Unlike a lot of other Byrds fans, I totally agree with McGuinn's decision to not revive the Byrds. I think it shows a lot of class on his part, and also being realistic enough to admit that even a revived Byrds is not going to sell a million records. The Byrds was great for its time, the 60's & 70's but the concept would be out of place in 1995. I wish some other 1960's veterans realized this.
What I would REALLY like to see is for someone to do a good Byrds video collection! Ican't believe we still don't have one, with all the TV appearances listed in the 1990 edition of Rogan's book.
I would also like to see a boxed set of Byrds live performances that would use some of the good bootleg material that is around, and also the different reunion tapes.
Finally, I would like to see Roger M. do a "George Foreman" number and defy the conventional wisdom by coming back with a new style, a style that fits his greater age, maturity and experience (& wisdom)! I wonder if a gentleman in his fifties should try to fit into a rock'n roll genre when his true talents go far beyond that. Roger seems to like live touring in small clubs best - that's fine with me! I just hope I get to see him next time he comes to my area!
Matthew K.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I have kinda mixed feeling about this. Intellectually, I admire Roger's stance on artistic integrity and the fact that he seems to be doing what he wants to and how he wants to do it. He hasn't sold out forthe quick buck (but then, neither have Chris or Dave) and it's his life.
For Roger to do something with Hillman and Crosby, would it really be selling out? My idea of selling out is a "once-great" rock band dusting off their stratocasters and cranking out their old hits, regardless of whether they are still a good, cohesive unit as well as whether or not they look like total idiots doing it.
The Byrds, to me, were always (for lack of a better word) classy and had real substance. I heard the 1990 tracks as well and I think the Byrds could still make a contribution to this era of music. Therefore, reuniting would not be a case of "selling out"!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob,
I didn't mean that reforming the Byrds would be selling out. Knowing the parties involved and their musical and artistic integrity, I have no doubt that any possible reunion project would be classy and done right. However, I should have added a sentence or two to my original message to further explain what I meant. Oh the perils of e-mail . . . (g) Either you say too much or not enough.
I meant that Roger has avoided, IMHO, cashing in on the Byrds and their rep for the quick buck. In a year when everyone and their mother seems to be reforming 60s/70s groups and then touring the casinos/Vegas or big halls to ride the cash train of nostalgia, Roger hasn't. He hasn't hired a quick pick-up band and then toured with them as the Byrds. Or gone into the studio and recorded a new "Byrds" CD with a bunch of studio cats. Or done work with Hillman and Crosby just to cash in on some trend. I have no doubt that anything the three of them might do together would be for the music and for what they want--not some exploiter.
Instead, Roger has chosen to stay a "class act" in another way. With this newsgroup and the message board on America Online and in his concerts, he has gotten closer to his fans and shared his time and thoughts with them. Very cool. I don't know how many important rock musicians do this, but I can bet not many. While I would just love to have a new Byrds CD to listen to, I'm very appreciative that I can go online and see honest converstations between one of my rock heroes (and Chris and Dave when they drop in) and fellow fans.
Hope this helps.
- Gerry