not logged in
| re: Jim makes and appearance in Dublin | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 04:54 pm UTC 06/06/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Jim makes and appearance in Dublin - Klasien 02:11 pm UTC 06/06/07 |
Since this is a discussion board, wouldn't it be novel, to have a discussion one can enter into without pulling out of the sandbox when it does not go your way? For instance, you could point out to me what statements you believe I retracted. And you could agree with, and even compliment, my ability to understand what you are writing if I rephrase it, telling me that it was what you had meant. Indeed, I use many words, but it takes that many to say what I want to say :) Certainly, if I use that many more than you do, I added something of a concept or two along the way? > since all you do is retract previous statements and draw > pictures that describe exactly what I said in 5x as many > words... I think there is no point in further > discussion... > > but feel free to argue amongst yourself. > > K. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do believe Meat is trying to save face by including Jim > > > > > and his music as much as possible in this current tour, I > > > > > have been told by people who have seen various shows in > > > > > this tour that he has indeed used the clip before. This > > > > > reeks more of a return to the glory of Bat II, when I > > > > > think he used the clip in many shows as well than of > > > > > anything else? > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you suppose, after the making of Bat2, he went and > > > > did Welcome To The Neighborhood, at all, without pushing > > > > the Bat reference, and then now, pushed the Bat reference > > > > with so much awful vibes connected with it? If the title > > > > is the thing, rather than the involvement, where does this > > > > logic come from? I have the feeling like the use of the > > > > title is exploitive, the behavior tantrumic, and the > > > > publicity is diluting Jim's authority. Why is it that Meat > > > > can't have his cake and eat it too, without adding a bat > > > > to the recipe? > > > > > > > > > > Because back in the days of WTTN Meat could afford to wait > > > for Jim? Because back then his body and voice were less > > > unpredictable and he felt he had time? > > > > The time of WTTN production for that 1996 release would > > have been about 1994-1995, if I estimate according to the > > Desmond Child calendar of music 1989, and at that time, > > Jim did not believe that he was being sought out for > > anything with the demand that had existed before. Jim was > > seeking to find projects which fit his own realistic life > > structure, and Meat had this project which was done. > > > > Even if people performed Jim's songs then, they did not > > need Jim's involvement for that. However, previously Jim > > was in the studio in 1992 working on a project with > > someone, and I do not know for sure what that relates to > > in reference to Meat's or to this timeline. Of course we > > do know that WDTW came along in the period, as Jim was > > interested in working on scores he said for movies but > > apparently this one for live stage "snuck through" as he > > did not describe it to me. In this particular period when > > it was between 1994 and 1996, my phone contact with Jim > > was a blend of sporadic and daily. When it was not > > sporadic, it was daily. I can tell you that he was > > exhausted working all hours of day and night, living much > > like a mole in hiding, and getting things done. He did > > more than you would be able to imagine, and more than I > > then knew. > > > > The point is, that Meat still had his name, his persona, > > his hits and his recording royalties from previous works, > > and WTTN was done with the understanding that his name > > would carry it through. After all, how could he not assume > > that after the BAT2 success? The problem was, that Meat > > did not realize then, the weight that the theme of BAT, as > > it related to Jim's blend with Meat, was the formula that > > made the difference. He only had the chance to figure that > > out, after seeing the difference between BAT2 and WTTN. > > Meat has many contradictions in resolve. If, taking the > > way he described himself in 1978, as a train, he felt he > > had the drive to make any obstacle disappear and the album > > a hit, he could and should have applied those energies to > > his own works such as WTTN. There wasn't a marketing > > machine the likes of what is being employed at this time. > > And the only drive he is having now, is making sure he > > mentions Jim in this process. When Jim sent the email to > > Meat suggesting a third installment, it was not Meat's > > hand that pressed "enter" and it was not Meat's idea. It > > was also replete with assumptions. > > > > But it was Meat's ticket. We could surmise all this: > > Germinating in this mind of comparisons between > > relative successes and relative failures, there was a > > reason to use BAT3 because both BAT1 and BAT2 worked for > > him. He liked the hype, he liked it that his train had a > > locomotive that had its own steam. He wasn't tired of > > waiting, he was tired of being the train. When Jim said he > > would be unavailable for a period of time, it did not > > matter the reason. And, if Jim was really ill as has been > > believed, if the elder Jim was ill for example, while my > > Jim was okay, or if there was one Jim and Jim was ill, it > > does not take a