|
Post by lazypokerblues on Aug 17, 2017 9:47:18 GMT
Reading some of the posts in this topic I thought I was on the wrong site and had accidentally gone on to the 'cups and cafe' lighter side of life. All this perhaps give them a chance, they might actually rejuvenate Status Quo etc.,is mind boggling. For people to even thank that an original band can be the same when the members change makes no sense and is disrespectful to the original creator of the art/music and what attracted people to this unique talent. For myself no matter what the new members of the FR band do, it will never be Status Quo. If Noel and Liam Gallagher, with their admiration for The Beatles and John Lennon in particular, joined together with Paul McCartney would it be right that it be called 'The Beatles'? Paul, George or Ringo have never presented themselves in any guise as The Beatles other than when they recorded together or re recorded tracks together that included Johns vocals. If some one paints in the style of a famous artist are they that artist? If someone deigns a building in the style of a famous architect are they that architect. I don't think so. I am not at all interested in what Ritchie, Leon, Andy or for that matter what Rossi do. If they do something my only hope is that they do not do it under the name as Status Quo. It might be good, who knows, but no matter what quality it is not Status Quo. I doubt very much I would personally like it. Ritchie was not that impressive in the pub band he played in and I doubt his partnership with Rossi, Leon, and Andy will mount to anything more than playing Status Quo covers in a clinical business like manner. Status Quo are no more, apart from their recordings and memories, end of the story. I agree with you 100%.
Your remark about Oasis joining Paul McCartney is very well made - because of course it wouldn't be The Beatles, but it made me realise that "Status Quo" have had so many line up changes over the years - more drummers than Spinal Tap etc. that it explains why we have so many fans bickering over what is acceptable for the "Status Quo" line up.
And, from my own experience, I think it has to do with who was in the band at the point when you got into them.
For me, in 1982, I had no beef with Pete Kircher having replaced Spud, but in 1986, I thought that it was no longer "Status Quo" but it was Rossi and Parfitt hanging on to the name. And I was glad to still be able to go to the gigs.
And so much time has passed since 1986, that there are lots and lots of fans who will always think that Rhino is the bass player in "Status Quo" because he was the bass player when they got into the band. And I've only ever seen him as a session player, who landed a very lucky gig.
It just seems to get diluted every time they change somebody.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 10:44:58 GMT
Reading some of the posts in this topic I thought I was on the wrong site and had accidentally gone on to the 'cups and cafe' lighter side of life. All this perhaps give them a chance, they might actually rejuvenate Status Quo etc.,is mind boggling. For people to even thank that an original band can be the same when the members change makes no sense and is disrespectful to the original creator of the art/music and what attracted people to this unique talent. For myself no matter what the new members of the FR band do, it will never be Status Quo. If Noel and Liam Gallagher, with their admiration for The Beatles and John Lennon in particular, joined together with Paul McCartney would it be right that it be called 'The Beatles'? Paul, George or Ringo have never presented themselves in any guise as The Beatles other than when they recorded together or re recorded tracks together that included Johns vocals. If some one paints in the style of a famous artist are they that artist? If someone deigns a building in the style of a famous architect are they that architect. I don't think so. I am not at all interested in what Ritchie, Leon, Andy or for that matter what Rossi do. If they do something my only hope is that they do not do it under the name as Status Quo. It might be good, who knows, but no matter what quality it is not Status Quo. I doubt very much I would personally like it. Ritchie was not that impressive in the pub band he played in and I doubt his partnership with Rossi, Leon, and Andy will mount to anything more than playing Status Quo covers in a clinical business like manner. Status Quo are no more, apart from their recordings and memories, end of the story. I agree with you 100%.
Your remark about Oasis joining Paul McCartney is very well made - because of course it wouldn't be The Beatles, but it made me realise that "Status Quo" have had so many line up changes over the years - more drummers than Spinal Tap etc. that it explains why we have so many fans bickering over what is acceptable for the "Status Quo" line up.
And, from my own experience, I think it has to do with who was in the band at the point when you got into them.
For me, in 1982, I had no beef with Pete Kircher having replaced Spud, but in 1986, I thought that it was no longer "Status Quo" but it was Rossi and Parfitt hanging on to the name. And I was glad to still be able to go to the gigs.
And so much time has passed since 1986, that there are lots and lots of fans who will always think that Rhino is the bass player in "Status Quo" because he was the bass player when they got into the band. And I've only ever seen him as a session player, who landed a very lucky gig.
