Metal Sludge Gossip Board

Would you prefer legacy acts not put out any new material? Is that better than putting out a mediocre album every few years? Maybe they like having a couple new songs to play in the set. Maybe the fans would prefer to have that 10 minutes devoted to stuff they came to hear.

Mediocre for sure. I'm not crazy about a lot of the new GN'R stuff but I'll take "The General" over silence, 14 years or otherwise.

I'm on the fence about this one.

For many of our 80's rock guys, I truly feel later albums were "mediocre" because of limited budgets and no real producer. It just doesn't exist like it used to. It's gotten better in recent years but there are some late 90's and early 2000''s records that sound worse than demos.

When I saw Whitesnake on the Flesh & Blood tour....even though I didn't like the album very much, I like what David Coverdale said. He said "We need the old songs for the memories but we need the new songs to live". So, I say, let them play a few new ones but no more than 25% of the set.

Outside of Sludge bands....I always look at Bruce compared to Billy. Bruce never stopped putting out records. There are some good and great songs on almost all of his records. His setlist changes every tour. Billy on the other hand sticks to the greatest hits and a few album tracks. Both have been successful touring artists. But it's not fair to compare them to Roxy Blue or something! So I don't know why I bothered bringing it up!

Varies by band. Some still got it, some don’t.

If a band can create one single song per new record that’s actually good, and will fit nicely in a live set alongside legacy songs… then I’d say they’re doing it right.

Problem is, most can’t even write one single new song that anyone wants to hear. (Looking at you Def Leppard)

This is case by case for me.

If GN’R are gonna put out…not their best material and play it live, but they’re playing 3 hour sets including what everyone came to hear, fine, fair enough. They’re clearly not doing it for money or for their health.

If RHCP are gonna put out…not their best material and play it live, but they’re barely playing an hour and a half and skipping probably at least half their big hits every night, I think that’s, as Josh Homme recently described it, “cunty”.

SterileEyes1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 12:07 pm This is case by case for me.

If GN’R are gonna put out…not their best material and play it live, but they’re playing 3 hour sets including what everyone came to hear, fine, fair enough. They’re clearly not doing it for money or for their health.

If RHCP are gonna put out…not their best material and play it live, but they’re barely playing an hour and a half and skipping probably at least half their big hits every night, I think that’s, as Josh Homme recently described it, “cunty”.

I think that's on the money.

DonJuanDeMarco wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:05 am When I saw Whitesnake on the Flesh & Blood tour....even though I didn't like the album very much, I like what David Coverdale said. He said "We need the old songs for the memories but we need the new songs to live". So, I say, let them play a few new ones but no more than 25% of the set.

Is this really true, though? It sounds like he's claiming they make their money from new albums, and the old songs are just something they're forced to play on tour.

Maybe Whitesnake is a unique situation, but my impression is that these days the majority of these bands make their money touring and selling merch based on nostalgia, not on new album sales or hype.

I had a copy of LA Guns’ ‘the devil you know’ but never listened to it until a few days ago.

It was so boring. It “sounded good” but lacking something

priest still keeps putting out good stuff.
maiden hasn't put out a decent album since brave new world.
saxon has never really had a stinker.
bon jovi hasn't done anything good since have a nice day.
it's really a mixed bag. i say keep making music if that's your passion not your paycheque.

Kid-Wicked wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:46 pm priest still keeps putting out good stuff.
maiden hasn't put out a decent album since brave new world.
saxon has never really had a stinker.
bon jovi hasn't done anything good since have a nice day.
it's really a mixed bag. i say keep making music if that's your passion not your paycheque.

Agreed in all points!
Looking forward to the new Judas Priest album.
But too many acts just seem to put their names & faces on the cover and let others do the heavy lifting.
Ozzy, Ace, Mick Mars, Motley, who are even in Ac/Dc & Guns nowdays? No thanks.

Zinny wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:54 pm

Kid-Wicked wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:46 pm priest still keeps putting out good stuff.
maiden hasn't put out a decent album since brave new world.
saxon has never really had a stinker.
bon jovi hasn't done anything good since have a nice day.
it's really a mixed bag. i say keep making music if that's your passion not your paycheque.

Agreed in all points!
Looking forward to the new Judas Priest album.
But too many acts just seem to put their names & faces on the cover and let others do the heavy lifting.
Ozzy, Ace, Mick Mars, Motley, who are even in Ac/Dc & Guns nowdays? No thanks.

Oh the irony. I agree with your general statement, but Priest now has 3 replaceable dorks, and only 2 guys from their classic line-up, a bass player nobody noticed back then (and who doesn't write songs) and a singer who has changed his look and act beyond recognition and it could as well be someone else onstage. But, Firepower was great, their best since Turbo, and at least in the studio Halford still can do it.

