Mikey
New Rocker Rollin'
Posts: 40
|
Post by Mikey on Nov 24, 2017 12:03:20 GMT
Revived the band?
People who know me know my feelings on Quo continuing as 'Status Quo' without Rick.
I posted something similar to this below last year, but I'll post it again as it's become more poignant since last xmas.
When John Bonham died, Led Zeppelin stopped, end of.
In fact here is the statement Zep released at the time..................
"We wish it to be known that the loss of our dear friend, and the deep sense of undivided harmony felt by ourselves and our manager, have led us to decide that we could not continue as we were". Led Zeppelin.
AND, Zep were due to start a major U.S tour, their first in 3 years, just 3 weeks after Bonham's death. But the tour was immediately CANCELLED, even at such short notice.
AND, unlike Quo now, the members of Zep were all just in their early/mid 30's at the time, with the possibility of many more years together as Led Zeppelin, but still they cancelled the tour & ended the band. Friendship & loyalty that they felt was obviously more important than any financial aspects.
Since John Bonham died 37 years ago, the ONLY times they have gone out under the name LED ZEPPELIN were for three special tribute concerts, i.e Live Aid in 1985, Atlantic Record 40th Anniversary in 1988, & the Ahmet Ertegan tribute concert at London's O2 in 2007. They have never gone out under the name Led Zeppelin for normal gigs/tours. When Page & Plant toured in the mid/late 90's, it was as 'Page & Plant'. And due to all that, the respect, dignity & integrity remains intact.
Are Paul McCartney & Ringo Starr going out as 'The Beatles'? No they're not. Does John Fogerty go out as 'Creedence Clearwater Revival'? No he doesn't. I'd like to think that Mick Jagger & Keith Richards would not continue as 'The Rolling Stones' if one of them died. Or if Charlie Watts died for that matter. And I'd like to think that Pete Townshend & Roger Daltrey would not continue as 'The Who' if one of them died.
Mikey
|
|
|
Post by The Lord Flasheart on Nov 24, 2017 12:04:54 GMT
But should Daltrey and Townshed be The Who without The Ox and Moony. That's a whole other argument
|
|
dontquoteme
Rocker Rollin'
To Quo or not to Quo...that is the question
Posts: 213
Favourite Quo Album: QUO
|
Post by dontquoteme on Nov 24, 2017 22:06:04 GMT
Revived the band?
People who know me know my feelings on Quo continuing as 'Status Quo' without Rick.
I posted something similar to this below last year, but I'll post it again as it's become more poignant since last xmas.
When John Bonham died, Led Zeppelin stopped, end of.
In fact here is the statement Zep released at the time..................
"We wish it to be known that the loss of our dear friend, and the deep sense of undivided harmony felt by ourselves and our manager, have led us to decide that we could not continue as we were". Led Zeppelin.
AND, Zep were due to start a major U.S tour, their first in 3 years, just 3 weeks after Bonham's death. But the tour was immediately CANCELLED, even at such short notice.
AND, unlike Quo now, the members of Zep were all just in their early/mid 30's at the time, with the possibility of many more years together as Led Zeppelin, but still they cancelled the tour & ended the band. Friendship & loyalty that they felt was obviously more important than any financial aspects.
Since John Bonham died 37 years ago, the ONLY times they have gone out under the name LED ZEPPELIN were for three special tribute concerts, i.e Live Aid in 1985, Atlantic Record 40th Anniversary in 1988, & the Ahmet Ertegan tribute concert at London's O2 in 2007. They have never gone out under the name Led Zeppelin for normal gigs/tours. When Page & Plant toured in the mid/late 90's, it was as 'Page & Plant'. And due to all that, the respect, dignity & integrity remains intact.
Are Paul McCartney & Ringo Starr going out as 'The Beatles'? No they're not. Does John Fogerty go out as 'Creedence Clearwater Revival'? No he doesn't. I'd like to think that Mick Jagger & Keith Richards would not continue as 'The Rolling Stones' if one of them died. Or if Charlie Watts died for that matter. And I'd like to think that Pete Townshend & Roger Daltrey would not continue as 'The Who' if one of them died.
