Bands fall apart all the time. Drugs, fame, relationships and the ever-cited ‘creative differences’ break bands up and often end in feuds to put the Montague and Capulet families to shame. Sometimes, of course, bands just fizzle out when the members grow up and have children/record contracts end/someone dies in strange circumstances. With many bands, nobody cares very much except a small hardcore of fans who’ll continue to obsessively play their debut album on loop and repeatedly bang on about how ‘classic’ the band were to anyone who’ll listen. Occasionally, though, big bands break up before their time or while the public still feel they have something to offer. Previously, this was often because a band member died, back when rockstars were way more likely to go west because of the hedonic nature of their lifestyles. Recent celebrations of the 20th anniversary of Nirvana’s game-changing album Nevermind were a reminder of what happens when the rock ‘n’ roll lifestyle claims someone before their time.
However, ‘creative differences’ is usually given as the reason when bands split – which always leads to intense speculation as to why they are really splitting up. Often this is followed by solo careers or new bands with varying degrees of success for a few years before most of the band disappear into obscurity, leaving The Sun and NME to occasionally report that ‘my auntie’s uncle knows the cousin of the lead singer and a reunion is definitely on the cards’. If they’re a good band, a whole new generation of fans grow up with no chance of seeing them live or ever hearing any new material. The money often starts to run out for the original members of the band. Five, ten or even twenty years pass. Then the rumour starts that a reunion is expected.
But is it ever a good idea for old bands to reunite? It’s very easy as a fan to get caught up in hype and run out to buy your tickets for a band that haven’t played together for a decade, especially if you were too young to have seen them in their heyday. I know, because I spent an hour avoiding my economics worksheet on Tuesday because I got too excited watching the live feed of the conference announcing that The Stone Roses were getting back together. The band is still trending on Twitter, over forty-eight hours later. My best friend and I spent an hour planning how to get tickets for their homecoming shows. Yet there’s a part of me that wonders if any of this is a very good idea. I’m nervous about buying tickets for two reasons. The first is that, if Brown and Squire could fall out for this long, will they fall out again before the gigs next summer? The second is that the gig might be utterly rubbish. These fears apply to any band that has made its mark on the history of music before splitting up. I’m inclined to be wary of spoiling the music and the memory of the band.
Taking The Stone Roses as an example, they seemed to be against a reunion until very recently, and not just due to the feud between Brown and Squire. In March 2009 John Squire himself produced a piece of artwork that said: ‘I have no desire whatsoever to desecrate the grave of seminal Manchester pop band The Stone Roses’. The other thing to consider is the way that music works. Time ticks on. Old bands are replaced by new. The Stone Roses were part of a moment in Manchester and that moment is gone. The music scene in the UK is constantly evolving. Why spoil the legacy? ‘Leave it to the youngsters’ is a cry already developing in discussions around any bands reforming. Ian Brown sings ‘you’re all out of time’ in ‘She Bangs The Drums’; the danger here is that the band are going to be the ones who are out of time, especially if the gigs are less than perfect. The same would seem to be true of any other band that reforms years after its heyday.
Does any of that really matter though? If a band was good, if it wrote good songs and inspired people, if the will is there to play again, why not? They might not be contributing anything new to the music scene, but that doesn’t mean you can’t go to one of their gigs and have a damn good time. The best recent example of this is Pulp, who were amazing at Wireless in the summer when I went to see them. By many accounts, their ‘secret show’ at Glastonbury was the best thing about the festival. They didn’t play any new music but equally they didn’t seem to be out of touch. It was a chance for a new generation of fans to experience Jarvis Cocker dancing strangely on top of a speaker stack. It was brilliant. They still had it.
Sure, some people will cynically claim that The Stone Roses (or any other band) reforming is all about the money. I doubt many fans will care why they’re doing it. The fact is, these bands have normally had this money on the table for a long time and therefore I’m inclined to believe that there is a different reason for them to reform. Maybe all these aged rockstars are having a mid-life crisis and trying to recapture their glorious youth. The motive is irrelevant though. If they come on stage and put on a good show, then it’s worth it. So I’ll be there at 9:30am on Friday to buy my ticket for The Stone Roses. Maybe in ten years the Gallagher brothers will have kissed and made up and we’ll all be getting excited about Oasis playing again. If Squire and Brown can bury the hatchet, maybe Marr and Morrissey can too and we’ll all be debating about whether The Smiths reforming is a good idea. Either way, if the chance comes to see a big influential band, I’m going to grab it. They might not be totally cutting-edge and relevant any more, but some of the old crowd can still show us a good time.
