|
Post by anarkissed on Mar 23, 2016 19:31:44 GMT -5
It was vodka...
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Mar 23, 2016 21:45:08 GMT -5
Slagging John Lennon?? Drizzle Drazzle Drone, time for Anarkissed to put the beer down and go to bed. What, is he off limits? I love the guy...But could I have gone round and round with him? No doubt...He was absolutely brilliant...And, often, a complete dick...And, frequently, completely wrong...Fuck the Mats...This guy shot himself way more often in the foot, attempted to deliberately derail not only his career, but his legacy, his image, his life, and his actual financial assets, to a degree that they could not have dreamed of, because, you know, they weren't John Lennon...Wherever he is, he's probably still really pissed, because they made him a martyr, and they still worship every song he recorded with The Beatles, and he really just wanted to be remembered as a cranky asshole...
|
|
|
Post by TomT on Mar 24, 2016 7:16:12 GMT -5
Apparently you have more info than me on this matter. I was under the impression that he truly turned things around after his split with Yoko. He found happiness raising Sean and having the family life he never had as a child. It's a shame we weren't able to see where things would have gone with him. I think just like with Paul, age had given him a perspective to right his assholeish ways.
|
|
|
Post by FreeRider on Mar 24, 2016 9:00:36 GMT -5
you could say there is a slight parallel with the two in that they both took time off away from the music biz to stay at home and be with their sons.
But the HUGE difference that jumps out at me, to address anarkissed's comparison, is I think that Lennon had the financial freedom to be a dick to people.
Reminds me of an a long lost acquaintance of mine from Austin. Good guy, worked his way up, went on to be some oil company guy. He told me the only thing worse than a dumb redneck is a dumb redneck with money. Ha, pretty funny!
So a Lennon can/could get away with being a jerk to people maybe a little bit better than Paul, I guess? Who knows---a jerk is a jerk. But a jerk with some power or leverage, well...just look at Neil Young for example! Leaves Stephen Stills during the middle of a tour because he can. And he did.
|
|
Jer
Beagle Scout
Posts: 1,182
|
Post by Jer on Mar 24, 2016 18:12:26 GMT -5
The dichotomy is that they just didn't seem to get why REM got all the breaks. Like "we're not going to do that shit! No way! Go F*** yourself! Hey - why did REM's record just sell 2 million copies? Why is MTV playing their video 100 times a day? That's bullshit!" All the while, REM pretty much played the game on their own terms and managed to keep their integrity and make the music they wanted. It seemed like all the Replacements really had to do in addition to the great songs they were writing and the amount of touring they were doing was not be assholes and play shows like they had the ability to. They never manged to both at the right times - and it was calculated. I feel like there's a lot of comment here and elsewhere about the Replacements "whining" in the book about the success of R.E.M. So I went through the index and looked at all the citations of R.E.M. From my reading, there's little to no whining about it. Westerberg says at one point (referring to Sammy Davis Jr.) that it's show business--a show and a business--and that the Mats didn't get that while R.E.M. did. Tommy says that R.E.M. did drugs too but were phony about covering it up (maybe a tiny bit of whining there). And at one point, Westerberg says he thinks their record Don't Tell a Soul is better than a competing R.E.M. record. Who can blame an artist for thinking his music is better than the competition? Maybe I missed something, but this doesn't seem like whining to me. It's clear-sighted about what went wrong: they weren't motivated (for lots of reasons) to play the game. They paid the price. End of story. I have to say I'm surprised by the school-marmish tut-tutting of supposed Mats fans here. We get arm-chair diagnoses of their "mental age" and so forth. So tell me what's the mental age of someone who who writes "Here Comes a Regular"? "Androgynous"? Yes they were a volatile mix of immaturity, nastiness, and brilliant talent. We knew that (I thought). I still value the thumbing their nose at success. In their song for Trackin