Mikey
Quo were never a global act like Led Zep and as such their income was significantly less. Rossi has to carry on flogging this dead horse to provide for his retirement. Even though the name Status Quo carries very little kudos these days he will still pull more money in than he would under a solo banner.
|
|
|
Post by frozenhero on Nov 28, 2017 21:13:12 GMT
But should Daltrey and Townshed be The Who without The Ox and Moony. That's a whole other argument Ding dong! We have a winner! The whole problematic undercurrent with all these discussions is that, eventually, we deem one member as more important than the other. And sometimes it's not foreseeable at all whether somebody can be replaced or not. Like - Genesis and Marillion both went on with a new voice (ok, the trick worked only once for Genesis, and it was not a new member), and it worked rather well. On the other hand, Saga didn't work at all without Michael Sadler, at least in the eyes/ears of fans and critics, which is why he came back. And Queen are having the same problem with trying to find a replacement for Freddie. But when a band changes its rhythm section, few people tend to complain. I had very mixed feelings about Quo continuing without Rick (while he was still alive). On a gut level, it felt (and feels) wrong. On a more rational level though, if I can accept Quo without Alan or without John, why can't I accept Quo without Rick? Doesn't that devalue the contributions that Alan and John made (which I will never deny)? For the same reason, I mentioned Yes: There is no better example to analyse the whole madness about "founding members". If Tony Kaye gathered four new guys around him and decided to call it Yes, that would be a formation with 1 more founding member than the "official" version (0). But that sounds absurd, doesn't it? Yet that same problem bites us in the back with this version of Quo. It has only one founding member, but one guy (Andy) has been associated with the band for over 40 years and the other (Rhino) has played with Francis and Rick for 30 years. Andy in particular has also co-written some important tracks. Wouldn't it be unfair to suddenly deny them the (ahem) status of bonafide Status Quo band members now all of a sudden? I do get irritated when people act as if they were just some hired hands - they might have been in the beginning but they are certainly a large part of Quo's history. For those who disagree and only care about the FF - if you have lost interest in later incarnations of the band, why do you feel like you can demand something from Francis now? It's all very strange. Still, on a gut level, it feels wrong. But I can't find a real rational explanation for that, other than (maybe) Quo has been promoted as 2 guys for many years and it feels like 50% are missing now. And when I watch LNOTE, I hear Francis finally playing like a proper guitarist again (hooray!), but the rest sounds markedly different than before. I see what he means by finding playing more interesting again. Still, the headline doesn't even make sense, particularly if the content hints at Rick's death almost causing him to stop. As for Led Zeppelin... word has it that Jimmy Page would have done a tour in or after 2007 but Robert was too occupied with his solo projects to commit himself firmly to it. I don't get the impression that the reunion gig was a singular thing because they felt that going on tour or doing an album would be disrespectful to Bonzo's legacy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2017 21:32:32 GMT
Yet that same problem bites us in the back with this version of Quo. It has only one founding member, but one guy (Andy) has been associated with the band for over 40 years and the other (Rhino) has played with Francis and Rick for 30 years. Andy in particular has also co-written some important tracks. Wouldn't it be unfair to suddenly deny them the (ahem) status of bonafide Status Quo band members now all of a sudden? I do get irritated when people act as if they were just some hired hands - they might have been in the beginning but they are certainly a large part of Quo's history. For those who disagree and only care about the FF - if you have lost interest in later incarnations of the band, why do you feel like you can demand something from Francis now? It's all very strange. BECAUSE A MAN DIED, and a certain someone couldn't help but mouth off to the press about him!!! Revealing stuff that should NEVER have been made public. The people who have something sensible and worthwhile to say are shut down and the attention-seeking worthless types mope and act like c***s in interviews, giving a skewed version of "reality" to the millions out there. Did Andy say or do anything about that? Did Rhino? Leon? Richie? No. They toed the line - and will continue to do so. The way they have all acted is deplorable. Rick's pals?
|
|
|
Post by MrWaistcoat on Nov 28, 2017 21:34:17 GMT
But should Daltrey and Townshed be The Who without The Ox and Moony. That's a whole other argument Ding dong! We have a winner! The whole problematic undercurrent with all these discussions is that, eventually, we deem one member as more important than the other. And sometimes it's not foreseeable at all whether somebody can be replaced or not. Like - Genesis and Marillion both went on with a new voice (ok, the trick worked only once for Genesis, and it was not a new member), and it worked rather well. On the other hand, Saga didn't work at all without Michael Sadler, at least in the eyes/ears of fans and critics, which is why he came back. And Queen are having the same problem with trying to find a replacement for Freddie. But when a band changes its rhythm section, few people tend to complain. I had very mixed feelings about Quo continuing without Rick (while he was still alive). On a gut level, it felt (and feels) wrong. On a more rational level though, if I can accept Quo without Alan or without John, why can't I accept Quo without Rick? Doesn't that devalue the contributions that Alan and John made (which I will never