Last Friday I finally got hold of my CD copy of the 50th Anniversary Edition of Judas Priest's debut album, Rocka Rolla. For whatever reason, I'm fairly sure 'Murica has had it available to buy physically and to stream since September 2024, so why we Brits had to wait 4 or so more months to get hold of or even hear it on Spotify ourselves makes no sense. I mean, Priest are a British band! Then again, this is the same band that never toured Europe for 1982's globally-huge seller, Screaming for Vengeance!! I'm not bitter, I promise!! Whatever! The album's been remixed and remastered - a move I'm not against at all, hence why I was excited to actually hear this thing for myself.
Before I get into the new anniversary release though, I want to talk about the album itself in general first. Anyone that knows me well, knows I'm a die hard Judas Priest fan. Rocka Rolla is a record I'd say I've always been a fan of. I don't necessarily consider it to be one of their best, but it's always been about an 8/10 for me. Other than outro instrumental 'Caviar and Meths' (which I don't dislike anyway, it's just a bit filler-ish to my ears), I think every song here is pretty great. This is obviously a hunch, but while I think the majority of Priest fans do like this album for the most part, I don't think the average fan enjoys it quite as much as I do. And I can understand why too, even if I hold it in a higher regard personally. The reason being is fairly obvious - the album is a far cry from the heavy metal sound they would forge just 2 years later with 1976's masterpiece, Sad Wings of Destiny, and also following seminal albums Sin After Sin (1977) and the groundbreaking Stained Class (1978). There's a lot more hard rock, blues and prog influences than usual throughout Rocka Rolla, and the album failed to make an impact commercially to the point where the band continued to struggle financially long after it's release.
Here's the thing though - I think early albums from the first half of the '70s associated with heavy metal do still tend to have a lot of blues in them. Hell, even Black Sabbath's debut - the album usually credited as the first 100% heavy metal record - is massively bluesy in places. Doesn't mean people weren't calling it metal at the time - and the same goes for bands like Deep Purple, Uriah Heep, Budgie etc. who were all putting out albums at the same time. Even Led Zeppelin get lumped in with the heavy metal brand sometimes. So I personally never took any issue with Rocka Rolla's overall 'different' kind of sound when compared to the rest of their catalogue (which would continue to evolve for multiple decades anyway, not just the '70s). I think I've always just enjoyed the album for what it is, and I think it sits alongside anything else any other heavy band in the early '70s was doing just fine. I won't argue that it's follow-up (Sad Wings of Destiny) does practically everything better, but I really think Rocka Rolla is a perfectly serviceable, well-written early heavy metal record. 'One for the Road', 'Rocka Rolla', 'Winter/Deep Freeze/Winter Retreat', 'Never Satisfied' and especially the thumpin' 'Cheater' and the prog rock centrepiece 'Run of the Mill' are all fantastic songs.
What I did always think the album was somewhat lacking in, was the production department. While I never had a serious bone to pick with the original mix, I did find it to be quite thin-sounding, with a peculiar, cranky guitar tone. It never sounded bad to me, it just doesn't sound as good as it could've, and other contemporary albums of the time such as Deep Purple's Machine Head or Sabbath's Master of Reality ran rings around it sonically. Surprisingly really, because it was produced by Roger Bain who also produced Sabbath's first 3 albums. There were disagreements between him and the band, and even more surprising is the fact Bain told them not to include 'Genocide', 'Tyrant' and 'The Ripper' on the album - 3 tracks that would feature on Sad Wings of Destiny, the latter 2 being heavier than anything Rocka Rolla has to offer. So that was a bizarre decision. Interestingly enough, I follow a few different Judas Priest communities on places like Facebook and Reddit, and a lot of folks there seem to take no issues with the original mix. Like I said, I never hated the 1974 master, but I've always been open to a remaster, and I'd have bought one immediately even way back as a teenager when I first got hold of the copy of my 2003 Snapper Classics CD reissue.
