Story #1: We may have seen the last of Children
Of Bodom. After the band's current lineup imploded, it was widely
assumed that Alexi Laiho would recruit some new members and continue
on as if nothing had happened. But as they say, a funny thing
happened on the way to the forum. According to new reports, it turns
out the band's name is owned by a company that is owned by the three
members of the band who left. Alexi Laiho, despite being synonymous
with the band, may be legally prevented from calling his next tour or
album Children Of Bodom.
Once again, we reach an impasse where
moral and legal issues are in conflict. Legally, if those other
members are the ones who registered the band's name, there isn't much
that can be done here. Let's just say that it continues to feel weird
that bands are businesses that have to be registered to protect their
names, with all of the requisite legal wrangling that comes along
with that, but that's reality. Morally, something feels incredibly
off that the man who is the public face of the band, and who has
written the vast majority of the music during their careers, being
divorced from his life's work. Alexi, whether you like him or not,
has done more for Children Of Bodom than the other members have.
Without him, the band not only wouldn't be the same band, but would
certainly not have been as successful as they have. Whatever the name
is worth, it is mostly due to Alexi Laiho.
So what do we make of these issues?
That depends on how things work going forward. If Alexi rebrands
himself as simply Bodom, or something of that sort, we can all
usually find out what's what and not much will change for him. The
issue would come if and when the other members try to do anything
with the Children Of Bodom name. While they would absolutely be
within their rights to do so, it would feel weird to think of that
band without the man who has shaped its sound. It's not unlike the
recent news that a version of LA Guns that features neither of the
two important members of that band has signed a new record deal.
At a certain point, a name can be so
devalued by business squabbles, and everyone trying to get their cut
of whatever money is out there, that it threatens to reach backward
and sully the better times. Yes, I do think there is a degree to
which the drama between the members of LA Guns, or Queensryche, or
Great White, or however many other bands have had multiple versions
running around, does start to turn the tide against everything
they're ever done. Reputations can be damaged in retrospect, and I'm
hoping that doesn't happen in this case. We'll have to wait and see.
Story #2: Motley Crue guitarist Mick Mars has come under fire, so to speak, for comments people remembered him making on "That Metal Show" when the band was getting ready to retire. Mars said about a potential comeback, ""Let me put it this way: If that happens, I will invite the world to come for free. Free!"
As you would expect, the people who found these comments put them back into the news. So how does Mick Mars handle having this expose the comeback for what it is? He takes the laziest path possible, now saying, "I was clearly joking."
Are we really going to believe that? Or more accurately, are we going to let him get away with that? It's painfully obvious to anyone watching this story unfold that Motley Crue retired because they thought they had reached the end of the road, and the success of their movie made them rethink this (although Netflix not releasing viewership data makes it questionable whether or not "The Dirt" was actually sucessful). They now think there's more money to be made from one more nostalgia run, and they are happy to trade integrity for dollars. It's not like they had integrity to begin with.
I have no knowledge to say anything as fact, but my intuition is that this is Nikki Sixx's doing. He's the only member of the band who tried to keep himself in the spotlight of mainstream success, and while Sixx:AM is a decent band, I have to imagine that Motley Crue would still be dead and buried if that band had a string of hit singles and sold out shows to their credit. Nikki was used to playing big venues to big crowds, and coming down to the reality of getting a new band up to that level has proven to be too much for him. He would rather chase the easy money than do the hard work of building the band that supposedly meant so much to him.
So the evidence we have now is that Motley Crue lied about the biggest moment on their career, and now they're lying about a smaller 'joke' about free tickets. If this was really about the fans, and satisfying their desire, nay their NEED, to see the Crue one more time, they could run the tour at cost. They don't have to charge huge ticket prices, and they don't have to pocket millions apiece. They can't afford to give our free tickets to everyone, but they can make them as cheap as possible. They won't, though. They've made it clear what's most important, and it isn't the fans.
As you would expect, the people who found these comments put them back into the news. So how does Mick Mars handle having this expose the comeback for what it is? He takes the laziest path possible, now saying, "I was clearly joking."
Are we really going to believe that? Or more accurately, are we going to let him get away with that? It's painfully obvious to anyone watching this story unfold that Motley Crue retired because they thought they had reached the end of the road, and the success of their movie made them rethink this (although Netflix not releasing viewership data makes it questionable whether or not "The Dirt" was actually sucessful). They now think there's more money to be made from one more nostalgia run, and they are happy to trade integrity for dollars. It's not like they had integrity to begin with.
