Pink Floyd

[Handrejka 1,840]

I only ask because it occured to me over the weekend that the Floyd are the only 60's band of any standing not to have had a member die because of substance abuse, suicide etc?

 

.

 

 

What about the Kinks?

[maryportfuncity 10,016]

Or The Hollies....yeah, well The Kinks and Floyd anyway. Deep Purple might qualify depending on whether you reckon Tommy Bolin amounted to much.

[Canadian Paul 93]

that seems a fair assesment, except that yer man gilmour has yo-yo'd weight-wise over the years, and this can cause some stress on the old heart - apparently, one of the things that killed bob calvert (of hawkwind, non-rock fans) was that his weight was wildly fluctuating due to his treatment for manic depression. of course, the manic episodes didn't help, but that's why he popped off in his early forties. nonetheless, the fat man body/thin man heart and vice-versa state is quite straining.

 

Same thing happened with Christina Onassis if I'm not mistaken, and she was only in her 30s.

[maryportfuncity 10,016]

Re DG's 'yo-yoing' weight, did I miss summat here. He's always looked -erm - partial to a snack but it's gradually headed upwards. He was never a beanpole and he's not exactly a blob now. He's, well, bloke shaped basically.

[pulphack 5]

blimey yes - DG up to the wall, quite slim; mid-eighties appearing at charity functions, an obvious pie-man; circa the division bell lantern-jawed and trim; now... it's maybe not as marked as i've made out (i rescind my poetic license, that's if i can spell recsind), but still there.

 

re. tommy bolin. 'come taste the band' is a great album, but it's one of those instances where it's not really as deep purple album - just like every soft machine album after four is not really a softs album, but still good (even though by the time they signed to harvest they had more nucleus members than softs!).

 

the only surprise about the kinks is that ray & dave didn't kill each other years ago. if memory serves they took it out on mick avory...

[maryportfuncity 10,016]

I think Peter Quaife and Mick Avory had their own spats, despite Quaife later admitting they both felt like session men at Kinks sessions.

 

If we pit the four founding Kinks against the five surviving Floyds, who dies first? My guess is Dave Davies, assuming nobody shoots his brother again!

[Tempus Fugit 212]

Roger Waters?

 

 

Yes I think Roger will go first,

 

despite appearing to be the healthiest he will ironically contract an aggressive form of cancer and die within 6 months of diagnosis.

 

I base this opinion on nothing at all.

[Life Begins at 5 o'clock 7]

Initially I would have said Syd Barret, but use of psychodelics doesn't seem to shorten your life all that much, as Albert Hoffman has demonstrated.

[Handrejka 1,840]

I think Peter Quaife and Mick Avory had their own spats, despite Quaife later admitting they both felt like session men at Kinks sessions.

 

If we pit the four founding Kinks against the five surviving Floyds, who dies first? My guess is Dave Davies, assuming nobody shoots his brother again!

 

 

I'd say Dave will go first out of the Kinks. He had a stroke a few years ago and doesn't sound too healthy. Ray's suffered from depression in the past but I think he'll be good for a while yet. I don't know enough about Avory and Quaife.

 

As for the Floyds I'm not sure who'll go first but I think Nick Mason will last the longest

[DevonDeathTrip 2,288]

How about the Floyd's old manager Peter Jenner. He's not that old, but he has done industrial amounts

of chemicals (I think)

[pulphack 5]

jenner's quite healthy. i believe he had a kidney problem about a year back (think i saw it in mojo, but haven't got back issues to check), but seems to be chipper, and popping up all over the place to talk about his ex-charges, from syd to billy bragg. i do think his ex-partner andrew king died a while back, though. but if he's already gone, he's out of the race. i still say it's dave, but it's going to be a longish wait.

 

as for the kinks - dave seems to be quite well and recovered, but it could easily happen again. i don't think ray's going to die: he's going to turn into something from beckett, wandering around a musty room in muswell hill complaining about the past. maybe he should make his next album a concept based on krapps last tape?

[millwall32 106]

My own bet would be for Barret.

[maryportfuncity 10,016]

My own bet would be for Barratt to outlive Dave Davies.

[Handrejka 1,840]

My own bet would be for Barratt to outlive Dave Davies.

