JIm Interview
 

Check it out here
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...e-version.html

There is one very interesting comment made towards the end of the interview...

I saw that. And direct from Jim too, unless he was extremely misquoted. Doesn't surprise me much to be honest.

I stopped reading after they spelled Meat Loaf as Meatloaf.

The entire Bat musical sounds horrible to me anyway :roll:

But I'm sure the writing is freaking awesome :D ;)

I wasn't aware that you'd 'heard' it :-P Take it from someone who has -- the arrangements are incredible. As far as the story is concerned, what you've read on the Internet is akin to the blurb you'd read on the back of a book, and nothing more (90% of that blurb is the most basic and unforgiving plot points regurgitated into 'everyman' speech. What you get in the press isn't even 10% of the story and scope of the musical).

If you were expecting a safe, sanitary, by-the-numbers 'cabaret' style production, or a rock n roll 'retread', well, maybe this one isn't for you. There are aspects of BAT that have never been done on a stage live before (and things that have never been attempted in musical theatre).

Bottom line: Jim's story, Jim's music. If you've enjoyed his Bat related output so far (and you're here, so I'll assume that you have), then there's a pretty good chance that you'll find something to like in this, too :cool:

It sounds like in the press events on Thursday in LDN and Monday in MANCS snippets will be heard - the word 'concert' is used inthe description...

What comment did you find interesting ?

Jim said that Marvin Lee Aday was just that person. He said he created the whole Meat Loaf persona.
It's very strange for him to say that as I do believe he had a heavy influence on Meat Loaf but I wouldn't say he created Meat Loaf.

Maybe in print it looks worse than it was intended and worded

I thought that was the statement you referred to. I found it odd because though Meat has found need to come up with about a gazillion stories of how he came up with the name Meat, he was performing using that name before he met Steinman. The "Meat Does Bat" persona Steinman may have helped to create, but Meat was Meat long before.

and how annoying was it to read "meatloaf" over and over again ? ... holy smokes...

I did not want to be accused of pot-stirring (so I did not quote it first) and I'm sure we will all hear the "out of context", etc. But to me this sentence:
He and Meatloaf didn’t speak for years, because they were arguing over royalties and credits. ‘He was just Marvin Lee Aday!’ he exclaimed.

And this sentence " ‘I totally created the Meatloaf persona.’

I separated each complete sentence for a reason. I think maybe Jim feels like Meat was more "just" a singer (thus not part of royalties or credit). It is documented that during recording BOOH, Todd and Jim were somewhat dismissive of Meat. I have also seen that Jim's Meat Loaf "persona" vision didn't speak and was like a monster set loose from a cage, but that Meat started talking and ruined that plan.

I have always believed there was some creator/ creation drama. But I have rarely seen Jim state it so matter-of-factly and I know full well that Meat's love for Jim and that they talk all the time statements are a part of it as well.

Is there some arrogance on Steinman's side that marginalizes how much hard work, touring, and parts of his personality Meat added? I ask it as a question. Not to make much ado about potentially little, but if it was meant the way it was said, Jim would probably not want to be a member here, LOL.

Take it or leave it, just my thoughts and questions, and etc etc. your mileage may vary, void where prohibited.

Oh and PS, yes I read Jim's review.

Let's not forget where this was published:

THE DAILY MAIL.

If the quote is accurate does it matter?

there are two Meat Loaf personas being talked about possibly.

Jim's persona was for Bat. it was Meat acting like Meat Loaf in the way Jimmy wanted. a character.

Meats Meat Loaf had always existed since he was little. He has always been called Meat Loaf since the football coach got stepped on by him. And his dad called him Meat according to legend.

Meat creates characters for every song. At the time Jimmy was helping to create those characters. Perhaps he felt like he had a role to play in creating the Meat Loaf character for his play.

But ultimately it was Meat that was always the one who felt and lived his characters, and ultimately him who created characters for each song.

The way I see it they worked closely as a team.

Take it form someone who loves the Bat performances by Meat, it's just karaoke on stage. :-P

Which is my biggest issue with this musical. The Bat songs are so specific for Meat Loaf to me that I just wouldn't enjoy a musical cover of it. No matter about the arrangements. Don't feel bad though, I have the same issue with other musicals, based on songs that clearly belong to the artist who made it big.

