Bands….. when should they just call it a day?

[Rayman]

6 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

 

I eat my peas with honey; I've done it all my life. It makes the peas taste funny, but it sticks 'em to the knife. 

I might have to try that

[casapete]

I’m 65 and still gigging, doing around 140 a year - a combination of UK theatres with the ELO Experience,

and local stuff with my acoustic duo. Been doing it for a long time so almost second nature, although

I must admit the travelling doesn’t get any easier. Am considering semi-retirement soon, though won’t be

abandoning the duo stuff. It’s been my job for 30 years, and compared to other work it’s still a relatively

manageable way of life for me. My voice ( backing vox) seems to be holding up, although have noticed

a bit of arthritis in my fingers lately - nothing like Keith Richard’s fortunately! 

[PaulWarning]

I suppose I'll keep going till I physically can't do it anymore, although I'm less keen, at one time if we didn't have a gig at the weekend I'd be "we haven't got a gig this weekend😒 now its "we haven't got a gig this weekend😀"

[Barking Spiders]

6 hours ago, EssentialTension said:

 

 

Ch***t almighty but now we know who's to blame. Bowie and Ferry were/are terrible singers but this bloke is even worse 

[EssentialTension]

1 hour ago, Barking Spiders said:

Ch***t almighty but now we know who's to blame. Bowie and Ferry were/are terrible singers but this bloke is even worse 

 

I rather like him and it's clear he was a big influence on Bowie's singing style.

 

Obviously YMMV.

[EssentialTension]

6 hours ago, Muzz said:

 

OK, let's put the cutoff at 55...anyone on here still going to be gigging? Yeah, I didn't think many...

 

I expect it's lots of people.

[neilp]

The Stones are now nothing more than a very average Rolling Stones tribute act. Coverdale can't even manage that, Madge is some kind of banned circus act and Bryan Ferry is just painful.

 

On the other hand, Springsteen and the E Street Band were incredible on the latest tour. Not like 1985 - or even 2013 - but still full of life and uplifting energy. And Robert Plant may look like he died 10 years ago, but the voice is still smooth as velvet.

 

I don't care what Jagger or McCartney or Coverdale want to do, I won't be subsidising their Zimmer Frame Tour, but the ones who can still do it and still have something to offer? Oh yes....

[Dan Dare]

11 hours ago, Rayman said:

I think my point has been missed here

 

If a band can still do it, then absolutely they should. If they can’t….. they should stop? An athlete gets to an age when their ability compromises their performance, so they have to retire? Is it not the same for a singer who’s voice has deteriorated with age? Or do the paying punters just overlook the fact with rose tinted spectacles firmly in place.

 

I think a lot of paying audiences still go to see these bands because they are clinging on to their youth, much like the band they just paid to see.

And yes, I guess primarily I’m talking about vocalists.

 

Your point has not been missed at all. Whether or not anyone can "still do it" is irrelevant. So is the reason that people continue to go to see them. If they wish to "cling on to their youth", that's their business, not yours. If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to buy a ticket. There are plenty of things I don't like (including acts that were popular 30 years ago who are still cranking it out), but I don't call for them to be stopped. It's a free country.

[PaulWarning]

I get the impression that the artists that some BCers think ought to pack it in are the artists the never liked much when they were at their peak

[NancyJohnson]

7 hours ago, PaulWarning said:

I get the impression that the artists that some BCers think ought to pack it in are the artists the never liked much when they were at their peak

 

Not in the slightest.  Pretty much every band I followed in my youth are (sadly) still out there doing it in some capacity or another and I honestly wish they weren't.  It simply dilutes any legacy.  I want to remember Vince Neil trying to sing in tune as a skinny drug-riddked brat, not trying to sing in tune as a soberish bloated guy in his middle-60s.  Little interest in revisting any of these bands (or singers fronting new line-ups) live, either.

 

Read my post on page 7 of this thread:

 

 

 

[fretmeister]

1 hour ago, NancyJohnson said:

 

Not in the slightest.  Pretty much every band I followed in my youth are (sadly) still out there doing it in some capacity or another and I honestly wish they weren't.  It simply dilutes any legacy.  I want to remember Vince Neil trying to sing in tune as a skinny drug-riddked brat, not trying to sing in tune as a soberish bloated guy in his middle-60s.  Little interest in revisting any of these bands (or singers fronting new line-ups) live, either.

 

Read my post on page 7 of this thread:

 

 

 

 

 

"Sadly"?

 

He's either still doing it because he loves it - which is awesome.

Or he's doing it because he needs the money - which is just like any other job.

 

Legacy is a nonsense argument. Every single act has done something at some point that some people say ruins a legacy.... and it never does, because the listeners get to decide what they want to hear and are under no pressure to listen to anything else.

 

Legendary acts remain legendary even if their skills diminish with age. We should be celebrating their longevity, not criticising it.

[Supernaut]

Some bands should have never started let alone stopped. 

[rushbo]

10 hours ago, neilp said:

The Stones are now nothing more than a very average Rolling Stones tribute act.

