Reunion
The day before yesterday, I listened to the new Judas Priest album, Angel of Retribution. As far as reunion albums go, it's okay. It's clearly a Priest album, but it doesn't break new ground and it pales in comparison to their output between Hell Bent for Leather and Defenders of the Faith (to be sure, I stopped in the middle for a classic Priest break, making sure that I wasn't just jaded by time). Occasionally, it offers a reminder of their heyday, but most often it just seems like a nod to the past by guys too tired to relive it, let alone take a step forward.
After listening to it, it had me thinking about other reunions and how they fared. Some have been fairly good, others dismal and others, Like the Priest reunion I just listened to, fair. But none, not a single one that I can think of, have been really important. I really liked Jane's Addiction's Strays album. It was solid. It was worth doing. But it didn't stand alone. It was good enough that it might have generated interest in Nothing's Shocking with a younger generation. Deep Purple's Perfect Strangers was good enough that it got me interested, at 13, in the real Deep Purple albums. But it wouldn't stand up if it hadn't been built on a foundation that included Fireball, In Rock and Machine Head. Other things, like the Sex Pistols reunion, are so bad that they call the original body of work into question. How legitimate were the Pistols if they pull that Filthy Lucre thing? I guess renting a barge and playing "God Save the Queen" for the Queen's Silver Jubilee speaks for itself, but I wouldn't even question it without that Filthy Lucre nonsense.
The closest thing to greatness in a reunion that I've witnessed was last summer's MC5 tour. The songs were still relevent and the three original members were hungry to play and to rock again, but maybe the biggest factor was that there were three new guys in the band and they were so well-chosen that it was the new MC5. Old songs, new energy. Still, the bottom line is that it wouldn't stand up without the foundation.
Maybe this isn't even related to reunions, but more broadly to bands continuing on beyond their days of artistic vitality. Everything I said about the reunions could be just as easily applied to the Stones. Maybe it could even be applied to (gasp) the Ramones. Did anything really matter after End of the Century?
Some artists can continuously reinvent themselves like Bowie and U2 and that keeps them from becoming stale (even when the experiment doesn't work), but a lot of times, it doesn't work that way. Bands either stick to the same outdated sound or they try to superimpose themselves into something new and take the process out of change.
This leads me to the real question: Are they wrong because they don't know when to stop playing or are we wrong because we don't when to stop buying?
After listening to it, it had me thinking about other reunions and how they fared. Some have been fairly good, others dismal and others, Like the Priest reunion I just listened to, fair. But none, not a single one that I can think of, have been really important. I really liked Jane's Addiction's Strays album. It was solid. It was worth doing. But it didn't stand alone. It was good enough that it might have generated interest in Nothing's Shocking with a younger generation. Deep Purple's Perfect Strangers was good enough that it got me interested, at 13, in the real Deep Purple albums. But it wouldn't stand up if it hadn't been built on a foundation that included Fireball, In Rock and Machine Head. Other things, like the Sex Pistols reunion, are so bad that they call the original body of work into question. How legitimate were the Pistols if they pull that Filthy Lucre thing? I guess renting a barge and playing "God Save the Queen" for the Queen's Silver Jubilee speaks for itself, but I wouldn't even question it without that Filthy Lucre nonsense.
The closest thing to greatness in a reunion that I've witnessed was last summer's MC5 tour. The songs were still relevent and the three original members were hungry to play and to rock again, but maybe the biggest factor was that there were three new guys in the band and they were so well-chosen that it was the new MC5. Old songs, new energy. Still, the bottom line is that it wouldn't stand up without the foundation.
Maybe this isn't even related to reunions, but more broadly to bands continuing on beyond their days of artistic vitality. Everything I said about the reunions could be just as easily applied to the Stones. Maybe it could even be applied to (gasp) the Ramones. Did anything really matter after End of the Century?
Some artists can continuously reinvent themselves like Bowie and U2 and that keeps them from becoming stale (even when the experiment doesn't work), but a lot of times, it doesn't work that way. Bands either stick to the same outdated sound or they try to superimpose themselves into something new and take the process out of change.
This leads me to the real question: Are they wrong because they don't know when to stop playing or are we wrong because we don't when to stop buying?
posted by bob_vinyl at 4:11 PM
2 Comments:
Bob,
I just think you're wrong.
Are they wrong because they don't know when to stop? For the most part, I would say yes they are wrong.
Are we wrong because we don't when to stop buying this stuff?
Most definitely and we probably deserve more blame than the bands. I don't think these bands are fooling themselves into thinking they can relive any kind of glory. They're just trying to make a buck and people like Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley are just touring so they can add money to their retirement fund. However, we the fans continue to buy this stuff and make these guys think they can squeeze out one more album no matter what it sounds like. We know most of these bands are finished creatively yet we still go out and buy a cd saying something like "Well, maybe Motley Crue have one more Too fast for love left in them". Of course it's not Too fast for love, but usually it's a big rancid turd that sits on your shelf collecting dust after one listen.
The new Judas Priest isn't nearly as bad as most reunion albums, but it does sound a bit forced at times. Bob knows I think a lot of Deep Purple's Perfect Strangers and I think it is the album by which all reunion albums should be judged and most don't come close. It was not Fireball or Machine Head, but it wasn't trying to be Deep Purple of the early 70's. It was Deep Purple doing a Deep Purple album in the 80's and it worked. However, you have to remember the guys in Deep Purple were not that old at the time. Some of them were probably still in their 30's and they had all been active in music in between Deep Purple. A lot of the reunion albums today come from guys who are really old, have been out of music for a long while or both.
Iron Maiden's Brave New World is another reunion album that works to some extent. It's definitely Maiden, it's not forced and it's better than some of their other Bruce Dickenson/Maiden albums. Then again Brave New World is one of the exceptions. For every Brave New World there are three albums like the reunion albums that Ratt and Poison did a few years ago.
Post a Comment
<< Home