The Judas Priest farewell tour announcement got me thinking...

The Priest farewell tour thread sparks a whole new debate (I'm not saying I believe one side over the other): Bands overstaying their time.

(Note: before I go any further, I understand that some fans like the new music put out by older bands like this, but overall the reactions I have witnessed have been less than favorable. That's also not the focus of this discussion. I also don't mention The Beatles as they are a whole other topic.)

Have the Rolling Stones set a bad precedent? All the members of that band are well over 60 years of age and still head out there and tour. They also deliver new music on occasion and, by and large, it's panned as undeserving of a band with such a legacy. The Stones are absolute Rock Royalty, on that there is no debate. But, should they have given up the ghost years ago?

Black Sabbath: All of the members of the original band are well over 60 themselves and they still head out and tour (together, solo, H&H, whatever). When they (original) did put out a couple new songs back in 98 or 99 (I can't remember) a lot of Metal fans hated it. They'd go see them play, but they panned the new songs badly.

These 2 examples, arguably, could be exceptions to the rule. By and large, they still can pull off what they have always done so, why shouldn't they? Right? It's their band and they can do what they want.

But, consider this:

Just because the Rolling Stones or Black Sabbath (or Scorpions or Bob Dylan or Bruce Springsteen) can pull these types of things off, does that mean every Rock/Metal band should try? Does Dokken, or Queensryche, or Exodus really need to carry on 10-15 more years? Does Dimmu Borgir or Children Of Bodom need to hang around 15-20 more years?

I would argue that some bands in Rock and Metal are built for the long haul. They touched such a chord and made such an impact in their genres, and they managed to maintain a level of artistic productivity (not big sales, necessarily) since then, that the idea of them hitting the stages at 60+ doesn't seem far fetched. Stones, Sabbath, Scorpions, Priest (maybe), Springsteen, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Metallica, U2. I can see these bands being more convincing in their performances than bands who came after in the sense that in most cases they were the innovators/originators of what they do...so who can do it better?

Some, like the others I mentioned (Dokken, 'Ryche, Exodus), also Nickelback, Theory Of A Dead Man, Shinedown, Avenged Sevenfold, Disturbed, Coldplay (maybe) etc (to say nothing of the Enforcer's of the world) are all built on the foundations that Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Rolling Stones, Judas Priest, U2 & Metallica already built. They already just put out music that was "in" at the time. They did not forge their own sound out of thier influences the way these elder bands did. These are the bands who do NOT need to be hitting the stage at 65, IMO.

Then there is the question of legacy. Like I said, many many times when an elder, well-established artist puts out new music (regardless of how much people beg for it), it gets derided by fans and critics as lackluster and a poor representation. Good or bad, new music by these artists cannot compete with fans' memories and will very rarely measure up to what the fan has built up in thier head about their favorite artist over time.

Imagine if Judas Priest has retired after 'Painkiller'. Fight still may have happend, Tipton and Downing may have formed a new band, but imagine if JP never came back. The legacy would be immense! There would have been no 'Jugulator', no Nostradamus'...their mystique and legend would have remained intact.

Imagine if Metallica retired after 'Metallica'? No 'Load', no 'St Anger'...same thing.

Imagine now if Black Sabbath had hung it up after 'Live Evil'. No revolving door of singers, no 'Forbidden', no "Psycho Man"...just Metal legend and THE Heavy Metal legacy.

Should bands carry on into their late 50s, early-mid 60s just because they can? Is "because they can" a good enough reason? Does the world need them?

Interesting topic. I personally think it's a case by case basis depending on the band.

Taking the Sabbath example you mentioned. Sure, they did have a revolving door of singers throughout the 80s and early 90s. At that time, many fans of the group felt they should hang it up...but those were mostly people that can't accept change in any form. Even though I liked albums like Seventh Star & Eternal Idol, I really didn't consider them "Black Sabbath" albums, they were Iommi solo albums.

Did that era permanently destroy their legacy?

No.

In fact you could say that Sabbath's "stock" as a legendary band has done nothing but grow in the years since that time. Time heals all wounds and even those 80's & 90's albums have their fans these days. What at once seemed like blasphemy...now just seems like a slight detour on an otherwise impressive career.

There are fans of all eras of Sabbath.

