| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| pyre77 |
Posted - 01/09/2005 : 09:01:28
Hi,
I've read the diaries and forums for some time, but never really felt compelled to post until now.
Let me preface what I have to say by stating that I have the utmost respect and admiration for Mike Randle. To me, it would be an understatement to say that he is one of the finest musicians in the world today. His technical prowess, along with his tone and the emotion he plays with, makes me want to search out and buy everything he's done or affiliated with. Also, I much prefer some of Baby Lemonade's arangements of Love songs to the originals.
However, this board, along with Mr. Randle, seems a little too eager to denigrate Arthur's talents just because he's an asshole. History is full of mercurial geniuses: Picasso, Ezra Pound, Bob Dylan, Marlon Brando,....etc. Arthur, for a very short period of time, was perhaps divinely inspired to create the music we love. Or it could have been the LSD, who knows.
Just because other band members may have contributed to songs, doesn't mean they wrote them. For example, Bob Dylan is no virtuoso. He has rudimentary musical knowledge at best, but he recuits crack muscians such as Mick Taylor and Mark Knopfler to flesh out his ideas, and hopefully put their unique mark on the songs he wrote.
The rule is though, if you write the melody and the lyrics, you are the SOLE writer of the song. It's up to the songwriter to divy up percentage points as he sees fit. That's why all this talk of writing "drum parts" is nonsensical and self-aggrandizing.
As for Arthur stealing songwriting credits, maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I think he probably did somewhat. But again, ask Ry Cooder and Mick Taylor what they think of the Rolling Stones, and they'll tell you that they're a bunch of thieves. But that doesn't mean that they didn't write the bulk of their catalog.
Check out these links: One is an interview with Bruce Botnick, producer of Forever Changes, and the other an interview with Snoopy Pfisterer that has been posted before.
http://www.richieunterberger.com/botnick.html
http://www.birthdaybiff.co.uk/sandydenny/al/snoopy%20in%20love.htm
Some Quotes, Bruce Botnick first:
Was Arthur Lee very much the main figure in the band, even at the point they first started recording?
Oh, definitely. He wrote all the songs, except for some of the things that Bryan wrote. But basically, he was the band. And he could play any of the instruments in the band, and would show the guys what to play.
"What I did is, I brought in this arranger [David Angel]. I don't know exactly how I found him. I don't remember how it happened. I think I might have found him through my mother, who was a music copyist working for Sinatra and Nelson Riddle at the time. I brought him in, and he sat down with Arthur, and Arthur really warmed to it. And he sang all the lines to David Angel -- all the string lines and all the brass lines, everything. It's a really weird mix of Tijuana Brass and the rock'n'roll he was coming from. And at that time, it was the thing to do, to legitimize yourself in some respects, to have strings on your record -- that you'd grown up, and to make rock'n'roll legal in some respects. But I always liked the way they worked. Some of it is a little dated, but I really enjoy it."
"Forever Changes was really Arthur's record, Arthur and Bryan's record. The guys were just sidemen. They had the same personalities for three albums, for the most part, it was the same guys. Depending on who could keep up with Arthur is who was there."
Quotes from Snoopy:
ZZ: What about Michael Stuart?,
Snoopy:' Well, he was just a purely technical drummer - lacked any soul and after Arthur had got his technical album, 'Da Capo', he realised that, Stuart was no good as a jamming, on-stage drummer. My back beat drumming was stronger. He was never very productive, and he's given up drumming now doesn't want to play drums any more. I saw him recently and he's writing and playing guitar
ZZ: What about Arthur not wanting any strings on?
Snoopy: Listen man, nothing ever went on those records that Arthur didn't want on them. He was always right there controlling everything.
It's sometimes hard to not to judge someone by their worst actions, and Arthur Lee has behaved abysmally over the years, but very few of you actually know him as a person, with both his positive and negative attributes. As somebody who knows someone who knows someone who knows Arthur (I know this is a stretch) I'll leave it at this: Arthur was (is?) a crackhead and an alcoholic who suffers from mental illness, and he's a shadow of his former creative self. It's gotta be so frustrating and depressing to be able to perform his songs at the highest level, but not to to able to create anything that matches them. I believe if he could recoup just a small portion of his mental and physical health he could again become a viable force. But whatever he does, he has already made his contribution to humanity through his beautiful music.
|
| 9 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| trevor |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 18:41:17
I think this is a topic that needs airing! I too am an 'active' reader that occasionally posts on the board and have been confused by apparent uturns by more regular correspondents. This may be a mis-reading of the posts but whatever the actual intentions of the messages, there has appeared to me to have been a strong view that AL has less of a right to his place in history than the work bearting his name, as well as the recent awards, would seen to suggest.
