MR

Re read Alan's interview with DDY and it sure seems liek Derek Sutton might have been the cause of a lot of the angst within the band. He also had some stupid ideas - like having the band avoid television and ignore the press. But it sure seems like he was whispering things to Tommy/JY about the direction the band should go and was evidently an influencial person as he got them on board with some of his ideas (First Time, Boat, no concept albums, no ballads)....Wonder if he hadn't been around or had tempered his discussions a bit, if we would have the animosity that we have out there between the band members.

Toph wrote:Re read Alan's interview with DDY and it sure seems liek Derek Sutton might have been the cause of a lot of the angst within the band. He also had some stupid ideas - like having the band avoid television and ignore the press. But it sure seems like he was whispering things to Tommy/JY about the direction the band should go and was evidently an influencial person as he got them on board with some of his ideas (First Time, Boat, no concept albums, no ballads)....Wonder if he hadn't been around or had tempered his discussions a bit, if we would have the animosity that we have out there between the band members.

Really?

Toph wrote:Re read Alan's interview with DDY and it sure seems liek Derek Sutton might have been the cause of a lot of the angst within the band. He also had some stupid ideas - like having the band avoid television and ignore the press. But it sure seems like he was whispering things to Tommy/JY about the direction the band should go and was evidently an influencial person as he got them on board with some of his ideas (First Time, Boat, no concept albums, no ballads)....Wonder if he hadn't been around or had tempered his discussions a bit, if we would have the animosity that we have out there between the band members.

two words: suzanne deyoung

Wasn't it Sutton's office that Suzanne waltzed in to or maybe they shared a cab and gave him an earful that Dennis needed special respect and treatment because he was the star of the band
and Sutton laughed and told her not do his job and she ran of and squealed to Dennis so obviously Dennis has to dislike Sutton and discredit him.

The problem was something and everything. It is the unwritten law when you are in a band. It all adds up and creates an implosion and then the inevitable breaking apart.


Bugsy

I'll take the blame. It is all my fault the band broke up.

styxfanNH wrote:I'll take the blame. It is all my fault the band broke up.

No it's not it's froy's fault. When in doubt blame froy

The fault lies with Yaz and his motorcycle stunts!

Toph wrote:Re read Alan's interview with DDY and it sure seems liek Derek Sutton might have been the cause of a lot of the angst within the band. He also had some stupid ideas - like having the band avoid television and ignore the press. But it sure seems like he was whispering things to Tommy/JY about the direction the band should go and was evidently an influencial person as he got them on board with some of his ideas (First Time, Boat, no concept albums, no ballads)....Wonder if he hadn't been around or had tempered his discussions a bit, if we would have the animosity that we have out there between the band members.

My impression was Sutton kept the band together. Remember it was shortly after he left that the band called it quits during Kilroy. I'm not sure if Kilroy would have happened the way that it did had Sutton still been there. I though I remember Sutton saying they should have put out a live album right after PT. I thought that would have been awesome since PT was such a huge success.

Thenightbull wrote:

styxfanNH wrote:I'll take the blame. It is all my fault the band broke up.

No it's not it's froy's fault. When in doubt blame froy [/quo

te]

Go fuk yourself Punk

froy wrote:

Thenightbull wrote:

styxfanNH wrote:I'll take the blame. It is all my fault the band broke up.

No it's not it's froy's fault. When in doubt blame froy [/quo

te]

Go fuk yourself Punk

Come on froy without me your life would have no meaning

actually the real reason is that they don't like eachother

chickenbeef wrote:actually the real reason is that they don't like eachother

They like eachother they just didn't like dennis can't blame um

Thenightbull wrote:

chickenbeef wrote:actually the real reason is that they don't like eachother

They like eachother they just didn't like dennis can't blame um

Night, Chicken, and Babyblue...can you please take your circle jerk somewhere else? But since you are really only one person....maybe just one of your identities can make stupid comments instead of all three.

