Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Interesting - thanks, Steve!

Ok going to be selfish here but I for one don't by the McCartney quote RM said about reheating a souffle`, because The Byrds carried on after Gene Clark left as well as when Crosby & Hillman left. With three vocalists left and a dumptruck full of money backed up to your door what's the harm or fear. I think if they went on a 20 date tour for a few months they could all retire fat and happy (sorry Croz). There would be a demand and RM even made a little joke at the concert I saw him at where he said he was getting paid peanuts for his show. He could cash in if he wanted to and have no apologies about it not being The Byrds. The Stones don't have Bill Wyman or Brian Jones, but that never stopped them, right?

Bob:

When you interviewed McGuinn for your excellent article, did you detect any revulsion when you asked him the question????

I have met him about two dozen times over the past 30 years-- and, on several of those occasions, I asked him myself!!!!

It would appear that the proverbial "snowball in Hell" has the better chance than any Byrds reunion!!!!!

What is also a shame is that McGuinn and Crosby have recorded so little together since the 1967 breakup!!!!

Karl

Backpages66 wrote:Ok going to be selfish here but I for one don't by the McCartney quote RM said about reheating a souffle`, because The Byrds carried on after Gene Clark left as well as when Crosby & Hillman left. With three vocalists left and a dumptruck full of money backed up to your door what's the harm or fear. I think if they went on a 20 date tour for a few months they could all retire fat and happy (sorry Croz). There would be a demand and RM even made a little joke at the concert I saw him at where he said he was getting paid peanuts for his show. He could cash in if he wanted to and have no apologies about it not being The Byrds. The Stones don't have Bill Wyman or Brian Jones, but that never stopped them, right?

Continuing on as the Byrds after Gene left is more akin to keeping the souffle warm, as opposed to trying to reheat a gone-cold meal. Whatever...

Roger and Chris have stated flat out that money is no inducement for either of them to reunite. Crosby may be in a different situation. All three seem to have fulfilling professional lives where they play the music they want to play pretty much on their own terms. More to the point, none of the various post -1973 Byrd reunions has been greeted with either critical or popular acclaim. A couple ended in recriminations and bad feelings among the principals.

Roger has scoffed at "dinosaur bands" in recent interviews. Given their past dramas, I can see how he and Hillman, now in their mid-60s, might gauge their glorious heyday against what a future reunion would add to the Byrds legacy, and come to the conclusion, "What's the point?"

All I see is "Image Hosted by Tripod"

tennis_nick wrote:All I see is "Image Hosted by Tripod"

It's a picture of Buffalo Springfield.

Along with Buffalo Springfield, The Kinks should reunite! As far as I know, all the founding members are still alive...(Ray and Dave Davies, Mick Avory and Pete Quaife)

JakeK wrote:Along with Buffalo Springfield, The Kinks should reunite! As far as I know, all the founding members are still alive...(Ray and Dave Davies, Mick Avory and Pete Quaife)

Be nice, but at this point, a long shot. Dave's health is still questioned, Ray's got his musical going on, Come Dancing, and who knows what Quaife and Avory are up to. There's also the point that Dave and Ray still have a hard time doing things together on mutual ground.