Having seen the 'Love with Arthur Lee' and then more recently 'Love featuring Arthur Lee' I have enjoyed the totality of the performances. The 'tension' on stage has been palpable but this has not detracted from the overall performance. Rusty has been quick to keep the vocals in order should AL lose track of his place in the song or just plain forget the words altogether. Thankfully I have not had cause to be at a gig where Rusty had to hide off stage and sing the entire gig as alleged for one performance. I have been impressed by the way that the Baby Lemonade band were able to go with the flow of whatever direction AL took the gigs I attended and by their politeness and accessibility. I only hope that AL and BL can continue to keep alive the great music of Love circa 1966-72. |
| tmittelstadt |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 05:58:08
Old Man,
First, I'll apologize, because I know this post will be a scrawling mess.
I did say I wasn't trying to offend anyone. I could've been a little clearer with the vague statment "large number".
I've just been following these events, and it seems to me like some people have really done a 180 when it comes to Arthur.
I just think its kind of sad, because Arthur's problems a more than just a bad attitude. He has some real problems. I completely understand why the guys decided to part ways with Arthur, and I'll definatley support both the Love Band and Arthur in the future.
Maybe I'm completely wrong, although Waxburn seemed to agree a bit
"Yes, people did seem to suddenly turn on Arthur".
It just seems to me like there was a time when ARthur could do no wrong(with his fans on the Love board).His "flaws" were
considered a part of his genius, or what makes ARthur ARthur by many, and now it does seem like some are "mad".
I think you do make a good point with the whole "mad" bit. I myself had some trouble
writing that first post, because its hard to find the right words. I'm bummed that ARthurs problems split up an incredible band, the best I've ever seen live. I'm bummed and disappointed, and it seems to me like some are mad.
HopeI made my feelings a little clearer.
Take care,
Tom |
| Old_Man |
Posted - 04/09/2005 : 02:18:02
tmittelstadt says, "a large number of ARthurs fans have went from ARthur is a genius that could do no wrong, to Arthur being a washed up hack that stole all the good ideas from the guys in the band that he bullied in a short peiod of time".
Pardon me if I've missed something, but I dont remember anyone, never mind a large number of fans, on this board say such a thing.
I find it perfectly understandable that many fans are "mad" at (not sure if mad is the right word here), more like bitterly disapointed that Arthur is responsible for ending what has been the most wonderful last three years (for the most part) of live performances. It is heartbreaking to think we might never see the likes again. I hope I'm proved wrong on that score. I'm sure everyone here, and the band, wishes that Arthur was well enough to keep the good times going a bit longer, but such is life. I've seen Love with Arthur 10 times in the last 3 years and all have been great gigs. I've not seen the Love Band without AL yet, but wont hesitate to go buy tickets to see them if I can. I don't consider them a tribute band at all, in fact that's an insult. On the other hand it just wont be the same. Maybe Arthur can come back with a new Love band one day, once/if he gets sorted out, and all will be forgiven, by the fans at least, but he's not getting any younger. Of course any new band will have to deal/put up with AL's oddball behaviour too, so there's no telling how long that would last.
As I've said above it's been a great 3 years, an exhilarating rollercoaster of a ride, never knowing what exactly to expect, but never being let down. Met some wonderful people on the way including the band, and had some great times, wouldn't have missed it for the world.
|
| JohnFPorcaro |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 12:23:56
Great post prye77.
You separated principle from personality.
Principle being The Man created some of the best Pop music.
Personality speaks for itself.
