conversationpc wrote:strangegrey wrote:There isn't a single genre-leading AOR/Hard Rock act out there that has remained fully intact....but you see other genre's that have their bands still together. Examples include Foreigner, Styx, Van Halen, Journey, Survivor....Someone might make a case for Bon Jovi and the Sheffield Douchenozzles....but in both cases, they're not fully together EITHER...granted Death played a part in the Douchenozzles.
I know you hate Rush but even though Peart is not their original drummer, he has been with the band since the second album and the lineup has remained unchanged for the last 32 years now. For that matter, most Rush fans don't even count John Rutsey as a full band member but more of a fill-in until Peart joined before "Fly By Night".
Also, ZZ Top has had the same lineup through the entire history of the band, not to mention that they even had the same manager up until 2006.
Eh, I don't hate rush...I just like to sound off like I do!
Actually, the friend I spoke of in a previous post...the rush fan. He became a Rush fan sometime after Presto. Prior to that point, I had seen 2-3 rush shows dating back to whatever album has Big Money on it....and whenever we get into arguments I always say "Just remember, I tried to get you into Rush back in the mid 80s and you were too pig headed...I was a rush fan first".
In all seriousness, I've just soured on most progressive music, be it prog metal or prog rock. To me, the focus in prog music seems to be the individual, not the song...Rush tends to be a bit of an exception to that rule....but almost all other prog acts seem to focus on creating music to showcase their talent...and the importance of the song tends to take a mother-in-law style back seat.
As for u2, ZZ Top and Rush...I will submit that they are not part of this AOR/Hard Rock/Hair Rock Genre. Journey is almost not part of the genre as well. u2 doesn't belong in this discussion at all, since I consider them more to come out of the brit/pop new wave genre....something I would have performed mass-genocide to get rid of in the mid 80s, if I could!
ZZ Top and Rush have two advantages...they're 3 pieces. You only have to worry about getting along with 2 other personalities. Not 4 other personalities...granted 1 steve perry type personality is more than enough for any group...but it makes it easier to swallow the bad shit and see the good.
I still stand by the original statement, that once you get into the hair/aor/hard rock genre, very few acts have stayed together without either serious professional intervention or a shitload of cash to sweaten the deal. Either this music breeds this kind of disharmony....or it's just filled with assholes...
I dunno.
It's depressing to watch it play out....at times I step away from AOR/hard rock for that one reason. I can't stomach the fact that the music I grew up on, could easily be a well-respected musical genre that carries alot of weight in today's music scene in the US.....if only bands could stay together. Instead, it's a punchline.
And I mean that, imagine if Van Halen, Journey, Styx, Foreigner, etc....imagine if they all stayed completely intact...and toured hard throughout the late 90s....while the last remaining slugs of Alternative music were busy shooting themselves in the head or dying of smack ODs.....today, this music would similar to what the Who or The Rolling Stones were in the late 80s. They would be touring huge stadium tours or at the very least arena tours, taking in money...major label releases of albums. I know someone will go 'yeah, right, bullshit'....but think about it. you're being skeptical because of the fact that you're viewing it in today's reality. If these acts stayed together, they would have reached a much higher arc...and quite possibly remained there....
Instead, most of these acts are fractured, beyond repair...and are playing state fairs, private functions, japan

, or doing vh1-classic unplugged tours....It's a sad state for what could have been.