A
Name a Band that, if all the members were still alive....
- Thread starter BubsFinn
- Start date
Off the subject but I just realized that Don Henley replaced Glenn Frey with Vince Gill. I had heard about Frey's son being added but didn't know they went full goat roper.
I'll continue to be an Eagle fan of their old stuff but my relationship with their new stuff and them touring was already strained after Felder got sacked. Now with Gill on board the Eagles are dead in my eyes.
I'll continue to be an Eagle fan of their old stuff but my relationship with their new stuff and them touring was already strained after Felder got sacked. Now with Gill on board the Eagles are dead in my eyes.
Last edited:
Nirvana stopped at the right time. When you peel away the cultural nostalgia you are left with some well produced but poorly written music. They would not have aged well. Soundgarden, PJ, AIC and even STP were all way better.
At the Beatles concert you'd be surrounded by 70 year old grannies peeing themselves and screaming their heads off...so who has the better show NOW?
Well, that idea is going to be in my head all day. Thanks a bunch.
Dennis Wilson hasn't toured with them since the 80s (when he died).
Carl Wilson hasn't toured with them since the late 90s (when he died).
The Beatles would sell out any venue in any city in any country. Only other I would say that about is Elvis Presley. Somebody used the word mythical and it applies.
There certainly are better concerts, with better music and musicians. But that has nothing to do with the question the OP asked in the topic of the thread.
It would be fun to see a cranky old John Lennon on stage with the others, but the cheapest seats would probably start at $200 (if not more).
There certainly are better concerts, with better music and musicians. But that has nothing to do with the question the OP asked in the topic of the thread.
It would be fun to see a cranky old John Lennon on stage with the others, but the cheapest seats would probably start at $200 (if not more).
Disagree. I think the unplugged album shows how talented they were. I think the combination of Cobain and Grohl maturing together would have been awesome.
Omg that album is terrible. We were just talking about it on here the other day. The Alice In Chains unplugged is so much better it’s like night and day. I’m a big Foo Fighters fan but Cobain was a hack.
My logical and irrefutable conclusion about your opinion is that it is stupid.
Lynyrd Skynyrd, they were the number one band in the U.S. when the plane crashed.
The Allman Brothers Band
BTW, if you have not watched Echo In the Canyon on Netflix, you should.
The Allman Brothers Band
BTW, if you have not watched Echo In the Canyon on Netflix, you should.
Last edited:
Early Beatles stuff has not held up well. From Sgt. Peppers on, they really challenged themselves to make good music.
I'm getting worried now. I agree with you about this, too. That's twice in the past week or so.
I'd actually flip this 180 degrees,... I think the early Beatles catalog holds up extremely well, whereas I view Sargent Pepper as one of the most overrated albums of all time...
But are we talking about John Lennon resurrected and then going out on tour? Or is the OP really asking which bands, if they had been able to stay intact and kept recording, could still sell every venue?
There are bands we remember as locked in their prime (Beatles, Nirvana, etc) because a key member died. Had that not happened and they continued on, the band may have faded with time as so many other bands have.
That said, the Beatles went through so many transformations over the years that I'm sure they'd still be filling stadiums.
It wasn't death that ended the Beatles...they just couldn't play together any more. I'm not sure they would have ever gotten all four of them back together...they all seemed pretty happy with their lives post-Beatles. BUT...had they stayed together, you're right. They would have re-invented themselves over and over. I can't see them being happy on tour as 70-somethings still playing "I Want to Hold Your Hand"...unlike some of the other mega-groups of their...dare I say...generation.
He was half right. It begins with the Beatles but it doesn’t end with the Beatles. Led Zeppelin could sell out any arena in the developed world.
It wasn't death that ended the Beatles...they just couldn't play together any more. I'm not sure they would have ever gotten all four of them back together...they all seemed pretty happy with their lives post-Beatles. BUT...had they stayed together, you're right. They would have re-invented themselves over and over. I can't see them being happy on tour as 70-somethings still playing "I Want to Hold Your Hand"...unlike some of the other mega-groups of their...dare I say...generation.
Who?
It wasn't death that ended the Beatles...they just couldn't play together any more. I'm not sure they would have ever gotten all four of them back together...they all seemed pretty happy with their lives post-Beatles. BUT...had they stayed together, you're right. They would have re-invented themselves over and over. I can't see them being happy on tour as 70-somethings still playing "I Want to Hold Your Hand"...unlike some of the other mega-groups of their...dare I say...generation.
Good point about them being broken up first...but if Lennon was still around, 40 years is a long time to mend fences. Who knows.
The Beatles could/would sell out whatever stadium they are building for the Raiders in Vegas every night for a year.
You're saying Led Zeppelin is as legendary as the Beatles? As big a draw? The Beatles would sell out any venue anywhere for as many nights as they wanted to play. They could play a set in the most remote location on the planet and I would bet that, easily, hundreds of thousands would be there to watch. The only exception might be Antarctica - then it might only be tens of thousands. LZ match a Beatles reunion tour?
I don't think so. The A-list is The Beatles. That's it.
The Eagles need to die. If they only played new stuff no one would go see them. Taking 40+ year Eagle member Fry out of the equation and trying to replace him with someone basically stains the band into being a cover band. Cover bands are for the free stage.
Hatred for Gill? Vince Gill is very talented but he isn't nor ever will be an Eagle. His saw an opportunity to jump into a well payed cover band and took it for the money.
I think he’s saying that, referring to the question posed in the OP, Led Zeppelin would also meet the criteria of filling any venue of any size anywhere in the world. The Beatles would fill it every day for a month, but LZ could fill it.
Last edited:
But, the early stuff was light years ahead of most of the music from that time.
