Mon, 1 Apr 2002 10:05:53 -0800
Good thing I read all of my email before replying to this - As I was reading
the thread I kept thinking of this example myself. The amazing thing to me
was that the change was almost seamless. To me, Back in Black SOUNDED like
To me the true test of whether a band should carry on the mantle of a name
lies in the songcrafting and playing. If they continue to produce someting
worth listening to in the spirit of the original lineup, then they have
remained a band. Playing thier songs onstage, some bands look vibrant, while
others seem tired and old.
I will withold judgment until I hear some new material, and hear how they
are performing. It is kind of sad to see a band touring and relying only on
it's old cataloge of songs (By OLD I mean there is NO new material less than
5 years). For instance, I saw Springsteen on his last tour While most of the
material was over 10 years old, there were several songs less than 5 years
old, and a couple of new song for the tour that worked well. I thought the
man and the band were still able to produce material that is engaging, and I
would not say (as many critics did) that the band was simply resting on its
laurels - Even if the new songs were not the same as his old anthems (nor
probably as good). I still enjoyed them and the performance.
I think most of us would agree that this is what keeps us listening to MO.
They keep putting out material that is engaging (Although RW did get a bit
to heavy for my taste at times) and they play with fervor. Could someone
else do that for the Oils besides PG? Lets hope we never have to find out. .
> It's hard to believe that nobody has mentioned Australia's own AC/DC, who
> went with Brian Johnston after Bon Scott died (drank himself to death).
> They then released one of their most popular discs with Back in Black in