Toph wrote:

Thenightbull wrote:

chickenbeef wrote:actually the real reason is that they don't like eachother

They like eachother they just didn't like dennis can't blame um

Night, Chicken, and Babyblue...can you please take your circle jerk somewhere else? But since you are really only one person....maybe just one of your identities can make stupid comments instead of all three.

You are the king of stupid comments/threads

bugsymalone wrote:The problem was something and everything. It is the unwritten law when you are in a band. It all adds up and creates an implosion and then the inevitable breaking apart.

I think the saying is "Success breeds contempt" or something like that. There are a million and one reasons why things broke down in Styx. Everyone had a hand in it all across the board. I mean, didn't Chuck say something along the lines of after the Kilroy tour, they all walked away with one finger in the air? At that point, Tommy was absuing, other long standing relationships (Dennis and the Panozzo brothers) were seemingly breaking down, etc. Ten years of constant touring, recording, and the grind of the machine took its toll.

Look at most successful bands, and I believe I've said this before. Most bands, whether they stick around in some form (see: the Who and the Rolling Stones) really only had 8 - 10 years of massive success and brilliance, especially in terms of creativity. The Stones had longevity and success with some later albums, but they were very hit or miss. The Who post-1973 or so (say, after Who's Next and Quadrophenia) lived more on their live reputation. Styx had a great run from about 75/76/77 to 1983. Six albums, a few multi platinum, worldwide tours ... you spend that much time with people and see if tensions don't flare up.

I think Rush is the only band I know of who has stuck it out in that way, but even they had problems in the 80s, and nearly called it quits twice (around GUP and Geddy has publicly stated they were kinda crispy around ASOH). You can tell Alex, Neil, and Geddy are truly friends. I don't think most of the guys in Styx ever were.

StyxCollector wrote:

bugsymalone wrote:The problem was something and everything. It is the unwritten law when you are in a band. It all adds up and creates an implosion and then the inevitable breaking apart.

I think the saying is "Success breeds contempt" or something like that. There are a million and one reasons why things broke down in Styx. Everyone had a hand in it all across the board. I mean, didn't Chuck say something along the lines of after the Kilroy tour, they all walked away with one finger in the air? At that point, Tommy was absuing, other long standing relationships (Dennis and the Panozzo brothers) were seemingly breaking down, etc. Ten years of constant touring, recording, and the grind of the machine took its toll.

Look at most successful bands, and I believe I've said this before. Most bands, whether they stick around in some form (see: the Who and the Rolling Stones) really only had 8 - 10 years of massive success and brilliance, especially in terms of creativity. The Stones had longevity and success with some later albums, but they were very hit or miss. The Who post-1973 or so (say, after Who's Next and Quadrophenia) lived more on their live reputation. Styx had a great run from about 75/76/77 to 1983. Six albums, a few multi platinum, worldwide tours ... you spend that much time with people and see if tensions don't flare up.

I think Rush is the only band I know of who has stuck it out in that way, but even they had problems in the 80s, and nearly called it quits twice (around GUP and Geddy has publicly stated they were kinda crispy around ASOH). You can tell Alex, Neil, and Geddy are truly friends. I don't think most of the guys in Styx ever were.

You make some good points. Rush is definitely an oddity. I know if they ever "made it big" - they've just been consistently doing the same thing over and over with roughly the same amount of success since about 1980.

The Who lost all their appeal for me after 1973. I thought their Super Bowl performance was embarassing. When you think about the "longevity" of The Rolling Stones, it's interesting to note that they've only put out 10 studio albums in the past 34 years. So, yes, most of their success is based on their touring.

Of course, if no one around hear talked about "what could have been" as it pertains to Styx, I'm not sure there would be anything to talk about.

Cinj

I saw Rush in concert with about 20,000 people with no opening act. Yeah I'd say they've made it big.

Archetype wrote:I saw Rush in concert with about 20,000 people with no opening act. Yeah I'd say they've made it big.