Besides I am not a Steinman fan per se. I almost exclusively liked his cooberation with Meat (for obvious reasons) and I wasn't impressed by Braver as I didn't find any of the songs real improvements over earlier arrangements (and Meat no longer being abel to make that difference). And none of the songs are really impressive to me.

So, no. This musical is not for me. And having iconic songs that I adore being performed in a musical is... well horrible to me. So yup, I can tell for certain I believe this musical will be horrible. Doesn't mean nobody will like it. I'm just not your target audience ;)

When they worked on the initial project, when they recorded together, the first year of touring. Since then Meat has worked his ass off, made that Bat fly round the world and kept it flying for close to 4 decades with an energy that will keep it flying many more years, made the performance his own from the start .. but has never failed to express credit and gratitude to Steinman, nor faltered in his love and loyalty

Let's not forget that, though he doesn't use those exact words, Meat talks in his own autobiography about the difference between the "Meat Loaf character" and himself, and always wrestling with it. In the very last chapter, he talks about that (emphasis mine):

There is a difference between the two, and over the course of the book, Meat discusses it at length. Jim (or the editor from the Daily Fail) might be terse in the description, but it's nothing Meat himself hasn't said before. Not as black and white as the article seems to portray it, granted, but then what in life is?

There will be a 40th anniversery Bat released next year, lets hope they put some rarities on it, mind you they prob wont as it will sell just the same.

40th Anniversary Bat? Who said this [ind you it's been rereleased and repackaged quite a bit!]

it could be a home for Meat's 'What Part of My Body'?

Continuing from my previous thought in the thread...

Jim has occasionally speculated as to what might have gone differently if Meat wasn't the sole person in the spotlight -- if there might not have been all the shit that went down in that period popularly known as the Eighties where Meat lost his money, his house, his voice (briefly), and his mind (equally briefly).

I look at the name of his backing band The Neverland Express, which I feel might bear a tad more relation to Jim's ideas than to Meat's in its name, and wonder what it might have been like if Jim and Meat had just formed a band, done their thing with that band, and Meat had been able to put out non-Jim albums in his solo career and not needed to live up to any kind of "character" outside that band.

It's tempting to speculate whether or not life would have been easier...

Meat made his living off Steinman's songs. During the 80s he was playing bars and from what I understand he was ready to retire after BBIS. After Pandoras Box failed Jim came running back to Meat as he needed to make up the money he lost funding Pandoras Box.
Meat was on board and we have BAT 2. I have to wonder if Jim's involvement in BRAVER was a quid pro quo for Meat supporting the musical. As has been noted here as well Meat is the face of BAT OUT OF HELL. What would happen if Meat came out and said anything slightly unsupportive about the musical?
I remember the exchange he had with an audience member in STORYTELLERs regarding whistle down the wind.
He didn't trash it but it was pretty clear what he thought.
Meat I feel will do his bit and say all the right things for the musical. But in the end how many casual fans will turn up and be disappointed that Meat isn't even in it?

I dunno if I'd say ready to retire. He was still warding off the taxman, hence the constant touring. He might have felt ready to pack it in, and maybe he wasn't interested in recording anything new, but I don't think retirement was going to actually be on the cards until he squared away his money issues. He describes this in the autobiography as well, him having to hit the road again periodically to pay off whatever needed paying off.

This seems to be basically true, but I think there's more to it than that.

Well, Jim doing shows took time away from being able to write new things explicitly for Meat. I can't help but wonder, based on stories I've heard over the years, how Meat felt about being tossed aside by Jim in order to pursue the theater dream and handed cast-offs from Jim's new musical, one of which was previously recorded with great success by another artist, and a one-off with Don Black for the "best of"? Time that could have been spent writing an album for Meat?

I wouldn't be complimentary either, especially coming as this did off of discussions for Bat III that eventually resulted in Welcome to the Neighborhood instead (again, as per Meat's autobio). "We were supposed to work together again, but first you don't deliver, and then you go off and do all this other shit once the sun is shining in your direction again? Something that wouldn't have happened without my help?! Ungrateful ~~~~!" (Bear in mind: entirely speculation, and not to my knowledge his actual thoughts.)

