Snarky Opinions, Issue 2: "Legacies and Paychecks"

Some time ago, I visited a friend at her college dormitory before she had to head back for the summer break. I had brought with me the latest offering from Tool for her perusal, since we were both fans. However, she couldn’t listen to more than about 10 seconds before having to skip to the next track, a process that continued for a further two songs before she abandoned the album altogether. She felt that the band was simply carrying on the same as their previous album and were failing to present any new directions or layers to their material. At the time, I was rather offended. One comment of hers that particularly infuriated me was something to the effect of, “Why didn’t they end with Lateralus and leave their legacy intact?” Now, in hindsight, I have to agree that 10,000 Days is the weakest of Tool’s albums. While I have no intention of turning this into a passive-aggressive attack on the young lady, her rather arrogant notion that the band should have quit before this release calls to mind a question music critics often ask: when should a band toss in the towel?

Short answer: when they’re dead.
Long answer: when they’re either dead, physically incapable of playing any instrument (with or without mechanical assistance), or have made enough money to retire in moderate comfort.

I’m tired of music snobs standing on a soapbox and declaring that a band should stop making music simply because some critic thinks the new releases are stale or lacking in creativity^*. Leaving behind a “legacy” to be remembered by is all fine and good, until you remember that the musicians are still breathing and probably don’t give two s***s about a “legacy” when there’s a car in the driveway that needs gas, a baby in the bedroom that needs diapers, and an empty refrigerator in the kitchen. Quite often, the listening public seems to forget that musicians have bills and rent to pay too. We have day jobs; they make music. Everyone finds a way to a paycheck, and everyone has expenses.

I remember a program many years ago, I believe on MTV News, which broke down how much money this one particular band made in a year^**. After studio fees and so on, their net pay each was only breaking into the middle-class bracket. Then, the taxman comes in as he inevitably does when Uncle Sam smells greenbacks. Translation: bands are not literally burning money to heat their homes. It’s a common perception that simply because someone is famous that they are also rich; bear in mind that being on a stage or having a CD out doesn’t always automatically come with suitcases full of thousand dollar bills (otherwise, I’d have several very rich friends that would be paying me handsomely to hand them approving reviews).

Let’s explore the issue further. First, there must be a reason someone would call into question why our band, let us refer to them as Band X, is still persisting (economic reasons on their end notwithstanding). Let’s assume that our reason is that which started this discussion: perceived creative stagnation. Assuming Band X’s members all get along, play together quite nicely, and there’s a market for what they’re releasing, there’s no reason for them to stop making music. Critics could argue that the market is a pack of dolts that don’t realize they’re being gypped by Band X and their lack of musical growth, but that doesn’t change the fact that someone, somewhere, is buying their albums.

Admitted, some of us music geeks are more discerning and won’t stand for a band that releases the same album every year. While we look at that and critique it, others smile with the knowledge that the band they know and love is still at it as they always have. They might not be breaking any new ground either stylistically or lyrically, but maybe that’s what the fans want. Maybe that’s why they keep buying the albums. Maybe they don’t want their favorite bands to change, to evolve into something other than what they have always known.

So, when should a band pull the plug? WHENEVER THEY FEEL LIKE IT. The band should be the ones to decide when the guitars/microphones/drumsticks/sides of beef are hung up, not the armchair know-it-alls. Critics should think less about “legacies” and more about, “if I am bored with this band, maybe I should seek something else out to interest me and let them do as they see fit.”

Then again, if we did that, we’d have nothing to write complaints about.

^*Behold the irony of complaining about arrogant and opinionated critics while critiquing music on a blog of all things.
^**I can’t exactly remember which band was being interviewed for the program; for some reason, I could have sworn it was Metallica, but they seem to be doing really well financially.