Vince's thesis is this: a band can stay relevant by consistently releasing new music and playing it live. That is, not pandering to fans only screaming for the hits and not falling prey to laziness of the same set night after night. Down with lowest common denominator metal!
So many of us complain about seeing the same set over and over. Think about Poison. We all love them here - they created some of the best party songs of the genre - but the set is tired. You go to a Poison show, you're going for the atmosphere and not the music. You already know what you're going to hear...and probably in what order, too! What if the guys in Poison - and I mean all four of them - set out to write a really strong album of all new material...and then made the commitment to at least play half those new songs live? Would you be interested?
Artists have the right to change up their shows any way they want for their own benefit. I know musicians that are sick to death of their so-called "hits" but fear riots if a popular song is dropped. Fans might be riled at first. Or they might appreciate a band attempting to stay relevant well into a long career.
I think it's time we have a frank discussion about bands and relevancy around here and Vince's article is a great jumping-off point. How do we get kids interested in bands like Motley Crue and Def Leppard? I firmly believe if Iron Maiden can make strong, new records and sell-out arenas, others can follow. But, work is hard and going through the motions is easy. It doesn't take much thought to repackage and repurpose a greatest hits album nor does it take much effort to dust off the same old set list. I'm in total agreeance that Iron Maiden works for their position as kings of metal. Let's all learn from them.