pat
First Class Scout
Posts: 209
|
Post by pat on Apr 3, 2006 12:19:22 GMT -5
It's nice that they got together and recorded something, but having somebody who never had anything to do with The Replacements play the drums kind of ruins it for me. Excellent point. What makes these songs different than "Trumpet Clip"? That was Tommy, Paul, and Josh too right? |
|
|
|
Post by paulie on Apr 3, 2006 12:53:11 GMT -5
if michael bland played drums that would MAKE it for me. M.B. is the best drummer Paul has ever played with.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluegrassduke on Apr 3, 2006 13:16:32 GMT -5
Thank God this wasn't a cruel April Fools Day joke!!! And if it is, there is going to be some hurting delivered from the fanatics here!
|
|
|
|
Post by SnowCover on Apr 3, 2006 14:39:45 GMT -5
It's nice that they got together and recorded something, but having somebody who never had anything to do with The Replacements play the drums kind of ruins it for me. Excellent point. What makes these songs different than "Trumpet Clip"? That was Tommy, Paul, and Josh too right? And a song or two for the Open Season soundtrack. |
|
|
|
Post by scoOter on Apr 3, 2006 21:34:37 GMT -5
Chrisars is probably out of practice since he was so involved in his art . Slim did a good job but he never was a Mat . Only a hired hand . I would go see Paul and Tommy with a few new hired hands . Can some guys from Soul Asylum fill in ? Just to keep the MPLS theme . SCREW AXL back when "paul & the painkillers" were about to play their initial mpls dates at the pantages theater, back when no one knew who was in the band, i called: paul - git/vox tommy - bass/vox dave pirner - drums/vox dan murphy - git/vox |
|
|
|
Post by GoddamnJob290 on Apr 3, 2006 22:44:02 GMT -5
Excellent point. What makes these songs different than "Trumpet Clip"? That was Tommy, Paul, and Josh too right? And a song or two for the Open Season soundtrack. Or the majority of All Shook Down The Replacements, as they were, are gone. Mostly, I'm pretty happy that Paul hooked up with some studio musicians again. Considering that Tommy plays and Chris was part of the recording process, I'm willing to consider the new songs as Replacements songs. They won't be the band at its peak (which has long past), but rather just another chapter in the band's story. I don't think comparisons to post-1993 Big Star would be too much of a stretch here. |
|
|
|
Post by Tarzan on Apr 4, 2006 0:02:16 GMT -5
cford wrote:
I think Slim, despite his five years with the band, was always considered an outsider...that seems to be a common thing with bands... I read that Ron Wood, who is been in the Rolling Stones for 20 some-odd years (maybe more) still feels like the "new guy".
I remember reading that one of the early 1990s Stones tours (Voodoo Lounge???) was the first time Ron Wood got an equal cut of the take, or however the Stones got paid for tours. He joined the band in 1975.
|
|
The Indoor Boy
Beagle Scout
"Such a morning must come to all the friends of Smirnoff."
Posts: 1,904
|
Post by The Indoor Boy on Apr 4, 2006 15:41:16 GMT -5
I'd hope the results of this get together will be a vast improvement on Big Star's In Space, a fair portion of which was the aural equivalent of pissing on an exhumed corpse. I'd rather listen to solo Chilton in his Like Flies on Sherbert phase.
That said, I am gleeful. Buckets of fresh glee surround me as I pray, pray to a god I'd long abandoned (or was it the other way round?) to make this work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitardude23 on Apr 4, 2006 18:08:11 GMT -5
It'll be good and at the very least hilarious. Hell I'd take Phil Collins on drums over them not getting back together!
|
|
|
|
Post by bluegrassduke on Apr 5, 2006 13:53:30 GMT -5
It'll be good and at the very least hilarious. Hell I'd take Phil Collins on drums over them not getting back together! Hey, Phil always considered himself "jus a drummer", so maybe it can happen! |
|
|
|
Post by bigbak on Apr 5, 2006 19:51:50 GMT -5
What a question: Can Paul and Tommy be considered a 'Mats reunion?
Would Lennon and McCartney have constituted a Beatles Reunion?
Mick Jones and Joe Strummer the Clash?
Pete Townsend and Roger Daltry...uh, okay, yes, it would seem that now they are The Who.
How about Weller and, say, Bruce Foxton?
How about Manzarek and Krieger as The Doors (Mr. Densmore, please don't sue me for the implication....)
|
|
MacGyver
Beagle Scout
We were gonna meet...
Posts: 1,641
|
Post by MacGyver on Apr 5, 2006 20:41:44 GMT -5
OMFG!!
I can't hardly wait!
|
|
nazareth
Star Scout
All men are Liars.......
