New Todd Interview
 

Todd has given an interview in today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/20...gren-interview

For those not wanting read the entire thing, here are the ML points.

I can perhaps see why Meat wanted to make the next record with his hardworking touring band when you hear stuff like that.

I can see how Rundgren always comes to his "spoof of Bruce Springsteen" argument but at the same time I think diminishing the songs only down to that is a bit unfair. It's perhaps a bit weird for the original producer not to get more excited about the music in a more dramatic / poetic fashion in this case I'd say. It has more qualities than just being a spoof surely.

How can something be a spoof of something so inferior? Thats degrading. Springsteen is Springsteen.

Not the same level as the Loaf. How can Todd be so dismissive?

I dare say there are Springsteen fans who will ask you the same question.

Todd can be dismissive because he is a ~~~~. A very talented ~~~~, without who there would be no Bat Out Of Hell, but a ~~~~ nonetheless. :twisted:

So, you're saying "Born to Run" is inferior? :wtf: You're either trying to get a rise, or you're clueless. :lol:

Jim Steinman said it's one of his favorite albums ever.

Even Kasim has said Todd is sarcastic.

Todd's version of two out of three ain't bad is one of the worst bits of music I've ever heard in my life. :barf:

Hard to believe it is the same person who gave us Bat out of Hell!

I actually dont like springsteen :shrug:

A rise? what? Just think comparing that to BOOH is ludicrous.

Well I do think there are similarities in instrumentation and length of songs. Quite a few of Springsteen's early stuff were long songs with a wall of sound. That type of Phil Spectory thing. Moreover Springsteen's early lyrical themes I think were more fantasy inspired, certainly more poetic. Perhaps not similar to Steinman but certainly not a million miles away. Springsteen became more concerned with domestic every day life in his later stuff I'd say.
And of course Steinman used Roy Bittan and Max Weinberg on the record.
I can see how Bat out of Hell could be perceived to have been inspired by Born to Run (the songs) but I'm not sure if Bat was actually written before 1975. It probably was.

If you don't like Springsteen, that's fair enough. But any semi-knowledgeable music fan would at least have respect for him as a musician, and for that album in particular.

And yes, I think you are trying to get a rise. ;)

Case and point. Bat Out Of Hell, and Bat II for that matter, would have been very different albums without Roy Bittan, and if you listen to any Springsteen you can hear the cross-over.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I urge anyone to listen to the piano introduction to Backstreets and you'll hear how "Meaty" it is...Bittan is a legend.

I don't think Bruce got too Spectorish until BTR, actually; The Wild and Innocent was more Van Morrison inspired, I think.

I think you're right about the lyrics, though.

Born to Run and Night maybe..... a friend did tell me you could sing thunder road over a part in Took The Words and it would fit perfectly.

But the whole album sounds kinda tinny to me and underwhelming. I just dont see the resemblance to BOOH, only took the words stands out as maybe a little bruce-ish.

I see more of a resemblance to Prize Fight Lover.

Yeah his opinion may be quirkey sometimes. But I sort of agree with him. I'll take Bat over BTR any day.

Also the last person on this forum to troll it to get any sort of rise out of somebody is Wario. He's the most harmless person on this forum. If what he said made you get slightly angry. I'd advise stepping away from the computer for just a short while. ;)

Thanks Sebastian.
I don't think I'm harmless tho :lol:

To say you think they don't sound alike is one thing (for the record, I don't think they do that much, either), but to use terms such as "so inferior" and "degrading" is another. Apparently, Jim was so underwhelmed by the "tinny" sound that he got the same recording engineer. :roll:

The reason "Took the Words" sounds Bruce-ish is because it sounds "Spector-ish".

And "Prize Fight Lover" sounds like "My Lucky Day", a song off an album which many Springsteen fans consider to be his worst ever, so there you go. :lol:

Oh, I did step away- I went for a nice long car ride with Bruce blasting. I feel much better now. ;)

And I did get angry- he "dismissed" the most important album of Bruce's career, his masterpiece, which he slaved over for over a year. An album that means a lot to me personally.

I don't think you are, either. :-P

You've said on other occasions that you like Springsteen at least a little, and now suddenly you don't? Seems odd to me.

I better stop now before I get worked up again. :lol:

And here we go again....

Sent from my HTC Incredible S using Forum Runner

Ya my opinion of Bruce has changed a lot since then.