I'm split. If it's a band I've seen a lot, I'm bored if they only play their recognizable songs. I'm good with the old material if it's a band I didn't see back then. Night Ranger was one of those I didn't see until 5 years or so ago. I had a great time. I've never seen Extreme and liked their latest album. I'd be cool with a couple of songs from Rise.

One or two strong new songs to freshen up the live set (and maybe release them on streaming services, etc. as singles) would be great. No one really wants to hear a whole album full of generic re-treads, although maybe recording and coming up with something new regardless of the freshness or quality keeps the band from being bored.

I vote keep putting out material even if it is just 1 or 2 songs. I have a SPOTIFY comp that I made for myself called "NEW" and I take the new songs I like from my favorite bands and add them as they come out. That list is pretty damn good and fun to listen to.

Rocker4Real wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:35 am Would you prefer legacy acts not put out any new material? Is that better than putting out a mediocre album every few years? Maybe they like having a couple new songs to play in the set. Maybe the fans would prefer to have that 10 minutes devoted to stuff they came to hear.

The way this is phrased, it's a 2-part question.

1. Do you want legacy acts to release new music?
2, Do you want to hear them play it in concert?

I can understand someone saying "no" to the 2nd part, but I don't get not wanting bands to release albums of new music. You get to sample it for free, and you don't have to buy it, if you don't want to.

Why would anyone prefer being offered nothing?

Tenacious_Dio wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 6:45 am

Rocker4Real wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 10:35 am Would you prefer legacy acts not put out any new material? Is that better than putting out a mediocre album every few years? Maybe they like having a couple new songs to play in the set. Maybe the fans would prefer to have that 10 minutes devoted to stuff they came to hear.

The way this is phrased, it's a 2-part question.

1. Do you want legacy acts to release new music?
2, Do you want to hear them play it in concert?

I can understand someone saying "no" to the 2nd part, but I don't get not wanting bands to release albums of new music. You get to sample it for free, and you don't have to buy it, if you don't want to.

Why would anyone prefer being offered nothing?

It's more of a question to gauge what the fans of this style of music would want. Some fans might think it tarnishes the legacy of their favorite bands when the music released is not up to par with their past.

Rocker4Real wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 7:14 am Some fans might think it tarnishes the legacy of their favorite bands when the music released is not up to par with their past.

Some people take this stuff way too seriously.

I've never understood how people can be a fan of any band and not want new music.

Pour Some Sugar On Me was un unknown song at one point.
New shit just needs a chance.
I always want new music.
If I've seen Def Leppard for example 19 times....wouldn't you want some different songs to be played? Why trudge out the same old 40 year old shit tour after tour. I'm not talking about the 7 or 8 staples that have to be played. I'm talking the other 5 or 6 slots in a set list. Why if you love a band wouldn't you want something fresh?

I will always be down for new music even if it sucks. I like when musicians create and aren't just mailing in the final 25 years of their career.

Now yes some bands are pretty washed when it comes to writing new songs. But I still would prefer something rather than yeah we are just gonna tour 4 months every year with the same 15 song set no changes just roll and go.

Do photographers and painters just stop and say yeah I've done enough. I'll just live off that image or painting from 45 years ago it's all good. You should never stop creating your art even if it doesn't make you millions anymore.

The last Skid Row album had 2 good songs. But they were really good songs. This is the way.

most of these bands are in name only.

Ratt without Robbin isn’t really Ratt, same with guns without Izzy
(And Adler, in my opinion)

So it’s always a bit apples to oranges.
For Paul Stanley to say no one wants a new Kiss record is accurate - nobody wants a Tommy record.
But if they did a real one with ace & Peter back it would at least be interesting

A lot of times new material isn't mediocre. Sometimes we get a great song or two like Stand from Dee or October Song from Skid Row. It's very rare though. Optimist by Anathema to me was an instant classic and the best thing they ever did. A big part of the problem is how modern records sound. Compromising fidelity for loudness has been going on around 30 years. I've gone back and downloaded needledrops people made of 90s albums like Voodoo by King Diamond. The vinyl version of that album was far better. And if it's not the loudness, they don't do enough to offset digital sterility. Or they're using plugins that introduce all sorts of bad distortion, aliasing, and other undesirable artifacts. There are some very well-made plugins, but a lot of these guys are using ancient stuff that malfunctions at a lot of settings. A lot of modern albums would be more enjoyable if they got the production and mastering correct. Great songs can't be great if they're unpleasant or boring to listen to. On the flip side, you can take a mediocre song and make it a lot more fun than it should be by giving it a great sound.

I'm all for new material if that artist is actually putting the work in to do something worth listening to. Whitesnake, WASP, Ratt, Lynch Mob and Dio all put out damn good albums later in their careers.

However 99% of bands just release low budget, phoned in bullshit to have something new to charge superfan weirdos an extra $25 to sign. All that garbage that comes out on Frontiers comes to mind.

