The Byrds - if they reunited

I can’t think of another group this age that could get together and sound as good as they did back in the 60s. Roger, David, and Chris Hillman have retained great voices. Roger continues play guitar better than ever- Crosby can still play guitar and Chris Hillman can still play bass. Put a drummer behind them and you would have the makings of a group in their 70s that still sound fantastic.it would be awesome to hear. I can’t think of another group that could pull this off at their age.

 

and record You Ain't Going Nowhere...again. : )

 

The idea has been batted back and forth endlessly in the ongoing all things Byrds nerds thread or whatever it’s called.

Roger has made it crystal clear over the years that although he is friendly with David Crosby at this point he has absolutely no desire to work with him.

It’s probably not a coincidence that Roger was willing to tour The Sweethearts of the Rodeo album with Chris, an album in which David had no part in, so he didn’t need to be included.

Plus Gene and Michael were big parts of the magic IMO.

 

Thinking of a McGuinn/Crosby/Hillman/Mike Campbell/Bentmont Tench/Steve Ferrone is a pet dream of mine

 

I'll trot out the same statement I've been making for a couple of decades now every time this kind of talk surfaces…

I too would love to hear what Roger, David and Chris could do together, because it would be something that no other three musicians/singers on earth could possibly do. And let's face it…time is running out.

I've said they wouldn't have to tour — McGuinn has historically been dead-set against touring in a band configuration, and in fact I was surprised he went along with it for the rather lengthy Sweetheart tour.

I would be very happy just to have an album with the three of them as the main attraction, with limited backing by others. And they wouldn't have to call it The Byrds, with all the expectations that would naturally bring about. That was another point McGuinn has been firm on — he wants to leave The Byrds as a "pleasant memory" or words to that effect. That's fine with me; just put their three names on the album.

So the only real impediment is that McGuinn refuses to work with Crosby. Obviously it's his perfect right to make this choice, but after all this time I find it more than a little hard-line and selfish — particularly when Crosby has expressed such a strong desire to work with Roger again, and has also taken some responsibility and expressed regret for his less-than-savory behavior all those years ago.

A newer point…obviously Crosby doesn't need to work with McGuinn again — look at all the outstanding and very fulfilling musical activities he's been involved with recently. The fact that he wants to (at least, I'm hoping he still does) ought to count for something.

Finally, if McGuinn continues to base his stance on religious grounds — well, I have some views on that, too, but I won't express them on this forum as I know it's not permitted.

 

Definitely. I think there was an interview with Roger where he admitted the SWOTR tour was devised by Marty Stuart and Roger liked the idea and agreed to do it because they're friends. Chris agreed to participate, since he and Roger have remained friends and that was a nice gesture because 2017 had been rough to Chris, with his home being burned and the tragic loss of Tom Petty.

Not counting last year's SWOTR dates, I've seen Roger's solo shows several times, twice with a backing band. The group of male musicians around the time the "Back From Rio" album were very competent and I wished he would've kept using them at least for live shows or at least do like John Hiatt where one tour is acoustic and the next is full band electric.

Do you know who I'd really like to see performing and recording with Roger and Chris in the future? Guitarist John Jorgenson. What an incredible player and multi-instrumentalist!

 

John Jorgenson with Tom Petty and Roger McGuinn in the 1990s

 

It's been well over a decade since McGuinn has cited religion as a reason for not wanting to work with Crosby. Religion may be a factor for him, but I doubt it is the only factor, or even the primary one. Certainly he had no problem working with Tom Petty, an avowed atheist.

 

I think it would great if it was just the 3 of them and a drummer but they would probably want to be augmented.

 

Agreed. I saw a couple of the Byrds reunion shows in 1989. John Jorgensen was in the backing band and he was great.

 

1989 is like a hundred years ago to a rocker pushing 80.

 

Mainly I’m just commenting on how at their age they have those voices- all 3 of them! Throw in their instrumental prowess and you have something that Is extremely rare in a group this big... age may have changed their look but it has done absolutely nothing to their vocals

 

I’d add Ron Blair, as I get the feeling Chris wouldn’t be too keen on playing bass live.

 

Should include John York, also have John Jorgensen on guitar and Stan Lynch on drums.

 

They're old men, forget it, it ain't happening.

 

My wife interviewed Jim McGuinn recently, and when she suggested that they follow the Sweetheart tour with a Notorious or Younger than Yesterday tour, he abruptly changed the subject.

 

Even if the 3 of them reunited, McGuinn has already publicly stated that they would not call it the Byrds. Even after the 5 Byrds albums with McGuinn as the only founding member, when McGuinn, Clark, and Hillman reunited, it was not under the Byrds moniker. Paul and Ringo still team up on occasion, but there's a reason why they don't call it the Beatles.

 

OK, fair enough. But if it's down to personalities, how long do you make someone pay for or hold a grudge about crimes that are over a half-century old (not counting the Byrds reunion album, which is slightly less than that)? And on that note, I wonder how a concept that forms an essential component of Roger's religion factors into all of this.

Again, McGuinn has a right to make this choice, of course — and I can't know every factor that weighs into his decision. And to be fair, there are a couple of musicians I've played with in the past that I would rather not have anything to do with today.

The difference is, I didn't make transcendentally unique, beautiful and timeless music with those musicians. And no one would care if I reunited with them to try it again.

 

It never stopped Jim in the past.

 

They briefly reformed under The Byrds moniker in 89/90.

 

John needs to find a new rehearsal space.

 

He played bass on (for me, and largely for that reason) the best songs on the recent tour with Roger. Those songs felt like the Byrds.

 

mcguinn, crosby, hillman, stills & jim keltner.

think of the setlist that group could put together.

 

McGuinn and Crosby remind me a bit of Paul and George back in the day. They have largely kissed and made up and everything is more or less cool. But working together now could undo all of that.

Just my impression.

 

With the right material, they could make a great album, shake hands, and go their separate ways.

The challenge is the right material. Crosby seems to writing well, but filling an album would take some wisely chosen covers. These guys have never been prolific writers.

The Byrds reunion album, McGuinn Clark and Hillman, and the new stuff on the first box set were all let down by inferior songs.

A handful of new Crosby songs would be a good start (maybe finished off with help from Roger and Chris - Crosby likes collaboration). Then they could add a couple of covers of Gene Clark solo songs. A couple of Petty tunes. A cover of something of Dylan's off Time Out of Mind or Love and Theft. And then Chris and Roger need to come up a couple of good songs each.

It could be done pretty quickly and smoothly, and it could sound great. But it won’t be done.