Why will some singers not sing the songs from the era when they were not in the band?
Why do some bands seem to pretend that a period in their history didn't happen?
The following is based on my opinion and comes from interviews/articles I have read. I obviously have no idea what went on with the bands internally.
I'm going to start with a band who seems to be an exception to the rule. It's not just because they are one of my favourite bands, but Iron Maiden seemed to get the mix right with Blaze. I'm not going to go in to the transition, just the subsequent influence.
The first tour with Bruce and Adrian back was the Ed Hunter tour. A greatest hits tour. They played Blaze songs. They didn't just give a nod to them. They didn't do a medly. They properly performed these songs to the level they deserved! It has to be said, they went down a storm.
Next up, the tour for Brave New World ... the big event ... the first album since Bruce and Adrian's return .... they play "The Sign Of The Cross" and "The Clansman". They openly talk about Blaze and the contribution he made. It wasn't a black spot in their history, it was just another era. It helped make them they band they were at that point.
Other bands just want to blank certain personnel or periods. They want to pretend certain things didn't happen. Sometimes it's justified for legal/ethical reasons ( Tripp Eisen I'm looking at you. Even though they still acknowledge the music.... just not him) .... sometimes it's not.... maybe for personal reasons? My problem is that they will ignore great classic songs. Why?
I know that when Blaze sang with Maiden certain songs weren't played live (Like Bring Your Daughter ... ) as they were seen as signature tunes, and that's fair enough. There was a rational reason.
Sometimes it makes no sense to me though. I LOVE Ian Gillan, but I can't understand why he won't sing songs from the Deep Purple, Coverdale era. If anyone knows, can you fill me in? I would have given my right arm to see the reunited Mark II line up perform "Burn" or "Stormbringer". To be honest I would still give my right arm (or maybe just my left) to see the Mark VIII play "Burn".
Van Halen. The non-sense between Hagar and Roth and the attitude to each others songs is such a pain when you look at the set lists. You can't tell me Roth doing "Why Can't This Be Love" or "Best of Both Worlds" wouldn't be amazing live. The same goes for Hagar only wanting to play a few Roth "hits". The hits aren't always the best songs!
What if a guitarist turned round and refused to play another guitarists parts? Just sayin'.
My personal worst one is Judas Priest. They seemed to be fair with Ripper when Halford came back, then proceeded to wipe him from their collective memories.
I remember hearing an interview with Ripper (I think with Eddie Trunk or Boneyard. I'll try and find it) where he talked about the difference between what happened with Priest and Iced Earth. I listened to it thinking, fair play to Priest. They seemed to treat Ripper quite fairly in terms of how it was done and how he was treated. That seems to be where the fair play ended though.
I'll take this chance to reiterate that this is all based on reading interviews and other articles. I have NO first hand knowledge. It's all a fans opinion of a fans perspective.
The first time I saw Priest post-Ripper I hoped and hoped that we might get "One on One", "Burn In Hell" or even "Machine Man". It didn't happen. "Subterfuge" would have been epic
Fair enough I thought at the time. But as time went on I looked back it was as if the Ripper era never happened. .
For me there were two glaring incidents of middle fingers being raised towards Ripper, and indeed the fans.
The first big one was the Epitaph World Tour, with a supposed career spanning set list. Brilliant thinks I! I am going to get to see what Rob will do with the Ripper songs. It won't be better, but it will be interesting. I avoided the set list for the most part. I heard of a few songs being played, but only three or four. No mention of a Ripper song. I thought if it had happened it might be harder to avoid. (Even Iced Earth played a Ripper song on the new tour!)
There were no Ripper songs. Even during the gig Halford said they were going right from the start to the present day. What an insult! Ripper performed on some amazing Priest songs. I saw Judas Priest live (in fact the first time I saw Priest, Ripper was front and center!) and they performed "One on One" before I'd heard Demolition (I think it have been before Demolition was released). It's one of the few times I've come out of a gig and was singing and could remember a new song. Still a top track of mine.
The second middle finger was the worst. Judas Priest released the Complete Albums collection. There was 4 things missing. Neither the two studio albums or the two criminally underrated live albums were included. Not even a compilation CD as a nod to Ripper and the contribution he made to keeping the band going while Halford was out of the picture.
I understand that there may have been issues between labels, or maybe some other legalities. My problem is that it was brushed over. The least the band could have done is make a statement regarding the fact that there was no Ripper inclusions in the "Complete" collection.
So .... why?
Is it ego? Do the singers not want to acknowledge that the band may have gone on without them. Was there a thing in the back of their head that was telling them "If I leave, they can't go on"? Would singing the songs of their replacement be an acknowledgement of their replace-ability?
Pride? Too closely linked with ego, but the point still stands. Do they feel like if they sings the replacements songs that they are showing they had to come back? Do they feel like they wouldn't be able to perform them to the same quality that the "other guy" could?
Money? I don't know how this works, but is there a line in a contract that means "the other guy" gets money for their songs being sung (whether written by or not) therefore reducing the cut?
What if Brian Johnson had refused to sing Dog Eat Dog or Dirty Deeds ... ?
Anyway, I just don't get it.
Why pass up the chance to play a great song live? Why pass up the chance to whip up the crowd with a rousing rendition of a classic track? Why not give a nod to someone who kept a band alive when you wanted to "do something different"?
Any thoughts?
All the best.
Ross
By the way, I thought I'd put this on as .... well, I love it and it deserves to be put out there:
No comments:
Post a Comment