 

I'd agree wit you there. I think I'll add Davies back to my list net year

[pulphack 5]

out of all those discussed on here, dave davies is the clear favourite - stroke victim who then goes out on the road and is a rock'n'roller all the way through? the best way he could probably go would be half-way through a stuttering guitar solo on a metal version of 'you really got me', wondering all the while why his brother got the talent and all the royalties, so that he still has to play that bloody song every night and line ray's pocket.

 

rock'n'roll - doncha love it?

 

meanwhile, back in the real world: have any of these gentlemen produced anything worthwhile in the last twenty years? retirement would have been a nice option. it may be better to burn out than fade away, but if you can't burn out then the least you can do is fade away in private and not on stage or in the studio.

 

ignore me, i'm just bitter because my own career never became such...

[TLC 9]

meanwhile, back in the real world: have any of these gentlemen produced anything worthwhile in the last twenty years? retirement would have been a nice option. it may be better to burn out than fade away, but if you can't burn out then the least you can do is fade away in private and not on stage or in the studio.

I believe scientific studies have proved that anybody successful in the 60's & 70's who refused to bow out became sh*t by 1984 at the very latest, and then progressively shitter with each passing album, maybe with the occasional one-off 'not bad' track. They may have carried on selling records, but created nothing you'd want to see on their greatest hits albums. They created great businesses instead, much like ex-sports stars making more money as a pundit/presenter than for what they were actually good at, but I digress. For examples of post '84 (ish) disasters: -

• Rolling Stones
  
• Paul McCartney
  
• Rod Stewart/Faces
  
• Elton John
  
• David Bowie
  
• Queen
  
• Eric Clapton/Cream
  
• Stevie Wonder
  
• Pink Floyd
  

Now I'm not saying all of the above are my absolute favourites either, but they still have a marked point in their careers (I think) where they stopped creating anything that can be considered as 'classic'.

 

Maybe Orwell was only right in this very specific sense?

 

I realise musical taste is extremely subjective, and people will probably quite easily think of acts that don't fit my theory, but I don't care [fingers in ears]la la la la la la la la la![/fingers in ears]

[Brinsworth House Baiter 12]

TLC, I'm going have to disagree with you there about The Stones.

 

Voodoo Lounge...'94

 

No Security.........'98

 

Just two off the top of my head. Okay, A Bigger Bang was a massive disappointment, but they've done some sterling stuff since '84.

 

And Rod Stewart a post '84 disaster? I prefer Blondes Have More Fun, but weren't the American Songbook CDs, like, really massive and award winning?

 

I could do some quick research and back all this up, but I can't be arsed.

[Canadian Paul 93]

TLC - interestingly (or perhaps not coincidently) you picked 1984 - the year that Aerosmith got back together after their half-decade hiatus and, in my mind, they produced some quality music for the next two decades or so that I felt was at least on par with their older stuff.

 

Or am I the odd man out on that?

 

Also, I agree with BHB on The Stones - certainly compared to many of the others you've mentioned, they've done well for themselves.

[Vinegar Tits 584]

TLC - interestingly (or perhaps not coincidently) you picked 1984 - the year that Aerosmith got back together after their half-decade hiatus and, in my mind, they produced some quality music for the next two decades or so that I felt was at least on par with their older stuff.

Certainly Permanent Vacation and Pump were. Then they started putting too many cheesy MTV-friendly power ballads on their albums for my liking.

 

Talking of Aerosmith, any news on how Steven Tyler's doing after his recent throat op?

 

As for old pop stars past their best, I'd argue the case for David Bowie, Joni Mitchell and Elton John. While neither's recent work is for the most part essential, some of it is cracking.

[Canadian Paul 93]

TLC - interestingly (or perhaps not coincidently) you picked 1984 - the year that Aerosmith got back together after their half-decade hiatus and, in my mind, they produced some quality music for the next two decades or so that I felt was at least on par with their older stuff.

Certainly Permanent Vacation and Pump were. Then they started putting too many cheesy MTV-friendly power ballads on their albums for my liking.

 

Talking of Aerosmith, any news on how Steven Tyler's doing after his recent throat op?

 

As for old pop stars past their best, I'd argue the case for David Bowie, Joni Mitchell and Elton John. While neither's recent work is for the most part essential, some of it is cracking.

 

According to steven-tyler.net:

 

Steven has had surgery and is currently recovering. Aerosmith will be back soon. Steven is NOT deathly ill, he is alive and will be rocking your asses off again in the near future. So chill with the freaking out!

