930 Forums

=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: walkonby on August 24, 2007, 01:11:00 pm

Title: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: walkonby on August 24, 2007, 01:11:00 pm
blues traveler (the fatness brought the sound)
 
 gwar (the once was magic is long gone)
 
 2-pac (you're dead dude, stop releasing albums)
 
 korn (sorry guys, the band is falling away, and your lastest album really shows the age of the band)
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: bnyced0 on August 24, 2007, 01:16:00 pm
Jimmys Chicken Shack
 
 311
 
 All rap artists not from one of the five boroughs of New York City or West of Nevada
 
 The Family (my mom & dad, a band way past their prime and should hang it up)     :D
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: miss pretentious on August 24, 2007, 01:25:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by bnyced0:
  Jimmys Chicken Shack
 
seriously. i'm so sick of being asked if i want to go to see jimi haha. every other day... please for the love of god.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: TheDirector217 on August 24, 2007, 01:26:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by bnyced0:
  All rap artists not from one of the five boroughs of New York or West of Nevada
 
You're buggin' right???? I wouyld expect that someone else on the board, but not you B.  You're an educated hip-hop fan.  
 
 Ever heard of this little group called OutKast???
 
 8Ball & M.J.G.???
 
 Scarface, maybe???
 
 T.I.???
 
 UGK????
 
 Nah, none of 'em are anything special.  Just 4 certified legends & one dude who seems well of his way . . . You disappoint me, B.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: bnyced0 on August 24, 2007, 01:34:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
   
Quote
Originally posted by bnyced0:
  All rap artists not from one of the five boroughs of New York or West of Nevada
 
You're buggin' right???? I wouyld expect that someone else on the board, but not you B.  You're an educated hip-hop fan.  
 
 Ever heard of this little group called OutKast???
 
 8Ball & M.J.G.???
 
 Scarface, maybe???
 
 T.I.???
 
 UGK????
 
 Nah, none of 'em are anything special.  Just 4 certified legends & one dude who seems well of his way . . . You disappoint me, B. [/b]
Sorry, we're from slightly different generations and I'm not feelin any of those cats you mentioned.  
 
 I remember when Hip Hop was the Black CNN, the shit coming from GA, TX, FL, MO, and everywhere else is like the Black Home Shopping Network.
 
  I don't mind a boast here and there, but what about some relevant issues, angst about the condition of our cities, education system, morale decay?  
 
 All this shit about big asses, rims, jewelry, just doesn't compute with me.  Might be showing my age, but shit is shit, and although not everybody from NYC, and CAli are doing much better these days I don't understand WTF these clowns in the rest of the country are talking about.
 
 Westside!  :cool:
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Lively One on August 24, 2007, 01:34:00 pm
That's funny.  I never liked Chicken Shack before when 8-10 years ago my friends all tried to get me into them.  Now, after giving them a chance finally, they have grown on me. Their shows are actually quite fun.  I don't think they should retire at all.  
 
 Any band (whether we like them or not) who still has the passion to create music should continue to do so.  You don't have to listen if you don't want to.  I'm sure there are plenty of die-hards that still want to hear them play.  Besides, their drummer is a beast!
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: ggw on August 24, 2007, 01:43:00 pm
Smashing Pumpkins
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface on August 24, 2007, 01:43:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
   
Quote
Originally posted by bnyced0:
  Jimmys Chicken Shack
 
seriously. i'm so sick of being asked if i want to go to see jimi haha. every other day... please for the love of god. [/b]
I turned up seeing them either last weekend or the weekend before, I forget. Someone asked me to go to this restaurant, Capital Ale House, and when we got there, JCS was playing. It was so infuriating.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface on August 24, 2007, 01:45:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  Smashing Pumpkins
Their live show still completely kills and packs the house. If the fans like it, as clearly we do by buying up tons of tickets, then why should anyone else care?
 
 This is kinda a stupid topic, because I'm sure the same applies for most bands mentioned.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: miss pretentious on August 24, 2007, 01:49:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   
Quote
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
   
Quote
Originally posted by bnyced0:
  Jimmys Chicken Shack
 
seriously. i'm so sick of being asked if i want to go to see jimi haha. every other day... please for the love of god. [/b]
I turned up seeing them either last weekend or the weekend before, I forget. Someone asked me to go to this restaurant, Capital Ale House, and when we got there, JCS was playing. It was so infuriating. [/b]
trying living in the same city as him - now that's infuriating.
 
 he's at acme some nights, federal house some nights, armadillo's some nights. whiskey 1803 some nights. ugh ugh ugh.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: bnyced0 on August 24, 2007, 01:55:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Lively One:
  That's funny.  I never liked Chicken Shack before when 8-10 years ago my friends all tried to get me into them.  Now, after giving them a chance finally, they have grown on me. Their shows are actually quite fun.  I don't think they should retire at all.  
 
