gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
627640 Posts in 25176 Topics by 3581 Members - Latest Member: lonelysea February 23, 2018, 10:30:51 AM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 10:30:00 AM 
Started by Juice Brohnston - Last post by KDS

Rock changed all that. For one, the core groups of players were just that - The bands were a core group of members that fans knew. Cite any example of the bands in the upper echelon and fans can name the core group. Anything less, minus the usual shifting of one or 2 members, wouldn't be the same.

Let me pose this as a question. I love the album "Time Out" by the Dave Brubeck Quartet. Would I pay to see a group calling itself "The Dave Brubeck Quartet" in 2018 playing that album live? I would not, because the key members are dead. It's as simple as that. If a group under another name were doing it, I wouldn't have an issue at all because they're not trying to take the name.


This would hold more water with me if the Beach Boys followed that model. But the touring band The Beach Boys has had dozens of people in and out through the years, and most audience members probably knew little to nothing about who was who beyond recognizing a couple of the principals. The Beach Boys have operated more like the jazz bands than they have like the Beatles or Led Zeppelin. If you can be The Beach Boys with one Beach Boy on stage, with non-Beach Boys in the band for decades, and with non-Beach Boys carrying prominent roles, then you can be the Beach Boys with one fewer.

Any damage to the legacy is already done. I'm reminded of the old quote "haggling over the price" line often attributed to Churchill and to Shaw.

As to the second paragraph I left, there is no question (for me) in it. You asked yourself a question: would you pay to see that band. You answered yourself with a no. And that's fine. I am not saying you would. But that's irrelevant to me.

I agree with you Captain.

Frankly, I think the current Mike and Bruce show is better for the legacy than some of the shows they were doing in the early 80s after Carl jumped ship, Dennis was in and out of the lineup because he couldn't keep himself clean, Brian sitting onstage doing very little most nights, and Mike, Al, and Bruce not really committing to rehearsing the material. 

 2 
 on: Today at 10:22:55 AM 
Started by Howie Edelson - Last post by Zesterz
Thanks Howie. Publicity fio future projects....if you can help arrange it (!). Noted your recommendation, will look it out. I got my first Ken Sharp BB book over 30 years ago

 3 
 on: Today at 10:21:44 AM 
Started by Juice Brohnston - Last post by HeyJude
While the BB's brand/trademark has been watered down to the point where, as has been established over the last 20 years, it *can* continue to exist with few (and surely zero) original members and have some level of success, the fact that the band name *can* exist regardless of membership doesn't mean that membership in the band doesn't impact its success. By that I mean the C50 tour. That tour garnered bookings, advances, and interest that Mike's tour doesn't (and never could). That tour could have continued and had the ability, *unlike* most again Motown and other oldies acts with few if any original members, to *build* up on that success and actually *change* the perception and brand/value.

As Howie Edelson referenced some time back regarding what an industry person said about C50 (and its demise), C50 managed to turn an AARP brand into an arena act. That *is* very rare. That's where the BB name and reputation *does* have some remnant of a "classic rock" type of band where its reconstituted form can bring fans and ticket sales back.

 4 
 on: Today at 10:13:40 AM 
Started by the captain - Last post by the captain
Well said.

And by the way, with respect to the media self-censoring, there are (substantially less serious) precedents: there was a time when streaking was fashionable. However, it has become less so probably in large part because the media stopped showing or talking about it. The federal government didn't say they had to do that. (Though I guess the FCC obviously forbids the showing of nudity on broadcast television.) They just decided that if you don't promote the act, people lose part of their motivation for doing it. Something like that might well help.

I was wondering when responding earlier whether there is a down-side to not naming the shooter-criminals. I'm not sure of the answer to that. I haven't thought of one, though. My instinct is that self-censorship on that narrow issue is a good idea.