Rush is another example, I know many people who don't really like their recent albums...but still go see them EVERYTIME they tour and will defend them to the death in arguments...even if they haven't liked an album of theirs since the 80's.

I really think only the band can decide when it's time to hang it up...either because they feel they have nothing left to contribute...or when they realize nobody is paying any attention.

P.S. - Radio is not interested in new material from classic rock bands, even if it's incredible, they only play the 3 classic songs that Clear Channel has approved....

Quote :

Even though I liked albums like Seventh Star & Eternal Idol, I really didn't consider them "Black Sabbath" albums, they were Iommi solo albums.

That's another thing. Most fans are not like us...we KNOW that these were intended to be (in the case of 'Star') Iommi solo albums...most people just see it as Iommi being stubborn and replacing everyone and calling it Black Sabbath. Imagine if all the albums from 'Born Again' to 'Forbidden' had come out under a different name? They'd still be what they are, just under "Iommi" or some other name...doesn't change the music. But it does change the legacy.

When you can't properly perform your old stuff live anymore, that's when it is time to stop playing shows. Maybe you could continue to record though.

Musicians typically want to continue to play and write until they die ... and they try to bring their fans with them along the way, even if the fans aren't very impressed by them anymore.

I think it is an interesting topic, but IMO as far as Black Sabbath, Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones to name a few, have released strong music. I think it is case by case, but also think it is unfair to ask an artist to quite making music after a certain age, nobody tells a painter, writer or an actor to hang out because they have reached certain age but if you are a rock musician, armchair critics always seem to suggest they should hang it up.

Motorhead keeps chugging along & it hasn't effected their legacy imo. maybe they are just one of the exceptions though.

mc666 wrote:

Motorhead keeps chugging along & it hasn't effected their legacy imo. maybe they are just one of the exceptions though.

I think Lemmy would croak if he stopped touring.

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Have the Rolling Stones set a bad precedent? All the members of that band are well over 60 years of age and still head out there and tour. They also deliver new music on occasion and, by and large, it's panned as undeserving of a band with such a legacy. The Stones are absolute Rock Royalty, on that there is no debate. But, should they have given up the ghost years ago?

I dont think so. I really enjoy the post-reunion material a lot - and a bigger bang is one of their strongest efforts. It does give a laugh to see Mick dancing on stage but they at least give the idea they enjoy playing. I think the split and then reunion gave them a blast of fresh air. The only reason I would have said they should have retired would be to have more solo Keith material..

Quote :

I think it is an interesting topic, but IMO as far as Black Sabbath, Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones to name a few, have released strong music. I think it is case by case, but also think it is unfair to ask an artist to quote making music after a certain age, nobody tells a painter, writer or an actor to hang out because they have reached certain age but if you are a rock musician, armchair critics always seem to suggest they should hang it up.

I've said bands should hang it up but in reality, if they can keep going why not?

manny wrote:

I think it is an interesting topic, but IMO as far as Black Sabbath, Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones to name a few, have released strong music. I think it is case by case, but also think it is unfair to ask an artist to quote making music after a certain age, nobody tells a painter, writer or an actor to hang out because they have reached certain age but if you are a rock musician, armchair critics always seem to suggest they should hang it up.

To be fair, those other arts are generally not as physically demanding as playing live heavy metal music.

I tend to think that if an artist feels he can't perform live anymore, then it's probably time to hang it up, or at least give serious consideration on how to proceed.

TheNazgul wrote:

Quote :

I think it is an interesting topic, but IMO as far as Black Sabbath, Bob Dylan and the Rolling Stones to name a few, have released strong music. I think it is case by case, but also think it is unfair to ask an artist to quote making music after a certain age, nobody tells a painter, writer or an actor to hang out because they have reached certain age but if you are a rock musician, armchair critics always seem to suggest they should hang it up.

I've said bands should hang it up but in reality, if they can keep going why not?

yeah - there is always the lounge circuit for those greatest hits tours...

exact33 wrote:

Shawn Of Fire wrote:

Have the Rolling Stones set a bad precedent? All the members of that band are well over 60 years of age and still head out there and tour. They also deliver new music on occasion and, by and large, it's panned as undeserving of a band with such a legacy. The Stones are absolute Rock Royalty, on that there is no debate. But, should they have given up the ghost years ago?

