Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 75

Thread: Shortest time to a reunion or return to a band

  1. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    HAM
    Posts
    497
    post-“drama” YES disbanded in early 1981. “90125” was released in november 1983. whether this qualifies as a reunion, a reconfiguration/reformation or as a CiNEMA project shoehorned into a fully-fledged YES album, is, of course, entirely up to anyone’s interpretation.

    likewise: YES split (did they? it’s being debated, albeit not so much by the band themselves) after “big generator” in 1988. ABWH appeared in 1989. discuss ;-)>

  2. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Triscuits View Post
    The OP kind of ruled it out, but I can't help citing Ringo's quitting the Beatles for a grand total of two weeks during the White Album sessions.
    George was out for two days during the Let It Be sessions.
    And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make.

  3. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Wisdomview View Post
    Van Der Graaf Generator broke up in '71, and reformed in '75.

    The gap was even shorter than that. They broke up in August '72 and were back in '75.

  4. #29
    Oh No! Bass Solo! klothos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    308
    Quote Originally Posted by klothos View Post
    Yup - Snoopy VS. Osama is a project by original member Barry Winslow and the Royal Guardsmen's original drummer. Not sure who owns the name (and i didnt ask), but apparently their are "two" current Royal Guardsmen ( the group I know, which is three original members and also includes the guitarist that replaced an original member back in the 70s), and the other version that did that single which included two original members. Also, from what I understand is that Chris isnt on it, but Bill and Billy may have helped out in some way..........also, there doesnt seem to be any "legal disputes" about name use.

    So, i learned something today
    In addition to above quote : come to find out, that the surviving original members all use the name: Sometimes all together or individually - so there are times when its just one group of all the surviving original members, or seperate groups with some in each (this includes my friend Pat, who has been playing guitar with them since the 70s). I am not sure why Chris didnt participate on that single (I didnt ask) and I didn't ask about name ownership.

    Now, why cant all bands have this type of friendly understanding with a band name?

  5. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Philadelphia Area
    Posts
    1,833
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Triscuits View Post
    The OP kind of ruled it out, but I can't help citing Ringo's quitting the Beatles for a grand total of two weeks during the White Album sessions.
    I was going to ask how long he had quit for

  6. #31
    I'm here for the moosic NogbadTheBad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    10,508
    I guess that Waters thought that Floyd were over
    Ian

    Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on progrock.com
    https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-a...re-happy-hour/

    Gordon Haskell - "You've got to keep the groove in your head and play a load of bollocks instead"
    I blame Wynton, what was the question?
    There are only 10 types of people in the World, those who understand binary and those that don't.
    I'm one of the 212.

  7. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by NogbadTheBad View Post
    I guess that Waters thought that Floyd were over
    I think his exact words, at the time of the lawsuit, was "Pink Floyd are a spent force, creatively speaking".

    I'm still not convinced that the Pink Floyd and Yes comebacks of the 80's were motivated for reasons other than pure commerce. What I'm saying is, 90125 ended up having the name Yes on the cover more out of the record company wanting a known, established name that they could promote (versus trying to promote a new, unheard of band comprised largely of former members of the already established group).

    Now, whether Jon ended up singing on it because of that, or if his participation was incidental to that, I can't tell ya. But I can absolutely see whichever henchman at the record company saying "Why do you want to call it Cinema? Most of the members used to be in Yes, including two of the guys who were on the last album! Why don't you just call it Yes, so that we can promote it better?!"

    Likewise, I'm still not convinced that Gilmour didn't set out to make another solo album after the About Face tour ended, only to be told by the SPECTRE wannabes at Columbia that "We'd have an easier time selling it if you could figure out a way to call it Pink Floyd, and you'll be able to do another big enormodome tour like the one that drove Roger over the edge back in 1977! What do ya say?!".

  8. #33
    That's Mr. to you, Sir!! Trane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    in a cosmic jazzy-groove around Brussels
    Posts
    6,405
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitarGeek View Post

    I'm still not convinced that the Pink Floyd and Yes comebacks of the 80's were motivated for reasons other than pure commerce. What I'm saying is, 90125 ended up having the name Yes on the cover more out of the record company wanting a known, established name that they could promote (versus trying to promote a new, unheard of band comprised largely of former members of the already established group).

    Now, whether Jon ended up singing on it because of that, or if his participation was incidental to that, I can't tell ya. But I can absolutely see whichever henchman at the record company saying "Why do you want to call it Cinema? Most of the members used to be in Yes, including two of the guys who were on the last album! Why don't you just call it Yes, so that we can promote it better?!"

    Likewise, I'm still not convinced that Gilmour didn't set out to make another solo album after the About Face tour ended, only to be told by the SPECTRE wannabes at Columbia that "We'd have an easier time selling it if you could figure out a way to call it Pink Floyd, and you'll be able to do another big enormodome tour like the one that drove Roger over the edge back in 1977! What do ya say?!".
    bingooooo!!!

