Quote
stickyfingers101


but, I don't think the Crowes command the "nostalgia-bucket-list" hype that Gn'R brought/brings to the table.

Quote
dcba

Quote
stickyfingers101


but, I don't think the Crowes command the "nostalgia-bucket-list" hype that Gn'R brought/brings to the table.

Police started the trend 11 years ago. Between Sting and Copeland it was a case of "I hate you you hate me but let's put our mutual hatred aside and do a lucrative world tour". And they did.

Quote
stickyfingers101

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
keefmick
I don't know about all this hating on the lineup b/c I am not a Crowes afficianado at all, but they sounded great on Stern the other day. They are playing an hour away from me which is too far for a band I don't really care about but for those who do care, they sounded great.

Agree for the most part. I am just personally a sucker for "original bands" if they are alive and possible. Bands are not about 2 people usually, its about a group, especially if it was a stable lineup for awhile so I'm just someone thats attached to that. Having said that, its essentially like Oasis: the brothers ARE the band. Sure, they had a drummer that was literally always with them, but its not like he wrote the songs and its not like you can't find someone else to fill that role. Not saying thats what I'd prefer but when you get right down to it its like "yeah, they sound good, the Robinson brothers were the whole band anyway for the most part." No one really cares about the other people THAT much, its just a convenient argument.

Having said that, regardless of how good they sound and if you could move past that its just the two of them, the unbelievably blatant money grab that it is would still leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Agreed, but Guns n' Roses is a perfect example. When the reunion tour was announced without Izzy Stradlin's participation, fans on Blabbermouth and other hard rock sites went ballistic: "No Izzy, no G n'R!" "I'm not going unless Izzy is there!"

Blah blah blah...

Well, almost $600 million later, it shows how little the casual fan really cares about that sort of thing. All people wanted to see was Axl and Slash (complete with the top hat, of course) onstage together.

let's not forget duff. hometown boy. lives pretty close to me, at least part of the time. i was actually surprised how good that g n r show was. i saw them early on the tour. alice in chains opened & they let them play a longer than usual opening set. g n r played 3 hours. 1 humorous note: they had the lamest pyro ever, haha. i saw the lineup with buckethead & robin finck too. that was surprisingly good. buckethead confused the spuds & it was funny to watch.

Oh of course...I love Duff, but the point really is that each iconic band has one or two widely-known members.

Mick and Keith
Steve and Joe
Axl and Slash
Bono and the Edge
James and Lars
Angus Young

Despite what we as passionate and educated music fans think, most of the above musicians could tour with scabs in the other band positions and not lose much of an audience.

come on! just Angus??

Angus and Bon! Angus and Brian! Angus and Axl!

haha!

and don't forget: Eddie and David....Eddie and Sammy....Eddie and that Tool from Extreme....Van Halen, baby!!!

or....Steven and whoever that Dbag was for that HORRIBLE "Rock & a Hard Place" so-called "Aerosmith" album....

haha!

good times w/ the revolving door.

Duff seems like a pretty cool guy.

Quote
spikenyc
KCRW yesterday (11/14/19)
Videos within the article.

[www.jambase.com]

The acoustic sounds great!
Hearing rumors of a short acoustic tour
with just Chris & Rich this February.

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
dcba

Quote
stickyfingers101


but, I don't think the Crowes command the "nostalgia-bucket-list" hype that Gn'R brought/brings to the table.

Police started the trend 11 years ago. Between Sting and Copeland it was a case of "I hate you you hate me but let's put our mutual hatred aside and do a lucrative world tour". And they did.

It really started in 1994 with the Eagles' Hell Freezes Over tour.

Quote
Elmo Lewis

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
dcba

Quote
stickyfingers101


but, I don't think the Crowes command the "nostalgia-bucket-list" hype that Gn'R brought/brings to the table.

