PDA

View Full Version : TWISTED SISTER To Redo Stay Hungry?



Flash Bastard
02-01-2004, 05:58 PM
http://www.bravewords.com/news.html?id=10229

TWISTED SISTER are reportedly in the planning stages to redo their legendary Stay Hungry album from 1984. Although the band had released two records prior (1982s Under The Blade, 1983s You Cant Stop Rock N Roll), it would be Stay Hungry that make the Long Island, NY five-piece a household name. Stay Hungry hit #15 in the U.S. (selling over 2 million copies) and #34 in the UK. The first single, Were Not Gonna Take It went to #21 on the Billboard singles charts and turned the band into an MTV sensation.



Upon hearing the news of the forthcoming reworking, original producer Tom Werman commented:



Well, my first response would be "good luck". It took three days to get a decent rhythm guitar sound. I honestly don't think the band will ever sound that good again. And what will they do differently? And why? Perhaps it's because Dee (Snider - frontman) never wanted to share credit for the band's success with anyone else, so this would be a totally homegrown project. Who's paying for it?

Mr Badguy
02-02-2004, 08:31 AM
That is crazy.

How about redoing "Come out and play" and trying to make it good?

Or writing a new album of original stuff?

On a similar note, I read somewhere that W Axl Rose had rerecorded "Appetite for destruction" with one of the new line ups of G`n`R, which is supposed to be note for note, to be rereleased, in Ozzy fashion, instead of the original, so that he doesn`t have to pay the former members performance royalties.

What is the world coming to?

Wayne L.
02-02-2004, 09:31 AM
Twisted Sister re-recording their only great classic rock album Stay Hungry is ridiculous considering TS could have been a more legendary rock band if they would have exploded on the rock scene before the 80's.

Gmoney
02-02-2004, 10:18 AM
I plan on filing this news in my "Who Gives a Shit" pile....

Dee Snider appears to be bored to be just commenting about the 80's on VH1.

Mr Badguy
02-02-2004, 03:55 PM
TS drove their own career off the rails by trying to hard to be accepted by the mainstream.

The reason "Stay hungry" was so good was because it was wierd, badass shit.

"Captain howdy" and "Burn in hell" spring to mind.

Not "Leader of the pack".

Incidently, their best LP was either "Under the blade" or "You can`t stop rock n roll".

Heavy fuckin` metal.

Panamark
02-11-2004, 11:23 PM
Why ?

Mr Badguy
02-12-2004, 04:05 PM
Why what?

In fact, come to think of it, working with Tom Werman as producer turned TS into a wannabe Motley Crue.

I mean as much as I liked "I wanna rock" and "We`re not gonna take it", it was dumb ass shit.

And we all know the Crue never wrote a song that meant shit.

Panamark
02-12-2004, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Mr Badguy
Why what?

In fact, come to think of it, working with Tom Werman as producer turned TS into a wannabe Motley Crue.

I mean as much as I liked "I wanna rock" and "We`re not gonna take it", it was dumb ass shit.

And we all know the Crue never wrote a song that meant shit.

Badguy, that "why" was aimed at the original question, not your post. I dont understand why they would want to re-do this album.

Mr Badguy
02-13-2004, 01:38 PM
Ah!

That`s what I was wondering.

It could be an Ozzy/Axl "I want all the money" job.

Or it could be an effort to make it sound contemporary.

Have you listened to it lately?

It is so dated.

However, I often think a songs "sound" can be as important as the lyric, music etc.

I mean, can you imagine studio rerecordings of "Paranoid" or "Smoke on the water"?

Yes, it would be state-of-the-art but probably not as good.

Some things should be left alone.

Panamark
02-13-2004, 03:48 PM
Apart from the production side of things, Does Dee reckon a whole new generation will buy whats already available, just because its remixed ? I agree with you about the classic sound of some tracks, even going back as far as the Sun recordings with Elvis. Somethings are just better left alone. Although, (Im going to sound like a hypocrite now) I really prefer the remastered Halen albums. The again
remastering, and re-recording are two different beasts.

I must be getting old, all these Albums seem like they came out only a few years ago, then you think to yourself why are they fucking with them already ? I'll just go and fetch my slippers, pipe and arthritis
cream now.

Mr Badguy
02-13-2004, 05:25 PM
Remastering is cleaning up what`s already recorded, which I don`t mind.

Rerecording is wrong.

Why should you shell out your hard earned for something that has been available for years.

Enough bands rip off their fans with live albums every two or three years, which contain most of the same songs (yes, you Ozzy, Iron Maiden, Kiss etc.).

We don`t need this kind of thing catching on.

This stinks of a cash in.

Just like if Dave got back with VH and rerecorded "Van Halen", there is no way it would have the same magic.

(That`s an example, I am not putting TS in the same bracket as VH)