Why were BAD not commercially successful?
-
MarkyJacobs
- Junco Partner
- Posts: 441
- Joined: 30 Jan 2016, 7:41am
Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?
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.
Classic BAD ll. Trying too hard.
- TeddyB Not Logged In
- Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
- Posts: 2013
- Joined: 06 Feb 2009, 8:42pm
Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?
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?
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.
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?
The adulation must have helpedTeddyB Not Logged In wrote: ↑16 May 2021, 5:06pmMaybe so, but they were undoubtedly going there. Mick would outlast everyone staying out after a gig in those days.
Acid house wasn"t about celebrities or stars. Except that it was!
- TeddyB Not Logged In
- Graffiti Bandit Pioneer
- Posts: 2013
- Joined: 06 Feb 2009, 8:42pm
Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?
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.
Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?
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.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑08 May 2021, 4:03pmThanks. 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.TeddyB Not Logged In wrote: ↑08 May 2021, 3:53pmI 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.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑08 May 2021, 3:42pmHow 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?TeddyB Not Logged In wrote: ↑05 May 2021, 3:29amplus the band members of both lineups always figured they were one phone call away from hearing about the Clash reunion that never came.
"... 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
- Pitch Clock Appreciator
- Posts: 1136
- 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?
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.NoMoreHugh wrote: ↑10 May 2021, 4:37amHere are the two gigs Amsterdam and Alexanda the original files that TeddyB kindly shared to us.dave202 wrote: ↑08 May 2021, 12:08pmI 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.NoMoreHugh wrote: ↑08 May 2021, 11:30amanother 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 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
From what I see there's still a little hope
That's if we don't hang from too much rope
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?
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)weller259 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2021, 11:21pmI'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.NoMoreHugh wrote: ↑10 May 2021, 4:37amHere are the two gigs Amsterdam and Alexanda the original files that TeddyB kindly shared to us.dave202 wrote: ↑08 May 2021, 12:08pmI 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.NoMoreHugh wrote: ↑08 May 2021, 11:30amanother 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 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
https://easyupload.io/m/twbq69
- weller259
- Pitch Clock Appreciator
- Posts: 1136
- 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?
Wow, thank you so much for these! I am really looking forward to hearing them! THANK YOU!!!NoMoreHugh wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 2:55pmNot 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)weller259 wrote: ↑11 Jul 2021, 11:21pmI'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.NoMoreHugh wrote: ↑10 May 2021, 4:37amHere are the two gigs Amsterdam and Alexanda the original files that TeddyB kindly shared to us.dave202 wrote: ↑08 May 2021, 12:08pmI 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.NoMoreHugh wrote: ↑08 May 2021, 11:30amanother 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 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
https://easyupload.io/m/twbq69
From what I see there's still a little hope
That's if we don't hang from too much rope
That's if we don't hang from too much rope
-
Guest1
Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?
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.x3em wrote: ↑29 Jun 2021, 1:15pmThis 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.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑08 May 2021, 4:03pmThanks. 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.TeddyB Not Logged In wrote: ↑08 May 2021, 3:53pmI 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.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑08 May 2021, 3:42pmHow 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?TeddyB Not Logged In wrote: ↑05 May 2021, 3:29amplus the band members of both lineups always figured they were one phone call away from hearing about the Clash reunion that never came.
"... 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.
Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?
Hello,RockNRollWhore wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 11:13pmIt'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.x3em wrote: ↑29 Jun 2021, 1:15pmThis 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.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑08 May 2021, 4:03pmThanks. 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.TeddyB Not Logged In wrote: ↑08 May 2021, 3:53pmI 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.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?
"... 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.
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: 18754
- Joined: 10 Nov 2008, 8:28pm
- Location: South Londoner in the Midlands.
Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?
It's not just Bono - The Edge plays guitar like a man calling the council about the bins.
-
Guest1
Re: Why were BAD not commercially successful?
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.gkbill wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 11:27pmHello,RockNRollWhore wrote: ↑23 Jul 2021, 11:13pmIt'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.x3em wrote: ↑29 Jun 2021, 1:15pmThis 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.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑08 May 2021, 4:03pmThanks. 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.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.
"... 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.
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.