Article - Hard-rock band is getting soft

[SuiteMadameBlue]

This was sent from the classicerocknews.

http://www.pjstar.com/stories/072905/AM ... .054.shtml

Friday, July 29, 2005

BY PHIL LUCIANO

OF THE JOURNAL STAR

A REVIEW
PEORIA - Has Def Leppard become forgetful with advancing age?

Does the band have Alzheimer's? Or maybe amnesia?

Granted, the quintet hasn't forgotten how to crank out a crowd-pleasing revue of chart-toppers, as witnessed Wednesday night by 4,300 fans at the Peoria Civic Center.

But Def Leppard has forgotten that it once was a wall-shaking, hard-rock band.

Though most fans eagerly stood throughout Wednesday's show, many faces began to slack into catatonia as endless power ballads and pop metal slid into one another: "Foolin'," "Hysteria," "Rocket," "Bringin' on the Heartbreak" - you know the drill. By the time the show ended with "Pour Some Sugar on Me," long-time fans longed for a little less treacle and something with a bit more bite.

Wither "Rock Brigade," "Wasted" or any other rocking tune? It's as if Def Leppard refused to acknowledge life before the super-slick, mega-hit era of "Pyromania" and "Hysteria."

The thing is, the band tried to inject some rock into the set list, via covers of David Essex's "Rock On" and Badfinger's "No Matter What" - both of which apparently will show up on Def Leppard's upcoming CD paying homage to British classic rock.

Indeed, inspired can shake up a concert, and Def Leppard handled both tunes well. But if the band wants to play some oldies, can't it delve into its own discography? The show ran only 90 minutes; it's not as if they didn't have time for a a bit of old-school guitar shredding.

Regardless, as for the musical performance, the band (as usual) eschewed theatrics and delivered note-for-note perfection. A couple of times, guitarists Viv Campbell and Phil Collen were allowed to cut loose with brief, searing solos.

But mostly the songs focused on singer Joe Elliot. He's never been much of a frontman; his stage presence is pretty much limited to a few token twirls of his stand-up mike.

Still, Elliot (who still can squeeze into leather pants) did offer a bit of friendly banter to the crowd. He garnered a loud ovation when he held up the Union Jack and declared, "It's nice to know we're on the same side, and we thank you for it."

His layered melodies with bassist Sav Savage and the rest sounded on-target. But Elliot's vocals got fuzzy and thin at points. Granted, he's never had the strongest of pipes, but the problem seemed not from his throat but his mike or sound system. Toward the end, he sounded somewhat distorted and gravely, as if he were channeling Ernest Borgnine.

Opener Tesla had no such sonic difficulties. The outfit's blues-based rock filled the arena well, and wild-eyed singer Jeff Keith's wail never sounded more piercing.

Tesla, which still has all five original members, pounded through rockers like "Modern Day Cowboy" and "Heaven's Trail" plus a handful of power ballads like "What U Give." Tommy Skeoch and Frankie Hannon repeatedly (and delightfully) smoked through guitar solos - electric as well as acoustic.

[mamos]

I saw Def Leppard years ago in our home town of Sheffield and they were backed by Tesla then too. And Tesla were by far the better band. Harder tighter more entertaining and Jeff Keith has IMO a much better voice.

[Rockindeano]

Hey, let's face it, there is nothing wrong with playing with a softer edge..Journey does it, and better than anyone..However, when you build your "base" on harder stuff, then go soft? oops.

I have seen Def Leppard on tour with Bryan Adams now twice this year, and Adams absolutely blew away DL...He played ballads and he rocked harder too.. I am not piling on, but come on? What are you guys, in love?

Have DL lost their collective nutsacks?

[WardyS3]

Absoloutley no surprises here!

If you look around these boards it's quite obvious I no longer rate this band, and always emphasise I mean not to insult the band or any fans, but DL are the best example (or worst, whichever way you look at it) of a band selling out as there's ever been. The reason why they focus on the ballads is because that's what sold the best for them by the time Adrenalize had been and gone! The departure from hard rock to soft rock was evident from Pyromania to Hysteria even before they went for the 'Bigger is Better ie- More is Better' syndrome with latter releases.