 5 
 on: Today at 10:00:34 AM 
Started by the captain - Last post by B.E.
I have mixed feelings as well (particularly when it comes to how the non-reporting would happen). Furthermore, I'm not very knowledgeable about gun policy or gun culture nor have I studied mass shootings. But, I think it's undeniable that "celebrity" is a factor. Some shooters are driven (at least in part) by an overwhelming need to be heard, seen, and/or remembered. I vaguely remember reading some of the writings of various shooters which demonstrates this, as well as, their interest/obsession with previous shooters and their methods. In discussing the need to focus on the underlying problems that lead to mass shootings, you portray the latest news story as the final "trigger" to push them over the edge. On one hand, I completely agree with you. In that sense, the name and face of the last shooter is just an after thought, it's the fact that someone else committed the act that gives them the "courage" or confidence to do what they had long been planning to do. That's why, generally, things seem to happen in clusters. Where I live (very small town), about 10 years or so ago, there were about a half dozen suicides by train that occurred within a few miles stretch of track within about a 12 month period. I can't remember any prior and certainly not since. I don't know how else to say it, but, it becomes a "thing". I think mass shootings are similar. Beyond that, though, for other shooters "celebrity" seems to be much more a core motivator. It's those shooters which we are more likely to stop (in combination with other efforts addressing other factors) with the non-reporting of names/faces.

Ideally, the media would choose to censor itself. My political philosophy could probably be summed up by "when in doubt, side with liberty". So, I already feel myself backing down from a legally enforceable prohibition, but that's really too bad. Of course, we've got to focus on the underlying problems, but that feels like an almost impossible task. To me, in regard to mass shootings, the two main issues are mental health and culture (which inevitably intertwine). Not exactly simple issues to address. Particularly, mental health (which is by far the main issue IMO), which despite all we've learned as a society over the past few decades I fear we know next to nothing about in the grand scheme of things. Ultimately, as you said, it's about addressing what inspires people to commit violence. There's hardly a more daunting task than that! We are talking about humans, after all.

 6 
 on: Today at 10:00:22 AM 
Started by Howie Edelson - Last post by Howie Edelson
Zesterz  - You'll love it. It's an amazingly crafted work.

NO ONE will walk away from reading this disappointed in the least.
Best case scenario -- it's like Ken's Lennon book on steroids.

 7 
 on: Today at 09:58:24 AM 
Started by Sweetmountain - Last post by the captain
While I won't quite say I don't care either way, I do want to be clear that I'd be happy to have something new regardless of its niche. I have found something I like in every release so far (although the live albums I could do without), and I'm sure I'd find something to like in any new studio release. I don't want anyone to conflate my wish list with some sort of disapproval.

 8 
 on: Today at 09:52:10 AM 
Started by Howie Edelson - Last post by Zesterz
Howie -- I never knew it even existed. This is a recurring problem with new releases about the BB, whether books or CDs

 9 
 on: Today at 09:51:34 AM 
Started by Sweetmountain - Last post by rab2591
Life Suite or R&R record? I'd love either one. Smiley

Same, I honestly donít care either way. I think every BW solo record has a bit of charm and each one has at least a few gems/moments that stand out. And thatís all Iíd want whether it be from a life suite, rock n roll album, or even just some piano demos. Or if Brian wants to chillax and not visit the studio again thatís cool too.

 10 
 on: Today at 09:51:23 AM 
Started by Juice Brohnston - Last post by the captain

Rock changed all that. For one, the core groups of players were just that - The bands were a core group of members that fans knew. Cite any example of the bands in the upper echelon and fans can name the core group. Anything less, minus the usual shifting of one or 2 members, wouldn't be the same.

Let me pose this as a question. I love the album "Time Out" by the Dave Brubeck Quartet. Would I pay to see a group calling itself "The Dave Brubeck Quartet" in 2018 playing that album live? I would not, because the key members are dead. It's as simple as that. If a group under another name were doing it, I wouldn't have an issue at all because they're not trying to take the name.


This would hold more water with me if the Beach Boys followed that model. But the touring band The Beach Boys has had dozens of people in and out through the years, and most audience members probably knew little to nothing about who was who beyond recognizing a couple of the principals. The Beach Boys have operated more like the jazz bands than they have like the Beatles or Led Zeppelin. If you can be The Beach Boys with one Beach Boy on stage, with non-Beach Boys in the band for decades, and with non-Beach Boys carrying prominent roles, then you can be the Beach Boys with one fewer.

Any damage to the legacy is already done. I'm reminded of the old quote "haggling over the price" line often attributed to Churchill and to Shaw.

As to the second paragraph I left, there is no question (for me) in it. You asked yourself a question: would you pay to see that band. You answered yourself with a no. And that's fine. I am not saying you would. But that's irrelevant to me.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.094 seconds with 18 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!