Posts: 537
|
Post by nazareth on Apr 6, 2006 20:17:00 GMT -5
It's nice that they got together and recorded something, but having somebody who never had anything to do with The Replacements play the drums kind of ruins it for me. Excellent point. What makes these songs different than "Trumpet Clip"? That was Tommy, Paul, and Josh too right? You could argue that PTMM through ASD are not 'Mats albums either because there was no Bob. What ratio of the original band does there need to be for it to be the band? |
|
Chris
Dances With Posts
Posts: 52
|
Post by Chris on Apr 8, 2006 7:38:34 GMT -5
If a band replaces a key member and keeps on going - Van Halen, Genesis, the 79 Who, The Ramones, Judas Priest - they get to keep the name. If they stop, go away for five or ten years, then "reform" with half the band and a couple of new guys, then it's a new band - Audioslave. The picture I saw of Soul Asylum in the paper yesterday with Tommy and Mike Bland, for instance, isn't Soul Asylum.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianlux on Apr 9, 2006 9:51:17 GMT -5
I go away on a short vacation, come home, and look- new 'Mats songs- new Cd announced!!
Maybe I should take more vacations!
|
|
Smoo
Beagle Scout
Posts: 2,394
|
Post by Smoo on Apr 9, 2006 13:14:48 GMT -5
If a band replaces a key member and keeps on going - Van Halen, Genesis, the 79 Who, The Ramones, Judas Priest - they get to keep the name. If they stop, go away for five or ten years, then "reform" with half the band and a couple of new guys, then it's a new band - Audioslave. The picture I saw of Soul Asylum in the paper yesterday with Tommy and Mike Bland, for instance, isn't Soul Asylum. I think if the singer leaves the band is over. For better or worse, the singer is the main identity of band. There have been a few exceptions where, at least commercially, it has been pulled off.(Van Halen, Genesis, Pink Floyd, I'm sure there are probably others) But for the most part it doesn't work. The Stones would be back to playing nightclubs without Mick even though Keith is the heart and soul of that band. Or maybe Charlie Watts is. Anyway, the point I'm taking forever to make is that I'll go see Paul and Tommy with anyone, but I wouldn't spend the time and money to go see Tommy and Chris even though I like them. Jim Morrison solo would have been much more "Doorsy" than Krieger, Manzarak, and Ian Astbury could ever hope to be. I always liked the Cult, I don't know what Ian is thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by earthdog70 on Apr 9, 2006 22:21:21 GMT -5
I'm happy for this. But maybe it should just be billed "The Paul and Tommy" show if they tour. If Mars will not be drumming and Slim was left hanging, this only does half the job for me ;D Paul mentioned the cash part-even Frank Black knew they wouldn't make $14 mil on a tour if Kim Deal wasn't there. The more old band members the better-or all you really end up with is "The New Cars"  |
|
|
|
Post by Sowbug2000 on Apr 11, 2006 16:17:08 GMT -5
Smoo, very insightful post....imho....and, while I don't want to step on a bunch of "regulars" around here.....I tend to agree that if you keep your front man, typically, the band will carry on (from a touring perspective, anyway). I was no Van Hagar fan....and your Stones reference goes a long way. Could Dave Navarro have filled in for Slash 10 years ago? Arguably yes.....but Michael Stipe couldn't have filled in for Axl <<<< like him or not!  That said....I'm buying the CD and going to any shows!  Ian Astbury has always been a Jim Morrison wannabe....remember the black leather cowboy hat with the skull on it??? ala Jim? I am a Cult fan too, btw. If a band replaces a key member and keeps on going - Van Halen, Genesis, the 79 Who, The Ramones, Judas Priest - they get to keep the name. If they stop, go away for five or ten years, then "reform" with half the band and a couple of new guys, then it's a new band - Audioslave. The picture I saw of Soul Asylum in the paper yesterday with Tommy and Mike Bland, for instance, isn't Soul Asylum. I think if the singer leaves the band is over. For better or worse, the singer is the main identity of band. There have been a few exceptions where, at least commercially, it has been pulled off.(Van Halen, Genesis, Pink Floyd, I'm sure there are probably others) But for the most part it doesn't work. The Stones would be back to playing nightclubs without Mick even though Keith is the heart and soul of that band. Or maybe Charlie Watts is. Anyway, the point I'm taking forever to make is that I'll go see Paul and Tommy with anyone, but I wouldn't spend the time and money to go see Tommy and Chris even though I like them. Jim Morrison solo would have been much more "Doorsy" than Krieger, Manzarak, and Ian Astbury could ever hope to be. I always liked the Cult, I don't know what Ian is thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by fungo on Apr 14, 2006 12:23:25 GMT -5
Interesting we're having this conversation about a band called "The Replacements"  It reminds me of Spinal Tap: "So we became The Originals." "Well there was another group in the East End called The Originals and we had to rename ourselves." "The New Originals." "The New Originals. And then they became..." "The Regulars, and we thought we could go back to The Originals, but what's the point?" |
|
|
|
Post by Martian on Apr 18, 2006 11:18:34 GMT -5
If Paul considers getting back into the studio with Tommy and Chris to be a Replacements reunion; then that is enough for me to consider it a Replacements reunion.
|
|
