posted
Last year, Jennie and Richie Stearns separated, and so did their music. Now, Donna the Buffalo is losing its rhythm guitar player. I can't think of a comparison except maybe the Beatles losing George Harrison. It would not be as bad as losing Paul or John, but would definitely change the band.
So, I am sad. Very, very sad. It is sort of pathetic that I am sad, being a forty-one year old groupie, but there you have it.
How have you felt when your band breaks up or changes?
[ January 11, 2005, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My favorite band is The Beatles, and they split up when I was about one, so I wasn't too deeply affected at the time.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just going to say the same thing Pop (although I wasn't even conceived when they broke up). And besides, look at the torrent of good music George came out with immediately after the breakup--you never know what kind of positive effect something like a band breakup will have.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As i already saw two people say, Pink Floyd, i was even wearing my Dark Side of the Moon Shirt today.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All my favorite bands either broke up before I was born, or didn't but should have. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head (and I'm sure there are plenty of others if I felt like thinking about it for half a moment, which I don't) is They Might Be Giants. I would be sad if they broke up.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"look at the torrent of good music George came out with immediately after the breakup--you never know what kind of positive effect something like a band breakup will have."
Yes, this is true. It is just the adjustment period is difficult, as the music will naver be the same. Change is inevitable, and often for the best.
vwiggin, I loved the 10,000 Maniacs as well. Funny, Richie Stearns, whom I mentioned in the first post, toured with Natalie Merchant this summer. The 10,000 Maniacs and Donna the Buffalo are connected through the incestuous Ithaca, New York music scene. They did a mini tour, mixed together, and called themselves "Smell the Plow."(in the 90's)
[ January 12, 2005, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not into bands primarily. I mean, there are plenty of bands that I like, but the music I obsess over is typically the product of single songwriters, because I'm much more about the words than about the music. So, while I might be disappointed by the thought that a group had a better sound together than the sum of its individual parts (like <showing my age> Chicago and Peter Cetera, or Hall and Oates together versus Daryl Hall alone) I don't tend to be that worked up over these things.
The only major exception I can think of would be the Indigo Girls. I have and enjoy Amy Ray's solo album, and if and when Emily Saliers comes out with one, I'll buy it too. But they have a uniqueness to their sound, and they are also uncommonly eclectic, together, and it would be a shame if they ever stopped making music together.
Okay, I lied. I have another: Simon and Garfunkel. Same reasons.
(And if you wish there were a modern day S&G and have not discovered the Indigo Girls yet--and I don't just mean their most popular couple of songs, or the stereotypes behind *who* listens to them--then get thee to it!)
EDIT: I *thought* that spelling looked wrong, but I couldn't figure out why . . . .
posted
I would be wishing for a modern day Simon and Garfunkel if I weren't so busy listening to Simon and Garfunkel. :-D
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of my favorite bands have disbanded, at least not during my lifetime. Although my band almost did, which I would venture to say was about a million times harder than just watching it happen to someone.
But we're good now, at least. I was just being emotional and retarded for a moment, but we've gotten over it.
Posts: 48 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as Static-X stays together, my world will keep turning.
Actually, when Koichi (the guitarist) left I was really worried. But when they replaced him with Tripp Eisen, I think the band just got that much better. So people can come and go, but I think it will always need Wayne Static and Tony Campos in order to sound right.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, the thing about my favorite band is that they each have their own style, great lyrics, and a togetherness-of-sound like you are saying the Indigo Girls have.(and I agree-they are best as the Girls) With Jim leaving, it is not so bad songwriter-wise, because he sings covers, but the change of style between the three main singers kept me interested. I tend to get bored of bands with one main singer.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ick, I know what you mean about the Indigo girls. I am a solid and faithful S&G fan and a friend of mine pointed me to the Indigo Girls last year...and now their stuff is some of my very favorite. Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be agonizing if IG broke up. Dead Can Dance broke up, but I think they are getting back together again. Cocteau Twins broke up, and that is sad. If my one favourite band in the whole universe disbanded, my heart would just break because I HAVE NOT SEEN THEM IN CONCERT YET!!! GYAAH!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like many in this topic, most of my favorite bands were either already broken up by the time I got into their music or are still together.
Also, as Noemon stated, band breakups aren't always bad. If the Beatles had never broken up, we wouldn't have the song "Imagine", and I love that song. And who knows what Elliott Smith would have ended up sounding like if he had stuck with Heatmiser.
posted
Emily is the blonde one. She has an intricate guitar style and her voice is very high. All of her songs are rather vunerable. Amy has dark hair and a deeper voice. She is more of a rhythm guitarist. Many of her songs involve being angry. She has a cool tattoo.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny thing is if you know them well enough, you could be handed the lyrics to a song you have never heard of and guess which one wrote it, most of the time!
