Hmmm... what should I do... pay $150 for nosebleed tickets in a stadium or arena to see a band that hasn't put out anything in 20 or 30 years, and probably sounds like crap, or I can pay $10 - $30 for general admission to a theater or bar and see a band which is making music I enjoy right now and is on top of their game.

Real hard to choose.

Don't get taken by aging rockstars looking to make a buck, kid. Follow these 3 simple rules:

1. Band must have put out a decent album (greatest hits do not count) in the last 5 years
2. Venue must have a capacity under 3000
3. Tickets must not exceed $40

Now go see some music that's relevant

I still can't figure out what the heck people mean when they use the word "relevant" to describe music. As I see it, if there are people who like something, no matter who those people are or why they like it, that's all the "relevance" the music needs.

Having said that, I kinda like the three rules, although I would be kinda flexible with them. One of the best concerts I've ever seen was Hot Tuna last year at a small venue, $40 for both me and the wife, and we were close enough to read the signature on Jack Casady's signature bass. Those guys can play.

And having said that, if there are other people who want to piss away $500 to see a band churn out 30-year-old hits, what difference does it make to me?

FTA:

"Singer Sting and drummer Stewart Copeland once came to blows during a tour of the United States and had reportedly refused to be in the same studio together while recording a "best of" album in 1986."

Why would they need to be in the studio for a "best of" album? It's not as if they were re-recording the songs.

"Other possible reunions include 70s rockers Rod Stewart and The Faces..."


Now, that's interesting. For my tastes, that was the last good stuff Rod Stewart did. Wonder who'll play bass? (RIP Ronnie Lane)

DrBenway: FTA:

"Singer Sting and drummer Stewart Copeland once came to blows during a tour of the United States and had reportedly refused to be in the same studio together while recording a "best of" album in 1986."

Why would they need to be in the studio for a "best of" album? It's not as if they were re-recording the songs.

They cut a reworked/re-mixed version of "Don't Stand So Close to Me" so they'd have a "new" song they could release as a single. It sounded like ass compared to the original, btw.

Secret Agent X23: And having said that, if there are other people who want to piss away $500 to see a band churn out 30-year-old hits, what difference does it make to me?

Well, that's really a good point. I just feel like the old farts are big hustlers who are basically trying to scam people by promising some recapturing of their youth.. or something. In the end, I'm not going, so it really doesn't matter. I do get annoyed though, when the 'look how much these old farts made on their tour' list comes out. And when people try to tell me there's no good music these days.

As far as relevance, I intend it mostly in the sense of being current. Of course the music of the past can still be pleasurable, but music, the same as all art forms, is partly a product of the time of it's creation. Pop music especially, due to it's lyrical nature, tends to lose its meaning, it's cache, etc, after a while. It just becomes dated. Does that make any sense?

GrooveMonkeyZero: Hmmm... what should I do... pay $150 for nosebleed tickets in a stadium or arena to see a band that hasn't put out anything in 20 or 30 years, and probably sounds like crap, or I can pay $10 - $30 for general admission to a theater or bar and see a band which is making music I enjoy right now and is on top of their game.

Real hard to choose.

Don't get taken by aging rockstars looking to make a buck, kid. Follow these 3 simple rules:

1. Band must have put out a decent album (greatest hits do not count) in the last 5 years
2. Venue must have a capacity under 3000
3. Tickets must not exceed $40

Now go see some music that's relevant

Wow, it normally takes people at least a few pages to come off as as enormous a douche as you just did.

1. Chronology is meaningless. Great works of history are still more relevant than decent works of the past decade.
2. Popularity doesn't make something good, but it doesn't automatically make something bad either.
3. Big productions cost money. An arena performance isn't supposed to be the same thing as a club performance - why would you possibly expect to pay the same amount?

Sometimes the rules don't work though - it's often the context of a performance that can make it awesome, something the rules won't cover. The best live show I've ever been to was the Flaming Lips - it was at the end of a whole day of other bands, some good, some not so - on a smaller, off-the-main-area stage and the atmosphere was buzzing like nothing I've ever seen.

I was at the last shows one of our local NZ bands, The Mint Chicks, just did before heading over to the US to 'chase the dream' so to speak (their recent self-recorded album of weirdo-pop/freak out punk recently took out our local equivalent of the Best Album grammy). I'm sure they play that awesome all the time, but the fact it was their last shows with their bass player and in NZ for god knows how long lent it extra weight.

PS. Look out Portland, 'cause the Mint Chicks are freakin' awesome. If you live in the area, definitely check them out.

DrBenway: Now, that's interesting. For my tastes, that was the last good stuff Rod Stewart did. Wonder who'll play bass? (RIP Ronnie Lane)

My thoughts exactly. That's my real beef with Rod the Mod: he needs someone like Lane or Jeff Beck to keep him in line and not allow him to take the easy road to easy listening.

Earlier today "Let Me Love You" from "Truth" rolled up on the iPod's random play and I was once again reminded of what good work this guy can do.

GrooveMonkeyZero: I just feel like the old farts are big hustlers who are basically trying to scam people by promising some recapturing of their youth.. or something.

Well, now at 50, I was going to concerts when the old farts were young farts. So I might be expected to have a somewhat different perspective than yours, but to be honest, I really don't see that any of these reunion tours are bringing anything new to the party. There were times when I felt I must be the only one who didn't give a rat's ass about the Police tour. I prefer to move on. There was a reason why Zeppelin disbanded after Bonham died, and that reason still exists.


As far as relevance, I intend it mostly in the sense of being current. Of course the music of the past can still be pleasurable, but music, the same as all art forms, is partly a product of the time of it's creation. Pop music especially, due to it's lyrical nature, tends to lose its meaning, it's cache, etc, after a while. It just becomes dated. Does that make any sense?

It doesn't make sense as a generalization meant to imply that anything "old" has no real value anymore (maybe that's not what you're saying, but it's easy to read it that way). Some popular music holds up better over time than other popular music. I'll point to the Rolling Stones' run of albums from "Beggar's Banquet" through "Sticky Fingers" as being more "relevant" to today's concerns than at least half the popular music you'll find on the charts, including anything the Stones themselves have done since "Some Girls."

Mr_Fabulous:

They cut a reworked/re-mixed version of "Don't Stand So Close to Me" so they'd have a "new" song they could release as a single. It sounded like ass compared to the original, btw.


Got it. Thanks for the clarification. Not surprised that it sucked, either -- rarely does that sort of thing work out. On the other hand, there was a lot of stuff recorded in the 80's that I'd love a shot at remixing. Drums were especially awful sounding on much stuff from that period.

Secret Agent X23: It doesn't make sense as a generalization meant to imply that anything "old" has no real value anymore (maybe that's not what you're saying, but it's easy to read it that way). Some popular music holds up better over time than other popular music. I'll point to the Rolling Stones' run of albums from "Beggar's Banquet" through "Sticky Fingers" as being more "relevant" to today's concerns than at least half the popular music you'll find on the charts, including anything the Stones themselves have done since "Some Girls."

It was not intended as a 'everything old is bad' connotation. I love a lot, and I mean a lot of stuff put out well before I was born. Simply put though, I feel like music loses some of it's meaning as it gets older. There's no way, for instance Quadrophenia has the same impact now to a listner than it did when the Mods and Rockers were actualling warring on British beaches...
Of course some music holds up better than others, starting quality is of course very important. Themes based on the little universalities of the human condition for example... but time has a way of eroding just about anything, y'know?

DrBenway: "Other possible reunions include 70s rockers Rod Stewart and The Faces..."


Now, that's interesting. For my tastes, that was the last good stuff Rod Stewart did. Wonder who'll play bass? (RIP Ronnie Lane)

Ask John Entwistle who could have possible filled in for him- two days after he died, even.

/needs money for pool install at second beach house

GrooveMonkeyZero: Hmmm... what should I do... pay $150 for nosebleed tickets in a stadium or arena to see a band that hasn't put out anything in 20 or 30 years, and probably sounds like crap, or I can pay $10 - $30 for general admission to a theater or bar and see a band which is making music I enjoy right now and is on top of their game.

Real hard to choose.

Don't get taken by aging rockstars looking to make a buck, kid. Follow these 3 simple rules:

1. Band must have put out a decent album (greatest hits do not count) in the last 5 years
2. Venue must have a capacity under 3000
3. Tickets must not exceed $40

Now go see some music that's relevant

Pro Your Argument--I saw Nirvana 5 weeks after In Utero came out for 25 dollars in a 3000 seat arena. Awesome show

Con Your Argument--I saw the Stones on the Voodoo Lounge tour in a stadium for 75 dollars. Awesome show

Generalities don't work. Too general

jj325: Pro Your Argument--I saw Nirvana 5 weeks after In Utero came out for 25 dollars in a 3000 seat arena. Awesome show

Con Your Argument--I saw the Stones on the Voodoo Lounge tour in a stadium for 75 dollars. Awesome show

Generalities don't work. Too general

Well lets just say they're not hard and fast. And they don't apply to festivals. Would I see the Stones for $75? Maybe. Would I see them for what they're asking now? No way.

TFA: Phil Collins too joined up with his Genesis band mates again (minus Peter Gabriel) for a giant tour

And minus Steve Hackett. Nice legwork rewriting wire copy, hack.

GrooveMonkeyZero: Hmmm... what should I do... pay $150 for nosebleed tickets in a stadium or arena to see a band that hasn't put out anything in 20 or 30 years, and probably sounds like crap, or I can pay $10 - $30 for general admission to a theater or bar and see a band which is making music I enjoy right now and is on top of their game.

Real hard to choose.

Yeah, I'd go with the old farts at the arena shows, too. Shorter bathroom lines and nobody puking on your shoes.

Don't get taken by aging rockstars looking to make a buck, kid.

Why not be consistent and refuse to see any show by anybody getting rich doing what they love, regardless of age?

I'd rather tell kids not to throw their money (which they have less of at their age) at flavor-of-the-month acts looking to make a buck. We should only hope our kids get to see the Zeppelins of this world before it's too late.

1. Band must have put out a decent album (greatest hits do not count) in the last 5 years

Lots of the greats take their own sweet time between albums. Stevie Wonder's done one in the last 12 years and hasn't done anything "decent" since the early 80's. He still tears shiat up live, though. Ditto for Peter Gabriel, Aretha Franklin, (insert your favorite old fart here).

2. Venue must have a capacity under 3000

Yeah, once you get above that number it's all SO impersonal. Ain't that right, Bruce?

3. Tickets must not exceed $40

Meh. I don't go to many shows, so I can afford to splurge when I do.

/genesis '07 was amazing

OldManDownDRoad:

My thoughts exactly. That's my real beef with Rod the Mod: he needs someone like Lane or Jeff Beck to keep him in line and not allow him to take the easy road to easy listening.


Case in point: Stay With Me. Would kill for that fuzz tone Woody's getting. (pops)

I should have known they'd trot out the yearly pink floyd reunion rumors.

Well in that case, I don't feel bad for shelling out 60$ to see these guys:


Or the 135$ I paid a scalper because I was too lazy to wait in line for 12 FARKING HOURS.



(BEST CONCERT EVER. They played for 3 1/2 hours. That's like two concerts in one! That, and, everyone has to hear "The Sign of The Cross" (at 14 minutes) and "Hallowed Be Thy Name" at least once to understand why people willingly pay 200$ to see them live.)
(Possibly the greatest bands ever. That, and I seriously think these guys are immortal, they move more than some 20-something bands I've seen. They must eat crack for breakfast.)

These old farts blew me away twice in concert this year...



It's too bad this tour is being totally overlooked in all the "year end music" lists. Stupid music journalists, anyway.

/Heaven And Hell, aka Black Sabbath with Dio
//fark Zeppelin!

zappaisfrank: It's too bad this tour is being totally overlooked in all the "year end music" lists. Stupid music journalists, anyway.

Could it be that it's a tour, and not an album?

danduran
zappaisfrank: It's too bad this tour is being totally overlooked in all the "year end music" lists. Stupid music journalists, anyway.

Could it be that it's a tour, and not an album?

There have been several "tours" year end lists, all strangely minus H&H.

Can I just ask why it's acceptable to have misspelled headlines on "news" webpages?

/lawn

its like de ja vu
didn't we see this a month or two ago?

