Story 1: Slayer have officially called it a career. Their final tour wrapped up with a show in Los Angeles, where the band said goodbye to their fans. This exit from the stage comes several years too late, in my estimation, and is hard to take seriously. I don't doubt that Slayer intends to retire, but we have seen nearly every band that has ever existed return at some point, because people who have spent their entire lives on stage can't always find something to replace that feeling. To leave that much of your life behind isn't easy, and I find myself increasingly thinking it would be better for bands not to use the word. Rush did just that, bowing out after a tour, but without promoting it as the be-all-and-end-all finality of their existence for years on end.
Kerry King's wife was quoted as saying there's, "not a chance in hell" of the band ever reuniting, but we heard the same thing from Motley Crue, and yet they're back. And in fact, they signed what were supposed to be legal documents to prevent these developments. We're supposed to trust Slayer? Why?
It would be nice to think they will actually retire, as they are claiming, but it would be foolish not to be a bit cynical about all of this. Slayer is still packing buildings night after night, and it seems inevitable that whatever musical projects they pick up after this are going to struggle to live up to the standard they are used to. I don't get the feeling Kerry King is ready to retire, and when his next group is playing small clubs to crowds of 1,500 people, I wouldn't be the least bit shocked if he got the itch to put a new incarnation of Slayer back together. The fact they are keeping the band going as a brand gives me more reason to believe this. Milking Slayer for all it's worth won't be complete until there's a reunion tour five years or so down the line. I hope not, but it makes too much sense.
Story 2: Ozzy Osbourne has a new album due to arrive next year, and his producer/co-writer has made some interesting comments regarding it. According to him, the music for the songs was written in a four day burst of creativity, and then finished with Ozzy's involvement in short order thereafter. I'm not here to dispute the claim, but to ask why these details are being shared at all, because they don't tell the story the way they are probably intended.
My assumption is that these comments are supposed to say that everyone was so inspired to work on Ozzy music that it flowed out of them as if a divine inspiration. What I hear is that they came up with the first thing that came to mind, said that was good enough, and wrapped up shop without doing much self-analysis. Given that two songs have been released so far, neither was particularly exciting, and one featured an elderly man singing about making me defecate, this project comes across as half-baked. There is clearly room for improvement.
This is far from the first time the rapid pace of making an album has been used as a selling point. I don't get it. Whether it's this, or Michael Sweet bragging about writing all of his recent albums in a week's time, or Mike Portnoy's projects trying to make complex prog music with only a week spent together in the studio, it seems that there are a lot of musicians who are bragging about their laziness. Telling the audience how little effort you put into your music isn't a selling point. Even if it's true, and the music is amazing, keep it to yourself. We don't need to know details that can be used against you in the court of public opinion. Every shortcoming any of these people have, musically, then gets tied into the time spent. Rather than me not liking the music, it becomes easy for me to say they didn't try hard enough. Why do that to yourself?
Story 3: Former Sleater-Kinner drummer Janet Weiss revealed in an interview that her departure from the band came as a result of the shift in direction their most recent album took, and her exclusion from the creative process. Despite her drumming being a big part of the band's sound, it was not going to be a focal point of the new music, and the other two members told her she was going to be "just the drummer".
In that scenario, I completely understand why she would want to move on from the group. Disagreements over music happen all the time between creative people who aren't totally in sync, but to see your role in a band dismissed and reduced with no warning, explanation, or effort to work through the issues, is difficult to swallow. I can see both sides of the equation. Sleater-Kinney didn't need to return from their hiatus. When they did, and it was more successful than they could have imagined, I can see why they wanted their next chapter to be something new, rather than rehashing the past over and over. But that decision needed to be made as a band. To spring a huge shift in style on a member of the band while in the studio is a lousy thing to do. The right way to handle things would have been to make clear where the band was headed before making a new record was even discussed, that way everyone could decide whether to move forward or not before these feelings came up.
I say this only anecdotally, but the new Sleater-Kinney direction has generated far, far, far less buzz that I have heard about than "No Cities To Love" did. I am not seeing it mentioned as a highlight of the year, or even a particularly interesting or important development. Right now, it seems more like a black eye on the band's resume than anything. And it's self-inflicted, which only makes it worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment