Eddie Vedder Apparently Hates Motley Crue; Nikki Sixx Is Not Amused
Saturday, February 5, 2022 at 04:08PM Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam recently did an interview with The New York Times Magazine as part of a press tour to promote his new solo release. During the chat, he spoke about how he despised Motley Crue and 80s hair metal in general. Here's the pullout quote:
Do you think any ripples from that Gen X, alt-culture explosion extended to the present?
You know, I used to work in San Diego loading gear at a club. I’d end up being at shows that I wouldn’t have chosen to go to — bands that monopolized late-’80s MTV. The metal bands that — I’m trying to be nice — I despised. “Girls, Girls, Girls” and Mötley Crüe: [expletive] you. I hated it. I hated how it made the fellas look. I hated how it made the women look. It felt so vacuous. Guns N’ Roses came out and, thank God, at least had some teeth. But I’m circling back to say that one thing that I appreciated was that in Seattle and the alternative crowd, the girls could wear their combat boots and sweaters, and their hair looked like Cat Power’s and not Heather Locklear’s — nothing against her. They weren’t selling themselves short. They could have an opinion and be respected. I think that’s a change that lasted. It sounds so trite, but before then it was bustiers. The only person who wore a bustier in the ’90s that I could appreciate was Perry Farrell.
Ok, so an interview with The New York Times Magazine is a big deal and it garners a lot of attention. It's no surprise, then, that Nikki Sixx saw the piece and took offense. I mean, he did create Motley Crue. So of course, he vented on Twitter.
Made me laugh today reading how much the singer in Pearl Jam hated @MotleyCrue. Now considering that they’re one of the most boring bands in history it’s kind of a compliment isn’t it?#TheStadiumTour #RocknRoll
— 📷 (@NikkiSixx) February 5, 2022
Now, I don't think I would categorize Pearl Jam as one of the "most boring bands" - but point taken. We went from 80s glam heyday awesomeness where shows were a big deal and people got dressed up to have fun and then to the 90s where you could look homeless and not move around on stage. Pearl Jam's debut Ten came out in 1991, so I was still quite young. You'll note that the date also overlaps with some still-great glam metal albums coming out too. I owned Ten and loved a lot of those songs (but I never need to hear "Jeremy again!") and I still think it's a good rock record. I owned the follow-up Vs. and then Vitalogy too, and I still think neither was as good as the debut. I never purchased another Pearl Jam album after Vitalogy. I still own - and have owned in many formats - every Motley Crue release. It's all about perspective and personal preference I guess. I just know which band makes music for a fun time and it isn't Vedder's bunch.
Reader Comments (11)
And the why is real simple and as you nailed it. Music for me is an escape to happy times. So give me the 80’s party vibe ANY DAY over the 90’s depressing vibe. I would rather be happy than depressed, it really is that simple.
Think Nikki’s also talking about the show and production. Of course 80’s production was over the top! But when I pay $100 for a show, I wanna see a show! Multi level stages, screens, lasers, moving trusses and pyro. I can play the cd’s at home without the show …
Personally, metal is my go-to form of escape. Of course, I listen to other genres too. It all depends on the mood. Live shows? Well, it depends again. I have seen some pretty amazing stage shows and also some where the music was a bit more of the focus. I kid you not, as recently as a few years back, Tom Jones was still slaying it . . . with a sparse stage a tight backing band and his amazing pipes. And I say that not even really caring for his music. But live? The guy was still great. Which points to the fact that some bands/artists are better live (at least for me). And some are album-only. Tom Petty put on one of the worst, snore-inducing, concerts I ever saw. Perhaps an off night. But still.
I think Alice in Chains and Soundgarden are amazing bands. Same with The Screaming Trees. The Melvins? Nope. Pearl Jam. Ditto. Nirvana? Recognize their impact, just don't dig a lot of their songs.
I don't think grunge killed glam. That is too convenient. I also don't think glam killed glam. Personally, it started to get a wee bit repetitive. And I lay a lot of the blame on the corporations who were stamping cookie-cutter versions of the last big thing. Then again, back in the day those same greedy corporations were responsible for a lot of great albums and quite a few killer stage shows. So there are a lot of moving parts in that whole discussion.
Sixx and Vedder? I think they are both pompous wind-bags. One just happens to have been responsible for some of my greatest memories. Oh, and he died and rose from the grave! I kid. He doesn't.
Both were just looks of the time, but for Eddie to suggest one segment was respected and had an opinion worth anything comes across a bit trite.
Youth almost always tries to topple the icons of the past But that is where things get tricky.
