(puts on the unpopular hat)
I have three arguments against this being a good thing:
1) As a selfish consumer of music, what will I get? Will I get an album that I'm still playing 30 years from now? I doubt it - because gobsmackingly interesting, 'what is this!?!' is a rare thing, and name me a group of musicians who have done it 30 years after they first struck musical gold.
2) Again, as a selfish consumer of music, what will I miss as a result? I struggle to appreciate Sting's more recent work, but that's a matter of personal taste. He's a fine, fine lute player - no kidding, and I appreciate the fact that John Dowland is now a household name for the first time in centuries - I just wish someone else had taken vocal duties. Andy Summers got me to buy my first ever instrumental album, and will doubtless convince me in time that jazz can be uplifting. Stewart Copeland will hopefully continue to extend my music appreciation into odd corners of the musical world that I didn't know existed previously. None of them are 30-somethings. Selfishly I want them all to beaver away as individuals, like men possessed, in the service of my aural pleasure and musical education for as long as possible.
3) Unselfish point. I loved the reunion tour. Leaving aside the wonderful people and places I got to, there were moments of musical bliss for this punter. But did anyone honestly feel, at any gig, that this was a band that were so fired up with collective ideas/passion that they should get a studio/rehearsal room? If not, let's not bug them about recording or playing again. They're musicians (albeit fairly financially savvy ones
), not mechanics.