Why were BAD not commercially successful?

Mick Jones, Carbon/Silicon, BAD and cetera.
MarkyJacobs
Junco Partner
Posts: 441
Joined: 30 Jan 2016, 7:41am

Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?

Post by MarkyJacobs »

Mick at end of Amsterdam gig: "Thanks to Michiko... and we're all going back to the Monkey Drum now."

Classic BAD ll. Trying too hard.

TeddyB Not Logged In
User avatar
Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
Posts: 2012
Joined: 06 Feb 2009, 8:42pm

Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?

Post by TeddyB Not Logged In »

Maybe so, but they were undoubtedly going there. Mick would outlast everyone staying out after a gig in those days.

MarkyJacobs
Junco Partner
Posts: 441
Joined: 30 Jan 2016, 7:41am

Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?

Post by MarkyJacobs »

You'd have thought there was a party to be had in Amsterdam?

I suppose it's something that they chose Stussy over Michiko in the end.

MarkyJacobs
Junco Partner
Posts: 441
Joined: 30 Jan 2016, 7:41am

Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?

Post by MarkyJacobs »

TeddyB Not Logged In wrote:
16 May 2021, 5:06pm
Maybe so, but they were undoubtedly going there. Mick would outlast everyone staying out after a gig in those days.
The adulation must have helped

Acid house wasn"t about celebrities or stars. Except that it was!

TeddyB Not Logged In
User avatar
Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
Posts: 2012
Joined: 06 Feb 2009, 8:42pm

Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?

Post by TeddyB Not Logged In »

I remember one night long ago in Los Angeles, Mick and I were standing quietly at the back of the line for a rave when someone spotted him and escorted us in. He was embarrassed, but not so much so that we waved them off.

elgin101
Corner Soul
Posts: 18
Joined: 17 Dec 2008, 1:30am

Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?

Post by elgin101 »

5 years ahead.
So many bands then were on college radio only before 1991.

The Cure come to mind. Small clubs and theaters in the 80s, now RRHoF legends that sell out stadiums and original vinyl is all $200.

Husker Du. Siouxsie. Bad Brains. Cult. All should have been massive in USA.

1991 Rush and Globe did well, BAD2 played the Alternative Festivals big in the 90s.

MarkyJacobs
Junco Partner
Posts: 441
Joined: 30 Jan 2016, 7:41am

Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?

Post by MarkyJacobs »

The Cure. Now there's a band who understood how to gain Balearic kudos!

Crazy now to recall how something like Monkey Drum could happen on a Monday night in London. Indeed, seven nights a week at that point in time.

x3em
User avatar
Bang Ice Geezer
Posts: 158
Joined: 19 Jun 2008, 7:04pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?

Post by x3em »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 May 2021, 4:03pm
TeddyB Not Logged In wrote:
08 May 2021, 3:53pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 May 2021, 3:42pm
TeddyB Not Logged In wrote:
05 May 2021, 3:29am
plus the band members of both lineups always figured they were one phone call away from hearing about the Clash reunion that never came.
How prominent a tension was this (if you know)? Was it an unspoken thing or did the others actively or openly suspect that BAD was a temporary thing for Mick before inevitably reactivating the Clash?
I don’t know how tense it was. It was mostly unspoken but I do know at least some of the others felt it could always happen. There was an undercurrent within the record company and business people as well. A couple of times there were open offers on the table. Later, with the Lollapalooza ‘95 headline offer, neither Mick nor Joe wanted to be the one who took the responsibility for nixing it, but eventually said no together. The promotor then offered the Clash their own tour, and they said no again.
Thanks. Funny, it's never crossed my mind that members of the various incarnations of BAD would have had that in the back of their mind, but once you mentioned it it seems such an obvious concern, especially after Mick and Joe reconciled.
This line in Don's excellent new book caught my eye. On page 225 when he talks about opening for U2 on tour, and the experience of playing in front of 100,000 people at times.

"... but I guess supporting U2 was more of a trip for Mick and must have been a reminder of what he could have had with The Clash. One night we were sitting at the back of some huge stadium watching U2 plough through 'Bullet The Blue Sky' when we looked at each other and didn't have to say a word. We were thinking the same thing: That could and should have been The Clash."

