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