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.
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.
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.
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.....
'The more I studied religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.' - Sir Richard Francis Burton
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.
"I'm not suicidal, except when I drink. That's why we don't all drink at the same time, there'd be no-one alive to drive home..."
Chris Cornell
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.
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.
"I'm not suicidal, except when I drink. That's why we don't all drink at the same time, there'd be no-one alive to drive home..."
Chris Cornell
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
“May you live to be 100 and may the last voice you hear be mine.” - Frank Sinatra
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.
Do you not remember the last single the Pumpkins put out called 'Untitled'? Classic Smashing Pumpkins song, very much harked back to the Siamese Dream kind of sound. I read an interview with Billy Corgan and the interviewer commented on how old-school it sounded, he basically said that he could always write songs like that, but he wanted to experiment more.
The Ozzy comparison is a little tenuous too, he was never the most credible of artists even back when he was in Sabbath. Billy Corgan is way more talented as a musician than Ozzy ever was. And by your reasoning, like I pointed out before, surely Pearl Jam would be approaching an embarrassing stage? If the Pumpkins or RATM had carried on going people wouldn't be saying they were going to ruin the memories. Pearl Jam today is different to the Pearl Jam 15 years ago, but they are still an amazing band putting out amazing music.
You know, if you go out and actively support the causes you believe in, you ARE an activist. If you were a wannabe you would claim to do those things, but wouldn't actually get your hands dirty. All members of RATM have been arrested on a few occassions standing up for the things they believe in, thus not making them wannabes. Check your facts.
You're right. A reunited Smashing Pumpkins now will never be nearly as good as they would have been in the '90s, but they'd still be better than nearly any other band out there right now. So, while it might pale in comparison to when they're in their prime, they still could kick any current band's ass...
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.
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're not very bright are you?
the chriecomment is very preposterous
the lastest audioslave is one of the most underated albums in a long time.
you're not very bright are you?
the chriecomment is very preposterous
the lastest audioslave is one of the most underated albums in a long time.
Well i won't bash your opinion about the latest audioslave album but i think you will find that perhaps you are a minority (which is cool).
Personally i thought they had some good songs on each album but each album progressively got worse and they never had the fire. I felt like they never felt comfortable. I only saw them once and it was 3 years ago and at that show Chris's voice was horrible i won't judge him by that one show though.
Charlotte 00 Charlotte 03 Asheville 04 Atlanta 12 Greenville 16, Columbia 16 Seattle 18 Nashville 22
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?
Like I dunno...like I like hope they're still good roflz!!1
I'm going to see WINGER on fucking Valentines Day! So my Vtines will be better than most of your sorry asses!
Reunions are about nostalgia. People either 1) seeing something they never got to see due to age, tastes at the time, etc, and 2) people going to see a band that they love and haven't gotten to see in years, like an old friend.
Every CD release or tour shouldn't have to have the goal of "changing music" or whatever, just to be valid.
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.
i understand and agree. i have no intention of allowing my life to revolve around a few grunge novelty acts. it's just kinda cool to finally be able to see the bands that i grew up listening to, even if they're not at the top of their game. if nothing else, at least it gives me a chance to show my appreciation for these bands, which in my view is as essential to a show as the performance itself.
and if any of these zeppelin rumors turn out to be true, i'll be there too.
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.
look at the music scene as a whole these days....not a suprise there is all thes reunions
THAT'S one I'd go see. But if they call it Led Zeppelin, then Jason Bonham better be on drums (even though Michael Lee kicked ass on UnLedded). I saw the Page/Plant reunion tour after their MTV special and they were great. To see them with Jones and Bonham's kid playing with them would be insane.
I don't know how accuarate those rumors are, though. I haven't heard anything lately about it, but it's one of those rumors that pops up every few years. Page did say in an interview once that it almost happened after he and Plant did "Walking into Clarksdale." Plant got tired of touring, though, and that was the end of it. Maybe he'd be up for it now that he's had a few years without any type of major tour (although he did tour for his last 2 solo albums, but not on a Page/Plant scale).
