Motley Crue Announce Hollywood 'Takeover'

This was rumored for awhile but now it is apparently fact: Motley Crue will do a Hollywood takeover and play some of the iconic rock clubs in the area.

There is a charity aspect here so that is good.

The poster below is just wrong though - using the original graphics and having John 5 in one of the squares? Crazy.

Comments

[Him]

Bkallyday, I apologize for what I am about to post. I know you are kinda' spastic when it comes to Crue. You feel it is your right to hail them as one of the greatest of their era. I agree. But then you feel like you can slam them when it suits you . . . but others can't. I get it. Being a fanboy is rough (see: Him and Dokken).

This is just par for the course. The LLC that is basically Frank and Thomas (pending any litigation with Robert, and with a shrug from Vincent) squirts out sounds and objects and ideas and things that they think will keep them in the public eye. And, you know what? It works! By cracky, it works!

But let's be honest (again, as I have said this before). They didn't go out on top. And they aren't continuing on top either. This is the latest of several gasps of a band that flailed around for years, found a couple of area tours that were marketing gold, and are now squeezing that for every inch of lucre it can produce (because you can count the inches that stacks of money create). Good for them, I guess? Good for those people who go to those concerts, or buy their swag, or or who fall for their edgy groove these days. That last one was sarcastic. Crue is about as edgy as a razor found behind a toilet in a Flying J bathroom.

And Allyson is right. Crazy. Crazy like a . . . worn down, helpless, and tired grab bag of leftover greatness. That John 5 took this job is no error on his part. He is riding this for all it is worth. And it is, to be fair, worth a lot. But, in terms of their legacy? Nah. No. Nyet. But that isn't his problem. He is an employee. The others involved? They were involved in the legacy that they created. As was Robert (but he is living his life without them). And he looks much better, standing at a distance, litigating, and doing his own thing. The other three? Amazing you can't figure it out.

Here's a hint: when you die, the money doesn't go with you. But if you want to turn your legacy into a bottom (giggle), fine. You get the money. But those of us who actually supported you in your heyday are now left to wonder: what else? And, more importantly, why else but for the filthy lucre?

Tarnish your legacy if you want. But count me as one fan who finds you as flaccid, as vacuous, and as irrelevant as all the things you once made seem joyous.

"If you want to live life on your own terms, you gotta' be ready to crash and burn." So, I guess you guys did that. What's left? Gurgle and rip off more fans?

I really, really hope that you stop.

[An innocuous bystander]

Him. You still got it brother. 😁

[fletch]

What they fails to recognize is something like this!

I tried to warn them about Val Jacinto...and I was ignored.

I definitely warned them about Sara Packer. They laughed at me and asked me to apologize to her. "Use your charm" is what the supervisor at Diakon asked me to do and "smooth things over". I refused. I said, "She should apologize to me". The response: that is not going to happen. Just stop.

There's another one on my radar that I'm hoping I'm wrong, but the best predictor of future behavior is to look at past behavior.

[Him]

Edits: "arena," not "area." And I should have dropped the coupled "or" in that one languid sentence.

Innocuous, many thanks. But do you also post here under another name? Just curious.

And, Fletch, I hope you are well. I truly do. Some of your recent posts have me scratching . . . my head. But, you do you.

And I hope everyone else is doing well too. Would love to see more comments on this site.

Thanks, as always, Allyson.

[Bkallday]

It's fine HIM, I actually agree with the sentiment. However the last thing they're trying to do these days, is be "edgy", we will agree to disagree on that. But if you can give me some kind of recent example(which if you do, won't be a good one), then I may recant. Their place in music history is already entrenched and that will never change no matter what they do, they will go down as a legendary band, no matter what you or anyone else thinks. At least that's a lot more than some of your favorite scab bands will ever be able to say(see dead daisies, steel panther, etc.). Roflmao

[fletch]

Him: "That little itch could be something". 😜. I'm glad it's your head and not somewhere else that has you scratching.

Peace.

[Him]

Thanks for the reply, Bkallday. Appreciate it and hope you are doing well.

I take some of your counterpoint, esp. as it relates to their legacy. They released some kick ass music over the early years. They are a part of my musical memories. I won't ever slag them for that.

But I do think they are trying to be edgy. More specifically, I think Sixx's recent tirades against the media are just him crying wolf when called to account for so many of his lies over the years. But it is 'edgy' to be anti-media these days and this guy is just yelling in the wilderness . . . next to his million dollar property! I find it kinda' funny actually. Do your research, huh? Well, people watched Lee's drums playing without him being behind the kit. Isn't that research, Sixx? Duh.

And their recent 'back to the club days' stuff is certainly 'edgy-adjacent', right? I mean, you can't put the genie back in the bottle? But you can ask people to squint and act like you are an up and coming band for nostalgia's sake, right? Oh, and the recent song and video? Tapping into the zeitgeist, I guess? Or maybe letting others (read: your handlers) use imagery and ideas that were getting kinda' old when Megadeth was using them in the 90s. I won't even mention John 5's comments about how old school their new music sounds. Because sounding old school isn't edgy? Or is it? I guess I am getting confused.

And, hey, I am cool with you not liking bands I like (I mean, come on, we do like some of the same bands). But you gotta' stop calling them 'scab' bands. And, in this instance, it was actually more of an issue. The guys in Steel Panther and The Dead Daisies aren't crossing any sort of picket line, right? They are musicians doing their thing and it is a thing that you don't like. Cool. I do. Also cool. Room enough for all of them, MC included. But MC has increasingly become cloyingly hungry for attention, without the requisite output that would make fans--yes, you and me--actually feel like they deserve it. Then again, as I said, people are still showing up. So what do I know?

Wouldn't want you to recant a single thing you said, Bkallday. But I prefaced my post the way I did because I do think, respectfully, that you can be a bit this-or-that with MC. The fact that you agree with the thrust of my sentiment I take as a compliment. Truly. And if I got you rolling on the floor laughing, I feel like I did something positive as well!

Again, wishing you well.

[fletch]

Mystified would have been a better definition then "scratching my head", Him. But, you do you.

Now onto Van Halen...

[Bkallday]

Again, we can agree to disagree on them trying to still be edgy. I do wish they would do what I consider to be edgy, instead of trying to recapture something they're unable to anymore. I just don't see Sixx ignoring the media as him trying to be edgy. Nor do i think trying to say that it sounds like the old stuff, is edgy. But again, agree to disagree. You may wanna consider yourself right and me wrong, i really dont care. Let me know when the dead daisies or steel panther are headlining festivals(ie legit festivals and not fricking rocklahoma) tho! I'll hang up & listen!!! I guess that's considered me trying to be "edgy" in your opinion? Lol

[Mike]

I honestly think they perceive “Fight For Your Right To Party” and “Like A Virgin” covers as being edgy…

“On man, nobody is gonna expect us to do this! People are gonna freak out when they hear us covering Madonna!”

No, we are all either laughing, cringing, or handing in our S.I.N. Membership cards.

I love the Crüe catalog up until (and including) Generation Swine; but they have seriously lost the plot in my eyes. Being forced to bring Vince back in the late 90s killed their creativity, killed their live show; and ultimately killed their enthusiasm to be a cool, forward thinking band. That’s why Tommy quit in 1999 to do rap-rock.

I’m with HIM … at this point, go see them if it’s your thing, I hope it’s a great experience… just hope you aren’t expecting them to walk into a club and slay, because they won’t.

[Him]

Thanks, Mike. Appreciate the reply. I think you and I agree. And your additions are, well, great additions to my claim that they think they are still on the edge of being edgy. I hope your reply, respectful as it was, isn't tagged for opprobrium by our resident MC researcher. Or, at the very least, that his chest thumps are directed squarely at me!

And, with no trace of sarcasm, I appreciate your reply too, Bkallday. You have a POV and more often than not stick to it. You did here. So I will avoid the particulars, as they get stiff and unappealing, like laundry hung out to dry on an old-fashioned line: those of mine which you ignored and those which you often sprinkle through your posts, as you did here, like boasts and taunts, offered from a stage no one is standing near at some far off, one off, circus in a no-name town where you are the only name in said town. I won't take your bait, even if I just kinda' offered it back to you. And I won't ask questions that you will never answer, because I have learned my lesson(s). You have your take. I have mine. Fair enough.

I think we both wish MC were a bit more than they are now, while we both love them for what they once were. I take your initial comment ("It's fine HIM, I actually agree with the sentiment.") as a sign of progress. Sorta' like a hug, accidental or not. It felt nice. I mean, come on, SLAYER!!!!!!! Right? That's enough for me. And, again, I appreciate the reply. Hope you are doing well.

Done with all of this. Moving on . . .

[Bkallday]

Ok Mike, gotta make sure of something. Are u seriously trying to say that they should have stuck with Corabi? If so, u obviously weren’t at any of their shows while he was in the band. But that’s ok, cuz no one else was either. That’s probably the wildest thing I’ve heard anyone say about the band! Is that really what u were trying to say???

[Mike]

Hi BK - yes I am 100% saying they should have stuck it out with Corabi, for the rest of the decade at least. KISS had Eric Carr for the entire 80s, and while “Creatures Of The Night” sales and concert attendance were not stellar, they stuck it out and became a relevant, platinum act by “Lick It Up” / “Animalize”…

The 1994 Crüe album is an amazing piece of work, they were inspired and moving forward. We deserved more of that; even Sabbath gave us 2 albums with Dio that first time, both of which are 10/10.

