After 2 1/2 Years Apart, Limp Bizkit is Reuniting

[Brian Damage]

Limp Bizkit frontman Fred Durst has confirmed the rock band is reuniting, two and a half years after they split.

The rockers went their separate ways in 2006, following the failure of 2005 comeback album The Unquestionable Truth. Band members have since worked on solo projects, with Wes Borland joining Marilyn Manson's band and Durst trying his hand as a Hollywood director. Rumors of a reunion recently began to circulate after pictures appearing to show the band rehearsing appeared online.

And Durst confirms on the band's MySpace page: "Yes, it has been a while. But a while worth the wait. It is getting very close to time to drop the Bizkit on the universe. I say this with the absolute best intentions and motivation. We, Limp Bizkit, are excited about the future for us and for you. Let's stir some s**t up my friends."

However, Borland isn't part of the comeback - he has been replaced by Evanescence guitarist Terry Balsamo.

(This news article provided by World Entertainment News Network)

[MusicJunkie]

Robert Plant can't be arsed to reunite with Zeppelin, but we get Limp Bizkit back with no demand?

[Brian Damage]

Originally Posted by MusicJunkie

Robert Plant can't be arsed to reunite with Zeppelin, but we get Limp Bizkit back with no demand?

...and to boot, there is no Wes Borland who was the heart and soul of Bizkit. IMO

[MusicJunkie]

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

...and to boot, there is no Wes Borland who was the heart and soul of Bizkit. IMO

I honestly had no idea they'd split up. I just figured they were taking a hiatus between albums since 2-3 years seems rather common for an established artist to take between albums and tours unless they're a Jonas/Miley type who needs to cash in as fast as they can before the fans grow out of that phase.

I bet Kid Rock's recent success probably was a big factor here since they both took off around the same time and always toured together and suddenly Kid is back on top after a few flop albums

[Wreckless]

Yeah, good to see them back but I don't know- without any Wes Borland in the group. I always loved the LB, Kid Rocks, Korns, the TRL rocksters from 1999-. Blink 182 was always a fav. as well.

[MusicJunkie]

^ I think it all depends on your age at the time. I personally thought the 1999 rockers put a bad cap on what was an amazing decade for rock up until them. But then I guess it seemed like the frat boys and jocks took the genre back after Nirvana, Pearl Jam and all the others had widened the door and made it something that those of us who weren't in the "in crowd" in junior high could get (even tho in 93-94, Pearl Jam and Nirvana were what the jocks and frat boys were listening to as well before they discovered 2Pac and Biggie, lol). Everything was so fresh and exciting around 1992-1995 that even people who don't listen to rock were listening. I remember a friend of mine in ninth grade was a total country fan, but even he bought NIN and Stone Temple Pilots. It seemed like during that time, every single week there was a new band out with a great song, some like Radiohead and Weezer are still around, tho the majority of those turned out to be one hit wonders (how many people remember Dig, Superdrag or Cracker? lol), but it seemed like the Kid Rock's and Limp Bizkit's abruptly ended and changed what was so great about that musical generation. It's just like modern day rock radio only playing stuff like Nickelback while ignoring stuff like Arcade Fire, Franz Ferdinand and so forth.

But then I know a lot of metalheads who can say the same about grunge and everything that came out in 91-92 and ruined the days of Poison and Motley Crue reigning.

[ABlairican Pie]

Originally Posted by MusicJunkie

^ I think it all depends on your age at the time. I personally thought the 1999 rockers put a bad cap on what was an amazing decade for rock up until them. But then I guess it seemed like the frat boys and jocks took the genre back after Nirvana, Pearl Jam and all the others had widened the door and made it something that those of us who weren't in the "in crowd" in junior high could get (even tho in 93-94, Pearl Jam and Nirvana were what the jocks and frat boys were listening to as well before they discovered 2Pac and Biggie, lol). Everything was so fresh and exciting around 1992-1995 that even people who don't listen to rock were listening. I remember a friend of mine in ninth grade was a total country fan, but even he bought NIN and Stone Temple Pilots. It seemed like during that time, every single week there was a new band out with a great song, some like Radiohead and Weezer are still around, tho the majority of those turned out to be one hit wonders (how many people remember Dig, Superdrag or Cracker? lol), but it seemed like the Kid Rock's and Limp Bizkit's abruptly ended and changed what was so great about that musical generation. It's just like modern day rock radio only playing stuff like Nickelback while ignoring stuff like Arcade Fire, Franz Ferdinand and so forth.