Up the North in 1982, sponsored by Miller beer, don't we all still like it when Westerberg screams "Keep your riches, gimme a Budweiser"? That's the attitude they had from beginning to end. Would you rather he said "we'd like to thank our sponsors, Miller Genuine Draft, a really swell beer"? I still think their allergy to success meant something. The day I say "gee, I wish they had grown up and learned how to be responsible rock and roll businessmen" is the day I stop being a Replacements fan. I don't think that they didn't play the game, they paid the price is the end of the story. There were a few specific instances in the book that mentioned REM, specifically Paul's bitterness towards them. He wasn't happy that Pete Buck came in to play the solo on I Will Dare, Paul resented Peter J for years for leaving them for REM (calling them "a prettier girl"), then the comment about how he's had to mention REM in every interview he's done since 1981 and they don't have to mention or acknowledge him anymore. It might be shrouded in a polite package, but that's some rock and roll bitterness there. Paul would never whine like a little girl, he'd make some smart-ass, underhanded, bitter comment. It really just translated to jealousy to me. I don't think anyone wishes they'd turned out to be responsible rock and roll business men, but there's a big difference between not doing a beer commercial and shitting on everyone who ever tried to help them. That keeps coming up "I'm glad they didn't turn out to be like Tom Petty!" as if everyone wishes they went on to headline arenas playing the old hits forever. No one wishes that. The point is that you don't have to sabotage every last opportunity you get to be true to yourself. To your point of the mental age of the guy who wrote those amazing songs - that just makes the frustration greater because those songs deserved more ears than they got, and the simple act of not sucking a few of those times, or not being an asshole to a couple of people who are interested in helping you, would have made a world of difference. The quality and impact of those records doesn't change, but let's try to be a little objective. I know it's hard with our heroes, but they really weren't easy to feel empathy for (with the exception of Bob). This is the place to hyper-analyze this stuff. We've just been given this gift of this book that pretty much lays it all out. I think chalking it up to rock and roll rebellion is just not objective.
|
|
|
Post by thepogo on Mar 24, 2016 19:13:13 GMT -5
Well hell, I ordered 2 books a month ago and still have not received them. I enjoy reading all of your comments about the book and can't wait to get mine. Seems some of you are disappointed or surprised in the way these guys acted w/in the music business. To me, if Westerberg wasn't the way he was and still is, he would have never wrote those great songs. Angst ridden, pissed off with a big middle finger to the world.
I find it odd that anyone who is fan enough to buy the book would be surprised and or dismayed with any lunacy that may be in the book. Didn't you really expect all the craziness? Isn't that why you bought the book... I mean, they are The Replacements!
Anyhow I can't wait to get mine.
|
|
|
Post by curmudgeonman on Mar 24, 2016 20:48:14 GMT -5
Oh no, I was very aware of the antics of the band throughout the years, according to articles, band interviews, myth, legend, etc. But it points to how truly excellent Bob Mehr's book is; an extremely detailed, well researched, unbiased account. There are many new anecdotes in his book I doubt have really seen the light in the past. Much of it is not rehashed old shit, but fresh recounting of the band's past behavior. The book really opens up the ferocity of the behavior. And I don't think I'm alone in this assessment. Read the book and see what you think
|
|
|
Post by thepogo on Mar 24, 2016 21:48:03 GMT -5
I figured there are tons of new info and really behind the scenes stuff we never knew. I'm looking for to reading it.
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Mar 24, 2016 22:02:44 GMT -5
Young for example! Leaves Stephen Stills during the middle of a tour because he can. And he did. Well, I can't fault the guy for leaving Stephen Stills in the middle of a tour...If we're ranking rock stars on the asshole scale, Stephen is pretty high up there...