Did Crue have an impact and influence other bands? Hell yes! Did Pearl Jam? Sure. Did both bands stick to their guns (no pun intended)? Well, yes and no. And, in a way. both bands are now in what William James called a 'cabinet of curios'. Relics of the past, tastefully preserved. They resonate with their fans, vocal they might be. And they have figureheads that are sought out for comments, provide them, and then help give a bit of a bump to those keeping the lights on. Beyond that dim flicker (and it is dim), who cares? Neither band moves many needles, though they move some (again, no pun intended).
Simple point: those who care about them care about what they say. And when I say 'care', I mean those who like and dislike them. But that ain't a discussion that really moves mountains. Hell, Bono has more influence than Sixx and Vedder. Why? He. and his band, reached more people back in the day. Thus, more needle moving. Simple stuff.
Even Flow? A great name for a plumber.
Don't Go Away Mad? Great advice. But, at this point, just go away.
Let's dissect that statement a little bit shall we:
Crue influenced some badass bands (i.e. L.A. Guns) and some pretty weak copycats (i.e. Pretty Boy Floyd).
Pearl Jam influenced a ton of bands as well; the likes Creed, Staind, 3 Doors Down... basically crap, crap and crap.
Consider this: every single person who has ever passively bagged on Nickelback may not be musically literate enough to realize that what they are actually slagging is the "post grunge" sound, not Nickelback specifically (Nickelback has become the default band to mock, for whatever reason)... but it ALL circles back around to Pearl Jam, the architects of crap.
The thing is - Mother Love Bone were decent. So why does Pearl Jam suck so badly? Well, different singer. THE WORST singer (not speaking about his range, or lung capacity here).
I know that I have (justifiably) slagged on Vince Neil recently on this site, and as bad as his performances are in 2022, at his worst Vince still never sounded like he was a mumbling goat holding a mouthful of marbles.
PS - To be very clear I do not have a vendetta against "grunge", or "90s music", in fact I am listening to Alice In Chains as I type this. But I have absolutely no use for Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam (encase it wasn't obvious); and I love that Nikki has publicly called them "one of the most boring bands of all time"; he is spot on here.
I don't like Pearl Jam at all. But I think we part ways when you suggest Vedder's singing (at any point) is worse than Neil's now. That just doesn't make a lot of sense. But I understand passion in defense of prose. So you be you!
The Nickelback comment almost felt like a non-sequitur. But you pulled it right back in. Good show. You don't like Pearl Jam, right? And I am not sure literacy (or lack thereof) is the only reason some people bag on that band. Me? They are good at what they do. I just don't like it. And, if you are to extend influence to post-grunge, you are perhaps granting a band that you don't like a bit too much credit. But I will say this: 'architects of crap' would be a great album or song title from The Butthole Surfers!
We also obviously disagree on Mother Love Bone. I find them to be an artifact that is lovingly looked after, primarily because Wood (unfortunately) died young . . . and Pearl Jam came after them, not to mention the 'let's stand in a field in our shorts' Temple of Doom (I mean, 'the Dog'). Which, to partially grant your overriding point, sounded better because Cornell was singing occasionally. To guess what would have become of MLB if Wood had lived is, obviously, conjecture. I would guess not much. So that might have stopped the swell of crud with which you associate Pearl Jam. Mike, have you considered writing historical fiction? You could do for metal what Philip K. Dick did for WWII. Just a thought.
Perhaps if I had included an exclamation point after 'sure' things would have turned out differently. But I liked your post and your passion. After all, I don't mind breaking (not stealing, mind you) bread . . . with other good-hearted posters on BBG! (see what I did there?).
In closing, I return to a previous point I made: both Sixx and Vedder are self-important clowns that move very few needles outside of the guarded gates policed by their fans. That I prefer what Sixx helped to create is both a matter of personal taste and also a coincidence of birth.
But, you and me, Mike? Well, in the words of Dio, "WE ROCK!!!"
To clear up my statement about Vince Neil: his performances since the 1999 "Greatest hits tour" have been pathetic, and he has become a punchline in the modern era of memes and instant streaming video. It's damaging to the Crue's brand and I cannot believe that Crue have not sued him for doing these awful solo shows while they are trying to sell 40,000 seaters.
The point I was trying to make is - I find it less of a crime against rock and roll to be Vince Neil : an out of shape drunk who sang on some amazing albums before throwing it all away... than to be Eddie Vedder, by all accounts still a very capable vocalist, but who sounds and acts like Eddie Vedder.