But then I know a lot of metalheads who can say the same about grunge and everything that came out in 91-92 and ruined the days of Poison and Motley Crue reigning.

True metal fans would not put Poison and Motley Crue in the same camp as Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, Anthrax, Exodus, Testament, or Overkill.

I almost think that the 90's were a disappointing decade for rock, it seemed like it was the "decade that killed metal", but there was a lot of good metal, you just had to look hard to find it. There was Pantera, Nevermore, Morbid Angel, Carcass, Obituary, Napalm Death, Sepultura, Death (featuring the late Chuck Schuldiner), Forbidden, Corrosion Of Conformity, and tons others. It just wasn't "commercial", something that a lot of the Seattle grunge-oids complained about their own music of being.

For some reason, Limp Bizkit is being touted as a "metal band". It would be interesting to see how Limp Bizkit fares in the era of revived true metal, since
NU-metal was so five years ago. Several months ago, I saw a full-color bio book of Limp Bizkit on sale at Guitar Center being sold for ONLY 5 cents--and it stayed there for months!! It was originally $15.00, but they couldn't even get it out of their clearance table!! Kerry King of Slayer said it well about the revived popularity of Slayer and other metal bands two years ago:
"It's great to see real metal coming back. Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit couldn't even get arrested these days!"

[Wreckless]

Originally Posted by MusicJunkie

^ I think it all depends on your age at the time. I personally thought the 1999 rockers put a bad cap on what was an amazing decade for rock up until them. But then I guess it seemed like the frat boys and jocks took the genre back after Nirvana, Pearl Jam and all the others had widened the door and made it something that those of us who weren't in the "in crowd" in junior high could get (even tho in 93-94, Pearl Jam and Nirvana were what the jocks and frat boys were listening to as well before they discovered 2Pac and Biggie, lol). Everything was so fresh and exciting around 1992-1995 that even people who don't listen to rock were listening. I remember a friend of mine in ninth grade was a total country fan, but even he bought NIN and Stone Temple Pilots. It seemed like during that time, every single week there was a new band out with a great song, some like Radiohead and Weezer are still around, tho the majority of those turned out to be one hit wonders (how many people remember Dig, Superdrag or Cracker? lol), but it seemed like the Kid Rock's and Limp Bizkit's abruptly ended and changed what was so great about that musical generation. It's just like modern day rock radio only playing stuff like Nickelback while ignoring stuff like Arcade Fire, Franz Ferdinand and so forth.

But then I know a lot of metalheads who can say the same about grunge and everything that came out in 91-92 and ruined the days of Poison and Motley Crue reigning.

I agree and understand your post. A lot of us kids who basically grew up in 90s fads (i was a late 80s baby, 88, so most of the stuff I like is from the 90s). You also had bands like Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam around 1996-1998 that were up their too after Nirvana left the scene. My dad and me had a convo once about all the emerging bands that came around 2000, such as Creed.

[MusicJunkie]

Originally Posted by ABlairican Pie

True metal fans would not put Poison and Motley Crue in the same camp as Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, Anthrax, Exodus, Testament, or Overkill.

I almost think that the 90's were a disappointing decade for rock, it seemed like it was the "decade that killed metal", but there was a lot of good metal, you just had to look hard to find it. There was Pantera, Nevermore, Morbid Angel, Carcass, Obituary, Napalm Death, Sepultura, Death (featuring the late Chuck Schuldiner), Forbidden, Corrosion Of Conformity, and tons others. It just wasn't "commercial", something that a lot of the Seattle grunge-oids complained about their own music of being.

well, you said the 90's were weak for metal. There's a lot more to rock than just metal. I agree that the 90's were a bad time for metal (and the reason I name-dropped Poison and Crue is because it was those fans who complained the most about grunge, because it took their bands off MTV... Maiden and Slayer fans kept doing their own thing). You can't even compare a modern rock station now to what they were playing in 1995. There was so much diversity in what consisted of alternative and you'd even hear people as diverse as Tori Amos, Bjork and Depeche Mode on those stations (and of course Metallica) alongside all the Seattle stuff, and now they only play emo and Nickelback wannabe groups.

