Veteran bands giving the finger to new music....

[jgcable]

I completely understand what they are talking about.

[Chief_CrazyTalk]

Joe Perry sucks and always has...IMO. Didn't Aerosmith use a couple of other guitarists for much of their early studio work?

[Spivonious]

I kind of agree. When I go to see an old band, I want to hear their old hits, not some new crap that they're trying to pad their wallets with.

Imagine going to a Maiden show and not hearing The Trooper because they wanted to play some lame song off their newest album. I'd be pretty pissed, especially after spending a small fortune on a ticket.

[lerxstcat]

I kind of agree. When I go to see an old band, I want to hear their old hits, not some new crap that they're trying to pad their wallets with.

Imagine going to a Maiden show and not hearing The Trooper because they wanted to play some lame song off their newest album. I'd be pretty pissed, especially after spending a small fortune on a ticket.

That can very possibly hapen with Maiden. They did a tour on their new album a few years ago and played all of it, and just a few of their "hits". I don't know if they kept The Trooper in their setlist, but they obviously axed most of the hits to play the new stuff.

Which is fine, EXCEPT that they sold the tickets months in advance, and only announced that they'd play the WHOLE new album a few weeks before the tour started. If you knew what you were going to get ahead of time, that would be cool. But they kind of did a bait and switch.

I think that is why they did the somewhere Back In Time tour after that, because they heard about it from the fans. But look, now, they are only doing 15 North American dates, perhaps to "punish" us because we don't like it when they indulge themselves.

I know a lot of diehard fans loved that new album, but what I heard from it was pretty boring. I wouldn't want to pay $75-$100 to see a bunch of new material that I didn't even like. Again, if it was a kickass album, that'd be different.

[markD]

maiden hates touring the US as it is. they want to make new music, and they are self-indulgent. many times the fans have a hard time growing with the band. maiden has changed. they are all about writing tedious, long songs based around steve harris' bass chords.

i think they balance everything very well. i, personally, would have LOVED to see them perform the last album in its entirety. while i love the classics, i have heard them enough to be okay with not hearing them again for a while.

bruce summed it up rather well in a interview where he stated he didn't go back to maiden to rest on the past. he only wanted to rejoin if they made new music. he also stated they weren't ready for the state fair circuit. i applaud that.

some bands i have been able to grow with their new songs/song-writing approach, others i haven't. gamma ray is a good example. to me, they peaked at "somewhere out in space". the couple that followed that album were still pretty good, but it has been a waste of money (to me) ever since.

as far as bands saying they don't want to write new music because of the fans, i totally get that and, as a songwriter, i respect that. i would rather hear an artist admit they are dried up than watch the said artist put out shit album after shit album for years....

[shreddermon]

if you stop creating you stop being an artist, you do the same as shoveling manure

+1

Don't go to their concerts then

+2

IMHO, the "fans don't want to hear it anyway, so I'm not going to create new music" is a TOTAL F'N COP-OUT.

It's all about the benjamins, folks. And bands don't make money by putting out new material, anymore. Those days are long gone, and we're all worse off because of it. Bands only make money by TOURING now, including merch sales.

When a classic band says "why bother, no-one wants it" to putting out new music, that's an utter BS excuse. You're being lied to, just like a politician telling you they're not going to raise taxes, etc. What VH and others are REALLY saying is "I don't make any money by putting out new material, so I'm going to boycott that part of the business and just just make my money by touring on my prior rock-legend status."

Well, f**k that. I'm not going to be attending concerts for the next umpteen years listening to the same tired old material by the same tired, lazy, cranky, old drunk (and rich) men. I want to hear the classics. But I want to hear new material, too.

And, for douchery's sake, I can remember having arguments with concert-going friends back in the 80s when these guys were at the height of their popularity about wanting to mostly hear the band's older "classic" songs. Many whined even back then that they didn't want to hear the new album's material. So in 1980-whatever, many wanted to mostly hear Randy play Blizzard instead of the "new" Diary material? Puhleease. That's no different than bands putting out new material now.

Example: Two summers ago, I went to see Crewfest because they put out a new (and good!) recording. They toured again last summer, too. But, with no new material, I choose to not go. ...Don't want to put out new stuff? That's the band's (lame) choice. Don't want to see the same old s**t on tour year after year? That's my choice.

[lerxstcat]

I don't think established bands are consciously boycotting the recording industry because it doesn't make enough money anymore. I think the fact is they stop making new reords because the creative well is dry. When they were young and hungry they had much to prove and much energy and angst to exorcize.

4 or 5 killer albums and a big slab of fame and money later, well, they're not hungry, they're full. Life is good and there's not much to rail against. They have houses, wives, kids and it's all good.

So they just don't have the drive and rage to create new and fresh music anymore. What do they write about, and who cares?

Bear in mind that it's only a relative handful of artists who have even ONE classic and high-selling album, let alone 4 or 5. I wouldn't just discount that kind of run, but I also wouldn't necessarily write off seeing a band who did 4-5 great albums, then trailed off and foicused on touring later in their career.

Frankly there just aren't all that many bands who HAVE churned out great albums continually through a 20-30 year career. But there are a LOT of bands who've done 4-5 great ones and who I would go and see in concert because of those 4-5 great ones. But I DON'T want to go see them and hear a bunch of new crap that they have written in their decline, trying to claim a relevancy that died in around 1990 (Queensryche, I'm looking at YOU). Likewise I don't want to see Aerosmith play their movie blockbuster ballads, I want to hear stuff from the first album through Rocks.

Oh, and the last good Crue album was MC94, sorry....

[VitaminG]

Crue put out a good album?! I must have missed that one

I largely agree with Rich. But I have no problem with a band throwing a few tracks off the new album into the set either. It's just a matter of striking that balance.