It just seems to get diluted every time they change somebody.
Rock bands have always been like a bottle of orange cordial, they gradually get more and more diluted to the point where there's only a vague hint of the original, however the label on the bottle will always read "Orange".
|
|
|
Post by Gaz on Aug 17, 2017 11:24:59 GMT
I agree with you 100%.
Your remark about Oasis joining Paul McCartney is very well made - because of course it wouldn't be The Beatles, but it made me realise that "Status Quo" have had so many line up changes over the years - more drummers than Spinal Tap etc. that it explains why we have so many fans bickering over what is acceptable for the "Status Quo" line up.
And, from my own experience, I think it has to do with who was in the band at the point when you got into them.
For me, in 1982, I had no beef with Pete Kircher having replaced Spud, but in 1986, I thought that it was no longer "Status Quo" but it was Rossi and Parfitt hanging on to the name. And I was glad to still be able to go to the gigs.
And so much time has passed since 1986, that there are lots and lots of fans who will always think that Rhino is the bass player in "Status Quo" because he was the bass player when they got into the band. And I've only ever seen him as a session player, who landed a very lucky gig.
It just seems to get diluted every time they change somebody.
Rock bands have always been like a bottle of orange cordial, they gradually get more and more diluted to the point where there's only a vague hint of the original, however the label on the bottle will always read "Orange". Agree with you there in the main but for a band like AC/DC they've dodged many bullets and tend to be more akin to whisky... I guess through not only their thumping rock but the genius of Angus.
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Aug 17, 2017 11:38:39 GMT
Rock bands have always been like a bottle of orange cordial, they gradually get more and more diluted to the point where there's only a vague hint of the original, however the label on the bottle will always read "Orange". Agree with you there in the main but for a band like AC/DC they've dodged many bullets and tend to be more akin to whisky... I guess through not only their thumping rock but the genius of Angus. I don't think AC/DC have continued to improve with age. They are no where near as good as they were 3 decades ago and to me four decades ago. The set until Brian left was very stale with the only changes lacklustre new songs.
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Aug 17, 2017 11:40:59 GMT
I agree with you 100%.
Your remark about Oasis joining Paul McCartney is very well made - because of course it wouldn't be The Beatles, but it made me realise that "Status Quo" have had so many line up changes over the years - more drummers than Spinal Tap etc. that it explains why we have so many fans bickering over what is acceptable for the "Status Quo" line up.
And, from my own experience, I think it has to do with who was in the band at the point when you got into them.
For me, in 1982, I had no beef with Pete Kircher having replaced Spud, but in 1986, I thought that it was no longer "Status Quo" but it was Rossi and Parfitt hanging on to the name. And I was glad to still be able to go to the gigs.
And so much time has passed since 1986, that there are lots and lots of fans who will always think that Rhino is the bass player in "Status Quo" because he was the bass player when they got into the band. And I've only ever seen him as a session player, who landed a very lucky gig.
It just seems to get diluted every time they change somebody.
Rock bands have always been like a bottle of orange cordial, they gradually get more and more diluted to the point where there's only a vague hint of the original, however the label on the bottle will always read "Orange". I suppose it is the case with mainstream music but that is because for many gig goers they want nostalgia. Few musicians of any genre make stunning ground breaking music in the second halfs of their careers. There are exceptions particularly in the less main stream metal bands.
|
|
|
Post by Gaz on Aug 17, 2017 11:47:48 GMT
Agree with you there in the main but for a band like AC/DC they've dodged many bullets and tend to be more akin to whisky... I guess through not only their thumping rock but the genius of Angus. I don't think AC/DC have continued to improve with age. They are no where near as good as they were 3 decades ago and to me four decades ago. The set until Brian left was very stale with the only changes lacklustre new songs. Agree and upon reflection @bluehighway is spot on with the cordial analogy. What I'm getting is DC have stuck to their guns with major results over the decades... filling stadiums defo walks the walk.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 11:53:00 GMT
I agree with you 100%.
Your remark about Oasis joining Paul McCartney is very well made - because of course it wouldn't be The Beatles, but it made me realise that "Status Quo" have had so many line up changes over the years - more drummers than Spinal Tap etc. that it explains why we have so many fans bickering over what is acceptable for the "Status Quo" line up.
And, from my own experience, I think it has to do with who was in the band at the point when you got into them.