 Any band (whether we like them or not) who still has the passion to create music should continue to do so.  You don't have to listen if you don't want to.  I'm sure there are plenty of die-hards that still want to hear them play.  Besides, their drummer is a beast!
Well I was only partially serious, as this isn't really a serious topic, people retire when they're worn out or in the case of musicians when people stop showing up for their shows or buying their discs.  
 
 Everyone can and should do whatever the hell they want for a living, and I'm ok with that I can control my own situation to avoid what I don't like, but they are taking up valuable space on the calendars of venues in the area.  
 
 But if we can quarantine them to Annapolis, then I'm good with that.  ;)
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: miss pretentious on August 24, 2007, 01:57:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by bnyced0:
   But if we can quarantine them to Annapolis, then I'm good with that.    ;)  
Damn you. I've already got one who should retire... I don't want ALL of the shit.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: amnesiac on August 24, 2007, 01:57:00 pm
Beastie Boys
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: walkonby on August 24, 2007, 02:03:00 pm
van halen (david's voice is lost, and the wolfgang album/credit debacle killed the image)
 
 dead kennedys (if jello comes back, then all is good)
 
 nin (the last album; need we say more?)
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: sonickteam2 on August 24, 2007, 02:15:00 pm
RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS!
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: miss pretentious on August 24, 2007, 02:16:00 pm
velvet revolver.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: sonickteam2 on August 24, 2007, 02:17:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  Smashing Pumpkins
Their live show still completely kills and packs the house. If the fans like it, as clearly we do by buying up tons of tickets, then why should anyone else care?
 
 This is kinda a stupid topic, because I'm sure the same applies for most bands mentioned. [/b]
uh oh , we hit a sore spot.
 
  i'm waiting for someone to say Radiohead, but then again i am not sure they are still together!
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer on August 24, 2007, 02:19:00 pm
Every band that played Virgin Fest should retire immediately, except Spoon. They should play the 9:30 Club and then retire.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface on August 24, 2007, 02:19:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by le sonick:
 uh oh , we hit a sore spot.
 
That's my point - anyone you say, it's going to be a sore spot to their fans. The only way you can say a band SHOULD retire is if NO ONE comes to their shows anymore. If people are still coming out, the band should quit because other people aren't coming anymore? Huh?
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: sonickteam2 on August 24, 2007, 02:21:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
  Every band that played Virgin Fest should retire immediately, except Spoon. They should play the 9:30 Club and then retire.
we did just name most of the Virgin Festival bands
 
 we can also add 311 and Incubus too then
 
 
 i'll add:
 
 Green Day
 Muse (i still love em, but the MCR tour ruined all cred they ever had)
 Death Cab for Cutie
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: sonickteam2 on August 24, 2007, 02:22:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   
Quote
Originally posted by le sonick:
 uh oh , we hit a sore spot.
 
That's my point - anyone you say, it's going to be a sore spot to their fans. The only way you can say a band SHOULD retire is if NO ONE comes to their shows anymore. If people are still coming out, the band should quit because other people aren't coming anymore? Huh? [/b]
so by that logic as long as anyone wants a band to reunite, they should and we should all be subjected to them all over again?
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface on August 24, 2007, 02:24:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by le sonick:
 so by that logic as long as anyone wants a band to reunite, they should and we should all be subjected to them all over again?
Subjected to them? You act like bands are reuniting, breaking your windows, climbing into your bedroom and playing sets while you sleep.
 
 There are lots of bands I hate and I manage to avoid them fairly easily. If their idiot fans enjoy them, good for them. I don't lose any sleep over it. That's why this is a stupid topic - what harm is there really in bands continuing to play past their prime?
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: bnyced0 on August 24, 2007, 02:26:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by le sonick:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   
Quote
Originally posted by le sonick:
 uh oh , we hit a sore spot.
 
That's my point - anyone you say, it's going to be a sore spot to their fans. The only way you can say a band SHOULD retire is if NO ONE comes to their shows anymore. If people are still coming out, the band should quit because other people aren't coming anymore? Huh? [/b]
so by that logic as long as anyone wants a band to reunite, they should and we should all be subjected to them all over again? [/b]
How are you or anyone else subjected to anyone they don't want to be subjected to?
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: miss pretentious on August 24, 2007, 02:28:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
  You act like bands are reuniting, breaking your windows, climbing into your bedroom and playing sets while you sleep.
 
If they'd just knock on the door like normal people, we wouldn't have this problem. But since they insist on breaking the windows...
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface on August 24, 2007, 02:31:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by miss pretentious:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
  You act like bands are reuniting, breaking your windows, climbing into your bedroom and playing sets while you sleep.
 
