Sitting by the fake fireplace in Sunriver, waiting for morning for some New Year's snowboarding.
Well, it is kind of a ridiculous comparison (to Journey, or Creedence Revisited, or Beach Boys Family and Friends or whatever) when all of the original members are still there. Saying it doesn't mean any more to him than those would be fair, but saying it's a "hipper version" seems like a pretty poor analogy. Your Kiss comparison is more apt.
Also, the "you don't have to buy it" argument is pretty legit. I have no use for KISS whateversoever but I wouldn't accuse them of dicking their fans out of money. Some Kiss fans love that shit. Some of them probably wish they'd called it quits years ago. I don't really get how it's on par with extortion, except maybe to the most compulsive of fans, and really, should we judge anyone by those people?
Also, none of the comments on DeRogatis's review (so far) are particularly ill-mannered or irrational.
I, too, am confused about what is so "embarrassing" about this. I have mixed feelings about the reunite-to-tour-a-lot-but-not-record thing in artistic terms (see also Pavement), but hell, I, like Henry, saw one of those 2004 shows. I was really fucking excited! It was awesome! I bought a t-shirt! I have personally no interest in seeing a Doolittle show (if they didn't play all of Doolittle at the show I saw, they must've played 80% of it, so really a different set order is a lot more interesting to me in this case), but hey, some people do, and why shouldn't the band make some money off of that? I don't really find it that cynical, even. If any of the band members were giving up their own endeavors in favor of nonstop nostalgia touring, that might count, but we got a new Breeders record last year and doesn't Frank Black put out records like every eight months? So basically, they're doing what they did before, except they get some extra money. There's no reason the Pixies shouldn't be financially rewarded for making music that's endured well after they broke up.
In any case, this particular move is no kind of fuck-you to anyone. They Might Be Giants often do this (albeit at less expense -- ten bucks a show!), and as a fan, it's fun. If these bands can figure out ways to actually make money off of doing something they love (or even used to love), good for them! I've never made much of any money doing things I love or used to love, so I can't begrudge anyone that out of some ridiculous indie-purist stance.
I am really not feeling the Josh Homme tolerance (in the music world in general, I mean, not in the L Mag, which is blessedly free of it). There are a couple of decent Queens of the Stone Age songs, but for the most part it's quite dopey. Almost everything he does seems to reflect that caveman-asshole pose he affects whenever he's photographed. Self-proclaimed dirtbags are almost always even less interesting than actual dirtbags.
I'm pretty sure you can embed real clips from the NBC site if these get nixed. They don't throw up every sketch, but usually 80% or more are on there. Also, really liked the sketch where T-Swift played the girl making her own parental-driving PSAs.
What I'm doing is saying that January Jones + Black Eyed Peas (or Taylor Swift + Taylor Swift) adds up way worse than Josepn Gordon-Levitt + Dave Matthews Band, even allowing that I do not have any interest in Dave Matthews Band. Because Joseph Gordon-Levitt is crazy awesome. If you were being sarcastic, it wasn't really clear, and if you were being sincere, you should watch Brick and then Mysterious Skin and then maybe Stop-Loss and 500 Days of Summer and then Brick a few more times.
Are you serious? I'm as indifferent-to-disdainful to the Dave Matthews Band as the next nerd, but are we really recommending Taylor Swift and January Jones over Joseph Gordon-Best-Actor-of-His-Generation-Levitt?
Good thing nobodycaresandyou'releavingsothere; otherwise, you might sound, you know, really immature.