For me, in 1982, I had no beef with Pete Kircher having replaced Spud, but in 1986, I thought that it was no longer "Status Quo" but it was Rossi and Parfitt hanging on to the name. And I was glad to still be able to go to the gigs.
And so much time has passed since 1986, that there are lots and lots of fans who will always think that Rhino is the bass player in "Status Quo" because he was the bass player when they got into the band. And I've only ever seen him as a session player, who landed a very lucky gig.
It just seems to get diluted every time they change somebody.
Rock bands have always been like a bottle of orange cordial, they gradually get more and more diluted to the point where there's only a vague hint of the original, however the label on the bottle will always read "Orange". Yes indeed
Its fine to draw a line in the sand in 1974, 1977, 1981, 1985 a.s.o.a.s.f and have no interest beyond those timelines. Its also fine to not have a drawn a line at all and be every bit as happy in 2017 as 1974.
And its also fine to be someone like me who prefers what happened in the 1970's, still liked enough of what happened up to about the reunions to stick with them (on and off), then became critical of them for every reason given, but still (on the basis of staying a fan since the 70's) be prepared to be open minded about any remaining time. That is despite the reservations of recent years.
There are probably plenty of permutations, but 3 categories is enough for purpose of simplicity here.
Being in the third category means that even diluted Orange, once it is accepted it is diluted like so many other bands have become diluted versions of what they are, can still mean being able to take it on its own potential merits. At the very least it avoids incessantly repeating the mantra of what was, but isn't anymore.
There are some bands which have managed to stick closer to their original identity better than Quo. But there will also be an argument from some others than they haven't diluted as much as popularly believed on this mb.
But wherever the truth lies, it is, what it is and the last 30 yrs cannot be re-written. Herein lies part of the purpose of this thread to take your choice, and if you are in categories 2 and 3 then the second part of the purpose of the thread is fulfilled.
I think its possible to have a different opinion and belong to any of these different categories, but still be objective about any of them. But that's just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Aug 17, 2017 11:53:34 GMT
I don't think AC/DC have continued to improve with age. They are no where near as good as they were 3 decades ago and to me four decades ago. The set until Brian left was very stale with the only changes lacklustre new songs. Agree and upon reflection @bluehighway is spot on with the cordial analogy. What I'm getting is DC have stuck to their guns with major results over the decades... filling stadiums defo walks the walk. Yes being big in the USA and Latin America allows them to tour and re ord when they want and continue to record what they want.
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Aug 17, 2017 11:55:32 GMT
Rock bands have always been like a bottle of orange cordial, they gradually get more and more diluted to the point where there's only a vague hint of the original, however the label on the bottle will always read "Orange". Yes indeed
Its fine to draw a line in the sand in 1974, 1977, 1981, 1985 a.s.o.a.s.f and have no interest beyond those timelines. Its also fine to not have a drawn a line at all and be every bit as happy in 2017 as 1974.
And its also fine to be someone like me who prefers what happened in the 1970's, still liked enough of what happened up to about the reunions to stick with them (on and off), then became critical of them for every reason given, but still (on the basis of staying a fan since the 70's) be prepared to be open minded about any remaining time. That is despite the reservations of recent years.
There are probably plenty of permutations, but 3 categories is enough for purpose of simplicity here.
Being in the third category means that even diluted Orange, once it is accepted it is diluted like so many other bands have become diluted versions of what they are, can still mean being able to take it on its own potential merits. At the very least it avoids incessantly repeating the mantra of what was, but isn't anymore.
There are some bands which have managed to stick closer to their original identity better than Quo. But there will also be an argument from some others than they haven't diluted as much as popularly believed on this mb.
But wherever the truth lies, it is, what it is and the last 30 yrs cannot be re-written. Herein lies part of the purpose of this thread to take your choice, and if you are in categories 2 and 3 then the second part of the purpose of the thread is fulfilled.
I think its possible to have a different opinion and belong to any of these different categories, but still be objective about any of them. But that's just my opinion.
Yes theyr no longer orange more bitter lemon. 😜
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Aug 17, 2017 11:57:46 GMT
Rock bands have always been like a bottle of orange cordial, they gradually get more and more diluted to the point where there's only a vague hint of the original, however the label on the bottle will always read "Orange". Yes indeed
Its fine to draw a line in the sand in 1974, 1977, 1981, 1985 a.s.o.a.s.f and have no interest beyond those timelines. Its also fine to not have a drawn a line at all and be every bit as happy in 2017 as 1974.