I believe the lure of success at that level must have been on all their minds. Clash and BAD members alike. How could it not? This must have been 1987 since we are talking about the original lineup.

weller259
User avatar
Pitch Clock Appreciator
Posts: 1133
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 7:59pm
Location: He's A Real Nowhere Man, Sitting In His Nowhere Land

Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?

Post by weller259 »

NoMoreHugh wrote:
10 May 2021, 4:37am
dave202 wrote:
08 May 2021, 12:08pm
NoMoreHugh wrote:
08 May 2021, 11:30am
another bad decisions - who in there right mind brings out BAD live at ally pally and think to make this album just like a bootleg we will make it seem like a genuine bootleg by making the sound really shit. I mean who does that ? its beyond me i was at that gig and couldn't wait to hear it only to be so disappointed by the pathetic sound. TeddyB version was just brilliant of that same recording so we can at least thank Teddy for that version that should have been heard
I have always been disappointed with Ally Pally and didn't know there was a TeddyB version around. Can it still be found? I'd love to hear an improved sound.
Here are the two gigs Amsterdam and Alexanda the original files that TeddyB kindly shared to us.
I think there is another one that Marky Dread did from these recordings with artwork

This file is quite large as its in lossless wavs both are the full soundboards

https://easyupload.io/m/i84te3
I've just stumbled on this, is there any way this could be uploaded again? I can't believe all the stuff I miss, lol. Would really love to hear them.
From what I see there's still a little hope
That's if we don't hang from too much rope

NoMoreHugh
Long Time Jerk
Posts: 659
Joined: 17 Dec 2012, 7:24pm
Location: Home is a black leather jacket fitting sweetly to my brain

Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?

Post by NoMoreHugh »

weller259 wrote:
11 Jul 2021, 11:21pm
NoMoreHugh wrote:
10 May 2021, 4:37am
dave202 wrote:
08 May 2021, 12:08pm
NoMoreHugh wrote:
08 May 2021, 11:30am
another bad decisions - who in there right mind brings out BAD live at ally pally and think to make this album just like a bootleg we will make it seem like a genuine bootleg by making the sound really shit. I mean who does that ? its beyond me i was at that gig and couldn't wait to hear it only to be so disappointed by the pathetic sound. TeddyB version was just brilliant of that same recording so we can at least thank Teddy for that version that should have been heard
I have always been disappointed with Ally Pally and didn't know there was a TeddyB version around. Can it still be found? I'd love to hear an improved sound.
Here are the two gigs Amsterdam and Alexanda the original files that TeddyB kindly shared to us.
I think there is another one that Marky Dread did from these recordings with artwork

This file is quite large as its in lossless wavs both are the full soundboards

https://easyupload.io/m/i84te3
I've just stumbled on this, is there any way this could be uploaded again? I can't believe all the stuff I miss, lol. Would really love to hear them.
Not been about so only just saw your request now. Just in case you haven't already been sorted out here is another link (30 days)
https://easyupload.io/m/twbq69

weller259
User avatar
Pitch Clock Appreciator
Posts: 1133
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 7:59pm
Location: He's A Real Nowhere Man, Sitting In His Nowhere Land

Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?

Post by weller259 »

NoMoreHugh wrote:
23 Jul 2021, 2:55pm
weller259 wrote:
11 Jul 2021, 11:21pm
NoMoreHugh wrote:
10 May 2021, 4:37am
dave202 wrote:
08 May 2021, 12:08pm
NoMoreHugh wrote:
08 May 2021, 11:30am
another bad decisions - who in there right mind brings out BAD live at ally pally and think to make this album just like a bootleg we will make it seem like a genuine bootleg by making the sound really shit. I mean who does that ? its beyond me i was at that gig and couldn't wait to hear it only to be so disappointed by the pathetic sound. TeddyB version was just brilliant of that same recording so we can at least thank Teddy for that version that should have been heard
I have always been disappointed with Ally Pally and didn't know there was a TeddyB version around. Can it still be found? I'd love to hear an improved sound.
Here are the two gigs Amsterdam and Alexanda the original files that TeddyB kindly shared to us.
I think there is another one that Marky Dread did from these recordings with artwork

