Bloody Good News: Fake Retirements & Misplaced Outrage

 In this news this week, two musicians voiced opinions, but with very different outcomes.

Our Top Story: Dee Snider has spoken out against bands who announce their retirements, only to never go away. The practice, which has been becoming more and more popular, did not sit well with the veteran who recently said goodbye to his own band.

"“I think it’s bullshit,” he said. “When you say farewell… Rage Against The Machine breaks up — that’s not retirement. They broke up, and they reformed, and that’s great. But when you do a farewell tour, and you announce this, and you sell tickets, and you have a t-shirt that says ‘No More Tours’ — thank you very much, Ozzy [Osbourne], I bought one of those — and then you come back, that’s bullshit."

I bring this story up not so much to air my own grievances again, but to commend Dee on being on the right side of the issue. We have seen so many bands treating their fans as a resource to be exploited, it's nice to see someone who gets it. Conning the fans by promising something that isn't going to happen is a fraud on the very people who have made your career possible, but it also hurts you moving into the future. As he mentioned, Ozzy has done multiple retirement tours, enough so that his eventual retirement won't be taken seriously until he is no longer with us. What could be an opportunity to cash out one last time, and have a proper remembrance of his career is impossible now, because "No More Tours III" would be a joke.

I have complained over the years about bands like Candlemass and Scorpions, who both promised to be retiring from making new music, only to still be heading into the studio. I do feel lied to, and for what? What did either band gain by saying they were going to hang it up? In one case, they blame management for putting the idea in their heads, but that's not much of an excuse. In those relationships, the manager works for the band, and they don't have to follow any advice they don't want to. Scorpions made the decision to announce their retirement, they made the decision to walk back on their word, and they have to face the consequences of that, even if I'm the only one who will ever say anything.

I get that it's hard to retire from something that has been such a part of you for so long. I don't blame anyone for being conflicted about those feelings, or for not wanting to retire at all, but in that case don't do it. If you aren't absolutely sure, don't make a public pronouncement about the end being the end. Some decisions are too important to be trifled with.

I always say the only thing artists owe the fans is honesty. These 'retirements' are dishonest, and it ruins the relationship.

In Other News: Stryper frontman Michael Sweet was angered by a review of his band's new album on Blabbermouth that focused on Sweet's evangelical mindset in writing songs. The review was critical of religion in general, and Sweet in particular, but Sweet showed his skin has not grown any thicker in thirty years of dealing with the press.

He responded to the review by saying is, "borders on being illegal."

Look, I get that people don't like having their faith criticized, but when you put it front and center of your musical identity, it's going to happen. A Christian artist is not going to only be listened to by Christians, and it's inevitable that some people are going to take issue with being preached to.

It leads me to questions I have never gotten a satisfactory answer to; Why is it so important for people of faith to have their beliefs shared by everyone else, and why do so many of them feel the need to preach their faith to anyone who will listen? This is just the way my brain works, but if you believe so devoutly, it shouldn't matter if other people agree with you. Whether or not the writer of a review shares the same view of religion as Sweet shouldn't matter to him, not if his faith was a fraction of as strong as he projects it to be.

This would have been an easy opportunity for Sweet to ignore the review, and show himself to be secure in himself and his faith. By responding as he did, he only brings more attention to the words he felt were a personal attack.

And here's the truth; religious beliefs wouldn't matter in music if religion wasn't invested in our politics. If Sweet's beliefs were contained to himself and his church, I don't think even most atheists would care in the slightest that he was writing songs praising Jesus to the high heavens. But religion is political, and an entire religious movement spends all their energy and money trying to force an entire country to live by the rules of their faith. Sweet walked right into that discussion by giving one of his songs a title usurping Donald Trump's campaign slogan.

Sweet can be offended that a writer is distasteful of his faith, but the leaders of that very faith are trying to forcibly convert us to their rules. That's not the discussion Sweet wants to have, but it's where his comments lead us. I get why he's angry, and I get why people who don't share Sweet's devotion are leery of religion creeping into every corner of our society.

That's why it would have been better for everyone if he let this one slide.