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!

They're both shit. Should've split after the '80s.

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.

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 :p

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.

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.

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.

I hear on the grapevine Blur are reforming...

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.

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

I'm still wondering what interest you have in a Bon Jovi message board if you don't like that genre of music.

With the exception of Oasis (who are not big at all in the US), none of those bands you mentioned are existant in the US.

Which genre of music spawned more successfull artists, Brit-pop or "hair metal"?

I like Oasis, but they're only the biggest band in the world in their own minds.

Now that I have a minute, I want to elaborate my feelings a bit more on this.

Every generation of music is taken over, if you will, by another, at some point. What grunge did to hair metal is no different than what rock did to doo-wap, what heavy metal did to hippie music, what rap did to heavy metal, what boy bands did to grunge, etc etc. It doesn't make one genre better than another. To me, all it does, is point out who the truly successfull are. In my favorite genre of music, rock, Bon Jovi is successfull. Warrant, is not. Aerosmith is successfull. Dokken, is not.

To talk about Motley or Def Leppard is tough. They've both had periods of great success after their "hey-day", and they've both shit the clubs they were playing in. Right now, Motley is successfull. Def Leppard is not. It's very arguable to call either's success nostalgia. That's what pisses me off so much when people say Bon Jovi are nostalgia. Those people need to find the definition of the word.

Opinions are like assholes - Everybody has one. But facts are facts, and are undeniable. This thread, about Def Leppard and Motley Crue has brought up the question of their relevance. This is different from overall success. Any fanof rock music who would deny either of these bands' relevance truly is in denial, or doesn't know what they're talking about.

Never seen live Crue, not even footage so I can't really vote. Seen Def Leppard once though (in person) and thought they were pretty good. Joe's voice was a tad weak, but it wasn't terrible by any means, and he worked the stage well.

I enjoy Bon Jovi's music, so surely I should be allowed on their message board. I just think hair metal was a shit genre/style, and unless you count Guns N' Roses, Bon Jovi were the only decent band to emerge from it.

I know Oasis aren't particularly big in the US (not that they really care) but they can still sell out Madison Square Garden and get their album to number 5 in the charts there. And I dunno about America, but the other bands I listed are big in the UK and in other countries, so surely they're big bands? If Blur reunited I'm sure they'd be playing some generously sized arenas Stateside anyway.

In the UK and Europe Britpop. In the US hair metal.

No they're not. In the 1990s they were coked up, confident with their classic albums and overjoyed to have achieved success, and they did indeed say they were the best band in the world. Never the biggest, though, even though they probably were the biggest band in the world in 96/97. You'd never hear them say that now. Because they've grown up, unlike Motley Crue.

And you were wrong about the "half the artists you listen to are influenced by Motley Crue" :p

The thing I love about glam metal, particulary Motley Crue, is the whole sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll thing - in other words, Crue's image.

Well actually with Motley Crue I was attracted to them due to their songs before their image but what they hey, these days I love their image that accompanies their songs. That whole lifestyle just attracts me at the moment, which is why I love Motley Crue.

With glam metal I can only think of two bands that two lyric writing seriously, Bon Jovi and Europe. I don't count GnR as glam metal.

But when it comes to lyric writing Def Leppard smack Motley Crue in every possible way. Now as I stated earlier, I love Motley Crue because they sing about drugs, drinking, shagging, etc etc but it seems to be all they constantly sing about - bareing in mind I'm only a new fan and haven't heard everything by them.

On Def Leppard's latest album 'Songs From The Sparkle Lounge' there is a song called Cruise Control which is about terroists. On Motley Crue's latest album 'Saints Of Los Angeles' they are still singing about girls and how they have fleas and cooties.

Also Nikki Sixx is running out of creative juice, Saints Of LA only had 5 or 6 songs that I truly love, where as Def Leppards latest album I love most of it. Not only that but Nikki Sixx is stealing songs.

