Jovitalk - Bon Jovi Fan Community
Home Register Members FAQ Mark Forums Read
 

Who'se better live? Crue or Leppard?

Other Bands


View Poll Results: Who is better live???
Def Leppard 5 38.46%
Motley Crue 3 23.08%
They both SUCK! 5 38.46%
Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 11-29-2008, 08:45 PM
JerseyboyUK's Avatar
JerseyboyUK JerseyboyUK is offline
Senior Member
Keep the Faith
 
Join Date: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Tamworth/Derby Uni
Age: 35
Gender: male
Posts: 867
Send a message via MSN to JerseyboyUK
Default Who'se better live? Crue or Leppard?

Inspired by the 'Rank These 5 Albums' thread, this seems to have divided opinion. This surprises me, as PERSONALLY i think Def Leppard are one of the lamest, pathetic, and generally most turgid bands on the planet (live or recorded), but hey ho, that's personal opinion for you!
Reply With Quote

  #2  
Old 11-29-2008, 08:48 PM
Ferret's Avatar
Ferret Ferret is offline
Senior Member
Something for the Posts
 
Join Date: 26 Dec 2006
Location: Sugar Mountain
Gender: male
Posts: 2,944
Default

They're both shit. Should've split after the '80s.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-29-2008, 09:15 PM
Goldsausage's Avatar
Goldsausage Goldsausage is offline
Senior Member
Midnight on JoviTalk
 
Join Date: 10 Nov 2007
Gender: male
Posts: 10,457
Default

Two bands I've not yet had the privelege to experience live yet, but are both two of my favourite all time bands.

I haven't heard much live tracks either. Joe Elliot has sounded awful from the few live tracks I've heard and Vince Neil hasn't sounded so pleasent either (and I'm one of the very few who enjoys his recorded vocals).

Joe Elliot doesn't forget words, Vince Neil does.
Def Leppard don't have TommyCam, Motley Crue do.

It's a very close call

I'm hoping to see The Crue on their 2009 tour anyway, then next time Def Leppard tours and I see them I'll come back to this thread and let you know.
__________________
The highway is alive tonight, where it's headed, everybody knows
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-29-2008, 09:17 PM
Goldsausage's Avatar
Goldsausage Goldsausage is offline
Senior Member
Midnight on JoviTalk
 
Join Date: 10 Nov 2007
Gender: male
Posts: 10,457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferret View Post
They're both shit. Should've split after the '80s.
Yes I can understand why you feel that way, what with you're in-depth paragraphs to back up your opinion.

An opinion that is wrong by the way.
__________________
The highway is alive tonight, where it's headed, everybody knows
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-29-2008, 09:47 PM
Ferret's Avatar
Ferret Ferret is offline
Senior Member
Something for the Posts
 
Join Date: 26 Dec 2006
Location: Sugar Mountain
Gender: male
Posts: 2,944
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goldsausage II View Post
Yes I can understand why you feel that way, what with you're in-depth paragraphs to back up your opinion.

An opinion that is wrong by the way.
I thought I should come up with something snappy, but hey, paragraphs if you want

I'll start on Motley Crue. Very of their time. If they had started in any other decade than the 1980s they would have died an early death. Unfortunately for the world, they did start in the '80s and became succesfull. Due to the hair metal scene, where idiots who acted all hard but had hair 100 times the size of the balls and wore shit makeup could make a living, and be passed off as 'cool' and 'rock n roll' by metal fans, desperate for something that wasn't new wave pop, they found sucess.

And so, with their not so unique brand of pussy metal, they conquered the world. Well, a few medium sized arenas anyway. They're not actually very big, and were only FAIRLY big in the 80s. Their albums featured deep songs about how they roamed around LA, ****in' (as the Crue would spell it) all the girls and taking heroin, in their ridiculous spandex suits. Thankfully, in the 90s, Grunge came along, then Britpop and wiped all these shit bands out of the arenas. Bon Jovi survived because they could move with the times. All the others sucess decreased rapidly, until many of them split up. Only Bon Jovi really survived, because they could move with the times, and they had good songs, and a singer who could sing, and a talented band...UNLIKE MOTLEY CRUE.

Def Leppard are marginally better. They don't pretend to be hard, and I've never heard a live recording of them, so I can't judge. They also look a lot less like idiots. And even if Joe Elliot is a shit live singer, I doubt he sounds like a Chipmunk. Still not a good band, though.

Those two bands, and just about every other hair metal band stopped having relevance after the '80s. In fact, during the 80s many people saw them as non-relevant. Many people in Britain were listening to The Smiths, The Stone Roses and Happy Mondays. But really, as soon as the decade finished, these bands were over. In 1990 they packed up their bags, and headed down to your local pub, to play their shit cheese and probably drink themselves to death. Nobody cared anymore. Everyone would rather listen to Nirvana.

And THAT is why they are shit and not relevant.

Last edited by Ferret; 11-29-2008 at 09:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-30-2008, 01:50 AM
danfan's Avatar
danfan danfan is offline
Senior Member
Just posting
 
Join Date: 11 Nov 2002
Location: USA
Age: 45
Gender: male
Posts: 5,578
Default

I find myself literally laughing at my computer when I read someone saying Motley Crue isn't relevant. I'd place a fair wager that more than half the bands you listen to would list Motley Crue as an influence on them.

