|
Post by Kapitan on May 11, 2022 13:23:29 GMT
Borrowing the idea from Sheriff John Stone's long-running thread in the Beach Boys forum, I thought we might do well to have a similar thread about non-Beach Boys music. So this thread is a place to ask questions or raise topics that probably don't warrant a full thread of their own, but that you feel warrant some discussion.
What spurred me to post was a question B.E. asked kds in the Pink Floyd thread, which was about whether there were Waters and Gilmour factions among their fans. That got me thinking: who are some other bands with similar issues among fans; and also, are there any long-running bands with more than one primary creative force whose fans don't fave some kind of factional divide or rivalry?
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 11, 2022 13:44:31 GMT
The obvious one is the classic Sam v Dave debate among Van Halen fans.
Here are a couple others:
Rainbow - Ritchie Blackmore is the driving force of Rainbow, for better or for worse, but some fans did not like the AOR direction Ritchie favored after he sacked Ronnie James Dio after their first three albums.
Journey - Despite the fact that Steve Perry amicably left the band back in 1998, some fans just will not accept the post Perry version of the band. Some go so far as to call the current Journey a "tribute band" (as BB fans, we've heard that one before). There's also a faction of fans who'll die on the hill that the first three Journey albums (the less commercial pre Perry years) are the only ones worth listening to.
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 12, 2022 12:26:00 GMT
Piggybacking on the Journey observation about their earlier more fusion based material, there exists a similar divide among fans of..
Fleetwood Mac - While I can't say I've frequented any FM boards, I've seem music fans who'll praise the Peter Green, or even Bob Welch, era of the band while not really having any time for the Rumours version of the band.
Genesis - This one's a little less obvious because the transition from prog rock to pop rock was a little more gradual with Genesis.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Sept 17, 2022 11:48:10 GMT
Speculation...just for the fun of it:
A) If John Lennon had lived, do you think The Beatles would've reunited to play Live Aid?
B) If your answer is "yes", do you think they would've performed a solo song, "Imagine"?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 17, 2022 12:09:42 GMT
Speculation...just for the fun of it:
A) If John Lennon had lived, do you think The Beatles would've reunited to play Live Aid?
B) If your answer is "yes", do you think they would've performed a solo song, "Imagine"?
Oh boy...
A) I definitely, 100% believe they would have reunited. But for Live Aid, specifically? I'm going to say ... yes. That's five more years from the history we know for sure, up to John's murder. Would they wait that much longer? (Or to look at it from the other direction, make the move so soon?) I'll say yes because we know Paul's solo career was flagging: after a couple of very well received albums in the early 80s, we were into Broad Street and Press to Play. George had become disillusioned with the business and hadn't yet returned for his comeback. Ringo had entered his hiatus.
Total speculation, but I'd guess John's comeback would have been waning, too. A couple of successful albums, but then would his personal interest have waned? Would he have kept insisting on releasing music with Yoko, to increasing discontent of fans? Would the novelty of John's return have faded? I'd guess some combination thereof.
And so yeah, I think they'd have decided to reunite at least for Live Aid and possibly used that to launch a small set of shows, a small tour, or even a single or album.
B) Even though it would have been the perfect song, I'll say no. It would have been a whole can of worms. Ringo had eight Top 10 (US) singles; George had five (not to mention four Top 10 albums, two #1s); and Paul had a laundry list of them. I think had they reunited, they would have excluded solo material from a Live Aid set. The longest sets were what, 20 minutes? Even had the Beatles gotten a special dispensation for set length to half an hour or so, it just isn't enough time for solo songs. No, I think in the interest of intraband harmony, they would have performed only Beatles songs (or maybe a new song if they had one).
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 18, 2022 0:59:31 GMT
Speculation...just for the fun of it:
A) If John Lennon had lived, do you think The Beatles would've reunited to play Live Aid?
B) If your answer is "yes", do you think they would've performed a solo song, "Imagine"?
