Is there anything fundamentally wrong with being a nostalgia act?

[Tom2112]

"Nostalgia act" is a weird label, no one thinks of Dylan or Van Morrison as nostalgia acts. When Robert Plant tours, is anyone thinking he's doing a "nostalgia" tour? If people go see Jeff Beck or Santana, they might be going to see a known song, but they're there more to see the musicianship.

Alice Cooper might be a nostalgia act, KISS, or Motley Crue, but they're putting on a stage show that people have come to expect. Iron Maiden's "Caught Somewhere Back in Time" tour could be called a nostalgia tour but when they were promoting "Matter of Life and Death", I don't know if you could call that a nostalgia tour.

Elton John - people are there for the back catalog and I would have called Face To Face a "cash grab tour" more than a nostalgia tour. I don't know if I could call either of them nostalgia acts..who's nostalgia are we talking about? The audience got stoned to "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" or the audience that watched "Lion King" a million times?

Aerosmith had 2 careers and 2 different audiences. It's like talking about 70s Billy Joel where he put The Stranger and Glass Houses out, and "80s Joel"

Robert Plant is a bad example, he tours with so many bands in so many styles and he rarely does the nostalgia trip... and when he does, it's almost unrecognisable (to a fault some might say).

Also, the Maiden tour was definitely a nostalgia tour, they brought back props from the 80s and only played songs between certain eras 1980-88 for example... but that was because they just came off an album cycle where they cut a load of the standards out of their set in favour of new songs. Maiden do it right.

Don't get me wrong, the gnr set is pretty decent, and if you hadn't ever seen them, they'd probably be playing just about all the songs you would want - first time around at least. 2nd, 3rd or 4th times and it's the same set... same order, you have to be getting bored. I know of no other band that sticks that closely to a set list for such a long period, that opening salvo of AFD cuts has been around since 2001!!, ending each concert with Paradise city has been around for the same length too, and longer (at least the old band changed it up from time to time).

I wouldn't know how I'd react if they came around and played the same set again (having paid to see them, not talking youtube videos), I feel like I'd leave... or at least want to leave and be more than a bit disgusted and ripped off. A 2016 tour should look nothing like the 2009-2014 tours, new stage / stage show... new pyro bits, videos etc., new songs / set list (different order of songs would be bare minimum)... the only thing that should stay in tact is the line up **crossed fingers, toes, testicles... ouch!**

[WhazUp]

Not really, however if you do it under the guise of saying a new album is coming out year after year / is near completion without anything actually happeneing and saying the band has exiting things coming up but all we get is the same shows with 90% the same setlists (and especially after DJ's "we don't have a setlist written up when we play" comment) I find it kind of distasteful.

It is like GNR has so many plans and over the past 16 years have had so much potential but once they started touring they went "fuck it this is good enough let's just keep doing this over and over again". Other bands like REO Speedwagon have no choice but to be a nostaliga act because nobody really cares about them except for like 2 songs.

With GNR they didn't HAVE to turn into this, they kind of just did

Edited March 18, 2015 by WhazUp

[Apollo]

A couple of you are completely ignoring the point that several people keep making.

If Axl wants to give up or he has nothing left in the tank - so be it. Then every couple years do the nostalgic tours. Old fans are happy and Axl can fatten his bank account.

BUT what about Axl, The Beta and band members continuously talking about Axl having at least two completed albums in the can along with somewhere between 10 and 40 more partial songs that they have been working on.

AND Axl, The Beta and band members all saying that GnR planned to release albums.

Go the nostalgic route if you want. But why talk about all the music you have and that you plan to release?

That's what frustrates fans.

[Apollo]

********

Some of us remember the quote from Axl who said that he would hate to become a band that just played the same old songs tour after tour without ever releasing new music.

[downzy]

"Nostalgia act" is a weird label, no one thinks of Dylan or Van Morrison as nostalgia acts. When Robert Plant tours, is anyone thinking he's doing a "nostalgia" tour? If people go see Jeff Beck or Santana, they might be going to see a known song, but they're there more to see the musicianship.

I can guarantee you that most casual Dylan and Van Morrison fans think of each artist as a nostalgia act. I like both acts, but I'd be mighty pissed if either ignored their hits were I to attend one of their concerts.