If they'd just knock on the door like normal people, we wouldn't have this problem. But since they insist on breaking the windows... [/b]
Brandon Boyd don't play that way! He yells Pardon Me right in Mrs. Sonick's face every night! Oh, the horror! The ignominy!
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: sweetcell on August 24, 2007, 02:41:00 pm
i'm shocked that this thread has this many posts, and no one has mentionned the dave matthews band.  they definitely need to stop it.
 
 rush is ripe for retirement.  they haven't done anything relevant in years.  ditto for pink floyd.  i LOVE both bands, but mostly for what they did 20+ years ago.  
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by le sonick:
 i'm waiting for someone to say Radiohead, but then again i am not sure they are still together!
they're supposed to release a new album before the end of the year.  was that a serious comment/observation?  are there any rumors out there of a break-up?
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Sage 703 on August 24, 2007, 02:46:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sweetcell:
  i'm shocked that this thread has this many posts, and no one has mentionned the dave matthews band.  they definitely need to stop it.
 
 rush is ripe for retirement.  they haven't done anything relevant in years.  ditto for pink floyd.  i LOVE both bands, but mostly for what they did 20+ years ago.  
 
     
Quote
Originally posted by le sonick:
 i'm waiting for someone to say Radiohead, but then again i am not sure they are still together!
they're supposed to release a new album before the end of the year.  was that a serious comment/observation?  are there any rumors out there of a break-up? [/b]
again, why retire if you still sell out every show that you play, and you enjoy it?
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: bnyced0 on August 24, 2007, 02:47:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sweetcell:
  rush is ripe for retirement.  they haven't done anything relevant in years.  
Rush released something after Moving Pictures? I  didn't get the memo.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface on August 24, 2007, 02:48:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sweetcell:
  they're supposed to release a new album before the end of the year.  was that a serious comment/observation?  are there any rumors out there of a break-up?
That albums was supposed to come out in 2006 originally. It was then pushed back to 2007. The band confirmed last week it will not be out in 2007, and they clearly are not done recording.
 
 There's no direct rumours of a breakup, but they clearly have taken time off and done solo/side projects. So, who knows if we ever see another thing from them?
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: walkonby on August 24, 2007, 02:48:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sweetcell:
  i'm shocked that this thread has this many posts, and no one has mentionned the dave matthews band.  they definitely need to stop it.
 
 rush is ripe for retirement.  they haven't done anything relevant in years.  ditto for pink floyd.  i LOVE both bands, but mostly for what they did 20+ years ago.  
 
     
Quote
Originally posted by le sonick:
 i'm waiting for someone to say Radiohead, but then again i am not sure they are still together!
they're supposed to release a new album before the end of the year.  was that a serious comment/observation?  are there any rumors out there of a break-up? [/b]
i'm surprised it has this many posts as well; most people ignore what i have to say . . . except to wonder what i think women's hoo hoo holes smell like.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Sage 703 on August 24, 2007, 02:51:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by bnyced0:
   
Quote
Originally posted by sweetcell:
  rush is ripe for retirement.  they haven't done anything relevant in years.  
Rush released something after Moving Pictures? I  didn't get the memo. [/b]
Do you not get  Billboard? (http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=71780)
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: TheREALHunter on August 24, 2007, 02:58:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by TheDirector217:
   
Quote
Originally posted by bnyced0:
  All rap artists not from one of the five boroughs of New York or West of Nevada
 
You're buggin' right???? I wouyld expect that someone else on the board, but not you B.  You're an educated hip-hop fan.  
 
 Ever heard of this little group called OutKast???
 
 8Ball & M.J.G.???
 
 Scarface, maybe???
 
 T.I.???
 
 UGK????
 
 Nah, none of 'em are anything special.  Just 4 certified legends & one dude who seems well of his way . . . You disappoint me, B. [/b]
An educated hip hop fan would know that T.I. fucking sucks, Scarface and the rest of the Geto Boys are definitely underrated though.
 At least you didn't put fucking godawful Lil' Wayne on your list of certified legends, thanks for that haha
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: distance on August 24, 2007, 03:00:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  Smashing Pumpkins
Their live show still completely kills and packs the house. If the fans like it, as clearly we do by buying up tons of tickets, then why should anyone else care[/b]
packs the house for part of the set?
 sorry, but i can't see what's so great about the 3+ hour shows, especially when 25+ minutes of that is fucking gossamer.  come on.  the floor was half empty by the end of gossamer in dc, people were flooding out by the end at the first four asheville shows and i heard similar things about the SF shows.  over-extending your welcome?
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: sonickteam2 on August 24, 2007, 03:01:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sweetcell:
  they're supposed to release a new album before the end of the year.  was that a serious comment/observation?  are there any rumors out there of a break-up?
it was a joke. but do they have a record label yet?  last i remember hearing they were label shopping, which puts them at LEAST 6 months from a full release, and i cant believe they would release one themselves.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Sage 703 on August 24, 2007, 03:03:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by distance:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
   
Quote
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
  Smashing Pumpkins
Their live show still completely kills and packs the house. If the fans like it, as clearly we do by buying up tons of tickets, then why should anyone else care[/b]
packs the house for part of the set?
 sorry, but i can't see what's so great about the 3+ hour shows, especially when 25+ minutes of that is fucking gossamer.  come on.  the floor was half empty by the end of gossamer in dc, people were flooding out by the end at the first four asheville shows and i heard similar things about the SF shows.  over-extending your welcome? [/b]
I still don't understand the complaint about a show being "too long."  If you want to leave, then just leave.
 