    Though I'm not sure that Yes was still a saleable name in the 80's... So they had to change something (the logo, a.o.)

    And yes, I always wondered if the execs didn't push Gilmour to fight for the name.
    5though I'm sure Roger's "You wouldn't dare to..." to Dave didn't help himself
    my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.

  9. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Trane View Post
    bingooooo!!!


    And yes, I always wondered if the execs didn't push Gilmour to fight for the name.
    5though I'm sure Roger's "You wouldn't dare to..." to Dave didn't help himself
    Somewhere I still have the Rolling Stone (it's got to be true) article where Dave mentions the fact that he had spent a number of years building up the reputation of Floyd and wasn't about to go out and start all over.. which essentially is what he was doing with his solo projects... One things for sure his tour with Wright and Mason blew Waters tour numbers (Pros and Con) out of the water... where as I would assume his solo tour numbers were manageable..

  10. #35
    That's Mr. to you, Sir!! Trane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    in a cosmic jazzy-groove around Brussels
    Posts
    6,405
    Quote Originally Posted by happytheman View Post
    Somewhere I still have the Rolling Stone (it's got to be true) article where Dave mentions the fact that he had spent a number of years building up the reputation of Floyd and wasn't about to go out and start all over.. which essentially is what he was doing with his solo projects... One things for sure his tour with Wright and Mason blew Waters tour numbers (Pros and Con) out of the water... where as I would assume his solo tour numbers were manageable..
    Not the same era

    P&C tour was 83... AMLOR tour was from 87 until 01

    I saw both... You're kind of right (not Wright )... P&C was excellent tour (I saw it both with Clapton and without him) it was a hockey arena tur... I'd also seen Gimour's About Face tou at Totnto's Massey Hallr.... I enjoyed it, but it let's face it about (pun intended), it was not meant to go arena (MH was 1500 seats max)

    Whereas, the AMLOR went directly Stadium (they opened the tour with 3 CNE shows in Toronto), but by that time, the music business was accepting the nostalgia thing and supporting it.... But outside the big Floyd gimmicks, these CNE hows were relatively lifeless, especially the AMLOR part of their show... True enough, outside Gilmour who was fine, Wright & Mason were quite rusty

    I saw them (Floyd) in Lilles (Northern France) two or three years later, there was much less AMLOR, and much more classic Floyd... but by then, they were a well-oiled machine again

    So yeah, the record execs were right about the commerce issue... but artistically speaking it was a relative failure, that TDB only made it acceptable...
    my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.

  11. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Trane View Post

    Though I'm not sure that Yes was still a saleable name in the 80's... So they had to change something (the logo, a.o.)
    Well, the name "Yes" made not have had the same currency in 1984 a decade earlier, but it still would have been easier to sell a Yes record than it would be to sell a band nobody had heard of. It's a nice idea that you can put a sticker on the shrink wrap that says "Featuring (insert supposedly famous names)", but that's not the same as actually putting that band name on the cover. Roger Waters found out the hard way that billing yourself as "The genius behind Pink Floyd's Dark Side Of The Moon", didn't necessarily mean his solo records were gonna sell the way DSOTM and it's immediate successors did.

    The reason they changed the logo was I think for legal reasons. Apparently, Chris Squire and Alan White can call their band Yes, but they had to have the permission of others to use the classic Dean "bubble" logo. I know these days, Steve Howe is part owner of the copyright of the bubble logo, though I'm not sure if that was true in 1983. But I would bet dollars to donuts that if they had been able to clear the legalities, Atco would have insisted on them using the classic logo, rather than inventing a new one.

    (as a side note, I remember it being suggested that the reason the Chicago album Hot Streets sold so poorly was because instead of having that big classic Chicago logo filling the entire album cover, they band decided to put themselves on the cover, for the first and I think only time, and squeezed the Chicago logo off to the corner, and that thus rendered the album cover unrecognizable as "a new Chicago album" to record buyers at the time, and as a result they returned to the previous planning of having some variation on the logo for I believe all subsequent releases)

    Quote Originally Posted by Trane View Post
    And yes, I always wondered if the execs didn't push Gilmour to fight for the name.
    5though I'm sure Roger's "You wouldn't dare to..." to Dave didn't help himself
    It's hard to know exactly what went on between summer of 84 and autumn 87, in terms of what to do after About Face, but I can well imagine Dave would have wanted to continue his solo career. Beyond the fact that he probably wanted to move on with his career, there's the fact that Rick and Nick had both mostly retired from music, and Roger had quit the band. So there really wasn't a band at all. So I can well imagine at the time he wasn't even thinking "Gee, I wonder if Nick would be interested in doing a Pink Floyd record".

