google...

What rock band has been together continually the longest without lineup changes of any kind (deaths, replacements, additions or subtractions, a member retiring, the band breaking up and then re-forming, etc.) and is still together and touring today?

I'll step in if I see the correct answer posted - until then, guess away!

Off hand, I'd guess Rush.

Aerosmith continually breaks up. AC/DC lost Bon Scott and replaced him, but that really wasn't a choice for them. As far as I know, Rush still tours, and has the same three guys they started with before they had their first album and tour in 1974.

could it be U2?

Both admirable guesses - Rush's first drummer though was John Rutsey.  My memory is failing me so I can't recall if Peart came in for Caress of Steel or right after that...

U2 fits the bill as far as lineups, however they've not been around longer than this band...

It's too late here in the East and my memory is apparently really off - Peart came in right after the 1st album (on "Fly By Night")...

How about ZZ Top? As far as I know it's been the same trio for decades.

I stand humbled and bowed, Greg - often times this "thread" goes on for days!

Yes, ZZ Top has had the same three members - Billy Gibbons, Dusty Hill and Frank Beard - for almost 40 years, and they're still touring as we speak.

Great job!

Back to the drawing board for me...

Doesn't matter if the right answer is U2 or not... U2 is actually still viable.  They win Grammies and awards all the time. They're always in the public eye and are considered the greatest live act in music history -- Regardless if anyone agrees, myself... I think the Who is the greatest live act.  Then again, U2 live is a whole other experience.  They do so many arrangement changes on their catalog of work that it's like seeing a new show each time you do see them.

They have more variants of their music that they almost seem like new songs all together sometimes.  That makes them fantastic.

They've clearly been around longer than any other band, actively in the studio. Making progress.  No question.  LEt's face it... ZZtop goes away for years without recording new material... I mean, years.  Hell, their biggest claim to fame is "LEGS" ... C'mon.

Some would argue that U2's hey day ended with "Achtung Baby", and that's a span of 11 years (from "Boy" in 1980) - they've put out only 5 studio albums since 1991.

I'm certainly not arguing Top's musical genius or anything, but they are great to see live, and they are still touring...

Quoted from ajr Some would argue that U2's hey day ended with "Achtung Baby", and that's a span of 11 years (from "Boy" in 1980) - they've put out only 5 studio albums since 1991. I'm certainly not arguing Top's musical genius or anything, but they are great to see live, and they are still touring...

But look at the side projects U2's had... Look at their tours... Look at the movies they've been apart of... Looks at the benifits they've been attached to... Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame inductors every year.  C'mon, this is a band who has  sold more albums than people that have actuall heard of ZZtop.

U2's best work isn't behind them... They've got three more albums in them atleast. And I, for one, loved Zooropa and POP, and hold them as their best work.  POP was guitar driven as all fuck.  Listen to POP, the whole thing and tell me that album doesn't jam. Hell, when's the last time ZZtop evenhad a new album??? Wasn't their last attempt country or some shit?  Did we not see them selling their souls to be on stage with like Taylor Swift and Kid Rock at some point???  What next that Ass ugly Cyris chick?

Please...  

U2 --> ZZTOP -- Sorry, sad and true all at the same time.

I'm not arguing that U2 isn't the more relevant band - just that ZZ Top started recording and touring more than 10 years before U2 and they still do today (their last studio album was 2003, I believe, but they continue to release live albums). It's a testament to them that they've done so in a business where the average shelf life is like 6 years...

And don't worry - once Billy or Dusty or Frank croaks, U2 will be the correct answer to this question!

Okay, I'll do one more and then I really have to go to bed - the wife's getting up at 5:00 and she's very noisy in the morning...

What album from the '70s featured three songs that were each one word titles of women's names? (In other words, not "Oh, Sherry" or "My Michelle", just the name only).

It's a pleasure to meet you too, AJ

As for your question, how about Steely Dan's "Aja"?  On it you had the songs Josie, Peg, and Aja.  

Quoted from ajr It's too late here in the East and my memory is apparently really off - Peart came in right after the 1st album (on "Fly By Night")...

Ok, so the band formed in 1968, but Peart actually came in right before they recorded their first album and went on tour. While every recording has the same trio, they did officially change the lineup after officially forming the band.

And I was thinking of ZZ Top, too. I just wasn't sure that they were still going.

Quoted from ajr Some would argue that U2's hey day ended with "Achtung Baby", and that's a span of 11 years (from "Boy" in 1980) - they've put out only 5 studio albums since 1991. I'm certainly not arguing Top's musical genius or anything, but they are great to see live, and they are still touring...

I'd say U2 were still putting out reasonably good albums until that last plank was foisted upon us. Saw a vid of their latest tour and I hate to say but sadly I was very bored.