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I thought of another exception. Dire Straits. While Dire Straits have broken up, it was not before I was born. And it would have been awful it they had broken up before I was born, because then "Making Movies" and "Love Over Gold" wouldn't exist, not to mention "Brothers In Arms". You'd think it wouldn't make a difference that Dire Straits broke up, in that Mark Knopfler wrote, sang lead vocal, and played lead guitar on everything they ever did. But surpringly, with the exception of a couple of songs on "Golden Heart" and a couple more on "Sailing to Philadelphia", his solo material sounds nothing like Dire Straits. Go figure.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Verily, you are so right. Mark Knopfler has such a unique sound, yet without the band, it is not the sound of Dire Straits. Yet, without Mark knopfler, there is no Dire Straits.
The Grateful Dead will never replace Jerry Garcia. Just won't happen, even though many of the songs he sang were written by Robert Hunter. I don't even know why they tried, to be honest.
[ January 12, 2005, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. Thinking about the Knopfler idea, I wonder about Dave Matthews? How much of the Dave Matthews Band is the band?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elizabeth, without the band, Dave Matthews wouldn't have that vibe that carries him beyond his lyrics.
As a group they are magic, as individuals they are enjoyable.
Same for Bela Fleck and the Flecktones... the solo works are fun and enjoyable, but nothing like the group together.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You see, I think Paul Simon is way cooler than Simon and Garfunkel... and Simon and Garfunkel are pretty cool. You just gotta love how weird he got. Graceland was monumentally awesome, and Rhythm of the Saints, though it kind of flew below the radar, is totally transcendent. His newest album You're the One is just... wow.
I'm getting anxious about U2 breaking up. They've said there's still more to come, but Bono did make a comment in a recent interview that "it can't go on forever." I realize this, but it would be so nice if it would. 25 years isn't bad, though...
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:My favorite band is The Beatles, and they split up when I was about one, so I wasn't too deeply affected at the time.
Pop...I was in junior high when the Beatles broke up, and it was pretty near the end of the world. I'd been a fan literally since their first appearance on the Sullivan show, when I was 7 years old - as cliched as it sounds, seeing that show literally changed my outlook on life. Yes, at age 7. After that night, while all my friends at school were rushing home after class to watch cartoons, I was rushing home to watch the dance shows (in Southern California, we had a couple of daily local versions of American Bandstand) on TV.
The only comparable thing I can think of today would be, as Annie alluded to, if U2 broke up. Perish the thought.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sopwith, I do not know the other members of that band as well as I do a band who will remain nameless, but I have heard Dave Matthews say how much they are a group.
There are really very few true bands left. So much is individual-based. It is so hard to get that perfect blending of sound, where band members feed off each other,and songs emerge from a few hummed notes into a beautiful, interactive creation.
Annie, I was hoping you would join in this conversation. I hope you get another ten years or so!
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Graceland is the greatest album ever. Rhythm of the Saints is okay, but not melodic enough for my tastes (except for "Born at the Right Time.) The Capeman album (if I have the name right . . . I don't feel like looking for it) was godawful. His most recent one since then was okay, but he has stopped breaking new ground since his failure before, and so I don't much care. I think he's awesome alone, but there was a flavor with the duo of disparate voices and styles and egos that is gone with them apart. I remember when they did their concert in Central Park in '82 or whatever. Of course, I wasn't there, but after a few months, it aired on PBS and I was glued to the TV set (and watched it each time it came on again). Seeing them back together again--and even adding a verse to "The Boxer"!--was virtually a religious experience. Paul Simon is clearly the genius behind S&G (and nothing like this can be said for Emily Saliers or Amy Ray, because theirs is so much more of a partnership between equals) but we still lost something when Simon and Garfunkel went their separate ways.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, a question for all the people who are actually familiar with Simon and Garfunkel as a group:
What exactly did Art Garfunkel do?
I'm not trying to be nasty or anything. I'm honestly asking. Every time I've seen a clip of one of their performances, Paul Simon's got a guitar in his hands, and Art Garfunkel just kind of stands there with his arms folded or something. I know Paul Simon writes great material, because I've heard plenty of his solo stuff, but I've never heard any Art Garfunkel solo material. Does he even have any? Does he write? Does he play anything? What did he add to Paul Simon's performance that Paul Simon doesn't have on his own?
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Art Garfunkel does have solo material, but it's not terribly successful. He was less into pop and rock, and more into thoughtful, sentimental music.
While Paul Simon wrote most (but not all) of the S&G songs, it was with input from Garfunkel, and so some of his preferences tempered some of Simon's. Garfunkel wanted to be less experimental than Simon, and so on, and so Simon had to keep his preferences in mind when writing songs. I think this bit of compromise provided something stronger than a lot of either's solo music. Much of Simon's solo music from the seventies was "Simon and Garfunkel, only less so," before he made a creative breakthrough with Graceland.
In performance, Garfunkel did not generally play an instrument, but he sang lead on many songs. His voice has an ethereal quality that makes a very interesting counterpoint to Simon's more understated singing style. On lead, it made for a nice change of pace. Singing backup, it made for some of the most beautiful harmonies in rock/pop music.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I was just being emotional and retarded for a moment, but we've gotten over it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