Wrecking ball is decent and I do like that record so I guess that's what u were referring to. But BTR not so much aha

Ever since I discovered Bruce, Bat out of Hell (the song) has always sounded to me like a mashup of Thunder Road and Night. Up to the bike solo, it's a rocked up version of Thunder Road, then after that until the guy crashes and burns, it's Night. The verse of Took the Words is practically a rip off of the verse of Jungleland, too.

What's wrong with a Springsteen spoof anyway, even if it WAS true (which I'd contest, outside of the similarities above)? Good music is good music.

BUT BACK ON TOPIC. I don't think I've ever heard Todd say one positive thing about Bat out of Hell (the album), or seem even the slightest bit enthusiastic about it. I don't understand how you can possibly work on an album as legendary as Bat out of Hell and not be, at the very slightest, "Ok, that was a pretty cool thing I helped make." I find his whole attitude very bizarre, I can see why Meat might have had difficulty working with him from the way he portrays himself in interviews :|

Exactly my thoughts. I see Meat getting entusiastic and emotional. I see Steinman getting enthusiastic and he has a very logical and intelligent mind about the construction of it all, the Wagner, the dynamics, the repetitive lines etc. I see Todd and I just think: man is this guy boring and sarcastic. And his own music sucks in my opinion. ;-)

This whole Todd topic is BS!

It would be nice if you could engage in a debate once in a while instead of delivering meaningless one liners.
Why is it BS? Why not care to explain if you are a Todd fan?

Bruce
Springsteen. Now you have 2 lines!

The first line in the interview reads

Agree with both of those points.

Agree with Andrew too. Meat's enthusiasm and emotion touches me; Jim's enthusiasm and logical explanations are always interesting; Todd's dry sarcasm reminds me that less is more .. a little can be amusing, but as a continuous way of being lacks wit and becomes a bore ;)

However he was a key player in bringing the album into being, and I always appreciate that Meat pays him credit .. the bigger man :-)

Caryl

Completely agree - Todd is an acquired taste, you may not like his humour or his delivery of what he says, but without him we quite possibly wouldn't have had Bat as we know it, and that doesn't bear thinking about!

Agree 100%. And Jim even said on classic albums I think, that Todd is very sarcatic. Guess thats who he is... But a GENIUS! - I'm a big TR/Utopia fan too :-)

I don't see why Todd's comments have sparked such a storm. He didn't say that it was a spoof, the interviewer did. He just sort of agreed, but this is something that I swear that I've heard both ML and JS say as well.

I don't think spoof is the right word for it. I would say that inspired is more like it. I've never heard of music being referred to as a spoof. Are Oasis a spoof of The Beatles? I don't get it.

Todd has been involved in a lot of music. Forgive him for not worshipping these songs like we do.

well jim produced Bat 2 himself, so maybe bat wouldve been even better if Jim produced it. :shrug:

Except Jim had no experience of / didn't know how to produce at the time, so perhaps not. :nope:

I'd imagine because it's not the first time comments like that have come up, seems Todd does this a lot! :lol:

With Bittan :))

If Jim produced Bat 1 it would have been very country-ish.

Or show tune ish

Or still in production lol

I think 'spoof' is often misused. I think 'satire' would be a better word to describe Bat.

:twisted: Todd's sense of humor seems to be a rather aquired taste.

I'm not a fan myself (a little too dry at times) but it just goes to prove that you don't need to like a guy to appreciate the work he's done.



POTD :spit:

I have never found Bat as a "spoof" of Springsteen. Bat is 10 times better than any Springsten album but Todd grew on me. He was talking about he had done Bat for money. I'm not naiv to believe musicans do music for only their hobby. Bat2 was for money, HCTB was for money and all concert are for money and not for being good. If you are realistic, Todd is right!

I think you and your buddy Todd are very wrong. If things are only every created for money then why did Todd record the most awful version of 2 out of 3 ever heard by humans? To make money? I think not. ;-)

Todd was speaking for himself with regard to producing BOOH. That's fine, and right for him. But I think it's a sweeping statement to assert "Bat2 was for money, HCTB was for money and all concert are for money and not for being good." That may be your view .. but personally I don't think for eg Meat recorded HCTB purely for the money. Obviously you need to have an album likely to be financially viable, but in my opinion Meat is driven more by his artistic desire to create than by the money. He has said this, has said he certainly doesn't tour now to make money .. and personally, I believe him.