And its also fine to be someone like me who prefers what happened in the 1970's, still liked enough of what happened up to about the reunions to stick with them (on and off), then became critical of them for every reason given, but still (on the basis of staying a fan since the 70's) be prepared to be open minded about any remaining time. That is despite the reservations of recent years.
There are probably plenty of permutations, but 3 categories is enough for purpose of simplicity here.
Being in the third category means that even diluted Orange, once it is accepted it is diluted like so many other bands have become diluted versions of what they are, can still mean being able to take it on its own potential merits. At the very least it avoids incessantly repeating the mantra of what was, but isn't anymore.
There are some bands which have managed to stick closer to their original identity better than Quo. But there will also be an argument from some others than they haven't diluted as much as popularly believed on this mb.
But wherever the truth lies, it is, what it is and the last 30 yrs cannot be re-written. Herein lies part of the purpose of this thread to take your choice, and if you are in categories 2 and 3 then the second part of the purpose of the thread is fulfilled.
I think its possible to have a different opinion and belong to any of these different categories, but still be objective about any of them. But that's just my opinion.
Although possible in music most people can't be objective as it's about feelings etc. We all look at things through our own personal prism, which changes the direction to our own universe.
|
|
|
Post by Gaz on Aug 17, 2017 12:03:09 GMT
Agree and upon reflection @bluehighway is spot on with the cordial analogy. What I'm getting is DC have stuck to their guns with major results over the decades... filling stadiums defo walks the walk. Yes being big in the USA and Latin America allows them to tour and re ord when they want and continue to record what they want. Yep cracking America makes all the difference... Quo almost tasted it it in 76-78.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 12:16:17 GMT
Nah sorry. Francis Rossi has alienated me, to the point where I don't care anymore. It's not Status Quo and never will be and I don't really care what the others do, with the exception of Andy. He's done his best to alienate me also. But though it requires a radical attitude and perspective transplant to change things for the better on his behalf, this isn't just about him. Its the rest of the band showing what they are capable of beyond the straight-jacket of a rigid and soulless set. Other than you tube video, its difficult to judge Ritchie whilst he is only allowed to act as a session musician. But there is enough evidence away from his inhibited role with LNOTE to show he could make a significant difference if the same old was ditched and FR and management woke up to it all.
Come to think of it, the rest of the band are rather like session musicians, such is the extremely limited and unambitious remit of the band.
Unshackling them and starting to be innovative is not going to bring back the 1970's in any shape or form, but that is no longer the point because its all gone for good. It sure *could* make a difference to the here and now however. Subject to opinion of course.
|
|
|
Post by paradiseflats on Aug 17, 2017 12:30:24 GMT
Nah sorry. Francis Rossi has alienated me, to the point where I don't care anymore. It's not Status Quo and never will be and I don't really care what the others do, with the exception of Andy. He's done his best to alienate me also. But though it requires a radical attitude and perspective transplant to change things for the better on his behalf, this isn't just about him. Its the rest of the band showing what they are capable of beyond the straight-jacket of a rigid and soulless set. Other than you tube video, its difficult to judge Ritchie whilst he is only allowed to act as a session musician. But there is enough evidence away from his inhibited role with LNOTE to show he could make a significant difference if the same old was ditched and FR and management woke up to it all.
Come to think of it, the rest of the band are rather like session musicians, such is the extremely limited and unambitious remit of the band.
Unshackling them and starting to be innovative is not going to bring back the 1970's in any shape or form, but that is no longer the point because its all gone for good. It sure *could* make a difference to the here and now however. Subject to opinion of course.
Look at Rick and compare his playing on the reunion tours compared to after and before. Without a safety net, he was much improved. So yes it could change for the better. But I personally doubt whether Rhino or Andy want anything other than there comfortable shoes. Rhino couldn't challenge himself for some reason on the Aquostic shows and only played an electric bass.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 12:36:51 GMT
Yes indeed
Its fine to draw a line in the sand in 1974, 1977, 1981, 1985 a.s.o.a.s.f and have no interest beyond those timelines. Its also fine to not have a drawn a line at all and be every bit as happy in 2017 as 1974.
And its also fine to be someone like me who prefers what happened in the 1970's, still liked enough of what happened up to about the reunions to stick with them (on and off), then became critical of them for every reason given, but still (on the basis of staying a fan since the 70's) be prepared to be open minded about any remaining time. That is despite the reservations of recent years.
