Thoughts on the new Judas Priest album?

I took a listen to Redeemer of Souls a couple times today--the wife gone (oldest having his tonsils out, I staying with my youngest) so I was able to crank it up LOUD on my stereo for best quality (barring Spotify stream quality). I dunno, it was a pretty passive experience. I was wondering what you guys though about it.

I really don't want to be a critic with this record because Rob, Ian, and Glenn are fucking old. They've gotta be exhausted at this point after 17 studio albums (15 for Rob, and let's not forget side projects and solo material) and with AoR containing some of their most inspired work in a long ass time, and the Nostradamus fuck up that they spent countless miles of energy on--let's just say I'm willing to give these guys a break.

But the album is over an hour long and contains some of the worst production I've heard from a recent classic lineup (although surprisingly as brickwalled as it is, the muddiness factor doesn't kick in at higher levels). Some of the songs work nicely, others sound, well, tired. The sequencing, which Witchfinder pointed out over at HOM, is poorly arranged. The band can't decide if they want to go Painkiller, Defenders of the Faith, or, awkwardly, Hell Bent for Leather. I could go on, but I really don't want to because I love these guys.

The worst part for me is that no one is talking about is the lack of KK. Richie is a great axeman and has memorable solos et al, but that interplay that KK and Downing had really is missing, there's no denying. I also wonder if Glenn is losing inspiration, and I can't blame him. The amount of creativity he's spent with KK these past decades has to be finite to some degree, even if it goes beyond the horizon.

Rob's vocals are really impressive given his age and, again, mileage, but I can't be blamed for missing that bite and snarl he had once upon a time. Overall, it lacks energy. Again, this is understandable and no one should be complaining.

I talk too much; what do you guys think.

I haven't heard it in full yet but the sneak peeks they've been doling out over the past few weeks have all seemed fairly "eh.'

I'm kind of scared to give it a listen, to be honest. As much as I love Priest, I know that just being Priest won't save a poor album from being poor.

First thing, just skip the first 3 songs because they are all basically dead on arrival. Boring, generic and phoned-in.  

It starts to wake up with track 4, Sword of Damocles.  It's a little different sound than normal for Priest, but that's why it's interesting, I do like the slow double-bass pulse on this one.  

Then skip March Of The Damned, because it sounds like a 1990s Ozzy Osbourne song, seriously, you can literally hear Ozzy in your head with very little effort.  

Down in Flames is okay, again rather generic, if inoffensive.

Once you finally get to track 7 it starts to get good.  Why they decided to put the best songs at the end of the album is beyond me...oh well.  

Oh yeah, Metalizer is fucking stupid, it's like a return to Ram It Down lyrics.  Blech.  

All in all it's about half a decent album.  I like 5 songs, a couple more are okay and the rest is skippable.  

The bonus tracks are okay, Snakebite would be cool but unfortunately it beats itself to death through repetition.  

I actually think a couple of these songs are the best they've done since the 80s, too bad they are surrounded mostly be mediocrity.

Favorites: Sword of Damocles, Hell and Back, Cold Blooded, Crossfire, Secrets Of The Dead. Battle Cry and Down In Flames are pretty good.

Wow, you and I virtually share the same opinions on the tracks. Especially with Metalizer and Snakebite, I thought the exact same things listening to them. I do like March of the Damned but I think you just ruined it for me LOL. And Never Forget is absolutely the most absurd track of their entire career. Nothing more than schmaltzy and gooey sugar bake. Like I said on HOM, I had to check the credits for Desmond Child's name.

MoM, It's a good album, nowhere near the power of AoR, but good. I'm fighting the urge to pick it apart like a Zenith transistor radio, but I wouldn't think it fair to the band.

The only track I've heard is Sword of Damocles, which I really liked. It's almost got a post-reunion Maiden feel to it though, but it's definitely a killer song.

I'll probably get around to listening to the whole thing later, as it's just an overlong album. 13 songs without bonus tracks is just too much if it's not outstanding.

You know, it's funny. Bands these days feel like they have to release these epic albums with 13 to 20 tracks, when back in the day the best rock albums were between 30 and 40 minutes and could be enjoyed in one sitting. Note that this excludes prog (which despite running length usually results in as little as 5 tracks).

