Tommy Lee Draws A Line In the Sand: Meet and Greet Version
Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 12:02AM Welp, someone in the big leagues finally did it: Tommy Lee is done with fan paid meet and greets. Tommy made the announcement yesterday via the Motley Crue Facebook.
“For those of you that are asking why I am not doing anymore meet and greets!! It’s got nothing to do with me not wanting to meet the fans, I just don’t agree with doing it under the certain given circumstances. I love u all and I’ll gladly high five y’all if I see u out n about – and u won’t have to pay me for that.”
Motley is currently on tour in Australia.
Tommy didn't really explain the situation, but I have my theories. Most of you already know how I feel about paid meet and greets: I think they are bogus cash grabs. I will never pay to meet anyone. Period. Granted, I probably have an unfair advantage when it comes to meeting bands, but still. Even if I didn't write about bands, I'd never pay to meet anyone. It just seems insane to me.
It's not uncommon for Live Nation-backed meet and greets to cost a $1,000 bucks. I can renovate an entire bedroom and bathroom for a thousand bucks and have money left over for dinner, thank you very much.
The Motley Crue packages start at $295 and top out at $900. The high end includes the chance to meet and whole band with a photo.
Now, you can do whatever you like with your money. You've earned it, and you should spend it however you choose. But I'm definitely in Tommy's camp on this one. I suppose his line in the sand puts the other members of Motley in an awkward position regarding the meet and greets. It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.
Reader Comments (24)
HIM, Rita, Gary! Absolutely priceless entries! Gary, hysterical comment, "... wearing clothes that would fit in an envelope." Hahaha!!! Rita! You are SO ROCK! Pack your bags! We're runnin' away together! HIM, as usual, you have outdone yourself, once again. Over the top funny descriptions of each member of the Crüe!!!
Now bkallday, you make quite a few assumptions about my likes and dislikes. I am not a Crue hater at all. Love the band. And loved them a lot more when they were selling the majority of those albums you so lovingly reference. True, I enjoy SATD and MC in about equal measure because they are two different beasts (and love the song "Primal Scream" because of what it suggested about the band before Neil left and started to wear slimming trench coats as well).
Going strong? Even the most ardent of fans has to admit that they have seen a decrease in productivity, in album quality, in consistency on stage (esp. with Neil), in the last decade or so. What about the set-lists? It is no wonder that the show gets more and more complicated . . . the sparkle has to come from somewhere (and you aren't going to get away with making some comparison to floating camera balls or Lee's track rig or the backup singers or what have you). The show is more of the show now than the songs.
And I don't really care if they make money or not. In fact, they do (scroll back through my message and you will see how the points fell on that account). I have even gone so far as to admire bands whose music I dislike for knowing how to extend their brand. Like Poison, MC has figured out a way to stay viable even if they are less and less relevant (and who cares about that?).
No, my point was more specific (and I placed it towards the end to help you find it): Lee is a hypocrite who turns his personal gripes into stunning displays of credibility. He is consistent in that regards I suppose.
And what on earth would my favorite album prove? Depending on the day, it is _Sabotage_ by Sab, _MC_ by MC, _The Amazing Kamikaze Syndrome_ by Slade, or something grand and snarky by P.I.L. Never been one to have only one fave. You know the quotation about consistency, right?
So thanks for giving me the biz, bkallday. It didn't hurt. And I promise not to tell. There's a none-too-smooth Bulletboys joke in all that. But I have to get back to, err, something.
Gotta say, though, I might disagree with you slightly on the relevance of Poison vs. Crüe. I actually think Crüe is significantly more relevant than Poison as Crüe has a bigger, or shall we say, more substantial back catalogue than Poison and also have a pretty good track record of putting new music out even if some of it is a little inconsistent ("Generation Swine" was a shambles), whereas Poison actually suffers from Michaels' shameless and desperate exploits in his lame attempts to remain relevant, i.e. Stupid Reality TV, Hick-Rock solo career and starring in commercials.
Poison would simply be way more relevant if they would just make a great new album. They just seem oblivious to the whole tide in their favor with the new resurgence and appreciation for our kind of music.
They are really failing to capitalize on that. Same goes with Cinderella, though Kiefer is doing his solo thing but with more quality and integrity as opposed to Michaels, who's solo stuff is way less sophisticated than what Kiefer does.
Get with it Poison!