ZZ Top should have called it a day after about three albums.
Rush. And I say this as a huge fan of their 70s, early 80s, and even some of their 90s work. But the three albums released since 2002 just sounded like how much noise three older dudes could create. I appreciate how long they’ve lasted together, but they’ve been past they’re expiration date for about 20 years.
Regarding Yes: there are two separate Yes factions touring these days:
One simply bills themselves as Yes, and features Steve Howe and Alan White from their 1970s lineups, along with:
- keyboardist Geoffrey Downs (who had played on “Drama” in 1980, before joining Howe in Asia)
- bassist Billy Sherwood (who had collaborated with the band several times in the past, and was apparently the late Chris Squire’s handpicked successor)
- singer Jon Davidson (who did previously play in a Yes tribute band, and who replaced Benoit David, another tribute band singer, who had sung with them on the 2008 tour, when they had first replaced the then-ill Jon Anderson)
The second group bills themselves as Yes Featuring ARW, and has Jon Anderson, Trevor Rabin, and Rick Wakeman, along with some other musicians (even on their web site, it’s hard to locate the names of the others, so I suspect that they don’t have any connection to earlier Yes iterations).
Most Yes fans are either frustrated with the ongoing rancor, or have taken sides, choosing to consider only one of the factions as “truly” Yes.
As a longtime Yes fan, I’m in the former camp. I’m not sure if I think that they’ve stayed around too long, per se, but I do think that their best days are long behind them.
After their last tour, a couple of years ago, the guys pretty much said that they’re done, so I’m not sure if they qualify for this list any longer. 
Foreigner is pretty much its own tribute band. Or Lincoln’s ax. They’ve been around way too long.
But Sabbath without Ozzy and Tony? Sure, Ward/Butler were about as classic a rhythm section as you’ll get, but I thought the former two were too integral to the ol’ Sab brand to have the band continue on without them. (with maybe that teensie eensie exception of Dio in “Mob Rules”
)
Sure, but they weren’t they ready to, like, kill each other? (especially Bruce/Baker)
(as in - one hell of a lot more than most bandmates wanted to kill each other, kinda thing)
Concurred. Fine first couple of albums, though.
(re: Yes) Yup.
I’m just yer basic Yes Album/Fragile/Close to Edge booster. Not many greater “album trios” out there, I’d say.
I’ll say it as a {{{{{fervid}}}} fan, but only up to Moving Pictures.
I dunno - something about Foreigner that makes me immediately associate with Mooninites making off with Carl’s porn collection by wickedly wielding their Foreigner belt on him.
saving the most heartbreaking for last…
They did, sorta, in bits and pieces, later on, but no question that just these four definitely should have stayed together well past Three of a Perfect Pair*.
And in a perfect world, I wish my fave KC combo (Fripp/Wetton/Bruford) had stayed together from '72 right up 'till '81, when the aformentioned line-up first got together.
*caught that tour in '84. Goose-bumpingly cool how they did the one-member-at-a-time-per-song entrance. (borrowed from Talking Heads). Interesting that Bruford, who came out last, got by far the most thunderous applause.
Yeah, in interviews it’s clear that Geddy and Alex wouldn’t mind going forward but Neil is done. Arthritis and age bring down everyone, sooner or later. The difference is that they didn’t want to take steps to deal with the medical issues.
Guitarist Mick Jones is the only original member still active with them, and even his participation with the band has been sometimes limited over the past few years (due to health issues, I believe). I last saw them perform in 2014, and he was only on stage for a handful of songs; the band’s Wikipedia entry indicates that he didn’t perform at all during a portion of their Canadian tour last year. However, a friend of mine saw them play a few weeks ago, and he told me that Jones played for most, if not all, of the concert, and sounded good.
I was as surprised at their announcement that they were calling it quits as I was when R.E.M. made a similar announcement six years earlier, as in not at all.
I think you’re wrong. Clockwork Angels is a great album, perhaps the best since Power Windows
Your disappointment obviously wasn’t due to venue (replacement singer, singer no longer in his prime) but otherwise venue can make a huge difference to how a band sounds and lead to total disappointment when the band itself would sound great in a studio or decent venue. I gave up going to big venues when I saw David Bowie a million years ago. The sound was AWFUL and it could have been anyone on the stage, it was so far away I wouldn’t know if it was David’s nanna up there.
