In the article the author (for a local independent rag) recalls seeing the Dead Kennedy's at the River Theater in Guerneville. That venue is about a 4 minute walk down the hill from my house. When I moved to this area 20 years ago it was very common to have bands play there. Now it's been replaced by DJ's and dances.
Re: When should a band PERMANENTLY dissolve?
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:36 am
by admin
I think they should dissolve when they reach a solution.
Re: When should a band PERMANENTLY dissolve?
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 2:46 pm
by jimk
admin wrote:I think they should dissolve when they reach a solution.
HAR!
JimK
Re: When should a band PERMANENTLY dissolve?
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:31 pm
by cjj
admin wrote:I think they should dissolve when they reach a solution.
What a punny guy, I solute you!
Re: When should a band PERMANENTLY dissolve?
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:32 pm
by wints
admin wrote:I think they should dissolve when they reach a solution.
Which for the majority of most bands who were around in the 60's/70's and even the early 80's was a long time ago...
Re: When should a band PERMANENTLY dissolve?
Posted: Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:04 pm
by goofyfoot
paologregorio wrote:That sounds like a reasonable standard to me, unless it's bands like Journey, Styx, or REO Speedwagon, whom I wish had broken up permanently before they ever formed in the first place.
A band should dissolve after about 30 minutes of immersion in a large vat of sufficently concentrated nitric acid, apart from the gold jewelry and gold teeth of course.... There are a few band I'd like to nominate for this experience....
Re: When should a band PERMANENTLY dissolve?
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:50 am
by Bighouse
antipodean wrote:A band should dissolve after about 30 minutes of immersion in a large vat of sufficently concentrated nitric acid, apart from the gold jewelry and gold teeth of course.... There are a few band I'd like to nominate for this experience....
REO Speedwagon, Styx and Journey???
Re: When should a band PERMANENTLY dissolve?
Posted: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:11 pm
by antipodean
Bighouse wrote:
antipodean wrote:A band should dissolve after about 30 minutes of immersion in a large vat of sufficently concentrated nitric acid, apart from the gold jewelry and gold teeth of course.... There are a few band I'd like to nominate for this experience....
REO Speedwagon, Styx and Journey???
They'll do as a start....
Re: When should a band PERMANENTLY dissolve?
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:52 pm
by beatlefreak
For me, the three things that define a band (and it's sound) are the main songwriter, the lead singer and the lead guitarist. When a band loses one (or more) of these, they change dramatically.
Re: When should a band PERMANENTLY dissolve?
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 11:03 pm
by winston
Hey Kris,
Long time no see. It's good to have you back again.
Re: When should a band PERMANENTLY dissolve?
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 4:42 am
by sowhat
antipodean wrote:A band should dissolve after about 30 minutes of immersion in a large vat of sufficently concentrated nitric acid, apart from the gold jewelry and gold teeth of course.... There are a few band I'd like to nominate for this experience....
Nice one!
On a serious note — when the band members understand/decide it's time to permanently dissolve.
Re: When should a band PERMANENTLY dissolve?
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:07 am
by antipodean
Hi Sheena! Good to have you back!
Re: When should a band PERMANENTLY dissolve?
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:57 pm
by whojamfan
Regarding the whole Dead Kennedys thing, it's a perfect example of how bands can go sour and end up hating each other and what not. Listening to the banter on both sides, one has to conclude that this is like anything else, a he said-she said kind of deal. Since none of us really knows, we're just left to come to our own conclusions. It's not surprising to see Jello take credit for everything while weaving it in to his own "whistleblowing" charismatic style. I think his attitude towards his "fans" is lame, telling a 13 year old kid to go buy a t-shirt or a record(read the article)is really contradictory to his whole montra. Having said that, still a fan, seen both versions, still a good band.
The Adolescents, one of the first So Cal punk bands, still plays gigs as the Adz. They have 1 original member, and belt out the songs they are known for with perfect accuracy and fire. As far as new material, the fans aren't really interested, as they go there mainly to hear the old songs. They do it for the fans, nobody is getting rich here.
Bruce Foxton and Rick Buckler have wanted to get the Jam back together for ages, but Paul Weller wouldn't have it. Knowing that there was a large fan base wanting to hear it, they did the "unthinkable" and went out with someone else as the frontman and played those songs to a whole boatload of fans, new and old, with great success. I haven't heard a single bad thing about their performance, but was skeptical like everyone else when the idea was poised.
Old bands with line up changes and such don't fool anybody. It's the fans that make or break you, and a revamped band that sucks will not be supported and will soon die off. Bands that do this don't necessarily ruin their old hits by flopping as a new version, look at Starship, or whatever, do they make you like Jefferson Airplane any less?
I would sum it up by saying it's the fans that tell you when to hang it up concerning the revamping of a band. After all, those are the people who made you, and too many lose sight of that, IMO
