what happened to stan lynch? the drummer?
scott atwater
Qui...@windmill.com
Yes. According to the Petty episode of VH-1'a "Behind the Music" series,
Lynch was fired for both his technical limitations and his "rock the boat"
attitude. Petty's new drummer is phenomenal, but alas, his name escapes me.
It's Steve... something. Anyway, he's great, and a really good fit with the
Heartbreakers.
On Sun, 22 Aug 1999 14:00:58 -0400, "scott atwater" <conn...@excite.com>
wrote:
>they fired him/?
>
--
Reply to "CP at ix dot netcom dot com"
Chris Paquette
tphb...@my-deja.com
according to that VH1 "Behind the Music" series you've referenced.
According to that show and all other public references, Stan quit the
band because he was unhappy with the direction of the music Petty was
taking (and I happen to agree with Stan, the direction has not been
good since he left). True, Stan often had argued with Petty before on
similar issues, so maybe "rocking the boat" is fair criticism.
But who's "boat" was it? Stan seemed to think he was in a band, while
Petty seemed to be treating the group essentially as hired hands for
his solo work (or so Stan felt, ever since "Full Moon Fever"). The
name of the group doesn't make the reality any clearer: "Tom Petty &
the Heartbreakers" is not "The Heartbreakers" nor is it "Tom Petty".
So it's never been quite an egalitarian band, nor has it truly been a
solo act + sidemen (at least in name).
While Stan was never quite in the "Keith Moon" or "John Bonham" league,
he's a fine drummer and I seriously doubt he would be fired for
"technical limitations". Particularly when you look at the direction
the band has taken after Stan's departure. The drumming on recent
albums ("Wildflowers", "She's the One", "Echo") is far less demanding
technically than on earlier albums such as "Damn the Torpedoes" and
"Long After Dark". So the comment that Stan would be dropped for
technical limitations is ludicrous, when one considers the drumming
requirements for the latest albums, and indeed latest concerts.
What Stan did bring to the group was two important qualities. One - as
a "member", he gave his input on the direction of the music, something
which replacement Steve Ferrone as a "hired hand, not band member" is
unable to do. Stan's input WAS valuable in my opinion, as the albums
made while he was a member are far superior to the latest three. Two -
Stan was a much more creative drummer than Ferrone is now. Sure,
Ferrone is a good "mimic" drummer - he can play anyone's drum part if
they've already created it. But on his work with Petty (the "original"
songs, not covers) he seems to play the same boring beats over and over
and over again. Maybe that's not his fault; perhaps he's limited in
what Petty will allow him to originate. Whatever the reason, the
studio album results with Ferrone as drummer are far more bland and
boring than with Stan's creative drumming input.
The Heartbreakers were probably at their best when Phil Jones was a
"sixth member", as a percussionist for the group in the early 1980's.
He was never officially in the band, but was much like Scott Thurston
is now: someone who played on the albums and at all the live shows.
With Jones, the band essentially had two drummers (Jones often played
bongos) yet the effect was not overpowering or "drum heavy". Jones
also did most of the drumming on Petty's "Full Moon Fever" album. Why
Jones was not chosen to replace Stan, I don't know. I believe that
Ferrone was Rick Rubin's choice, and Petty seemed to go along with
whatever Rubin wanted in those days (he finally seems to be breaking
free of Rubin's hold, just now).
One more "problem" with Stan was that he has always been against drug
use, and around the time of "Wildflowers", Petty (with Rubin's apparent
blessing?) seems to have gotten HEAVILY into pot smoking. The results
are obvious on that album, which is virtually a tribute to "the weed",
with numerous lyrical references and a typical "stoner" sound and
pacing. Stan was against the drug use during the "Southern Accents"
sessions, and (I'm mainly guessing here) against the heavy pot use
surrounding "Wildflowers" and after.
So Stan quit, or maybe he was fired for not "going along" - but all
official references say he quit. To me, the band has not been nearly
as good without him. Ferrone can play his assigned part, but otherwise
seems to give no real input to the direction or creativity of the
band. Assuming Stan would go no matter what, I feel a better
replacement for him would have been longtime near-member Phil Jones, or
even Mudcrutch's outstanding drummer Randall Marsh.
In article <37c35f91....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
ser...@my-deja.com
what happens behind the studiodoors, right? Maybe they're smoking pot,
maybe Stan is bitching the whole time.....maybe they just grew apart....