A nostalgia act, to me, is one in which the majority of those in attendance want to hear the hits - the back catalogue - and couldn't give a shit about anything new. They'll put up with one or two new songs, but they want to hear the songs that remind them of their youth. Once an artist starts releasing a string of bad albums, most people do not turn to them for new material.

In all likelihood, had the classic lineup not had broken up in the early 90s, they probably were one or two albums away from becoming a nostalgic act themselves. Very few artists remain relevant for more than a decade. The truly great artists may span 15 years, but that's about it.

I don't begrudge Axl for making the best of his situation. If I were him, a little more than a decade away from turning 65, I'd probably want to cash in as much as possible at this point.

What's disappointing, as a fan who has supported Axl's career post '94, is how little he's done with the name since taking control. It would be one thing if it were Axl, Izzy, Duff, and Slash cashing in on their previous efforts as a group, it's another to watch and support when it's just Axl. Most of his fans were under the impression he held onto the name because he had a vision and wanted to push the band in new directions. This concept felt fully realized in 2008 and 2010/2011, when the band seemed to run on new material and less so on the classic hits. But since 2012, with a dearth of new material, it's felt like the band has relied a little too heavily on the songs that few current members had anything to do with. That's not to say that some of the performances haven't been great; but it's been a bit disappointing to see that there hasn't been more to this production than what we've gotten so far.

[ChineseIRS]

"Nostalgia act" is a weird label, no one thinks of Dylan or Van Morrison as nostalgia acts. When Robert Plant tours, is anyone thinking he's doing a "nostalgia" tour? If people go see Jeff Beck or Santana, they might be going to see a known song, but they're there more to see the musicianship.

I can guarantee you that most casual Dylan and Van Morrison fans think of each artist as a nostalgia act. I like both acts, but I'd be mighty pissed if either ignored their hits were I to attend one of their concerts.

A nostalgia act, to me, is one in which the majority of those in attendance want to hear the hits - the back catalogue - and couldn't give a shit about anything new. They'll put up with one or two new songs, but they want to hear the songs that remind them of their youth. Once an artist starts releasing a string of bad albums, most people do not turn to them for new material.

In all likelihood, had the classic lineup not had broken up in the early 90s, they probably were one or two albums away from becoming a nostalgic act themselves. Very few artists remain relevant for more than a decade. The truly great artists may span 15 years, but that's about it.

I don't begrudge Axl for making the best of his situation. If I were him, a little more than a decade away from turning 65, I'd probably want to cash in as much as possible at this point.

What's disappointing, as a fan who has supported Axl's career post '94, is how little he's done with the name since taking control. It would be one thing if it were Axl, Izzy, Duff, and Slash cashing in on their previous efforts as a group, it's another to watch and support when it's just Axl. Most of his fans were under the impression he held onto the name because he had a vision and wanted to push the band in new directions. This concept felt fully realized in 2008 and 2010/2011, when the band seemed to run on new material and less so on the classic hits. But since 2012, with a dearth of new material, it's felt like the band has relied a little too heavily on the songs that few current members had anything to do with. That's not to say that some of the performances haven't been great; but it's been a bit disappointing to see that there hasn't been more to this production than what we've gotten so far.

Reached my quota for today, but great post!

Edited March 18, 2015 by downzy

[downzy]

Another thing that I find somewhat disingenuous is the out put complaints. Now, yes I for one do in fact wish we had more albums, and I don't think ggnrs discography is near the stones or acdc, but it's not nearly as bad as some make it out to be. I did the math on Axls actual number of recorded minutes of music, (it was a while ago in a different thread obviously) but it really surprised me. Axl is only about 34 minutes behind Zeppelin (not counting Coda, since Coda isn't a true album, and about 70 behind if you do count it), and is in the same ballpark with DLR VH and Sammy VH, when counted sepratly of course. Which I'm not saying neither VH or Zeppelin have massive discographies, But you don't hear their fans complain about their out puts.

No one complains about Led Zeppelin's relatively short discography because John Bonham, the drummer who was quintessential to the band's sound, died, causing the band to break up. The band respected his input so much they decided not to carry on. Also keep in mind that both Page and Plant have released albums together in the 90s. All five members of the classic lineup are still alive. Death is not holding back a reformed GNR (or current lineup) from releasing new album

And Van Halen fans, once DLR left, were given a new version of a band that released four more albums just over a decade following DLR's split. I'm fairly sure that few GNR fans would complain if Axl had released four albums with his new lineups by now.

Sorry, but don't see how your analogy holds up.