I saw the Stones at the Ricoh Arena in Coventry a few years back. A friend of mine had scored super-cheap tickets so I went along to sneer at the old geezers deluding themselves.

 

They were superb.

 

Jagger was on top form - vocally and physically. it was a two and a half hour show and apart from two numbers where he went offstage and let Keef do the heavy lifting, he was faultless. The band were great and the setlist was a well thought out combination of hits and fan favourites. My preconceptions were completely eviscerated.

 

The point is, they can still do it. Others (all the usual suspects who have been named and shamed in this thread already) can't do it like they used to do it. And yet they're still playing to enormous crowds. Punters go to shows for a variety of reasons - one of which is to share an experience with a bunch of like-minded people and be transported to a time in their life where they didn't have to deal with negative equity or sciatica. Musical excellence isn't at the top of their wish list. They want to be present at an event.

 

About 15 years ago, I saw three gigs in succession: Neil Young, Motorhead and The Searchers. Sadly, Young and Motorhead sounded tired and lacklustre and I swore I'd never go and see them again. The Searchers were fantastic – great singing and playing and a healthy dose of good-natured banter and self-deprecation.  

 

Around the same time, I went to see Brian Wilson. He basically sat at an electric piano and did the occasional, semi-audible backing vocal. The band and the songs were brilliant of course and I thoroughly enjoyed the gig. And I can say that I've been in a room at the same time as one of my heroes. Sometimes, that's enough.

 

Attendance isn't mandatory at these events. You can either hang on to your memories of young men and women in their prime, or you can dive into nostalgia, suspend your critical faculties and enjoy the moment.

Edited October 31, 2023 by rushbo

[Bassybert]

3 minutes ago, rushbo said:

I saw the Stones at the Ricoh Arena in Coventry a few years back. A friend of mine had scored super-cheap tickets so I went along to sneer at the old geezers deluding themselves.

 

They were superb.

 

Jagger was on top form - vocally and physically. it was a two and a half hour show and apart from two numbers where he went offstage and let Keef do the heavy lifting, he was faultless. The band were great and the setlist was a well thought out combination of hits and fan favourites. My preconceptions were completely eviscerated.

 

The point is, they can still do it. Others (all the usual suspects who have been named and shamed in this thread already) can't do it like they used to do it. And yet they're still playing to enormous crowds. Punters go to shows for a variety of reasons - one of which is to share an experience with a bunch of like-minded people and be transported to a time in their life where they didn't have to deal with negative equity or sciatica. Musical excellence isn't at the top of their wish list. They want to be present at an event.

 

About 15 years ago, I saw three gigs in succession: Neil Young, Motorhead and The Searchers. Sadly, Young and Motorhead sounded tired and lacklustre and I swore I'd never go and see them again. The Searchers were fantastic – great singing and playing and a healthy dose of good-natured banter and self-deprecation.  

 

Around the same time, I went to see Brian Wilson. He basically sat at an electric piano and did the occasional, semi-audible backing vocal. The band and the songs were brilliant of course and I thoroughly enjoyed the gig. And I can say that I've been in a room at the same time as one of my heroes. Sometimes, that's enough.

 

Attendance isn't mandatory at these events. You can either hang on to your memories of young men and women in their prime, or you can dive into nostalgia, suspend your critical faculties and enjoy the moment.

What a superb post, I’ve got the same outlook as you but could not have written it half as good as that. 

[Barking Spiders]

9 hours ago, PaulWarning said:

I get the impression that the artists that some BCers think ought to pack it in are the artists the never liked much when they were at their peak

Ha ha you've rumbled us......to an extent, well at least me anyway. I've never liked the Stones, Who, Kiss, Aerosmith, Foreigner,  Queen, Rod Stewart and many other classic rock bands still on the legacy circuit.  That said I'm a tad disappointed to see some first generation punk/new wave and 80s synth/pop/new romantic acts still at it. Viz punk I thought one of the ideas was to burn bright and then burn out quickly but no as the likes of the Undertones, SLF, Ruts DC, Buzzcocks, Stranglers - or rather new iterations with maybe just 1 or 2 original members - still tour.

[Henrythe8]

Saw Guns'n'Roses in PAris in July. 
They were not faking it and did a three hours show. 

Although they should have done a 1h30 show and find a decent opening band. 
Axl couldn't keep up, Slash was rambling on lengthy solos... Only Duff was being professional. Although I might say that they had in ears issues and soud problems as sometimes axl was singing but no sound coming out, and same for Slash. 

 

It was all in all a great show, but at their age, they might have chosen quality over quantity. 

[ambient]

23 hours ago, Newfoundfreedom said:

I wouldn't lump The Rolling Stones in with the rest of the pack on this.

 

Mick Jagger could never sing in the first place. 😂

 

He certainly wasn't a Pavoroti, his voice suited the music though. 

[chris_b]

18 hours ago, Muzz said:

OK, let's put the cutoff at 55...anyone on here still going to be gigging? Yeah, I didn't think many...

