MR

Chuck did a video interview about his book "The Grand Illusion
Love, Lies, and My Life with Styx" over at Authorviews.com

http://www.authorviews.com/authors/panozzo/video.php

Thanks

styxfansite wrote:Chuck did a video interview about his book "The Grand Illusion
Love, Lies, and My Life with Styx" over at Authorviews.com

http://www.authorviews.com/authors/panozzo/video.php

Thanks

Really tells alot about his life with Styx
This looks like a book that should be titled Chuck Panazzo Im Gay ,

I'm curious. By no way do I mean disrespect by this, but the question has been in my head on a few occasions.

I wonder if Chuck defines himself by his sexuality more than he does his work or his beliefs. I mean, truthfully - I'm a heterosexual man and I'm pretty passionately heterosexual. Especially now that I'm divorced If I was preferential to much younger women (of legal age) would I have a book to write about being a cradle robber? If he wasn't gay, would he have a story anyone wanted to hear? Especially without more behind the scenes anecdotal elements? (now I've not read the book, but based on what I've read here it seems as if it's more personal than it is about the band).

It's just amazing to me that people choose to define themselves by what they like to do with their genitalia.

Ash wrote:If he wasn't gay, would he have a story anyone wanted to hear?

Of course he would. He's in Styx. A lot of folks wanted to hear that story rather than the one he wound up telling.

It's just amazing to me that people choose to define themselves by what they like to do with their genitalia.

It may be disproportionate, but when one spends enough of their life with other people defining them based on the same thing (and frequently in a negative or discriminatory fashion) I don't think a little overcompensation is necessarily out of line.

stabbim wrote:Of course he would. He's in Styx. A lot of folks wanted to hear that story rather than the one he wound up telling.

Moot since that's not so much what he did from what I understand.

It may be disproportionate, but when one spends enough of their life with other people defining them based on the same thing (and frequently in a negative or discriminatory fashion) I don't think a little overcompensation is necessarily out of line.

::shrugs:: I wouldn't read a book about Julius Earving (Dr. J) having slept with 20,000 women any more or less than I would a book about Chuck Panozzo sleeping with other men. I just don't care what people do with their..... junk. It just seems as if Panozzo has used the Styx name to sell a book about his personal struggle with being gay because if you take Styx out of it - nobody would buy it.

Freddy Mercury was a far more talented, sympathetic, and enduring symbol of that particular brand of rock and roll lifestyle. There isn't even a comparison between Mercury and Panozzo - other than Mercury wasn't afraid to write about, perform, and overtly demonstrate it through his art. He didn't hide for 40 years.

I dunno. I'll stop now because I don't want to be a complete idiot about it - it's just kinda telling.

Ash wrote:::shrugs:: I wouldn't read a book about Julius Earving (Dr. J) having slept with 20,000 women any more or less than I would a book about Chuck Panozzo sleeping with other men. I just don't care what people do with their..... junk.

Well, that speaks to the basic question of whether one considers homosexuality to be a valid slice of the human condition, or just another kink...but I'll skip over that thicket for now and just say, as someone who has read the book, that it's not hung up on describing lurid trysts and whatnot. It really is pretty much just the broad strokes of a guy's life story, and his point of view about it all.

Ash wrote:It just seems as if Panozzo has used the Styx name to sell a book about his personal struggle with being gay because if you take Styx out of it - nobody would buy it.

Maybe, maybe not. But "taking the Styx out" would also be omitting a critical piece of the life experience that shaped CP. His career, his sexuality, and the other aspects of his life covered in the book are fundamentally intertwined.

What ever he wants to be. But, he sounds like he is angry about being a member of the successful STYX while furthering his charade. Sorry about that Chuck. Maybe we all knew anyway. Come on with the frilly hats and such. Or how about the photo directions. Get off of it. You chose or were pre-dispositioned. If there is such a thing. Don't blame STYX or the business for your heartaches. How about an interview with a slice of what was good? It' so dismal listening to this guy.

David

DavidD wrote:What ever he wants to be. But, he sounds like he is angry about being a member of the successful STYX while furthering his charade. Sorry about that Chuck. Maybe we all knew anyway. Come on with the frilly hats and such. Or how about the photo directions. Get off of it. You chose or were pre-dispositioned. If there is such a thing. Don't blame STYX or the business for your heartaches. How about an interview with a slice of what was good? It' so dismal listening to this guy.

LOL! YeaH, it must be hard for you to hear, sitting in your armchair, having lived as a heterosexual man who never had to deal with the kinds of tribulations he did. That sucks for you, man. I hope you're okay now.

