When your metal "heroes" let you down.

[desert_demon]

Have you ever been dissappointed when you read or see and interview with one of your favorite hard rock/metal artists and you find out that they really aren’t that much into the music that they play? I mean, when they say things like “my real love is the blues” or admit to not really being fans of any metal bands, or making a list of their favorite albums or songs and there is nary a metal band mentioned.
Some examples:
Mick Mars (Motley Crue): In a Guitar World interview admits to being part of a hard rock band because that was what was “in” at the time. The music he really loves is the blues, he says.
Ozzy Osbourne: The Prince of Darkness?? HA! I quote: “The music I do for a living and the music I really like are two entirely different things.” He really likes The Beatles and other sixties bands.
Alex Skolnik (ex-Testament): In a Guitar World interview from the early 90’s he gushes about how he’s crazy about some Jazz player (I forget the name). Never once does he mention metal. It’s no surprise that he left Testament to form the Alex Skolnik Jazz Trio.
Peter Criss (KISS): Was the drummer for one of the world’s biggest hard rock bands, but he’s really into R&B and Jazz.
Geoff Tate (Queensryche): Has said he doesn’t like metal anymore (and he probably never did judging from his solo album)
The list goes on and on, but my point is this: if your in a metal/hard rock band then THAT better be your favorite music, otherwise your not being true to yourself. Maybe you guys have other examples.

 

[Trans-Siberian Outcast]

I understand your position and to some extent feel the same way sometimes, about certain "heroes" of mine. But, there is more than one way to look at it, my friend, so I'll play devil's advocate to the desert demon. To some, it's all about the music. To others, it's just another job and you take the position that pays the best with the most benefits.

Then there's Alex Skolnik. He played metal with Testament because that's what was hot at the time. He made a decent amount of money, invested it wisely, and the pay off at the end is that NOW he actually gets to play the music HE WANTS TO PLAY. The metal was just a means to an end for Alex. Can't really fault him for that. He had a dream and he accomplished it.

NP: Jorn - The Duke

 

[Wyvern]

I don't have an issue with that. Many years ago I remember Richie Blackmore saying that he nevers listen to any Deep Purple but usually classic music. At the time seemed weird to me but inmediately I acknowledge the fact that as a musician:

1. You need to broaden your horizons
2. You probably get a bit bored of your own music after perform it night after night

The only thing that botters me it's when metal musicians praise or accept they listen to mallcore or some other crappy stuff, then again I'm not a musician so my vision of the world is different.

Iommi/Hughes - 'Saviour Of The Real'

 

[desert_demon]

In the case of Alex Skolnik and Ritchie Blackmore the situation is different. They played for years in one genre and then switched to the music they really loved. I respect that.
Also, I'm not against having broad musical tastes. Many here in the Old School forum (myself included) have expressed liking many non-metal bands like Jethro Tull among others. That's cool. What bothers me is that as a fan, I kind of feel that a musician should at least be a fan of the genre of music he plays and be true to him/herself.

 

[Trans-Siberian Outcast]

What bothers me is that as a fan, I kind of feel that a musician should at least be a fan of the genre of music he plays and be true to him/herself.

As a fellow fan, I understand your view and feel the same way. But we're being selfish when we feel that. In an ideal world, every musician would play what they want to play and there would be enough audience for it to pay the bills.

It's not an ideal world, so musicians get by the best they can. Just like any other profession. It's work to them, a JOB.

My "let me downs" are more in the form of Metallica stating publicly that they would never sell out, never do a video for MTV, and then a couple years later do just that.

Or Ozzy, a long time idol of mine, screaming at the ocean waves because he foolishy built a fire below the tide line. While funny, it was a wake up call. My hero was really nothing more than a bumbling old drunk, not that much different than one of my cousins, except for the money, the mansion, and the fame. Reality sucks. Can't debate that.

NP: Accept - Restless and Wild

 

[Priest of Evil]

When you hear an artist saying they don't like metal in any form it can be hard to fathom, especially when they are actively playing metal. But as previously mentioned, for some it is a job and they got involved in the 80's when metal was at its most popular - surely they must of had some kinda passing interest to begin with though?

I can't think of anyone extra (at the moment) that fits the bill but I agree with TransSib - reality sucks! Pass me the whiskey...