But, after 'One' most bands would give up. I'd U2 had better pull it outta the bag with the next one.

On the topic of original members sticking together I believe Queen did that until Mercury died in 1991. They are another outfit who are turning out turgid albums since then. Have to say though, and I never thought I would, the live gigs with Paul Rogers of Free were rather good. But I won't forive for that 5ive thing. They really should know better.

RV

Quoted from rendevous I'd say U2 were still putting out reasonably good albums until that last plank was foisted upon us. Saw a vid of their latest tour and I hate to say but sadly I was very bored. But, after 'One' most bands would give up. I'd U2 had better pull it outta the bag with the next one. On the topic of original members sticking together I believe Queen did that until Mercury died in 1991. They are another outfit who are turning out turgid albums since then. Have to say though, and I never thought I would, the live gigs with Paul Rogers of Free were rather good. But I won't forive for that 5ive thing. They really should know better. RV

The last album grows on you over time... i like a about 6 songs really well on it.  And out of 10, in this day and age, can you get that from any other band?  Third eye Blind? The Killers? Cold Play? ... Shit. G'luck.  Hell, even RadioHead.

I love the anthematic vibe the new U2 album gave off. Every song had huge anthems to it... Sure it wasn't as good as MAtthew Good's kick ass Vancouver album, but it was good.  I can't wait to hear U2 Sons of Ascent album.  Bono said it's an album of ballads, basically.  And U2 can do a ballad better than anyone.

Do me a favor, though.  Listen to "Unknown CalleR" by yourself. It's a very empowering song.  It has a lot to say and the entire bands vocal output really pushes the song and drives it. IT's like you have a team of people behind you, telling you " Hey, it's alright... You can take whatever they throw"  That's what I get out of the song.  Very slick tune.

We also forget they're sitting on a wealth of material they haven't even released yet... Edge said they have a vault of material that they could sit back, re master and tweak then distribute.  Hell, the Steve Lillywhite session was shelved all together. And, to me, that was exciting stuff... It was very Beatlish and that is something I was very impressed by.  Listen to just "Window in the Sky"   -- The Beatles are written all over it.

Do me 1 last favor... Watch that.  Tell me that's boring.  U2 are 1 of a kind. They are the best at what they do.  They are so talented and so at ease with who and what they do that they make these new bands seem like Cat shit in your bathtub.

George,

I believe Rutsey is credited on the first album with the studio work, and then Peart came in for the tour...

Rendezvous,

Yes, no doubt if Freddie would have lived they'd be ahead of U2 in this category, since Queen recorded their eponymous album in 1972 (still a couple of years off of ZZ Top's formation though...)

And Greg - get out of my head, man!  I'm going to re-name this thread "really difficult music trivia except for Greg who's a walking music encyclopedia"!

Yes, "Aja" was what I was after - maybe I shouldn't have given the decade as a clue?

It was just process of elimination for the most part.  I consulted my iTunes and skimmed down the lists thinking of songs with female names.  Initially I thought it was an album by the Allman Brothers, but they only had two single female names on any one album.  Then I thought it was Jefferson Starship but those dates were all over the place.  Then I saw Steely Dan and "Josie" from the Aja album stood out to me, so I consulted the full Aja album listing on Wikipedia and there was Peg.  Josie, Aja, Peg!

So that doesn't count as cheating does it?

Like I always tell them at work, if you ain't cheating, you ain't trying!

Facetiously of course...

The Beatles are still releasing 'new' albums after 47 years.

Same lineup too.


(tongue firmly planted in cheek - RV's boot planted firmly up my arse)

Stevie,

The Beatles have nothing on Tupac though - the hardest working dead man in show biz...

In the Sopranos there was a scene where Tony and Camilla couldn't sleep because AJ was playing a loud death metal song in his room.

What was the name of the song and band?

Quoted from stevie The Beatles are still releasing 'new' albums after 47 years. Same lineup too. (tongue firmly planted in cheek - RV's boot planted firmly up my arse)

Not just my boot. You lucky boy.

CR, was it Opeth? Maybe not. Slipknot? Sounded like them. Or was that a building site?

Beatles are also managing to change the songwriting credits thanks to selfless work by Macca to further ruin whatever decency his name had left. The tight daft feckin' eejit.

And I do believe Radiohead have had the same line-up since their formation in 1985. Oh yes.

RV

Haven't heard about Macca lately, RV? Do you mean he's trying to get the credits put as McCartney-Lennon?
That would be ironic as the very first Beatle songs are listed that way. John convinced him to reverse it, cos 'it sounded much better'.

On that subject, there's a new film out in December called 'Nowhere Boy', about John's early life. Apparently they haven't white washed it at all. He was a bit of nasty bugger young JL.
But of course, we still love him.