 Ticket sales remain the telling point here: the vast majority, if not all, of the dates the Pumpkins have played in the States have or are sold out.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Sage 703 on August 24, 2007, 03:04:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by le sonick:
   
Quote
Originally posted by sweetcell:
  they're supposed to release a new album before the end of the year.  was that a serious comment/observation?  are there any rumors out there of a break-up?
it was a joke. but do they have a record label yet?  last i remember hearing they were label shopping, which puts them at LEAST 6 months from a full release, and i cant believe they would release one themselves. [/b]
why wouldn't they release it themselves?  you're telling me Radiohead can't get a distribution deal apart from a record label?  they don't need a publicist, and I'm sure they can get a booking agent...
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: distance on August 24, 2007, 03:08:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by callat703:
  I still don't understand the complaint about a show being "too long."  If you want to leave, then just leave.
 
 Ticket sales remain the telling point here: the vast majority, if not all, of the dates the Pumpkins have played in the States have or are sold out.
a) if i'm recording the show, which i was at the sp shows i went to this year, i don't really want to leave.  i also don't really want to leave and miss out on billy pulling some random obscure song out of his ass that might actuall be decent.  i would rather not have to sit through 'heavy metal machine', 'blue skies bring tears, gosammer or most of the material from zeitgeist, though.
 
 b) all/most of the shows have sold out, yes, but how small have the venues been?  they've only played 1 headlining show bigger than the fillmore in this country, right? (i'm not counting live earth).  and the fall dates are mostly ~3k capacity, yes?  it's not really that close to the size venues they were playing before.  i would wager that if SP played a 930-sized venue just about anywhere it would sell out based on the size of the fanbase that would travel just for that one show.  there's a lot of rabid fans that went to 5+ shows.  that eats up a lot of tickets.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: sonickteam2 on August 24, 2007, 03:10:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by callat703:
 why wouldn't they release it themselves?  you're telling me Radiohead can't get a distribution deal apart from a record label?  psh
because getting a distribution deal involves much more work and risk than having a cushy contract with a large record company. Radiohead is one of the few bands that could easily throw out their own records, but have chosen not to. so why would they start now? just saying, Radiohead seems to want that major label to do everything for them (and then bitch about them later).
   
   they'll get a deal when they want one....presumably when the record is done and their deal will be "release the record AS IS"
   
   see Thom likes having the label promote the fuck out of them, he just doesnt like them peering over his shoulder as he's recording the record.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Sage 703 on August 24, 2007, 03:10:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by distance:
   
Quote
Originally posted by callat703:
  I still don't understand the complaint about a show being "too long."  If you want to leave, then just leave.
 
 Ticket sales remain the telling point here: the vast majority, if not all, of the dates the Pumpkins have played in the States have or are sold out.
a) if i'm recording the show, which i was at the sp shows i went to this year, i don't really want to leave.  i also don't really want to leave and miss out on billy pulling some random obscure song out of his ass that might actuall be decent.  i would rather not have to sit through 'heavy metal machine', 'blue skies bring tears, gosammer or most of the material from zeitgeist, though.
 
 b) all/most of the shows have sold out, yes, but how small have the venues been?  they've only played 1 headlining show bigger than the fillmore in this country, right? (i'm not counting live earth).  and the fall dates are mostly ~3k capacity, yes?  it's not really that close to the size venues they were playing before.  i would wager that if SP played a 930-sized venue just about anywhere it would sell out based on the size of the fanbase that would travel just for that one show.  there's a lot of rabid fans that went to 5+ shows.  that eats up a lot of tickets. [/b]
a) Tough shit.
 
 b) You proved my point.  You're saying they've got to play arenas to matter?  And they're playing multiple dates at most 3k size venues (take the Tower in Philly).
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Sage 703 on August 24, 2007, 03:13:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by le sonick:
   
Quote
Originally posted by callat703:
 why wouldn't they release it themselves?  you're telling me Radiohead can't get a distribution deal apart from a record label?  psh
because getting a distribution deal involves much more work and risk than having a cushy contract with a large record company. Radiohead is one of the few bands that could easily throw out their own records, but have chosen not to. so why would they start now? just saying, Radiohead seems to want that major label to do everything for them (and then bitch about them later).
   
   they'll get a deal when they want one....presumably when the record is done and their deal will be "release the record AS IS"
   
   see Thom likes having the label promote the fuck out of them, he just doesnt like them peering over his shoulder as he's recording the record. [/b]
Getting a distribution deal is NOT that hard.  If Clap Your Hands Say Yeah was able to do it, I'm sure Radiohead won't have much of a problem.
 
 You really believe that EMI had any creative control over Amnesiac or Hail to the Thief?  Seriously?  
 
 They haven't done it before because they were locked into a multi-album deal with EMI, which expired after Hail to the Thief.
 
 http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001017730 (http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001017730)
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: sonickteam2 on August 24, 2007, 03:13:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by callat703:
 
 b) You proved my point.  You're saying they've got to play arenas to matter?  And they're playing multiple dates at most 3k size venues (take the Tower in Philly).
lets see what happens after they've toured once around, see how many people see them a second time around, once the novelty of everyone 21 and under whos never had the chance to see them is over.
 
   their new album is boooooring.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Sage 703 on August 24, 2007, 03:15:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by le sonick:
   
Quote
Originally posted by callat703:
 
 b) You proved my point.  You're saying they've got to play arenas to matter?  And they're playing multiple dates at most 3k size venues (take the Tower in Philly).
lets see what happens after they've toured once around, see how many people see them a second time around, once the novelty of everyone 21 and under whos never had the chance to see them is over.
 
   their new album is boooooring. [/b]
Time will tell.  I just happen to think you're wrong.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Brian_Wallace on August 24, 2007, 03:18:00 pm
Since someone else brought it up there's an article in the new Spin (with Rilo Kiley on the cover!) about this entire Smashing Pumpkins situation.  Basically it says:
 
 1.)  When Billy toured the "The Future Embrace" everyone was bored out of their minds and would only perk up when he'd throw a Pumpkins riff in there.
 
 2.)  Soon after Billy makes a statement "The original four will never be on a stage again."
 
 3.)  Soon after THAT he puts a statement out saying The Smashing Pumpkins are getting back together
 
 4.) Everyone wonders "What's up?"
 
 5.) James Iha and D'Arcy are never contacted.
 
 6.) Butch Vig says D'Arcy and James Iha never really played on Pumpkins records.
 
 7.) The article veers off for a bit to say what a dick Corgan is for releasing four versions of his album.
 
 8.) Article concludes with "Zeitgeist" debuting at #2 and the Asheville/SF shows selling out.
 
 Brian
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: distance on August 24, 2007, 03:19:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by le sonick:
 lets see what happens after they've toured once around, see how many people see them a second time around, once the novelty of everyone 21 and under whos never had the chance to see them is over.
 
   their new album is boooooring.
exactly.  i saw them several times pre-breakup and i've seen them several times this year.  i was extremely disappointed overall with the end result, especially with the new material.  it wasn't that bad taking a chance when the tickets were $20-30.  i definitely wouldn't have spent $50 and not what the prices are for the upcoming fall dates.  i actually won't ever spend a dime to see them again.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: distance on August 24, 2007, 03:28:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by callat703:
  a) Tough shit.
 
 b) You proved my point.  You're saying they've got to play arenas to matter?  And they're playing multiple dates at most 3k size venues (take the Tower in Philly).
you brought up the feeling about 'not leaving' and i gave you my reason.  yeah, it is tough shit and i dealt with it.
 
 i didn't say they had to play arenas to matter.  you just said 'OH THEY'VE SOLD OUT EVERYWHERE THEY'VE PLAYED'.  if they played 100 capacity bars they would have sold out those shows too!  i don't think that the sell-outs show much of anything.  these shows had a lot of hype around them, especially with them being a bunch of shows in the same city over 2-3 week periods.  these were the first major shows outside of chicago within the US since corgan abruptly announced 1 week before the end of the US tour in 2000 that the band was breaking up.  i am sure there were a lot of people other than myself that would have put forth effort to see more on that last tour, had they known prior to the tour that that was 'it' (or at least 'it' at the time).
 
 the asheville and SF shows were a chance that the majority of people never had -- the chance to see the band in a relatively small setting.  the last time they toured clubs... ~93? (i'm not counting the very short '99 tour or other random one-off small shows).  there was way more going on with these shows than just "smashing pumpkins played some shows that sold out".
 
 if they continue to tour, i guaratee you that you'll see less sell-outs.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Sage 703 on August 24, 2007, 03:37:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by distance:
   
Quote
Originally posted by callat703:
  a) Tough shit.
 
 b) You proved my point.  You're saying they've got to play arenas to matter?  And they're playing multiple dates at most 3k size venues (take the Tower in Philly).
you brought up the feeling about 'not leaving' and i gave you my reason.  yeah, it is tough shit and i dealt with it.
 
 i didn't say they had to play arenas to matter.  you just said 'OH THEY'VE SOLD OUT EVERYWHERE THEY'VE PLAYED'.  if they played 100 capacity bars they would have sold out those shows too!  i don't think that the sell-outs show much of anything.  these shows had a lot of hype around them, especially with them being a bunch of shows in the same city over 2-3 week periods.  these were the first major shows outside of chicago within the US since corgan abruptly announced 1 week before the end of the US tour in 2000 that the band was breaking up.  i am sure there were a lot of people other than myself that would have put forth effort to see more on that last tour, had they known prior to the tour that that was 'it' (or at least 'it' at the time).
 
 the asheville and SF shows were a chance that the majority of people never had -- the chance to see the band in a relatively small setting.  the last time they toured clubs... ~93? (i'm not counting the very short '99 tour or other random one-off small shows).  there was way more going on with these shows than just "smashing pumpkins played some shows that sold out".
 
 if they continue to tour, i guaratee you that you'll see less sell-outs. [/b]
The tour on MACHINA was comparably sized venues.  They played the Aragon in Chicago, capacity 3k.  If I'm not mistaken, they played the 9:30 on that tour.  Correct?
 