 

[Death Animal]

Peter Criss (KISS): Was the drummer for one of the world’s biggest hard rock bands, but he’s really into R&B and Jazz.

What about Gene simons.
Well I´m not big fan of Kiss.
But he admit that he is doing music just for money.
Not big suprise.

 

[Death Animal]

And Michael Kiske from Hellowee.
He made good work at those first records.but then just wanted to go pop.

 

[SickBoy]

Kiske is more than silly with his love/hate relationship to metal...
He apparently doesn't like metal and even said never to sing metal again, but it's hard to resist the temptation as it seems. He sang on Masterplan and Avantasia records, maybe some others, but that's IMO purely because he's respected in metal world, whereas in rock world he's not...
Why be the last in town when you can be the first in the village, as they say around here.

As for Tate, his disliking of metal is clearly seen in the direction of his band for the last 10+ years. His attempt at OM2 is a plain cash-in from die-hard fans who still wish their majestic return to metal form. Well, gotta say that this album is a flop IMO, so no soup for Tate, as far as I'm concerned.

I say - if they don't like it, then sever the ties, don't come crawling back when you fail to get the recognition you want in some other genre you like for true.

 

[SoundMaster]

If you think about it, this is a blessing in disguise. The best music, IMO, is penned by folks with a broad range of interests and influences.

However, the majority of bands (usually death, thrash or black) who often cite 80s metal bands as their major influences, generally have little to nothing to offer and, in an unintended parody, often completely ripp off the music (and in some cases, the very name, ie: Dream Evil) of their heroes.

I think that's why my leanings these past few months have been towards early 70s rock and away from most (new) metal. Although their have been some great new bands arising in the past decade (Opeth, Katatonia, Anathema, etc) very few are really original and inspiring.

 

[sumairetsu]

What about Gene simons.
Well I´m not big fan of Kiss.
But he admit that he is doing music just for money.
Not big suprise.

Don't forget the women. It's because he saw the Beatles on Ed Sullivan back in the 60's.

As for Queensryche, the results speak for themselves.

Personally, I know that whenever I or my friends got offstage, the last thing anyone wanted to listen to was Metal.

 

[SavaRon]

They only let me down when they put out shit music! You can pretty much tell if thier heart is in it or not just by listening IMO.

 

[ElectricWiz]

They only let me down when they put out shit music! You can pretty much tell if thier heart is in it or not just by listening IMO.

This is pretty much where I stand. I agree with Soundmaster's post as well. Truth is, I'll follow a good band anywhere they wish to wander, so long as they put their heart in it. Unless I just plain don't like it. Not to beat this dead horse, but I liked St. Anger, and still don't get all the huff about it (as an example). It may not coincide with what a lot of people's archetypal view of metal, but for what it was worth their heart seemed to be in it, so as a strangely artistic statement about change (as in rehab and all that), it worked for me. It's far too easy to dismiss stuff just because it's not status quo. For me though, status quo means a continued dedication to whatever it is you are doing, or a band is doing...at the time. Zeppelin was all over the map really, but didn't make any records I disliked. It takes a whole career to explore what a band is capable of. Further, few of the truly founding metal bands, which is everybody up through the 80s to me, were born with a "metal," attitude. So they really don't have the slightest idea about selling out. They are not holding onto some strange attitude about how things HAVE to sound. If they were, they would be as silly as Joey Demaio from Manowar. "METAL METAL METAL DUDE!" Blah. Metal is my chosen favorite, but in truth I just like "heavy," music. For me, though, Led Zepplin III is heavy, and it's mostly acoustic for cripes sake. Deep Purple is heavy. Zeppelin is heavy. Sabbath is undeniably heavy. But, in their way, so are Neil Young, the Rolling Stones, etc. etc. It's about balls and heart, and a love of music. Everything else is mutable.

There are no absolutes. Well, except Geoff Tate's solo album sucking. That was shit. Haha.

 

[desert_demon]

Truth is, I'll follow a good band anywhere they wish to wander, so long as they put their heart in it. Unless I just plain don't like it.

ElectriWiz, you hit the nail right on the head. I couldn't agree with you more and I think your post just about sums up this whole discussion. And for the record, I DO think it's healthy and good to have varied musical tastes. To illustrate, my last three CD purchases were:
Jethro Tull - Aqualung Live
Blackmore's Night - Village Lanterne
Uriah Heep - Rainbow Demon: Live and in the Studio

 

[kittybeast]

Brett Michaels kept trying to get back into metal and couldn't do it...it was a 'dead' scene. So now to make music and money he plays country music.
Nothing wrong with that IMO.