Machina and Machina II were fucking brilliant. It's like Yield and No Code for pearl jam... sure if you're not a fan or only know the first 2 or 3 albums you probably don't give a shit, but a largeeeeeeeeee portion of the fanbase (including myself depending on my mood) consider that album (and Adore) better than Siamese Dream and MCIS.
Zwan sucked it, but Corgan's solo album was decent.. pretty interesting with a few really great songs if nothing more. And even if the new Pumpkins' record blows (and chances are it's going to be incredible) having Smashing Pumpkins back as a live act is irreplacable in itself.
Reunions are about nostalgia. People either 1) seeing something they never got to see due to age, tastes at the time, etc, and 2) people going to see a band that they love and haven't gotten to see in years, like an old friend.
Every CD release or tour shouldn't have to have the goal of "changing music" or whatever, just to be valid.
well said.
1. works for rage, never got to see em and would LOVE to. not going to coachella, but if they decide to tour the NE, i WILL go! i never saw soundgarden, aic, smashing pumpkins...but honestly, that's a-ok. w/o layne, no real interest in aic live today....i've seen cornell with audioslave, that's good enough...and never a big pumpkins fan.
2. the POLICE!!! my very FIRST concert, evern 1984...the police in philly. yep, traveled for my first concert. the police were the pearl jam of my youth. hell fucking YES i'd LOVE to see em live again!
as to your last comment, absolutely. pearl jam has done full tours and minitours EVERY year since 2003.....and yet in that time, riot act and the newest album, the only new music presented...so yes fully agree...don't need new music to tour. sure, if you tour every year and NEVER release new stuff that's something else......but EACH time a band goes out on the road, just playing live is enough motivation imo.
you're not very bright are you?
the chriecomment is very preposterous
the lastest audioslave is one of the most underated albums in a long time.
No I'm autistic, thus explaining my views on these bands. I can only assume "chriecomment" is supposed to be "chris comment" about him losing his voice and if you'd look around I you'll find I am not alone, as for the last line there, I think you confused underrated with redundant, but I guess you bright people have a lot to remember that I just can't grasp. Of course I could be wrong thinking you mispelled the word and in actuality you just are using something fantasticly high brow
"I'm not suicidal, except when I drink. That's why we don't all drink at the same time, there'd be no-one alive to drive home..."
Chris Cornell
Comments
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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.
Chris Cornell
http://www.myspace.com/mrwalkerb
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.
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.
Chris Cornell
http://www.myspace.com/mrwalkerb
exactly
I also think Rage blows.
I hate that screaming wanna-be activist.
7-6-2006 Las Vegas. 7-20-2006 Portland. 7-22-2006 Gorge. 9-21-2009 Seattle. 9-22-2009 Seattle. 9-26-2009 Ridgefield. 9-25-2011 Vancouver.
11-29-2013 Portland. 10-16-2014 Detroit. 8-8-2018 Seattle. 8-10-2018 Seattle. 8-13-2018 Missoula. 5-10-2024 Portland. 5-30-2024 Seattle.
Do you not remember the last single the Pumpkins put out called 'Untitled'? Classic Smashing Pumpkins song, very much harked back to the Siamese Dream kind of sound. I read an interview with Billy Corgan and the interviewer commented on how old-school it sounded, he basically said that he could always write songs like that, but he wanted to experiment more.
The Ozzy comparison is a little tenuous too, he was never the most credible of artists even back when he was in Sabbath. Billy Corgan is way more talented as a musician than Ozzy ever was. And by your reasoning, like I pointed out before, surely Pearl Jam would be approaching an embarrassing stage? If the Pumpkins or RATM had carried on going people wouldn't be saying they were going to ruin the memories. Pearl Jam today is different to the Pearl Jam 15 years ago, but they are still an amazing band putting out amazing music.