Police started the trend 11 years ago. Between Sting and Copeland it was a case of "I hate you you hate me but let's put our mutual hatred aside and do a lucrative world tour". And they did.

It really started in 1994 with the Eagles' Hell Freezes Over tour.

Or maybe Steel Wheels 1989.........

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
keefmick
I don't know about all this hating on the lineup b/c I am not a Crowes afficianado at all, but they sounded great on Stern the other day. They are playing an hour away from me which is too far for a band I don't really care about but for those who do care, they sounded great.

Agree for the most part. I am just personally a sucker for "original bands" if they are alive and possible. Bands are not about 2 people usually, its about a group, especially if it was a stable lineup for awhile so I'm just someone thats attached to that. Having said that, its essentially like Oasis: the brothers ARE the band. Sure, they had a drummer that was literally always with them, but its not like he wrote the songs and its not like you can't find someone else to fill that role. Not saying thats what I'd prefer but when you get right down to it its like "yeah, they sound good, the Robinson brothers were the whole band anyway for the most part." No one really cares about the other people THAT much, its just a convenient argument.

Having said that, regardless of how good they sound and if you could move past that its just the two of them, the unbelievably blatant money grab that it is would still leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Agreed, but Guns n' Roses is a perfect example. When the reunion tour was announced without Izzy Stradlin's participation, fans on Blabbermouth and other hard rock sites went ballistic: "No Izzy, no G n'R!" "I'm not going unless Izzy is there!"

Blah blah blah...

Well, almost $600 million later, it shows how little the casual fan really cares about that sort of thing. All people wanted to see was Axl and Slash (complete with the top hat, of course) onstage together.

let's not forget duff. hometown boy. lives pretty close to me, at least part of the time. i was actually surprised how good that g n r show was. i saw them early on the tour. alice in chains opened & they let them play a longer than usual opening set. g n r played 3 hours. 1 humorous note: they had the lamest pyro ever, haha. i saw the lineup with buckethead & robin finck too. that was surprisingly good. buckethead confused the spuds & it was funny to watch.

Oh of course...I love Duff, but the point really is that each iconic band has one or two widely-known members.

Mick and Keith
Steve and Joe
Axl and Slash
Bono and the Edge
James and Lars
Angus Young

Despite what we as passionate and educated music fans think, most of the above musicians could tour with scabs in the other band positions and not lose much of an audience.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
keefmick
I don't know about all this hating on the lineup b/c I am not a Crowes afficianado at all, but they sounded great on Stern the other day. They are playing an hour away from me which is too far for a band I don't really care about but for those who do care, they sounded great.

Agree for the most part. I am just personally a sucker for "original bands" if they are alive and possible. Bands are not about 2 people usually, its about a group, especially if it was a stable lineup for awhile so I'm just someone thats attached to that. Having said that, its essentially like Oasis: the brothers ARE the band. Sure, they had a drummer that was literally always with them, but its not like he wrote the songs and its not like you can't find someone else to fill that role. Not saying thats what I'd prefer but when you get right down to it its like "yeah, they sound good, the Robinson brothers were the whole band anyway for the most part." No one really cares about the other people THAT much, its just a convenient argument.

Having said that, regardless of how good they sound and if you could move past that its just the two of them, the unbelievably blatant money grab that it is would still leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Agreed, but Guns n' Roses is a perfect example. When the reunion tour was announced without Izzy Stradlin's participation, fans on Blabbermouth and other hard rock sites went ballistic: "No Izzy, no G n'R!" "I'm not going unless Izzy is there!"

Blah blah blah...

Well, almost $600 million later, it shows how little the casual fan really cares about that sort of thing. All people wanted to see was Axl and Slash (complete with the top hat, of course) onstage together.

let's not forget duff. hometown boy. lives pretty close to me, at least part of the time. i was actually surprised how good that g n r show was. i saw them early on the tour. alice in chains opened & they let them play a longer than usual opening set. g n r played 3 hours. 1 humorous note: they had the lamest pyro ever, haha. i saw the lineup with buckethead & robin finck too. that was surprisingly good. buckethead confused the spuds & it was funny to watch.

