Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'Old School Metal Discussion' started by Wyvern, Jan 28, 2013.
I think he was just tired at that point.
Rolando, it says it's probably not their last AND he's (probably?) going to do a solo record. This isn't Z-Lot-Z where they're finished.
Specially since "Sacrifice" is very good, they hadn't lost steam after all these years.
This isn't really bad news in my opinion, as much as I love them. Their new stuff doesn't interest me at all, as it doesn't sound like the Saxon I'm used to. They should have stopped after Power and Glory, ideally.
It's nice that Biff wants to do a new project that's more along the lines of the old Saxon though
Unlike Maiden (who should stop at SSOASS) or Judas Priest (who should call it a day after "Painkiller"), Saxon has always kept within certain path without deviate too much from the sound solidified in WOS. Yes, today they're more leaned to power than the NWOBHM sound of the 80's, but they haven't sold (Metallica) change drastically the sound (Amorphis, Therion, etc.) from the beginning, go through a zillion line-up changes (basically stable since 1998), or made a bad album (weak maybe, bad no).
To me a symbol of longevity and quality in metal, few bands IMO have that under their belt.
I know what you're saying and I admit that some of their new stuff is good, it's just a shame that they've changed so much. I just miss the old Saxon. They should have just changed their name along with changing their musical style.
To each its own, but again I feel they haven`t change enough to justify such a proposed conversion. This is not Metallica, Def Leppard, Sepultura or countless others that change so much you can believe is the same band (however I agree that such is applicable to Iron Maiden).
A way to prove it is listening to "The Eagle Has Landed III" the blend of old and new songs works perfectly.
I completely disagree. What changed so much in their style? Their sound has evolved yes, and they use a "modern" production now. Sure, the newer stuff (since 1997)is more "power metal" at times, but they have remainded a traditional HM band. An album like Call To Arms was a lot in the old Saxon style.
Saxon is the best of the old bands for me, exaclty because while keeping the traditional HM style, they have evolved and adapted with the current sound of the "newer" bands.
I like the classic era but the stuff since 1995 is the best of their career IMO. Sacrifice is a killer album and I sure hope it's not the last, because they still have lots of gas in the tank. And Biff is a much better singer now than in the 80s. More control of his voice, and a lower pitch.
I have to agree with Wyvy on this one. He is witness that I was actually drawn to Saxon after Solid Ball of Rock, came out. I simply love their modern sound and I've come to appreciate the classic era as well. Saxon rules