What is your pre-requistite for "survival"? Motley Crue played an entire sold-out arena tour a few years back, and are currently in the midst of another right now. If you want to base an artists success soley on chart success, I guess we should never talk about bands like Led Zeppelin or Pink Flloyd, who combined have had less hit singles than either the Crue or Def Leppard.

And as for grunge and Brit-pop that wiped the Crue out of the arenas that they are still selling out, where have those bands gone?

Good arguement.

As for Def Leppard, if you can find one successfull pop or rock group that doesn't list Pyromania as a major influence on them, please list them.

Not liking a band is one thing. Talking out of your ass based on lack of respect is another.
__________________
Men don't do what they like.
Men get wives and jobs to keep them from what they like.

Last edited by danfan; 11-30-2008 at 01:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-30-2008, 02:13 AM
Ferret's Avatar
Ferret Ferret is offline
Senior Member
Something for the Posts
 
Join Date: 26 Dec 2006
Location: Sugar Mountain
Gender: male
Posts: 2,944
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by danfan View Post
I find myself literally laughing at my computer when I read someone saying Motley Crue isn't relevant. I'd place a fair wager that more than half the bands you listen to would list Motley Crue as an influence on them.

What is your pre-requistite for "survival"? Motley Crue played an entire sold-out arena tour a few years back, and are currently in the midst of another right now. If you want to base an artists success soley on chart success, I guess we should never talk about bands like Led Zeppelin or Pink Flloyd, who combined have had less hit singles than either the Crue or Def Leppard.

And as for grunge and Brit-pop that wiped the Crue out of the arenas that they are still selling out, where have those bands gone?

Good arguement.

As for Def Leppard, if you can find one successfull pop or rock group that doesn't list Pyromania as a major influence on them, please list them.

Not liking a band is one thing. Talking out of your ass based on lack of respect is another.
http://www.last.fm/user/Gas-Panic

That's what I listen to. What bands there are influenced by Motley Crue or Def Leppard? I don't listen to that kinda music, man.

Quote:
And as for grunge and Brit-pop that wiped the Crue out of the arenas that they are still selling out, where have those bands gone?
Er, well, I'm no officionado of Grunge, but I hear a drummer from a certain grunge band is now the frontman of a stadium rock band.

Britpop - The biggest band of that era, Oasis, sold out the majority of their UK stadium tour in a couple of hours (can't remember every detail). They've got multiple arenas in many different countries being sold out. Dig Out Your Soul, their latest album, went to number 1 in the UK and number 5 in the USA, plus number 1 in various other countries. They've just played an arena tour of the UK that sold out in minutes, and it had many dates. The lead single off their album got to number 3 in the UK, and I believe it recieved a lot of airplay in the US. I think it's fair to say that that Britpop band is one of the biggest bands in the world right now.

Blur split years ago, but even then they had sucess. Since then frontman Damon Albarn has recieved enormous success and critical acclaim with his work with Gorrilaz, The Good, The Bad and The Queen and his recent chinese opera. And the other members of the group haven't done too bad either. The last Blur album in 2003 hit number 1 on the UK charts, charted highly in the US and was acclaimed.

Pulp split a long time ago, but Jarvis Cocker has since become a succesfull solo artist. The Verve headlined many festivals and gigs this year, including Glastonbury and V-Festival. Their reunion album was a hit, hitting number 1 in the UK, number 2 in Ireland, 4 in Italy, 6 in Switzerland....Their single Love Is Noise was a top 5 hit in various countries. Sucessful band or what?

Suede split in 2003, but remained moderately succesfull until then, and their protagonists make mildy succesfull solo albums. Supergrass, although they are shit, enjoyed success to this day. Heavy Stereo were barely popular at the time, but now their lead singer Gem Archer is playing stadiums as a guitarist for Oasis.

Although the genre of Britpop is long dead, bands involved in the scene flourish. More so than hair metal bands.

Last edited by Ferret; 11-30-2008 at 02:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-30-2008, 02:19 AM
zero_zero_UFO's Avatar
zero_zero_UFO zero_zero_UFO is offline
Senior Member
Posting Always
 
Join Date: 01 Sep 2005
Location: England
Age: 38
Gender: female
Posts: 2,224
Default

I hear on the grapevine Blur are reforming...
__________________
Gabba Gabba Hey
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-30-2008, 01:02 PM
Ferret's Avatar
Ferret Ferret is offline
Senior Member
Something for the Posts
 
Join Date: 26 Dec 2006
Location: Sugar Mountain
Gender: male
Posts: 2,944
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BJ-RIP View Post
Def Leppard are musically miles ahead of Bon Jovi. They always had their own style and are way more original than BJ ever have been. Also Phil Collen and Viv Campbell are miles ahead of Richie Sambuca. Mötley not relevant is the biggest joke I ever rea. Listen to your Britpop from yesteryear and shut the **** up. SOmeone who is into Oasis and/or Blur really cannot be taken seriously if you ask me!
Why not? Generally it is a much, much more respected cultural movement than hair metal. And I'm not 'into' Blur, they are a good band but I very rarely listen to them. Oasis, however, are my favourite band, and are better than anyone else mentioned in this thread, in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-30-2008, 02:19 PM
Ferret's Avatar
Ferret Ferret is offline
Senior Member
Something for the Posts
 
Join Date: 26 Dec 2006
Location: Sugar Mountain
Gender: male
Posts: 2,944
Default

I'm still wondering which of the artists I listen to are influenced by Motley Crue.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
def leppard, mötley crüe

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11.
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.