Althooooough, I'm sure if you were to talk to Chuck about his life today, he would paint a much prettier picture for you. He is exceptionally happy now. And of course, if everything was roses and sunshine back then, he wouldn't have had a need to write a book in the first place - because let's face it, it doesn't take a rocket science to know what went *right* for him. He might as well title that book "Stating the Bleeding Obvious" and move on. What precisely are you hoping to hear? Had the interviewer asked him questions like "How cool was it when Grand Illusion went platimun for the first time" when he's interviewing about THIS BOOK, I would think he was the worst interviewer of all time. This book is about Chuck's experience with being a closet homosexual and all that goes with it. It's not about his first bicycle, the thrill of laying the perfect track, or the rush from 20,000 cheering fans. It's about WHAT IT WAS LIKE BEING GAY AND NOT BEING ABLE TO TO TELL ANYONE - FOR YEARS. Doesn't exactly make for a feel-good mini-series.

Furthermore, the concept of being a spokesperson is to reach out and to others whose voices aren't as easily heard or whose pain is silenced for one reason or another. Chuck isn't telling his story to entertain you, David. Chuck is telling his story because there are thousands of people out there who still suffer in silence, not just gay people, but people living with shame & fear stemming from all kinds of experiences, and maybe, just maybe a few of them will read this book and indentify with some of the feelings Chuck felt when he struggled with his own shame and it will help them take the necessary steps it takes to recover.

Ash, to echo what Stabbim said, this book has very little, if any (I don't even recall there being any) detailed descriptions of sexual encounters. It was all very vague and uses broad strokes, as Stabbim described. I understand what you're saying when you question why heterosexuals don't feel compelled to write about their sexuality, but the answer to that is also pretty obvious: Heterosexuals have not been forced to live in silence for years, their sexuality has not been treated like a mental illness or a social disease the way homosexuality has (and still is to a great extent). There is NO WAY to gauge the kind of anguish someone living a secret life, apart from his very public persona was like because you & I haven't lived it. It's easy to make light about things we don't fully understand - it's human nature. It's also human nature to want others to benefit from the wisdom of one's experience, which is exactly what Chuck wants. If ONE person doesn't have to suffer because Chuck told his story, then it was all worth it to Chuck.

And he DOES talk about Styx. His point of view and after thoughts I found to very insightful, having known much of Styx's history already myself. It was a bit like adding salt or sauce to a delicious steak - doesn't change the flavor too much, but it enhances the experience. He didn't "use" Styx's name to mislead the reader, he used the name because Styx was an integral part of his life, which influenced a lot of the decisions he made (and I rather enjoyed hearing his perspective on the whole thing, to be honest). Not to mention that he is a co-founder of the band, and I think he has every right to use the name for whatever he wishes. If he wanted to be a spokesperson for Colgate toothpaste, he could use Styx's name is he wanted to. That's his right - it helps people identify with WHO he is and where he comes from.

I did agree with you on one thing, David, and that's that I always knew Chuck was gay. To me, it was pretty apparent. But I also know it wasn't obvious to everyone, and I now understand and appreciate the reasons why he didn't just "come out" back in the 70s and early 80s.

Zan wrote:

DavidD wrote:What ever he wants to be. But, he sounds like he is angry about being a member of the successful STYX while furthering his charade. Sorry about that Chuck. Maybe we all knew anyway. Come on with the frilly hats and such. Or how about the photo directions. Get off of it. You chose or were pre-dispositioned. If there is such a thing. Don't blame STYX or the business for your heartaches. How about an interview with a slice of what was good? It' so dismal listening to this guy.

LOL! YeaH, it must be hard for you to hear, sitting in your armchair, having lived as a heterosexual man who never had to deal with the kinds of tribulations he did. That sucks for you, man. I hope you're okay now.

Althooooough, I'm sure if you were to talk to Chuck about his life today, he would paint a much prettier picture for you. He is exceptionally happy now. And of course, if everything was roses and sunshine back then, he wouldn't have had a need to write a book in the first place - because let's face it, it doesn't take a rocket science to know what went *right* for him. He might as well title that book "Stating the Bleeding Obvious" and move on. What precisely are you hoping to hear? Had the interviewer asked him questions like "How cool was it when Grand Illusion went platimun for the first time" when he's interviewing about THIS BOOK, I would think he was the worst interviewer of all time. This book is about Chuck's experience with being a closet homosexual and all that goes with it. It's not about his first bicycle, the thrill of laying the perfect track, or the rush from 20,000 cheering fans. It's about WHAT IT WAS LIKE BEING GAY AND NOT BEING ABLE TO TO TELL ANYONE - FOR YEARS. Doesn't exactly make for a feel-good mini-series.

