2007 could reasonably be called the Year of
the Reunion. Last year saw the reunions of Led Zeppelin, The Police, Rage
Against the Machine, the Spice Girls, Genesis and Van Halen (All right, so they
reunited in ?06, but the tour started in ?07). It was quite a year for music
fans, to say the least.
That said, this recent crop of reunions begs the rather
obvious ? and dubious ? question: Why? Was it for the love of music or for the
love ? or lack ? of money?
The cynic in me would argue these musical icons rejoined
forces to pad their once-overflowing wallets. After all, why are KISS and the
Eagles still on the road if not for the hordes of die-hard fans who will see
them play literally until one or more band members breaks a hip on stage?
However, the audiophile in me wants desperately to not only
believe this overload of reunion tours is for the fans and the music ? it also
wants to kill the cynical side. Besides, whether it?s for the fans or for the
giant paychecks, seeing The Police live is worth it for any reason, right?
Well, yes and no. I know, it?s a colossal cop-out but,
nonetheless, it?s the truth. The answer is ?yes? because, as an avid fan of
music, of classic rock especially, this reunion fever is like heaven for me and
other music fans. I have waited for a Zeppelin reunion since I was 13 years
old. Conversely, the answer is ?no? because my love for music has always cast a
shadow over music purely for profit.
Weighing the pros and cons, I do believe that, on the whole,
this trend of reunion tours ? and the subsequent cash ? is a good thing for
music. It?s a chance for new fans who were not able to see bands like Genesis
or Rage while they were around and old fans who just want to relive their glory
days for two hours. Certainly, there?s nothing wrong with that.
Honestly, though, I don?t think this current trend can be
spoken about as one collective unit that contains many (classic) bands.
Instead, each band must be examined separately based on its own merits and
actions.?Take The Smashing Pumpkins, for example. Here?s a band that got back
together seemingly for the sole purpose of serving front-man Billy Corgan?s
massive ego. Want evidence? How about the fact that the current lineup is
merely half of the original pumpkin: Only Billy and Jimmy Chamberlin remain
from the band that brought us Siamese Dream and Mellon
Collie. The band just couldn?t afford space for anyone else after Corgan,
his ginormous ego and Chamberlin rejoined forces.
After the failed-but-great Zwan and the failed-but-terrible
Billy Corgan solo project, it appears Corgan just wanted his band back because
everything else he touched turned to shit. It?s incredibly narcissistic and
does no service to fans who want the real Pumpkins to play ?Cherub Rock,? not
just Billy-and-some-other-people. Besides that, the band was only gone for six
years. I?m not even sure that is long enough to justify a reunion.
Reunion or not, the reformed Pumpkins have not been met
with much praise ? and rightly so. Their comeback record Zeitgeist received
a lukewarm reception, with critics wondering why Corgan did it beyond ?cash or
attention or both,? as Pitchfork Media so eloquently stated.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, though, is Led
Zeppelin. The three remaining members, Robert Plant, Jimmy Page and John Paul
Jones, all resisted resurrecting the Zeppelin name because it wouldn?t be Zep
without John ?Bonzo? Bonham. After reuniting for one-offs such as Live Aid, the
band realized it was a disservice to the fans to play without Bonzo, especially
with a revolving-door lineup of drummers, none of whom had practiced the songs.
However, Led Zeppelin became a reality once again last
December and played a show to benefit the Ahmet Erteg?n Education Fund, and
their concert has been almost universally acclaimed. Arguably the only logical
replacement behind the drum kit, Bonham?s son Jason, was also met with praise.
The difference? Well, for one, Zeppelin got back together
for a benefit concert. They didn?t do it for the money, not that they couldn?t
have made millions anyway. Two, they practiced for months to ensure they
sounded as close to their legendary heyday as possible, even going so far as to
play the show in a lower key due to the lowering of Plant?s voice over time.
That?s commitment to the music, and, more importantly, it?s commitment to the
fans.
This, of course, begs another question: Isn?t reuniting a
disservice to the fans, no matter the reason? If bands break up because they
feel the time is right (like Phish) or because an original member died (like
Zeppelin) then it cannot possibly be a good thing for a reunited band to exist
as only an anachronism of its former self. If you really think about it, it?s a
little silly for three sixty-somethings to pretend it?s 1973 again.
But maybe, just maybe, the band is able to transcend time
just as its music has. Maybe age should not be a factor if you can still play
the guitar now like you did 35 years ago. And if you have a replacement
musician? So what. It?s the songs and the atmosphere fans came to hear, anyway.
Indeed, time will tell.
At any rate, 2008 seems to be gearing up as another year to
remember for reunion tours. Already there are confirmations of Killing Joke
(original lineup!), My Bloody Valentine and, interestingly enough, Stone Temple
Pilots getting back together.
It may be a tad early for an STP reunion, to be sure, as
they only broke up in 2002. Here?s to hoping the 2008 tour isn?t to help defray
Scott Weiland?s rehab costs.
Steve Lampiris is a senior majoring in political science.
If you (naively) think KISS is still on tour for the fans or you want to argue
that reunion tours are inherently pointless, e-mail him at [email protected].
