Entertainment For Lively Minds
Should bands have a "split by" date?
As much as we might want our favourite band to go on forever, we probably regret that their output has, let's say, declined somewhat from its peak. And that the albums seem to have a 4 year gap between them. And the tours have become Greatest Hits shows. And there's a tribute band that's got more energy than them, now... So, here's my new rule:
All bands have a 7 year limit. At this point, they must split and the musicians cannot work with each other in any combination for a further 7 years.
I accept that one or two acts don't deserve this fate and that it might rob us a couple of late bloomers. And that if they've got 4 decent albums in them, they'll need to crack on and get them recorded. But that's the limit: 7 years and move on.
Any seconders or objectors?
- More from Mark JF.
- Login or register to post comments
-
In a shock move...
...I'm going to raise R.E.M. here. If they'd split up in 1987, we wouldn't have got most of their best work. I love their early stuff, but in this scenario, "Document" might JUST have squeaked in, but no "Green", "Out Of Time", "Automatic" or "New Adventures" or "Up" and to a lesser extent no "Monster". I can't live with that.
If the Beatles had split up in 1967, there'd be no White Album or Abbey Road, and I can't live with that either.
Agree that many bands overstay their welcome, though.
They would have split
just prior to leaving cheeky upstarts IRS for Bugs Bunny's home at megolithic globe rogering (at the time) Warner's. This is not as unlikely a scenario as it first appears. Also interesting they did (by most measures) their best work when with a major.
Well...
That would mean the Stones would have thrown in the towel before Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main Street.
Solo artists
Where does that leave the solo artists?
For instance Chuck Prophet has had an evolving band (the Mission Express) where the only constant has been his wife Stephanie Finch. Does he have to stop altogether after seven years or does he have to get a divorce before carrying on?
Similarly Lucinda Williams who has backing bands in a permanent state of flux or Steve Earle who sometimes goes out solo, sometimes with a band. Lyle Lovett does small and large bands.
Overall it looks like a bad idea to me.
Weren't the band together for almost a decade...
... before they even did Music From Big Pink?
In terms of releasing stuff
3 of my favourite bands did their thing within a 5 year span, The Jam, The Clash and Dexys Midnight Runners. No more, no less, everything within 5 years.
The Jam, 7 albums and 17 (if memory serves) singles in 5 years. That almost seems impossible now to imagine.
The Clash 5 albums (one a double, one a triple) and 20 singles (we don't talk about Cut The Crap released 3 years later, I'm not convinced that it really existed...)
Dexys - ok not quite as prolific, but 3 classic albums, 10 singles, including one of the biggest singles of the decade (oh, and one single just before the 5 years, but only just...)
In the case of The Jam and The Clash, both bands did that within the same 5 years.
Now all you have to convince is the record companies to allow bands to do this.
What intrigues me with bands...
- let's take R.E.M. as an example (Poor R.E.M.!) - is whether they actually truly believe that their Nth album is bloody brilliant when they're making it despite it being obvious to everyone else upon its release that it is a pale shadow of former glories. Or perhaps deep down they realize its crap but don't know what else to do with themselves. I'd love bands to be honest about this kind of thing.
Having been in and out of bands
I've always known when things had run their course creatively, and especially so if we were pushing past that point. And it's been fairly obvious to the other people involved. I don't suppose we were any different to any other musicians.
Personally I think everyone has a purple patch, and for some that run lasts a while, other people may only have their best for a short time. It's easy to continue past that point though if it's your livelihood.
Having not been paid (much or at all) for my musical endeavours, I was able to say when I thought my work had turned to crap and walk away.
But R.E.M....
...are millionaires tens of times over. They've nothing to lose (and quite a lot to gain in terms of respect) from jacking it in. Stipe could do film production and photography full time, Buck could run a record label or something, Mills could write film scores (rather well, I suspect). Berry's already tilling the land, so it's not like there are no options or that they don't already have substantial non-R.E.M. interests.
But it's not just them at that level
While they're not the Stones or U2 maybe, but there is a business surrounding them, employees and the like. I know what you mean, but there are some people who have gotten themselves so tangled up in the business it must be difficult to just down tools..
Yep - running costs
There are staff to pay, offices to run, tax demands and accountant bills to settle, etc. Hence they go back on the road again to keep the cashflow moving.
As for REM, might they perhaps be contractually obliged to keep producing new product? Didn't they sign some megadeal with Warners?
No no no no no
XTC, year 10, Skylarking came out and they still had a brace of fine albums still to come.
The new Wire album is excellent, after nearly 35 years and they're better live now than they were for most of the 1980s.
I could go on.
No no no no no
The new Wire album is astonishingly good. Best since 154
OK (adopts Monty Python 'Life of Brian' voice):
Apart from middle-period R.E.M., early 70's Stones, The Beatles, Steve Earle, The Band, XTC, Chuck Prophet and Wire - what has longevity ever done for us?
A record company
would, I guess, be quite against this idea. The money they make from every new REM/Rolling Stones/etc record is almost guaranteed, and enables them to spend money on new, exciting artists.
(At least that is how I suspect they would feel, when I think about what they say about pirated music)
Never mind all this
split by business.
Why the bloody hell did Coldplay have to form in the first place?