Now we have a remix of it, how does it stack up to the original? Does it improve on it? Well, I think it definitely improves on the 1974 OG overall. It's been handled by Tom Allom, who has produced many of Priest's albums - particularly throughout the '80s. The only song that seems to somewhat lack the balls it once had is 'Cheater', weirdly. This was probably the heaviest track on the original release, and for some strange reason the harmonica has been cranked up another notch to the point where they seem to overtake the guitars in volume at times. I can't exactly just gloss over the fact I mentioned the word 'harmonica' in a Judas Priest song, but 'Cheater' has one! Like I said though, it's actually a really heavy song otherwise, with a stompin' riff. And it's still heavy here too, but I can now hear a lot of harmonica melodies that I didn't really notice so much with the original. It's not really a 'bad' thing as such, it's just different now.
Thankfully, 'Cheater' still gains all the benefits of the rest of this remix, meaning the bass has been boosted, the guitars are less cranky and Rob Halford's vocals cut through the speakers with more clarity now. John Hinch - Priest's drummer at the time - his drums now have much more of a Cozy Powell-like oomph behind them now, and that can only be a good thing. And from the get-go you can hear the treatment the album has been given - the underrated opener 'One for the Road' immediately has a new-found power this time around. There's just more texture throughout the record now, and even if it's only a small step and not a giant leap of an improvement (in my opinion of course) it's easy enough for me to hear the difference right away unlike so many other remasters. A prime example of this would have to be the 2021 Metallica Black Album remaster! I mean, what's the bloody difference with that one?!
Although I've seen many fans online comment that they had zero issues with Rocka Rolla's original mix, for the people that did actually listen to this remix, the overall response has been very positive. This review even states that Tom Allom's handiwork here has transformed it into one of his favourite Priest albums ever. I totally agree that the new remix is an overall improvement to the point where I think it will become my default way to hear the album from hereon. And that's a big deal, because I have 3 copies of this album in my collection - my 1984 Fame vinyl reissue, my aforementioned 2003 Snapper Classics CD and now this too, the 2024 anniversary. There's almost no aspect about it weaker than the original, that much is true. That said, while I always felt the original mix was flawed, like I said earlier, I never disliked it per se either. It sounded like a '70s rock album, and that's what it is. Some other records from the same period may sound better, sure, but it's far from one of the worst-recorded LPs in history.
For that reason, I think this is a nice update to what was undeniably a flawed album sonically, but not much more. I don't think it completely lifts it high and beyond what it was originally - it's just a noticeable improvement that brings it up another small notch or so. The songs still sound pretty similar overall, there's just more clarity and better low-end now. I just can't help but compare it to Tony Iommi's 2024 remix of the 1995 Black Sabbath album Forbidden though - now that's an album that really did sound like shit originally, but the remix totally took the songs to new places and made the album much, much stronger than it was originally. The Rocka Rolla remix definitely doesn't fair as well as that Forbidden remix. Not for me at least. But overall I'm still pleased with it, and I'm glad the band went out of their way to give this to the fans.
So really I guess the impact 'Rocka Rolla redux' will have individually is down entirely to what your current opinion on the 1974 version is. If you just don't like the album full-stop, this probably won't win you over. However, if you like the songs here but were 'Never Satisfied' with the original production (sorry!), then RR 2024 is 100% worth hearing. It's a improvement for me, even if it's not a major one. But I've seen other people online say it really is a vast improvement for them, so you really have to decide for yourself. And if you've never heard any version of this album, then you're in for a fun time!
In terms of the actual physical product itself, as I said, I bought the CD format so I can't speak for the vinyl. Sadly, it comes in one of those thin card sleeve cases with the miniscule spine that's barely visible when sat on a shelf next to jewel cases. I'm really not a fan of these, but I've already got another CD copy of Rocka Rolla anyway, so I can live with it. The booklet folds out into a poster of the band at the time - this was still years before they were donning the leather look, so they looked much more like your typical '70s heavy rock band of the time, and Rob Halford still had long hair. On the other side are the lyrics, plus some quotes from Rob, bassist Ian Hill, guitarist Glenn Tipton as well as former guitarist KK Downing which is nice. All of them seem stoked that this thing has been remixed as they were all unhappy with the original recording, so that's cool. The original Coke bottlecap album art has been used as opposed to the weird 1984 updated cover with the half-man, half-lizard thing riding a bomb and wielding a sword!! 99.9% of people prefer the bottlecap cover, and while I don't necessarily prefer the 1984 reissue myself, I liked how that cover at least had the same gothic font for the band logo that they used until Stained Class. Either way, the card packaging is disappointing, but the cover is nice and the booklet is cool too.