[DieselDaisy]

Well, I think that it is pretty certain now that GNR has reached the same level as Aerosmith, Bon Jovi, Van Halen, Def Leppard, Kiss, etc where they are essentially a "nostalgia" band. Touring every few years, playing the hits, not really pushing boundaries or doing anything creative anymore, etc. Now, a lot of these older bands have kind of deserved that. A band like Bon Jovi or Aerosmith, for example, has been around for decades, released tons of music, and built their following. So, I think its cool if they just want to play the hits and all that.

What makes GNR different? Should a band always try and push new material and creativity?

You cannot even compare Guns to those bands. The thing is, all those bands (Aerosmith, Bon Jovi, Van Halen), release albums occasionally. I get your point about them being 'nostalgia acts' in the sense that the new material barely makes an impression on their setlists, and the albums are few-and-far-between, but they still put them out once in a blue moon.

Guns are more like an Elvis tribute act or The Osmonds in the sense that they exist solely to deliver nostalgia.

To answer your question though, not in itself is there anything wrong with it but I never for once imagined Axl becoming such an act - Slash maybe but not Axl. Axl once said he wanted to 'destroy Appetite' with Illusion; Axl experimented with industrial music; Axl envisioned a 'trilogy'.

[Ragnar]

No. there is nothing wrong when you do it right but when you have promised the fans to reinvent yourself and your band from scratch and all you do is wallow in a sea of mediocrity then there`s something fundamentally wrong with being a nostalgia act.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Dark Knight

[SoulMonster]

So Axl's plans to reinvent the band failed, can we get over it now?

[DieselDaisy]

The sad thing is, out of all those bands mentioned, there is only one (Def Leopard) who have not released an album since Axl released Chinese Democracy. Some of them have released two. In other words, out of all your examples of 'nostalgia acts' provided, Axl is even more lazy and more a nostalgia act than any of them.

Case in point,

Aerosmith - Music from Another Dimension! (2012)

Bon Jovi - The Circle (2009)

Bon Jovi - What About Now (2013)

Van Halen - A Different Kind of Truth (2012)

Kiss - Sonic Boom (2009)

Kiss - Monster (2012).

Edited March 18, 2015 by DieselDaisy

[Tom2112]

The sad thing is, out of all those bands mentioned, there is only one (Def Leopard) who have not released an album since Axl released Chinese Democracy. Some of them have released two. In other words, out of all your examples of 'nostalgia acts' provided, Axl is even more lazy and more a nostalgia act than any of them.

Case in point,

Aerosmith - Music from Another Dimension! (2012)

Bon Jovi - The Circle (2009)

Bon Jovi - What About Now (2013)

Van Halen - A Different Kind of Truth (2012)

Kiss - Sonic Boom (2009)

Kiss - Monster (2012).

Def Leppard have an album coming out at the end of the summer / Autumn... gonna guess that's still before GnR. Also, Vivian Cambell has cancer, and they've toured a lot over the last 5-8 years like every band who want some pocket money... did a residency too, all the while working away at a new album and it's now ready to go... life didn't seem to get in the way for Def Leppard...! What was that GnR?? nothing? oh OK!

Edited March 18, 2015 by Tom2112

[DieselDaisy]

Jimi Hendrix and Michael Jackson have both released two albums apiece since Axl released Chinese Democracy and they are both dead!

Words literally cannot describe the laziness of Axl.

[Nosaj Thing]

Being a nostalgia act with a completely different band which was designed to fundamentally erase the work of the old band and create a new era of modern and awesome music is kinda silly.

No. there is nothing wrong when you do it right but when you have promised the fans to reinvent yourself and your band from scratch and all you do is wallow in a sea of mediocrity then there`s something fundamentally wrong with being a nostalgia act.

This.

lol "Axl's vision"

[dalsh327]

"Nostalgia act" is a weird label, no one thinks of Dylan or Van Morrison as nostalgia acts. When Robert Plant tours, is anyone thinking he's doing a "nostalgia" tour? If people go see Jeff Beck or Santana, they might be going to see a known song, but they're there more to see the musicianship.

I can guarantee you that most casual Dylan and Van Morrison fans think of each artist as a nostalgia act. I like both acts, but I'd be mighty pissed if either ignored their hits were I to attend one of their concerts.

A nostalgia act, to me, is one in which the majority of those in attendance want to hear the hits - the back catalogue - and couldn't give a shit about anything new. They'll put up with one or two new songs, but they want to hear the songs that remind them of their youth. Once an artist starts releasing a string of bad albums, most people do not turn to them for new material.

In all likelihood, had the classic lineup not had broken up in the early 90s, they probably were one or two albums away from becoming a nostalgic act themselves. Very few artists remain relevant for more than a decade. The truly great artists may span 15 years, but that's about it.

I don't begrudge Axl for making the best of his situation. If I were him, a little more than a decade away from turning 65, I'd probably want to cash in as much as possible at this point.

What's disappointing, as a fan who has supported Axl's career post '94, is how little he's done with the name since taking control. It would be one thing if it were Axl, Izzy, Duff, and Slash cashing in on their previous efforts as a group, it's another to watch and support when it's just Axl. Most of his fans were under the impression he held onto the name because he had a vision and wanted to push the band in new directions. This concept felt fully realized in 2008 and 2010/2011, when the band seemed to run on new material and less so on the classic hits. But since 2012, with a dearth of new material, it's felt like the band has relied a little too heavily on the songs that few current members had anything to do with. That's not to say that some of the performances haven't been great; but it's been a bit disappointing to see that there hasn't been more to this production than what we've gotten so far.

For a while, the Dylan fans were expecting "the hits" and he refused to do them the way the fans wanted them, so I think he battled with being a nostalgia act...up to when he put Time Out of Mind out and started playing campuses, and he started having this new fanbase that supported his newer music, and the older fans that were being more and more put off by his "rearrangements".

Neil Young.... I would say sort of, depending on the tour. If he's doing nothing but a full length new album and throwing people a few old hits out at the end almost as a "thanks for putting up with my indulgence", I don't think that's a nostalgia tour. CSNY - yes but the last tour they did was 4 curmudgeons wanting Bush out of office so it wasn't about pleasing the fans.

David Byrne and Morrissey have had tours where they did very little of Talking Heads & Smiths songs, and other tours where it was heavily weighed with the band songs.

Tom Waits - I feel like he had 2 eras, maybe 3, but he picked up a whole new fanbase from Bone Machine on, but he was always a "cult" artist. He occasionally dipped into his 70s catalog. I don't think people go to his shows expecting him to do "the hits".

When artists play arenas, there's more of an obligation to do "the hits" and becomes about money. In a theater, not so much.

Everyone in GNR had to come in ready to know the entire catalog at one time, they probably have only rehearsed 40 songs from the back catalog in the past 6 years over and over, and barely tap into UYI.

[Len Cnut]

No i don't think there is. Not at all. The problem is when you are in a band that purported at the time to represent 'da yoof' then you suffer from that because you kinda give yourself a sell by date. By the time you are old you are not suited for your niche anymore. This is why blues players never really get old or become nostalgia acts, because their shit is just plain music. Where as pop bands (in the strictest sense, popular music) align themselves with youth culture and suffer from it. And this is when being a nostalgia act because something that has a slightly tragic tone to it. It's why newspapers call people like The Stones or GnR 'wrinkly rockers', because it's an insult, its a dig at the fact that these are bands that represented the youth that are now old themselves.

This is the difference between music that is just straight fruit of the Gods and music that is marketed, music that is sold with a specific audience in mind. And this is why bands of this kind are pressed to push forward, to make new kinds of music, to grow...because it takes them out of that particular bind...then when you fail to do so you just become these aged rockers.

Hip Hop is exactly the same, you can't really age in hip hop and still hit like you did when you were younger because, really and truly, a 40 something Nas or Ghostface Killah have no business wearing saggy jeans and rhyming about Jordans and gold chains and the block etc

Guns n Roses played on the fact that they were a dangerous band, they represented the youth, they were good looking troubled street urchins and...when that idea is marketed correctly, it's gets ingrained in people minds, you see shades of it on this forum even, when people kinda cast a dim view on Axl when he engages in some sort of behaviour that isn't congruous with the rudeboy that we think he is, forgetting that he's a middle aged millionaire now...but they just exist in this microcosmic bubble in our imaginations where they are still the main characters in Appetite.

So really, it's kinda their own fault, in an odd way. It's kinda something thats only expected of bands that paint themselves into a one dimensional corner from the get-go. When you kinda establish yourself under like...an archetype...like we're rebels or we're the band of youth culture...when you fulfill that shit then it leaves the question 'OK, well what else can you do?' No one asks that of someone like Tom Waits or something...because they never paint themselves in a corner like that.