I dont think so. I really enjoy the post-reunion material a lot - and a bigger bang is one of their strongest efforts. It does give a laugh to see Mick dancing on stage but they at least give the idea they enjoy playing. I think the split and then reunion gave them a blast of fresh air. The only reason I would have said they should have retired would be to have more solo Keith material..

100% agree with the King, I think some of their strongest material they have released have been the more recent releases, and like the King said, you can see they enjoy playing and they change up their set list almost every show, adding covers, rarieties and sometimes just what order the songs will be played.

I guess it depends on the band or performer.

Since I rarely go to see live performances anymore, I wouldn't be too upset over acts that retire from the stage, but continue to put out music from the studio. Then we can decide if they should hang it up or not, based on that material.

However in this day and age, studio wizardry can make even the most burned-out, old out-of-tune rockstars *cough*Ozzy*cough* sound better than God's personal choir of angels farting into trumpets.

The Scorpions retirement probably got them thinking... both bands are good friends and they probably discussed this.

There was also talk that AC/DC might retire soon too.

I haven't read all the responses yet but I read the main message so I will reply to that first and foremost.

Whether or not a band should hang it up is primarily that band's decision, equally whether or not they should keep going on is also that band's decision.

However, as you pointed out fans will always like an established band's songs from their past better than current albums. I'm not sure why that is, maybe because everyone wants to keep on experiencing the band in that classic moment and don't want to accept that times have changed and so has their favorite band. Instead, they all want to picture a band like Metallica to still be on the Justice For All or Black Album tours - it was a time when both the fans and band alike were relatively young and things for the fans were alot care free than today.

Anything new hits too close to reality, to accepting that times have changed, that the band has changed and with that change also means older age.

Very few, mostly some die hard fans and newer fans who are a lot younger than both the band and the fans who were there during the band's golden era will accept new fresh material being played or sung alongside older/classic material.

You mentioned a mix of bands some of which are popular nowadays, though have not always been popular, others whose popularity has waned over the years. I think for the type of bands that never quite reached ACDC's, Metallica's, Stone's, GNR's status fans both old and new are more forgiving when it comes to new releases or the band sticking around for a long time.

Take a band like Dimmu Borgir which you mentioned. They have been around for approx. 2 decades and have achieved moderate mainstream success - mainstream with a big caveat, not the top 20 but are better known outside their original circle of fans and bands than most other bands from their respective genres. They have changed a lot throughout the years and have at times lost fans and at other times gained fans too.

What I find striking though, compared to Metallica, is the fans both new and old are generally more in favour of Dimmu's newer than older albums. Nearly everyone I have met who is into Dimmu Borgir wants the band to release albums that more similar to their last 3 or 4 releases than say their first 2 or 3 albums. Everyone is always eager to hear new material and many embrace it alongside their older stuff.

Overall I don't think there is any hard and fast rule about when bands should retire or when their newer albums are no longer relevant. I think it just depends on their fanbase and what the fans actually want. There is also a big generational gap here. Bands of the 70s and 80s have seemingly been around since the dawn of time, the fans have a whole different attitude and are in a different mindset to the Internet / Myspace / Facebook / Itunes generation. Today's metal music, and I could be wrong, wants to constantly appeal to a younger demographic while not alienating the older fans. Maybe in different eras it was called keeping up with the times and maybe that's as applicable of today as it was of yesterday but to me it feels like something is different - it's not so much chasing trends anymore but actually growing with the fans and delivering a fresh and more mature sound with every successive album. I find that to be in stark contrast to say Priest's Painkiller or Metallica's Black Album - both albums being released on the cusp of a creative lull for both bands.

I think when a band continually releases crap albums for 20 years, like Queensryche... those bands need to retire.

Troublezone wrote:

I think when a band continually releases crap albums for 20 years, like Queensryche... those bands need to retire.

or put out of their misery...

Either way I am shocked by this news. I have enjoyed all that JP has put out, and have been lucky to see them once live. However what I dont understand is the talks of energy they have had wanting to make a new album next year. Even in recent interviews Haldford had nothing but positive stuff looking forward with Priest, in no way did he hint of it ending but an album and tour more or less.

I hate this man, I hate we have approached the age that all these bands that have been a huge part of the soundtrack of our lives are going away, or will be soon. Peter Steele, and Dio, exited sadly, and now JP retires. Not to mention all the other people who have either decided to retire or have passed away this year. Never thought this day would come, but I guess we all get older. I just hate the idea of not having something to look forward to by many of these guys out there.