I think that since Tom writes the music, he can sing whatever he wants
to and if somebody doesn't like it, he doesn't have to buy it..or he
doesn't have to be in this band. Someone surly made a decision and Stan
left, that is what we know. I always liked him a lot and he is a
fabolous musician, but he is gone and that's it. Why talking about
things we don't know? Does anybody know anything about the relations
becourse he was there? If not, you should stop blaming everybody, I'm
sure they had their reasons, and smoking pot isl the most harmless drug
of all!
The good old days may not return.......
Serrena
fan_o...@my-deja.com
in a major way. I'm a big fan of Stan and I
havent really kept up with what's been happening
to the band as avidly since Stan left. It was so
sad to hear he left...he's such an amusing guy!
These last couple of albums have been alright but
sound rather flat. Maybe that's just where Tom's
head is at now but they've certainly lost their
sparkle to me. It's amazing how the loss of one
person can really change your opinion of a band.
And I was always bummed that Stan never got props
from Tom for his ideas. I always thought it was
weird that a person could suggest constructive
ideas but never get any recognized. It's a Band
right? I think it would be great to have someone
who's always thinking of ways to make something
better rather than sit their like a lump, but I
guess some people don't want to hear it. I
realize that they might have different ideas
about 'good' music, but it always made me mad to
hear that Tom would say "just play the drums
Stan". There were some strong personalities and
it's too bad that Stan had to hit the road.
But it's no use dwelling on the past and Stan is
certainly doing alright. He's a terrific
songwriter and producer. I wonder when that new
Don Henley album will be released--I hear that
Stan has turned in a major contribution on that
CD. Good for him, I hope he wins a 'Producer of
the Year' award. What do ya think now, Tom?
In article <7q2dkh$vcq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
mrdancer
<ser...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7q5cbk$108$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<snip>
>Why talking about
> things we don't know?
<snip>
It's human nature to create and spread rumors about that which we are unsure
of....... that's why we have UFO's, weird creatures in the night, Big
Brother, etc........ oh, and lotsa p.o.'d and/or depressed people. :)
CuteGator9
agree with Serena...unless you were there, you don't know what happened. Why
throw accusations around? Why speculate? Stan's gone...he's not coming
back...and personally I think Steve is a great drummer and great addition to
the band. One review of a TPATH concert I read recently said, "excellent
session drummer Steve Ferrone" was being "held back" by Tom's music. This
reviewer mentioned several people Steve has worked with in the past, so he
seemed to know Steve's work. I think it's unfair of you...if you don't know
Steve's previous work...to say he isn't a creative drummer, or that he's "bland
and boring".
You know....I was surprised that Randall Marsh wasn't invited back into the
group when Stan left.
CC
tphb...@my-deja.com
appreciates what he did for the band while he was there. You mention
accusations and speculation by myself, well what about the person on
this thread who insisted that Stan WAS fired - and that this was
documented in the VH1 special (Behind the Music)? I'm sure that if you
saw that VH1 show, you'd recall that no such claim was made about Stan
being fired (they said he quit on that program) nor did the show ever
say that Stan had "technical limitations" as a drummer. So this whole
accusation/speculation thing was not started by myself.
As to my comments/opinions, I still stand by those. I don't know Steve
Ferrone's work before he was with Petty (I understand he has backed
Eric Clapton, among others) but the fact remains his drumming on the 3
Petty studio albums IS weak and boring - and certainly could have been
handled "technically" by Stan, had he chosen to do so. I did leave
room for the fact that Steve's boring drumming might not be his fault -
that maybe he's just doing what Petty and/or Rubin wanted him to do.
The comments you've alluded to seem to indicate that he's capable of
doing a lot more - so why isn't he doing it for Petty? Possibly
because he doesn't feel he has the standing in the band (to offer
creative input) that Stan felt he had when he was the drummer.
It was actually pretty bold of Stan to think that he should have much
of a say on the albums, considering that Petty was the genius, star,
and by far the most significant member. Yet it worked in those days,
and led to better albums thanks to Stan's input, in my opinion. Even
the greatest individual talents need some honest critiqueing or outside
opinions once in a while. Stan helped provide that for TP whether he
wanted it or not. Now Petty is in danger of surrounding himself with
"yes men" who will just "go along", and the albums will be mediocre at
best as a result. If Petty wants that, fine - he's earned it. But if
he truly wants to do his best work going forward, he will have to
listen to some contrary opinions during the creative process. When you
consider the greatest rock bands of all time, I'd say every one of them
has involved some huge, bitter personality clashes - generally stemming
from creative differences of opinion. It would be nice if everyone
could "get along" all the time, but that never seems to lead to the
best music. The ironic thing is that if one were to name a
Heartbreaker (past or present) who's personality is closest to Tom's,
my guess is that it would probably be Stan. They both have that "I
won't back down" mentality. At least they managed to work together for
a long time, and produced a lot of GREAT music over that period.