|
|
|
Post by teddinard on Mar 25, 2016 8:54:52 GMT -5
I feel like there's a lot of comment here and elsewhere about the Replacements "whining" in the book about the success of R.E.M. So I went through the index and looked at all the citations of R.E.M. From my reading, there's little to no whining about it. Westerberg says at one point (referring to Sammy Davis Jr.) that it's show business--a show and a business--and that the Mats didn't get that while R.E.M. did. Tommy says that R.E.M. did drugs too but were phony about covering it up (maybe a tiny bit of whining there). And at one point, Westerberg says he thinks their record Don't Tell a Soul is better than a competing R.E.M. record. Who can blame an artist for thinking his music is better than the competition? Maybe I missed something, but this doesn't seem like whining to me. It's clear-sighted about what went wrong: they weren't motivated (for lots of reasons) to play the game. They paid the price. End of story. I have to say I'm surprised by the school-marmish tut-tutting of supposed Mats fans here. We get arm-chair diagnoses of their "mental age" and so forth. So tell me what's the mental age of someone who who writes "Here Comes a Regular"? "Androgynous"? Yes they were a volatile mix of immaturity, nastiness, and brilliant talent. We knew that (I thought). I still value the thumbing their nose at success. In their song for Trackin Up the North in 1982, sponsored by Miller beer, don't we all still like it when Westerberg screams "Keep your riches, gimme a Budweiser"? That's the attitude they had from beginning to end. Would you rather he said "we'd like to thank our sponsors, Miller Genuine Draft, a really swell beer"? I still think their allergy to success meant something. The day I say "gee, I wish they had grown up and learned how to be responsible rock and roll businessmen" is the day I stop being a Replacements fan. I don't think that they didn't play the game, they paid the price is the end of the story. There were a few specific instances in the book that mentioned REM, specifically Paul's bitterness towards them. He wasn't happy that Pete Buck came in to play the solo on I Will Dare, Paul resented Peter J for years for leaving them for REM (calling them "a prettier girl"), then the comment about how he's had to mention REM in every interview he's done since 1981 and they don't have to mention or acknowledge him anymore. It might be shrouded in a polite package, but that's some rock and roll bitterness there. Paul would never whine like a little girl, he'd make some smart-ass, underhanded, bitter comment. It really just translated to jealousy to me. I don't think anyone wishes they'd turned out to be responsible rock and roll business men, but there's a big difference between not doing a beer commercial and shitting on everyone who ever tried to help them. That keeps coming up "I'm glad they didn't turn out to be like Tom Petty!" as if everyone wishes they went on to headline arenas playing the old hits forever. No one wishes that. The point is that you don't have to sabotage every last opportunity you get to be true to yourself. To your point of the mental age of the guy who wrote those amazing songs - that just makes the frustration greater because those songs deserved more ears than they got, and the simple act of not sucking a few of those times, or not being an asshole to a couple of people who are interested in helping you, would have made a world of difference. The quality and impact of those records doesn't change, but let's try to be a little objective. I know it's hard with our heroes, but they really weren't easy to feel empathy for (with the exception of Bob). This is the place to hyper-analyze this stuff. We've just been given this gift of this book that pretty much lays it all out. I think chalking it up to rock and roll rebellion is just not objective. The only really important question here is this. Would their songs have been the same had Westerberg et al. been a little nicer, less self-destructive, less self-sabotaging, and less ambivalent about success? My answer is a resounding NO. The attitudes we see on display in the book permeate the music. Every molecule of it is saturated with that attitude. So yes, obviously, there's a long, long list of songs explicitly about being self-destructive, ornery, intractable, from "Raised in the City" to "Kids Don't Follow" to "Treatment Bound" to "We're Coming Out" to "Bastards of Young" to "I Don't Know" to "We'll Inherit the Earth" to "Someone Take the Wheel." (I'm confining myself to one song per record but of course there are many, many more.) Less obviously, even their best pretty or poignant songs are deeply dyed with the attitude. Even "Skyway." To repeat: I never thought they were unlucky hapless losers who missed a few breaks or were screwed by evil record executives. Their lack of success is their own doing. How could you listen to "Treatment Bound" or "I Don't Know" and think otherwise? You see, you can't just wish that people like that were a little nicer or kinder on a few occasions. What we see in the book is a pattern that expresses something deep about their identities. So what if they said "yes Mo Ostin we'll do the mall gig"? Would that gig have been like? All scrubbed up, best behavior, and sincere? What about the next one? They couldn't get away from who they are, not for long. To wish they have different identities is to wish for different music.
|
|
|
Post by FreeRider on Mar 25, 2016 8:57:19 GMT -5
Yeah, but does Stills have a habit of screwing people over habitually like Young? In a new interview, Stills opens up about the damage Young did by walking away from the Buffalo Springfield reunion tour that was scheduled to take place in 2012. “We were supposed to work for most of the summer,” Stills told Rolling Stone. “It left me in a lurch for three quarters and ruined my financial planning. Also, 150 people got laid off that were supposed to work on the tour.”