Oh of course...I love Duff, but the point really is that each iconic band has one or two widely-known members.

Mick and Keith
Steve and Joe
Axl and Slash
Bono and the Edge
James and Lars
Angus Young

Despite what we as passionate and educated music fans think, most of the above musicians could tour with scabs in the other band positions and not lose much of an audience.

You left out:

Ian and Billy
Robert and Jimmy

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
keefmick
I don't know about all this hating on the lineup b/c I am not a Crowes afficianado at all, but they sounded great on Stern the other day. They are playing an hour away from me which is too far for a band I don't really care about but for those who do care, they sounded great.

Agree for the most part. I am just personally a sucker for "original bands" if they are alive and possible. Bands are not about 2 people usually, its about a group, especially if it was a stable lineup for awhile so I'm just someone thats attached to that. Having said that, its essentially like Oasis: the brothers ARE the band. Sure, they had a drummer that was literally always with them, but its not like he wrote the songs and its not like you can't find someone else to fill that role. Not saying thats what I'd prefer but when you get right down to it its like "yeah, they sound good, the Robinson brothers were the whole band anyway for the most part." No one really cares about the other people THAT much, its just a convenient argument.

Having said that, regardless of how good they sound and if you could move past that its just the two of them, the unbelievably blatant money grab that it is would still leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Agreed, but Guns n' Roses is a perfect example. When the reunion tour was announced without Izzy Stradlin's participation, fans on Blabbermouth and other hard rock sites went ballistic: "No Izzy, no G n'R!" "I'm not going unless Izzy is there!"

Blah blah blah...

Well, almost $600 million later, it shows how little the casual fan really cares about that sort of thing. All people wanted to see was Axl and Slash (complete with the top hat, of course) onstage together.

let's not forget duff. hometown boy. lives pretty close to me, at least part of the time. i was actually surprised how good that g n r show was. i saw them early on the tour. alice in chains opened & they let them play a longer than usual opening set. g n r played 3 hours. 1 humorous note: they had the lamest pyro ever, haha. i saw the lineup with buckethead & robin finck too. that was surprisingly good. buckethead confused the spuds & it was funny to watch.

Oh of course...I love Duff, but the point really is that each iconic band has one or two widely-known members.

Mick and Keith
Steve and Joe
Axl and Slash
Bono and the Edge
James and Lars
Angus Young

Despite what we as passionate and educated music fans think, most of the above musicians could tour with scabs in the other band positions and not lose much of an audience.

You left out:

Ian and Billy
Robert and Jimmy

David Jo and Johnny T.
Joe and Mick J
Gregg and Duane
Wayne and Fred
Perry F and Dave N
Noel and Liam
Oh, and how about John and Paul?
David Bowie and Mick R
Morrissey and Johnny

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
keefmick
I don't know about all this hating on the lineup b/c I am not a Crowes afficianado at all, but they sounded great on Stern the other day. They are playing an hour away from me which is too far for a band I don't really care about but for those who do care, they sounded great.

Agree for the most part. I am just personally a sucker for "original bands" if they are alive and possible. Bands are not about 2 people usually, its about a group, especially if it was a stable lineup for awhile so I'm just someone thats attached to that. Having said that, its essentially like Oasis: the brothers ARE the band. Sure, they had a drummer that was literally always with them, but its not like he wrote the songs and its not like you can't find someone else to fill that role. Not saying thats what I'd prefer but when you get right down to it its like "yeah, they sound good, the Robinson brothers were the whole band anyway for the most part." No one really cares about the other people THAT much, its just a convenient argument.

