I can see how fans could be angry, I'm more disappointed than anything else. Cos if Priest make it to this part of the world, the one time I get to see them it'll be without KK  but in saying that, I will still give 100% of my support to the other 4/5's of Judas Priest 
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by jimmyjames from Sunday, April 24, 2011 5:18:07 PM)| |  | jimmyjames wrote: | | Hence the reason they should have waited until they knew what was going on before announcing anything, but if they did that they would have missed out on the cash that a summer tour in Europe would bring in. I would be mighty pissed off if I was a European fan. Fans in the U.S, at least, have the opportunity to decide if they want to attend or not after hearing the news.
| | | Becks wrote: | | I know what unethical means, but I think there's more to it and I'm not going to make any judgement on the ethics or lack thereof of it all. There also probably would have been an enormous hassle involved in re-juggling everything surrounding the shows by saying 'hang on, KK may be there or may not, we don't know yet!' - to me that would have been even insaner than what has happened. Fair enough waiting for a solid decision, from the sounds of it they waited for a long time for the final word from KK. It was all poorly handled, but I would rather it be settled than to have everything up in the air and find out when they walk out on stage, woops guess what KK is not here.
Yeah, Gaddafi would probably be very disappointed to not see KK shredding on 'Sinner', lol.
| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | Unethical means that something is not right morally in the way it is conducted. If you think selling tickets under false pretences is ethical then fair play but I don't. Doing gigs for Gaddafi is fine as long as when they agree to do the gig Gadaffi is aware that he's not gonna get to see KK shredding.
| | | Becks wrote: | | I think it's pretty extreme to say the fact they carried on with the decision the band made as a whole unethical. Not wise considering, to be sure, but unethical? An unethical decision would be something like if Priest accepted shit loads of money from Gaddafi for a private gig in Libya, where many people suffer every day. That is a true lack of ethics and morals. An unwise decision regarding something that, as I said, the band AS A WHOLE decided, that is not unethical by definition I don't think.
| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | You don't need to know the reasons for what has happened? They don't matter. The fact is they've announced a farewell tour and then six months later announced that the guy who started the band will not be taking part. Apparently they had known he wasn't happy and were hoping he'd change his mind, he didn't. They should never have announced a tour and started selling tickets until they knew what was happening, it's unethical.
| | | Becks wrote: | | Because I honestly don't think it's a good use of my energy and time, being negative and shitting over the band like that. We don't know all the details, therefore I don't think making judgements on what has happened is wise.
| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | Why not? They've pulled the wool over the eyes of their fans and are making money out of it. Low.
| | | Becks wrote: | | Yeah it does stink, but I am not going to attack the band over it (management, maybe, lol). I recognise that the end of Judas Priest is nigh - I mean, they're pretty old dudes, not that much younger than my dad, and my dad wouldn't be able to rock out every night on stage anymore (if that was his profession) LOL! So I am going to embrace the band as I always have, enjoy the last bit of the ride, and be thankful for all the many years they have given us of their talent, time, and music.
| | | jimmyjames wrote: | | She's right though Becks. What they have done is sold tickets under false pretences. Whether it's the band or their management doing it, who cares? It stinks. As I said in my first post on this subject, what would everybody be saying if AC/DC sold a shitload of tickets and then announced Angus would not be there? There would be an outcry.
| | | Becks wrote: | | Just because we're not crucifying the band the way you are doesn't mean we're not taking it seriously you twit. As for being lied to, if you have read Rob Halfords statement, they had waiting so long in the hope that KK would COME BACK. They finally realised the clock had ticked too long. It has been poorly handled by Priest MANAGEMENT, but I for one refuse to shit all over the band and treat them like crap because of this.
| | | Daniela P wrote: | | It's funny... either people are totally lobotomized or they haven't been following this at all. It's amazing how lightly people are taking the situation- all I see is comments about how "it will be good and I will support the band".
How can it be "good" when you've been lied to for 6 months you suckers.... Unbelievable.
And to think that some no-name dude is going to make the show better...? The best he can do is stay the hell out of the spotlight as much as he can and let Ian step out for a change. But it still won't change much. If I was in Priest, I wouldn't have been able to even walk out on a stage and look the fans in the eyes. I would have been too ashamed of what's being done in the name of Judas Priest.
| | | spapad wrote: | | I don't want to pour salt into wounds, but what would a show be like with a guitar player almost 30 years their junior on stage? I hate to say it, but I think he is going to step the pace up! This might be the most energetic we have seen Priest in years. Don't get me wrong, you know how much I love KK and if you don't just read my profile quote. But the prospect of new blood does pose the opportunity of more action, and a hard driven show?
Just putting the idea out there. A new way to look at things. Instead of demise, what about rebirth? Could happen.
KK, you know I will always love you! Would beg you on my knees to come back! But if no, I must look forward to something positive coming from this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