After a few successful gigs in 2010 and 2011, Buffalo Springfield were expected to play 30 shows this year. However, Young decided to take his ball and go home — or rather, record two albums and tour with Crazy Horse — by putting the kibosh on those plans. Fortunately for Stills, his old pals David Crosby and Graham Nash were around to tour with him. “We didn’t go [to] all that trouble for seven shows,” Stills continued. ultimateclassicrock.com/stephen-stills-frustrated-neil-young-buffalo-springfield-tour-cancellation/?trackback=tsmclipAnd Paul could've been like Neil, had he had more of the financial freedom to do so.
|
|
|
Post by FreeRider on Mar 25, 2016 9:11:27 GMT -5
Well hell, I ordered 2 books a month ago and still have not received them. I enjoy reading all of your comments about the book and can't wait to get mine. Seems some of you are disappointed or surprised in the way these guys acted w/in the music business. To me, if Westerberg wasn't the way he was and still is, he would have never wrote those great songs. Angst ridden, pissed off with a big middle finger to the world. I find it odd that anyone who is fan enough to buy the book would be surprised and or dismayed with any lunacy that may be in the book. Didn't you really expect all the craziness? Isn't that why you bought the book... I mean, they are The Replacements! Anyhow I can't wait to get mine. Damn, hope we didn't spoil too much of the book for you! Maybe it's delayed because it's gone into a second printing? Could the book be selling that well? of course, I expected the mayhem, but it's the depths to which they imploded, and the context and events around the implosions which is a bit mind boggling. To me, at least. And for armchair psychologist discussion's sake, a question to everyone: what are the roots of Westy's anger? In your opinion, what was he angry about, what was the main motivator of his anger?
|
|
|
Post by thepogo on Mar 25, 2016 19:01:41 GMT -5
Ted - those are my exact thoughts. We would not be here typing away without the way they (The Replacements) were. Its just the way it was. I don't think they had some grand plan of "we are gonna go fuck everything up on the path to music financial success". That's why I don't think Paul really gave a shit about the way REM succeeded financially. Those two band were extremely far apart in their roots. I just think, that's just the way they (The Replacements) were.
Free - I don't know what is anger was and still is. I think that some people grow up having a complex that they are against the world. Most if not all entrepreneurs are cut from this cloth. And although Paul does not appear to be a BUSINESS entrepreneur, he is definitely from the arts of entrepreneurship. Its a drive within, that you cannot explain. You just truly do not give a fuck. I mean Alex Chilton was washing dishes before he died. Some people are just true artist. And I don't mean Andy Warhol bullshit "Im gonna paint a soup can crap".
Like I said, I cannot wait to read the book.
P.S. How about Eddie Spaghetti coming back from throat cancer! IF you have a chance check out the Supersucker rock and country songs. That entity fucking rocks!!
|
|
|
Post by anarkissed on Mar 25, 2016 19:43:18 GMT -5
Yeah, but does Stills have a habit of screwing people over habitually like Young? I think the difference in assholish behavior is that Young would say he was gonna be somewhere on a certain day and agree to do a certain thing and then just not show up and not take anybody's phone calls...Stills liked to be in charge and boss people around...He was the kinda guy who would keep turning his guitar up louder and taking longer solos and demanding they play more of his songs...Young was passive-aggressive and Stills was just aggressive...
|
|
|
Post by FreeRider on Mar 26, 2016 9:58:06 GMT -5
.... Free - I don't know what is anger was and still is. I think that some people grow up having a complex that they are against the world. Most if not all entrepreneurs are cut from this cloth. And although Paul does not appear to be a BUSINESS entrepreneur, he is definitely from the arts of entrepreneurship. Its a drive within, that you cannot explain. You just truly do not give a fuck. I mean Alex Chilton was washing dishes before he died. Some people are just true artist. And I don't mean Andy Warhol bullshit "Im gonna paint a soup can crap". Like I said, I cannot wait to read the book.... Interesting point. Yeah, when you think about it, Paul certainly is driven. Almost like OCD thing with him and always working down in the basement. I mean, we've heard about his work ethic and how intense he is about getting stuff down on tape. Whether it's therapeutic for him, who knows? But he's got the gift of hearing music in his head all the time. Neil Young is similar too in hearing music in his mind constantly. And I've read interviews where Neil says that he follows the muse and does NOT care what other people think about the material; it has to get out there. And in typical Neil humor, he says it's kind of like making sure you're regular. Which is fitting because some of Neil's releases have been absolute shit, lol.... As for anger, I think maybe there was also this sense of not being accepted. Even when the Mats were up and coming, they were not necessarily welcomed, they weren't really part of the hard core scene....so maybe the outsider thing was cultivated from that as well. And once you're up on stage, you, the performer, hold all the power over the audience. So it seems fitting that being empowered allowed them to reflect their mood and take it out on the audience. But hell, I dunno....I'm just throwing that out there for discussion's sake. I do have to say that Paul and Tommy are quite brave to open themselves up for scrutiny like that. And I'm glad that they did----I wouldn't want some hagiography. They've always been honest and it must've been difficult at times to confront some things from their past that they're not proud of today.