Some of us posters has gotten lost
in combining the two.
|
| Wendy from When |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 06:36:26
That's all right people!!! I see the tide slowly turning. What we have are a few people that post regularly and really and Rightly support BL"s side of the story. They are true fans of BL as well as AL. I see that in their rush to be at BL's side. They have been a little over enthusiastic in their willingness to slag AL off and "be there for The Love Band" and the Band (or really just Mike Randle and his ubiquitous diaries) have taken full advantage of this to push their side forward. Nothing wrong with that. It's show biz. AL has been silent as usual and now people that normally don't post here are stepping up to support AL as well. Support need not be mutually exclusive!
This debate (if I can call it that) is also going over at the "Get a (Love) Life" thread under "The Love Band". I feel that this is the single most important thing going on here. Some people feel that Love and Arthur Lee are separate...and others feel that they are inseparable. I am in the latter camp but I respect both views.
however much other musicians may or may not have contributed the Author of the work is AL. As in film, it is true that it takes many hands to get it done but in the end it is usually one man's vision that shines through ands sets the scene. Its the beauty of the songs and the voice that lingers. Few of us ever thought about who "wrote" the drum parts. I believe it was MR that said "lets keep it real..." |
| waxburn |
Posted - 03/09/2005 : 01:00:42
quote:
Originally posted by tmittelstadt
I've been reading the boarsd for a long time, but this is my first post on this board. I think pyre 77 makes a lot of great points.
I've always been under the impression that Arthur suffers from some sort of mental disorder. Combine that with substance issues, and that really explains why ARthur does a lot of the thigs he does. It doesn't excuse any of the actions at all, just gives me a better idea of why he does the things he does.
I understand why the BL guys would be fed up and have had enough. I wish them and Arthur the best, and will definaely catch both if they tour near me.
I dont understand how fans seem to be so mad at Arthur, and some have even questioned his genius, with the whole "he didnt write all the parts " bits.
A few years ago, I had read an interview of ARthur that was done by Jack from the White Stripes. I posted on the old board, how I felt Arthur came of as really an arrogant ass, and some people basically told me "that that was the beauty of ARthur" or other things like that. I'm not trying to offend anyone. I've always read this site. I just find it very surprising that a large number of ARthurs fans have went from ARthur is a genius that could do no wrong, to Arthur being a washed up hack that stole all the good ideas from the guys in the band that he bullied in a short peiod of time.
Tom
Arthur suffers from 40 odd years in the music business.
Yes, people did seem to suddenly turn on Arthur.
 |
| tmittelstadt |
Posted - 02/09/2005 : 22:34:45
I've been reading the boarsd for a long time, but this is my first post on this board. I think pyre 77 makes a lot of great points.
I've always been under the impression that Arthur suffers from some sort of mental disorder. Combine that with substance issues, and that really explains why ARthur does a lot of the thigs he does. It doesn't excuse any of the actions at all, just gives me a better idea of why he does the things he does.
I understand why the BL guys would be fed up and have had enough. I wish them and Arthur the best, and will definaely catch both if they tour near me.
I dont understand how fans seem to be so mad at Arthur, and some have even questioned his genius, with the whole "he didnt write all the parts " bits.
A few years ago, I had read an interview of ARthur that was done by Jack from the White Stripes. I posted on the old board, how I felt Arthur came of as really an arrogant ass, and some people basically told me "that that was the beauty of ARthur" or other things like that. I'm not trying to offend anyone. I've always read this site. I just find it very surprising that a large number of ARthurs fans have went from ARthur is a genius that could do no wrong, to Arthur being a washed up hack that stole all the good ideas from the guys in the band that he bullied in a short peiod of time.
Tom |
| jimmyboy |
Posted - 02/09/2005 : 09:03:20
Is Arthur free and clear of his legal problems? If he's on probation or parole wouldnt he have to undergo drug testing of somekind? Just wonderin... |
| Allan |
Posted - 01/09/2005 : 14:32:01
pyre77
Nice read!
I don't think anyone here feels that Arthur is not a talented and gifetd singer-songwriter. Hell-he's probably a genious. And we all respect him for it.
I do think that most of us here are having a hard times coming to grips with Arthur-the person.
Maybe he's always been an asshole. I for one have a hard time appreciating this legend, when he brings so much pain, anguish, and insult especially to the people who should mean the most to Art...his band members-past and present.
Only two comments on your quotes. I think that Snoopy would not look too favorably on Michael. Michael never gave up drumming.
Allan |
|
|
