Big 'Classic' Acts Reforming

[MEGABOWL]

It either says something about current music or current music fans, probably a bit of both. To dismiss current music as in the main rubbish is an alarming generalisation.

[Mr.Tickle]

One of the best things about Glastonbury for me is that I can see new acts I like and old reformed bands that I remember from my, ahem, "Yoof".

Seeing Cud and Neds Atomic Dustbin one year along with Arctic Monkeys and Killers (ok, not so new but you know what I mean) is heaven for me, add that to the fact I like stuff from pretty much any genre then Glasto is like being a kid in a sweet shop. Seeing Chase and Status and Altern8 on the same bill is magic!

[mike46]

_{There are a few around at the moment, but you have to look for them...the exception being Jake Bugg - I think his rise to fame shows how much people still want there to be a good artist/band but they're simply isn't. It seems some of the best music comes out of the worst moments so perhaps with the economy as messed up as it is there's a young band out there in someones garage getting angry with the world and making music.}

_{This is also the first generation where there hasn't been a band come out in their time and make it massive. So these massive bands of the past are in need as young people can still relate to their songs just as well as the youth did when they were first released.}

[Bradders]

_{This is also the first generation where there hasn't been a band come out in their time and make it massive.}

Edited October 24, 2012 by Bradders

[russycarps]

I'm not sure about that, either:

a. You don't count the Arctic Monkeys as massive despite breaking numerous album sales records.

b. You don't count them as this generation (debut only 6 years old), also I'm guessing that means I'm not the current generation even though I'm 22 :/

Edit: Also, Mumford & Sons. Sure, they're terrible, but they're massive.

[Sketchead]

*trying my hardest to not bite and defend Arctic Monkeys to the bitter end*

[russycarps]

I dont really mind the arctic monkeys and remember the buzz when their first album came out. I also give them credit for at least mixing it up a bit with their next albums rather than just copying the first one.

But are they even on a par with the likes of oasis in the great scheme of things? Let alone genuine legends like led zep, the stones etc

[mrtourette]

isnt that exactly the point though? The great hopes of the 2000s are the arctic monkeys and mumford and sons!!

no wonder people are demanding bands like the zombies come back.

Take any decade you like and you can pick out 2 lengendary bands that you know will still be mentioned in 50 years time and beyond with ease. You are spoilt for choice.

Then you get to the 2000s........

[Sketchead]

I dont really mind the arctic monkeys and remember the buzz when their first album came out. I also give them credit for at least mixing it up a bit with their next albums rather than just copying the first one.

But are they even on a par with the likes of oasis in the great scheme of things? Let alone genuine legends like led zep, the stones etc

Edited October 24, 2012 by Sketchead

[russycarps]

I suspect that isn't just because of the perceived lack of quality, but also that due to society and the music industry nowadays bands have less opportunity to build up to a status that will ensure that they can continue untouched enough to reach that level. Too high a turnover of bands and trends, too small an attention span, too little loyalty. The level of pressue on guitar bands to sell and perform means that they aren't free to try all of the things that lead to longevity - to be creative, experimental, challenging - but instead have to quickly make the biggest amount of impact in the shortest space of time, and that's counterproductive to slowly building up the loyal fanbase and credible reputation that's required to become a 'legend'.

[jimmyt]

I suspect that isn't just because of the perceived lack of quality, but also that due to society and the music industry nowadays bands have less opportunity to build up to a status that will ensure that they can continue untouched enough to reach that level. Too high a turnover of bands and trends, too small an attention span, too little loyalty. The level of pressue on guitar bands to sell and perform means that they aren't free to try all of the things that lead to longevity - to be creative, experimental, challenging - but instead have to quickly make the biggest amount of impact in the shortest space of time, and that's counterproductive to slowly building up the loyal fanbase and credible reputation that's required to become a 'legend'.

Edited October 24, 2012 by jimmyt

[mike46]

I'm not sure about that, either:

a. You don't count the Arctic Monkeys as massive despite breaking numerous album sales records.

b. You don't count them as this generation (debut only 6 years old), also I'm guessing that means I'm not the current generation even though I'm 22 :/

Edit: Also, Mumford & Sons. Sure, they're terrible, but they're massive.

[The Nal]

Zeppelin gradually progressed as they went on.

Wilco are probably my pick for best band at the moment.

And the Prodigy. But they're a force of nature and don't release that much stuff anyway.

[russycarps]

I reckon in terms of album progression cave and the bad seeds cant be beaten

Zeppelin gradually progressed as they went on.

Wilco are probably my pick for best band at the moment.

And the Prodigy. But they're a force of nature and don't release that much stuff anyway.

[Pilgrim S]

Arcade Fire anyone? One of the best bands of recent year. The XX seem to keep getting bigger as well. You've already mentioned Mumford & Sons, Arctic Monkeys, Kasabian. This generation does have it's own music.

I don't like all of the bands above, but I wish the headliners would at least relfect current music trends. I look back at the 90s when Pulp, The Prodigy, and Oasis headlined, and that is pretty much reflects what was happening back then. Add all the dance stuff in like Massive Attack, and you've got a great festival. That was then, time to move on now. Let the new bands have a go.

[JamesT977]

I think an exception to the 2000's would be The White Stripes i know their debut came out late 90's? But regardless when Elephant came out they were a pretty big band and ever since they split people have been wanting them to get back together because everyone knows Jack White is a very good musician. They had some mainstream appeal with Elephant but not so much after that but i reckon if they were to announce plans to get back right now then the band wagoners would jump on and they would be 10x bigger than they are. Which would result in them getting more radio play and more than likely festival headline slots.

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

They weren't big or classic but I would like to see Mansun get back together and play

[Vieuphoria]

I love Mansun. Such an under-appreciated act.

[5co77ie]

30th Anniversary of The Jam next year - be good to see them back for a bit.

[rexclark]

Would absolutely love for Mansun to reform since I missed them the first time around.

[Bradders]

I could argue why Arctic Monkeys will be remembered in 50 years but I can't be bothered. It will have been said about absolutely everyone at the time they were around. Typical 'better in my day' stuff.

[rexclark]

I will die happy if Suede play Glastonbury. Seeing them there would just be perfect.