It's a hard thing to answer because so many bands have so many great songs that people want to hear.
Especially older bands.
I saw Elton John in 2001 or 2002, I think? The Songs From The West Coast tour.
He played a song or two from that album mid show. The he said, "thank you for listening politely, to the new songs, I know that's not what you came here to hear, so let's get on with it".
That's how you do it! Nobody wants to hear the new album.

DonJuanDeMarco wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:05 am I'm on the fence about this one.

For many of our 80's rock guys, I truly feel later albums were "mediocre" because of limited budgets and no real producer. It just doesn't exist like it used to. It's gotten better in recent years but there are some late 90's and early 2000''s records that sound worse than demos.

When I saw Whitesnake on the Flesh & Blood tour....even though I didn't like the album very much, I like what David Coverdale said. He said "We need the old songs for the memories but we need the new songs to live". So, I say, let them play a few new ones but no more than 25% of the set.

Outside of Sludge bands....I always look at Bruce compared to Billy. Bruce never stopped putting out records. There are some good and great songs on almost all of his records. His setlist changes every tour. Billy on the other hand sticks to the greatest hits and a few album tracks. Both have been successful touring artists. But it's not fair to compare them to Roxy Blue or something! So I don't know why I bothered bringing it up!

I really doubt Whitesnake is selling that many albums. I appreciate new stuff from bands though.

aznsquirt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 3:59 pm

DonJuanDeMarco wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:05 am When I saw Whitesnake on the Flesh & Blood tour....even though I didn't like the album very much, I like what David Coverdale said. He said "We need the old songs for the memories but we need the new songs to live". So, I say, let them play a few new ones but no more than 25% of the set.

Is this really true, though? It sounds like he's claiming they make their money from new albums, and the old songs are just something they're forced to play on tour.

Maybe Whitesnake is a unique situation, but my impression is that these days the majority of these bands make their money touring and selling merch based on nostalgia, not on new album sales or hype.

I’m pretty sure he meant artistically, not financially.

I also went with YES...

There's always a few nuggets to be found on recent releases. I really dig the latest Priest song that was released (the other ones not as much). Looking forward to the upcoming Testament album, the last 4 albums had a bunch of really good songs.

Nothing wrong with letting bands do what they've always done, nobody's forcing you to buy their albums for crissakes!

VincentVanWinger wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 10:27 am I've never understood how people can be a fan of any band and not want new music.

If I've seen Def Leppard for example 19 times....wouldn't you want some different songs to be played? Why trudge out the same old 40 year old shit tour after tour. I'm not talking about the 7 or 8 staples that have to be played. I'm talking the other 5 or 6 slots in a set list. Why if you love a band wouldn't you want something fresh?

Agreed on your 1st point but if you've seen Leppard 19 times you are NOT the sort of person they design their set lists for.

BTW Voivod's last 2 proper albums have been some.of the best work of their career. The 'let's re-record some old stuff' cd was pretty damn good too. So the fire is still there for some oldsters.

DonJuanDeMarco wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 11:37 pm

aznsquirt wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 3:59 pm

DonJuanDeMarco wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:05 am When I saw Whitesnake on the Flesh & Blood tour....even though I didn't like the album very much, I like what David Coverdale said. He said "We need the old songs for the memories but we need the new songs to live". So, I say, let them play a few new ones but no more than 25% of the set.

Is this really true, though? It sounds like he's claiming they make their money from new albums, and the old songs are just something they're forced to play on tour.

Maybe Whitesnake is a unique situation, but my impression is that these days the majority of these bands make their money touring and selling merch based on nostalgia, not on new album sales or hype.

I’m pretty sure he meant artistically, not financially.

Makes sense.

Love_Industry wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 11:16 pm

Zinny wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:54 pm

Kid-Wicked wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 9:46 pm priest still keeps putting out good stuff.
maiden hasn't put out a decent album since brave new world.
saxon has never really had a stinker.
bon jovi hasn't done anything good since have a nice day.
it's really a mixed bag. i say keep making music if that's your passion not your paycheque.

Agreed in all points!
Looking forward to the new Judas Priest album.
But too many acts just seem to put their names & faces on the cover and let others do the heavy lifting.
Ozzy, Ace, Mick Mars, Motley, who are even in Ac/Dc & Guns nowdays? No thanks.

Oh the irony. I agree with your general statement, but Priest now has 3 replaceable dorks, and only 2 guys from their classic line-up, a bass player nobody noticed back then (and who doesn't write songs) and a singer who has changed his look and act beyond recognition and it could as well be someone else onstage. But, Firepower was great, their best since Turbo, and at least in the studio Halford still can do it.

You are not wrong… But from what I’ve heard from the new ”Judas Priest” album sounds great, but then again, is it Judas Priest?

Yes - if you don't like it don't buy it. Why would we deny someone the right to make music if they're musicians?