There are probably plenty of permutations, but 3 categories is enough for purpose of simplicity here.
Being in the third category means that even diluted Orange, once it is accepted it is diluted like so many other bands have become diluted versions of what they are, can still mean being able to take it on its own potential merits. At the very least it avoids incessantly repeating the mantra of what was, but isn't anymore.
There are some bands which have managed to stick closer to their original identity better than Quo. But there will also be an argument from some others than they haven't diluted as much as popularly believed on this mb.
But wherever the truth lies, it is, what it is and the last 30 yrs cannot be re-written. Herein lies part of the purpose of this thread to take your choice, and if you are in categories 2 and 3 then the second part of the purpose of the thread is fulfilled.
I think its possible to have a different opinion and belong to any of these different categories, but still be objective about any of them. But that's just my opinion.
Although possible in music most people can't be objective as it's about feelings etc. We all look at things through our own personal prism, which changes the direction to our own universe. I actually find it easier to be objective about Quo because their albums even in the hey-day had plenty of light and shade. If the albums had all been decibels and 100mph throughout then I am not sure I would have become a fan as easily back in the 1970's. I never saw them even back then as an especially heavy rock band, so I haven't had expectations of them to be this or that in any black or white sort of way.
I like AC/DC but find after listening to too many of the songs that there is too little variation and that is the same impression with a lot of heavy rock bands. Its just my own impression of course, not saying what is right or wrong. Simply that probably my own music tastes are probably less hard rock orientated than many fans.
Somehow with Quo though, the melodies, the boogie theme broken up with the country and other influences, the different vocals that Francis, Rick and Alan brought in the early days, made them stand out as quite different from the bands they were compared with and its always puzzled me over all these years why they have this black and white appeal of having to fit a particular expectation with the music they play.
In this way, I didn't have too much problem with the increased variation and changes that happened beyond 1985 - although of course the unique dynamics had gone. The unique dynamics which make why plenty of other fans didn't want to know about them anymore beyond the hey-day, which is quite understandable.
CQ went wrong for me for not being true to the different dynamic and accepting it for what it was, so as to be true to themselves. Instead they insisted on trying to copy the old dynamic, more especially live and inevitably magnify their shortfalls to the original. It also meant that they continued to be compared to the original which further amplified the disaffection with alienated fans from the 70's. If they had drawn a line in the sand a long time back, the expectations of living up to the original would at least have been reduced.
But all this has got me back to talking about the past yet again. It does partly explain though why I would give them a chance even after being alienated myself in the 21st century.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman on Aug 17, 2017 12:46:27 GMT
Although possible in music most people can't be objective as it's about feelings etc. We all look at things through our own personal prism, which changes the direction to our own universe. I actually find it easier to be objective about Quo because their albums even in the hey-day had plenty of light and shade. If the albums had all been decibels and 100mph throughout then I am not sure I would have become a fan as easily back in the 1970's. I never saw them even back then as an especially heavy rock band, so I haven't had expectations of them to be this or that in any black or white sort of way.
I like AC/DC but find after listening to too many of the songs that there is too little variation and that is the same impression with a lot of heavy rock bands. Its just my own impression of course, not saying what is right or wrong. Simply that probably my own music tastes are probably less hard rock orientated than many fans.
Somehow with Quo though, the melodies, the boogie theme broken up with the country and other influences, the different vocals that Francis, Rick and Alan brought in the early days, made them stand out as quite different from the bands they were compared with and its always puzzled me over all these years why they have this black and white appeal of having to fit a particular expectation with the music they play.
In this way, I didn't have too much problem with the increased variation and changes that happened beyond 1985 - although of course the unique dynamics had gone. The unique dynamics which make why plenty of other fans didn't want to know about them anymore beyond the hey-day, which is quite understandable.
CQ went wrong for me for not being true to the different dynamic and accepting it for what it was, so as to be true to themselves. Instead they insisted on trying to copy the old dynamic, more especially live and inevitably magnify their shortfalls to the original. It also meant that they continued to be compared to the original which further amplified the disaffection with alienated fans from the 70's. If they had drawn a line in the sand a long time back, the expectations of living up to the original would at least have been reduced.
But all this has got me back to talking about the past yet again. It does partly explain though why I would give them a chance even after being alienated myself in the 21st century.
dont you mean QUO was a under rated band back in the day...to be honest if I was dead right now...I would be turning in my grave ..cursing what rossi is doing to my boyhood heroes...
|
|