Don't get me wrong, as I've widely said, Pyromania ranks in my top 10 albums and I don't hate Hysteria, quite liked it at the time but was hoping for a return to harder stuff come Adrenalize (Let's get Rocked ranks in my worst songs of all time!!!!!) so all this soft concert business really isn't surprising and really should be expected. I mean when were they really last a hard rock band!?

Hey, if you read alot about this stuff Joe tires to justify all this by saying DL only ever intended to be a 'pop' band anyhows.

Yeah, right, sure Joe.....

[Trinity]

The bottom line....a wider fan base.

You can all whine about DL losing their "edge" as a rock band but where would they be if they didn't change with the times?

I'll give you a clue...

Whitesnake, Quiet Riot and Cinderella.

[WardyS3]

Very good point Trinity, however I for sure am not 'whining' and truth be told wouldn't wnat them to attempt another Pyromania. It's what it is and it is still fabulous. I am happy for the band to be doing what they're doing and ur right regarding the comparisons to the bands you listed, no complaints just a little frustration as what I see to be a decline but just my opinion, good luck to em!

[kissofdeath]

Hey, let's face it, there is nothing wrong with playing with a softer edge..Journey does it, and better than anyone..However, when you build your "base" on harder stuff, then go soft? oops.

I have seen Def Leppard on tour with Bryan Adams now twice this year, and Adams absolutely blew away DL...He played ballads and he rocked harder too.. I am not piling on, but come on? What are you guys, in love?

Have DL lost their collective nutsacks?

Absolutely. These guys started taking a turn for the worst (IMO) when they released Euphoria. After that, I coudn't stand listening to the soft crap that they were putting out. Such a travesty...

[WalrusOct9]

The bottom line....a wider fan base.

You can all whine about DL losing their "edge" as a rock band but where would they be if they didn't change with the times?

I'll give you a clue...

Whitesnake, Quiet Riot and Cinderella.

On the one hand, that's true.

On the other hand, their softest and poppiest record, "X" was the least successful of their career. DL has a much, much stronger back catalog of tunes than any of the bands you named, and so they can still do a solid business tournig on it, but a large portion of their concert audience really doesn't care whether they've released anything since 1992.

They evolved, and that's cool ("Slang" and "Euphoria" are probably my 2 fav. Lep albums, although I'm a lot younger than most of you, so that's partly it), but if there was any time for them to return to a heavier rock sound, it would've been after the relative failure of "X"...it's obvious that the sound of that album wasn't catching on (and the record company wasn't supporting it) so why not come back with a kick ass rock record? I think if they did it would be at least as successful as "Euphoria," maybe even "Adrenalize." If they got Lange to come back and produce an entire album in a heavier High & Dry/Pyromania style, I think it could do pretty well.

[Cato Alumni]

The bottom line....a wider fan base.

This is completely false. Their fanbase has shrunk since Hysteria and with each subsequent record, coinciding perfectly with their move to Michael Bolton music.

You can all whine about DL losing their "edge" as a rock band but where would they be if they didn't change with the times?

I'll give you a clue...

Whitesnake, Quiet Riot and Cinderella.

This is absurd.

1. Whitesnake were never a big band in the US until their 1987 record. Their followup was SO lame that they were considered a flash in the pan; not to mention Coverdale is 10 years older than anyone in Leppard... and everyone knows youth sells.
2. Quiet Riot had 1 good record; Cinderella were never a big hit.

Now, don't get me wrong, I really like these 3 bands, but they were nowhere in the stratosphere that was Def Leppard. This band was huge around the world. They are one of the few bands to have two records selling more than 10 million in the US, among many other highlights. But perhaps more importantly, unlike these 3 acts, Def Leppard was the leader of the pop-metal and NWOBHM movement.

Thus, to say that they would become has-beens if they didn't put out grunge or something is disengenous in the extreme. The problem is that they lost their identity and released a bunch of average pop tunes. Had they put out an 'Into the Now' or something of a similar high quality in 1991, the landscape of music would have been very different.

[Cato Alumni]

...why not come back with a kick ass rock record? I think if they did it would be at least as successful as "Euphoria," maybe even "Adrenalize." If they got Lange to come back and produce an entire album in a heavier High & Dry/Pyromania style, I think it could do pretty well.

