My problem with the much older ‘Legendary’ bands is that for the most part and I include The Stones and The Who in this who I like is that they reach a creative peak usually quite early on and then spend the next 40 years regurgitating the same set of songs to the same set of fans in the same stadiums year on year.
4 Likes
I think that applies to the vast majority of bands/artists, not just the older ones.
1 Like
But this thread is about legendary older bands
Very true…I think.
True, but of course playing the albums at home is ‘regurgitation’ too, isn’t it? And what about listening to tribute bands like the LSO churning out music by the long-dead?
Personally, I saw and heard the Stones at Twickenham just a few years ago. They were great and a good deal better than in the mid-80s, in part because they played almost entirely the songs of their youth. After all, who hasn’t been to a gig and been saddened to hear the words: “And the next one is from our most recent album”?
2 Likes
Never felt that, I am always up for hearing the new material. Possibly because I would mostly go to see bands in smaller venues so tend to see younger bands who are on the way up.
As for the Stones, I remember watching them on the TV coverage of Glastonbury a few years back and thought it was like watching a cabaret act, very disappointing. The audience seemed to love them which is good as they paid their money to see them, I guess I am the one who is out of step.
2 Likes
Seeing great ‘new’ performers is to be applauded - they need the money. It is also often brilliant - I saw the marvellous Jon Gomm last year and will see people I have never heard of at a couple of festivals later this year and at 2 late-night proms. However, that’s a long way from liking or not liking legendary bands, so we may be leading the thread a long way off piste…
All I get from a thread like this is an impression of every contributor being part of the ‘I have an opinion and I’m going to express it’ disease 
Pretty much like the internet then.
Errrr…
3 Likes
The goal of this topic at least
No “older” in the thread title! But either way, my point stands.
Why do many of these so-called legendary bands not want to admit their age? They act and think they are still 18 years old and Mick Jagger, Bruce Springsteen and Bono are the worst examples.
1 Like
Me neither! T*sser!
There is a difference between admitting age and acting/thinking as if you are a particular age. I don’t know whether any of those examples don’t admit their ages. From the admittedly little I’ve seen/heard I think Mick Jagger shows a lot more maturity in the way he behaves and speaks these days than back in the 60s/70s. No idea about the other two. As for acting/thinking, how should a person of, say, Mick Jagger’s age act and think? I am 68, but I don’t act like my parents did at my age, and know some people of similar age to me who from their behaviour and attitudes I would have put them at least a decade or two older. Interestingly I ran a thread a couple of years or so ago asking how old people feel mentally, because I have remained feeling 18-19 mentally since I reached that age, though the mirror tells me different, as does my ability in certain areas, while I do have a more mature outlook generally and a lot more more knowledge and wisdom.
2 Likes
At work yesterday a colleague said I’m the Keith Richards of our team (at 69 I’m the oldest) - I’ll take that as a compliment! 
2 Likes
Could’ve been Wendy Richards I suppose.
1 Like
Someone has to stand up for ‘Pet Sounds’ and its aborted follow-up ‘SMiLE’, so that might as well be me!
Both albums are works of genius from the troubled mind of Brian Wilson.
2 Likes
Not many musicians have made such great music as Bruce Springsteen throughout his long career - (in my opinion, of course).
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.