Now that Motley Crue has concluded their final tour, many are still skeptical as to whether or not these last few dates were truly the end of Crue‘s career. Vince Neil assured fans they wouldn’t follow the mistakes of some bands who consistently go back on their word, in this case, Kiss.
Neil’s explanation to the San Diego Union-Tribune stated “Kiss had five farewell tours and four reunion tours. That’s exactly what we don’t want to do. That was the whole reason. … We wanted to go out on top, with people saying, ‘Yeah, man, I saw the last concert. It was awesome!’ We don’t want to be that band, where it’s (billed as) Mötley Crüe, and it’s maybe one (original member’s) brother left in the band, and they’re playing clubs. … If we let that happen, we wouldn’t be thought of or remembered like we wanted to be.”
Paul Stanley has clarified his reason for making these decisions in an interview where he said, “The ‘farewell’ tour was us wanting to put KISS out of its misery. And for a while, honestly, we lost sight that we didn’t have to stop; we had to get rid of them (Ace and Peter). So the ‘farewell’ tour was really because it was unbearable to be with those guys — not just on a personal level.”
All purposes and circumstances aside, Neil is intentionally pulling the plug on Crue in order to prevent these complications altogether. Any type of hurdle a band can encounter has the potential to ruin their image and once it happens, all bets are off. Therefore, the band quitting while they’re still ahead can only benefit them in the long run.
After a string of successful album sales, an everlasting imprint in the world of rock and a legion of fans, Crue doesn’t need to risk spoiling their legacy since their achievements stand for themselves.
With so many groups like Black Sabbath and Twisted Sister throwing in the towel, do you agree it’s best for your favorite bands to finish their careers while they still have their dignity or should they play until they go out in a blaze of glory?
[polldaddy poll=9257382]
Leave a Reply