It would -- but that's what the fans want, not what the band wants. They've deluded themselves into thinking they are a genuine top40 outfit that, despite being old and out of ideas, have a surefire radio hit around the corner.

Moreover, it's hard for a band to spend about 15 years dissing metal then do an about face and say, "gee, we were always part or a leader of the metal scene and now we want to return to our roots." That just sounds so pathetic (almost as bad as their current psycho-babble) it defies imagination.

[WalrusOct9]

Pyromania isn't particularly "metal." It's just a solid rock record. I think they're the least convincing metal band ever, but they're a great melodic hard rock band, and they should go back to making music that reflects it. It doesn't have to be Hysteria Part III, they could experiment a bit like they did on Slang, but they could definitely do a more rock-oriented record and get a lot more attention for it. I think there's an underserved market for that kind of stuff right now, with all the shitty cookie cutter Nickelback stuff out right now.

[Cato Alumni]

Pyromania isn't particularly "metal." It's just a solid rock record.

Uh.. Here we go again.

Why exactly isn't it metal? It has heavy riffs, amazing solos, screaming, attitude, aggression and melody? It's certainly more "metal" than say something like Stained Class which is considered a classic metal record.

[WalrusOct9]

I think in 1983 it was metal.

However, since I was 2 years old when Pyromania came out, I look at it from the modern perspective of metal, after it had split somewhat into "hard rock" and "metal." I really don't find Pyromania a particularly agressive record, and Joe Elliot isn't a screamer (thank god).

But I think of metal as being dark in some way, musically and lyrically. It's partly about being heavy, but also about being dark...which is why Number Of The Beast or Heaven And Hell can be considered metal, but Pyromania is a just a hard rock record, closer in spirit to Aerosmith or the heavier Queen songs than Maiden or Metallica.

Just one man's opinion...but in the end all that really matters is that the music kicks ass.

[Cato Alumni]

But I think of metal as being dark in some way, musically and lyrically. It's partly about being heavy, but also about being dark...

No disrespect, but I'd highly recommend revising what you consider metal. According to this view, Dream Theater certainly isn't metal, which would be news to me. Further, you also have a ton of bands that are composed of Christians like Metal Church, Vanden Plas, Nightwish... Not exactly "dark" lyrically! There are also a ton of Christian metal bands that wouldn't qualify either, obviously.

Now aside from those, you also have AC/DC and Scorpions which don't make dark music at all but are clearly metal. I mean that's just off the top of my head.

Anyways, it seems you can't possibly mean "dark" this way. Perhaps you mean "dark" in that they take their music very seriously or something..

[WalrusOct9]

I don't think AC/DC is metal either. They're from the classic Stones/Chuck Berry/blues tradition, just taking those influences and playing them a bit harder. As for the Scorpions, I think I could name 2 or 3 songs, and that's about it...just never grabbed me I guess. But I think "Rock You Like A Hurricane" fits squarely into the same category as Pyromania - melodic hard rock in a pop song format.

According to this view, Dream Theater certainly isn't metal, which would be news to me.

Yeah, "The Glass Prison" and a concept album about a murder are really happy, optimistic themes.


And thankfully, I don't think I've ever heard any "christian metal," but man that's a scary idea.

[Cato Alumni]

I don't think AC/DC is metal either. They're from the classic Stones/Chuck Berry/blues tradition, just taking those influences and playing them a bit harder.

What their roots are is irrelevant. Sabbath comes from Folk and Blues. So what? AC/DC is pop-metal through and through. I say this repeatedly: why do they play metal festivals and show up in metal mags if they are not metal? They are certainly a long way from Boston or something like that, which is a genuine hard rock act.

As for the Scorpions, I think I could name 2 or 3 songs, and that's about it...just never grabbed me I guess. But I think "Rock You Like A Hurricane" fits squarely into the same category as Pyromania - melodic hard rock in a pop song format.

Scorpions were one of the leading pop-metal acts of the 1980s, and their work in the 70s help pioneer the metal we hear today. Man, they were always being played on headbanger's ball on MTV and the powerhour in Canada. It would be a surprise to the band if you told them they weren't metal! Their latest album, btw, rocks big time.

Yeah, "The Glass Prison" and a concept album about a murder are really happy, optimistic themes.

They primarily write about positive things, although their are exceptions as you point out. And the tone of their music is generally not dark at all.