I mean, to be fair, Jim could have at least offered him a role in the show(s) or something, even as a courtesy. We know how Meat hates feeling betrayed by others; he's often commented on it here.

Now that is a different question entirely, and a valid one.

Not going to get involved in the old debate as to who brought most, who benefited from whom. But whilst he may have had to play bars in the US, here in Europe in the 80s he had 5 successful tours in theatres and arenas, and released 4 albums .. two golds, one silver and of course Dead Ringer which went platinum and made No 1.

I don't believe it is a quid pro quo. I think Meat genuinely cares that Jim's dream of bringing his musical to the stage is finally being realised, and simply wants to do what he can to support that. I heard nothing trashing Whistle at my ST shows, but that had already been reworked and had had a resounding success for well over a year in London's West End by the time ST started. Meat would not say anything unsupportive of this new musical imo.

Meat has made it clear he wants to give any support wanted. I doubt it has been his decision to have his photo featured so much in the promotion so far, nor the frequency with which his name is attached to it. I agree there is a danger that this can encourage casual fans to think it is about him, might even include him, even though the published storyline and now the cast makes it clear that neither is the case. I have even seen some fans expressing hopes that Meat will be on stage on opening night performing with Jim .. :roll:

However, I was pleased to see that the latest article I read makes no mention of Meat. I'm quite sure he is aware of the issue, and whatever he does to support Jim will be done in a way that will make it clear he is supporting his long-time friend and not directly involved in any way. In fact it's an opportunity to counter any false expectations raised by the earlier promotion so people do not buy tickets believing it is some kind of Meat Loaf Story, or that he will be appearing in it.

Will be interesting to see if they come up with something exciting and new or if they just bung the same CD in a new box.

My top wish is they go back to the tapes and make a top notch remaster. Secondly please just have the actual Bat songs on cd1. Cd2 and a DVD would be good and are the places to put all the extras and goodies.

Correct me if I'm wrong:

BAT 2 was in the works since around 1985. Jim had started working with Meat on the songs. I think "Original sin" and "It's all coming back to me now" might have been some of those songs.

Then Meat went out to the record company. They organized a big meeting where Meat was going to pitch BAT 2. He walks in and suddenly... They don't want it. It's too expensive. Steinman is too difficult. It's not going to happen. Meat was, like. Well, maybe I don't want to work with you guys anymore.

"Live at Wembley" came out and that was the last album on that label. Meat talks about what happened here in a 90s interview for BAT 2.

Meat of course also plays various songs from "Bad for good" and snippets of "Original sin" on the 80s BOOH 10th anniversary tour, which I can't help but wonder were also tryouts for BAT 2, similar to Pink Floyd previewing songs before they got recorded.

The whole story's just full of What if's for me.

What if Steinman had been more prominent in the advertising for Bat?
What if Meat hadn't lost his voice?
Would Meat Loaf "Bad for good" had been a massive hit?
Would "Dead ringer" have been the third album with a few different songs?
What if Meat and Jim had made "Bat 2" in the 80s?
What if Meat and Jim had done another album together in the 90s?
What if Meat and Jim had done "Bat 3" with songs like "Braver than we are" "Not allowed to love" "Body" "Still the children" etc. etc.?
Would THAT "Bat 3" have been more successful as well or the same? Because we live in different times? And why did people respond to "Bat 2" sixteen years after "Bat" but not to "Bat 3"?

It just goes on and on and on and on.... In the end, what ISN'T there just makes what IS there all the more powerful to me, and emotional too, making me think of that line Jim wrote too, "If only are the loneliest words you'll ever know."

Be interesting to hear from Jim. Though my principles forbid me to click on anything from the Daily Hate Mail.

Jim always strikes me as a bit of a ~~~~ tease where Meat is concerned :shrug:

Personally, if they can do "We will rock you" without Queen not to mention Freddie Mercury, or "Mamma Mia!" without ABBA, then this shouldn't be very much different. I think if it works or it doesn't, it'll be down to whether the actual piece itself is any good or not.