With Vince back, we instead got “New Tattoo” - the laziest, most uninspired (and cliché) “Dr Feelgood” rehash. You want to talk about lame live shows, go watch the show they filmed on that tour, it’s awful, and attendance was so bad they had to send one of the opening bands home (Anthrax).

Of course Motley was going to eventually reunite with Vince Neil and become a legacy act, most big bands do, and that’s expected… I just feel like this band’s creativity was curbed far too early; and would have liked to see a more prolific ‘90s Crüe era.

[Bkallday]

That's def your opinion and although you may not be on this site, you're definitely in the vast minority with that opinion. Name one relevant band that Corabi has ever been involved with. Keeping him would've been a monstrous mistake and the $ they've made since he left the band, is immensely more than they would've earned over that time, if he had still been with the band. And in 2024, isn't that all anyone cares about? Btw, if not for Vince, they would've never even become a "legacy act". Do you wish to disagree with that, too? Do you really think they would've been a bigger band if they had Corabi all along, instead? Thanks for explaining & looking forward to your answer!

[Mike]

Hi again BK, I've already covered most of your points in my previous post, but I'm happy to scan through your posts' questions:

-----

BK: "That's def your opinion and although you may not be on this site, you're definitely in the vast minority with that opinion."

- Not a question, I just honestly don't really get what you are trying to say here at all.

FYI - there is a [Preview Post] button which you can use to proof read your comment before it is posted. I find it helps to read your comment before it goes live for spelling, grammar, sentence structure, and clarity.

Moving on,

----

BK: "Name one relevant band that Corabi has ever been involved with."

- Motley Crue and RATT come to mind, but unless we establish a baseline for "relevant" I'm not entirely sure what you are after here. Chart positions? Box scores? Magazine Covers?

The 1994 Motley album debuted in the top 10 on Billboard Albums Chart at #7. Not many artists have a top 10 album to their name, so I'd say that could be considered "relevance".

More recently, Dead Daisies' 2018 "Burn It Down" charted in the US on the Billboard Independent Albums chart at #19, Heatseekers chart at #6, and #100 on the Billboard 200; "Rise Up", the second single from the album, charted at number 35 on the Billboard Active Rock chart.

----

BK: "Btw, if not for Vince, they would've never even become a "legacy act". Do you wish to disagree with that, too?"

- Hard to disagree with something, I've already stated in my previous post "Of course Motley was going to eventually reunite with Vince Neil and become a legacy act..."


----

BK: "Do you really think they would've been a bigger band if they had Corabi all along, instead?"

- Bigger than what? Bigger than they were in 1989.. unlikely. Bigger than they were in 1999, could have definitely happened.

My point was never about how much money they could or should be making, I guess that is where you and I differ...

I wanted to see Motley Crue continue to make good music; I will always buy good music wether it's in style or not. I also like going to see live music, but if the artist sucks live I can't continue to support them.

My perception from your comments (forgive me if I'm wrong) is that you want to see your favourite bands remain a top concert draw regardless of how they sound of the quality of their recorded output. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, that is how you are coming across.

-----

Now that I've taken the time to type all of that out, I have two questions for you:

1) Do you think "New Tattoo", "Saints Of Los Angeles", "The Dirt" or "Dogs Of War" are superior musical output to Mick and Tommy's favourite Motley Crue album (the one they released in 1994)?

2) In your opinion, has Motley Crue been an incredible live act at any point in the last 25 years?
* I'm asking about their performance (how they sound playing the songs); and not their production (pyro, props, rollercoasters, etc).

[Bkallday]

Sorry about that first sentence, the way I wrote it def sounded kind of confusing. I should’ve said it a different way. All I was saying is that on this website, ur probably in the majority on that opinion, but outside of this site, u would be in the minority.

As far as being relevant, I meant relevant on the national scene. I’ve seen vids of that ‘94 tour, and I wouldn’t consider that as “being relevant”, nationally. And of course the cd was gonna chart highly, it was billed as “Motley Crue”, although it was really grunge style that sounded absolutely nothing like the band we all grew to love. And no, the Dead Daisies aren’t now, nor have they ever been nationally relevant. There will always be a niche for bands like that tho. This isn’t opinion about dead daisies, it’s fact. They are not relevant and most ppl that u ask, will have never even heard of them. Don’t believe me? Ask someone on the street, then get back to me! Now ask them about Motley Crue or AC/DC.

The point that I was trying to make, that was obviously missed by you, was the simple fact they’d never ever had become a “legacy” if Corabi had been their lead singer all along, instead of Vince. So yeah.

