I can't imagine reading Sam's book...
I can't imagine reading Sam's book...
Roth Army Canada
Who knows but even if he had made a complete hash of that sponsorship deal it's hardly a sacking offence given all the rest he had done for them. It's not like the rest of the band found the deal, it was his.
It seems far more likely to presume that a band out of their minds on ego, coke, in-fighting, greed and paranoia did something shitty. By all accounts Alex had all the power at that stage because Eddie would go along with anything he said and so with 2 votes is going to win. Maybe he sacked Noel for not removing the penises coming out his wall properly.
If there is a valid reason they sacked him it's not in the book. If you have ever been around addicts you will know that they do irrational things.
Monk did say that when the band approached him about being their manager, he told them he wasn't necessarily the most experienced person they could have picked, and they should shop around a bit. So, Monk owns up to his inexperience and that all of it was a learning curve for him.
Regarding the sponsorship, didn't the band turn it down because they wanted to be associated with products on the level of "Levi jeans and Marlboro cigarettes": that Van Halen in 1983/1984 wanted to be associated with iconic, name brand products, and they initially looked at the sponsorship offer they had on the table as underwhelming in terms of the brand and the dollar amount?
Also, in the early 1980s, corporate sponsorship of rock bands was still fairly in its infancy.
Ultimately, the band was 100% justified in firing Monk (or stripping him of his purview/amount of duties): Monk served at the pleasure of the band. Van Halen didn't work for Monk.
I recall Eddie giving an interview in the wake of Roth's departure and claiming that "Monk was Roth's puppet and did whatever [Dave] wanted." I think some of that had to do with the general perception of the situation - which Monk confirms - in that Roth was the band member who by far took the largest interest in the non-musical activities of the band (public relations, merchandising, artwork, etc.). Apparently, Alex also took some interest when he wasn't busy drinking himself into a state of hallucinations that drive him to sleep between his parents in their bed with a loaded shotgun at the ready (what a fuckin' freak!).
Scramby eggs and bacon.
It was of interest inasmuch as the Van Halen inside dirt from Hagar's perspective went.
Ultimately, it was EXACTLY as DLR Bridge said, in that Hagar never once takes any responsibility for anything bad that happens...ever.
Like, even down to when Hagar's wife had various physical ailments and mental/emotional issues: Hagar in essence uses all of that not just as an excuse to fuck groupies on the road (keeping in mind that Hagar was a 40 year old + man when this was going on), but as a justification in terms of placing blame on his (now ex) wife for HAGAR's actions. Basically: "hey, man, my wife was sick and crazy, so it was her fault I fucked all those groupies when I was in Van Halen!!"
Utterly charmless. The only other rock star autobio I can recall that had that consistent level of 'everything bad that happened in my life was someone else's fault and I was 100% blameless in all of it because I'm such a great guy' attitude was Paul Stanley's.
I don't understand your use of the word 'justified'.
They were within their legal rights and in fact if I remember correctly from law school in UK at least, a band manager job was seen as being too personal so that legally even with a contract you can't force someone to accept a personal manager although you would have to pay compensation for breach.
Being within your legal rights isn't the same as being justified though. If one day you decide you don't like the color of the eyes of your employee after 20 years of service you may be able to find a way to sack them but that doesn't make it justifiable (at the moment we have a few protections still remaining against shit like that although not for long).
Do you think at this moment, Pete Angelus and Ed Anderson are working at a fever's pitch on their own "my time with Van Halen" books?
Perhaps justified, in terms of moral justification, if one argues that Van Halen's reasons for demoting Monk were far weaker than the strengths Monk brought to the organization as their business manager, wouldn't be the best word.
Ultimately, though, considering Monk was employed under a monthly contract with the band and to restate that Monk worked for Van Halen (and not the other way around), Van Halen from a legal and business standpoint had all the justification they needed.