For me there are two frustrations that I see coming from the coverage.

Jim frustrated once again that even when his name is above the title, the media instantly make the "Meat Loaf's album on stage" quotes.

Meat's frustration because any interviews or quotes that he gives are going to have him repeating the line "This is Jimmy's musical. It's the musical he has been working on for 40 years. It is Jimmy's dream and vision."

Bat is massive. Meat is always going to be associated with it - but the problem comes down to assumption that one and both are the same entity. One of the first comments on Ticketmasters Facebook promo is a bloke saying he wouldn't pay £75 to see Meat Loaf perform. Meat isn't mentioned anywhere in the ad, and it is clearly Jim Steinman's Bat Out of Hell, but unless people look properly, or in some cases report properly, then they will continue to make the assumption that it is to do with Meat until the real promo kicks in. It is like bringing out a show called Born In The USA and not expecting casual readers/viewers/.listeners to think it is Bruce related, or to a shudder inducing lesser extent Hit Me Baby One More Time and expecting Britney to pop up. It's just the way it is.

As for the "just Marvin Lee Aday" thing. I see it like this. When you look back over all the documented videos, retrospectives and interviews to do with Bat and Bat 2, there are constant references made by Jim, usually when Meat is sitting next to him, where he talks about Meat like you would about your prize performing animal in a circus. He's said that they made him into King Kong on the original Bat tour, that he wanted to get him to a place that he hadn't been before, for Bat 2 that he wanted to bring him back to the same traumatic experience that was the creation of Bat - hence the Back into Hell subtitle. And to me it is always said tongue in cheek. Both Meat and Jim have always made and taken jibes at each other in good humour the same as any good friends do. "Even in the Braver promo, Meat said how he criticised the Bonnie Tyler production of Loving You's a Dirty Job only for Jim to say "that was my production" before they laughed about it).

I remember back when Bat 3 was released and Jim was more actively writing on his blog. He critiqued the album but did not really criticise it, and for me that because despite the legal stuff going on as Meat has professed they never really fell out. Again no more than friends do from time to time.

Jim's recent concerns about Meat's health on his Facebook page show how much he cares for Meat, and the efforts that Meat goes to give Jim credit and promote Jim in everything he does or is linked to of Jim's says more to me than any media article will.

And I did have to laugh at a complaint that £90 is too extortionate for a front of stalls ticket. It's clearly been a while since some people bought West End Tickets lol

I think the difference is that they are groups...Mamma Mia is known as the ABBA musical, not the Benny and Bjorn musical - which is really is. And Queen are Queen, there was never a more single unit group that was the sum of it's parts. They all sang (John Deacon aside) on the albums, all contributed to writing, so I think although Freddie was the frontman, Bat without some mention of Meat would be more like We Will Rock You without mentioning Queen.

I agree though, it's success will be down to the show itself, and with the team behind it I would think it might. We are talking TDV vs DOTV here. Tanz worked and continues to work because of the production/casting etc, Dance didn't for the same reasons. I don't feel the same mistakes being made on Bat that happened on DOTV.

Honestly, the fact that Meat's not in the play isn't going to have an effect on how well it does at this point in time.

What will make or break this musical is the ENERGY it brings, and the ACTORS who bring it. (Not to mention the writing)

If those things rock, especially with Meat doing promo in London, the play will do great, likely better, without Meat involved. The show is about young energy and young people. It's a group of 18 year olds who don't age (According to the lead singer/actor). It's supposed to fire up that youthful energy and you need young people to bring that. No offense intended here, but Meat brings an entirely different thing to Bat nowadays. Wonderful, but not the energy of a 23 year old.

Don't say I never give you anything:

YouTube Video

P.S. Incredibly busy but there is a chance that Meat 'could' be in the cast come broadway next year. Take it with an obligatory and somewhat MASSIVE pinch of salt (at this time).
:cool:

Well that clip was, er.. interesting.. yeah that's it, interesting.

Well, I now need to see this musical.

So I was right. This is... wow, I almost hate myself for being THIS right :shock:

it'll be a chance to get back on stage and not knacker himself through touring. Will takea year though

Falco or another role?