When Meat and Jim made BOOH, they simply wanted to sell 100K .. for the money? No. It was because back then if you sold 100K you would be able to make another record. They were more driven by creativity, passion, belief, than by making money. HCTB was Meat's opportunity to make the record he had in his head, the music he had in his head. He wanted to record it because he believed in it, believed it was good. For me, and many others, it was!

Bat2 was doubtless wanted by the record company to make money. For Meat and Jim? I think it would have been more about the project, the work. To make an impact, to deliver something special, something that would create passion in those who bought it.

Yes, all artists make their living through their work .. but imo for many the money, whilst necessary to live and feed their families, is often secondary to their creative desire and drive. So is it with both Meat and Jimmy I think .. were they mainly motivated by money they could have churned out album after album .. and had that been the case I think we wouldn't have got the exceptional albums we did.

Caryl

Thats getting a rise if I ever saw one. why dont people jump on him? :roll:

Your posts contain an interesting point of view rather than just a dismissive bullet trying to tear down the whole foundation of everything that's been done and why we are here.

I thought I did ;)

:lol: that was said as if it were a compliment then i realized Andrew basically said "the shit you post actually makes sense but is still stupid as all hell even though its interesting, so it's fair game. Plus you're Wario and it just goes with the territory."

I have to commend that.

Touche :lol:

And I dont see how Bat 2 nor Teddy Bear was for Money. If HCTB was for the money it wouldve been called Bat Out Of Hell IV: I CAN BARLEY FIT MY PICK IN MY PANTS.

Id like to say of anything meat has done.... arguably Bat 3 was for the money. And that wasn't even Meat that was Desmond and the record company.

I think you could indeed argue that's what Bat 3 turned into. A rushed, money making job in the end. I think perhaps Meat acknowledged this afterwards. I honestly don't think it was originally conceived as that as Steinman was on board and writing new songs which if it had only been about money why even bother? Why not just record the remaining Steinman BFG / Pandora songs etc. :shrug:

I think if anything the whole Meat / Steinman history completely goes against conventions of making money. If everyone tells you to cut songs down to 3 minutes then surely you would do that if you only want money and don't care about the art you are creating. :shrug:

You hit the nail on the head.

Even though I do think that there's a saturation point with artists. I mean, how much money do you really need to be happy?

Realistically they need to be satisfied both artistically and financially. Getting that happy balance is the secret.

Really?!

I'd say there is no nail and his aim is way off! :twisted:

I hope ur being sarcastic.

In my opinion Meat is the complete opposite of some of the aqusations that go around and other artists are usually guilty off:
Doing it only for money - no ~~~~ing way. Why perform three hours when you can get away with just an hour which many artists do?
Not crediting the writers/creator / Jim Steinman. I think Meat has proven, especially on this tour how grateful he is for Jim and the opportunity he has been given and the life he has led through it.

Honestly how some people's minds work is really beyond me considering the spelled out evidence in front of them that proves the opposite.

Anyway sorry to go off topic....

The fact that Todd walked away with more cash and doesn't seem to care about the product as much is also further proof that usually the people thinking of the whole creation and working on it so much (did Todd join Meat & Jim in all those board room performances? - I think not) that money isn't always a guaranteed reward anyway.
It's great Todd was there to produce Bat and he did a kick ass job but I have witnessed a lot of people in the industry (touts too btw!) to see there are many people on the ride who are ONLY doing it for the money whilst I sense more a love for the work and fans from Meat himself. I have nothing but respect for him to give us so much for so long and if he can have a bit of a comfortable rest of his life because of that well ~~~~ sake, I'd say he flipping deserves it!

Yes, Meat's actions and way of living, as well as his words, are always entirely consistent with him doing what he does, not for the money, but because he is driven by a need to do what he does, and cares more for those he does it for than by any financial motive.

Good point

In complete accord. If Meat has a comfortable home (which he sees little of, he works so hard!), stays in good hotel, has a decent car (and he doesn't have a collection like some wealthy performers) he has damned well earned it. He doesn't flaunt what wealth he has, is one of the least acquisitive successful performers you could ever find. Whilst having the good fortune to be born with a huge talent and meet the right person with whom he could do great things with it, he has worked his ass off to make the most of it, has never failed to show his gratitude, and has consistently made his own "luck". To be admired, not jealously envied imo.