I saw the Crüe on their tour with Def Leppard a few years ago, in a nfl stadium, and not only was it packed but my wife and I both thought they sounded awesome and put on one helluva show, as usual. Does Vince sound like he does in the old days? Maybe not but do Don Dokken, Axl Rose, Brian Johnson, Joe Elliott, or Paul Stanley all sound like they used to? So maybe they should all be replaced by some bum off the street? Or maybe the majority of their fans would rather just have the original singer, ya know the one that made them famous in the first place? Regardless of whether they can still hit all the notes perfectly or not.

Also, I don’t blame their new garbage “songs” on a lack of a lead singer, I put it all on Nikki. He’s the one coming up with all this new 🗑️. Having Corabi instead of Vince would never have changed the fact that Nikki is still gonna be the one calling all the shots. And yes, we can def agree that the new songs they’ve just released, all suck. I did however like the songs on the Dirt soundtrack, tho.

1) Do you think "New Tattoo", "Saints Of Los Angeles", "The Dirt" or "Dogs Of War" are superior musical output to Mick and Tommy's favourite Motley Crue album (the one they released in 1994)?
Absolutely not superior to anything on those first 5 albums. I actually hated New Tattoo & loved SOLA. I’ve already commented on the other two.

2) In your opinion, has Motley Crue been an incredible live act at any point in the last 25 years?
* I'm asking about their performance (how they sound playing the songs); and not their production (pyro, props, rollercoasters, etc).
I have seen them 15 times and they were amazing & sounded great to me, for each one of those. Vince def is the weak spot but I’d rather have him, the actual original lead singer of the band, than anyone else. I will point out that I don’t & never have had any contempt/dislike towards Vince tho. Which a lot of their fans can’t say.

Btw, I’m seeing them again Saturday night. They headline Louder Than Life on Saturday night & they’re expecting a crowd of over 40k on that day. Wonder what that crowd would be like if Corabi were still the singer, instead? Would they all be wearing flannel by now? I have my opinion on that question but I’m sure you already know what that is. Anyway, I’ll report back after the show, & let you know how they were. Thanks for responding!

[Mike]

Hi BK, thanks for the follow up... this will be my last comment, rather a clarification on my stance:

At no point did I ever say that John Corabi should have been the singer for Motley Crue "all along", or that they would have been a bigger band if he were their singer since day 1.

What I have said repeatedly, is that when they were forced to bring Vince back in 1996 by their label and management, it killed the band's creative period... and that I would have personally liked to see where they could have gone musically had they kept him around for a few more albums.

I like Black Sabbath with Ozzy AND with DIO
I like KISS with Peter Criss AND with Eric Carr
I like Misfits with Danzig AND with Michael Graves

The new ingredient will alter the band's sound and overall vibe, that does not negate the original version which put those bands on the map.

Final thought... calling the 1994 Crue album "grunge" is short sighted and uninformed, akin to saying KISS' "Dynasty" is a disco album.

Go listen to "Welcome to the Numb" by Motley Crue. That is a Crue song through and though - the groove, the riff, the lyrics, the backing vocals... And the best part, they are just letting the music flow instead of forcing themselves to write cheesy crap with the hopes of pleasing their close-minded '80s fanbase.

Enjoy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsJdZn3wqYc

[Bkallday]

Thanks for the reply. Tbh I loved the Scream back in the day, even tho they never really got much traction. And when I found out he was the new singer, I thought it was a weird combo of styles. I waited and waited for that album to come out, and when it finally did I was pretty disappointed at first. To me and my ears it was completely different than the Crũe I remember and love. But I loved the band so much that i actually listened to it enough to the point of thinking it wasn’t that bad. It just wasn’t my Mötley Crüe, the styles were different, the mood was darker, and they were just a completely different band, imo. I could never bring myself to go see them live during that time but I did get to see Vince open up for Van Hagar, in Cincy way back when. He was playing the same style music as he always had, and that first album of his was amazing. The second not so much, however.

I think if they had just changed their name i probably wouldn’t had as high of expectations, but Nikki knew they had to use the MC brand. At the end of the day my hope is that Mick eventually returns, they make one more great album, and they’re able to actually go out the way they should, which is on top! I’m pretty sure we can all at least agree on that, or I would like to think so, anyway. Even if it all is just a pipe dream!!! 👊🏼

[Bkallday]

Just thought I’d hop back on here after last night’s performance. The boys were on fire at Louder Than Life!!! They sounded awesome & John 5 is an absolute beast on lead guitar! Hell, even the new song Dogs of War, went over well with the crowd. Also, they performed Merry Go Round!!! I don’t think I’ve ever seen them do that. Anyway, another dominating performance for the greatest fucking band to ever grace the stage. Hell yeah! 🤘🏼

[Bkallday]

FYI just found out today that Saturday’s crowd of 60k was an all time Louder Than Life record. The festival has been going on for a decade now so over that decade, no headliner has drawn more of a crowd than my boys. And they did it without Corabi. Imagine that!!! 🤷🏻‍♂️