Whose endowment to posterity would have been better served had they died earlier?
1. Michael Jackson - imagine if he had died in say, 1984, at the top of his game and before he disfigured himself.
2. Elvis - what if he had died in the fifties, as a dangerous rock'n'roll star, rather than in the seventies on the toilet as a pudgy Vegas entertainer?
3. The Rolling Stones - what if they had died (or at least disbanded) before they became wrinkly rock dinosaurs endlessly repeating themselves? Well, Brian Jones did, at least. And he got a band named after him: the Brian Jonestown Massacre.
4. Perhaps the same could be said of Pink Floyd, though Syd did have the decency to at least go bonkers.
5. The Beatles. Paul died in '68 of course, and was replaced by lookalike Billy Shears, who went on to smear Paul's reputation by forming Wings a couple of years later. But what if all four had carked it just after the breakup of the Beatles, or perhaps just before? John cranked out a few good post-Beatles tunes before his death, but he would have been even more revered, i think, had he died a decade earlier.
Originally posted by BlackampRight on the money as always, Blackcamp! Amen, brother!
Whose endowment to posterity would have been better served had they died earlier?
1. Michael Jackson - imagine if he had died in say, 1984, at the top of his game and before he disfigured himself.
2. Elvis - what if he had died in the fifties, as a dangerous rock'n'roll star, rather than in the seventies on the toilet as a pudgy Vegas entertainer?
...[text shortened]... his death, but he would have been even more revered, i think, had he died a decade earlier.
Originally posted by bbarrSomething similar happened to Wordsworth.
If only Dylan hadn't survived his motorcycle accident, we wouldn't have had to suffer through his evangelical stage and current incompetence. We would have been left with Blonde on Blonde, and all that came brilliantly before.
Originally posted by karoly aczelThe Grateful Dead stopped touring 14 years ago in 1995 when Garcia died. The remaining members plus a keyboardist and the guitarist Warren Haynes played 22 shows in the U.S. this last Spring - calling themselves The Dead - and they were very good - considerably better than the Grateful Dead were post 1990 (IMHO). As for Garcia's legendary/iconic status, there was no direct correlation with how well he (or the Grateful Dead) were playing. After the hit (studio) album in 1987, "In The Dark", his status was given a whole knew statistical gravity by a whole new generation of Deadheads that filled up stadia by the tens of thousands for the last 8 years of the band's touring life. In contrast to the rather saddening spectacle of the Grateful Dead's last 2 or 3 years of touring, Jerry Garcia recorded a heap of folkie/bluesgrassy music with mandolin player Dave Grisman and this amounts to a very high quality legacy from those years. This would have been lost if Garcia had died back in, say, 1977, when - along with the Grateful Dead - I reckon he was at his guitar playing peak.
Yep...So is the Greatful Dead (never-ending) tour
Originally posted by BlackampKinda off the subject, but can I nominate all the old farts out there who constantly complain about how new music is worse than whatever they perceive as the peak of their generation's contribution to music. And all those who rip on new music forms, claiming their cultural knowledge is superior and some how more pure. Yeah they did not die young enough.
Whose endowment to posterity would have been better served had they died earlier?
1. Michael Jackson - imagine if he had died in say, 1984, at the top of his game and before he disfigured himself.
2. Elvis - what if he had died in the fifties, as a dangerous rock'n'roll star, rather than in the seventies on the toilet as a pudgy Vegas entertainer?
...[text shortened]... his death, but he would have been even more revered, i think, had he died a decade earlier.