 

 

You think 55 is a cut-off point for anything?

 

A more realistic cut-off point is when no one will buy your tickets and when the phone stops ringing.

[diskwave]

U know the day has come when even in a tricky bit ur looking around the stage or out into the crowd yawning and not paying attention in the slightest.....That was the day I packed it all in.

Anyway back to those questioning an unusual vocal. There's a world of difference between beeing blatantly out of tune and having an unusual vocal style.  Bit like Picasso versus Constable.  Boy George has never sung a single note in tune ever but he sounds brilliant....Ferry too and the rest..Its an important distinction

[PaulWarning]

54 minutes ago, Barking Spiders said:

Ha ha you've rumbled us......to an extent, well at least me anyway. I've never liked the Stones, Who, Kiss, Aerosmith, Foreigner,  Queen, Rod Stewart and many other classic rock bands still on the legacy circuit.  That said I'm a tad disappointed to see some first generation punk/new wave and 80s synth/pop/new romantic acts still at it. Viz punk I thought one of the ideas was to burn bright and then burn out quickly but no as the likes of the Undertones, SLF, Ruts DC, Buzzcocks, Stranglers - or rather new iterations with maybe just 1 or 2 original members - still tour.

 the Undertones are my favourite and to be fair they're all the originals (the drummer was temporarily missing the last time I saw them) except for Fergal, and Paul the new(ish) singer does a good job, SLF still have Jake Burns and Ali McMordie as originals, but I can't take Jake Burns seriously, he's put that much weight on and wears ridiculous shirts, shaved his head now, I did used to wonder whether he wore a wig.

Seeing the Buzzcocks at the Scarborough Punk Fest next year, not sure about that one tbh, no Pete Shelley is hard to imagine, the Ruts are good value, are they still Ruts DC? seen the Stranglers a few times I sometimes think they're just going through the motions, just one original now, wouldn't pay to see them unless they're on at a Festival I'm going to anyway.

And that's the rub, the Undertones are the only ones I'd pay to see at a stand alone gig, the others just happen to be on at a festival I'm attending.

[TimR]

It's a bit of a risk. I saw Rush in 1986 and 2013. I only got tickets in 2013 by chance but Geddy's voice wasn't up to the pre 2000 material. 

 

I decided then I wasn't going to see them again.

 

I think if I was touring Holiday Camps and local theatres with a band with hardly any original members playing material I had written in the 70s and 80s, then I'd be wondering what I was doing. 

 

I've had enough of playing sets full of covers of music from the 60s and 70s (especially Beatles and Stones!) regardless of how well it goes down. We are playing material from 90s and later now. I think keeping it fresh is key for both performers and audiences. 

 

I get the nostalgia thing, but it's not for me. If you don't evolve you become extinct. 

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by TimR

[Rayman]

13 hours ago, Dan Dare said:

 

Your point has not been missed at all. Whether or not anyone can "still do it" is irrelevant. So is the reason that people continue to go to see them. If they wish to "cling on to their youth", that's their business, not yours. If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to buy a ticket. There are plenty of things I don't like (including acts that were popular 30 years ago who are still cranking it out), but I don't call for them to be stopped. It's a free country.

It’s a discussion mate, don’t get on your high horse.

It’s irrelevant when the act can’t do it any more?? Ha Ha, that’s laughable. That’s the exact point! That they can still do it. That’s why they become popular in the first place, because they could do something people liked. If they can’t do it anymore, they shouldn’t be doing it??

 

****

[Lozz196]

Just heard The Rollings Stones latest single Mess it Up, really good, that’s 2 songs off of the latest album that I’ve heard and like so think I’ll get the album.

[TimR]

1 minute ago, Lozz196 said:

Just heard The Rollings Stones latest single Mess it Up, really good, that’s 2 songs off of the latest album that I’ve heard and like so think I’ll get the album.

 

They are at least not stuck playing songs from the 70s. 

 

I wonder if their latest tracks would be well known enough for a cover band yet. 

[casapete]

1 hour ago, TimR said:

I think if I was touring Holiday Camps and local theatres with a band with hardly any original members playing material I had written in the 70s and 80s, then I'd be wondering what I was doing.

Fair enough, but some people are probably still doing it primarily to earn a living rather than trying to 

find a 9 to 5 job? 

1 hour ago, TimR said:

I've had enough of playing sets full of covers of music from the 60s and 70s (especially Beatles and Stones!) regardless of how well it goes down. We are playing material from 90s and later now. I think keeping it fresh is key for both performers and audiences. 

 

I get the nostalgia thing, but it's not for me. If you don't evolve you become extinct. 

 

I guess this depends on how you define ‘ the nostalgia thing’? I would say that playing stuff from over

30 years ago now falls within the category. It seems that the 80’s era is particularly popular at the 

moment, which must be mainly down to the demographic where people who remember that time

are wanting to relive it. Butlins are rammed with people when they put on 80’s weekends!