Editorials

How important is it to go out on top?

  • Posted on December 8, 2010

By Ben Apatoff

Any metalhead with a computer knows by now that JUDAS PRIEST are planning their final tour. Of course these things are always dubious (although Priest seem more sincere than KISS,) and I expected to see a lot of arguing over whether or not HALFORD and the gang were actually putting the band to rest.

But all anyone seems to care about is "going out on top." As in, "It's a good thing that Priest are retiring at a point when they're still playing great shows and releasing good music." Or, "It's a good thing that Priest are retiring in time to stop embarrassing themselves."

So are the Metal Gods going out on top or not? Clearly, there's only one correct answer.

Who cares?

Why is it so important for bands to "go out on top?" Why is everyone so hostile towards artists running out of ideas? Obviously, we hold the best bands to high standards. But is your enjoyment of "Living After Midnight" ruined forever after you heard "Turbo Lover?"

This is one of the silliest things that people argue about in music. Of course it sucks to see a once-great band release a pile of garbage, but does it soil their legacy at all? Slaughter of the Soul wouldn't lose any luster if AT THE GATES put out a mediocre comeback album. The fact that RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE never released a bad album and METALLICA have does not make Rage a better band. No one ever claims that SLAYER is better than MEGADETH because Reign in Blood completely smokes Risk. Reign in Blood vs. Rust in Peace, there's an argument.

No one wants to hear a good band make bad music, but when it comes down to it, does it affect your opinion on the good stuff? Why should it?

RELATED STORIES & VIDEOS

 
  • Zethus

    Very good points made!!! It's funny cause within 10 mins of the original post about their retirement, I told a colleague here and that's what it broke out into (not a full fledge argument, more of a proper debate).

  • Bazuzu

    I think the point is more about legacy or reputation. Nobody would argue, let’s say, that once they heard St. Anger they could never go back and listen to Master of Puppets. That would be silly. I would wager that is has more to do with the mystique that forms around bands that reach the level of legendary success that Priest have. True, good artists live and breathe by the quality of the art they create and people respond, connect to, and resonate with these great works, sometimes on levels that go very deep for the listener. And when you’ve had one album from a band really touch something special not just with you but with millions like Judas Priest, those fans start to idolize the artist for what they have become capable of musically or socially, and before you know it they’re hardly band members and more like mythical beings.
    So a bad album from a good band isn’t the end of the world, but I disagree that it wouldn’t soil their legacy for big fans. A true Priest fan, a true fan of any band, doesn’t want to have to tell their kids one day “Here’s a band that helped change my world back when I was your age…well, for the first few albums at least. Don’t listen to these later ones.” When a band becomes genuinely part of a legend for a lot of people, you hope for the whole story to be incredible, not just the first few parts. Bands I can think of that support my point: Pantera (on the day of Dimebag’s death, even. Talk about a beginning-to-end legend), Despised Icon (who I think just played their last show this week), and naturally, Judas Priest.

  • Xlg8r9

    I don't know about you guys but Judas Priest could release ten shit albums, the classics are still going to be the classics.

  • salmarnir

    Who cares, exactly! If the band wants to call it quits, then so be it. Treasure the classics, man.

  • MongooseCommander

    Judas Priest is a timeless band. Sad to see them go, but hey it happens when you get old. I wish more bands would follow this lead.

OTHER LINKS FROM ACROSS THE INTERNET