Furthermore, the concept of being a spokesperson is to reach out and to others whose voices aren't as easily heard or whose pain is silenced for one reason or another. Chuck isn't telling his story to entertain you, David. Chuck is telling his story because there are thousands of people out there who still suffer in silence, not just gay people, but people living with shame & fear stemming from all kinds of experiences, and maybe, just maybe a few of them will read this book and indentify with some of the feelings Chuck felt when he struggled with his own shame and it will help them take the necessary steps it takes to recover.

Ash, to echo what Stabbim said, this book has very little, if any (I don't even recall there being any) detailed descriptions of sexual encounters. It was all very vague and uses broad strokes, as Stabbim described. I understand what you're saying when you question why heterosexuals don't feel compelled to write about their sexuality, but the answer to that is also pretty obvious: Heterosexuals have not been forced to live in silence for years, their sexuality has not been treated like a mental illness or a social disease the way homosexuality has (and still is to a great extent). There is NO WAY to gauge the kind of anguish someone living a secret life, apart from his very public persona was like because you & I haven't lived it. It's easy to make light about things we don't fully understand - it's human nature. It's also human nature to want others to benefit from the wisdom of one's experience, which is exactly what Chuck wants. If ONE person doesn't have to suffer because Chuck told his story, then it was all worth it to Chuck.

And he DOES talk about Styx. His point of view and after thoughts I found to very insightful, having known much of Styx's history already myself. It was a bit like adding salt or sauce to a delicious steak - doesn't change the flavor too much, but it enhances the experience. He didn't "use" Styx's name to mislead the reader, he used the name because Styx was an integral part of his life, which influenced a lot of the decisions he made (and I rather enjoyed hearing his perspective on the whole thing, to be honest). Not to mention that he is a co-founder of the band, and I think he has every right to use the name for whatever he wishes. If he wanted to be a spokesperson for Colgate toothpaste, he could use Styx's name is he wanted to. That's his right - it helps people identify with WHO he is and where he comes from.

I did agree with you on one thing, David, and that's that I always knew Chuck was gay. To me, it was pretty apparent. But I also know it wasn't obvious to everyone, and I now understand and appreciate the reasons why he didn't just "come out" back in the 70s and early 80s.

Well said Zan

Zan wrote:LOL! YeaH, it must be hard for you to hear, sitting in your armchair, having lived as a heterosexual man who never had to deal with the kinds of tribulations he did. That sucks for you, man. I hope you're okay now.

Althooooough, I'm sure if you were to talk to Chuck about his life today, he would paint a much prettier picture for you. He is exceptionally happy now. And of course, if everything was roses and sunshine back then, he wouldn't have had a need to write a book in the first place - because let's face it, it doesn't take a rocket science to know what went *right* for him. He might as well title that book "Stating the Bleeding Obvious" and move on. What precisely are you hoping to hear? Had the interviewer asked him questions like "How cool was it when Grand Illusion went platimun for the first time" when he's interviewing about THIS BOOK, I would think he was the worst interviewer of all time. This book is about Chuck's experience with being a closet homosexual and all that goes with it. It's not about his first bicycle, the thrill of laying the perfect track, or the rush from 20,000 cheering fans. It's about WHAT IT WAS LIKE BEING GAY AND NOT BEING ABLE TO TO TELL ANYONE - FOR YEARS. Doesn't exactly make for a feel-good mini-series.

Furthermore, the concept of being a spokesperson is to reach out and to others whose voices aren't as easily heard or whose pain is silenced for one reason or another. Chuck isn't telling his story to entertain you, David. Chuck is telling his story because there are thousands of people out there who still suffer in silence, not just gay people, but people living with shame & fear stemming from all kinds of experiences, and maybe, just maybe a few of them will read this book and indentify with some of the feelings Chuck felt when he struggled with his own shame and it will help them take the necessary steps it takes to recover.

Ash, to echo what Stabbim said, this book has very little, if any (I don't even recall there being any) detailed descriptions of sexual encounters. It was all very vague and uses broad strokes, as Stabbim described. I understand what you're saying when you question why heterosexuals don't feel compelled to write about their sexuality, but the answer to that is also pretty obvious: Heterosexuals have not been forced to live in silence for years, their sexuality has not been treated like a mental illness or a social disease the way homosexuality has (and still is to a great extent). There is NO WAY to gauge the kind of anguish someone living a secret life, apart from his very public persona was like because you & I haven't lived it. It's easy to make light about things we don't fully understand - it's human nature. It's also human nature to want others to benefit from the wisdom of one's experience, which is exactly what Chuck wants. If ONE person doesn't have to suffer because Chuck told his story, then it was all worth it to Chuck.

