Music has always been a reproductive art form which has evolved and mutated into an endless amount of subgenres and communities. But this progression doesn’t mean that we stop listening to classic tracks and golden oldies from the past. We’ll always come back and rely on some of our favorite bands, which in some cases are over 50 years old. But what happens when a beloved artist suddenly pops up again, performing old and new material? Is the reformation of past bands a good idea or not?
Well we put this question to our public to get real opinions from bands, artists, record labels, promoters, musicians and musical mathematics readers…
Luke Barham, from Stagecoach:
I think bands shouldn’t reform unless there is unfinished business in terms of creating new music. I’m all for bands I love reforming if it is for musical reasons. Doing a few shows over a summer to make a quick buck feels wrong, that said I did see Blur and Pavement.
Jack Clothier, of Alcopop! Records:
Ah hell yeah. Why not? Now don’t get me wrong, I think it can look a touch dubious when bands go to great lengths to say they’ll never get back together and then do… Oh, and there is potential for the crushing of dreams and huge embarrassment of your heroes. But that all said, OF course it’s a good idea if a band you genuinely love get back again and kill it onstage. There’s always room for heroes like At the Drive In and Faith No More, as long as they continue to be absolutely incredible live and fill you full of delight – even if it’s not quite as magic as that first time you saw them.
Personally I love a good reformation. Great for fans new and old, and for the hardcore music snob it’s a magnificent chance to assert their authority by standing angrily at the back of an arena drinking £4.50 pints snarling about how much better *insert band name here* were back in ’94 when they were playing in front of 12 people at Dudley JBs.
James Sutton, MM Reader and Musician:
It’s not up to anyone else to say if it’s good or bad. It’s their lives, their songs. They are entitled to do what they want. If they reform to just make some money off a tour then surely that is fine too. It’s their art and they are completely entitled to make some money off something they created.
Martin Teff, from Vessels:
Usually a bad idea - I have no desire to watch once great bands look like a parody of their former selves. RATM reforming was, for example, pretty lame, in my opinion. Slint reforming, on the other hand, was pretty amazing - so it’s not always bad. And I guess ultimately whether or not anyone wants bands to reform, it’s totally their right to do so if they wish! 
Joe Scrase - News editor for Leeds Music Scene:
Musicians should not be judged on past records, music is a way off expressing ones self as such an album should be a standalone venture as such we should instead focus on their most recent work and treat them as equally as a new band too market. They shouldn’t get preferential treatment because they produced a half decent track or two last century. Beady eye for example have undoubtedly only been so commercially successful because of the affiliation with Noel fucking Gallagher!
Dave Catmur, from Tubelord:
Of course it is. It’s totally their choice and I think a lot of the bands reforming this/last year are awesome for doing so. I’d go and see At The Drive-In or Refused in a second if I could. If enough time has now passed that the original musicians can put aside their past differences and play together again I think that’s a great thing, and should be encouraged.
Del Noble, from Mistakes.in.Animation & This Is Not Revolution Rock:
I think on the face of it they are a good thing, I finally got to see Sunny Day Real Estate when they reformed which was one of the best things for me, personally, ever. However I think the reasoning behind them is a little flawed - though I can understand why bands would do it for the money. I don’t see any integrity behind it, especially for a band like Refused who were so adamant about never playing another show again.
Also, bands like Refused and At The Drive-In are small venue bands, and I’m not sure the perceived energy is going to translate at the festivals they’re lauded to play. I’m really looking forward to At The Drive-In trolling everyone and not actually playing One-Armed Scissor though. That would be hilarious.
Thomas Peckett, &U&I
Hmmmm good question. I guess you’d have to take each case on its merits. Some things are best left alone, but then others can be a great thing. In terms of ATDi and Refused, I’d say it is great idea. They’re bands that have inspired, and still inspire to this day. It can only benefit music’s future. However, in other examples (don’t really want to name names :D) it’s a very easy way to get a lot of money for something that comes very naturally.
(Taken from March Issue 2012 HERE)
Introduction by Andy Crowder
Answers Sourced by Jay Johar