deny)? For the same reason, I mentioned Yes: There is no better example to analyse the whole madness about "founding members". If Tony Kaye gathered four new guys around him and decided to call it Yes, that would be a formation with 1 more founding member than the "official" version (0). But that sounds absurd, doesn't it? Yet that same problem bites us in the back with this version of Quo. It has only one founding member, but one guy (Andy) has been associated with the band for over 40 years and the other (Rhino) has played with Francis and Rick for 30 years. Andy in particular has also co-written some important tracks. Wouldn't it be unfair to suddenly deny them the (ahem) status of bonafide Status Quo band members now all of a sudden? I do get irritated when people act as if they were just some hired hands - they might have been in the beginning but they are certainly a large part of Quo's history. For those who disagree and only care about the FF - if you have lost interest in later incarnations of the band, why do you feel like you can demand something from Francis now? It's all very strange. Still, on a gut level, it feels wrong . But I can't find a real rational explanation for that, other than (maybe) Quo has been promoted as 2 guys for many years and it feels like 50% are missing now. And when I watch LNOTE, I hear Francis finally playing like a proper guitarist again (hooray!), but the rest sounds markedly different than before. I see what he means by finding playing more interesting again. Still, the headline doesn't even make sense, particularly if the content hints at Rick's death almost causing him to stop. As for Led Zeppelin... word has it that Jimmy Page would have done a tour in or after 2007 but Robert was too occupied with his solo projects to commit himself firmly to it. I don't get the impression that the reunion gig was a singular thing because they felt that going on tour or doing an album would be disrespectful to Bonzo's legacy. You don't need one mate. As music fans, we can all be as fickle or loyal as we want I said goodbye to "CQ" at download 2014 - they were good but I just knew they'd never be that good again. So I can't say I don't go now because of Rick. I don't like them carrying on without him, but as I'd already moved on ("too late for me, too late for you") I can't really say too much about it
|
|
|
Post by Gaz on Dec 7, 2017 11:09:25 GMT
It probably has brought new magic to the band. But that band isn't Status Quo. It's some horrible mangling of it. Truth to tell, I don't mind Malone much. Rick certainly approved of him. I wouldn't mind seeing him join the real Quo, with JC and AL. He probably replicates Rick's style better than anybody else. But unless Rossi wanted in on the deal the rest are just hired hands. Hey Bill, CQ are still a great live band that really deliver. The problem lies with those of us who saw the original band which were an awesome beast and after all these years we still cling to that and they’ll never be bettered. Mate,I have fond memories of sitting at the bar at B.B. Kings Memphis a couple of years ago, downing a few beers, watching a really good band playing ... but also thinking how CQ would totally rip this place apart if they were here. Whatever one thinks of CQ they are still a great live act.
|
|
|
Post by musiktruhe on Dec 7, 2017 11:31:33 GMT
A boring live act with no real feeling for the crowd or the venue.
|
|
|
Post by dennis on Dec 7, 2017 22:49:49 GMT
It probably has brought new magic to the band. But that band isn't Status Quo. It's some horrible mangling of it. Truth to tell, I don't mind Malone much. Rick certainly approved of him. I wouldn't mind seeing him join the real Quo, with JC and AL. He probably replicates Rick's style better than anybody else. But unless Rossi wanted in on the deal the rest are just hired hands. Hey Bill, CQ are still a great live band that really deliver. The problem lies with those of us who saw the original band which were an awesome beast and after all these years we still cling to that and they’ll never be bettered. Mate,I have fond memories of sitting at the bar at B.B. Kings Memphis a couple of years ago, downing a few beers, watching a really good band playing ... but also thinking how CQ would totally rip this place apart if they were here. Whatever one thinks of CQ they are still a great live act. Comedy Quo? I suppose it all depends on what kind of act you wish to see. All I've ever seen of them has left me cold.
|
|
|
Post by Gaz on Dec 7, 2017 23:26:52 GMT
Hey Bill, CQ are still a great live band that really deliver. The problem lies with those of us who saw the original band which were an awesome beast and after all these years we still cling to that and they’ll never be bettered. Mate,I have fond memories of sitting at the bar at B.B. Kings Memphis a couple of years ago, downing a few beers, watching a really good band playing ... but also thinking how CQ would totally rip this place apart if they were here. Whatever one thinks of CQ they are still a great live act. Comedy Quo? I suppose it all depends on what kind of act you wish to see. All I've ever seen of them has left me cold. I forgot to add that I meant CQ when Rick was onstage with them. I’ve no interest in the current version.
|
|
|
Post by dennis on Dec 8, 2017 0:07:08 GMT
Comedy Quo? I suppose it all depends on what kind of act you wish to see. All I've ever seen of them has left me cold. I forgot to add that I meant CQ when Rick was onstage with them. I’ve no interest in the current version. I think they lost the groove with the change of rhythm section. To an extent they got a way with it when Pete replaced John, he was a bit different but it all still worked live. However, when they then replaced both Alan & Pete they changed the sound in a way that I don't think they've ever been able to recover from. Some people may actually prefer the sound of some, or all, subsequent line-ups but they haven't worked for me & Rick's presence was not enough of a counter balance to retain my interest in seeing them live.
|
|