Saturday
Jul182015
Should Legacy Acts Record Anymore?
Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 12:01AM A recent piece about Aerosmith in Classic Rock Magazine basically lays it all out there when it comes to legacy acts and new music. Guitarist Joe Perry would basically rather just tour instead of fight for months (years?) to put together an album of new material no one will buy anyway. It's a tough position, but at least bands like Aerosmith can make a fortune off touring and don't need to release new songs to have a refreshed income stream. I definitely get Joe's point. I'm in the category of "die hard fan" so I'll always buy new Aerosmith music, but I know I'm a minority in that respect. What do you think?
"I'd rather spend the time on the road than locking ourselves in a room for weeks or months, putting out an album that...
Posted by Classic Rock Magazine on Friday, July 17, 2015
Reader Comments (14)
Some legacy acts, like Iron Maiden, keep churning it out because they are committed to the process and want to do their thing on tour and in the studio. Other acts, Motley Crue comes to mind, do it in fits and starts as their interest waxes and wanes and/or as newer (side-)projects occupy more or less of their time. Still others, and Twisted Sister were the standard here, just don't see the point and don't mind being touring legacy act resting on their laurels and giving the fans the historical hits they generally want to hear. Finally, some long dormant acts, like Pentagram, pick up the wave of new interest and decide to give it another go.
The only other comment I would make is that, when at least one or two of the principal members seem only passingly interested, it almost always turns out that the new release is as lukewarm as their initial reaction to doing was. So the rest of the members can, in line with 3/4 of Poison or the original Dokken (another issue as well), either go out and play the hits that the others don't want to play (or are playing another another cover) or create new music while also playing the hits.
In all cases, it really isn't what the fans want that matters. It is personal, as well as business, calculation that bands--as a whole and as individuals--have to make. Like I said, I think I am just stating the obvious.
Lots of musicians play bars for years, just to get the chance that some day, someone will sign them & help them make a recording.
Just performing is nice, but it's over before your put your guitar in it's case. Making a record is the be-all, end-all, because it will be here & can be enjoyed long after the musician is dead & gone. The ones that don't bother because it might not sell millions of copies are not artists, they are employees who's tools of their "job" are the guitar, drum, or microphone.
I think that's incredibly sad.
I only ask this because it reminded me of my question to you awhile back about Lawless. It seems as if some musicians, for a variety of reasons, remain focused on their creative urges, cost what they may (to be clear, I am not suggesting that Lawless represents all artists). Others, still to my mind artists, decide (or resign themselves) to give the fans what they want: repeated bursts of the songs that got them noticed to begin with. I always find those moments, as a fan, important. Even if I am hearing it again for the 1000 time, even if it varies from what I remember or hugs to what I loved, I still hear artistry in it. And I feel like the give-and-take is still there: a fan and a band, a song and a moment, the old image and the new one. Even when I am disappointed, I still feel like it means something.
And I am falling over myself for never having asked this of you before, so I will do it now: where can I get a hold of some of your music? Your window into this music that I love is so specific, so unique, that I figure I owe you that.
Thanks for the comment. It helps to clarify just how much of a divide there is between me and you. But that is another great thing about this site. It brings together such a range of viewpoints.
Art is fickle. Look at Beethoven or Mozart. I'd venture to guess their best work was done in a ten year span. Mötley peaked from 1983-1990 for arguments sake. The music means so much to us because not only of its content but its role during that time of our lives.
I'll be the first to admit that new music from the classic artists (even if it sounds the same) is different. The artist is different, times are different. You as the listener often dictate how you process (heavy stuff here) the experience. Trust me, I don't dig Talk Dirty To Me cuz of its artistic merits. I dig it cuz I partied very hearty when it came out and it was a fun great time of which the music played a large role. When I listen (not always) to that era (this is the power of music) I'm transported back, and reminded to stay young in body (as much as I can) and soul (much easier to do with the right mindset lol).
I don't need new tunes. I appreciate them and the music the artist created. If the artist ie Joe Perry doesn't create cuz nobody'll buy or listen. That's kinda a kop out. Either you do it or don't. Poets don't write cuz 1,000,000 peeps are gonna read it. They write because; they write.
It's about ART! As in the "Art of Making an Album"... Making a statement!
What happened to musical artist's desire to CREATE lasting works of art?
Yes, the forces of commerce can drive one to think it's a lost "art" and that it's only necessary to put out singles because of the way Apple has supposedly changed the way buy music. But is it really that different A.I. (After iTunes) really than B.I. (B.I.)? Remember 45's?
Each single would be treated as painting, but it is the album, a series of, say, 8-12 songs (maybe more) in the case of double albums (something Aerosmith NEVER made) that comprise a "show".
It's one thing to make an incredible work of art with one song, one of the greatest examples being "Dream On", created by our favorite culprits, Aerosmith, above, but making a whole album, Aerosmith's eponymous first album, that really establishes an artist. And to do it time after time, all killer, no filler... "Get Your Wings", "Toys In The Attic", "Rocks"... THAT'S a Legacy... Granted, I can see why artists may lose their desire to make albums... It's not easy... Just ask Brian Wilson (See the movie, "Love & Mercy" to get an idea of just what a dangerous task it is).
The challenge of making an album is tremendous. But if your rich, and rich with greatest hits, it makes it less of a priority... It's easily justified for an artist to rationalize their way out of it when faced with the pressure to top the last album. Why bother when you have all of those famous works of art to create a retrospective show that can go on tour?
Especially when your Aerosmith... Talk about a mountain they created that is almost insurmountable to conquer... a mountain so huge, so unconquerable, it left them scattering off in every direction... first, only half heartedly attempting to top it to then completely selling out with their 80's output and 90's output, then even worse, American Idol, shucking barbecue, or even worse, going Country...
Because they've never been able to top it...
And that mountain Aerosmith can't seem to get past is made of a pile of "ROCKS"... Lord knows they tried... They probably could have done it but they lost the plot... "Draw The Line", which, coincidentally, I just listened to from beginning to end, was almost there... The title track continued the art of "Rocks", having all the qualities of what makes the greatness of that album undeniable. "Kings And Queens" and "Milk Cow Blues" are killer, too. But the rest goes into the "WTF?" department.
And so, the downward spiral began... "Night In The Ruts"? It killed 'em... "Rock In A Hard Place" was actually back on track with "Lightning Strikes" but was sadly missing Perry... However, that absence did yield something great... "Let The Music Do The Talking", the title track from his first solo album. When Aerosmith got back together and put out "Done With Mirrors", they covered the song and it signaled their return to that sound... that pure "Rocks" sound... It was obvious to make it the lead track... And though the album has that overall general "Rocks" quality, what it lacked was the songs. And then it was over...
Bring in Kolodner and Desmond Child and the rest is history... a history really not worth remembering.
Epilogue: Perry knows deep down it's what needs to be done... Several years ago, he was interviewed by Eddie Chump on "That Metal Show" and expressed his desire to make the next "Rocks". Why, because he knows THAT is Aerosmith in it's purest art form. The problem is Tyler. If he could just get him to face that mountain, those guys would have a REAL Legacy, not one of retrospective. C'mon, Tyler! So what if you fail? You can always go back to Nashville.
As for the legacy acts,as was stated above quite eloquently,I think some do it just to keep it fresh for themselves more than anything.And hey,Infestation from Ratt,Blood of Nations from Accept,WASP's Babylon,and many others over the past few years. we're all killer releases IMO.
In the words of Joe Perry, "Let The Music Do The Talking"!