On Saints Of LA there is a song called Welcome To The Machine which is basically a song ranting about how the music industry is so cruel and nasty. Hmm who else has written a song about that with the same title? Only that little band Pink Floyd.

And I'll say it again, I love how Crue sing about drinking, drugging, shagging etc etc but it'd be nice if they took a break from that every now and then. I'm thinking hard and the only song that wasn't showcasing their badass ways is the song about a 14 year old prostistute 'Too Young To Fall In Love'.

Yet Def Leppard can still be feel-good, get your hands up in the air rock band without having to pretend they're teenagers.


Jack - you should listen to the Def Leppard albums High N Dry and Pyromania, two of my all time albums. They're not polished up glam metal albums, hell, they're not even glam metal albums, I'd say they were closer to Guns N' Roses than Bon Jovi back in their early days. You should check them two albums out, they're real good.

I'm not sure what Danfan was getting at but it's pretty obvious you enjoy Bon Jovi's music so therefore, you should no doubt post here (plus I enjoy reading your posts). It shouldn't matter whether you like or dislike artists that were "hair bands".

I agree. One does not have to be big in America to be a big band and Oasis are a great example. They are plenty bands that are big without being big in America. Likewise, there are many successful and big acts in America that are no where close to being big in the rest of the world ie. country and rap stars.

By no means was I saying Ferrett shouldn't post here. What right do I have to say that? It's not my board. It just seemed as though Bon Jovi wasn't their cup of tea. I don't praise everything Bon Jovi does, but if I disliked them, I sure as hell wouldn't bother wasting my time talking about them.

I quote Noel:

"We are the biggest band in Britain of all time, ever. The funny thing is, that ****ing mouthing off three years ago about how we were gonna be the biggest band in the world, we actually went and done it."

I don't know about the rest of the world, but this quote is referencing their status as of 1996-1997, unquestionably their high point in America. That was the first time I saw them, in a half filled 15,000 seat arena. They were never "the biggest band in America".

Aloha !

And Noel and Liam have always admitted that they've never cracked America. However, they were the biggest band in the world at that time. It wasn't a matter of how many people went to see them live, but Oasis were everywhere at that time. On the radio, always gettign some press coverage and were always touring. They were the pioneers of that era and defined the era on their own. You just can't say that about Motley Crue or Def Leppard.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

Both a bit shit live, to be honest.

Def Leppard simply lack excitement or personality (despite having the better tunes).

Crue were simply a train wreck. A ten minute segment of Tommy Lee with a camcorder encouraging girls to get their tits out does nothing for me.

You are entirely wrong.

Oasis merely were the most visible expression of a loutish, vulgar culture that existed long before the band arrived. A risible totem.

But HEAVEN IS girls getting tits out.

Anyone see what I did there? Eh? Eh?

Maybe in Europe, that holds true for Oasis. But in America, that's the way it was for Def Leppard at one time, as well as Motley Crue. All depends on where you live I guess.

Hard to say.
Drums - Crue is better (obviously)
Guitars - Leppard is better
Bass - tie
Vocals - tie

Setlists: Crue had the best setlist ever in 2005. Def Leppard X tour had a very good setlist but after those years both bands just relied on the same-ol-same-ol setlist which pisses me off.

Yeah I'm pretty sure Def Leppard ruled the world at one point as well.

Dunno about Motley Crue.

I'd say at each one's height, Def Leppard was far bigger than Motley Crue. I think Motley, for better or worse, will leave a more lasting legacy.

If they do end up leaving "more of lasting legacy" it will be for Crue's image that Oli so descriptively described in his previous few posts.

I was about to say the exact same thing.

I love Motley Crue to death but I'm not gonna lie, they'll be remembered for the drugs and trouble they caused, not for their in-depth, deep songwriting skills that they posess.

When both bands pass Def Leppard will be remembered for their temporary status of ruleing the world and their string of hits from the Pyromania to Adrenalize albums.