I'd agree 100% that people can do plenty of things that are deemed legal yet said things are still...what? Morally bankrupt? Ethically dubious?
Yeah, HIS book came off sort of like 'I was born with a cauliflower ear, had a shitty childhood because I got teased a lot, and eventually - through a lot of therapy - learned to blame everybody else around me for the things that went wrong AND become as much of a Grade A Asshole as Gene Simmons, whom I hate...btw/ fuck Ace Frehley and Peter Criss.'
Eat Us And Smile - The Originals
"I have a very belligerent enthusiasm or an enthusiastic belligerence. I’m an intellectual slut." - David Lee Roth
"We are part of the, not just the culture, but the geography. Van Halen music goes along with like fries with the burger." - David Lee Roth
As long as no one holds their breath either of the VH brothers writes one.
And quite frankly, I think an EVH-authored book would be fairly boring, as blaspheme as that might be.... He's just not that articulate....
An AVH book would probably be better... While he would still tote the "company line" in reference to the Van Halen point of view, I think he would be better able to express his thoughts....
But yeah, an Ed Anderson book would be nuts....
I'd sooner prefer to read an Angelus, Anderson or even an Anthony authored book than read anything else the Van Halen brothers had to say about it.
Although I do agree an AVH book would be more interesting than an Ed one. Ed just isn't an interesting interview subject.
Yeah, there's a mutual frame of reference at work, there...fer sure.
I mean, all I can go off is what I see. When I saw Van Halen in 2012, and they started playing Girl Gone Bad, the audience quieted down a bit: they didn't immediately all cheer in unison over this long-neglected chestnut being performed live for the first time in nearly 30 years. And I tend to doubt it was because the entire arena was stunned. It was because half the audience probably had never heard the fucking tune before.
The same thing happened when they played Women In Love and Outta Love Again. They cheered at the end, but it wasn't the immediate roar when the band launched into Panama...or Jump...or RWTD. Same thing happened in 2007 with the other deeper cuts which haven't been played to death on the radio over the last 30 years.
That gave me the impression that a sizable portion of the audiences know the greatest hits but aren't necessarily Van Halen Superfans who know every nuance of every Van Halen record.
It's along the same lines as to why Def Leppard, Journey minus Steve Perry and any other number of 80s acts can keep coming back here year after year and playing to 12-15k audiences: if you have enough hits or universal songs everybody including the casual audience knows - which Van Halen including Van Hagar does - you can mount a successful mid-level venue tour.
I mean, on a personal level, if Eddie stopped playing Eruption at Van Halen shows, I could give a shit. I wouldn't care if they never played Jump again, either. I'd gladly trade both for, say, Push Comes To Shove/Fools/Take Your Whiskey Home. But Jump and Eruption are high water marks of CVH, regardless of my personal indifference to them.
Put it this way: I'd be surprised if Van Hagar mounted a tour next year...even if Mike Anthony sat it out and Wolfie played instead...and they weren't able to fill 10 to 15k seater venues. Even with a shitty opening act. I'd honestly be surprised because there still is that general interest among middle aged concert goers for that 1980s AOR pop metal lite stuff.
It would be a less interesting book but it would be funny if Angelus book didn't mention Dave
fuck your fucking framing
Has anyone else ever blurted out 'I HAVE TO HAVE MY LAXATIVE' seeing a fat woman in Wal Mart?
Kids were puzzled this morning...
I'm not so sure Anthony's financial situation suffered significantly as a result of that publishing/writing royalties... His writing credits only dropped out for 2 songs on 1984. Monk left in 85 and Ed Leffler stepped in. I suspect given that Micheal had song writing/publishing credits for virtually all Van Hagar material and even some of III... that Leffler had a more equitable contract structure that included Mike all the way up to 2004 when he was fully written out of the VH LLC and lost all rights to the name, logos, etc...
Of all the former members of VH, except Hagar... I believe Mike has been the most financially secure due to wise investments and far more frugal lifestyle married to his high school sweetheart and sitting on a far bigger nest-egg than Ed, Al & Dave.
