In scrolling through a lot of the vinyl reissues on Hells Headbangers, I've seen bands like Abhorer and VON remain relatively dormant and dead for years yet still sell a decent amount of reissues of material they recorded in their youth. What are your thoughts on bands no thanks due in part to technology, that have released nothing yet still echo to newer fans today and still somehow manage to remain relevant. Is it necessarily a negative thing that these bands can release nothing and still remain influential, or do you see it as them reaping the fruits of their labor at just a later time?

Repulsion. No matter how good that debut could be, they base their entire existence on it. Not to say that they've been active ever since its release, but they could have done something ever since then that amounted to caring about this band any further.

I think that is the case with insanely many old bands. A lot of them haven't released anything worthwhile in decades but still pump out shit, and people still buy it because they made one or more awesome albums once.

Obligatory Metallica mention. They haven't done anything worth anything since 1988, but they just keep trying.

It's not a bad thing that these bands still make money for quality music they make, but it does seem a bit lame how they ride the coattails. Oh well. I guess when you're out of ideas, there may be some solace in knowing you were once relevant and current.

mayhem

Seconding Mayhem. They originally lived off of the Deathcrush EP for half a decade, and now they are essentially living off of the fame of De Mysteriis Dom Sathanas. They've recorded a little bit of other shit, but those are the two they are known for, and Mayhem is quite often "the band" that introduces people to black metal/really gets them interested in the genre. And they are considered a "landmark/hallmark" of the genre, even though their output is very limited (and quite frankly--overrated).

At the same time, bands go through lulls and dead zones in their output before a glorious second spring - think Iron Maiden.

I'm not sure if this thread will last long, but...

Motorhead. I never really liked them (their music might as well be one long, continuous drone to my ears). They have always been supremely overrated in my mind.
AC/DC. Essentially the same, but I like them a lot better by comparisson.

These are bands that were relevant or important early on and then just immediately began to stagnate. I consider them both incredibly mediocre and long passed their prime... IDK if AC/DC is even still together, that's how little I care.

Burzum and Mayhem too, yes... and for exactly the same reason.

Burzum and Mayhem might as well BE Motorhead and AC/DC.
Early stuff was good, there was something marketable about them, and those are the two factors that allow them to somehow stay in the music press and consumers' favors.

Dragonforce released their debut album, and then rode its praise without changing anything up at all for over 8 years, with the line "far away" hidden in like half of every song they made up until their vocalist FINALLY left.

Also I think if Metallica is here, Megadeth could be too, they went over 15 years off of their early success with little praise to be given in the time since like 1992, though they seem to be getting it back together again somewhat.

Quite frankly, it'd be a lot less tedious to single out bands who don't live off of their past glories. As far as bands originally from the 70s and 80s go, we're still in the "comeback/revival/reunion" nostalgia wave that started around the late 90s, for the vast majority of them. How blatant this is may vary from one band to the other, depending on how much of an effort they make of keeping appearances. But at the end of the day, precious few of the bands who released their classics prior to 1992 did release anything that can even compare since then. Yet many, many, MANY of these bands are currently active and have been enjoying a big popularity increase for years. The masses take their sweet time to catch up; the larger the audience, the longer it takes.

If you're looking for extreme cases, then Angel Witch. Despite having released a couple of great albums in the mid 80s he wishes he had a time machine just to unrelease, and recently releasing a bunch of half-baked re-recorded demo B-sides and forgotten fillers passing for an album, Kevin has been milking the same damn cow for 32 long years straight, now. Still giving milk to this day. Good cow, bad Kevin.

If I understand this correctly, you are harping on bands who make one or two great albums "way back when," but continue to exist, play live and churn out less-quality material long after the fact. And people buy into it only because of the one or two great albums they released way back when.

I don't know if I really have a problem with this, because if those "classic"/"Legacy" albums were really as good and influential as people consider them to be, then there is no reason these particular albums shouldn't be relevant 10, 20, or 50-whatever years down the line. Heck, "Are You Experienced," "Paranoid" and the first couple Zeppelin albums came out 40 years ago. 40 years from now, I bet people STILL think these are classics, because they are timeless and great.