I have no knowledge to say anything as fact, but my intuition is that this is Nikki Sixx's doing. He's the only member of the band who tried to keep himself in the spotlight of mainstream success, and while Sixx:AM is a decent band, I have to imagine that Motley Crue would still be dead and buried if that band had a string of hit singles and sold out shows to their credit. Nikki was used to playing big venues to big crowds, and coming down to the reality of getting a new band up to that level has proven to be too much for him. He would rather chase the easy money than do the hard work of building the band that supposedly meant so much to him.
So the evidence we have now is that Motley Crue lied about the biggest moment on their career, and now they're lying about a smaller 'joke' about free tickets. If this was really about the fans, and satisfying their desire, nay their NEED, to see the Crue one more time, they could run the tour at cost. They don't have to charge huge ticket prices, and they don't have to pocket millions apiece. They can't afford to give our free tickets to everyone, but they can make them as cheap as possible. They won't, though. They've made it clear what's most important, and it isn't the fans.
Story #3: Pete Townsend says he's clad Keith Moon and John Entwhistle are no longer with us, saying "It's not going to make WHO fans very happy, but thank God they're gone, because they were fucking difficult to play with."
Immediately, this raises issues about how we speak about the dead. It's considered polite not to speak ill of them, but why? Why is it better for Pete Townsend to say nothing, or to lie about his feelings, rather than let people know that The Who were not a band of brothers as some might want to imagine them as? In some respects, tiptoeing around the truth seems to be more offensive to the memory of the deceased than confronting it head-on. Just because someone has died doesn't make them a better person than they were on earth. It doesn't mean we have to forget their faults and only remember the good things about them. People are complicated, and that doesn't end when their lives do.
In this case, I can see Pete Townsend's point. I'm not saying I agree with it, but he's talking as a songwriter about two players who often put themselves ahead of the needs of his songs, and who were also heavy drug users. They had personal demons, and they didn't fit Pete's intentions for what The Who should have been. I can see why he would be happier playing with a version of the band that is hired specifically to do whatever he tells them to. I can also see why he's happier playing with more timid characters who are sober all the time.
The dead don't mind what we say about them. They can't hear any of it. So the question becomes why we are so offended at the notion of criticizing those who aren't around to defend themselves. Maybe that's the answer right there, that we find it unfair for them not to have the chance to rebut the claims. That doesn't strike me as a particularly strong argument. We crave authenticity from artists, but when they give it to us in a form we don't like, all of a sudden we would rather they not share the truth. We can't have it both ways. Pete Townsend is a cantankerous old man, and I'm sure plenty of people have lousy things to say about him. Let them.
I'm not going to blame him for having an unpopular opinion, especially when it's about his personal experience. He's allowed to feel however he wants about people he had a relationship to. None of us did, so who are we to judge?
Immediately, this raises issues about how we speak about the dead. It's considered polite not to speak ill of them, but why? Why is it better for Pete Townsend to say nothing, or to lie about his feelings, rather than let people know that The Who were not a band of brothers as some might want to imagine them as? In some respects, tiptoeing around the truth seems to be more offensive to the memory of the deceased than confronting it head-on. Just because someone has died doesn't make them a better person than they were on earth. It doesn't mean we have to forget their faults and only remember the good things about them. People are complicated, and that doesn't end when their lives do.
In this case, I can see Pete Townsend's point. I'm not saying I agree with it, but he's talking as a songwriter about two players who often put themselves ahead of the needs of his songs, and who were also heavy drug users. They had personal demons, and they didn't fit Pete's intentions for what The Who should have been. I can see why he would be happier playing with a version of the band that is hired specifically to do whatever he tells them to. I can also see why he's happier playing with more timid characters who are sober all the time.
The dead don't mind what we say about them. They can't hear any of it. So the question becomes why we are so offended at the notion of criticizing those who aren't around to defend themselves. Maybe that's the answer right there, that we find it unfair for them not to have the chance to rebut the claims. That doesn't strike me as a particularly strong argument. We crave authenticity from artists, but when they give it to us in a form we don't like, all of a sudden we would rather they not share the truth. We can't have it both ways. Pete Townsend is a cantankerous old man, and I'm sure plenty of people have lousy things to say about him. Let them.
I'm not going to blame him for having an unpopular opinion, especially when it's about his personal experience. He's allowed to feel however he wants about people he had a relationship to. None of us did, so who are we to judge?
Of course, Townsend tried to walk back these comments the next day, claiming they are a British sense of irony, but I'm not buying that for a second. It sounded to me like an honest assessment, and that's the story I'm sticking to.
No comments:
Post a Comment