[ABlairican Pie]

Originally Posted by MusicJunkie

well, you said the 90's were weak for metal. There's a lot more to rock than just metal. I agree that the 90's were a bad time for metal (and the reason I name-dropped Poison and Crue is because it was those fans who complained the most about grunge, because it took their bands off MTV... Maiden and Slayer fans kept doing their own thing). You can't even compare a modern rock station now to what they were playing in 1995. There was so much diversity in what consisted of alternative and you'd even hear people as diverse as Tori Amos, Bjork and Depeche Mode on those stations (and of course Metallica) alongside all the Seattle stuff, and now they only play emo and Nickelback wannabe groups.

Yeah, metal wasn't everything in music, of course, there were a lot of good extreme bands that didn't fit the bill of standard metal, there was punk, techno-industrial, etc. It just seemed by the mid-90's, there was a backlash against anything having to do with any kind of heaviness (and not necessarily of the metal variety, either). A band like Soundgarden, who originally came onto the scene in the late 80's with detuned, Sabbath-y riffs ("Loud Love", Hands All Over", "Flower"), got all soft, melodic, and feel-good with "Black Hole Sun". It was like the whole grunge explosion that put Seattle on the map in the early 90's became anti-heavy.


I'm also surprised no one has ever heard of Mudhoney.

[phoebe7165]

Originally Posted by ABlairican Pie

A band like Soundgarden, who originally came onto the scene in the late 80's with detuned, Sabbath-y riffs ("Loud Love", Hands All Over", "Flower"), got all soft, melodic, and feel-good with "Black Hole Sun". It was like the whole grunge explosion that put Seattle on the map in the early 90's became anti-heavy.

I HATE that song!! It's truly my least favorite Soundgarden song. Everytime it's played on the radio, I change the station immediately. Give me Rusty Cage any time!!

If Soundgarden were to ever reunite and tour again, unfortunately that would be the song everybody wants to hear. I'd be like I'm going out to the concourse!!

I'm also surprised no one has ever heard of Mudhoney.

Are you talking about we on the boards or just people in general? I'm not really familar with their music but I have heard of Mudhoney.

[ABlairican Pie]

Originally Posted by phoebe7165

I HATE that song!! It's truly my least favorite Soundgarden song. Everytime it's played on the radio, I change the station immediately. Give me Rusty Cage any time!!

If Soundgarden were to ever reunite and tour again, unfortunately that would be the song everybody wants to hear. I'd be like I'm going out to the concourse!!

Are you talking about we on the boards or just people in general? I'm not really familar with their music but I have heard of Mudhoney.

I think it was that Chris Cornell didn't want to be identified as a "metal" band, alternative metal or otherwise, that he chose to put out dreck like "Black Hole Sun". I can't get into that song, either, because it doesn't represent what Soundgarden was really all about. I like "Fell On Black Days" and "Superunknown" from that album, but other than that, I don't really get into that album. Guitarist Kim Thayil was the one who wanted to keep the band heavy. (I happened to be standing a few feet a way from him at a Black Sabbath theme night at a Seattle club back in 1994. He was hanging with some people, and was about to do a Sabbath cover, but he got a little too scared and left, from what I heard.)

That's probably one reason why Soundgarden hasn't reunited, because people only think of that song, and nothing else. Soundgarden was so cool before the 'Superunknown' album, "Rusty Cage" was a song so killer that even Johnny Cash did a cover of it! I liked "Slaves And Bulldozers", and damn it, I wish I hadn't sold my limited-edition copy of 'Badmotorfinger' with the bonus CD featuring their cover of Black Sabbath's "Into the Void" (the "Sealth" version) and other cool covers!! Last time I checked, that sells for over $100 in the used record stores!! :