  12. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by happytheman View Post
    Somewhere I still have the Rolling Stone (it's got to be true) article where Dave mentions the fact that he had spent a number of years building up the reputation of Floyd and wasn't about to go out and start all over.. which essentially is what he was doing with his solo projects...

    I do remember Gilmour making the "It's like starting over" when he was interviewed in Guitar Player back in 84. The thing of it was that Pink Floyd didn't promote the individual identities of the band members. It wasn't like the Rolling Stones or The Beatles (or even Kiss, for that matter), where the names of the band members was known to the general public at large. And the most successful albums didn't have their pictures on the covers (yeah, DSOTM had that poster of the band, but the photos weren't typical "glamour shots" and there weren't captions identifying the band members.

    And the band members furthered that process by doing a minimum of press during the post-DSOTM period. They didn't want to be celebrities with their faces on the covers of tabloids the way let's John Lennon or Mick Jagger were. They managed to become one of the biggest selling bands, while at the same time being able to do stuff like going shopping or going out for a pint without being recognized by people.

    (there's a story in one of the Floyd books of a fan who walked up to Rick Wright in the hotel lobby on an AMLOR tour stop, and asking if he seen any of the Pink Floyd members hanging around...it apparently took the fan a few minutes to realize he was actually talking to a member of Pink Floyd)

    So Roger and Dave had a tough time in the mid 80's when they set out on solo careers, and found out that without that immediate name recognition, their solo albums and tours weren't going to do the kind of business Pink Floyd did.

    Now, since the late 80's, with the advent of mass MTV coverage, their names and faces are more recognizable (though still not on the same level as Paul McCartney or Keith Richards). I once heard it said that Roger had difficulty filling venues on his first couple solo tours. He even admitted as much in one of the documentaries I've seen recently, that he couldn't fill a 10,000 seat theater in some cities, when Pink Floyd was selling out multiple nights in venues 3 or 4 times that size. But the two times I saw Roger, he seemed to do fine, at least in Cleveland, filling a 20,000 seat venue.

  13. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitarGeek View Post
    The reason they changed the logo was I think for legal reasons. Apparently, Chris Squire and Alan White can call their band Yes, but they had to have the permission of others to use the classic Dean "bubble" logo. I know these days, Steve Howe is part owner of the copyright of the bubble logo, though I'm not sure if that was true in 1983. But I would bet dollars to donuts that if they had been able to clear the legalities, Atco would have insisted on them using the classic logo, rather than inventing a new one.
    Steve Howe and Roger Dean co-own the "bubble" logo, but then Howe also co-owned the Yes name and an agreement had to be negotiated with him over its use anyway, so I'm not convinced the band necessarily wanted to use it. Marketing required they show the band was modern and relevant, as well as wanting the familiar band name.

    As for shortest gaps, in the run up to 90125, Tony Kaye left and Jobson was announced to the press as his replacement... and it was a mere few months before Kaye was back and Jobson gone.

    Henry
    Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
    Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/

  14. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Re-deployed as of 22 July
    Posts
    0
    Breaks:

    Squeeze 83-85 (as already mentioned)
    Oasis 09-14


    I really can't think of a quicker reunion than Squeeze.

  15. #40
    The Earthbound version of King Crimson disbanded in rehearsal in 1972 and then went straight on tour anyway.

  16. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by unclemeat View Post
    The Earthbound version of King Crimson disbanded in rehearsal in 1972 and then went straight on tour anyway.
    Because management claimed that they had already booked that second US tour, and thus the band had commitments to fulfill. Fripp said years later that he's pretty sure that the tour was tossed together ad hoc, and the band was therefore lied to (so what else is new?).

  17. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitarGeek View Post
    (as a side note, I remember it being suggested that the reason the Chicago album Hot Streets sold so poorly was because instead of having that big classic Chicago logo filling the entire album cover, they band decided to put themselves on the cover, for the first and I think only time, and squeezed the Chicago logo off to the corner, and that thus rendered the album cover unrecognizable as "a new Chicago album" to record buyers at the time, and as a result they returned to the previous planning of having some variation on the logo for I believe all subsequent releases).
    Hot Streets sold pretty well, there were a couple of big hits on it (Alive Again and No Tell Lover). Ironically it was the next album that sold badly, despite what may be their best cover ever (the logo on the hi-rise building.

  18. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by bRETT View Post
    Hot Streets sold pretty well, there were a couple of big hits on it (Alive Again and No Tell Lover). Ironically it was the next album that sold badly, despite what may be their best cover ever (the logo on the hi-rise building.
    Oh well, I guess that's what I get for believing the "official story" on the band's website.

  19. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    Oasis 09-14.
    So, Oasis is going to reunite this year?