[maryportfuncity 10,016]

I believe scientific studies have proved that anybody successful in the 60's & 70's who refused to bow out became sh*t by 1984 at the very latest, and then progressively shitter with each passing album, maybe with the occasional one-off 'not bad' track. They may have carried on selling records, but created nothing you'd want to see on their greatest hits albums. They created great businesses instead,

 

Honourable exceptions

 

Neil Young - Facing legal action in the eighties for refusing to sell out, re-born afterwards.

 

Steely Dan - who sat out the eighties doing the odd decent solo work and made a decent belated 'comeback' album.

 

George Harrison - Basically ignored fashion and didn't give a sh*t about critical opinion, turned in his best solo albums for ages with the final brace - 15 years apart.

 

Hawkwind - Unrepententently drug addled, it's doubtful they know what year it is.

[DevonDeathTrip 2,288]

I believe scientific studies have proved that anybody successful in the 60's & 70's who refused to bow out became sh*t by 1984 at the very latest, and then progressively shitter with each passing album, maybe with the occasional one-off 'not bad' track. They may have carried on selling records, but created nothing you'd want to see on their greatest hits albums. They created great businesses instead,

 

Honourable exceptions

 

Neil Young - Facing legal action in the eighties for refusing to sell out, re-born afterwards.

 

Steely Dan - who sat out the eighties doing the odd decent solo work and made a decent belated 'comeback' album.

 

George Harrison - Basically ignored fashion and didn't give a sh*t about critical opinion, turned in his best solo albums for ages with the final brace - 15 years apart.

 

Hawkwind - Unrepententently drug addled, it's doubtful they know what year it is.

 

I happen to think that the Grateful Dead could be added to this list. They stayed good right up until Jerry Garcia carked it.

[TLC 9]

TLC - interestingly (or perhaps not coincidently) you picked 1984 - the year that Aerosmith got back together after their half-decade hiatus and, in my mind, they produced some quality music for the next two decades or so that I felt was at least on par with their older stuff.

 

Or am I the odd man out on that?

 

Also, I agree with BHB on The Stones - certainly compared to many of the others you've mentioned, they've done well for themselves.

I shall briefly take the fingers out of my ears to type my reply here...

 

Anyone who favourably compares the Stones since Ron 'Diamond Geezer' Wood joined with when they had Mick Taylor or Brian Jones in the band is just wrong, and I'm sure NASA have a file proving I'm right somewhere. CP & BHB (and loads of others I imagine), we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

But I'm still right.

 

About the last Stones song I like is Miss You, which I think was '77 or '78, when Bill Wyman suddenly learnt funky bass lines just as the songwriting talent left Jagger & Richards.

 

I'll decline to argue about Aerosmith, as I believe that in the UK they'd had very little success until they did Walk This Way with Run DMC in 1986. I didn't even know who was on the song with Run DMC for a couple of years, as it was never mentioned on the radio that there was anyone else involved, it may as well have been a sample.

 

On Aerosmith, does anyone know what the really early 70's song they did was, that Eminem sampled (i.e. stole the entire track) a few years ago? You'd not guess it's Mr Tyler by listening to the vocals, it's very non-screamy; maybe it was before he had the operation to allow his whole head to open by adding extra side of mouth skin and a hinge to the back of his head?

 

I don't deny that many of the acts I mentioned have been commercially successful post 1984, won awards, sold millions etc., but that doesn't necessarily mean it's good stuff. Examples of success minus talent (in my opinion): Britney Spears, Westlife, Daniel O'Donnell, Ace of Base etc., I better stop before I break my screen by putting my keyboard through it.

 

But thanks for introducing me to a few notable exceptions, proof that my theory is about as watertight as the Titanic post-iceberg.

 

La la la la la la la la!

[Brinsworth House Baiter 12]

On Aerosmith, does anyone know what the really early 70's song they did was, that Eminem sampled

 

Sing For the Moment samples Dream On by Aerosmith.

[Magere Hein 1,397]

Examples of success minus talent (in my opinion): Britney Spears, Westlife, Daniel O'Donnell, Ace of Base etc., I better stop before I break my screen by putting my keyboard through it.

I'd like to add every single rap, house and R&B band[1] to that list. It's a mystery to me why that rubbish is still popular after all those years. One would expect that music fashion would change after a few years. If it wasn't for a few nice exceptions, like Rammstein and Live, I'd have given up on listening to pop music altogether.

 

[1] Band as in "a band of outlaws"

 

regards,

Hein