What's The Point Of These Bands Still Going On?

I think it depends on which member or members are left. The drummer from Creedence Clearwater is touring as Creedence Clearwater Revisited.
IMO that's kind of lame. Also I wouldn't see the Archies without Jughead in the group.

 

That's not even remotely the same thing.

 

Last in line and someone may have mentioned, but there are other people relying on some of these groups for their incomes, too.

And it is what they know.

 

The band that really irks me is the La Scala Opera. They've operated without a single original member for about 200 years. They don't play their own instruments. They don't write their own songs and they wear silly costumes.

 

So that the LA County Fair has plenty of nostalgic live acts to fill the bleachers each September (especially WAR... it's like they have a residency there!).

 

Unless someone was a primary songwriter, he or she may need the money, even if the band was successful.

I can't imagine that tour-length steady gigs are easy to come by for a professional musician without a brand name attached, so nostalgia touring has gotta be easier than trying to start something from scratch and scrambling to fill a calendar with tiny venues -- especially if the musician isn't young anymore.

 

As much as I like seeing Mike and Bruce onstage (yes, haters, you heard me right), the rest of the BB touring troupe is so strong that this would work fine. I'd see them. I'd expect the ticket prices to drop a little in the absence of original members, but I'd go.

 

Definitely. I saw a version of them at the Biltmore about 15 years ago and enjoyed the show.

 

Native American casinos & Branson, Missouri

 

I'll never under$tand why the$e band$ keep going either.

 

U2

 

The 2 out of 3 rule:
1. You love the music
2. You love the people in the band
3. You love the money you make

You gotta have at least 2 out of 3 or it won't work.

 

I would probably see them as well if I didn't have to go out of my way. I guess I'm a sucker for wanting to hear Brian Wilson's music played live by true professionals.

 

That's pretty much it right there. Everybody has a "right to make a living," but musicians who weren't part of a band's glory years in any meaningful way - IMO - shouldn't glom onto that success, turning a band into a husk of itself.

Go out and form your own band and write your own music - nobody's stopping you. If you can't make a living doing *that* then IMO the gods are saying that you should do something else.

There are no hard and fast rules determining when a band should hang it up, and that's what makes these discussions interesting.

But the perspective that they *never* need to hang it up, under any set of circumstances one could concoct, is just not one that I can accept. Carrying on too long is both a selfish, greedy act and a disservice to the legacy of the actual band.

 

Sorry, but no Rod Price and, ESPECIALLY no Lonesome Dave, it isn’t Foghat. It’s just my opinion. Kudos to you if you still dig them. To each their own

 

That's not what I meant. The fact is without the brand name, promotors are much less willing to take a chance on losing money. So old bands keep touring despite the fact that they are decades past their creative peak. The brand name sells tickets.

 

If it was nearby and reasonable, I would go just to see John Cowsill. And the rest of the road show crew are also excellent.

 

They enjoy it and, in many cases, need the money.

I do appreciate those who don't bill their performances with the old band name, even though the members have changed. Of course, Paul McCartney is the most famous example of this. Even the couple of times Ringo plays with him, they don't call themselves the Beatles. There's a certain integrity to that, I think.

 

My take is that as long as people are willing to pay for tickets, why not? I have no interest in seeing any of these bands that are pale shadows of their former incarnations, but that's just me.

 

A Grammy? Well then, they must be good.

 

Really odd scenario with the Little River Band. The rights to the name "The Little River Band" is owned by Steven Housden, a former band member (guitar) who wasn't an original member but who nevertheless ended up obtaining the legal rights to the name simply by sticking around after the original members gradually (and unwisely) walked away from their own band. But Housden no longer actually performs with the band, just licenses the name out to the current touring band, which led by another non-original member, Wayne Nelson (his claim to LRB fame is singing "The Night Owls"). I guess Housden gets a cut whenever "The Little River Band" plays a gig. And yeah, none of the touring members are actually Australian.

 

Beats clocking in 9-5.

JG

 

The Hollies..... Really can't see the point anymore

 

I've read some comments in this thread that suggest the answer is "money".

That's probably correct, but I don't think it's the whole story. Equally important is - I believe - because there is an audience that want to relive the past no matter what. Nostalgia is a circus mirror, everything looks rosy looking back.

I reckon they keep going for the money, yes. But mostly it's because there's an audience willing to pay to indulge in some nostalgia. After all, without the audience there is no money being made.

 

Nothing unwise about it. They had a right to quit anytime they wanted to.