Is there any point in seeing live shows of bands from the past that reformed?

I always get a little excited about the prospect of seeing someone I was not able to see in their prime; it's short-lived usually.

 

I've seen the Stooges 4 times and someone whose opinion I hold in high regard told me they are better now compared to when he saw them in the 70's. I believe him, they have been nuclear all 4 times I saw them.

 

Totally depends on the band. And I know it would be a money-grab, but I'd be all over a Guns n Roses reunion.

 

I only want to see bands and artists at the peak of their powers. I have no use for the middle-age version with makeshift personel doing it for the paycheck.

 

I saw the (original) Rascals in Dec. and they were spectacular !

 

depends who it is, but there's lots of viable artists that re-group and perform for fans who never had a chance to experience the band in their original incarnation...

take the Rascals, for example.... they are playing a series of New York dates this Spring, wouldn't most of us be all over that show if it played within 50 miles of our own towns? and what about the excitement the Monkees, with Nesmith and no Davy Jones, generated on this forum?

 

see what I mean? we were both typing about the Racals at the same time!

 

About a year ago I saw the four original Remains perform here in Boston. They sounded pretty much exactly like their 1960s records - Barry Tashian even used his original Epiphone Al Caiola guitar. Pretty dang impressive for a bunch of 70 year old geezers.

 

I've seen reunions of bands like Roxy Music, The Police, Supertramp, Genesis, Steely Dan and the Jayhawks (these are the ones I could think of quickly, but there are a lot more). I enjoyed all of the shows. For me that's all that matters. I don't care if it's all about money and nostalgia or if it's as good as it once was, or if other fans think I should or should not enjoy the show. If these bands had never reunited I'd never had the chance to see them live, so this was better than nothing.

 

like anybody else, you should see them if they can put on a good performance for a couple hours. you should not see them simply on account of them being back together or to attempt to recreate a tour/experience that you have missed in the past . those events are in the past, and can probably best be accessed by DVD and surround sound. the worst acts are those that try to reinvent/relive their past triumphs. the best are the ones who can communicate to their core audience as well as a contemporary one.
in sum, go see a Bob Dylan show as soon as you can.

 

I've seen Boston, Styx & REO Speedwagon fairly recently and thoroughly enjoyed all of them. I feel like they were worth every penny I paid for the tickets. If you enjoyed a band's music in it'e heyday, I see no reason NOT to go see them if they dissolve and then get back together.

 

I was too young to see Van der Graaf Generator in the 70s.

When I went to a Peter Hammill concert, the other members of the classic line-up joined him for an encore playing "Still Life". I went home happy having seen my musical heroes even if it was only for one song.

THEN

Peter Hammill announced a VdGG re-union. They recorded a new album and played a few dates. I was lucky enough to get a ticket for the first of those at the Royal Festival Hall in London. The atmosphere was fantastic, the audience were really up for it and the band seemed initially nervous but soon got going. They played all of the classics (apart from Lighthousekeepers). The music was intense, the band were on top form.

It was the best gig I have EVER been to.

So yes, there is a point

 

your examples (I refuse to make any easy mention of "Corporate Rock" ) illustrate part of the problem....that is, when a band re-forms without KEY members. it's a personal decision as to what constitutes enough of the "real" group, but in your example, Tommy Shaw & James Young are enough of Styx for me, Cronin is enough REO, but Boston with no Brad Delp is a deal-breaker....that said, Styx with no Dennis Deyoung requires a more-pleasing venue, a lower ticket-price, or other amenities

 

Dinosaur Jr is of course making new and still very good music so its not exactly like a reunion tour

 

To my ears which were full exposed first time round, both the Cream and Led Zeppelin reunions were huge successes.
Possibly because we have become old at the same time, (though I am about 10 years younger than their "average" age) in some respects I preferred them this time round, I believe such musical excesses as they had were curbed. Looks like both were a one off which is also fine.
20 years or so earlier the reunion of the Jefferson Airplane would have been great with a drummer more sympathetic to the Airplane vibe, (I think the guy they had was from the heavy cigarette smoking Indiana rockers band, who's name I cannot recall, doubtless highly competent but not really a fit here) and the puzzling need to have 2 other guitarists on stage other than Jorma. I think it was two. And no not counting Paul. Great setlist, opening with Its No Secret into Saturday Afternoon, and a killer Hot Tuna set in the middle. Also the use of then current "modern" lighting was probably not a good choice. On the whole not bad at all but could have been great.

 

This is a recurring statement I will never understand. It's part of life, that we all are getting older - and don't we all wanna get as old as possible?
So why is this "I don't wanna be disappointed by what age has done ...to their physical appearance" coming from?
You are also ageing, so would you really prefer that at some point all your friends stay away from you, because they don't want to see you getting old ???
Sorry - but I don't get this...

 

I can't help that I enjoyed ALL of those shows - even Boston. I hate that Brad is gone, but it's too late to do anything about that now. What about Journey without Steve Perry? I think they are actually better without him.

 

Until someone invents a time machine I don't see any alternative.

 

I don't get the short re-formations that some acts have done...such as Cream, or the current Rascals....why bother to re-form, and just give a "taste", to a few fans in New York or London? at least do like the Police, and do a full tour, while letting it be known that it is your one final shot at seeing the band...not saying the artists "owe" the fans, it just makes little sense to me

 

I haven't been to a big arena show in probably ten years. The last show was the Van Halen reunion with Sammy. I just can't be bothered with the expense, the crowds, etc. I'm fortunate being in NYC where I can go to smaller venues like the Beacon or BB Kings and see some great acts in a more intimate setting and better sound. I especially like BB Kings, where I can get a table with a great view, have a nice meal and a few cocktails, and enjoy the show. I will see reformed acts in those venues, but not an arena.

 

Try to see as many Cowsills on one stage as you can.

 

I would have to conjecture about Journey, but from what I have heard, they probably are better without Perry...and maybe Foreigner is better without Gramm...which is another point. when is the "tribute" singer more-worthy to see, than the original?....easy answer is when the new singer can out-sing the original, on the latter's own hits...I only have one example of that, when I saw Harold Melvin & the Bluenotes, 20 years ago...the Teddy Pendergrass "stand-in" was spectacular

 

well, a tour is a little more exhausting and may test bandmembers' patience a bit more than a cameo show that can be recorded and sold as a DVD across the country instead.

 

I haven't seen Journey live with Arnel yet, but I have seen the live performances on the DVD that is included with "Revelations". He adds a ton of energy to the band that I don't think it had with Perry. My brother has seen them recently and he said it was a "shockingly" good show.

 

Because they have other priorities in their lives and can't always commit to a tour or long-term engagement.