And thankfully, I don't think I've ever heard any "christian metal," but man that's a scary idea.

You should really check out Metal Church, which one was one of the premier thrash acts in the 80's, early 90s.

[jrnyman28]

Uh.. Here we go again. .

Face it Cato...a lot of us just don't look at "metal" the same way anymore. What "used to be metal" just isn't anymore. I agree with Walrus on a lot of points. Most of the bands listed, to me, are hard rock acts...not metal. I never thought of Scorpions as metal...but they certainly are an influence on many metal bands. AC/DC as metal...no way. Just because they play metal festivals does not mean they ARE metal. But again, they are fore-fathers, influences to metal. Dream Theater is progressive... but I would agree that they are progressive metal. I think it is fair to say that many "metal" bands put out a non-metal album or two...but Def Leppard only put out 2 of their 8 CDs. Also, you have to accept the fact that by becoming "mainstream" "metal" lost a lot of the characteristics that made it "metal". A change in pop culture changes the way things are viewed...and that includes music. How can you call "Hysteria" "metal" compared to Pantera's "Cowboys From Hell"? And Metallica quit being metal. But did Megadeth? Perspective I guess. In fact, that is the key. You seem to maintain the perspective of the 'kid' in the 80's listening to "metal" while many of us have the perspective of today. I agree there are many different genres of metal...which certainly help exemplify "metal". If you want to call Def Leppard "pop-metal" that works better than just calling them metal. Call Poison "hair-metal"....ok. But I cannot get my head around AC/DC being metal...sorry. Just can't do it.

[I Am Canadian]

Well obviously the Lepps must be doing something right because they're drawing between 17-21,000 fans per show the last few weeks with shows in Chicago, St Louis, North Carolina , Atlanta , San Antonio, Dallas etc. Yes I know Journey is playing with them....both bands are getting great reviews....call them whatever you like but apparently they're delivering a great show. Yes I know theyre not playing Wasted or Rock Brigade, but in fairness they're only playing an 80 minute set...face it they gotta play the hits! And once again folks they're not going to sound like they did in 1984...and they do not rock as hard but they still sound pretty damn good in my opinion.

I would love them to throw Mirror Mirror, Coming Under Fire in there, Ring of Fire or even Now...great tune off of X....by the way they do play Let it Go, Fooling, ROA, Heartbreak, Photograph off of High and Dry and Pyro. On the X tour they did play the first 5 songs off of HND on alternate nights, and I found the Lepps to be quite rock and roll...not metal!... when I saw them play live to 12,000 people in Vancouver in August of 2005!

[Cato Alumni]

Well obviously the Lepps must be doing something right because they're drawing between 17-21,000 fans per show the last few weeks

You mean they did something right. Had Def Leppard released country music the last 20 years or completely fallen off the planet, they'd draw just as many people as a nostalgia act (which is all they are). And yeah, people want to hear the hits.. and they happen to come from 2 records because they haven't released anything worthwhile in almost two decades.

and I found the Lepps to be quite rock and roll...not metal!...

Someone in this forum -- or the world, for that matter -- has to tell me who in the hell are the "glam metal" bands, "pop-metal" bands or "hair metal" bands that we hear so much about, let alone the "New Wave of British Heavy Metal" bands, if they do not include Def Leppard. I mean, yeah, they aren't death metal, but so what?

Just because heavier music gets made today, doesn't necessarily make it metal -- Nine Inch Nails, Creed, Stone Temple Pilots, et al. Metal has always been about riffs, melody, and solos. Quiet Riot, Def Leppard, Motley Crue, Tesla, Cinderella, Warrant, Winger, Ratt.. they're all part of that same scene: pop-metal. Sure, they all have different merits, but that's not the point. They are metal!

[I Am Canadian]

I can't believe people are still comparing Def Leppard to Iron Maiden and Judas Priest just because they were the NWOBHM. The Lepps sounded nothing like Priest or Maiden now or in 1983......and unfortunately they got lumped in with those bands. The Lepps were different..... much more melodic, a style I preferred and obviously 6 million other fans as that was what the Lepps sold of Pyromania right off the bat. And they put bands like Ratt, Winger, Warrant, Quiet Riot, Cinderella, Poison to shame. Sure these bands had a few good tunes....I'm not disputing that. And yes Miaden is still going, and I'll give credit where credit is due. I 've seen the Maiden DVD in front of 150,000 people at Rock in Rio in 2002....a sight and sound to behold...although not my cup of tea.....I like a few songs...Maiden is impressive live. But they are not in the same genre as the Lepps now or then.

