Re: The Roses made their choiceAugust 8 2017 at 6:43 PM
pumpo (Login pumpo)
Response to Re: The Roses made their choice
I don't think they've been that bothered since about 1989, personally.
On the other hand, I don't think someone cracking the whip would make any difference. They grafted because they wanted to way back when.
I don't think hard work is any replacement for inspiration, which is what they lack.
Same as most artists, isn't it? Except most never have an imperial phase.
What bands or singers have consistently been great throughout a long ish career? Particularly coming back with something as good as, or better, than the best of their classic material?
Maybe someone has, but I can't think of any. They've done their best and - to an extent - realised they don't have it anymore. Not creatively as a unit, anyway.
I've not been to any reunion gigs, but what I've heard hasn't made me regret it.
Diminishing returns since Fools Gold, if you ask me.
Joseph Heller, when asked why he'd not reached the heights of Catch-22 in his following books used to reply, 'No, I haven't written anything as good as that, and neither has anyone else.'
Which is how I feel about The Roses, currently.
It's not for lack of trying.
|This message has been edited by pumpo on Aug 8, 2017 6:49 PM|
- Re: The Roses made their choice - stiv on Aug 8, 2017, 6:53 PM
- Re: The Roses made their choice - pumpo on Aug 8, 2017, 10:35 PM
- Re: The Roses made their choice - G on Aug 9, 2017, 2:05 AM
- Re: The Roses made their choice - Johnny Bravo on Aug 8, 2017, 10:49 PM
- Re: The Roses made their choice - pumpo on Aug 9, 2017, 2:21 AM