  20. #45
    Member Zeuhlmate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    Posts
    7,487
    Kraan
    November 9. 2013 they had their defintive last concert.
    November 19. 2013 they announced 1 koncert in 2014 (now its 2)
    10 days?

  21. #46
    It's funny how some people seem to think band reunions have to be either 100% money-driven or 100% artistically pure.

    Jon Anderson for example seems to me like he's pretty schizophrenic in his relationship to the art v/s commerce contradiction. As far as I can tell there's artistic integrity and commercial thinking (and occasionally pure greed) tangled together inside him.

    I'm sure there is something similar about Gilmour. Seems to me the Pink Floyd "comeback" in 1987 was primarily motivated by his ire at Waters for single-handedly declaring the band defunct in late 1985, and he had no idea the whole thing would be such a huge money-maker. Of course I'm sure he greatly enjoyed the money generated by the 1987-94 tours, but on the other hand it was his decision alone to retire the band after 1994. The amount of money he renounced with this single decision beggars belief, only matched by the amount of money he has donated to various charities. I really can't doubt that he is, despite being insanely rich, fundamentally a good guy.

    Speaking of Floyd, to set the record straight on some of the timelines given in this thread... Based on Mason's book and the stuff I've read here and there, basically what happened is that after "The Wall", Waters felt Pink Floyd now owed nearly all of its success to his input and Gilmour's and Mason's was negligible, thus the insulting credit on "The Final Cut" ("by RW & performed by PF") and his clear attempt with "Pros & Cons" to basically do Pink Floyd without Pink Floyd. The 1984-85 (not 1983) tour for "Pros & Cons" was on a par with Floyd tours in its grandiose staging, and was based much more on the Floyd back catalogue than Gilmour's own "About Face" tour in 1984. Still it was much less successful than previous Floyd tours (thus, I believe, Clapton's early departure from the tour band). Waters decided he had to "kill" Pink Floyd because people wouldn't pay attention to his solo career until the "threat" of Floyd's return to action didn't go away. Thus his decision to retire PF in late 1985. Gilmour, it seems, came to the opposite conclusion, i.e. that there was no point in going solo when he could play the same music to a much larger audience simply by using the Floyd moniker instead. So he quite logically chose to continue PF without Waters. Made perfect sense. Now, whether or not he had in him, artistically, what it took to make albums worthy of PF's past is another matter. Certainly, when he got both Mason and, later, Wright to join him in his endeavour, he had a serious advantage over Waters when performing the old stuff.
    Calyx (Canterbury Scene) - http://www.calyx-canterbury.fr
    Legends In Their Own Lunchtime (blog) - https://canterburyscene.wordpress.com/
    My latest books : "Yes" (2017) - https://lemotetlereste.com/musiques/yes/ + "L'Ecole de Canterbury" (2016) - http://lemotetlereste.com/musiques/lecoledecanterbury/ + "King Crimson" (2012/updated 2018) - http://lemotetlereste.com/musiques/kingcrimson/
    Canterbury & prog interviews - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdf...IUPxUMA/videos

  22. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by calyx View Post
    It's funny how some people seem to think band reunions have to be either 100% money-driven or 100% artistically pure.

    Jon Anderson for example seems to me like he's pretty schizophrenic in his relationship to the art v/s commerce contradiction. As far as I can tell there's artistic integrity and commercial thinking (and occasionally pure greed) tangled together inside him.
    Indeed. It's interesting how Bruford talks about this, as well. He often doesn't make the distinction at all: that is, he sees art and commerce as being firmly connected, they are both about relating to an audience. He speaks with pride about all his albums making a profit.

    Henry
    Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
    Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/

  23. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Hertfordshire, UK
    Posts
    0
    So many bands have re-formed so often, that perhaps the more interesting question is ... who said "we'll be back" and then never were. Excluding the inevitable ensnarings by the Grim Reaper, my prime candidates would be Dire Straits. They split after "On Every Street" ... Knopfler was asked about the future of the band, he said no more tours, but surely one-off charity gigs - but since then, as far as I am aware, absolutely zilch.

  24. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Forester1 View Post
    perhaps the more interesting question is ... who said "we'll be back" and then never were. Excluding the inevitable ensnarings by the Grim Reaper, my prime candidates would be Dire Straits. They split after "On Every Street" ... Knopfler was asked about the future of the band, he said no more tours, but surely one-off charity gigs - but since then, as far as I am aware, absolutely zilch.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dire_S...2.80.93present has not quite but close to zilch.

    Henry
    Where Are They Now? Yes news: http://www.bondegezou.co.uk/wh_now.htm
    Blogdegezou, the accompanying blog: http://bondegezou.blogspot.com/

  25. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    California USA
    Posts
    101
    Deke Leonard left Man after the second album, but was back in less than a year before they stated to record their third.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •