Page 2 of 2

Posted: 11 Jun 2007, 18:11
by Rise&Reverberate
James Blast wrote:...I now have the dilemma of listen to or not listen to.

The latter is winning.
I didn't listen to it, in fact mine is currently en-route to the 'HL' part of Estonia :lol:

Posted: 11 Jun 2007, 18:15
by James Blast
think I'll send mine there too :lol:

Posted: 12 Jun 2007, 14:01
by ormfdmrush
thanks R&R

Posted: 16 Jun 2007, 04:57
by Veda
They could have been huge, as it was they had the compelling frontman, the talent in spades and the image. Lots of press. But as it is they are a mid-level band, hugely influential and with an incredibly legacy, but mid-tier nonetheless.

Posted: 16 Jun 2007, 08:30
by Ozpat
Veda wrote:They could have been huge, as it was they had the compelling frontman, the talent in spades and the image. Lots of press. But as it is they are a mid-level band, hugely influential and with an incredibly legacy, but mid-tier nonetheless.
:?

Yeah, yeah. Right. Huge would have made no difference to me. Not waiting for a huge band just a few more albums.

Next!

Posted: 16 Jun 2007, 09:47
by Veda
I'll say it again, they could have been huge. Should have. They had all the essential ingredients for megastardom. As a Sisters fan from a long ways back, it wouldn't have made no diff to me either but it blows when a band you admire doesn't progress to the pinnacle of the rung when they deserve it. They could have been huge but instead stalled in a sort of mid-level wasteland, playing theaters, clubs, halls and such in the states instead of headlining stadiums.

Posted: 16 Jun 2007, 17:49
by mh
Nah, we all know that there's reasons they're not huge, some of which were self-inflicted and badly managed at the time (guitarist implosions, etc), and some of which may be down to a deliberate choice to not be huge.

Making the music they do, there is no way they would have ever made it to a GnR/Stones/Floyd level, and that I am afraid is a very honest opinion. But a - say - prime period New Order level (and maybe even a bit beyond) was very much within shooting distance. They had a taste of it briefly in '91, and it didn't happen. Was it because the band couldn't sustain it (that line up was probably always doomed to be volatile, for reasons outlined in the article), or did Von choose not to sustain it?

fizzle

Posted: 12 Jul 2007, 04:43
by headcleaner2k
Being a chemical causality of the meth variety can’t be good for the noggin. Throw in some lawsuits, backstabbing wankers and ‘music business as usual’ and you’re pretty much fuct this time ‘round.
It makes my tummy hurt just thinking about it.
Like a deadbeat dad who forgot many-a-birthday – maybe next year, huh?
What a fizzle.

Posted: 10 Mar 2014, 12:35
by Joy
Image

Image

Image