This file is quite large as its in lossless wavs both are the full soundboards

https://easyupload.io/m/i84te3
I've just stumbled on this, is there any way this could be uploaded again? I can't believe all the stuff I miss, lol. Would really love to hear them.
Not been about so only just saw your request now. Just in case you haven't already been sorted out here is another link (30 days)
https://easyupload.io/m/twbq69
Wow, thank you so much for these! I am really looking forward to hearing them! THANK YOU!!!
From what I see there's still a little hope
That's if we don't hang from too much rope

Guest1

Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?

Post by Guest1 »

x3em wrote:
29 Jun 2021, 1:15pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 May 2021, 4:03pm
TeddyB Not Logged In wrote:
08 May 2021, 3:53pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 May 2021, 3:42pm
TeddyB Not Logged In wrote:
05 May 2021, 3:29am
plus the band members of both lineups always figured they were one phone call away from hearing about the Clash reunion that never came.
How prominent a tension was this (if you know)? Was it an unspoken thing or did the others actively or openly suspect that BAD was a temporary thing for Mick before inevitably reactivating the Clash?
I don’t know how tense it was. It was mostly unspoken but I do know at least some of the others felt it could always happen. There was an undercurrent within the record company and business people as well. A couple of times there were open offers on the table. Later, with the Lollapalooza ‘95 headline offer, neither Mick nor Joe wanted to be the one who took the responsibility for nixing it, but eventually said no together. The promotor then offered the Clash their own tour, and they said no again.
Thanks. Funny, it's never crossed my mind that members of the various incarnations of BAD would have had that in the back of their mind, but once you mentioned it it seems such an obvious concern, especially after Mick and Joe reconciled.
This line in Don's excellent new book caught my eye. On page 225 when he talks about opening for U2 on tour, and the experience of playing in front of 100,000 people at times.

"... but I guess supporting U2 was more of a trip for Mick and must have been a reminder of what he could have had with The Clash. One night we were sitting at the back of some huge stadium watching U2 plough through 'Bullet The Blue Sky' when we looked at each other and didn't have to say a word. We were thinking the same thing: That could and should have been The Clash."

I believe the lure of success at that level must have been on all their minds. Clash and BAD members alike. How could it not? This must have been 1987 since we are talking about the original lineup.
It's hard to say for certain. U2 always sounded a lot my stadium ready to my ears. The edge with all of his massive wall of reverbs and such. The Clash would have still been pretty big but I'm not sure about U2 level massive. Those Eno produced records are just so ultra slick and polished I don't see the clash ever going there.

gkbill
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 4710
Joined: 23 Jun 2008, 9:21pm

Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?

Post by gkbill »

RockNRollWhore wrote:
23 Jul 2021, 11:13pm
x3em wrote:
29 Jun 2021, 1:15pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 May 2021, 4:03pm
TeddyB Not Logged In wrote:
08 May 2021, 3:53pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 May 2021, 3:42pm


How prominent a tension was this (if you know)? Was it an unspoken thing or did the others actively or openly suspect that BAD was a temporary thing for Mick before inevitably reactivating the Clash?
I don’t know how tense it was. It was mostly unspoken but I do know at least some of the others felt it could always happen. There was an undercurrent within the record company and business people as well. A couple of times there were open offers on the table. Later, with the Lollapalooza ‘95 headline offer, neither Mick nor Joe wanted to be the one who took the responsibility for nixing it, but eventually said no together. The promotor then offered the Clash their own tour, and they said no again.
Thanks. Funny, it's never crossed my mind that members of the various incarnations of BAD would have had that in the back of their mind, but once you mentioned it it seems such an obvious concern, especially after Mick and Joe reconciled.
This line in Don's excellent new book caught my eye. On page 225 when he talks about opening for U2 on tour, and the experience of playing in front of 100,000 people at times.

