Ok Ok yep....... I shall wait. Agree bands should not reform / keep going sometimes. Axl Rose sprung to mind (don't know why) but he really b*****ed things up for him self . ''Take That'' I don't like and wish they hadn't started again but then I'm not a big fan of boy/man bands what ever they want to call them.
I like Acrtic Monkeys! And yeah Killers and some of Mumford sons and Plan B.

Take that i would give exception to the rule.
If you look back at most creative artists that make several albums, generally speaking, they usually have about 15 years worth of good music in them.

I kind of see the Take That story as this 15 years but with a hiatus.
As they were pretty young when they started, were around for only a couple years as i recall, and the time between then and their reform wasnt more than 10 years as i recall, so that means they expended their "creative period" yet.

Whereas, all the others that after the 15 years just keep on and on and on and on just repeating their previous great albums in a poorer fashion, or reform 20 years later as near pensioners usually with:

a) a week album again derivative of their previous output

b) no new music at all

c) re-arranging their original songs in an equally dull travesty.

And it isnt just the bands one would have termed 'middle of the road' / AOR / etc first time around.

Its cutting edge/alternative/experimental people like Stone Roses, Gang of Four, etc.

Dead Kennedys even tried the reform road.
Fortunately their singer, Jello Biafra, slammed the **** out of it, disowned it entirely.

And you get some honourable exceptions like ABBA whom refuse to reform and tarnish their own legacy.

The only artist i can think of whom has grown old disgracefully and retained any sort of artistic credibility is Neil Young.

Yeah some interesting stuff there thanks, I've just got an irrational thing about Take That, just don't like them and haven't got a good reason

Your not alone

I do agree on the whole reforming malarky, Magazine are another that should have let things lie.

I used to listen to all those when I was in my teens. Though I was more a Sisters Of Mercy, Stranglers, Siouxsie, The Cult, Crass... I used to have a particularly annoying neighbour who would put Bon Jovi albums on full belt and sing atonally to them. My revenge was turning the speakers to the wall, sticking Nagasaki Nightmare on repeat and taking a 2 hour walk with the dogs.

I saw them when they did their greatest hits tour. Anthony Kiedis was vocally as flat as a fluke, but John Frusciante was on fire. I like Frusciante's solo stuff far more than I ever liked RHCP to be honest. But I've always had a weird taste in music.

Not far off 42 and it's not that long since I was braving the wall of death at an InMe gig. I'm also rather partial to Exit Ten and Young Guns. I seem to waver between rock with a twist of prog & punk and folky singer songwriters like Lucky Jim. I can't remember the last time I liked a band that any of my peer group had heard of in my entire life. I loved U2's first 4 albums in my very early teens and once everybody else caught on I'd gone off them as The Joshua Tree was the point they vanised up their collective bumhole.

I have a loathing of Take That, but thinking their music is rubbish is good enough reason for me, artistic 15 good years or not. I just think they are the junk food of music.

I just don't think once a band breaks up, it should ever reform as it's only ever done for one reason and that is they've run out of money rather than any itch to express their creativity.

Ah good I'm not the only one who dislikes Take That then!!

Yup, liked all of those too ( except The Cult, liked them better when they were Southern Death Cult ), although Siouxsie and the Banshee's were a real disappointment live.
I used to adore Crass and the Poison Girls, I found an interview with Penny Rimbaud on You Tube, he's still fighting the good fight, yumpty tumpty years on.