sophisticate to realize how crass it is to > > spit in the face to do the project in the face of > > that.....and then later call it impatience and selfishness > > to the media. When the ticket came out of the toaster > > (using Sabrina The Teenage Witch as analogy) Meat's own > > senses of his own purposes made their resolve that it was > > going to give him that blood-pumping adrenaline of > > excitement, a reason to be there, to be hyped, to be > > extolled, to have a generation behind him, like he is one > > of their gods. His train had gone, and Jim's inability to > > do that, did not stop his train. Meat was going to do > > that, be that, and be there, extolled, adrenalined, and > > hyped. He devised a story then, that HE was about BAT and > > BAT was about HE, and nothing would get in his way. It was > > his justification, in order to get those things he wanted. > > It isn't about age. It isn't about the music. It isn't > > about the voice. It is about the glory. > > > > > > >Or perhaps because > > > Meat wanted to create his own persona rather than going > > > around being the Monster to Jim's Frankenstein? Jim has > > > often been introduced as the man who created Meat Loaf, > > > and, true as that may be, Meat hated it. So in that > > > respect even the subtitle to Bat III makes sense. Even > > > when he used WTTN to partially break free he kept the door > > > open for Bat III. > > > > There'd been so many albums between BAT and BAT2, that > > before BAT2 and after Dead Ringer (someone please explain > > to me why "Dead Ringer" came out the same year as Bad For > > Good, when Meat's voice was supposed to have been like > > lawnmower blades at the time? Are all the sites wrong > > about 1981 as its release date? And why, in the 1999 Bat > > Out Of Hell documentary is Meat saying he "still" sounded > > the way he did twenty years earlier, rather than saying he > > sounded that way "again"?) there would hardly have been a > > thought of any resurrection of Bat Out Of Hell in any > > context whatever. There were two sequels to Bat Out Of > > Hell, one performed by Jim, one performed by Meat, and > > that they neither had the BAT title, did not disappoint > > anyone's expectations. > > > > Meat had always until then taken the back seat to Jimmy's > > lead, and made proper acknowledgement in the press to > > Jim's participation and direction. It only came about when > > Meat saw he was independent of Jim, that he began seeing > > himself as his own creation, as would be the case of > > anyone who leaves their coach, but that the coach was the > > coach, is still the truth. Meat could have been told he > > had a reason to be more pumped than he had a moral right > > to be, and that provoked Jim to maintain his role as > > coach. It is not that Meat was upset at Jim's claims. Jim > > reacted to Meat's new claims. Meat is presenting himself > > as like the plant in Little Shop Of Horrors. "Feed me". I > > daresay I'm not the first to think of that analogy: look > > at his television interview recently. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then again, if you are doing the 3 bat albums in one tour > > > > > and are trying to be as close to the originals as you can > > > > > be, you would expect the Jim intro on You Took The Words, > > > > > now wouldn't you... So perhaps he is just doing what he > > > > > thinks does the Bat Trilogy most justice? > > > > > > > > Why did it become his mission to do the Bat Trilogy at all > > > > when it was Jim's vision? I know these questions have been > > > > asked and re-asked on this board throughout all the > > > > production time, but I think an assumption has been made > > > > somewhere wrongly that it was for him to be the ultimater > > > > of the theme? Clearly, Jim has a vision. There is no > > > > validity to the taking of Jim's visions and calling it > > > > Meat's. > > > > > > Meat has a tendency of thinking he is as important to the > > > Bat Trilogy as Jim is, seeing as he is the main face for > > > the music? Jim may write it but without Meat there would > > > be no more Bats?? So it might have become as much Meat's > > > intention as it was Jim's to finish the Bat cycle? > > > > There was no "bat cycle" until Meat declared there is a > > Bat cycle, even though Jim said he thought of it as a > > trilogy. As of 1987 Jim was prepared to lay it down in > > favor of real life pressures and other directions. The > > only life that breathes in the Bat Out Of Hell theme, > > comes from Jim. Call it that, claim it to be that, but if > > there is no Jim in its very core, it is not Bat. It is not > > sentiment, it is real because a singer does not make it. A > > singer is a singer. There is no other singer that carries > > a songwriter's legacy, not even Dionne Warwick. Dionne > > Warwick cannot take any recording studio and say she is > > recording San Jose 2. But her voice is on San Jose, the > > song is her song, and there is no other recognition of the > > song without thought of her voice and so it is her > > franchise. NOOOOOOO. Doesn't exist. Burt has his own > > reputation, and San Jose is his. Not hers. Not even Ronnie > > Spector can claim she holds the monopoly on Be My Baby. > > Meat's people, Meat's statements, and his marketing and > > public relations is in a twilight of fantasy. > > > > > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Jim makes and appearance in Dublin - Klasien 02:11 pm UTC 06/06/07 |
| Next: | re: Jim makes and appearance in Dublin - Klasien 05:15 pm UTC 06/07/07 |
| Thread: |
|