In a new semi-regular editorial, Tone Deaf’s Editor Jim Murray tackles the issues of the week. This week, he tries not to be cynical about bands reforming.

I think it was Blur. I’m trying to put my finger on exactly the moment a whole trickle of 90s bands who had petered out and parted ways started gathering momentum and turned into the torrent of band reformations we’re seeing now. Indeed, it’s ironic that perhaps one of the biggest of them all, Oasis, finally imploded as many of their Britpop explosion peers started making tentative plans to get back together. Following last week’s announcement that Pulp were reforming with their world conquering 1996 line up, hot off the presses follows the news that three of the four original members of Kyuss are reforming and touring under the name Kyuss Lives. Add this to a list that includes Suede, Swervedriver, Soundgarden, Cast, Hole and Take That, Pixies, The Jesus and Mary Chain, My Bloody Valentine, Pavement, Jane’s Addiction and it’s like the last 15 years never happened. What’s more, the 90s nostalgia trip continues with bands who persevered playing suddenly playing albums they released during the period such as Primal Scream with the definitive Screamadelica and a whole slew of bands jumping on the Don’t Look Back bandwagon. These include The Flaming Lips playing 1999 classic The Soft Bulletin and The Dirty Three with 1998’s Ocean Songs. Closer to home, many Aussie bands of the 90s have taken the plunge; with Tumbleweed, The Meanies and Spiderbait all reforming or playing gigs for the first time in a long, long time.

So why are they doing it? Well, for various reasons. The prime reason for doing so, as Supergrass (who actually broke up this year but i’d bet a slab on reforming by the time the decade’s out) put it so succinctly – they’re ‘in it for the money’. Once upon a time bands who had some reasonable success could split up or go on hiatus and afford to find a new career, make solo records and get new bands together while subsisting on their recording and publishing royalties. Recording royalties are practically non-existent for many performers now and music publishing revenues have dwindled. Hell, it’s even become cool for bands to have songs used on ads – it’s not longer universally condemned as selling out. Rock stars have to eat too.  In the music business these days, live performances are where the bulk of the money is – you have to perform live and regularly to make a living. Lady Ga Ga may be one of the biggest pop stars in the world at the moment but she’s on a seemingly never ending tour. The reason she’s doing this is because she only co-writes her songs and would receive a fraction of the royalties that Madonna did back in the day. She’s also a pop act. Pop acts are by their nature disposable, so you only get one or two albums and several world tours before the kids move on to something else and you go from stadiums back to theatres. Her and her management would be trying to get as much cash as possible while they can.

There’s also the issue of time. Bands can get burnt out and the constant touring can take its toll. It’s easy for them to get sick of it and want an easier lifestyle. If the band members had had drug and booze problems that would only have compounded the issue. Bands also start to miss the adulation. Most performers are born attention seekers and the sheer adrenaline of performing to adoring crowds can be addictive. As crowds dwindle and the band run out of juice creatively, the ignomy of having to perform in smaller venues that don’t sell out can be hard to take. The band may decide to call it quits or go on hiatus, but that doesn’t mean they miss the thrill of the crowd.

More importantly, absence makes the heart grow fonder. Just as musos get nostalgic about the heady days of the 90s, so too do music fans. More often than not, they’re now in their 30s and 40s, have mortgages and kids and these bands remind them of a time when life was far more carefree. Similarly, a lot of music fans were simply too young to have known or appreciated the band and are ecstatic about the possibility of seeing them live again.

Finally, I have a specific theory about the money part of it. If you dig in to the personal lives of these bands, you’ll find that most, if not all of them, have members with kids that are just about to go to high school. I’m terming this the school fee effect. Kim Deal has publicly said she only gave in and agreed to a Pixies reunion for the benefit of Joey Santiago’s kids. “This whole thing started out, we were going to do a couple of shows. Joe said he had one kid and one was on the way, and he said, ‘Do you wanna do it?’ And I said, ‘Oh God, no, Joe!’ And I told everybody this, but nobody believes me. And he said, ‘Kim, this is really important to me. It will change my school district, where I can put my daughter into school.’ And I said, ‘Okay, of course. Of course, I will do this.'” There’s nothing like private school fees and a wave of nostalgia to repair relationships between band members.

What do you reckon? Should bands reform? Do you whinge about it but go anyway? Or are stoked to hear of all these reformations?

Get unlimited access to the coverage that shapes our culture.
to Rolling Stone magazine
to Rolling Stone magazine