And I disagree the Lepps haven't released anything decent in 20 years. No they will never replicate Hysteria or Pyromania, but in my opinion they have put out some great tunes..... Stand Up, Tonight, White Lightning, Paper Sun, Promises, All I Want...., Truth, Work it Out, Guilty, Day After Day, Now, Torn to Shreds, Scar, No Matter What, Waterloo Sunset, 20th Century Boy...

And some of the B-sides....Move with Me Slowly, Immortal, I Am your Child, Burnout.....

The Cybernauts CD...Bowie covers...great stuff...

Oh forgot Retroactive....Desert Song, Fractured Love...Two Steps.....From the Inside....

Personally I like the fact they can be rock, pop, hard rock.....classic rock....Obviously some fans still want them to sound like '83 and earlier.....a sound I still enjoy listening to, but I also realize the band is older and matured...somewhat...form 20 plus years ago.

.Just don't do country.....like Bon Jovi will do on their next album!!

Cheers,
I Am Canadian!

[conversationpc]

And thankfully, I don't think I've ever heard any "christian metal," but man that's a scary idea.

Do yourself a favor and check out any of the following bands: Whitecross (fantastic guitarist in Rex Carroll on their first several albums), Bloodgood, Holy Soldier, and Barren Cross, to name a few.

[Cato Alumni]

I can't believe people are still comparing Def Leppard to Iron Maiden and Judas Priest just because they were the NWOBHM. The Lepps sounded nothing like Priest or Maiden now or in 1983......and unfortunately they got lumped in with those bands.

Well in in the late 70s and early 80s, they did sound like those bands, hence their link to the NWOBHM. And I don't see how it was unfortunate.. it made them kazillionaires. I found this interesting blurb at wikipedia:

"The music of Def Leppard is a mixture of hard rock, glam rock, AOR, and heavy metal elements. The band has occasionally been associated with the pop metal movement of the 1980s, although its sound is more accurately associated with the contemporary NWOBHM genre of the late 1970s."

The only point I am trying to establish here is that they were metal through Hysteria. I don't know why I need to exert such an effort because it is painfully obvious they were.

With that in mind -- coming back to my original comment -- was that it irritates me when bands, like Def Leppard, say they were never metal. Whether the definition of metal has changed or not (a contention that I dispute) is irrelevant. Def Leppard were considered metal, at the time, for over a decade (at least). To now turn around and stab metal fans in the back with their words -- just because they are ashamed of their past -- is pathetic. It is also peculiar given that 1) all their good songs/hits come from that era and 2) metal fans are the most loyal in the business.

The Lepps were different..... much more melodic, a style I preferred and obviously 6 million other fans as that was what the Lepps sold of Pyromania right off the bat. And they put bands like Ratt, Winger, Warrant, Quiet Riot, Cinderella, Poison to shame. Sure these bands had a few good tunes....I'm not disputing that.

Leppard were the leaders in pop-metal, no doubt. It is a shame they lost their identity and started to go trendy by the end of the 80s. When the trend changes.. oops.. you're lost at sea without a paddle.

Maiden is impressive live. But they are not in the same genre as the Lepps now or then.

The former is certainly true, but the latter is false. Their first two records are very NWOBHM-ish and that is the group they got lumped into for obvious reasons. And note the NWOBHM isn't just Priest and Maiden. Def Leppard fits right along side Diamond Head, Girlschool, Raven, Samson, and Saxon.

Of course, by pyromania they had mutated into pop-metal, while still keeping some of their NWOBHM sound. They were full-blooded pop-metal by Hysteria. Adrenalize to the present has been almost pure (unpopular) pop.

[jrnyman28]

Well in in the late 70s and early 80s, they did sound like those bands, hence their link to the NWOBHM.

Don't hear it. Really, I don't.

"The music of Def Leppard is a mixture of hard rock, glam rock, AOR, and heavy metal elements. The band has occasionally been associated with the pop metal movement of the 1980s, although its sound is more accurately associated with the contemporary NWOBHM genre of the late 1970s."