"... but I guess supporting U2 was more of a trip for Mick and must have been a reminder of what he could have had with The Clash. One night we were sitting at the back of some huge stadium watching U2 plough through 'Bullet The Blue Sky' when we looked at each other and didn't have to say a word. We were thinking the same thing: That could and should have been The Clash."

I believe the lure of success at that level must have been on all their minds. Clash and BAD members alike. How could it not? This must have been 1987 since we are talking about the original lineup.
It's hard to say for certain. U2 always sounded a lot my stadium ready to my ears. The edge with all of his massive wall of reverbs and such. The Clash would have still been pretty big but I'm not sure about U2 level massive. Those Eno produced records are just so ultra slick and polished I don't see the clash ever going there.
Hello,

My thinking is "Could the Clash be U2 big without the U2 polish?". I'm not sure. I think they reached their top around '82. I saw them on the Pier in NY and that crowd was just about right - big enough to say these guys are important and really good but not big enough to be likes a Stones concert - an event you can watch through binoculars and chat with your neighbors about what a good show it is. I like U2 as they are what they are - Bono can spout out as he likes. I really don't pay attention as I would Joe Strummer.

Silent Majority
Singer-Songwriter Nancy
Posts: 18694
Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.

Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?

Post by Silent Majority »

It's not just Bono - The Edge plays guitar like a man calling the council about the bins.
a lifetime serving one machine
Is ten times worse than prison


www.pexlives.libsyn.com/

Guest1

Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?

Post by Guest1 »

gkbill wrote:
23 Jul 2021, 11:27pm
RockNRollWhore wrote:
23 Jul 2021, 11:13pm
x3em wrote:
29 Jun 2021, 1:15pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
08 May 2021, 4:03pm
TeddyB Not Logged In wrote:
08 May 2021, 3:53pm


I don’t know how tense it was. It was mostly unspoken but I do know at least some of the others felt it could always happen. There was an undercurrent within the record company and business people as well. A couple of times there were open offers on the table. Later, with the Lollapalooza ‘95 headline offer, neither Mick nor Joe wanted to be the one who took the responsibility for nixing it, but eventually said no together. The promotor then offered the Clash their own tour, and they said no again.
Thanks. Funny, it's never crossed my mind that members of the various incarnations of BAD would have had that in the back of their mind, but once you mentioned it it seems such an obvious concern, especially after Mick and Joe reconciled.
This line in Don's excellent new book caught my eye. On page 225 when he talks about opening for U2 on tour, and the experience of playing in front of 100,000 people at times.

"... but I guess supporting U2 was more of a trip for Mick and must have been a reminder of what he could have had with The Clash. One night we were sitting at the back of some huge stadium watching U2 plough through 'Bullet The Blue Sky' when we looked at each other and didn't have to say a word. We were thinking the same thing: That could and should have been The Clash."

I believe the lure of success at that level must have been on all their minds. Clash and BAD members alike. How could it not? This must have been 1987 since we are talking about the original lineup.
It's hard to say for certain. U2 always sounded a lot my stadium ready to my ears. The edge with all of his massive wall of reverbs and such. The Clash would have still been pretty big but I'm not sure about U2 level massive. Those Eno produced records are just so ultra slick and polished I don't see the clash ever going there.
Hello,

My thinking is "Could the Clash be U2 big without the U2 polish?". I'm not sure. I think they reached their top around '82. I saw them on the Pier in NY and that crowd was just about right - big enough to say these guys are important and really good but not big enough to be likes a Stones concert - an event you can watch through binoculars and chat with your neighbors about what a good show it is. I like U2 as they are what they are - Bono can spout out as he likes. I really don't pay attention as I would Joe Strummer.
I think if they had incorporated some of the BAD aesthetic (big drum machine beats, synths, etc...) they could have very well been so. Another scenario to consider is that if they had some sort of a punk comeback during the grunge era when the stripped down style was in vogue, they could have been massive. Nirvana, Green Day, Rancid, all punk bands that enjoyed massive success during that era.

Post Reply