» Band names....  
« back

Is the band name more important than the music?

Written by Tommy, March 2006

ith the title of this article I want to say: is it more important what band name that is on an album than how the music on the album sounds? Sometimes I think that is the case with some people.

very time the name Primal Fear is brought up, people shout "Ehhh, for fuck's sake....Judas Priest-copy cats!" and "Go and die! We only need one Judas Priest!". But how pale and tired are not Judas Priest of today? Their last album was like a fart compared to the good old days. Should Judas Priest today release an album that sounds anything like any of the Primal Fears albums Devil's Ground , Black Sun or Nuclear Fire, then it would have been praised and lifted to the sky as such a grandiose and unprecedented comeback. Just because it was Judas Priest that released it. But that actual music and those actual songs currently do exist as they are, it's just that it is Primal Fear that is marked down as creators and then they are boycotted and is swoshing by pretty anonymously.

nother example is Bloodbound. People cry loud about "Iron Maiden-rip offs!!" but I am certain that if Iron Maiden today would have released the album Nosferatu, hard rockers worldwide would stand at stiff attention and chant their respect and admiration. The album do actually contain all elements that people want Iron Maiden to have and that they say they've missed the past yeras. It would for sure be called Iron Maiden's best albums since their peak years in the late 80's.

he perhaps best example is Astral Doors. If today's version of Dio, or Black Sabbath for that matter, would release any one of Astral Door's albums, I have little or no doubt that it would be welcomed with open arms and be seen upon as a great boost in the right and anticipated direction and a sign of vitality and newborn strength. Now the albums instead pass pretty unnoticed by, and I personally that that is very strange.

n all three examples above, I think that this is just how these music styles should sound, regardless of who are playing it and when in history and the future they are doing it. Those who do it best should also accordingly be credited for it. Why is music suddenly not especially interesting anymore just because someone have taken a classic concept and simply made it better than how the originals are doing it today? Do people think that the original bands should have exclusive rights on a style and sound for the remains of all time to come? If they have gone saggy, others should be able to take over without any fuzz. Personally I just feel sorry for those that can not put all of this aside and just enjoy the great music instead of spending time nagging about who should have the right to play it.

listened myself a lot to Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Dio and Black Sabbath during their prime times and I have been and I am a fan of their earlier deeds. But they have all undisputedly stagnated and started to go backwards and the new bands are doing the music better than what the original ones are today. In many case even better than what they ever had. Swollow the pride and really listen to what these new bands have to offer. You might be in for a treat...

Tommy - March 2006