Funny you mention this because this idea has crossed my mind a lot. I fully believe The Beatles would have reunited for Live Aid, but I think they'd have stuck to Beatles songs... Come Together Here Comes the Sun Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band With a Little Help From My Friends Let It Be Two of Us All You Need is Love
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Sept 19, 2022 11:17:23 GMT
John, Paul, and George (not sure about Ringo) did participate in charity/benefit concerts previous to 1985, so we know they would, at least, be open to something like Live Aid. And, I'm sure the organizers of Live Aid would've bent over backwards to accommodate whatever The Beatles would've...demanded. That being said, I don't think they would've committed to doing the concert.
I think John and Paul would've STILL been in an upward trend/direction career-wise, and they didn't need the bump that Live Aid would've provided. Actually, they never "needed" a bump, but you know what I mean. I don't know what George was thinking but I'm sure Ringo would've jumped at the opportunity. However, the main reason I think it would NOT have come off is for "legal" reasons. I just get the feeling that somebody's attorney/manager/whoever would've brought up issues of money. Maybe they would've demanded a certain amount of stage time, or the right to release a live album from the performance, or the right to film it and release it as a documentary. Or, maybe they would've thought "look, if we're finally gonna reunite, we want it to be about The Beatles completely" - not this huge event (Live Aid).
But, if they did reunite at Live Aid, they probably would not have performed "Imagine", though I wouldn't completely rule it out. And, I like kds's proposed setlist above^.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 19, 2022 11:33:06 GMT
I think John and Paul would've been STILL been in an upward trend/direction career-wise, and they didn't need the bump that Live Aid would've provided.
You think Paul's career was trending upwards in 1985? Or you think it would have been in the alternate world where John doesn't die? Because I definitely think he was wandering by that time, coming off a pair of strong albums ( ToW/PoP), but also coming directly off a relative failure in Broad St and headed into what I see as an admission of aimlessness, Press to Play.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Sept 19, 2022 11:45:53 GMT
I think John and Paul would've been STILL been in an upward trend/direction career-wise, and they didn't need the bump that Live Aid would've provided.
You think Paul's career was trending upwards in 1985? Or you think it would have been in the alternate world where John doesn't die? Because I definitely think he was wandering by that time, coming off a pair of strong albums ( ToW/PoP), but also coming directly off a relative failure in Broad St and headed into what I see as an admission of aimlessness, Press to Play. I was basing that statement on that I thought Give My Regards To Broadstreet was a success, at least commercially, in 1984. "No More Lonely Nights" was a Top Ten single, and the album went to No. 1 and went Platinum. MTV was really embracing Paul around that time. Press To Play only came out in 1986. I figured John would've been motivated by the success of Double Fantasy and released another album in late 1981 or 1982 (which probably would've done well) and maybe another one circa 1984-85. Is that realistic?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 19, 2022 14:03:34 GMT
You think Paul's career was trending upwards in 1985? Or you think it would have been in the alternate world where John doesn't die? Because I definitely think he was wandering by that time, coming off a pair of strong albums ( ToW/PoP), but also coming directly off a relative failure in Broad St and headed into what I see as an admission of aimlessness, Press to Play. I was basing that statement on that I thought Give My Regards To Broadstreet was a success, at least commercially, in 1984. "No More Lonely Nights" was a Top Ten single, and the album went to No. 1 and went Platinum. MTV was really embracing Paul around that time. Press To Play only came out in 1986. I figured John would've been motivated by the success of Double Fantasy and released another album in late 1981 or 1982 (which probably would've done well) and maybe another one circa 1984-85. Is that realistic? Hard to say, I guess. I feel like Paul lacked direction. The movie was a bit of a flop, I thought, though I know he had a big hit from it. And yes, Press to Play only came out in 1986, but it was in progress by early 1985, and if I'm remembering from our Beatles solo thread, he had some material in the can before changing course and going to a big-name producer (Hugh Padgham) for help. And even the 1983 Pipes of Peace was largely from the few-years-earlier Tug of War sessions. So for Paul, anyway, I view the earliest '80s as a strong period of inspiration for him (and absolutely commercial success, MTV hits, etc.), but that he didn't know what to do next. Certainly Press to Play shows somebody lacking direction, imo.
John, I think would have had at least one more strong album. It's hard to say either way whether he'd have kept his own interest, whether the public would have kept their interest (especially if he kept going with Yoko on albums, as it seems they planned). Definitely harder to say.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 19, 2022 14:09:27 GMT
To piggyback on this discussion.
