Heartland

I am sure this has been debated ad infinitum but after escaping here for 4 years I thought I would test the waters again

I've put "after Floodland".

Although if they had, I'd never have seen them play.

Hm.

markfiend wrote:I've put "after Floodland".

Although if they had, I'd never have seen them play.

Hm.

Yeah I get that Mr. Fiend, but from a quality of output standpoint I would have to say FALAA. If they had gone out on such a high note they would have been one of those bands that most people regard as classic. Now I feel like they have gone the way of Deep Purple who came back (if the Sisters every really went away) and sullied their reputation. Don't get me wrong, Floodland and definitely VT were great records, but veered too far to the cock rock side of things.

I am now waiting for the cyber flaming

Did they not call it a day after First and Last and Always? It wasn't a band that made Floodland and it was again a different band so to speak that made Vision Thing. and the name has been the only constant. There has been different phases of the group. From my perspective both later albums are much better than the first, both musically and certainly lyrically. Yeah I'd love a new record as much as anyone but I'd still rather hear the Sisters as they are now than have some nostalgia reenactment of 1985 presented to me.

From 81-85 the sisters were the greatest Rock 'n' Roll band in the world

Standards have slipped....

Every band have their highs and lows.
The lows for The Sisters was that they couldn't find a suitable record company for too frustrating long when most of their new songs were - new ...

But, hey, they've survived that! ... So why call it now? To the contrary ... there's always time for another wonderful Sisters record ... ...

abridged wrote:Did they not call it a day after First and Last and Always? It wasn't a band that made Floodland and it was again a different band so to speak that made Vision Thing. and the name has been the only constant. There has been different phases of the group. From my perspective both later albums are much better than the first, both musically and certainly lyrically. Yeah I'd love a new record as much as anyone but I'd still rather hear the Sisters as they are now than have some nostalgia reenactment of 1985 presented to me.

I guess I used to think they should keep going, maybe one day release a new record, but my cynicism has finally shone through. I don't think should do a nostalgia reenactment of 1985, I just think it may be time to hang up the microphone (IMHO) so we can remember the good times before the legacy is finally destroyed.

I put "go on forever".

To be honest, and irrespective of one's opinion of the quality of material or performances, Mr E can essentially do what he likes. We can certainly have an opinion, but if Mr E wants to continue, or quit, or trundle the latest lineup out every few years for a coupla shows, or whatever, he's free to, and out opinion doesn't matter squat.

mh wrote:I put "go on forever".

To be honest, and irrespective of one's opinion of the quality of material or performances, Mr E can essentially do what he likes. We can certainly have an opinion, but if Mr E wants to continue, or quit, or trundle the latest lineup out every few years for a coupla shows, or whatever, he's free to, and out opinion doesn't matter squat.

I agree with you, will trundle along while ever there are enough of us to go to shows. I was just curious to see how people viewed the different phases

I voted "go on forever" too. My favourite era is still the Marx/Gunn line up, but although there have been many disappointments for me since (B+S, production on FALAA, most of Floodland, most of VT, UTG) there have also been unexpected highlights (Lucretia, first two tracks on VT, Summer, Suzanne, Arms) and some great live shows and even an imperfect TSOM holds more fascination for me than the best anyone else can muster. I'd rather be a fan of Bradford Park Avenue, say, than Third Lanark.

Nikolas Vitus Lagartija wrote:I voted "go on forever" too. My favourite era is still the Marx/Gunn line up, but although there have been many disappointments for me since (B+S, production on FALAA, most of Floodland, most of VT, UTG) there have also been unexpected highlights (Lucretia, first two tracks on VT, Summer, Suzanne, Arms) and some great live shows and even an imperfect TSOM holds more fascination for me than the best anyone else can muster. I'd rather be a fan of Bradford Park Avenue, say, than Third Lanark.

You know what Nikolas you have echoed my thoughts exactly today. Tomorrow I will probably go back to being a cynical bastard

after 1993 or 2003, even that i couldn't see them live.

To add my twopenneth I've chosen 'go on forever'.
Although I prefer the early recorded stuff I do like Floodland and VT, but wish he would stick the newer/older tracks down on a bit of plastic for me to buy.
With regards to them playing live, like a couple of other older bands I keep going to see, I know that sometimes they can be s**t but keep going knowing the opposite can also happen, ie Leamington Spa. The new arrangements of older songs, and previously unperformed songs make it worthwhile even though it is possible to predict the setlist.
,with only the three albums to pick from, surely has a large enough back catalogue to mix up the setlist and make it a bit less 'Tonight Mathew I'm going to be The Sisters Of Mercy'

I think is my longest post so back I go to 'Song, Title, Word Game'

You make some great points Jande

I voted for "After Vision Thing"
I am very old school and I think there is something basically wrong with a band touring that doesn't have a product to push - apart from an updated t-shirt
Having a new album to defend / promote gives a band "sparkle", a change in direction, a reason for being.
These going through-the motions-greatest-hits-sing-alongs are short changing themselves and the fans

Voted for ever too, if only cos i don't get out much.

I'm in it for the p*ss up, tees, show - in that order.

My first show motivations (Wembley) were probably in the reverse order.

Probably.

I've stopped caring. They can go on as long as they like but I'm the one calling it a day. I'll still listen to the records but I can't see me going to any more of their tired mumblings and the prospect of a new album doesn't excite me any more.

I've gone for Go On For Ever. How could I not?

I do agree with previous comments. Reptile House era is the finest era for me but I wouldn't want a world where I couldn't see a Sisters gig on the horizon.

It's all such a dreary fiction.

stufarq wrote:I've stopped caring. They can go on as long as they like but I'm the one calling it a day. I'll still listen to the records but I can't see me going to any more of their tired mumblings and the prospect of a new album doesn't excite me any more.

I think I am with you there mate

James Blast wrote:It's all such a dreary fiction.

Indeed mate

Having listened to Floodland and VT last night I would change my answer to packing it in after VT. For me FALAA was the last BAND record, after that it was and hired guns. Floodland and VT are great records but not the SISTERS. Now it seems to be a sad cabaret. Maybe if they played near me I would go and see them, but I would not fly back to see a show like I did with The Specials on their first reunion tour.

TSOM are now a parody of parody what they intented to be at the begining. Circle is complete.
and I'm agree with you Billy, although I'm willing to spend few zlotys just to meet and drink a beer with HLers. and see a new town.

Bartek wrote: and I'm agree with you Billy, although I'm willing to spend few zlotys just to meet and drink a beer with HLers. and see a new town.

That's more the point nowadays.
Although it seems to happen more infrequently