As far as the debate, I think that these bands have been putting out great stuff still. Look at Rush, these guys are late 50's and the 2 singles they put out dont show any signs of slowing down or getting mellow. However you have bands like Aerosmith, that I think have tainted their name so badly and Steven Tyler being in AI is not helping. There is a band that maybe should be thinking this retirement route.

The thing with Aerosmith is, that live they still deliver the goods (as JP would say), and IMO the bluesy covers album 'Honkin' on The Bobo' (or whatever the hell it is called) was a great album that went back to their roots.

manny wrote:

The thing with Aerosmith is, that live they still deliver the goods (as JP would say), and IMO the bluesy covers album 'Honkin' on The Bobo' (or whatever the hell it is called) was a great album that went back to their roots.

That is very true! I wouldnt disagree with you on this. I got to see them about 3 or 4 weeks before the stage fall and shoulder broke.....or better known as when the drama really started.

Either way, I cant state it enough that I hate the day has come to say good-bye to some great people and bands

Unless some younger bands do a good impression of our favorite veteran bands... we're screwed to hear anything new in the future. At least we'll have the classic records (if they keep printing them)...

You know, more power to the bands that keep on going - no one should tell a band or an artist when to "call it a day". If a band wants to keep going, they should. If they put out crap, I don;t have to buy it. If they play live and I like them, I will probably check them out live if I can. It really sucks that Priest is calling it a day - I had hoped they would at least do another album or two then all it a day.

As far as bands that have put out not so great albums, Queensryche should keep putting stuff out - if it sucks, I won't buy it. As far as an artist worried about their "Legacy" - when all is said and done and the artist or band calls it a day, they will be remembered for their best work. Look at Dio - he put out some crappy albums. Should he have "called it a day" after Last In Line? Did his worst albums affect his legacy and taint it? Nope, not at all!!!! In fact, his last album was one of the best of his career (The Devil You Know).

I am not a Stones fan, but Manny says that Big bang was one of their strongest albums, I believe him - he's the fan buying the music! Let the Stones keep going until Keith dies of a drug overdoes on stage!

Now, take a look at Maiden (yes, I am a HUGE Maiden fan) - they are also in the twilight of their career yet they are creating some of the best albums of their career! They did 7 classic, awesome studio albums in a row in the 80's and have now done another 4 in a row! And they don't just tour off the hits - they do album tours mixed in with hits tours. And they are playing to more people than ever (less shows, bigger places). After the two Blaze albums, they were written off for dead and many would have said it's time for them to "call it a day". But, Bruce and Steve worked out their differences and bought H back in to the fold and where back on top. Som who knows, Queesnryche could release another classic album and be back on top.

As someone mentioned, Motorhead just keeps chugging along. Should they have called it a day during the 80's when their music was at the usual quality? Same with AC/DC? Or even Priest? No, as long as people show up they should keep playing. It's just like the :How old will you be when you stop listening to metal" - Most of us on HoM have been listening to it for so long, we will until our death.

Let them keep playing!!!!!!

Troublezone wrote:

Unless some younger bands do a good impression of our favorite veteran bands... we're screwed to hear anything new in the future. At least we'll have the classic records (if they keep printing them)...

Are you kidding? Alter Bridge are the new Stones. They'll be playing well into their 60's. At least that's what MetalRob told me. And Avenged Sevenfold already have plans in place to poach drummers from other bands every 5-6 years to keep them fresh and energized.

I'm not disappointed with Maiden's recent albums at all. I think they could continue another 5-10 years from this point...

Sure, it ain't like the glory days in the 80's... but they are pretty good albums imo.

MetalGuy71 wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Unless some younger bands do a good impression of our favorite veteran bands... we're screwed to hear anything new in the future. At least we'll have the classic records (if they keep printing them)...

Are you kidding? Alter Bridge are the new Stones. They'll be playing well into their 60's. At least that's what MetalRob told me. And Avenged Sevenfold already have plans in place to poach drummers from other bands every 5-6 years to keep them fresh and energized.

Well, those are the "discovered" bands we have right now... but maybe there are some new and undiscovered youngsters that will revive the old school stuff.