I see nothing wrong with a musician who truly loves one genre but cannot make a living so chooses another path so they at least get to do the job they love.

Don't we all wish we could take our hobby or something we really love and make money?

 

[ElectricWiz]

ElectriWiz, you hit the nail right on the head. I couldn't agree with you more and I think your post just about sums up this whole discussion. And for the record, I DO think it's healthy and good to have varied musical tastes. To illustrate, my last three CD purchases were:
Jethro Tull - Aqualung Live
Blackmore's Night - Village Lanterne
Uriah Heep - Rainbow Demon: Live and in the Studio

Hey man, how is that Aqualung live disc? I held it in my hands a few times, but ended up going to the register each time with something else I "needed," more. I'll get it, but how is it?

 

[desert_demon]

The Aqualung disc is the one one they gave away as a freebie on their last tour, a tour I was unfortunately unable to attend. Now it’s available in stores but at a lower price than a usual CD and with the proceeds going to the homeless.
The disc is pretty good, a live recording done for a radio station, I enjoyed it. And considering there are very few official live Tull albums, this one was welcome, if you're a Tull fan you'll like it.

 

[SoundMaster]

As for Queensryche, the results speak for themselves.

.

Indeed. OP MC II is friggin' awesome! I wasn't expecting it to be this good!!! Of course, towards the end, it loses some steam (until the mightly ending track, which is incredibly powerful), but overall, it's a worthy follow-up to 2003's "Tribe", which is arguably one of the most under-rated albums of all time, IMO.

 

[SoundMaster]

Hey man, how is that Aqualung live disc? I held it in my hands a few times, but ended up going to the register each time with something else I "needed," more. I'll get it, but how is it?

Musically brilliant....with some variation to the classic.
Vocally, it's almost sub-par as Ian's voice has lost some steam. Overall, however, it's mandatory for the Tull aficianado!

 

[SoundMaster]

This is pretty much where I stand. I agree with Soundmaster's post as well. Truth is, I'll follow a good band anywhere they wish to wander, so long as they put their heart in it. Unless I just plain don't like it. Not to beat this dead horse, but I liked St. Anger, and still don't get all the huff about it (as an example). It may not coincide with what a lot of people's archetypal view of metal, but for what it was worth their heart seemed to be in it, so as a strangely artistic statement about change (as in rehab and all that), it worked for me. It's far too easy to dismiss stuff just because it's not status quo. For me though, status quo means a continued dedication to whatever it is you are doing, or a band is doing...at the time. Zeppelin was all over the map really, but didn't make any records I disliked. It takes a whole career to explore what a band is capable of. Further, few of the truly founding metal bands, which is everybody up through the 80s to me, were born with a "metal," attitude. So they really don't have the slightest idea about selling out. They are not holding onto some strange attitude about how things HAVE to sound. If they were, they would be as silly as Joey Demaio from Manowar. "METAL METAL METAL DUDE!" Blah. Metal is my chosen favorite, but in truth I just like "heavy," music. For me, though, Led Zepplin III is heavy, and it's mostly acoustic for cripes sake. Deep Purple is heavy. Zeppelin is heavy. Sabbath is undeniably heavy. But, in their way, so are Neil Young, the Rolling Stones, etc. etc. It's about balls and heart, and a love of music. Everything else is mutable.

There are no absolutes. Well, except Geoff Tate's solo album sucking. That was shit. Haha.

Perfectly stated. I couldn't agree more.
And that's why, to my ears, Led Zep III is so much heavier than most death or thrash metal, for example. Too many bands lose sense of dynamics (or never ever grasp it at all). The ability to contrast 'light' with 'shade' or bombast with moments of serenity is what ultimately makes heaviness, IMO.

Hence, Led Zep III makes say, Deicide, look like children's music.

Tons of distortion, blast beats and screams to do not equate to heavy music unless they possess that "it", the sense of dynamics which makes good music good.

And I also disagree with the notion that Queensryche's 'heart is not in it'. If that was true, they wouldn't have made a record such as "Tribe". Nor would OP MC II sound so different than part I (the songwriting is totally different).