Then you have clever people like Bob Dylan that kept being forcibly painted into a corner by the audience and their expectations and he subverted it EVERY TIME because he was a wise young cookie and he knew what that does to people. It may come across as arrogant at the time and nit-picking and grouchy and 'aww, Bobs no fun'. But this is why Bob is still going today and he can release albums, at age 60 something or 70 something or however old he is and people just kinda take it for a piece of music instead of like going on about how Bobs an old man, it's kinda meaningless when discussing Bob.

For as much as bands like GnR etc think of themselves as singular bloody minded 'we're fucking doing it our way and fuck you for not agreeing' type people they're actually not and by positioning themselves in the way they do they paint themselves into a corner and they suffer for it later.

[Iron MikeyJ]

Another thing that I find somewhat disingenuous is the out put complaints. Now, yes I for one do in fact wish we had more albums, and I don't think ggnrs discography is near the stones or acdc, but it's not nearly as bad as some make it out to be. I did the math on Axls actual number of recorded minutes of music, (it was a while ago in a different thread obviously) but it really surprised me. Axl is only about 34 minutes behind Zeppelin (not counting Coda, since Coda isn't a true album, and about 70 behind if you do count it), and is in the same ballpark with DLR VH and Sammy VH, when counted sepratly of course. Which I'm not saying neither VH or Zeppelin have massive discographies, But you don't hear their fans complain about their out puts.

No one complains about Led Zeppelin's relatively short discography because John Bonham, the drummer who was quintessential to the band's sound, died, causing the band to break up. The band respected his input so much they decided not to carry on. Also keep in mind that both Page and Plant have released albums together in the 90s. All five members of the classic lineup are still alive. Death is not holding back a reformed GNR (or current lineup) from releasing new album

And Van Halen fans, once DLR left, were given a new version of a band that released four more albums just over a decade following DLR's split. I'm fairly sure that few GNR fans would complain if Axl had released four albums with his new lineups by now.

Sorry, but don't see how your analogy holds up.

But my point was nobody says (no matter the reasons) "Led Zeppelin has a small discography". Why? Because they released a lot of albums, but the thing is, by today's standards they are very short albums. Physical Graffiti could "almost" be considered a single album by today's standards. While gnr on the other hand, by 70s standards would have released 3 double aalbums; UYI 1, UYI 2, and CD. That's why in recorded minutes they are not far off from Zeppelin. Yes obviously the reasons are far different, and zeppelin did it in a little over a decade, while it an been decades for gnr. But again I'm looking at this from an unbiased perspective and concentrating on just the music.

As for VH, as with zeppelin, the out puts were mostly in a short period of time, yes. And if you combine both eras, and the cherone era, then yes they'll gnr out of the water. But that's the thing, if you go see them live, you will only see one era represented, no matter who is singing. Thays what originally got me thinking about this, because VH plays for about 1:45 to 2 hours, and they play all their hits and represent all their albums well. If they wanted to play longer they could, but they don't. But gnr on the other hand plays for almost 3 hours most nights. Yes Axl does throw in some covers that were never on an album, plus the solos, so that does help stretch things out. But most VH fans are either on one side or the other, I feel like a am a minority that actually likes both eras tbh. So you can almost view them as two different bands.

I gotta go, can't finish my thought process, cheers.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Iron MikeyJ

[EvH]

[Len Cnut]

Jimi Hendrix and Michael Jackson have both released two albums apiece since Axl released Chinese Democracy and they are both dead!

Words literally cannot describe the laziness of Axl.

Jimi Hendrix started playing guitar aged like 12 or 13 and died when he was 27 years old. That means he learned to play guitar, practised to the point of being the best, released three game changing albums and died all in the time it took to create Chinese Democracy, if you think about it thats fucking hilairious, the best to ever do it learned his craft and cemented his position as the best to do it in the time it took to make Chi Dem. I find that fucking mindblowing. Jimi Hendrixes entire creative contribution to rock music, arguably the most important in its history, was all executed done and dusted in the time it took to make Chi Dem. And it was still shit And people try and compare Axl & Co to some of the titans of yester-year, it's fucking laughable really.

