not logged in
| re: Jim makes and appearance in Dublin | |
Posted by:  |
Klasien 01:08 pm UTC 06/05/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Jim makes and appearance in Dublin - pidunk 04:44 am UTC 06/05/07 |
> > > > 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? 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 > > > > > 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? > > Dionne Warwick's name appears on no maps generally of > San Jose. (reference "Do You Know The Way to San Jose" by > Burt Bacharach). Right... > > > > > Indeed only Jim can indicate whether he takes offence in > > Meat's choices here... but then again... this might indeed > > renew people's interest in the original Bat album and > > might turn out well for Jim in the end.. > > > There is a double-edged sword to this set of assumptions > the way that I see it. We have to assume whether or not > Jim's BOOH is anything that we think it is. If Meat > build's interest in BOOH on behalf of Jim, and the show > Jim gives is something else, then that would serve to > disappoint a large segment of audience and create negative > press, which would affect ticket sales and the show's > longevity. Jim stated on the blog that he is writing the > book, which denotes that it is not a concert, but a show. > He has also been making references to concert, so this > gives the suggestion that there will be featured musical > pieces in a concert style. > > If Jim's BOOH is seen in advance of its opening as a > re-enacting of Meat's works, in the reverse imagining, > then there may be precious little incentive to go to that > show.....but what could Jim gain by calling a show Jim > Steinman's Bat Out Of Hell, if this pitfall exists? Why > would the pitfall exist, if the expectations were not > being built? Hence, there is the kind of subtle message > that Meat's handlers and Meat may be giving. What's the > point, after all. Without Meat's emphasis, there would be > a point. Jim would be clear to make it what he wants to > make it, the way he wants to show what his vision of Bat > Out Of Hell is to be. And, we know this does take us back > to the early works, that first root of inspiration. This > explains why a book would be in the writing. If Meat made > an album called Tanz Der Vampire, and made it as big as > Bat Out Of Hell, what would be the point of Jim's Tanz Der > Vampire, if all the fans want to see Meat Loaf? Some > people say this on the board...they suggest that Meat's > involvement would enhance Jim's BOOH show. This is the > subliminal message. Fortunately, Meat's reach may be wide > with his fans, but only with his fans. Jim's reach > is more diverse, more solid, because his market base is > the show-going public who know of him through Tanz and > other works independent of and only supplement to Meat. > Jim Steinman's Bat Out Of Hell is destined to be different > than anything Meat could do. Because of this, is Meat > trying to angle his way into that spotlight? > > In the end, what Meat is giving to Jim is a gambling > table. He is daring Jim to throw his dice in this > marketing game of craps and see if the lucky seven comes > up. I would have to call it interference, if the table is > slanted toward's Meat's side; and help if it is slanted > towards Jim's. > > The idea of the Bat Out Of Hell tour, a clear repetition > of the original Bat Out Of Hell tour of 1978, came about > after all the legal documents were put into the file > cabinets. Meat could have just had a tour, coinciding with > the album. Since we don't have Jim's book in our hands, we > can't know the difference, and we can't know if Jim is > thinking that the whole package of this marketing is good > or bad for his interests. > > The thing I think is that Jim does not rely on the > worldwide brand to sell the opener of his own show. He > didn't need it for Tanz. Roman Polanski was not known for > live stage before it, was he? > Since we do not know what Jim has in mind for his BOOH, we can indeed only speculate what the effect of Meat's attempts to re-enforce the bond may be. Perhaps this could be Meat's way of saying 'Sorry I excluded you Jim but you see you are still an essential part of Bat?' I have no more knowledge of Jim's or Meat's thoughts on the matter, I can only speculate based on previous events and statements, and in that light, yes Meat would damage Jim's career and reputation in order to save his own... only to then fail in the attempt of saving his career without Jim?? No, Jim does not need Meat to reach a greater audience... but there is no denying that the appearance of Meat's Bat III gave all Jimsongs renewed radioplay in Europe anyway? I even heard PB's All coming back to me now on the radio in our local supermarket in our tiny, meaningless and unmapped village in the north of Holland when Bat III first came in to play... and that was the first time PB got radioplay in a long time... if not ever since the album was never officially released here... All in all... we don't know... only they do... and they are not telling... K. > > > > > > > > . That all depends > > on what other cards these men have in their hands and up > > their sleeves and how they choose to play them? > > > > K. > > still believing you can only be hurt if you allow others > > to hurt you... > > > > > > > > I'll try to minimize the blocks of text. > > > > > > One could think so, as it could be a natural assumption to > > > make. But look back to May 5, first, when all a flurry > > > came about by Meat's statements which excluded any direct > > > involvement by Jim, which gave way to a barrage of rumors > > > and wild speculations, and that Jim blogged to. Now, one > > > could say that there is much under wraps, and that would > > > be a natural state for entertainment projects especially > > > ones with this many sparks flying out from it, but I also > > > think of the last summer's situation which had the pair in > > > that lawsuit. I will never, never, forget that lawsuit. It > > > is nothing to do with forgiveness, but it is a remembrance > > > of the level of trouble that has arisen over influences > > > surrounding Meat. > > > > > > Out from that came this set of statements from Jim which > > > included that Meat was not to interfere with the show and > > > that it could be called BOOH so long as it was called "Jim > > > Steinman's Bat Out Of Hell". Flurries of rumors flew > > > anyway, about Meat being a part of the show. There are two > > > kinds of rumors. Those are, the kinds that are false, and > > > the kinds that are true. Unfortunately, because we are > > > dealing with something which would naturally exist in > > > secrecy, and which shall happen in the future, we have to > > > wait to discover what kinds of rumors these rumors really > > > are, even with Jim's statements. But, suppose we use the > > > lawsuit as a barometer of probability and say, that those > > > rumors are false. > > > > > > If those rumors are false, and that Meat will not have a > > > hand in the show, and that Meat is bringing up Jim's name > > > in his marketing ploy to appease those who wonder why on > > > earth is this thing called B^A%T#3, one could package this > > > up and say, that Meat is saving face. And if Meat is > > > saving face, is he expensing Jim's in the process? > > > > > > The question is really answerable only by Jim. If Jim > > > feels that the synergistic marketing is to mutual > > > advantage, then so be it, one blends with the other. But > > > if Jim feels that there is a larger more supremacist > > > encroachment on what is apparently now being considered a > > > franchise, Meat could be in contempt of the court order > > > not to interfere. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To promote BOOH the "music cycle" I'd say. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Has it been played on other of Meat's tours? Do you have a > > > > > speculation as to why it is being played? > > > > > > > > > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Jim makes and appearance in Dublin - pidunk 04:44 am UTC 06/05/07 |
| Next: | re: Jim makes and appearance in Dublin - pidunk 12:46 am UTC 06/06/07 |
| Thread: |
|