In an interview a few years ago, Vernon Reid was talking about how as an artist he is constantly striving to create & reinvent, even within the context of an older song on stage. He wants to continually push himself and the music. But as a fan, he also appreciates that there are going to be a lot of people in the audience who want to see and hear Cult of Personality JUST like it was played on the album. He feels the same when he goes to see bands. So he is conscious of finding that balance between stretching yourself and staying interested as an artist, and also satisfying your core following.

Some friends went to see Don McLean a few years back (I know, I know. Not my scene) and they said he refused to play any old stuff, only focussing songs from his new (at the time) album. He was getting more and more pissed off with the crowd calling for old favourites that when he finally played American Pie, he was really resentful about it. From what my friends tell me, it sounded like it was getting ugly on both sides. I think if he had sparingly mixed some of the new songs in with the stuff that his old fans wanted to hear, they would've had a great night seeing one of their heroes, and he might have turned a few people on to his new album. So he wasted a great opportunity on both fronts. The fans had a shit experience AND he didn't sell anymore albums for his troubles

[salmonella]

Perhaps they dont want to say, Ive got nothign left in the inspiration tank and / or dont want to take the risk on somethign new. If there is no drive there, then its just routine stuff. In which case maybe only worth doing once in a while for the money or fun (if you still have the fans willing to pay) - up to them. Perhaps theres something in the economic argument, maybe these people don't make the same amount of money they used to for an album back in the day.

Re; Maiden - It was "A matter of Life and death tour" where they recently did the whole album - not good - but the somewhere back in time tour was the greatest.. lol .
I think most of the these groups recognise that if youve been goign for a while you have a backlog of many good songs (probably many of your best) and that people will still want to hear them (doesnt have to be all old / new). Just cos its an old song doesnt mean a new generation wont like it. Maiden is a good example of this, they clearly still have the enthusiasm and skills to make new stuff and they always chuck a few old crowd pleasers in (just wish theyd mix these old ones up a bit though,.. lol ).

The WASP album (Babylon) was one of the best Blackie has done in ages aswell.

[VoiceX3]

IMHO Joe Perry is an ass. His comments say one thing and if you read between the lines I'm sure you'll get it too. He doesn't want to write new material as he knows the response from the fans would be the same as when he showed up at the label with new material before recording anything after done with mirrors. The label told him his songs weren't good enough and had outside writers pen their material from then on. They haven't written their own music since they were all addicts. That's why Joe Perry's solo stuff sucks....his well ran dry years ago. Eddie Van Halen is another one...but I do believe VH will write and record at least 1 more relevant original album. Not that I love them, but the Chickenfoot stuff is pretty cool and that's new stuff.

Say what you want about Crue too, but while Saints isn't Shout.....I'd say it fits nicely right along the lines of with Dr Feelgood, good tracks with some filler.

Old bands new stuff not relevant tho? Here's how I'd rate old bands new material over the past couple years.

Megadeth: Endgame - 5 stars
Slayer: World Painted Blood - 5 Stars
Ratt: Infestation - 3 1/2 Stars
Metallica: Death Magnetic - 4 Stars
AC/DC: Black Ice - 3 1/2 Satrs
Lizzy Borden: Appointment With Death - 4 1/2 Stars
Guns 'N' Roses: Chineese Democracy - 4 Stars
Scorpions: Sting in the Tail - 4 Stars
Dream Theater: Black Clouds and Silver Linings - 5 Stars

I could go on all day like this......my point, yes the well has run dry for some and that's inevitible. Blanket statements really just don't fit the whole scene tho as some bands clearly have more great music in them.

[Spivonious]

Dream Theater: Black Clouds and Silver Linings - 5 Stars

Man I was just listening to Images & Words this morning, and while they've come close, they still haven't topped that. BC&SL is 2 stars at best. I just don't like DT after 6DOIT.

[Grandturk]

I think the difference is whether the band sank away into obscurity for a period of time and then came back. A band that has been releasing solid albums continiously is less likely to have fans that don't want to hear new stuff.

[Nightbat]

HOLD IT!



...since when did AC/DC do anything "new"?
they've been hitting the same three chords for 2 centuries now

Bon Jovi doing something new? same old "Get the milfs to buy our album"!

Maiden? Even took their old singer and guitarist back!

Heh, Eddie van Halen at least knows what people want

[Mazz]

Isn't the point of being in a band making music you like? Who cares if the fans wouldn't care about new music, they'd still appreciate it.

[Rsmacker]

I applaud the honesty of the artists who apparently have nothing new to offer. It pisses me right off to go and see a band, the intro tape's finished, the build-up's over.....and they start off with a new song, followed by another. Yeah great, but only if the band is in its first flush of success, ie. just released their second LP. Any band that has been going for 20 odd years should just accept that no-one is discovering them, the vast majority will be old farts like me who want to hear their classics, with just the merest hint of new material. I don't want to read them saying "this new LP is the best we've ever done, blah blah", of course they are going to say that, but surely they don't believe it. A band's best LP is generally its first one, written when it was hungry.

I was going to try and see Ozzy at the weekend, but I realise it will be pretty much a playback of his new release, which I neither have, nor will be rushing out to buy. I recall going to see him years ago and the crowd audibly groaned when he played "Perry Mason", all the atmosphere built up to that point, gone in one fell swoop. I'd perhaps not groan if he played that now, but I'd be in the minority. I certainly didn't get that last LP, "Black Rain", I just want to see him pissed up leaping about dragging his guitarist round by the hair, doing Suicide Solution. I'll give it a miss this weekend.

Incidentally, I've bought the new Ratt LP, it's excellent, I'll go and see them, but it isn't thanks to that new LP. I can be sure that I'll give the next tour a wide berth if they release another LP in 18 months.