Falco

Thought so. Fingers crossed they'll be able to get it arranged!!

Maybe they could do a special 'concert presentation' at MSG or something with an all-star cast? Bit like the Les Mis anniversary at Royal Albert Hall

As I just posted to a Facebook group Caryl and I both frequent:

You just gotta come at this expectation some Meat fans have, explain what it is they are paying to see, and hope they still want to go anyway. As for those who weren't keen on the idea and never wanted to see it, well, they went into the early coverage and got what they expected to see out of it, so why try to convince them?

Care to explain? Feel free to PM me if you find appropriate.

Rather than couch terms, I'll be direct: if you read earlier in this thread, you'll see Adje wasn't keen on the idea and never wanted to see it. My theory is he went into the early coverage and got what he expected to see out of it.

you have a pm ;)

... and beyond

Yep -- if you're only into Meat's versions of Jim's songs (and if you're not a fan of the musical medium on the whole), then this one probably isn't for you. I'm more than cool with that view, and I understand where those who feel that way are coming from (though I get the impression that Adje - like the snake who eats his own tail - is going to post that same opinion again and again and again, until well after the musical has been released -- ad infinitum!) :cool:

[this musical is gonna suck]
Funny enough I didn't comment on the musical [it's gonna be horrible] except when I read a part of that interview where they spelled Meat's name as the food [horrible I tell you]. And I explained it in a response to your post as a reaction to mine [waste of money, time and effort]. And to be honest I wasn't planning on spending too much time to it in the future [because it's dreadful, you have to listen to me. Dreadful] as I don't really mind or care about it [I hate it, hate it, hate it, hate it]

So good luck with the production, the play and the reviews [although I can tell you already that it's the worst peace of play since Star Wars the Phantom Menace-the musical] and I do wish you all the best with it ;-)

[did I mention it's gonna be horrible?]
:twisted:

I'd rather you didn't. Not my cup of tea at all.

This musical isn't really my "cup of tea" either. I'm one of those who find it hard to enjoy the songs Meat has owned for so long sung by anyone else; it's why I never have been to see, nor will, a tribute band, however good they are.

But that doesn't devalue what they do. Nor does it mean I don't wish Jim every success in finally realising his dream of bringing it to a stage, nor would I make any negative comment without seeing it .. and even then I'd try and be constructive. Things don't suck because they'e not my taste (except Donald Trump ;) ) .. and I'm sure they have recruited talented people to bring Jim's songs to life on stage in a new setting, the setting that has been Jim's vision for so many decades.

Just watched the live feed of the announcement. That was better than I thought it would be, I think.

You seriously miss out. While yes, noone can do jim like Meat, its still worth the time. First hand experience, we put in lots of work.

Not necessarily towards you Caryl, the stigma around here of tributes is appalling. The tribute section of the forum isnt even shown on the main page. Other fansites are much more supportive of tribute acts.

I love your tribute act, because you play all the rare songs too. I counted your "It just won't quit" last year as a 30th birthday present.

First of all Chris, I really enjoy to see you being able to do things that you are pasionate about. That said, I belong amongst those people. For a few simple reasons:

- For me it's not about a song but about the combination with the artist performing. It is very rare for someone to make an existing song 'their own' (although there are exceptions of course) and Meat Loaf is the kind of artist that is hard to replace in that matter. That doesn't mean there aren't performers who can sing a song -vocally- better, butter the 'package' is missing. So Meat Loaf tribute bands are simply a hit and miss to me.

- Other fansites are more positive etc. Perhaps that is true. But most of these artist 'just' sing a song. This is the reason I became a Meat Loaf fan and not a Rod Stewart fan, so to speak. I love Rod's songs but he doesn't perform them as Meat performs his songs. Or Billy Joel, who is more up your alley. Meat isn't the only artist who brings that passion, even to his album tracks, not just live, but a big majority of the artist are 'just' singers. And tributing them is merely being able to sing their songs well.