I meant that most people in general haven't heard of Mudhoney. It seems that for people being so "alternative", they waited until it was all over MTV back then for them to say they were fans of grunge and anything "anti-corporate". Funny thing about the alternative scene in the 90's, for it to be "against the mainstream", it became the mainstream. In regards to Mudhoney, the one "hit" that allegedly put grunge on the map was "Touch Me, I'm Sick". It was very raw, garage-y, like something from the 60's. It came out about 1988. Their other notable songs were "In N' Out Of Grace", "This Gift", "Here Comes Sickness", "Generation Genocide", "Into the Drink", "Suck You Dry", "Blinding Sun", "Acetone", and "Overblown", their comment about the Seattle scene in the early 90's--it was "overblown". They never really became the big stars like all the other bands did in the grunge scene, even though they helped create it and put it on the map.

[MusicJunkie]

Originally Posted by ABlairican Pie

Yeah, metal wasn't everything in music, of course, there were a lot of good extreme bands that didn't fit the bill of standard metal, there was punk, techno-industrial, etc. It just seemed by the mid-90's, there was a backlash against anything having to do with any kind of heaviness (and not necessarily of the metal variety, either). A band like Soundgarden, who originally came onto the scene in the late 80's with detuned, Sabbath-y riffs ("Loud Love", Hands All Over", "Flower"), got all soft, melodic, and feel-good with "Black Hole Sun". It was like the whole grunge explosion that put Seattle on the map in the early 90's became anti-heavy.


I'm also surprised no one has ever heard of Mudhoney.

what about Alice In Chains? some of their biggest hits were "lighter", but their last album in 95 had some great heavy tracks like Grind and Again.

Personally, at least with a lot of todays bands IMO, they're so heavy to mask the fact that they suck and have no ability to create a song with an actual melody. In the 80's, groups like Megadeth and Metallica were able to, but most of the nu-metal stuff out now turns up the amps so high because if they stripped down and did an acoustic record, people would realize how devoid of songwriting talent they are, IMO that is.

I guess I just prefer a good melody to how loud the song is. And IMO, groups like Korn, Limp Bizkit, Slipknot, etc... lack the ability in terms of putting out a good melodic track. I think this is why a lot of 90's rock fans have gone to the "softer" likes of Coldplay, maybe they don't rock so hard but they can be depended on for giving the fans a great song.

[ABlairican Pie]

Originally Posted by MusicJunkie

what about Alice In Chains? some of their biggest hits were "lighter", but their last album in 95 had some great heavy tracks like Grind and Again.

Personally, at least with a lot of todays bands IMO, they're so heavy to mask the fact that they suck and have no ability to create a song with an actual melody. In the 80's, groups like Megadeth and Metallica were able to, but most of the nu-metal stuff out now turns up the amps so high because if they stripped down and did an acoustic record, people would realize how devoid of songwriting talent they are, IMO that is.

I guess I just prefer a good melody to how loud the song is. And IMO, groups like Korn, Limp Bizkit, Slipknot, etc... lack the ability in terms of putting out a good melodic track. I think this is why a lot of 90's rock fans have gone to the "softer" likes of Coldplay, maybe they don't rock so hard but they can be depended on for giving the fans a great song.

EXACTLY!!! They try to be so heavy that they can't figure out how to write a great tune. Case in point is Slipknot. You'd think they'd be everything anyone would want in a really heavy band, but I've seen them a couple times, and I just cannot get into them. Too much angst and clown masks.

Alice In Chains were amazing with their more acoustic tunes. Their 'Jar Of Flies' album was excellent.

[MusicJunkie]

Originally Posted by ABlairican Pie

EXACTLY!!! They try to be so heavy that they can't figure out how to write a great tune. Case in point is Slipknot. You'd think they'd be everything anyone would want in a really heavy band, but I've seen them a couple times, and I just cannot get into them. Too much angst and clown masks.

Alice In Chains were amazing with their more acoustic tunes. Their 'Jar Of Flies' album was excellent.

I don't understand why Slipknot is so popular (they just had a #1 album a few weeks ago) for their "act" while Gwar has been around over 20 years and still play tiny clubs and their albums don't sell enough to dent the lowest position on the album chart. IMO, Slipknot learned everything they wanted to know from Gwar.