The first part seems accurate: a mixture of ... heavy metal elements
Pop-metal also seems accurate. But, as it says, Def lLeppard were "associated" with NWOBHM...does not necessarily mean it was NWOBHM.

The only point I am trying to establish here is that they were metal through Hysteria. I don't know why I need to exert such an effort because it is painfully obvious they were.

Maybe because you seem to be the ONLY person who feels this way.

With that in mind -- coming back to my original comment -- was that it irritates me when bands, like Def Leppard, say they were never metal. Whether the definition of metal has changed or not (a contention that I dispute) is irrelevant. Def Leppard were considered metal, at the time, for over a decade (at least). To now turn around and stab metal fans in the back with their words -- just because they are ashamed of their past -- is pathetic. It is also peculiar given that 1) all their good songs/hits come from that era and 2) metal fans are the most loyal in the business.

A problem you also seem to have with Geoff Tate of Queensryche.

It is a shame they lost their identity and started to go trendy by the end of the 80s. When the trend changes.. oops.. you're lost at sea without a paddle.

Very true.

Their first two records are very NWOBHM-ish

Wait, I thought they were metal "through" Hysteria? Now you are saying "up to" (but not including) Pyromania?

and that is the group they got lumped into for obvious reasons. And note the NWOBHM isn't just Priest and Maiden. Def Leppard fits right along side Diamond Head, Girlschool, Raven, Samson, and Saxon.

Well, I admit I see a similarity with Saxon...yet somehow EVEN THEY seemed more "metal" than Def Leppard. Maybe that comes down to image...which I also admit would be the wrong thing to do.

Of course, by pyromania they had mutated into pop-metal, while still keeping some of their NWOBHM sound. They were full-blooded pop-metal by Hysteria. Adrenalize to the present has been almost pure (unpopular) pop.

OK, I guess I jumped the gun further up. You have explained yourself better. But Euphoria was a complete step back to the Hysteria sound and would be a sonic follow-up to Adrenalize. All fit the "pop-metal" sound of Hysteria. So why aren't THOSE CDs considered metal to you?


BTW, as an after-thought to one of our earlier discussions about this, I thought of this point. You have said that Def Leppard is metal because a record label said so and because the band played metal festivals. Wouldn't that be the same as saying "Jethro Tull is metal because eMpTyV told us and gave them the 'Best Metal Performance' Award" (or some such shit)?

[conversationpc]

I always thought early Def Leppard sounded more like an AC/DC-type band than the NWOBHM bands.

[jrnyman28]

I always thought early Def Leppard sounded more like an AC/DC-type band than the NWOBHM bands.

Yes, but AC/DC is a heavy metal band (according to Cato).

[Cato Alumni]

"The only point I am trying to establish here is that they were metal through Hysteria. I don't know why I need to exert such an effort because it is painfully obvious they were. "

Maybe because you seem to be the ONLY person who feels this way.

No I'm not. Please name some "glam metal" bands for me then. Please name me some "pop-metal" bands then. Please name me some "hair metal" bands. In fact, just give me one band that fits this description. Just one. And I will guarantee you that Def Leppard fits right with them. Hence, Leppard was metal. Why deny it? You seem to only reinforce my point.

BTW, as an after-thought to one of our earlier discussions about this, I thought of this point. You have said that Def Leppard is metal because a record label said so and because the band played metal festivals. Wouldn't that be the same as saying "Jethro Tull is metal because eMpTyV told us and gave them the 'Best Metal Performance' Award" (or some such shit)?

If the whole world thinks you are metal, then you are metal. In the case of Tull you had one body make that claim.

Moreover, my observation was in addition to the obvious musical merits that tied Leppard to metal. But since everyone's view of metal has changed (for some strange reason), I figured it more effective to offer something everyone could easily grasp-- that is, that Def Leppard, at the time, were considered metal by everyone in the business.

[Cato Alumni]

And just to clarify for those on the board, Judas Priest is not part of the NWOBHM!

[jrnyman28]

And just to clarify for those on the board, Judas Priest is not part of the NWOBHM!

And yet Def Leppard is...that makes sense.

[Cato Alumni]

History is funny like that, isn't it?