"If you want to be a monk... you gotta cook a lot of rice...”
I'm halfway through and can't help but ask for a boxset that includes some of the Marshall Berle videos. Could boost the sales a bit.
Nice read anyway....
Roth Army Icon
First official owner of ADKOT (Deluxe Version)
Anthony's net worth is said to be around $60 million, last time I checked Dave was like $30...
Now Dave is listed at $60, reunions are nice...
Finished the book. What a bunch of idiots...good read.
Error in Chapter 15: Sparkomatic was NEVER "high end" audio gear.
From what I remember, about a third to half of the book is Stanley's formative years before KISS formed. And, honestly, that was the most interesting part of the book. At least to me. Stanley manages to convey, quite effectively, the relative lack of self-worth he felt during his childhood and teenage years. And he does so in a manner that is almost embarrassing to read because he is very candid about those years, and usually a Stanley interview is just a pastiche of mundane rock interview clichés so the frankness he exhibits in his book of his early years was pretty uncharacteristic for him.
After KISS becomes successful, the rest of the book is very average rock auto bio stuff. The biggest sense I got from what he had to say is that he approached songwriting entirely as an exercise of putting together musical ideas in an effort to sell records, and writing rock music for him is solely a purpose of putting out stuff for people to buy. And I'm sure Stanley is far from the only rock musician who approaches what he does with that overriding concern, but it was somewhat disconcerting to never hear him once mention any sort of joy he felt as an artist when coming up with a particular tune. It was all just strictly commerce for him. Simmons has that same attitude.
I read the Ian Gillan bio right now. It's not that interesting.
Gesendet von meinem SM-G850F mit Tapatalk
Probably 95% of those rock bios/autobios really aren't that interesting.
They're either written by an author who didn't know the subject and does a sensationalized, tabloid-style hatchet job, or they're sanctioned by the subject and turn out to be puff pieces. Or, even worse, they're actually written by the subject with the assistance of a 2nd author (who does the actual writing) and the tone is one-sided in favor of the subject.
And, to be fair, 99% of rock musicians aren't writers (much less readers) to begin with, so it only follows that the autobios they produce end up being drivel. Most of these same musicians can't even give an interview worth reading or listening to, so it stands to reason they're not gonna get any better in book form.
Which only sort of stands to reason: just because someone is prolific at writing rock music doesn't mean they are necessarily a genius at everything (or anything) else.
The fun thing about the KISS books was seeing if the stories lined up.
Billy Idol's book was okay. Rod Stewart's, not so great.
The KISS autobios were a bit of a mixed bag.
Gene's was about what I expected. Fairly brief, a bit light on substance in terms of insight or inside dirt and very self-aggrandizing. Very little of what was in Gene's book were stories that he hadn't talked about before in interviews.
Paul's was decent for the first half, mundane for the second half.
Ace's was a fun read. Clearly not written by him, but more of Ace telling whatever boozy, druggy tales he could remember during the heyday of KISS to the co-author.
Peter's was the most interesting, to me. I mean, a frankness that was kind of stunning, in terms of him not being afraid to say things that happened of such a private nature that they made me wince at the level of honesty on display. Put it this way...Criss certainly wasn't trying to make himself look good by hiding things.
Overall, though, all of the four autobios basically expanded on the elements of the KISS history all four original band members had already spoken of in interviews.
I'll have to check out the Billy Idol one. He's actually had an interesting career, going back to the mid-to-late 1970s punk scene in London, and I'd imagine he had more than a few tales of excess during his high water mark in the 1980s.
Not sure if this was posted but here you go. Biggest news from this interview.......no live footage out there cause they spent all their money shooting MTV videos.
" You ever notice when I scream I sound like Mr. Bill on acid" DLR
Well Hell........
https://youtu.be/0r1sysXYOr0
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)