I went to a Motley Crue concert recently and it was packed and people went crazy for them. I also went to the Carnival of Sins tour and it was the same thing. There were gray balding men and young teenage punks alike throwing their fists into the air side by side rocking away. The next night I’m channel surfing and I see a Motley Crue biography. There’s also the book they’ve had written about them and I recall talk of a movie even, though it may have just been rumor. I have to say their story is a pretty good one. It got me thinking about how big they are. What I’m actually wondering is… really, how big are they? When I think of legends of rock, for me at least, I think of Zeppelin, Sabbath, ACDC, Metallica…These guys have secured their place in music History and I cower before their awesomeness. For as much as I love the Crue, and they are one of my favorites, I just don’t see them being in that same league. However…the way people talk about them, it’s like they should be. Is it because my being a fan put me in the middle of things that it’s harder to see? With things like Zeppelin and Sabbath, the craze was more word of mouth for me since I wasn’t there in the hay day (even though I’ve come to love them as well) so maybe in my mind they have reached a mythical status that is unobtainable by bands I’ve actually followed from early on? Is it their story and their characters more than their music that makes them so popular yet somehow less historical? Is it all in my head? I love them, I’m just having trouble putting them on the same pedestal that other people seem to.
Also…feel free to discuss any other motley crue subjects such as favorite members, songs, albums, etc.
IMHO, Nikki is the only worthwhile member of this band. He wrote all their best songs. Mick is about the weirdest looking guy on the face of the planet. Vince is an alcoholic pretty-boy who isn’t all that great of a vocalist and who possesses very little songwriting talent. Tommy’s only redeeming quality as far as I can tell is his 14 inch penis.
I also do not put them in the same league as their colleagues in G’N’R, who I think will be remembered and loved in a way that Motley Crue simply won’t.
I’d put them nowere near Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, The Who, etc for talent or output of great music, or even greatness of music the put out. I’d put them in Rock’s third tier after Nirvana, Jane’s Addiction, Aerosmith and the Chili Peppers.
I’d also rank Shout at the Devil as their best album. In fact, it was the only album of theirs I ever bought and its release corresponded with my headbanger phase.
Tommy is one ugly old dude, but he’s also one hell of a guitarist. He’s the oldest and most experienced member of the band, having played guitar in rock bands while the rest of the boys were still in elementary school.
Hell, on second thought, I’d put them in 80’s metal’s second tier, after Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Ozzy Osbourne and Metallica, but above Queensryche, Tesla and Dokken. Maybe on equal footing with Twisted Sister and Quiet Riot. Really a harder-rocking and more self-destructive but less talented Bon Jovi.
Good point. I agree with your GNR assessment but ONLY because of Appetite for Destruction. Take Appetite away and their status falls fast. I do have some love for UYI 1&2, but Appetite was a heavy weight.
I love Vince’s voice, especially his older screaming like in Shout or Live Wire.
The funny thing about Tommy is he gets the most applause when coming on stage though I find him the least likeable. Probably more for continuously being in the spotlight than anything, but he does seem to be the most popular member.
I’m a huge Crüe fan, and I see them as being on the same level as Guns and Roses in terms of popularity, but most of the songs that they ever did were just basic hard rock fare, nothing stupendous and just being honest here, Mick Mars is a mediocre guitarist, at best, from an era that placed a great deal of importance on having a real gunslinger in the band. Guns wins out over Crüe due to having Slash and having better overall songcraft. Neither of the bands actually works out as being a “metal” band in my book, even though at the time they were considered so. It’s all just 70’s rock with an 80’s twist.
I’ll agree that Shout is the best record, and that Nikki is really the only contributing member in terms of songwriting.
That sounds like a good description of Van Halen at the same time. I’d have to say that VH was much more talented, both individually and as a whole. I wouldn’t compare Mick Mars to Eddie Van Halen in technical skill. David Lee Roth & Vince Neil were both blonde frontmen of hard rock bands and they both drank too much, but Dave was a much better singer and showman than Vince. VH was also much more long-lived as a band and one of the few that survived changing frontmen. Didn’t Vince leave the Crue briefly in the mid 90’s? I wasn’t really following 80’s LA glam bands at the time.
They’re all surface and no substance. They have no real classic songs (except maybe “Home sweet Home”), and they have no actual musical importance or influence. Vince Neil can’t sing and has an annoying, screechy voice. The musicianship is universally average (Tommy Lee is NOT that great a drummer. Just because his kit goes upside down doesn’t mean he’s really that spectacular a player). They’ve never had anything to say lyrically, and on a personal level, they’re assholes – Alcoholic, druggie, immature, misogynist jerks, at least two of which are notorious batterers of women. And let’s not forget Vince Neil’s drunken beer run which killed one person and severely injured two others.
It’s not a band which has ever had any particular musical relevance, but only been successful for is visual images and theatricality (an act they largely stole from Hanoi Rocks, by the way). They’re not interesting or intelligent or thoughtful or even nice people. Their appeal is lost on me.
Motley who? Seriously, I know they were really big in the 80s, but I’m not sure that I could name a song they did other than “Girls, girls, girls” (if that’s even the title).
Overall, the mid-to-late 80s metal scene has had a huge impact on American popular culture, but the only specific bands who have a reasonable claim to a legacy are Van Halen and Guns n’ Roses.
If you read the book The Dirt that they had Neil Strauss write, they don’t even like their songs. They were a lifestyle / brand / excuse to party more than they were any good.
I happen to think that Tommy Lee is good for a big, dumb bombastic drummer. Dr. Feelgood, which clearly benefits from Bob Rock’s production (it is what led to Metallica tapping him for the Black Album), shows he has some bounce to his playing.
I must admit to really enjoying cranking both She’s Got the Looks That Kill and Kickstart My Heart - but there is a big element of guilty pleasure to it.
ultrafilter, I will ponder your statement. Obviously agree with VH and GnR. Pantera’s first CD is from 1990…
ETA: There were certainly big metal bands in the 80s with significant legacies (e.g., Metallica, Megadeth, Anthrax, and Slayer), but they weren’t really part of the 80s metal scene, which was much more hard rock and party-oriented. That’s what I was specifically referring to above.
I would categorize Crue as taking the VH popularity to new dimension. I wouldnt say ‘level’ becuase talent wise they dont compare to VH but rather followed in thier wake of fame. However, I do think they started the glam band gnere what with all the makeup and all…aka…Poison, Ratt, etc. So from that aspect I think they do deserve some recognition as a trendsetting band.
In fact, I’m pretty sure the 1st time I ever saw them was on American Bandstand when I was around 12. I was quite blown away by their performance.
If you look on YouTube you can find all sorts of stuff from when Pantera was a glam metal band. Even the first record with Phil singing called Power Metal was still very glam and just starting to get rougher around the edges.
I will give you Guns N Roses in first place easily but Motley Crue still rounds out 2nd place. They didn’t do anything especially well but it still all came together and tied satanic rock all the way into glam rock. I don’t see how they could be considered anything but pure metal either.
I remember back in the hair metal heyday, I was a constant devourer of metal mags (Hit Parader, Circus, Metal Edge, etc). Motley Crue was always, ALWAYS at the top of every fan poll, in nearly every category - best band, guitar, drummer, etc. I never understood why. Their best songs were very good. That’s the best I can say about them.
What was Stanaic about them? That wasn’t a theme they ever approached (other than a song called “Shout at the Devil,” in which the “Devil” was clearly metaphorical).