Motley Crue will be remembered for the frontman that killed someone from Hanoi Rocks, the drummer that beat up his wife, the bassist that died from a drug overdose and the guitairist that had back pains.

I like Motley better, but I can't argue that at all.

But that's part of the allure of the Crue, isn't it?

Just came across this while re-reading the topic.

That's the image of more or less every other band and genre of rock. It's been going since the early days of blues and it shows no sign of letting up.

I'll go on record as saying The Beatles probably took more drugs than Motley Crue ever have.

I really, REALLY wouldn't count on that.

Yeah but Motley Crue nailed it somehow. Aerosmith smoking dope didn't do anything for me, I couldn't have cared less. Yet somehow Motley Crue glamourised it all for me, which makes me a moron for thinking it's glamourous, but somehow the Crue did it.

We'll after watching clips from Girls Girls Girls Era & Hysteria Era,It proved to me right there who the better band is.

My god how can anybody say Motley Crue is great live i was sent in to a deep sleep on there songs!!The only thing keeping the band going was Tommys drumming,Everybody else was way below average.

Where as Def Leppard's 87/88 preformances were really exciting!!Im not saying Joe is the best singer of the 80s cause he isnt,But he was light years in front of vince.

Sav's bass work blows Nikki who?? Out of the water!! Listen to the bass in Gods of War & Hysteria.

Steve/Phil vs Mick - after watching preformances from each bands guitarist nothing that Mick did stood out his riffs/solos were really poor compared to other 80s bands.

Where as Steve/Phil have produced some really cool stuff:

Riff for the Gods Of War , Phil's solo in Photograph , Outro of Photograph by Steve , Armageddon it - both solos.

Perhaps because Crue released a book about it?

All bands release books on it, or at least, have books about them. The Crue's book was just so out there, it was cool.

Read "Animal Instinct" if you can get it somewhere. Def Leppard weren't angels either.

Ice

I haven't read The Dirt. Though to be honest I think it was The Heroin Diaries that did it for me :(

Iceman - Never heard of that book but I'm really intrigued now, thanks for letting us know :D

Vince had a tendency to ruin MC's live shows for me but he's made a surprising turnaround and was far better this summer than in a long time. They kick ass live, very fun. I'd say, right up there with 1-Iron Maiden 2-Bon Jovi 3-Velvet Revolver as far as my favorite shows.

Def Leppard is a pop band by many different standards. While they are probably better musicians (technique-wise), Nikki and Mick are better writers by FAAAAR - riffs, songs... all around really. And Tommy is one of the best drummers around, no comparison there, even before Rick had his accident.

You get what I'm trying to say here? It's kind of like, Richie is not as good as Satriani but I think he writes better songs.

Def Leppard needs to lay off ballads and prove that they are still a rock band. Motley Crue proved over the recent years that they were one of the more influental hair bands - more than Poison, Bon Jovi or any other for that matter.

These are two very different bands.

Are kidding me!!

There's no way that Motley Crue are superior writers than Leppard.Motley Crue never evolved as a band like Leppard(Pyromania,Hysteria,Retro Active and SLANG) , And how are Motley more influental??

There not!! Leppard are. With there unique Stage,Twin Guitar(simliar to Lizzy) and big backing vocals(timed to perfection)

Also here's a funny fact: (My uncle who went to lots of gigs in the 80s including Jovi on the Slippery/New Jersey tours)

When asking him about the 2 bands,He said Leppard was probaly the best show of the 80s(Hysteria tour in sheffield) and couldnt even name a Motley Crue Song!!

Go figure LOL

I find Motley to be better songwriters to Def Leppard too. Def Leppard's writing on their last few albums has sucked.

Motley's lyrics aren't what anyone would call "appropriate", but they're interesting. Ever heard about how Nikki wrote songs like Wild Side or Shout At The Devil? Pretty cool stories.

I've never seen anything very special about either of them as songwriters. I have found much of DL's material to be completely over-produced though.

I think that's the main reason why i dont like Leppard, i personally really don't think they have evolved at all.