- Why is a tribute band needed anyway. For example, you work hard on creating a set. Why not put that effort in songs of your own and add cover songs for the crowd so they have some songs they recognize. Because even with all the hard work you're doing, a tribute act just sound lazy and being unable to be creative yourself, to me. I know those are harsh words and I know you aren't lazy or uncreative at all, but that is what 'Tribute act' sounds like to me. I rather see a band do something original ;)

I know what meat Loaf looks and sounds like. I don't need to see what some ordinary bloke looks like as Meat Loaf. But that is just my opnion :cool:

Nothing to do with "stigma". Do what you do and enjoy it to the full. And those who enjoy tributes, go, enjoy, have fun.

I'm sure you put in huge amounts of work, wouldn't deny that. There is clearly a market, but that I'm not part of it doesn't mean I'm missing out. I've never seen a Queen or ABBA tribute either; I don't drink instant coffee. Both are personal choices, just as I wouldn't go to see many artists live that others love.

I suspect Meat tributes have the most difficult task, simply because he has made those songs so much his own, and he IS each song, becomes it, and many I have seen in clips mimic his every movement faithfully .. but that is not the truth Meat brings, almost by definition. They reproduce as faithful a representation of Meat as they can .. but that is of Meat .. not of the character that he becomes. I'm not saying you do this; perhaps you find a character and your truth in the songs .. but I've just watched the live stream of the cast from BOOH The Musical. They are talented .. but it just misses something for me.

Many fans love tributes .. which is great for them. But please don't tell me I'm missing out, because I'm not :) And I don't think that because Tribute Talk is not in the section devoted to Meat Loaf is "stigmatising" either. No tribute IS Meat Loaf ... but I have never seen fans here knocking them (apart from he whose name may not be typed and accepted).

Fortunate for you, then, that none of my posts exists soley for your benefit :roll:

You're missing out on hearing masculine live the only way you can tho.

I think you know my answer to that one ;) xx

i really don't see Tribute bands as lazy depending how they go about it. There are millions who make a living doing Elvis for example. Perfect for a party atmosphere and for those who want to be able to go to a bar and listen to the songs they like, either in the style of the original artist or not.

From what I've seen, Chris, you bring your own things but keep the integrity of the songs on both the Meat Loaf and Billy Joel count.

Then you have shows like We Will Rock You, Mamma Mia, Rock of Ages, Jersey Boys...there's hundreds of them that focus on one person or group's songs and present them in a format that some genuinely hate. There are many who don't give musical theatre the time of day, but the BIG BIG difference for me with Bat is that this is exactly where it came from. The original Dream Engine and Neverland plays were in one way or another the origins of pretty much every song of Jim's that Meat has ever recorded. Without musical theatre, there would be no Bat Out Of Hell and possibly no Meat Loaf as we know and love him.

I love the late 60s/early 70s versions of Bat, Took The Words, All Revved up et al, from those plays every bit as much as the album versions. And the new musical versions, when they are seated in the set, with the production and everything, then I have no doubt I will love them as well.

I've lived Meat's songs for coming up to 30 years, and I'm not about to abandon those songs now just because it isn't Meat singing them. I have Meat singing them forever on that never-should-have-worked album that is 40 years old next year and I'm more than happy to listen to anyone else who cares to sing them. There's a reason why no-one ever begs him to sing Wolf At Your Door or Clap Your Hands just one more time, and it is exactly the same reason that they do want Bat, AFL, Rock and Roll Dreams, For Crying Out Loud, Objects. The singer delivers the song to the listener, but it is the song that sinks its fingers in and doesn't let go.

Bat The Musical, Jim's vision of HIS songs, is basically back to ground zero for these songs. This is where they came from, and this is the beginning. There are many who have never picked up Bat the album, but may well be curious enough to go see the musical, then they may well discover the album and from there who knows where the journey will end.

I got my last Meat/Jim collaboration with Braver, I'm getting another vision of Jim's songs with Tyce's album, and then the man himself brings it all back home on stage in the spring and summer. After almost a decade of what if's and maybe-not-now-or-maybe-not-ever's, i'm taking every moment of these songs in all their forms and being thankful for the risks that are taken against the industry of today to keep them alive and protentially move them another generation and another 40 years into the future.

However if Trump is elected next week who cares because we'll all going to hell sooner or later. Sign out and turn off the lights. :cool: