why is everyone so nuts about these reunions?

catefrances

i may be nuts(just a little) but not over these reunions.

red mos

mrwalkerb wrote:

Like do you guys who are so mental about all these bands "getting back together" honestly believe that they will be nearly as good or even remotely as relevant as they once were? Anyways here are the four that I keep seeing on the board mentioned:


1-Smashing Pumpkins-ok so everyone forgot how the last album wasn't that great and that nobody bought it, and it seems everybody forgot Zwan and Billy's solo record (not as hard granted), because it seems if they record anything as the smashing pumpkins you guys think it will rule. Oasis used to be a great band but their last two records were blase at best, sometimes people lose it, I don't think playing with some random people-however talented they are- is going to make Billy Corgan write as good as he did in 1995.

2-Alice in Chains-this one is less grievous because they have made clear it is a "tribute" thing, but the instant they put out a record they become like the doors, and I mean the doors now a touring parody.

3-Soundgarden-please no, Chris has lost his voice and is comfortable being mediocre in Audioslave, nothing good will come of this other than spectacle.

4-Rage- This is probably the least concerning of all the 90s bands talking about getting back together because it seems like a one off thing for coachella which would be cool.

Honestly as stated there are two main reasons:
1) It gives the youngsters and people who never got a chance before to experience a concert and have that special band be in their concert memories.
2) Most new bands on rock radio blow... they really do, so the dude who said that is 100% correct. Most of the bands I've listend to since 2000 have either been a side project (qotsa... side band: Eagles of Death metal), on an indie label, or a local band.
I think alot of musicians are starting to see a slump in the music biz, so we are going to see alot of one offs and reunions coming our way REAL soon... that's my perspective.
To add to the joy of a reunion show experience, I was a huge Toadies fan back in 94 until when they disbanded. Last year, Vaden Todd Lewis got back together to do 2 shows with the Toadies and I could not have been more thrilled. Sure it wasn't the original line up from their 2nd album (cause Lisa quit the band after that album), but they hired a replacement for the 2001 farewell tour, and he was playing bass at the 2006 reunites). I am so thankful to have seen that show. It was a bit rough... and I got out of the pit after 5 songs, but I got to have a memory of seeing one of my favorite bands, and hearing those great songs I loved. Now, the members have moved on to other projects, but I left thinking I finally got to see a band that means alot to me. I LOVE Vaden Todd's new band, but to go back and finally relive that piece of 90's magic is something that makes me feel complete in a music lover sense.
I don't mean to ramble, I just thought I'd shed some light on where I feel people are coming from .

reeferchief

Has no one mentioned the Blind Melon reunion yet?:) or Dinosaur Jr, The Lemonheads, The Pixies.:)
Good bands, good music.

lars

why not?

prytocorduroy

mrwalkerb wrote:

Granted relative to their first three records nobody has really bought anything post vitalogy save us. And for teh most part people didn't give it a chance, you are right but the difference that is more important than whether you or I think they got better or worse once they stopped selling records is the Smashing Pumpkins called it quits and fucked off. They did not stick around regardless of sales and put out music that equaled anything they had recorded earlier. Personally I think Adore was and is a fantastic record, probably their best. I don't get where you are picking up that I think everything Pearl Jam does is good and everything that the pumpkins does is bad so I can't really get into the last line without a little clarification of what you mean or if you just misunderstood my original post.

I think the band had some problems and that's why they broke up, but I have to research it. But yeah they should've stuck it out.

I didn't mean that you loved everything by PJ, I was making a comparison that people around here eat up anything PJ puts out, because it's PJ. Lost Dogs (no offense, and granted it's a B-Side album) has some real stinkers on it but everyone loves that record. I was under the impression that you hated post Mellon Collie stuff.

Well the last part I just meant that fame got to Billy's head, though he was always pretty egotistical. I think he still has the magic, but needs the right chemistry that Auf de Mer and Iha can give him. It's hard to explain

soulsinging

danny72688 wrote:

I think the band had some problems and that's why they broke up, but I have to research it. But yeah they should've stuck it out.

I didn't mean that you loved everything by PJ, I was making a comparison that people around here eat up anything PJ puts out, because it's PJ. Lost Dogs (no offense, and granted it's a B-Side album) has some real stinkers on it but everyone loves that record. I was under the impression that you hated post Mellon Collie stuff.

Well the last part I just meant that fame got to Billy's head, though he was always pretty egotistical. I think he still has the magic, but needs the right chemistry that Auf de Mer and Iha can give him. It's hard to explain

the reason people love lost dogs is that it had more great songs than the previous 2 albums (binaural and riot act) combined. sure, it had some weak tracks, but better weak songs than weak albums

anyway, the only reunions i really dig are the black crowes and oasis... cos it's part of their warring egos thing. to me, if you're just gathering up the old band for a new tour, you're just milking the name. if you're making new music together again, maybe there is some passion still there. thus why i am pretty ambivalent about aic, ratm, and smashing pumpkins, but excited about blind melon.

culot4

Regarding any notion of a Soundgarden reunion, it would be my hope that they just leave well enough alone. Cornell has whored himself with his male modeling and contrived cash cow called Audioslave, thus seriously destroying most of his credibility. I would rather remember Soundgarden as they were, instead of Cornell coming along and damaging the memory of something that used to be great. On top of that his voice is barely half of what it used to be, and he should avoid embarrasing himself any further.

A one shot Rage reunion I like the idea of considering how abruptly they ended.

A Police reunion is the huge one.

josevolution

mrwalkerb wrote:

Like do you guys who are so mental about all these bands "getting back together" honestly believe that they will be nearly as good or even remotely as relevant as they once were? Anyways here are the four that I keep seeing on the board mentioned:


1-Smashing Pumpkins-ok so everyone forgot how the last album wasn't that great and that nobody bought it, and it seems everybody forgot Zwan and Billy's solo record (not as hard granted), because it seems if they record anything as the smashing pumpkins you guys think it will rule. Oasis used to be a great band but their last two records were blase at best, sometimes people lose it, I don't think playing with some random people-however talented they are- is going to make Billy Corgan write as good as he did in 1995.

2-Alice in Chains-this one is less grievous because they have made clear it is a "tribute" thing, but the instant they put out a record they become like the doors, and I mean the doors now a touring parody.

3-Soundgarden-please no, Chris has lost his voice and is comfortable being mediocre in Audioslave, nothing good will come of this other than spectacle.

4-Rage- This is probably the least concerning of all the 90s bands talking about getting back together because it seems like a one off thing for coachella which would be cool.

you forgot 1 thing ,that this is only your opinion ........

MCG

I was under the impression RAGE was reuniting for the one show only... are they actually going to bury the hatchet and tour?

prytocorduroy

soulsinging wrote:

the reason people love lost dogs is that it had more great songs than the previous 2 albums (binaural and riot act) combined. sure, it had some weak tracks, but better weak songs than weak albums

anyway, the only reunions i really dig are the black crowes and oasis... cos it's part of their warring egos thing. to me, if you're just gathering up the old band for a new tour, you're just milking the name. if you're making new music together again, maybe there is some passion still there. thus why i am pretty ambivalent about aic, ratm, and smashing pumpkins, but excited about blind melon.

Well I love Lost Dogs, Riot Act, and Binaural (okay maybe not love Binaural ), just for future reference.

And the Pumpkins are making new music. They're actually in the studio currently and have been for a few months. The suspense is killing me

ledvedderman

I would allow all these bands to stay broke up if The Verve and The Police get back together and do some new material.

pjl44

enharmonic wrote:

Appreciate it, but I don't even have cable . I was referring to the epidemic that has been foisted upon the youth and passed off as music.

Meh...I was listening to Warrant and Poison when I was 13. If a kid's 13, you can probably do a lot worse than Panic At The Disco or My Chemical Romance.

muppet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Tuv0VCvMsQ

I think that should dampen anyones enthusiasim for a Soundgarden reunion. Not to knock Chris Cornell; I think he can be fantastic in the studio and his acoustic stuff is great. But his vocals live are (understandbly, IMO) a bit crap now.

BetterManningNYG

mrwalkerb wrote:

now I know this is an exaggeration that these bands are "FAR superior to any bands that have formed since". The bands I named are fantastic and I brought this up because I am passionate about each of them but for SP I would way rather they leave sleeping dogs lie and let us remember how things were. Love Soundgarden and Rage but they did what they did, no sense watering it down, AIC isn't AIC without Layne, like if Chris Cornell had of died in 96 and then a decade later Soundgarden came out with some dude nobody would mind?

As far as the fact that these bands are better than anything since you sound like one of those guys with a denim jacket rocking out to Warrent because that was the end of good music. As proof you're wrong here are three bands that are just as good if not better than these 4 in question
1-New Pornographers
2-Hold Steady
3-Drive-by truckers

part exaggeration, part truth. in some ways, it was more of a comment about the overall state of the industry than it was about specific bands. but a large part of my argument centered around how a lot of us didn't get to see these bands in their prime. i'm sure you realize that a pearl jam message board is going to be filled with people who grew up listening to these bands (especially during those impressionable teenage years). so it should stand to reason that a lot of us still swear by this music. and because the whole scene collapsed so abruptly, many of us never got a chance to see our favorite bands live. so while we clearly understand that these are nothing more than nostalgia tours, we still get excited to finally have the opportunity.

as for alice in chains, i agree that it isn't the same without layne. but jerry cantrell wrote most of the songs, and unfortunately he couldn't perform these songs for many years because of layne's problems. and i can honestly say that i understand jerry's point of view 100% because until recently i too was in a band where i wrote almost all the songs. but my lead singer was the most unreliable human being on the face of the earth (and had many of the same personal problems as layne staley). because of this, i was unable to play my songs live and it pissed me off like nothing else. i'm not trying to sound insensitive to layne's situation, as he was an amazing musician and probably an equally amazing human being, but i really do understand why the rest of the band wants to play their old songs. i can't even begin to describe how much fun jerry appeared to be having on stage. somebody that important to rock music deserves to have fun once in a while. and they have given no indication that they intend to release a new album as alice in chains. yes, this would be horrible. but it won't happen. they may start a new band, but that'll be a topic for another day.

and of course nobody would see soundgarden without chris cornell. but he wrote most of their songs, much like jerry cantrell did with alice in chains.

the second part of your argument seems kinda weak to me. you're honestly trying to compare grunge fans to hair metal fans? two vastly different styles of music, two vastly different personality types that listen to them. and many of us musically-inclined grunge fans are at an age where we still have a shot of bringing these influences into the mainstream. i have never worn a denim jacket in my life (although i do still have a few mother love bone t-shirts that i like to bust out for pearl jam concerts).

and the "proof" you present reads more like a list of personal favorites than hard evidence. you can't just name a few bands you like and try to pass it off as proof without further explanation. it would be quite a stretch to come up with any stylistic similarities between these three bands and the other four in question; therefore a direct comparison is impossible. that being said, the three you named here honestly aren't bands that appeal to me personally, so i still believe it's reasonable for me to say that the four 90's bands are better in my opinion (a term that i've been using all along). and i think the majority of the people who read this thread will disagree with your claim that they are as good as soundgarden or alice in chains. again, it doesn't really matter, since it's nothing more than personal opinion from either end of the argument (it's not like we're sitting here trying to compare fall out boy to led zeppelin, or something ridiculous like that).

i will have to state that you make a much better argument than the person who came on here trying to bash jimi hendrix and pink floyd, but overall i just can't say i agree with you.

Cropduster84

Wow, a lot of people are so negative about modern music aren't they?

Im fucking loving some of the stuff that's out there, finding artists who a few years back I wouldn't have given the time of day just because they weren't grunge or rock, for example my favourite artists I'm listening to at the minute are Bjork, Josh Ritter, Damien Rice and Morrissey.

I can't remember the last time I listened to AIC, Soundgarden or Nirvana and I used to LOVE them, but now it just sounds so tired, generic and dated compared to so much other stuff like Bloc Party, Radiohead, Josh Ritter etc.

I loved the Pumpkins, but Im not too sure what the new stuff will sound like, but I have an open mind.....

mrwalkerb

BetterManningNYG wrote:

the second part of your argument seems kinda weak to me. you're honestly trying to compare grunge fans to hair metal fans? two vastly different styles of music, two vastly different personality types that listen to them. and many of us musically-inclined grunge fans are at an age where we still have a shot of bringing these influences into the mainstream. i have never worn a denim jacket in my life (although i do still have a few mother love bone t-shirts that i like to bust out for pearl jam concerts).

I'm not comparing the music of grunge nad hair metal as they are different cultures what I am saying (and maybe I should have used hippies instead) is that you're in danger of living in the past. The music is great but seeing these guys trot it out ten years after the fact isn't going to help any. As much as I would have loved to see the Clash in a way it's nice that the memories are from when they were young and ruled the world.

facepollution

mrwalkerb wrote:

I'm not comparing the music of grunge nad hair metal as they are different cultures what I am saying (and maybe I should have used hippies instead) is that you're in danger of living in the past. The music is great but seeing these guys trot it out ten years after the fact isn't going to help any. As much as I would have loved to see the Clash in a way it's nice that the memories are from when they were young and ruled the world.

Ultimately, and I think a lot of people will agree with me here, your favourite music will always be the music you grew up with. I love loads of new bands that are out there, BUT they will never be able to touch the emotional significance of bands like Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Hole etc, because these are bands that I've known right from my early teens through to my adult life. Think of it like this, you can make new friends all the time, but you won't have that same bond with them that you have with your childhood friends, nothing can change that chemistry.

In terms of the specific bands getting back together, Alice in Chains was cool as a reunion, listening to those songs live was incredible. I totally agree that they shouldn't record an album under that name, but I very much doubt they will.

Soundgarden is a difficult one. In my opinion Cornell is a strong enough writer and performer that he's just as good by himself. Certainly a lot better as a solo artist than Billy Corgan, who needs the Pumpkins as a platform to make decent music. As average as the Pumpkins ended up being, and as dull as Zwan and his solo stuff was, I have absolutely no doubt that the new Pumpkins album will be a complete return to form. Billy knows it has to be, and let's be fair if he can tap into the Siamese Dream/Mellon Collie vein, it could well be some of their best material.

mrwalkerb

facepollution wrote:

Ultimately, and I think a lot of people will agree with me here, your favourite music will always be the music you grew up with. I love loads of new bands that are out there, BUT they will never be able to touch the emotional significance of bands like Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Hole etc, because these are bands that I've known right from my early teens through to my adult life. Think of it like this, you can make new friends all the time, but you won't have that same bond with them that you have with your childhood friends, nothing can change that chemistry.


Soundgarden is a difficult one. In my opinion Cornell is a strong enough writer and performer that he's just as good by himself. Certainly a lot better as a solo artist than Billy Corgan, who needs the Pumpkins as a platform to make decent music. As average as the Pumpkins ended up being, and as dull as Zwan and his solo stuff was, I have absolutely no doubt that the new Pumpkins album will be a complete return to form. Billy knows it has to be, and let's be fair if he can tap into the Siamese Dream/Mellon Collie vein, it could well be some of their best material.

I grew up with these bands as well and I think the fact that I am proud of their legacy is what is the main stumbling block. Look at what happened to someone like Ozzy, he's done nothing that isn't a joke in over twenty years and has become a laughing stock, I don't want that to happen to bands that I've been listening to for upwards of 15 years now. I understand that these bands mean a lot to you and that's why I'm wondering if you have any concerns about it being an embarrassment? As for the Pumpkins I still can't believe that after a decade of mediocrity Billy Corgan can just will himself to write a brilliant record.

yield2me

BetterManningNYG wrote:

ain't nothin' else going on, that's why...

in my opinion, the four bands you mentioned were FAR superior to any bands that have formed since. and a lot of us never got a chance to see them live when they were still together and touring.

i saw alice in chains four times in '06 and it was awesome...

exactly

Milestone

pearljam0000 wrote:

Wow i cannot believe you think Rage is the worst band ever. That saddens me.

I also think Rage blows.

I hate that screaming wanna-be activist.