Having said that, regardless of how good they sound and if you could move past that its just the two of them, the unbelievably blatant money grab that it is would still leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Agreed, but Guns n' Roses is a perfect example. When the reunion tour was announced without Izzy Stradlin's participation, fans on Blabbermouth and other hard rock sites went ballistic: "No Izzy, no G n'R!" "I'm not going unless Izzy is there!"

Blah blah blah...

Well, almost $600 million later, it shows how little the casual fan really cares about that sort of thing. All people wanted to see was Axl and Slash (complete with the top hat, of course) onstage together.

let's not forget duff. hometown boy. lives pretty close to me, at least part of the time. i was actually surprised how good that g n r show was. i saw them early on the tour. alice in chains opened & they let them play a longer than usual opening set. g n r played 3 hours. 1 humorous note: they had the lamest pyro ever, haha. i saw the lineup with buckethead & robin finck too. that was surprisingly good. buckethead confused the spuds & it was funny to watch.

Oh of course...I love Duff, but the point really is that each iconic band has one or two widely-known members.

Mick and Keith
Steve and Joe
Axl and Slash
Bono and the Edge
James and Lars
Angus Young

Despite what we as passionate and educated music fans think, most of the above musicians could tour with scabs in the other band positions and not lose much of an audience.

You left out:

Ian and Billy
Robert and Jimmy

David Jo and Johnny T.
Joe and Mick J
Gregg and Duane
Wayne and Fred
Perry F and Dave N
Noel and Liam
Oh, and how about John and Paul?
David Bowie and Mick R
Morrissey and Johnny

Alright, well jeezus...I wasn't trying to make an EXHAUSTIVE list, but thanks for the input, guys.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
keefmick
I don't know about all this hating on the lineup b/c I am not a Crowes afficianado at all, but they sounded great on Stern the other day. They are playing an hour away from me which is too far for a band I don't really care about but for those who do care, they sounded great.

Agree for the most part. I am just personally a sucker for "original bands" if they are alive and possible. Bands are not about 2 people usually, its about a group, especially if it was a stable lineup for awhile so I'm just someone thats attached to that. Having said that, its essentially like Oasis: the brothers ARE the band. Sure, they had a drummer that was literally always with them, but its not like he wrote the songs and its not like you can't find someone else to fill that role. Not saying thats what I'd prefer but when you get right down to it its like "yeah, they sound good, the Robinson brothers were the whole band anyway for the most part." No one really cares about the other people THAT much, its just a convenient argument.

Having said that, regardless of how good they sound and if you could move past that its just the two of them, the unbelievably blatant money grab that it is would still leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Agreed, but Guns n' Roses is a perfect example. When the reunion tour was announced without Izzy Stradlin's participation, fans on Blabbermouth and other hard rock sites went ballistic: "No Izzy, no G n'R!" "I'm not going unless Izzy is there!"

Blah blah blah...

Well, almost $600 million later, it shows how little the casual fan really cares about that sort of thing. All people wanted to see was Axl and Slash (complete with the top hat, of course) onstage together.

let's not forget duff. hometown boy. lives pretty close to me, at least part of the time. i was actually surprised how good that g n r show was. i saw them early on the tour. alice in chains opened & they let them play a longer than usual opening set. g n r played 3 hours. 1 humorous note: they had the lamest pyro ever, haha. i saw the lineup with buckethead & robin finck too. that was surprisingly good. buckethead confused the spuds & it was funny to watch.

Oh of course...I love Duff, but the point really is that each iconic band has one or two widely-known members.

Mick and Keith
Steve and Joe
Axl and Slash
Bono and the Edge
James and Lars
Angus Young

Despite what we as passionate and educated music fans think, most of the above musicians could tour with scabs in the other band positions and not lose much of an audience.

You left out:

Ian and Billy
Robert and Jimmy

David Jo and Johnny T.
Joe and Mick J
Gregg and Duane
Wayne and Fred
Perry F and Dave N
Noel and Liam
Oh, and how about John and Paul?
David Bowie and Mick R
Morrissey and Johnny

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
keefriff99

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
keefmick
I don't know about all this hating on the lineup b/c I am not a Crowes afficianado at all, but they sounded great on Stern the other day. They are playing an hour away from me which is too far for a band I don't really care about but for those who do care, they sounded great.