 And of course - that's how tours work.  If you keep doing it without releasing anything new, people lose interest.  Take the Pixies or Dinosaur Jr. as perfect examples.  
 
 My prediction?  They finish this run through the winter, maybe play a few dates in the spring, and then start recording again and put out another album.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: distance on August 24, 2007, 03:40:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by callat703:
  The tour on MACHINA was comparably sized venues.  They played the Aragon in Chicago, capacity 3k.  If I'm not mistaken, they played the 9:30 on that tour.  Correct?
 
2 shows at the aragon.
 "dc" = patriot center in 2000.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Brian_Wallace on August 24, 2007, 03:57:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by callat703:
  My prediction?  They finish this run through the winter, maybe play a few dates in the spring, and then start recording again and put out another album.
How you refer to "they" when you talk about the Smashing Pumpkins...I think that's funny.
 
 Brian
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Sage 703 on August 24, 2007, 03:58:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by distance:
   
Quote
Originally posted by callat703:
  The tour on MACHINA was comparably sized venues.  They played the Aragon in Chicago, capacity 3k.  If I'm not mistaken, they played the 9:30 on that tour.  Correct?
 
2 shows at the aragon.
 "dc" = patriot center in 2000. [/b]
Looking at the tour list from 2000, they played plenty of shows very comparable to what they're doing now:
 
  http://www.spfc.org/tours/date.html?year=2000 (http://www.spfc.org/tours/date.html?year=2000)
 
 Two shows at the Aragon is comparable to three shows at the Tower.  And the Patriot Center, I believe, is smaller than that.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: danknugz on August 24, 2007, 07:35:00 pm
ozzy needs to retire. he's a legend, and already made his money. that guy should be enjoying the rest of his life, not touring.
 
 smashing pumpkins should have broken up after siamese dream. now its just kinda sad. YES, i wanted tickets to the dc show, because i never bothered to see them in their prime, but after hearing the bootleg, i'm glad tickets sold out before i could get em.
 
 the 21st century doors/riders on the storm or whatever the fuck they're calling themselves now. i'm a huge doors fan, since i was a 9 year old kid, but i'd rather see a tribute band then these guys. at least with a tribute band, you know they're doing it because they love the music. ray manzarek is nothing but a money-grubber who'd rather spend thousands recording his new solo album that'll sell 2 copies than buying back old doors tapes and releasing them. you know the REAL doors tapes - when jim was alive.
 
 jimmie's chicken shack - arent they playing in gaithersburg @ the fairgrounds pretty soon? i know someone last weekend was asking me if i wanted to go. do they even "tour" outside of Maryland????
 
 any band with an eddie-vedder clone as a singer, or any band that ASSOCIATES with vedder clone-led bands should retire.
 
 speaking of eddie, PJ should retire. at least from making albums. they can still make good bread from touring their old material. not that any of that material was ever particulary good.
 
 courtney love shoudn't retire, she should fall out of a moving car on the beltway, going 80 mph.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Frank Gallagher on August 25, 2007, 09:43:00 am
Rolling Stones
 Van Halen
 KISS
 
 ....to name just three.
 
 
 In fact, retirement for rock bands should be mandatory at age 55. If the individual members want to start solo projects then fine, but old men in spandex gyrating about on stage is not only not sexy anymore, it's just out and out embarrassing for them.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: ayates on August 25, 2007, 10:24:00 am
Aerosmith for fuck's sake.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Frank Gallagher on August 25, 2007, 11:14:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by ayates:
  Aerosmith for fuck's sake.
They would've been 4th on my list.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: palahniukkubrick on August 25, 2007, 12:01:00 pm
I don't know what the The Beach Boys are still doing around. Now the band is just Mike Love and hired guns playing state fairs and annual Wolf Trap shows (usually two shows, the early one being for fucking kids and the late one for nostalgic idiots.) Moreover, they haven't released a good album in decades. They ought to just retire and leave performances to Beach Boys tribute bands.
 
 However, many bands just get stuck in creative ruts. People might have thought that Dylan should have retired in the mid-eighties, but if he had there wouldn't be any Time Out of Mind or Oh Mercy. So it's good he didn't.
 
 Two major acts that appear as though they should retire are Tom Petty and The Beastie Boys. Petty hasn't released a really good album since Wildflowers in 1994 and the B-Boys haven't since  Hello Nasty, in 1998. But I believe that if they stick it out they'll release some great late-period albums like Dylan did. So let's have faith.
 