Assuming this is a universe in which all four Beatles are still alive in 1995.
Do The Beatles embark on a tour to promote Anthology?
In my scenario, Live Aid was a one off, and John, Paul, George, and Ringo go their separate ways for the next decade. Since The Beatles are still pretty much inactive, the Anthology project still happens (probably without Free As a Bird and Real Love as they exist).
By the mid 90s, reunions are all the rage. The Eagles got back together. Page and Plant got together. The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd (not technically reunions) had massive albums and tours. By late 1995, the original lineup of KISS had just played Unplugged, sowing the seeds for their reunion. The time would be great for the most massive reunion tour ever.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 19, 2022 15:09:39 GMT
I would be absolutely shocked if they held out from any kind of reunion. The money was just so absurd, and the grudges presumably would have faded by then (as many seem to have already by ~80).
How many bands that could reunite, didn't? Led Zeppelin was the biggest holdout, probably, and even they had the excuse of having one of the four key members deceased. Even with that, Page and Plant reunited in that mid-90s reunion craze, and then the surviving members did the London shows a decade or so later.
The question is, would it have started small (a show or a run of shows, or a single)? Or would it have been massive from the get-go, a full slate of appearances, a world tour, an album, etc.? I'm guessing it would have started smaller, just in case they didn't want to go all-in. Especially since John, at least (and I think George?) had developed something of an aversion to touring and performing live.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 19, 2022 15:18:40 GMT
I would be absolutely shocked if they held out from any kind of reunion. The money was just so absurd, and the grudges presumably would have faded by then (as many seem to have already by ~80).
How many bands that could reunite, didn't? Led Zeppelin was the biggest holdout, probably, and even they had the excuse of having one of the four key members deceased. Even with that, Page and Plant reunited in that mid-90s reunion craze, and then the surviving members did the London shows a decade or so later.
The question is, would it have started small (a show or a run of shows, or a single)? Or would it have been massive from the get-go, a full slate of appearances, a world tour, an album, etc.? I'm guessing it would have started smaller, just in case they didn't want to go all-in. Especially since John, at least (and I think George?) had developed something of an aversion to touring and performing live.
I doubt The Beatles could've done a full scale tour. But, I could've seen them instead playing a handful of big shows (maybe New York, LA, London), likely with one or two of them being filmed for a live release. As for new material, or a new Beatles album. This is just my feeling, but I think they may have avoided that just in the somewhat vain interest of keeping the most revered catalog in modern music's history intact.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 19, 2022 16:50:55 GMT
As for new material, or a new Beatles album. This is just my feeling, but I think they may have avoided that just in the somewhat vain interest of keeping the most revered catalog in modern music's history intact. I am sure they would have been leery, but then again, they did it (kind of) with the Anthology songs. I could imagine them doing something quietly--a single song, maybe--just to see how it felt. And then making the decision based on whether they enjoyed the process and felt like it lived up to their standards.
But I agree that they would not have been one of those legacy bands who puts out new material just because they felt they had to.
Speaking of the idea of a reunited Beatles doing a few full shows, though--and back to Sheriff John Stone's initial topic, somewhat--would they have done a solo song or two per person in a full show environment? I could definitely see that happening.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Sept 19, 2022 17:04:02 GMT
As for new material, or a new Beatles album. This is just my feeling, but I think they may have avoided that just in the somewhat vain interest of keeping the most revered catalog in modern music's history intact. I am sure they would have been leery, but then again, they did it (kind of) with the Anthology songs. I could imagine them doing something quietly--a single song, maybe--just to see how it felt. And then making the decision based on whether they enjoyed the process and felt like it lived up to their standards.
But I agree that they would not have been one of those legacy bands who puts out new material just because they felt they had to.
Speaking of the idea of a reunited Beatles doing a few full shows, though--and back to Sheriff John Stone 's initial topic, somewhat--would they have done a solo song or two per person in a full show environment? I could definitely see that happening. Oh yeah, I think if it were a full two hour plus setlist, you'd probably get a few solo songs thrown in. Maybe one from each member.
|
|