You know, if you go out and actively support the causes you believe in, you ARE an activist. If you were a wannabe you would claim to do those things, but wouldn't actually get your hands dirty. All members of RATM have been arrested on a few occassions standing up for the things they believe in, thus not making them wannabes. Check your facts.
Madison Square Garden 6/25/08
1. The Police are getting back together. Hell yeah!!
2. The dumbass who dissed Rage, Pink Floyd and Hendrix in the same sentence should be shot dead.
3. A lot of what mrwalkerb said, I agree with (in my goddamn opinion). Most of these reunions are bullshit. Especially AIC and SP.
4. I want to know more about the Pavement reunion. That would rule!
WAR + MAGIC BEANS = PEACE
Can you see me now
I am myself
Like you somehow
I'll ride the wave
Where it takes me
I'll hold the pain
Release me
you're not very bright are you?
the chriecomment is very preposterous
the lastest audioslave is one of the most underated albums in a long time.
Well i won't bash your opinion about the latest audioslave album but i think you will find that perhaps you are a minority (which is cool).
Personally i thought they had some good songs on each album but each album progressively got worse and they never had the fire. I felt like they never felt comfortable. I only saw them once and it was 3 years ago and at that show Chris's voice was horrible i won't judge him by that one show though.
Charlotte 03
Asheville 04
Atlanta 12
Greenville 16, Columbia 16
Seattle 18
Nashville 22
Like I dunno...like I like hope they're still good roflz!!1
Reunions are about nostalgia. People either 1) seeing something they never got to see due to age, tastes at the time, etc, and 2) people going to see a band that they love and haven't gotten to see in years, like an old friend.
Every CD release or tour shouldn't have to have the goal of "changing music" or whatever, just to be valid.
i understand and agree. i have no intention of allowing my life to revolve around a few grunge novelty acts. it's just kinda cool to finally be able to see the bands that i grew up listening to, even if they're not at the top of their game. if nothing else, at least it gives me a chance to show my appreciation for these bands, which in my view is as essential to a show as the performance itself.
and if any of these zeppelin rumors turn out to be true, i'll be there too.
look at the music scene as a whole these days....not a suprise there is all thes reunions
I don't know how accuarate those rumors are, though. I haven't heard anything lately about it, but it's one of those rumors that pops up every few years. Page did say in an interview once that it almost happened after he and Plant did "Walking into Clarksdale." Plant got tired of touring, though, and that was the end of it. Maybe he'd be up for it now that he's had a few years without any type of major tour (although he did tour for his last 2 solo albums, but not on a Page/Plant scale).
Zwan sucked it, but Corgan's solo album was decent.. pretty interesting with a few really great songs if nothing more. And even if the new Pumpkins' record blows (and chances are it's going to be incredible) having Smashing Pumpkins back as a live act is irreplacable in itself.
Also you forgot the Police.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
well said.
1. works for rage, never got to see em and would LOVE to. not going to coachella, but if they decide to tour the NE, i WILL go! i never saw soundgarden, aic, smashing pumpkins...but honestly, that's a-ok.
2. the POLICE!!!
as to your last comment, absolutely. pearl jam has done full tours and minitours EVERY year since 2003.....and yet in that time, riot act and the newest album, the only new music presented...so yes fully agree...don't need new music to tour. sure, if you tour every year and NEVER release new stuff that's something else......but EACH time a band goes out on the road, just playing live is enough motivation imo.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Saw them Friday night and they sounded excellent. I also picked up a pretty sweet Winger t-shirt. Enjoy!
No I'm autistic, thus explaining my views on these bands. I can only assume "chriecomment" is supposed to be "chris comment" about him losing his voice and if you'd look around I you'll find I am not alone, as for the last line there, I think you confused underrated with redundant, but I guess you bright people have a lot to remember that I just can't grasp. Of course I could be wrong thinking you mispelled the word and in actuality you just are using something fantasticly high brow
Chris Cornell
http://www.myspace.com/mrwalkerb