HOME | MAIN BOARD | TWITTER | LOGIN | REGISTER | SEARCH | FLAT MODE

not logged in

re: Bat III

Posted by:
Evan 08:36 am UTC 05/22/21
In reply to: re: Bat III - rockfenris2005 03:38 pm UTC 05/12/21

Thank you for this well detailed and thought out response. Sorry Iím just responding now. One of the things your response made me do was see the wasted opportunity from Meats perspective. I guess at the time I was so upset and only thought of Jim. Youíre right though, Bat III has been promised so Meat was basically between a rock and a hard place. I seem to remember him saying at either a press conference or listening party that he was aware it the record wasnít what Jim wouldíve done. The main problem was Desmond Child didnít seem to be intent on making a Bat Out Of Hell album and instead made a Meat Loaf album. Bat 2 was an even bigger record than Bat production wise and Bat 3s production just falls flat. Itís a missed opportunity that still is sad. They had such a huge comeback or more return to form with Bat 2. If only Bat 3 had been more of the same.

>
> Knowing what happened at the time, I don't know if they
> ever could have done it. Jim had been sick, I think he'd
> had the strokes in 2004, and then Meat's people had worked
> on a contract for over a year which would have made Jim
> the highest paid record producer in history, and Meat said
> that Jim sent the contract back unsigned. It was coming
> through the fax machine, and well you can imagine everyone
> just waiting with bated breath, and suddenly there's no
> signature on it. Meat told this story over at MLUKFC years
> ago. You can only imagine what would have been going
> through his mind when that happened, and why didn't Jim
> sign? I'm going to say there would have been something in
> the terms that he didn't like, but I don't say that with
> any authority or anything.
>
> After that, it just went to hell basically. He had to make
> do with what he had, because the record company had been
> promised Bat III, and well ... as you can imagine... if
> you make a promise to a record company that you're going
> to give them Bat III, you probably don't want to be
> changing your mind about that. "Well, hey, it hasn't
> worked out, let's just call it a day." They should have
> been able to do that, really, but I feel like the record
> company had just invested too much at that point. It had
> to go on, and Meat had to make the most of it.
>
> For what it's worth, I wish he'd made the most of it with
> Michael Beinhorn, who was going to produce it, and we
> probably would have had the eight Jim songs, with the
> three non-Jim ones as well. That, I believe, is what Meat
> was planning to do.
>
> The reason he couldn't do those songs is because they
> weren't covers, and the ones on "Bat III" were. "All
> Coming Back", Celine obviously, "Bad for Good", that was
> Jim, "If it ain't Broke Break it" had been in "Wuthering
> Heights", "Seize the Night" was from Tanz, "The Future"
> had been recorded for "Wuthering Heights", unlike say "Not
> Allowed to Love", "Body" or "We're Still the Children"
> which hadn't been recorded before. Meat could have covered
> those other songs and not needed Jim's permission, but he
> had to get his permission for "Body". Or he couldn't have
> released it.
>
> I'm gathering that's also why he didn't release the full
> "Only When I Feel", because those bits hadn't been
> recorded before, but "Break it" was already in "Wuthering
> Heights". That was an album you could buy.
>
> But what about "In the Land of the Pig" and "Cry to
> Heaven"? They hadn't been released. They were demos from
> "Batman" and "Cry-Baby". These were new songs! So how come
> he could get away with those ones?
>
> Again, he probably thought he could get Jim to settle on
> those two songs, as opposed to a whole album's worth of
> other ones that had never been released before, and sure
> enough Jim did agree. That was probably part of the
> settlement, that he could release them.
>
> As for "Braver", I think they were probably both just over
> the whole thing with "Bat" at that point, and I can't
> blame them. "Bat III" taught them both what a monster that
> had all become. It was a juggernaut. Once you wave "Bat
> III" in front of people, after the other ones have sold 50
> million copies, they start going crazy. It's like "Jaws".
> Woman's swimming around, shark senses human, breakfast is
> served.
>
> > I seem to remember a comment Jim made. Now Iím
> > paraphrasing here as I donít remember the exact quote but
> > it was something like this:
> >
> > ďWhen i first heard Bat III I thought passionate,
> > inspiring, bombastic, over the top. I missed those
> > elements from the past Bat albums but I ďlikedĒ this
> > album.Ē
> >
> > Clearly an indirect intelligent insult. I seem to remember
> > this remark being in response to Meat claiming at the time
> > of the albums release that Jim had heard it and liked it.
> >
> >
> > The Bat III situation is a tricky one. I feel like the
> > album isnít horrible as a Meat Loaf album. In fact, as
> > strictly a Meat Loaf album one could argue itís one of his
> > better efforts. Desmond wasnít horrible. He and Jim even
> > worked together in the past, as we all know. It was just a
> > hard pill to swallow to lb presented with a Bat album that
> > featured songs by other artists and worst of all, Diane
> > Warren.
> >
> > Itís both fun and sad to imagine what could have been had
> > Jim been involved. Would it have gotten made at all or
> > would Braver had been Bat III? I wonder why they didnít
> > opt to call Braver, Bat Out Of Hell IV? Perhaps they
> > thought the brand had been slightly tarnished by Bat III?
> > Perhaps they just wanted to leave he Bat legacy to the
> > musical?
> >
> > One last thought, why do you suppose Meat was forbidden
> > from recoding certain new Jim songs? We can complain about
> > a Bat album featuring songs written by other writers and
> > rightfully so, however if Jim stopped offering up new
> > material then no record company was going to want Meat to
> > record an album of all essentially leftovers.
> >
> > Correct me if Iím wrong but itís assumed there were other
> > new songs Jim intended for a Bat III such as Paradise Lost
> > and No Lips, Hands or Butts but we only really know those
> > titles in title format alone. Iím guessing that of the
> > songs we actually know, he following wouldíve been
> > intended for Bat III. What part of my body, in the land of
> > the pig, cry to heaven, and weíre still the children.
> >
> > Why would Jim stop Meat from recording some of these? I
> > seem to remember that part of the lawsuit gave Meat
> > permission to release the new songs of Jimís. What a
> > strange situation.
> >
> > >
> > > He had made this comment while talking about "Only When I
> > > Feel" from Braver on social media in 2016:
> > >
> > > Quote:
> > >
> > > I LOVE "Only When I Feel" -- but Meat cut the fast heavy
> > > bridge on that damnable shit fest THE MONSTER IS LOOSE,
> > > and now heís JUST cut the slow yearning part. Itís like
> > > splitting Siamese twins apart with a chainsaw!! But I love
> > > hearing the heartbreaking part. JS
> > >


reply |

Previous: re: Bat III - rockfenris2005 03:38 pm UTC 05/12/21
Next: re: Bat III - steven_stuart 12:09 pm UTC 05/10/21

Thread:



    HOME | MAIN BOARD | LOG OFF | START A NEW THREAD | EDIT PROFILE | SEARCH | FLAT MODE