|
|
|
Post by bigbak on Mar 26, 2016 13:03:35 GMT -5
Okay, here's my two cents on artists & assholes. The history of nearly every single art form is littered with talented people - creative geniuses - who were the very manifestation of assholes. They used and abused people, took their own abilities for granted, etc.
In my experience with the tremendously talented (it's small, but I do have a tad of experience with them), there was one major difference between those that achieved amazing levels of success and those that did not.
Masochistic sycophants as managers/handlers. I am dead serious - The few high-level musicians, artists, actors, writers, athletes, etc. that I've had personal experience with that were also unbearable human beings all had people around them that could smooth anything and everything over, from simple hissy fits to outright assault (including attempted rape).
I would venture a guess having a masochistic sycophant around has probably saved a huuuugggee number of careers over the years.
Of course, I could be wrong about that...
|
|
|
Post by Nevermind(2) on Mar 28, 2016 19:46:45 GMT -5
So finally I get it. Or should I say “I don’t get it anymore or any less”. Thank You Bob Mehr for alleviating me of some of the mystery of a band that I first heard in 1985.
I just finished listening to ‘Putting on the Ritz’ from 1987 and Within Your Reach Paul sings “give a little sweat once and all they want is blood, give em’ a little piece of your heart and your soul won’t be enough”
In one line, in front of a couple hundred people in New York City, in the summer of 1987, Paul gives us the cliff notes for a book written 29 years later.
What do you think Mr. Hudson?
|
|
|
Post by FreeRider on Mar 30, 2016 13:58:29 GMT -5
Okay, here's my two cents on artists & assholes. .... In my experience with the tremendously talented (it's small, but I do have a tad of experience with them), there was one major difference between those that achieved amazing levels of success and those that did not. Masochistic sycophants as managers/handlers. I am dead serious - The few high-level musicians, artists, actors, writers, athletes, etc. that I've had personal experience with that were also unbearable human beings all had people around them that could smooth anything and everything over, from simple hissy fits to outright assault (including attempted rape). Of course, I could be wrong about that... Excellent point. These ass kissers and boot licking toadies are the enablers for the bad behavior. So I don't think you're wrong about that. I suppose that the manager is an advocate for the artist or band, but it also seems to be that of babysitting. Albert Grossman in the Dylan documentary 'Don't Look Back' is a great example of an overbearing manager, reaming out some poor hotel bell boy over something that was not that significant. I met a DC club promoter guy and I asked him who his most difficult guest was and without hesitation, he said, "Beyonce". They had gotten her to make an appearance at the club and they got into an argument over the hospitality room. It wasn't in her contract rider but she didn't like the lights in the room, wanted them changed; wanted specialty waters and all kinds of the usual shit you're supposed to put into the rider. All of this for like a 10 minute appearance at a club! She wasn't even performing, it was just an appearance. So you have your divas and assholes and the managers enabling them to be like that. In fact, I'd take the position that the manager is abdicating his/her responsibility in the financial aspect if he/she allows the band or artist to trash stuff. If I were Jesperson, I wouldn't have given them the per diem to burn. I'd have made sure there was enough money to get to the next town, get some grub and a motel. Of course, easier said than done when you're in a 24/7 alcoholic haze, lol....
|
|
bside
Star Scout
Posts: 356
|
Post by bside on Apr 7, 2016 12:18:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ClamsCasino on Apr 7, 2016 14:15:13 GMT -5
That was a fun MTV interview. I wonder if it was "unseen" because the cameraman was struggling so badly.
|
|