Bob Dylan is coming later this year. I’d love to see him in concert, but he’s playing in a huge football arena. I know the sound will be total crap (and not because he can’t sing :D), I’ll just watch him on youtube. I watch a lot of stuff on youtube, and some of the “oldies” still have the goods. I saw a clip of Chicago playing live and they sounded as good as the recording. Wikipedia tells me they’ve had lineup changes, but as long as a band sounds good, they can be performing from the nursing home and I don’t care.
Isn’t it strange how some singers lose their voices and others don’t? Tony Bennett still sounds good and he’s about a million (well, 70 or 80 or something)
I’m not a Stones fan either but my problem with them isn’t that “They’re old” or “They’ve been around a long time.” It’s that they haven’t released a memorable song in almost 40 years :eek:.
I would totally see a Jimmy Buffett concert, and wish I had seen the Allman Brothers Band even at the bitter end. I saw Buddy Guy in Colorado Springs a few years back and he was wonderful!
Sorry, but what I meant was… Tony should have ended Black Sabbath after the original members split up in the late 1970s. Instead, there was a revolving door of singers and drummers over the next few decades. None of those lineups could hold a candle to the original.
I am so glad that ABBA has gotten back together. They left at the height of their fame, due to personal problems within the band.
I so, so, so, so wish The Blues Brothers had stuck around.
And, oh yeah, has anyone said the group who should have left earlier is The Rolling Stones?
I think Deep Purple is still around. The last recording I listened to was a live album, I think recorded in Sydney. Steve Morse was stunning but it was Ritchie Blackmore’s style that helped define the band. Ian Gillan’s vocals are a young man’s game, and I think Jon Lord was still on keyboards then, and losing his chops.
I don’t begrudge the members wanting to continue their careers but they are just plodding through the same rut, playing their greatest hits, instead of continuing to innovate.
The Blues Brothers was more of a concept project by Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi than a band. I just checked their discography and am surprised they had so many recordings.
That seems to be a common thread among a lot of the groups that people have nominated for this list – either they haven’t released memorable work, or they haven’t released any new music. My impression is that many (most?) of the classic-rock bands that still actively tour have done very little new work in a long time.
Looking at a number of the bands named in this thread, most of them have done no more than two albums in the past 20 years. I consider myself to be a moderate Rush fan, and even though I’m not a huge fan of their later albums, at least they still kept recording.
I think this is a good way of looking at it, as well as if the line-up is nearly unrecognizable from their heyday, along with if your band is playing the local Indian casino, or the county fair - it’s probably a sign they should hang it up already.
IMHO, a band that could have gone on a little longer, and I know this is debate-able: Led Zeppelin. It’s arguable that they were already starting to drift toward the downside of their career when Bonham died. But, they were still popular and innovative when they stopped, and are to this day. I wonder what else they may have done if they continued and for how long.
I opened this thread to see how long it was until Yes was mentioned. Not until the 16th post. Better than I had feared :rolleyes:
My issue is not about bands sticking around too long, but about them focusing only on the oldies. I agree with DavidwithanR that if a band only plays oldies, then they are a cover band regardless of who is in them.
I am a diehard Yes fan (the version with Steve Howe, not the self-proclaimed ‘Holy Trinity of Yes’). I will see them and buy their records as long as they keep going. And I can tell you that I genuinely enjoy their live performances and also the last few albums. But I am definitely frustrated with how little they play of anything after 1980. Even after releasing their most recent album Heaven and Earth, they played only the old stuff.
I am also in the minority who believes that a rock band can continue even if none of the original members are there, as long as they are making new music and there has been a gradual replacement of original members with new ones. No one would dare say that the New York Yankees are a tribute baseball team just because none of the 1927 Yankees are with them anymore would they?
I am not sure that will happen in the future with Yes, but after Howe and White finally retire, I could see a band continuing with the name and the spirit of Yes comprising Downes, Davison, Sherwood, and a new guitarist and drummer. But that is just me.