Caryl

I didn't say Meat did all of his albums for money. Bat1 or Dead Ringer wasn't for money, he had fire. Bat3 was for money and yes, HCTB was for money. The only video (Los Angeloser) was a kitsch, they recorded two rap songs with rap stars and 'celebrities' from a TV show, he had famous guest stars like Jack Black and Dr. House on piano. C'mon, why not his old friend actor-musican Dennis Quaid? Because he is not trendy anymore? All HCTB was about business...

It can be silly but don't be naiv, music is more money industry than hobby in the last 20 years...

No-one said you did. You said Bat2 and HCTB were. Clearly the BACKERS of both, indeed ALL, would need to see the potential for commercial success. But you implied Meat made them for the money.

IN YOUR OPINION! Not in mine, nor in that of others. All the things you list and take as "evidence" are not evidence to me. Meat has told us why he used the artists he collaborated with on HCTB .. and I believe him. But then I have a rather higher opinion of and admiration for the man than you seem to.

We know why he recorded SITS with Lil John .. nothing to do with commercialism for HCTB, because it was released as a single after that, and then included on HIAH. He liked the song Backbone recorded FOR CHARITY, and it had a brilliant fit with what he wanted to say on HIAH (as well as contributing to the charities again I'd have thought). Recording and working with Lil John got him interested in rap, and we know how the collaboration with Chuck D came about .. just as we know how that with Hugh Laurie did. He and Jack Black (this WAS on HCTB) had long wanted to work together. In my view you confuse Meat's collaborative and inclusive bent with commercialism.

The decision to produce a video for Los Angeloser would have been commercial .. made largely by those providing the funding. For heaven's sake .. videos aren't made to be nice for a few fans .. they are made for commercial reasons. No-one has suggested the backers aren't motivated entirely by bottom line profit .. that WOULD be naive.

However to imply that those of us who see Meat for the creative artist he is, driven far more by that and not by money, (simply as far as I can see because we don't agree with your propensity to see him in a negative light) as naive, is as irritatingly dismissive as it is rude.

Post an opinion and we can offer an alternative. Post your opinion as proven fact and we will disagree. Call me naive and I will say that to me you seem very quick to see the negative in a an who in my view, and that of many others here, is an artist motivated by the work rather than the money. We're not talking about any artist .. we're talking about Meat.

He has said many, many times, on this board as well, he doesn't do things for the money .. whether it be records, tours, films. He has reached a stage in his life and has been sufficiently hard-working and successful that he does not need to do what he does for the money. His projects need to be sufficiently business focused that he can get backing to do them, but making money is not why he does what he does. I believe him. So also do many, I'd say most, on here.

Caryl

Those Rap artists were on HIAHB, not HCTB. You know that, youre just trying to get a malicious rise.

Jack Black and Hue Laurie were his FRIENDS. Thats why they on that record. WTF are you trying to say?

He prolly tried to get Dennis, but he was busy for all we know.

You wanna get a rise, bake a cake.

Jack Black is also a huge Meat Loaf fan. Someone asked him "what Dead Rock star he'd love to be?" He said ."Not dead. But Meat Loaf".

So, before the trolling and counter-trolling deteriorates any further, can we get back onto topic please?

:twisted: I've just had a clean up of the thread.

Please see the forum rules regarding our expectations of mutual respect.

It is entirely possible to disagree with the views of another without calling their point of view silly or stupid.
Also, if you think someone has said something that really is silly, you can count on many other fans feeling that way too without your input :bleh:

As for insults bordering on the personal, no way.

Disagree with the point of view, don't attack the person.

:twisted: Apologies to Andy if he thinks this is still off the main topic, but I wanted to comment on Todd's motivations for doing Bat as opposed to those of Meat & Jim.

Todd's motivation for doing Bat are his own.
Meat & Jimmy, I believe, were motivated more by creating something great, and maybe to gain a little recognition and acclaim (although this turned out to be something that bit Meat in the ass as his problems with being called a star took hold).

You can't believe the motives of one are the motives for all.

Money is a very useful thing to have (let's be realistic here), but an artist (be it a singer, a painter, a writter, or a balloon animal sculpter) who does what they do for the financial is nothing but a monkey.
An artist who works just for money rather than a form of expression is a fraud.

How many artists have gone undiscovered, unappreciated, and unsold, until after their deaths.
Should these people have just given up and gone out and got a real job?
They carried on because it was in them to do it.

As for Meat's other works (including Bat II and HCTB).
You're missing the artistic tempriment.
What would happen if an artist were happy creating one masterpiece in their lifetime?

Would Michelangelo have quit to live off a sack full of cash long before he painted the ceiling of The Sistine Chapel?