 The Smashing Pumpkins is a tricky question. It comes down to whether or not you accept the reunion. If you don't, the whole thing seems silly. If you do, well, enjoy it while it lasts.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: jitterthug on August 25, 2007, 01:16:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Roadbike Mankie:
 [QB] Rolling Stones
 ]
Ask and ye shall receive (http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,22287193-10388,00.html)
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: ayates on August 25, 2007, 05:00:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by danknugz:
 
 jimmie's chicken shack - arent they playing in gaithersburg @ the fairgrounds pretty soon? i know someone last weekend was asking me if i wanted to go. do they even "tour" outside of Maryland????
 
I saw them in Chambersburg, PA one time.  A crowd of maybe 100 people...this was less than a year ago.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: walkonby on August 26, 2007, 10:41:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by ayates:
   
Quote
Originally posted by danknugz:
 
 jimmie's chicken shack - arent they playing in gaithersburg @ the fairgrounds pretty soon? i know someone last weekend was asking me if i wanted to go. do they even "tour" outside of Maryland????
 
I saw them in Chambersburg, PA one time.  A crowd of maybe 100 people...this was less than a year ago. [/b]
i saw them on friday in winchester, va, for the first time.  i have to admit, after the fourth beer, they're not so bad.  sorta like a frat band for middle class white folk who drink heineken over budweiser, with good sound.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: martinrob on August 26, 2007, 08:55:00 pm
whomever said Smashing Pumpkins needs to retire and to not pass go and do not collect retirement.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: sweetcell on August 26, 2007, 09:39:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by walkonby:
 i have to admit, after the fourth beer, they're not so bad.
always the sign of a superior band   :D
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Christine Moritz on August 27, 2007, 12:08:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by Julian, good manners AFICIONADO:
 
Quote
Subjected to them? You act like bands are reuniting, breaking your windows, climbing into your bedroom and playing sets while you sleep.[/b]
LOL!
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: RonniStar on August 28, 2007, 04:09:00 pm
Guns-N-Roses: It's Axel Rose and bunch of hired guns touring under the GNR name. I'm in no rush to get chinese democracy, considering that album have more delays than metro in a 2 day period.
 
 Kiss: how many more farewell tour do they need to do?
 
 P. Diddy: stick with producing artists and sampling your parents' record collection
 
 Limp Bizkit: The rap/rock thing is over
 
 Scott Stapp: Enough Said!
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: smakawhat on August 28, 2007, 04:44:00 pm
the one...
 
 the GRAND DADY of them aLL...
 
 Metallica.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Jaguar on August 29, 2007, 02:09:00 am
Quote
Originally posted by ayates:
   
Quote
Originally posted by danknugz:
 
 jimmie's chicken shack - arent they playing in gaithersburg @ the fairgrounds pretty soon? i know someone last weekend was asking me if i wanted to go. do they even "tour" outside of Maryland????
 
I saw them in Chambersburg, PA one time.  A crowd of maybe 100 people...this was less than a year ago. [/b]
Where did they play? The Hitching Post? Where else would they have shows up there?
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: danknugz on August 29, 2007, 02:15:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by smakawhat:
  the one...
 
 the GRAND DADY of them aLL...
 
 Metallica.
yes, they should have retired like 15 years ago.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: bearman🐻 on August 29, 2007, 06:17:00 pm
The Aragon Ballroom in Chicago holds 5500 people.
 
 My vote would be for the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Bjork, and Rage Against the Machine so they won't pollute any more Coachella lineups.
 
 Bring back Screaming Trees, My Bloody Valentine, The Stone Roses, Ride, Pulp, Roxy Music, and Manic Street Preachers (w/ Richey, who was found alive by Goldenvoice, living in Borneo amongst natives). That would be hot.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Frank Gallagher on August 30, 2007, 09:31:00 am
You know Metallica has a strange place in my musical heart. I really don't like their music at all, you couldn't pay me to go to a concert or sit through a full album. But for some strange reason I can understand why people really like them...what's up with that?
 
 Bands that should never reunite.
 
 Stone Roses
 Smiths
 Clash (even is Strummer was still alive)
 
 I think it would be a major disapointment to those of us who remember them, so lets not spoil the memories.
 
 Roxy Music
 
 Why reunite when we already have Bryan Ferry touring....that's Roxy Music only without the costumes. I really don't see any difference.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: sweetcell on August 30, 2007, 12:13:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Roadbike Mankie:
  You know Metallica has a strange place in my musical heart. I really don't like their music at all, you couldn't pay me to go to a concert or sit through a full album. But for some strange reason I can understand why people really like them...what's up with that?
i'm either not getting your point, manc, or your use of "for some strange reason".  
 
 you don't like metallica, and "for some strange reason" you don't understand why others do?  doesn't seem that strange to me.  i don't like fallout boy, and i don't understand why others do - no strange reason involved. in fact, it makes sense that i don't understand.  but i'm probably missing something here...
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: walkonby on August 30, 2007, 04:07:00 pm
any band that is currently playing county fairs as a gig to have a gig.
 
 not including the year i missed (and have hated myself ever since) sonic youth/magick markers/flaming lips at the allentown, pa fair.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Sage 703 on August 30, 2007, 04:12:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by bearman:
  The Aragon Ballroom in Chicago holds 5500 people.
 