John Lennons entire existence in the public eye is less than how long it took to make Chi Dem. Lennon was 22 years old when the Beatles got their first hit, thereabouts anyway, he was dead by the time he was 40...so thats 18 years...then chop 5 years of that off where he was not in the public eye and not making music being a house husband, thats 13 years. And in that time he got 10 Beatles albums in, a shitload of solo albums, a handful of films, the most brutal touring schedule ever known and etc etc, all the other things that John Lennon managed in his life that i don't need to explain to you. And Lennon was considered a lazy kinda of chappie really, this is the guy that wrote I'm Only Sleeping.

The idea that Axl Rose is anywhere near the creative level of the guys of that calibre, or even a couple of categories below, is just fucking laughable really and any sober right minded impartial person would laugh you out of the fucking room for even hinting at that shit.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Len B'stard

[ZoSoRose]

"Nostalgia act" is a weird label, no one thinks of Dylan or Van Morrison as nostalgia acts. When Robert Plant tours, is anyone thinking he's doing a "nostalgia" tour? If people go see Jeff Beck or Santana, they might be going to see a known song, but they're there more to see the musicianship.

I can guarantee you that most casual Dylan and Van Morrison fans think of each artist as a nostalgia act. I like both acts, but I'd be mighty pissed if either ignored their hits were I to attend one of their concerts.

A nostalgia act, to me, is one in which the majority of those in attendance want to hear the hits - the back catalogue - and couldn't give a shit about anything new. They'll put up with one or two new songs, but they want to hear the songs that remind them of their youth. Once an artist starts releasing a string of bad albums, most people do not turn to them for new material.

In all likelihood, had the classic lineup not had broken up in the early 90s, they probably were one or two albums away from becoming a nostalgic act themselves. Very few artists remain relevant for more than a decade. The truly great artists may span 15 years, but that's about it.

I don't begrudge Axl for making the best of his situation. If I were him, a little more than a decade away from turning 65, I'd probably want to cash in as much as possible at this point.

What's disappointing, as a fan who has supported Axl's career post '94, is how little he's done with the name since taking control. It would be one thing if it were Axl, Izzy, Duff, and Slash cashing in on their previous efforts as a group, it's another to watch and support when it's just Axl. Most of his fans were under the impression he held onto the name because he had a vision and wanted to push the band in new directions. This concept felt fully realized in 2008 and 2010/2011, when the band seemed to run on new material and less so on the classic hits. But since 2012, with a dearth of new material, it's felt like the band has relied a little too heavily on the songs that few current members had anything to do with. That's not to say that some of the performances haven't been great; but it's been a bit disappointing to see that there hasn't been more to this production than what we've gotten so far.

Well said, Downzy!

[dalsh327]

Where are people on AC/DC being a "nostalgia act"?

[Seb91]

Bob Dylan really isn't a nostalgia act - when I saw him on his last UK tour in 2013 most of the songs in the set were from Time Out Of Mind (1997) onwards and plenty from his then latest album Tempest. There were a few of the classics but in true Dylan fashion they were heavily reworked. Dylan's always been someone who focuses on the future. Anyone who goes to see Dylan out of nostalgia will be disappointed. His more recent stuff is amazing anyway.

I guess there's nothing wrong with being a nostalgia act but it's more interesting to follow a band if they put out new material and play it live. I think with Guns the fact is that the core structure of the show hasn't changed in years now. There's only so many times you can see the same show. Take someone like Peter Gabriel - the guy takes his time releasing albums and hasn't released a new album (of original) since 2002. The thing is though that he did the orchestral stuff which was great and added a new dimension to the songs. Even his last tour - which on paper was as big a nostalgia show as you can get as he played So in full with the same band who recorded it - featured two new songs - one of which was a work in progress. Plus, it was a brilliantly structured and thought out show - seriously one of the best (if not the best) I've seen. So you don't have to release new music to put on an interesting show but as Axl (in the great scheme of things) hasn't got that many songs in his back catalogue there's only so many times he can mine the old stuff without it getting dull.

Edited March 18, 2015 by BassistSeb

[Iron MikeyJ]

I for one do not consider posthumous albums part of an artist's discography. They are hodgepodge collections of leftovers thrown together in order to get a cash grab. Honestly none of them are even any good, including the Hendrix and MJ albums. Utter garbage compared to their true albums....

[D-GenerationX]

There is nothing wrong with it, so long as you can be honest that's all you are.

And as long as people are going to get all butthurt about the label, we aren't there yet.

[Tom-Ass]

I embrace nostalgia