But yeah, if, lets say, the original surviving members of Zeppelin and Sabbath were to reunite, you know everyone would be stoked to hear and see them even though neither of them has released anything memorable or worthwhile for over 30 years. I guess if bands need the money, let them go out and make it. Consider it like a retirement fund, or something. I think I see your point, and it is kind of silly for a band to try to relive some past glory, but hey- if that's the only thing they know, then you gotta make money and survive somehow. And it is true that with a few exceptions, the "reformed" band's material is typically never as fresh or as exciting as the stuff from their classic period, even though in many cases (Celtic Frost, and Candlemass for instance) it may still be very, very good.

Haha, your comment made me check all the lyrics for the phrase "far away". It appears in all of these songs!

Sonic Thunderstorm
Fields of Despair
Dawn Over a New World
Soldiers of the Wasteland
Cry of the Brave

Inhuman Rampage
Through the Fire and Flames
Operation Ground and Pound
Cry for Eternity
The Flame of Youth

Ultra Beatdown
Heroes of Our Time
The Fire Still Burns
A Flame for Freedom
Inside the Winter Storm

Morbid Angel would definitely be a band living off their legacy at this point, methinks.

Good thread idea, but there is a distinct difference between a band who makes no new music, and consciously decides to exist only to tour and play the old, classic stuff, and a band like Metallica who keeps on making new stuff regularly after their glory days, as weak as that material may be. It's weak, but they are still trying, at least.

Any band that releases 1 album and the disappears. Demilich, gorement and aspid to name a couple. Still, they're worth listening to even to this day.

Holy crap! Dragonforce should release a compilation that nobody would buy called "Far Away" featuring those songs.

So because you don't like them they're "living off their legacy"? Not saying you have to like Motorhead but if that's what you're getting at, that's incredibly stupid. Their new stuff is still very, very good. And for the record their stuff does not at all sound all the same. Not what this thread is about at all.

I wouldn't think you can really count them unless they are still active as musicians and riding the notoriety of that one album they did with a defunct band.

No, you're just getting defensive for no reason... that's stupid.

Not really defensive, dude...just not sure why you think you not liking a band means they're "living on a legacy" is all. They're not - they're still going pretty damn strong and releasing new, solid albums every few years.

Nope. Motorhead are not living off their legacy alone. They still release fairly solid material and don't entirely rely on their early stuff to fill venues. Their modern shows use primarily modern songs with maybe "Ace of Spades" thrown in at the end to get the crowd excited.

You want an actual example of a band living off their legacy like a frightened leech? Aside from my earlier mention of Metallica? Queensryche. Constantly putting out new albums, and they're almost always awful. The stuff they play live is almost entirely from Rage for Order and Empire, almost entirely neglecting their new stuff because they know it sucks. Thus, they're living off their legacy, as per the thread subject.

Twisted Sister is a good example of it. Their 90's material, or saying this better, anything later from ''Stay Hungry'' was not very good in comparison with that great classic album. And i think, this is the case of some Glam Rock/Metal bands, like Bon Jovi (specially him) Cinderella, Poison and Kiss.
There are bands that haven't put out something new in years like Cinderella, or well, their new stuff is not so good like in their prime, like Motley Crue or Skid Row.

Well the quality of Von's music tends to be very bitched about.

However i think Abhorer released some of the best music to come from Singapore, if not the best. Material up there with early Impiety. Abhorer totally deserve reissues!

I think their stuff is kind of weak to be honest, a few good moments here and there but nothing worth spinning over Sadistik Exekution, Blasphemy (who I'm surprised weren't mentioned), or Sarcofago.

Oh yes BURZUM! A classic example of a band living off its legacy. First off Burzum wouldn't be as big as he is if there hadn't been all that controversy. Secondly everything he has released post-prison is some of the most standardized mediocre black metal I've ever heard, and the only reason anyone gives a shit about it is Burzum. Had it been some unknown band they would've stayed unknown.

Weak? Do you like Impiety, and bands of that stye? Very different to Sad Ex and Blasphemy in my opinion.

Also it is blasphemy to blasphemy against Blasphemy.

Yes and no. Burzum released his first albums at a crucial point in time, when the second wave was still being creative and growing, AND was rather unique at the time. With this in mind, the early three (possibly four) albums he released before the murder would most likely still be held in high regard because of this fact. Even without the controversy. Your opinion aside about the music, those albums are still hugely influential MUSICALLY to a whole host of bands - so no I think you're waaaay off with that stance/opinion.

I do agree with you though about his latest output, such as the ambient, and the terribly weak trilogy of metal albums (in my opinion) recently put out are only garnering interest because of said notoriety, so he's largely living off the legacy of the great first three or four albums.




nice one.

No way, blasphemy! Motorhead are still relevant, their last album was decent and they destroy live. Mayhem I agree with, but Varg doesn't really seem all that interested in his earlier work, so I don't think he Counts. (See what I did there?)

No need to make war out of it, sure they may be some lost wisdom in your words, but no one will be playing the crying orc over it...

Nice one.

Armagedda comes into my mind. After Ond Spiritism they had a re-release of a split, two compilations and two "lost" recordings, one of them being a live DVD. I personally don't mind it, my favourite band from Sweden.

- every bay area/US thrash band that's still around, especially the 2nd-tier ones (exodus, heathen, testament, overkill etc)
- all the german power metal bands, with the possible exception of gamma ray
- most older black metal bands, with a special mention for enslaved but excluding summoning and burzum
- sepultura
- all those "gothic" bands like paradise lost, my dying bride, moonspell, and even the lighter stuff ala HIM and poisonblack (which is basically just ville laihiala living off the sentenced name)
- all NWOBHM bands that ever made a name for themselves (and by "all" i mean "all that are still active"... so saxon and iron maiden)

Thrash is full of these examples.

Annihilator is probably a great example of this. The band have been so shitty for so long that I honestly don't remember well a good material from them in the last 20 years or better, they've been good for so little...

A bit more controversial, but Slayer. I don't think they've released something worthwhile after Seasons, which was 20 years ago or so. I was about to name Anthrax, which sucked hard until Worship Music.

Another easy one: Sepultura.

I'm tempted to say Exodus too. Although there is Tempo of the Damned, they largely relay on Bonded by Blood (and Pleasures of the Flesh) to get people to the live shows.

Ozzy anyone? not just living off Sabbath as a solo artist, but from his first solo albums too. I consider No More Tears as a painfully average album and anything after it it's just mediocre.

I don't really see bands that continue to release material as "living off their legacy", unless they are milking said records - Maiden, Metallica, Megadeth, AC/DC and the like should never be considered to be living off their legacy, as they continue to make new music and put emphasis on that, it is simply that people aren't that inclined to dig it, so they still play the classics.

Repulsion are a good example, as they have released one album and really nothing else - that being said, do they play new/non-album songs live? In some cases, it could simply be bands loosing interest in the idea of recording and preferring just to play live.

VON, however, are a hilarious example of a band who didn't reeaaallly do that much, and just milk it for all it is worth, and then some.

Well played.

Mayhem's last album was their best album.

Disagree. Their latest 2 albums are pretty solid and the only album that could have stand a chance against those would be Gothic if it wasn't for the shitty production.

Yeah, Paradise Lost is the most random choice I've seen in this thread yet. I don't think people get it.

Manowar is a good one. Yeah, some good stuff in the 80s, but then what, 4 albums over the next 25 years or whatever? Constant flip flopping back and forth on releases? More focus on merchandise and whatnot then actual music? Pfft.

This thread makes me think of bands that have reunited just to tour and play classic material. I think Carcass is a good example of this, as they just toured to play the old stuff, and most likely have no intention of creating new music. I don't think you can count bands that are still releasing new material, except for re-recording classic albums/songs. You would have to include almost all bands, as fans come and go, and bands have "classic" albums. I think most bands live off their "legacy" to some extent.