 My vote would be for the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Bjork, and Rage Against the Machine so they won't pollute any more Coachella lineups.
 
 Bring back Screaming Trees, My Bloody Valentine, The Stone Roses, Ride, Pulp, Roxy Music, and Manic Street Preachers (w/ Richey, who was found alive by Goldenvoice, living in Borneo amongst natives). That would be hot.
Untrue, according to their website:
 
 http://www.aragon.com/ (http://www.aragon.com/)
 
 "The venue can be arranged to accommodate events from 700 to 4,500 people."
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: nkotb on August 30, 2007, 04:12:00 pm
Um, and WEEN...just to add salt to the wound.  Man, that would've ruled if not for the 5 hour drive each way and my lack of vacation days.
 
 
Quote
Originally posted by walkonby:
  any band that is currently playing county fairs as a gig to have a gig.
 
 not including the year i missed (and have hated myself ever since) sonic youth/magick markers/flaming lips at the allentown, pa fair.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: walkonby on August 30, 2007, 04:15:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by nkotb:
  Um, and WEEN...just to add salt to the wound.  Man, that would've ruled if not for the 5 hour drive each way and my lack of vacation days.
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by walkonby:
  any band that is currently playing county fairs as a gig to have a gig.
 
 not including the year i missed (and have hated myself ever since) sonic youth/magick markers/flaming lips at the allentown, pa fair.
[/b]
dude, i forgot about ween.  thanks for the salt.  i keep getting emails from the fair.  this year was the "american idol" year.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: danknugz on August 30, 2007, 04:31:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by sweetcell:
   
Quote
Originally posted by Roadbike Mankie:
  You know Metallica has a strange place in my musical heart. I really don't like their music at all, you couldn't pay me to go to a concert or sit through a full album. But for some strange reason I can understand why people really like them...what's up with that?
i'm either not getting your point, manc, or your use of "for some strange reason".  
 
 you don't like metallica, and "for some strange reason" you don't understand why others do?  doesn't seem that strange to me.  i don't like fallout boy, and i don't understand why others do - no strange reason involved. in fact, it makes sense that i don't understand.  but i'm probably missing something here... [/b]
he said "But for some strange reason I can understand why people really like them...what's up with that?"
 
 notice he said he CAN understand why people really like them. which is kinda strange considering he doesn't like them.
 
 metallica had a really good run at the beginning of their career. they were putting out consistantly good albums from 1983-1988. they were touring big arenas, and had good album sales without "selling out." then in the early 90s, they got the idea that they had to go mainstream, and put out the acceptable "black album" which was good, but not great. when they released Load, i lost a lot of respect for them, and it keeps dwindling year after year.
 
 i saw them live in 94 @ merriweather, which as it turns out was a good time to see them, because Load (of shit) wasn't released yet and none of those "songs" had been put into the setlists yet.
 
 i'm not a huge metal fan, but i still stand by the 80s metallica albums as being some of the finest albums of the entire metal genre.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: sweetcell on August 30, 2007, 04:48:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by danknugz:
  notice he said he CAN understand why people really like them. which is kinda strange considering he doesn't like them.
doh.  fingers faster than eyes/brain.  thanks for clearing that up for me, all makes sense now.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Brian_Wallace on August 30, 2007, 04:50:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by walkonby:
   
Quote
Originally posted by nkotb:
  Um, and WEEN...just to add salt to the wound.  Man, that would've ruled if not for the 5 hour drive each way and my lack of vacation days.
 
   
Quote
Originally posted by walkonby:
  any band that is currently playing county fairs as a gig to have a gig.
 
 not including the year i missed (and have hated myself ever since) sonic youth/magick markers/flaming lips at the allentown, pa fair.
[/b]
dude, i forgot about ween.  thanks for the salt.  i keep getting emails from the fair.  this year was the "american idol" year. [/b]
My sister lives in Allentown.  My Chemical Romance played last year.
 
 I read an article about that line-up.  Believe it or not, it was all set in motion because Gnarls Barkley suddenly raised their price and the Allentown fair couldn't afford them anymore.
 
 Brian
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: Jaguar on August 30, 2007, 11:38:00 pm
Quote
Originally posted by Roadbike Mankie:
  Roxy Music
 
 Why reunite when we already have Bryan Ferry touring....that's Roxy Music only without the costumes. I really don't see any difference.
Supposedly, Roxy was going to reunite with Brian Eno to do an album and then a tour but the last I heard of it was maybe a year ago. I would love for that to happen since I've never had the opportunity to see them with Eno though I would fear a semi-limp reinactment.
 
 Mankie, you are either forgetting or totally missing the talents of several of the other members such as Phil Manzanera and Andy McKay.
Title: Re: bands that SHOULD retire? definitely!
Post by: pepper*sans*salt on August 30, 2007, 11:56:00 pm
The Stones. All the old age jokes have been told, all the riffs played. There's simply nothing more to be done with these guys. Except for 'Keef' maybe... he can always fall back on being a vampire and Johnny Depp's muse.