simply fulfilling life-long contracts that stated in fine-print they couldn't possibly have read: "do this until deceased"?

    Or are they addicted to performance?

    What do YOU think?

    1. Just Ask Susan profile image87
      Just Ask Susanposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think it is their love of music that keeps them going. Do what you love to do. Sure makes us fans happy when they re-unite.  -  smile

    2. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      They're an endangered species, holding onto their positions for dear life.   haha I'm kidding about the species part, but they are for sure a dying breed so-to-speak.   I have a kinda guilty pleasure in the nostalgia behind those old groups.   They have talent, for sure, something I don't see in today's rock bands.  At least not much.   And at least they had a message, even if the message wasn't always good.   Today's bands seem to just be able to grease their hair into a spike and moan unintelligibly or chat-rap to a mixture of chords that don't even sound like music and they become "stars"......

      1. 6 String Veteran profile image86
        6 String Veteranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Also today's radio bands have that super-processed sound and suffer from a chronic lack of originality. Every once in a while a good song will come out, but the ratio of good-to-poor songs is pitifully low.

    3. 0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      for love...of themselves

      1. 6 String Veteran profile image86
        6 String Veteranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, we have, indeed, neglected the ego-factor.

        1. 0
          Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'd say the ego factor plays a large part, given that many of these musicians have more money than they know what to do with

    4. Shinkicker profile image90
      Shinkickerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If they record new music then they'll get my vote, especially if it's of a high standard. (rare though that is I must admit) But just to tour on the back catalogue is cashing in on nostalgia.

  2. TheOneWhoKnows profile image61
    TheOneWhoKnowsposted 5 years ago

    I think that's Profit together with a good felling of being a Rock Star

  3. I am DB Cooper profile image67
    I am DB Cooperposted 5 years ago

    Mostly profit. Reunion tours are big money. Pink Floyd has been offered $200 million to reunite (I'm not sure if that price would go down now that Wright's gone). Zeppelin, even with Bonham long gone, could probably get at least that.

    I don't really have anything against reunion tours, just as long as they don't release a comeback album. There's nothing worse than that album a band releases after they've all gone through rehab and cleaned up.

    1. 6 String Veteran profile image86
      6 String Veteranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Whoa, $200m?...'Reunited and it feels so gooood...'

  4. tony0724 profile image60
    tony0724posted 5 years ago

    The Rolling Stones have never really broken up. And Led Zeppelin aside from that one show in London a few years back will not get back together. And I am glad they won't. I think that would take away from their mystique. But many old bands are getting back together. Alot of it is profit for sure. But they might be bored too.

  5. SomewayOuttaHere profile image60
    SomewayOuttaHereposted 5 years ago

    ...they're artists/musicians...why stop being an artist/musician because you turn a certain age...and of course, some make money and some don't and just keep performing anyway....as long as the fans keep showing up, why not?

    1. rebekahELLE profile image91
      rebekahELLEposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree. who retires anymore, anyway? baby boomers party on!

    2. 6 String Veteran profile image86
      6 String Veteranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If the interest / demand is there, I agree it would be kinda hard to ignore the spotlight.

  6. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 5 years ago

    Not all of today's musical artists are over produced and fake. There are some great new musicians and bands, you just have to look to find them.

    I vowed to myself that I would not be one of those persons who say that "the music these kids love today isn't music...why, in my day..."

    I agree that musicians got in it originally for the love of music and performing and that they should not stop just because they reach a certain age. However, I am a bit cynical of bands that say they are breaking up but get together again; I think the Who had their final tour at least 3 times... Then again, if people still want to see them and are willing to pay for the honor, why not?

  7. timorous profile image92
    timorousposted 5 years ago

    Unless they're just an embarrassment to themselves and everyone else.  Trying to fit into leather pants that no longer fit...letting their singing voice go, to where they can't carry a tune anymore.  That's just sad.

    On the other hand, bands that have kept it up in various ways, such as Jethro Tull, Procol Harum, Moody Blues, etc. ..can still play circles around some of these newer bands that have no stage presence, and sometimes seem to be playing just for themselves.