Lastly, to the marijuana "speculation". I think that's pretty well
known (or presumed anyway), that TP was always somewhat into that - and
in moderation I don't see a big problem with it either. But around the
time Petty started working with Rick Rubin, such usage seems (in my
opinion) to have become much more significant. All in the space of
maybe 2-3 years following the "Great Wide Open" album/tour, Petty wrote
"Mary Jane's Last Dance", "You Get Me High", "You Don't Know How it
Feels", "The Girl on LSD", etc. Drugs/marijuana had really never been
such a significant topic in his earlier songs. Also, the slower,
mellower pace of recent years could be attributed to age I suppose -
but it also corresponds to the type of sluggish pacing usually
associated with heavily pot-influenced music. Further, Petty's lyrics
are not nearly as intelligent as they used to be, they dropped off
sharply after the "Into the Great Wide Open" album. So I figured that
was another obvious "sign" of major pot usage. Sure, pot seems to be a
harmless drug (no known permanent damage), but one can't do very
intelligent work while on it, from what I can tell. If Petty wants to
just enjoy his life, that's great - he's already done 10 times as many
great songs as most popular rock musicians will ever do. But if he
wants to create some more music as good as his pre-Wildflowers albums,
I feel he will have to make a few changes - which will probably include
listening to some "rock the boat" types such as Stan Lynch.
By the way, Randall Marsh may have been the best drummer Petty ever
worked with on a regular basis - I wonder what happened to him?
In article <19990827112200...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
surf...@jps.net
internet) here are some quotes from the VH1 Behind The Music special.
Stan said: "I got fired during Torpedoes and I think I got fired during
Long After Dark."......."There's only a couple of things you can do to
get fired: suck at it or have a bad attitude....I probably did them
both"... So according to Stan himself he did get fired -- he thinks
twice. In reference to when he left the band, Stan said that he "took
the ride as far as it would go".... there was a lot of friction in the
band and "the 90s were though"....
So there it is. The person who said he was fired was right...or half
right...or a third right...does it matter? Apparently Stan "sucked" or
had technical limitations (whatever you prefer), and he returned to the
band.
Your comments about Ferron's drumming makes me think you haven't see
TPATH during the current tour. I just saw them at the Shoreline, and
Ferron's drumming was fantastic. I'm sure your opinion of Stan's
drumming is based on performances you've seen; why don't you do the same
for Ferrone and watch him play at a concert. You may have a different
feeling about him and the band.
I don't know what to say about your creative process theories. I think
CCR had a "democratic" input process for one of their albums, and it was
a disaster. Your assumption is that Stan was a significant catalyst in
Tom's creative process years ago. Do you really know how much of it was
Stan's influence? My guess is that Tom was influenced by different
things in his 20s and 30s and it reflected in his music; who knows how
much of it you can attribute to Stan. As far as Tom needing "to listen
to some contrary opinions during the creative process." How do you know
listening to other people even works? Tom's not manufacturing
automobiles. If he started to listen to everyone, he'd probably write a
lot of Edsel songs. Anyway, does your song writing methodology work for
other people? Does Dylan have a lot of people *advising* him on his
work? Etc.. The creative process is really subjective; I don't think
anyone needs to hear contrary opinions for the sake of hearing them.
Hmm...by the way, I'm giving you a contrary opinion if you haven't
noticed. ;)
A.M.
In article <7qcsl0$t8q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<A HREF="http://www.jps.net/surfnburn/index.htm">The Mike Campbell/Wild
Gator Site</A>
tphb...@my-deja.com
the mid 90's, or so I assumed - not something that went on in 1982.
Sure, during the Long After Dark sessions Stan quit and came back,
was fired and came back; he never was really gone long enough to be
permanently replaced. The part about Stan saying "he sucked" has more
to do with his self-deprecating sense of humor than any actual
technical limitation. Stan remained with the band for 14 straight
years after the Long After Dark sessions you refer to - how's that for
getting "fired"? The implication by "Quixote" from what I can tell is
that Stan's permanent departure in 1994 was due to firing - and that's
not true, at least not according to the VH1 special. So your use of
the 1982 events does not support your case, IMO.