RaKellaKAT
It is a variant spelling: Ageing (new window)

/word nerd

just you wait.

soon the time will come when some of you sneering hipster naysayer knobs will be paying thousands of dollars to see the 'Re-RUN'
tour with the surviving members of RUN DMC and Jam Master Jay's cousin or something. or the GO-GO's-Bangles twin reunion tour (wow, susannah hoffs is still hot!). or the 2022 Pearl Jam reunion tour. yer gonna be spending thousands to see a 55-year old snoop dogg be all like 'you dont luv me, u just luv my doggystyle'. the 2035 white stripes-strokes-olivia tremor control-decemberists-311 biannual farewell co-tour will cost as much as a flying car but you will be there signing the loan papers (dont try to deny it).

there is no escape. lameness is directly proportional to your age. like quicksand, if you try to fight then you will only sink that much faster.

Meh. Same new-v-old debate that has been going on for awhile now.

I bought Van Halen tickets for their "reunion" show. I never saw them during the Dave years and was more than happy to shell out 75 bucks to see that show. It was worth every dime.

Back in 1989 I shelled out 100 bucks for the Rolling Stones Steel Wheels tour. That was worth every dime as well since Guns-n-Roses and Living Colour were on the bill as well.

I've seen Iron Maiden several times, and would GLADLY pay 500 bucks for a ticket. They are the most energetic, hard rocking, fun to see band at any time they are on tour.

Was at this concert...worth the $75.00. Being the best live band probably ever (at their peak) the Who are still a must see IMO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8imrzk8y2io

wouldestous: wow, susannah hoffs is still hot!



Yes, yes she is.

This thread needs more "80's rockers who are still hot" pics.

When The Smithereens get back together, then I'll be a happy camper.

Speaking of Bangles, Vicky Peterson's still pretty damned attractive. Saw her a few times playing in the Continental Drifters, which was a great little "under-the-radar" conglomeration working out of New Orleans in the late 90's. Peter Holsapple and Susan Cowsill were also in the band.

Another band reuniting I'm enthused about is The Godfathers. Opened for them once in '88 or '89; they kicked major ass.

(BEST CONCERT EVER. They played for 3 1/2 hours. That's like two concerts in one! That, and, everyone has to hear "The Sign of The Cross" (at 14 minutes) and "Hallowed Be Thy Name" at least once to understand why people willingly pay 200$ to see them live.)
(Possibly the greatest bands ever. That, and I seriously think these guys are immortal, they move more than some 20-something bands I've seen. They must eat crack for breakfast.)

March 14, 2008- Izod Center, East Rutherford, NJ. Tickets in hand. I am living for that golden evening.

Oh, man. The Phil Collins Band (laughingly referred to by the name of an earlier genuinely good band that Collins used to play drums for), The Eagles, The Police, oh joy. Old men half-assedly cashing in on the already lucrative dad-rock they produced in their talentless youth. I'd rather pay $200 to jam pencils in both my ears.

Pentaxian: wouldestous: wow, susannah hoffs is still hot!




Yes, yes she is.

Amazingly, she'll be 49 years old in three weeks(Date of Birth: January 17, 1959). Homina homina homina...

MikoSquiz: Oh, man. The Phil Collins Band (laughingly referred to by the name of an earlier genuinely good band that Collins used to play drums for)...Old men half-assedly cashing in on the already lucrative dad-rock they produced in their talentless youth. I'd rather pay $200 to jam pencils in both my ears.

It would appear by the intellect revealed in your statement that you've already jammed the pencils far enough in that they've met somewhere in the middle of your skull.

So I'd like my $200 now.

/obligatory six and a half minutes of off my lawn

Nostalgia for an age that never existed!

Ex-hippie boomers are exploiting their past making it out to better than it was. Seventies rockers are making bank on bands that were not nearly as big in their time as they are now. Eighties nostalgia media is aimed at kids that were born in the mid 80s. Soon kids will be wearing torn Lee 501s with long-johns and flannel shirts.

That being said, I love and would love to see Pink Floyd, Led Zep, Police, etc... but I accept that I missed it and I would rather see an unknown band at the Bottom of the Hill or the Parkside for less than $20. Sh-t, at least then I can buy the band a round and let them know what I thought about the show.

Secret Agent X23: I still can't figure out what the heck people mean when they use the word "relevant" to describe music. As I see it, if there are people who like something, no matter who those people are or why they like it, that's all the "relevance" the music needs.

Hey!

1. I'm going to rename my "The Relevants"

2. Be relevant.

3. Profit