And he DOES talk about Styx. His point of view and after thoughts I found to very insightful, having known much of Styx's history already myself. It was a bit like adding salt or sauce to a delicious steak - doesn't change the flavor too much, but it enhances the experience. He didn't "use" Styx's name to mislead the reader, he used the name because Styx was an integral part of his life, which influenced a lot of the decisions he made (and I rather enjoyed hearing his perspective on the whole thing, to be honest). Not to mention that he is a co-founder of the band, and I think he has every right to use the name for whatever he wishes. If he wanted to be a spokesperson for Colgate toothpaste, he could use Styx's name is he wanted to. That's his right - it helps people identify with WHO he is and where he comes from.

I did agree with you on one thing, David, and that's that I always knew Chuck was gay. To me, it was pretty apparent. But I also know it wasn't obvious to everyone, and I now understand and appreciate the reasons why he didn't just "come out" back in the 70s and early 80s.

I hear what you are saying... All I am saying is there are a lot of people who suffered TRUE persecution. Homosexuality didn't make you a complete shut-in during the 70's and 80's like everyone likes to make-believe. Look at David Bowie, Freddy Mercury, and the Village People for God's sake (although it's bad form for me to mention VP in the same breath as the other two). Why Chuck felt so persecuted as a (and lets be honest) rather obscure bass player in a rock band with three other monster personalities for him to hide behind is a bit of a mystery. Mercury made no secret of who he was (read the lyric to Death on Two Legs) and was out front and center stage - and people LOVED him.

I guess I'm not saying he didn't deal with some stuff - but I guess a lot of it just doesn't make sense to me in the context of everything else that was going on during that time. Nobody was going to lynch Chuck Panozzo because he was gay no matter when he decided to come "out". In fact, I dare to say that if he had come out back then nobody would have noticed (not that anyone is really noticing now really).

Ash wrote:Why Chuck felt so persecuted as a (and lets be honest) rather obscure bass player in a rock band with three other monster personalities for him to hide behind is a bit of a mystery.

It is something of a mystery, and one of the topics that the book addresses. The answer of course is that everyone's experience is different. It's easy with hindsight and detachment to judge the ways in which someone should have felt, thought, and acted. CP makes some of those hindsight judgments himself in the book, and he actually lived the story. So, I'm not sure what you're criticizing here.

Ash wrote:Mercury made no secret of who he was (read the lyric to Death on Two Legs) and was out front and center stage - and people LOVED him.

First of all, FM was publically bi, not gay. There is a difference in perception. Secondly, Queen essentially vanished from the US market for the bulk the 80s, and FM's flamboyance conflicting with the more conservative climate is often cited as a component of that. Thirdly, despite his onstage persona he was a very private person -- he only let it be revealed publically that he had AIDS in the last few hours of his life. Finally, I'm not sure how "Death On Two Legs" (which is about a former manager of the band) relates to any of this.

[
I hear what you are saying... All I am saying is there are a lot of people who suffered TRUE persecution. Homosexuality didn't make you a complete shut-in during the 70's and 80's like everyone likes to make-believe. Look at David Bowie, Freddy Mercury, and the Village People for God's sake (although it's bad form for me to mention VP in the same breath as the other two). Why Chuck felt so persecuted as a (and lets be honest) rather obscure bass player in a rock band with three other monster personalities for him to hide behind is a bit of a mystery. Mercury made no secret of who he was (read the lyric to Death on Two Legs) and was out front and center stage - and people LOVED him.

I guess I'm not saying he didn't deal with some stuff - but I guess a lot of it just doesn't make sense to me in the context of everything else that was going on during that time. Nobody was going to lynch Chuck Panozzo because he was gay no matter when he decided to come "out". In fact, I dare to say that if he had come out back then nobody would have noticed (not that anyone is really noticing now really).[/quote]

You know, Ash, if you could get over your close-mindedness and actually read the book, you might find out that it was hard for him to come out. He was scared he would lose EVERYTHING. That is the True Persecution. Mentioning Bowie, Mercury and VP here doesn't really compute because they were open, Chuck wasn't. The question here is why. The things that happened along the way.

Is it a good book? Yep. Did he do a good job? Yep. Does he mention Styx? Yep. Is it all about the band? Nope. Is it his interpretation of what was happening to HIM at the time? Yes, and that's why it's good. It's his journey.

I find it funny that when Chuck admitted to the world that he was gay, most fans went, "And?". It really didn't matter. It still doesn't to me. He's a nice guy, a good base player and I too, miss his brother. It's hard to believe it's over ten years since we lost him.

Sad part is true persecution is still happening.