I am not saying that "democracy" leads to good music. Someone has to
be in charge, management by committee will not work. But the leader
also has to be willing to accept constructive critism and creative
input from others to achieve best results. That's what a "band" is all
about. Most artists who leave a successful band for a solo career do
about one good album (if that) and then fall flat for the rest of their
careers. Where is Sting now without the Police? Or Paul McCartney
without the Beatles (or even Wings)? In many cases, input from a real
band tends to keep the "star" from drifting too far into sappy or
uninteresting music. Stan was one who gave such input to TP. So did
Denny Cordell, Jimmy Iovine, Dave Stewart, Jeff Lynne. Now who does?
Surely not Rick Rubin; albums that sound like demos made in a garage
are just fine with him. Don't tell me about Bob Dylan, he's a fine
songwriter but I'm not at all a fan of his performances - on albums or
in concert. To me, Dylan's best way to produce music is to write a
song and then let someone else perform it. So in that sense, he is
enabling "outside contributions" to his original work, thus taking them
to their "best" final form.
I've seen Ferrone in concert; he's fine there as long as he's playing a
song in which the drum parts are already well established, such as
"Don't Do Me Like That". But how about on the studio albums? Can you
really say you find anything interesting about the drumming on any of
those 3 albums that he's done with Petty? And I'm talking about more
than just the slow pacing of those albums; while "Hard Promises" was a
fairly slow paced album too, Stan found a lot of different ways to make
the drumming interesting. Steve's studio work with Petty sounds as if
it could have been done just as well by a metronome. It's just so weak
and monotonous, at least to my ears. As I've said before, maybe it's
not his fault - maybe he's just held back by Petty (as someone else
suggested). Ferrone is a fine "session" drummer (seems to play exactly
what was asked), and a decent live "mimic" drummer. But you'd think
that somewhere over the course of three entire albums, he'd have added
something creative if he were ever going to do so. Of course, some
people love those albums - so they either love his drumming too, or at
least they don't mind it. At any rate, my point was to defend Stan,
not denounce Steve. I'd prefer Stan, Randall Marsh, Phil Jones, or a
slew of others; but that's just one person's opinion. Enjoy your
Wildflowers and She's the One and Echo. I sure hope that period of
lame albums is over, however.
In article <7qffg8$ovu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
CuteGator9
>songwriter but I'm not at all a fan of his performances - on albums or
>in concert. To me, Dylan's best way to produce music is to write a
>song and then let someone else perform it. So in that sense, he is
>enabling "outside contributions" to his original work, thus taking them
>to their "best" final form.
>
Oh, geeze.....I can't begin to fathom how anyone can say something like this!
No, Bob does not have a pretty singing voice....Bob doesn't even have a good
voice. But NOBODY can sing a Bob song like Bob can. It's in the DELIVERY of
the song....the subtle nuances in his voice.....the way he can take a line that
could be interpreted as sweet and loving if one is just reading the line (or
another singer is singing it), and turn it into something sneering and
sarcastic. He sings the song the way he meant it to be sung....the way he was
feeling when he wrote it. I can understand why people don't like to listen to
Bob sing, but I cannot understand how someone can say that a Dylan song reaches
its "best final form" when it's performed by another artist. And I'm talking
about DYLAN here...not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry songwriter. So, don't use
that argument on me. <G>
CC
barbara...@verizon.net
Now, he wouldn't remember me at all, but I met Stan several times in the late 70's. He was a gentleman, very personable, and kind. But, whoever commented about his dislike for pot was incorrect. At least back in the late 70's. Now, back stage, even though I saw pot being used, I did not see any of the band smoking pot. But Stan did ask me out. I neither drink, nor do drugs, so when he asked me if I'd like to go back to his place and get high, I could not accept. He then asked if I wanted to go get a drink, but again, I could not accept. Well, I guess it appeared to him that I was snubbing him and I think I embarrassed him. But, the few times I ran into him after this, he was very, VERY nice to me! Invited me to personal, backstage and hotel parties, etc., had his friends move over (sitting on half of their seats) to have me and my friends join them at a concert we were both at, etc. he was always very nice to me and I always liked him. Members of other bands always spoke highly of him too, which isn't always the case between competing bands, (lots of jealousy). But everyone liked Stan. Everyone LOVED Stan. He had a great personality. But, having said that, he did feel passionate and loose his temper. A roommate/BFF of mine was at a recording session for Damn the Torpedos with Shelly Yakus (sp? Sorry) and Stan stormed out, swearing he quit, because of a disagreement. So these problems existed well back into the late 70's, at least.
Even though I'm a huge Petty fan, and always have been since She was an American Girl, I'd agree that w/o Stan Lynch, the band doesn't have the same energy. Stan was the heart. I hope he's doing well.