Notice I put "made it big" in quotations for the very reason you point out. What I meant was, they were never "superstars" in the conventional way that many bands seem to achieve the status (number one singles, number one albums, cover of People magazine, etc.).
I sometimes wonder if it is this very reason why they have stayed together since they don't have to deal with some of the "pressures" of this kind of fame.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE it if they were the halftime show at next year's Super Bowl. However.......


Cinj

StyxCollector wrote:I think Rush is the only band I know of who has stuck it out in that way

Aerosmith.

Keep putting out good albums and keep cranking out the hits.

But they had to hit rock-bottom and build it all back up.

kansas666 wrote:

StyxCollector wrote:I think Rush is the only band I know of who has stuck it out in that way

Aerosmith.

Keep putting out good albums and keep cranking out the hits.

But they had to hit rock-bottom and build it all back up.

Have you read the news this year?

kansas666 wrote:

StyxCollector wrote:I think Rush is the only band I know of who has stuck it out in that way

Aerosmith.

Keep putting out good albums and keep cranking out the hits.

But they had to hit rock-bottom and build it all back up.

Not really. After Pump, it's all pretty mediocre to bad. Honkin' on Bobo? Just Push Play? Ugh.

StyxCollector wrote:

kansas666 wrote:

StyxCollector wrote:I think Rush is the only band I know of who has stuck it out in that way

Aerosmith.

Keep putting out good albums and keep cranking out the hits.

But they had to hit rock-bottom and build it all back up.

Not really. After Pump, it's all pretty mediocre to bad. Honkin' on Bobo? Just Push Play? Ugh.

I agree Nine Lives was bad as well IMO. Not to mention these albums were complete sell outs, Just Push Play was a bad pop album basically. I stopped paying any attention to Aerosmith, just can't stomach them anymore.

LtVanish wrote:

StyxCollector wrote:

kansas666 wrote:

StyxCollector wrote:I think Rush is the only band I know of who has stuck it out in that way

Aerosmith.

Keep putting out good albums and keep cranking out the hits.

But they had to hit rock-bottom and build it all back up.

Not really. After Pump, it's all pretty mediocre to bad. Honkin' on Bobo? Just Push Play? Ugh.

I agree Nine Lives was bad as well IMO. Not to mention these albums were complete sell outs, Just Push Play was a bad pop album basically. I stopped paying any attention to Aerosmith, just can't stomach them anymore.

Forgot about Nine Lives. It did suck.

Aerosmith got lucky from 1987 to about 1995.

StyxCollector wrote:

bugsymalone wrote:The problem was something and everything. It is the unwritten law when you are in a band. It all adds up and creates an implosion and then the inevitable breaking apart.

I think the saying is "Success breeds contempt" or something like that. There are a million and one reasons why things broke down in Styx. Everyone had a hand in it all across the board. I mean, didn't Chuck say something along the lines of after the Kilroy tour, they all walked away with one finger in the air? At that point, Tommy was absuing, other long standing relationships (Dennis and the Panozzo brothers) were seemingly breaking down, etc. Ten years of constant touring, recording, and the grind of the machine took its toll.

Look at most successful bands, and I believe I've said this before. Most bands, whether they stick around in some form (see: the Who and the Rolling Stones) really only had 8 - 10 years of massive success and brilliance, especially in terms of creativity. The Stones had longevity and success with some later albums, but they were very hit or miss. The Who post-1973 or so (say, after Who's Next and Quadrophenia) lived more on their live reputation. Styx had a great run from about 75/76/77 to 1983. Six albums, a few multi platinum, worldwide tours ... you spend that much time with people and see if tensions don't flare up.

I think Rush is the only band I know of who has stuck it out in that way, but even they had problems in the 80s, and nearly called it quits twice (around GUP and Geddy has publicly stated they were kinda crispy around ASOH). You can tell Alex, Neil, and Geddy are truly friends. I don't think most of the guys in Styx ever were.

many great points re bands. I agree.