Stephen King would have quit long before starting The Dark Tower series.

The Mona who? :wtf:


Money can't buy happiness.
Money is a (very nice) by product of success.
It can be earned and deserved, and if it is you have every right to it :shrug:

One thing I can say, hand on heart, is no matter if I were never paid to sing again, or weather 100 million landed in my bank account tomorow, i'd still keep doing what I do.

So, to come full circle after explaining my point rather extensively :lol:........

Todd's reason for doing Bat are his own, but you can't say they are the motivations of everyone involved :wink:

yep, whatever his motivation was for doing it, or his feelings about it since, i'm still glad he did it, and made it the record it is.

his contribution to the structuring, the sound, the guitars, the backing vocals are all pretty much legendary

and the fact he's alledged to have pretty much paid for the album to be made himself, when no one in the industry believed in it, or thought it would be successful says alot.

without todd, being there at the begining, the whole bat/meat/jim story couldda been very very different.

but, of course... it's not all down to todd, or meat, or jim

it was simply the right people and the right concept at the right time...

and that's what brought us something special, something unique, something personal

Bat out of Hell

I can't disagree. There's nothing wrong with that either.

There has to be a balance of things you do as an artist and things you do for money. There's no reason why you can't do both.

Even Steinman has admitted that he did some things for the money. Was Air Supply's version of MLOONAA bad? Certainly not. Would he have preferred someone else to do it? Certainly. Did he make Pandoras Box: Original Sin for the money? Probably not.

Now with ML you have his the 80's production on BA and BBIS. He said that he hated how they sounded, yet he still released them (or even got those type of producers to begin with). Why? To make them more marketable, so that a song is catchier for it's era so that people with hear it and and go buy the record.

Musicians do things for the money folks. If they didn't make money than they would have to get real jobs and have less time making music. That's why being an artist can be so hard, because it's all about compromises.

What one says and what one does are two separate things.

What if you were a great singer, but nobody liked the style of the songs that you sung, but they offer you a $100 Million deal to sing nothing but Justin Bieber type songs?

Would you do it than? I'd like to say that I wouldn't, but it's hard to say when it's scenario that would never happen.

So what is a real job then if what Meat does isn't a real job? I am curious because for him not having a real job he seems to have to put in a lot of hours and be away from home a lot of the time. Does a ticket tout have more of a real job? Does Meat pay taxes? Does a ticket tout?

this conversation hsould be moved to its own thread.

:roll:

:twisted: Very well said :metal:
I'm very grateful to all those involved in making that epic album.

What do you mean if :bleh: :p :lawl:

I'd probably give it a go (in all honesty), but I really don't think I could process that kind of material.
If they said he's $100 million, sing Bieber songs, and ONLY Bieber songs, that would be another thing.
As you say, it's hard to imagine what you'd do, but I believe I would tell them to go f*ck themselves.

If someone walked into Leonardo Da Vinci's office and told him his current stuff is crap, but he could make a mint selling only landscapes, I think Leo would have kicked him out on his ass.

But Todd wasn't exactly going a million miles from his genre when he did Bat.
In fact, come to think of it, i'm not sure how much I believe Todd when he says he did it just for the money.
Bat was such a rank outsider from the start I don't think Todd would ever have believed how big it was going to be without the aid of a crystal ball, a bowl of tea leaves, and a wandering gypsy woman :lol:
After all the rejections that Bat had in those days, doing Bat just because you thought you could make a sack load of cash off it is akin to someone with a gambling problem sticking the days racing form on the dartboard (after scibbling out all the favourites) and chucking a dart on it to see which horse he should bet his last fiver on.
If he wanted money, I dare say there were much more promisingly lucrative offers he could have taken up.

Perhaps he says that he did it for the money because it's his sardonic nature at work, or maybe because his views have changed over the years, but I think he did Bat because it was a great piece of work and he wanted to be a part of it.

Maybe i'm wrong :shrug:

:twisted: I don't think there's much mileage in the current direction.
IMHO, everything to be said has been said :shrug:

We should be OK if we steer back onto what Todd has to say in his interview (about himself) rather than continue to debate what Meat and Jim will and won't do for money :wink:

Sort of what Andy tried to do a few posts ago :oops:

I would do ANYTHING for money, but I won't so THAT?! ;)

I think Todd said on Classic Albums that when he got involved, 'the commercial potential of the album was completely unknown', which hardly sounds like someone who was only interested in the money ?!