Poll: Give it a rest!

[gibboss28]

If your really after a band that should stop, I'm gonna say Europe should. Just so that I dont have to hear them do The Final Countdown at Bloodstock.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

I think some bands should just stop after they've gone thorugh too many band players.
Like Mettalica or Iron Maiden and Three days grace.

Metallica (sp?) should stop, I don't think they have any of the original members.

Popularity should weigh in the decision. For example, Metallica's new album still sold pretty well, so obviously some folks are still listening. No, they shouldn't give it up. Oh, and they only have replaced the bassist; since Cliff Burton, the original one, was killed they kind of had to. Although they did replace the replacement.

Iron Maiden, as much as it pains me to say it, even with the old lineup restored, they're kind of beating a dead horse. I haven't bought an album since Seventh Son of a Seventh Son.

Three Days Grace... Who cares?

Then go to a Maiden concert. They still are the best. And honestly, A matter of life and death was an okay album. But screw albums. Go see them and then say they are beating a dead horse.

I heard a few years ago that the surviving members of Queen we having a comeback by working with, well I am unsure if its westlife, n'suck or whatever but ya, a generic boy band. If your career gets to that level then yes, its time to retire.

How mind-numbingly frightening. All tapes left in a car for a fortnight may start playing "The Best of Queen and Nsync" instead.

EDIT: Some Should is winning. Escapists ambiguous response FTW.

You've read Good omens I'm guessing?

 

[P1p3s]

when a band has recycled so many members it is no longer any semblance of the original people should give it a rest.

It's interesting I think, coz lets say the Foo's who have had their fair share of roster rearrangements haven't been worse for it. There may be a Grohl factor their tho ;o)

But seriously, the reason I mention them is I reckon Dave could step up on his own, offer solo projects and be successful (assuming it was good stuff).

My slightly more generic point is if a band has a significant personality (usually frontman) the rest of the line up is less consequential, but when there is notoriety all around it's harder to accept the changes. For example (assuming freddie mercury was still alive and queen were still going) replacing Freddie would have outraged people, but equally so loosing Brian May and finding another guitarist would have lost the band favour.


I'm a bit caffeined up to the eyeballs so I hope that makes sense

 

[Lusperus]

It kind of does.

I love some of the older bands like Journey and The Who
and Beatles along with some modern singers.

 

[Peach_hat]

I saw The Who the other night and it was a really average show.

Weren't they meant to be amazing?

 

[solidstatemind]

Then go to a Maiden concert. They still are the best. And honestly, A matter of life and death was an okay album. But screw albums. Go see them and then say they are beating a dead horse.

I saw them on the Piece of Mind, Number of the Beast, Powerslave, Somewhere in Time, and Seventh Son of a Seventh Son tours. (yes, I am very very old.) I appreciate the fact that they still bring a high amount of energy to the stage, but- that said- the purpose of a tour is to promote new material: material which, by your own admission, was just 'okay'.

If they were doing a 'greatest hits' tour, then I might consider attending, but I really don't care to go to see a show when I'm going to be frustrated by the fact that they have to cut material that is superior to include newer songs that aren't anywhere near as close to pinnacle of heavy metal.

I'll grant you that perhaps IM is not flogging deceased equines with nearly the fervor of some other bands, but I do have to question how much of their motivation is still true passion for their music, and how much of it is that they don't know how to do anything else. And I think it's an entirely legitimate question.

 

[StarStruckStrumpets]

Three Days Grace are too awesome to stop, but Metallica and Iron maiden...yeah they've had their time.

 

[Nazulu]

Its just that at my high school I'm surrounded by metal-heads always listening to those bands,

On the bus to an' from our free period does'nt care if we listen to music but they listen to their music so loud.

Well thats just it! The most popular stuff today is that heavy metal for the head bangers or the crappy pop music for the stupid little girls. I didn't like Metallica's last album but I don't think they should quit! Who knows? Maybe they can pull of another miracle like Master of Puppets or One, but I seriously doubt it!

Unfortunatly there isn't much you can do when people turn up their shit loud except ask them nicley to turn it down a notch!

 

[teh_gunslinger]

Then go to a Maiden concert. They still are the best. And honestly, A matter of life and death was an okay album. But screw albums. Go see them and then say they are beating a dead horse.

I saw them on the Piece of Mind, Number of the Beast, Powerslave, Somewhere in Time, and Seventh Son of a Seventh Son tours. (yes, I am very very old.) I appreciate the fact that they still bring a high amount of energy to the stage, but- that said- the purpose of a tour is to promote new material: material which, by your own admission, was just 'okay'.

If they were doing a 'greatest hits' tour, then I might consider attending, but I really don't care to go to see a show when I'm going to be frustrated by the fact that they have to cut material that is superior to include newer songs that aren't anywhere near as close to pinnacle of heavy metal.

I'll grant you that perhaps IM is not flogging deceased equines with nearly the fervor of some other bands, but I do have to question how much of their motivation is still true passion for their music, and how much of it is that they don't know how to do anything else. And I think it's an entirely legitimate question.

I didn't mean to say that you had never seen them. It just sounded like it had been awhile since you saw them.
I was at a concert this summer where they solely played the old shit. It was magnificent! A couple of years before that I saw the Matter of life and deat tour. It was good too.
You do have some points, but I'll still maintain that when you see them it doesn't feel like they have lost purpose at all. But I may be wrong. I sadly haven't had the chance to see them in their prime like you have. Lucky devil, you!

 

[Lusperus]

Then get the shit beat out of me. (Response to nazulu's post)

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Yes. Some older bands should retire (especially Pink Frigging Floyd).

Some older bands should build a time machine and attempt to obliterate all the 'music' they unleased on the world (I am looking at you Ronnie James Dio).

And Iggy Pop really needs to start wearing a shirt at his age.

 

[EscapeGoat_v1legacy]

I think some bands should just stop after they've gone through too many band players.
Like Metallica or Iron Maiden and Three days grace.

Metallica: No. Plain and Simple. And they've only gone through three major line-up changes - Dave Mustaine gave way to Kirk Hammet, Cliff Burton died and was replaced by Jason Newstead, who was in turn replaced by Robert Trujillo. Hardly too many band-players.

Also, they're still making good music. Admittedly, Death Magnetic had too many songs over 7 minutes in length, but it was still a good comeback for them.

Iron Maiden: I'm not sure about their line-up changes, but maybe they should stop. Their last album was a disappointment, and they are sounding dated. However, live, they were fucking awesome when I saw them in Twickenham.

Three Days Grace: Line-Up changes? Hmm, I didn't know, but why should they stop when they're still making fantastic songs?