Reunions: For love or money?

So, what exactly do Guns ‘n’ Roses and The Spice girls have in common? Both groups are recent additions to the list of artists reforming, touring and recording (again). The announcement came in November, for example, that legendary Britpop-era group Pulp would be reuniting for a series of headline appearances this summer. Shows would include the Isle of White and Wireless festivals, as well as Barcelona’s Primavera. The announcement was met with considerable excitement; fans young and old were delighted at the prospect of witnessing Jarvis Cocker and co in action once more come July.

Announcements like these should not come as a surprise; high profile reunions these days are as common as people who don’t like Axl Rose. This past year has witnessed the return of The Libertines and Blink-182 at Reading and Leeds, as well as reunion tours by Pulp’s Britpop contemporaries Suede and acclaimed alt-rockers Pavement. 2009 saw Blur regroup for a Glastonbury headline appearance and two huge shows in Hyde Park, while in recent years groups including Led Zeppelin, Rage Against the Machine, The Pixies, The Verve, Take That and the Spice Girls have all emerged from retirement to return to the live arena. If the mid-’70s was the age of punk and the mid-’90s the age of Britpop, then the 2007-11, has become the age of the re-union.

The question is, however: is this a good thing? The obvious answer would be yes; a whole new generation of fans have been given the opportunity to watch their heroes perform in a live setting, in many cases after giving up hope of ever seeing them do so. As a result, rockers born post-1980 have been able to witness ‘Stairway to Heaven’ first hand in all its glory, budding anarchists born a decade later have had the chance to mosh along to ‘Killing in the Name’, and indie kids just too young to have caught The Libertines in their original incarnation were able to witness Pete Doherty and Carl Barat bury the hatchet after half a decade of speculation. Surely there is nothing wrong with this? If it brings enjoyment to see legends of days past in action once more then what’s the problem?

We must, however, be cynical and explore the motives behind these reunions. The first word to pass most people lips upon hearing that [insert-band-of-the-past-here] have got back together is, of course, ‘money’, and it’s easy to see why. When you look at the payouts that a live performance can get, it’s hard not to wonder why every act of the ’80s aren’t booking out Wembley for a bit of extra cash. When record sales are dwindling and most modern acts make their money from touring, a band’s back-catalogue is no longer the insurance policy it once was. The party line from the bands concerned, of course, is almost always that the money is not an issue and they are doing it for artistic reasons or because it ‘feels right’.

That being said, Black Francis stated early last year that the Pixies’ reunion shows ‘are more about the money now’, while Jarvis Cocker was quoted in June 2009 (just a year before the return of Pulp was announced) as saying that his band getting back together would depend on “how much money is on the table.” Pete Doherty was at least facetious enough to joke at the Libertines’ reunion press conference that a 1.2 million pound appearance fee was appealing.

But does a band reuniting for predominantly financial reasons automatically undermine the performance? I would argue not necessarily. It is perfectly possible to play an authentic, entertaining show and receive a large pay cheque. You only have to look at footage of Blur’s performance at Glastonbury 2009 to see that Damon Albarn was genuinely moved by the experience. In the case of the Led Zeppelin reunion show in 2007, all proceeds were donated to charity, thus taking profit out of the equation and establishing the performance as being purely for entertainment purposes. In some cases bands even take the process a step further by releasing new material – undoubtedly a positive for fans – while post-reunion albums by The Smashing Pumpkins (2007’s _Zeitgeist_) and The Verve (2008’s _Forth_) will not be remembered as those groups’ finest works, they were certainly not universally slated as some cynics might have you remember.

Even if you set aside all cynicism about motivation, a further question exists: is the popularity of the reunion indicative of a lack of distinctive, memorable or popular acts now? The current trend for festival promoters to put recently-reformed groups at the top of the bill could be taken as sign that there simply aren’t enough current bands good enough and ‘big’ enough to do the job, and it’s easy to agree that this is the case. On the other hand, however, if you look at the recent headliners of the major festivals there are plenty of examples of contemporary groups at the height of their popularity: Arcade Fire, Muse, Kings of Leon and Arctic Monkeys to name a few.

Consider this, though: when Oasis announce their re-union tour in thirty years time, will the fans be weighing these arguments up in their minds? No. They’ll be rushing to get tickets and see their heroes in action again. If the music’s good, greed can be forgiven.