You also have to remember that back in the 70s and 80s bands were releasing at least 1 album per year and in the early 70s more often 1 album every 6 months. And of course they were making records for the LP format which sounded best if you keep it to about 20 minutes per side.

Nowadays bands are releasing albums every 2 to 4 years, naturally they have more songs they've accumulated during that time. The problem is that instead of picking the best 8 or 10 songs they just record all of them and you end up with 70 minute albums.

S.D. wrote:

You also have to remember that back in the 70s and 80s bands were releasing at least 1 album per year and in the early 70s more often 1 album every 6 months.  And of course they were making records for the LP format which sounded best if you keep it to about 20 minutes per side.  

Nowadays bands are releasing albums every 2 to 4 years, naturally they have more songs they've accumulated during that time.  The problem is that instead of picking the best 8 or 10 songs they just record all of them and you end up with 70 minute albums.  

 

Exactly; they could just save the runoff for future albums. I felt like VH could've done that with this last album.

Yeah, but the chances of VH staying together long enough for a followup album aren't very good...I don't blame them for recording as much as possible while Dave & Eddie weren't at each others throats.

S.D. wrote:

Yeah, but the chances of VH staying together long enough for a followup album aren't very good...I don't blame them for recording as much as possible while Dave & Eddie weren't at each others throats.  

Very good point. Dave keeps talking like there's a new album in the works. Heh. He's a funny guy.

I also think that is why Black Sabbath recorded more songs than were necessary to complete 13, with Iommi fighting cancer and the big question mark that is Ozzy they would have been stupid not to.

I do think that overall 13 (and the bonus tracks) is a more solid record than this new Priest album.

S.D. wrote:

I also think that is why Black Sabbath recorded more songs than were necessary to complete 13, with Iommi fighting cancer and the big question mark that is Ozzy they would have been stupid not to.  

I do think that overall 13 (and the bonus tracks) is a more solid record than this new Priest album.  

13 is one of the greatest comeback albums I've ever heard. There is a big difference in that Sabbath had almost fully reformed with Iommi facing his last days, thus the big boost in creative energy (and most likely tension), whereas Priest has pretty much been a cohesive group since AoR. But yes, 13 moves like fluid with a great structure, although it does still seem like the same case where the best songs happen as the disc moves forward. For me, at least. I agree, recording more than a handful of songs made sense for that record. I still need to get the bonus stuff with the extra cuts.

Honestly I've no interest in hearing it, at least not at the moment.

Here's what I wrote on HOM:

Okay, so it took about a month of repeated listens (and EQ fiddling), but this album has really grown on me, and I love it. It really is a great Priest album. Took a while for me to recognize it as such, but it's all latched on and I can really groove to it. Seriously, every song on the first disc is either good or great. There are no bummers. Can't say I've really soaked in the second disc, but overall I'm happy. It was well worth the money and I feel that same power listening to it that can only come from a Priest record.

I'm enjoying it thoroughly. It will make my Top 10 for the year.

As for the production issues, I honestly don't know what it is I am or am not hearing properly. It sounds fine to me because I don't have anything to compare it with. If a new remixed or remastered version was released and I could compare the 2, I might feel differently. As it is now, I think it's ok. Sounds good blasting from my car stereo as I fly down I-95 with the windows down.

I haven't given the 2nd disc it's fair shake either. I'm old school and still listen to cds in my car and at work. It's rare that I put in a disc of 3 or 4 tracks. I like my music choices to last longer than it takes for me to drive out of my neighborhood. Once I get around to ripping it to my home computer, I'll give it more attention.

There are 6 really good songs on the record, but I think I'm content with listening to it on Spotify occasionally.

I've pretty much shelved it, but it's mostly because I haven't been much into more commercial metal lately, if that's what we want to call it.

My office mates hooked me up with a Best Buy gift card for Christmas so I'm planning to use it to finally get the new Priest...and hey, since it's someone else's money, I'm even gonna spring for the more expensive deluxe edition with the extra tracks!