Agree for the most part. I am just personally a sucker for "original bands" if they are alive and possible. Bands are not about 2 people usually, its about a group, especially if it was a stable lineup for awhile so I'm just someone thats attached to that. Having said that, its essentially like Oasis: the brothers ARE the band. Sure, they had a drummer that was literally always with them, but its not like he wrote the songs and its not like you can't find someone else to fill that role. Not saying thats what I'd prefer but when you get right down to it its like "yeah, they sound good, the Robinson brothers were the whole band anyway for the most part." No one really cares about the other people THAT much, its just a convenient argument.

Having said that, regardless of how good they sound and if you could move past that its just the two of them, the unbelievably blatant money grab that it is would still leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Agreed, but Guns n' Roses is a perfect example. When the reunion tour was announced without Izzy Stradlin's participation, fans on Blabbermouth and other hard rock sites went ballistic: "No Izzy, no G n'R!" "I'm not going unless Izzy is there!"

Blah blah blah...

Well, almost $600 million later, it shows how little the casual fan really cares about that sort of thing. All people wanted to see was Axl and Slash (complete with the top hat, of course) onstage together.

let's not forget duff. hometown boy. lives pretty close to me, at least part of the time. i was actually surprised how good that g n r show was. i saw them early on the tour. alice in chains opened & they let them play a longer than usual opening set. g n r played 3 hours. 1 humorous note: they had the lamest pyro ever, haha. i saw the lineup with buckethead & robin finck too. that was surprisingly good. buckethead confused the spuds & it was funny to watch.

Oh of course...I love Duff, but the point really is that each iconic band has one or two widely-known members.

Mick and Keith
Steve and Joe
Axl and Slash
Bono and the Edge
James and Lars
Angus Young

Despite what we as passionate and educated music fans think, most of the above musicians could tour with scabs in the other band positions and not lose much of an audience.

You left out:

Ian and Billy
Robert and Jimmy

David Jo and Johnny T.
Joe and Mick J
Gregg and Duane
Wayne and Fred
Perry F and Dave N
Noel and Liam
Oh, and how about John and Paul?
David Bowie and Mick R
Morrissey and Johnny

Alright, well jeezus...I wasn't trying to make an EXHAUSTIVE list, but thanks for the input, guys.

Quote
retired_dog
They had the sound, but (for the most part) not the songs. Last time I saw them live was opening for the Stones: Horrible, self-indulgent, overlong & boring jams for the most part. If they want to reunite for some decent cash, let 'em. But I could not care less.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
retired_dog
They had the sound, but (for the most part) not the songs. Last time I saw them live was opening for the Stones: Horrible, self-indulgent, overlong & boring jams for the most part. If they want to reunite for some decent cash, let 'em. But I could not care less.

That's a shame.

I know of other acts/artists that have done similar - it blows my mind that they can take a good, 2-3 minute song and slowly bury it with a 15 minute soundless mindless "jam"... because Grateful Deading things is apparently cool.

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
retired_dog
They had the sound, but (for the most part) not the songs. Last time I saw them live was opening for the Stones: Horrible, self-indulgent, overlong & boring jams for the most part. If they want to reunite for some decent cash, let 'em. But I could not care less.

That's a shame.

I know of other acts/artists that have done similar - it blows my mind that they can take a good, 2-3 minute song and slowly bury it with a 15 minute soundless mindless "jam"... because Grateful Deading things is apparently cool.

i went to one crazy horse show where neil was in jammy mode. the show is the one in year of the horse in the monsoon, neil vs God. every song was 15 - 20 minutes long. at one point the buddy i was with turned to me & said "you know, neil could've ended this song 10 minutes ago & everyone would've been happy".

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
retired_dog
They had the sound, but (for the most part) not the songs. Last time I saw them live was opening for the Stones: Horrible, self-indulgent, overlong & boring jams for the most part. If they want to reunite for some decent cash, let 'em. But I could not care less.

That's a shame.

I know of other acts/artists that have done similar - it blows my mind that they can take a good, 2-3 minute song and slowly bury it with a 15 minute soundless mindless "jam"... because Grateful Deading things is apparently cool.

i went to one crazy horse show where neil was in jammy mode. the show is the one in year of the horse in the monsoon, neil vs God. every song was 15 - 20 minutes long. at one point the buddy i was with turned to me & said "you know, neil could've ended this song 10 minutes ago & everyone would've been happy".

I saw Dr John at Tipitina's (in New Orleans) years ago and... I almost fell asleep: every song sounded the same, he never looked at the crowd, it seemed as if he was falling asleep and... the songs went on forever, plodding and prattling along by being by-the-numbers funk... just borrrrrrrrring.

I left not even halfway through the show.

The Drive-By Truckers can get a bit jammy but they screw up a lot and keep it fun.

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
retired_dog
They had the sound, but (for the most part) not the songs. Last time I saw them live was opening for the Stones: Horrible, self-indulgent, overlong & boring jams for the most part. If they want to reunite for some decent cash, let 'em. But I could not care less.

That's a shame.

I know of other acts/artists that have done similar - it blows my mind that they can take a good, 2-3 minute song and slowly bury it with a 15 minute soundless mindless "jam"... because Grateful Deading things is apparently cool.

i went to one crazy horse show where neil was in jammy mode. the show is the one in year of the horse in the monsoon, neil vs God. every song was 15 - 20 minutes long. at one point the buddy i was with turned to me & said "you know, neil could've ended this song 10 minutes ago & everyone would've been happy".

I saw Dr John at Tipitina's (in New Orleans) years ago and... I almost fell asleep: every song sounded the same, he never looked at the crowd, it seemed as if he was falling asleep and... the songs went on forever, plodding and prattling along by being by-the-numbers funk... just borrrrrrrrring.

I left not even halfway through the show.

The Drive-By Truckers can get a bit jammy but they screw up a lot and keep it fun.

if you ever get a chance to see the dimmer twins, do it. patterson & mike from dbt. the between song patter & stories are hilarious. mike is downright surly haha. it gets better as the show goes along & the alcohol is more of a factor.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
crholmstrom

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
retired_dog
They had the sound, but (for the most part) not the songs. Last time I saw them live was opening for the Stones: Horrible, self-indulgent, overlong & boring jams for the most part. If they want to reunite for some decent cash, let 'em. But I could not care less.

That's a shame.

I know of other acts/artists that have done similar - it blows my mind that they can take a good, 2-3 minute song and slowly bury it with a 15 minute soundless mindless "jam"... because Grateful Deading things is apparently cool.

i went to one crazy horse show where neil was in jammy mode. the show is the one in year of the horse in the monsoon, neil vs God. every song was 15 - 20 minutes long. at one point the buddy i was with turned to me & said "you know, neil could've ended this song 10 minutes ago & everyone would've been happy".

I saw Dr John at Tipitina's (in New Orleans) years ago and... I almost fell asleep: every song sounded the same, he never looked at the crowd, it seemed as if he was falling asleep and... the songs went on forever, plodding and prattling along by being by-the-numbers funk... just borrrrrrrrring.

I left not even halfway through the show.

The Drive-By Truckers can get a bit jammy but they screw up a lot and keep it fun.

if you ever get a chance to see the dimmer twins, do it. patterson & mike from dbt. the between song patter & stories are hilarious. mike is downright surly haha. it gets better as the show goes along & the alcohol is more of a factor.

Oh I've seen DBT a few times... and I've hung out with them a few times. Great band, great people.