Geoff Tate to Rocklahoma, "You Guys Suck"

Geoff Tate, you are playing 20 minutes from my front door, and I'm not going because you suck. It does get better than this on a Sunday. I'm really bummed it wasn't the other guys coming.

So I checked the legal documents, and this is what it states:

Quote :

Geoff Tate even refuses to perform the bulk of the songs from the first five, and most popular, albums, considering them “stupid,” his refusal coming in the face of overwhelming fan demand.

They probably could have worded this better to avoid Tate's true claim of playing old songs live. I'm assuming the band wants to play all old songs, but Tate refuses that because most of the post-DeGarmo tracks are his, or the stuff he prefers. Understandable on his part.

But yeah, I can see Tate refusing to do an entire tour of oldies or whatever.

Tate saying he didin't refuse to sing songs from the earlier albums is way different than them saying he refuses to perform the "bulk" of the songs.

Maybe Geoff can call his new band.....Tater Salad

Eyesore wrote:

So I checked the legal documents, and this is what it states:

Quote :

Geoff Tate even refuses to perform the bulk of the songs from the first five, and most popular, albums, considering them “stupid,” his refusal coming in the face of overwhelming fan demand.

They probably could have worded this better to avoid Tate's true claim of playing old songs live. I'm assuming the band wants to play all old songs, but Tate refuses that because most of the post-DeGarmo tracks are his, or the stuff he prefers. Understandable on his part.

But yeah, I can see Tate refusing to do an entire tour of oldies or whatever.

The minute you start doing only your 'greatest hits' or 'golden oldies' only you have relegated your band to a nostalgia band only, sure most of your fans may only want to hear your older material, but as an artist, you want to keep pushing it forward.

Granted alot of older bands such as the Stones and Aerosmith, may throw two or three new numbers only, but its something at least, so I can't say I blame Geoff Tate for not only wanting to do only classic tracks.

manny wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

So I checked the legal documents, and this is what it states:

Quote :

Geoff Tate even refuses to perform the bulk of the songs from the first five, and most popular, albums, considering them “stupid,” his refusal coming in the face of overwhelming fan demand.

They probably could have worded this better to avoid Tate's true claim of playing old songs live. I'm assuming the band wants to play all old songs, but Tate refuses that because most of the post-DeGarmo tracks are his, or the stuff he prefers. Understandable on his part.

But yeah, I can see Tate refusing to do an entire tour of oldies or whatever.

The minute you start doing only your 'greatest hits' or 'golden oldies' only you have relegated your band to a nostalgia band only, sure most of your fans may only want to hear your older material, but as an artist, you want to keep pushing it forward.

Granted alot of older bands such as the Stones and Aerosmith, may throw two or three new numbers only, but its something at least, so I can't say I blame Geoff Tate for not only wanting to do only classic tracks.

That seems to make more sense than the band saying Geoff refuses to sing older songs. He sings some, just not a whole night of "Greatest Hits".

MetalGuy71 wrote:

manny wrote:

Eyesore wrote:

So I checked the legal documents, and this is what it states:

Quote :

Geoff Tate even refuses to perform the bulk of the songs from the first five, and most popular, albums, considering them “stupid,” his refusal coming in the face of overwhelming fan demand.

They probably could have worded this better to avoid Tate's true claim of playing old songs live. I'm assuming the band wants to play all old songs, but Tate refuses that because most of the post-DeGarmo tracks are his, or the stuff he prefers. Understandable on his part.

But yeah, I can see Tate refusing to do an entire tour of oldies or whatever.

The minute you start doing only your 'greatest hits' or 'golden oldies' only you have relegated your band to a nostalgia band only, sure most of your fans may only want to hear your older material, but as an artist, you want to keep pushing it forward.

Granted alot of older bands such as the Stones and Aerosmith, may throw two or three new numbers only, but its something at least, so I can't say I blame Geoff Tate for not only wanting to do only classic tracks.

That seems to make more sense than the band saying Geoff refuses to sing older songs. He sings some, just not a whole night of "Greatest Hits".

I think the rest of the band is talking about more of the obscure stuff, whether it be off the E.P, "The Warning", or "Rage For Order". The impression was that Geoff scoffed when it came to their metal history, and in many ways treated it like that of Joe Elliott of Def Leppard; he would just assume that certain songs never see the light of day again. I think it was in this thread where Fat Freddy asked a buddy who was sitting down in an interview with Geoff to pose the question, would the song "Queen of the Reich" and the storyline ever be broached and come to fruition? Obviously there was a lot of tongue and cheek in that question, but that answer was undeniably....NO. With that being said, would it be shocking if the current lineup of Queensryche ever decided to entertain that idea? No. I'm not trying to say that I think this should happen, I just believe more in the open mindedness of the other four members and not that of Geoff Tate. He comes off beyond conceded in interviews and seems like someone who would grate on you 24/7. You think someone would pull the guy aside and tell him to read his direct quotes....

Whether the new version of Queensryche can be successful, is probably an afterthought to the current members of the band. What is success anyways, and how does it relate to their future? In all honesty, they were never going to top the pinnacle that they reached between the years 88-92, or even get close to that again. The current musical environment doesn't allow for that, and probably won't within the time they have left as a band. So, the band as we know it is going through a divorce, with an individual who was the most recognizable of the band. Most people think that probably took huge cajones to exercise such a decision. I guess I'm in the minority in regards to feeling that way, since I'm sure there is this huge sense of relief that the overbearing/confrontational band member is no longer. There is so much sh!t that a person or person's can deal with, and the rest of the members decided enough is enough. I say, good for them....

Does anyone want to hear the newer stuff? Maybe a song or three but truthfully, they are a nostalgia act.

Maybe if the newer stuff was worth hearing...

Dark Horseman wrote:

Does anyone want to hear the newer stuff? Maybe a song or three but truthfully, they are a nostalgia act.

Probably not. But I could see Geoff's point. If they keep playing the new stuff ad naseum and forcing it on people, eventually folks will come around and say "You know, those newer tunes aren't that bad". In theory, it works. Repetition will make even the shittiest song stick in your heard.

Unfortunatly, if the whole band isn't on board with this theory, your're gonna have problems.

Yeah, I'm not sure the band wanted to do a greatest-hits tour. I always took it as them wanting to "Deliverance" and "Nightrider," songs like that, and Geoff was resistant.

Quote :

Dark Horseman wrote:

Does anyone want to hear the newer stuff? Maybe a song or three but truthfully, they are a nostalgia act.

Probably not. But I could see Geoff's point. If they keep playing the new stuff ad naseum and forcing it on people, eventually folks will come around and say "You know, those newer tunes aren't that bad". In theory, it works. Repetition will make even the shittiest song stick in your heard.

Yeah but in concert you're not going to hear it more then once. Unless Geoff decides to play them over and over.

Quote :

I think it was in this thread where Fat Freddy asked a buddy who was sitting down in an interview with Geoff to pose the question, would the song "Queen of the Reich" and the storyline ever be broached and come to fruition? Obviously there was a lot of tongue and cheek in that question, but that answer was undeniably....NO.

Just to save everyone the trouble of going through 26 pages of thread trying to find that story, here it is, like to hear it? Here it go.

My reporter buddy interviewed Tate for the newspaper we both work for, probably around the "Mindcrime II" time period, and he asked me if I had any questions I wanted him to ask Tate. I told him (sarcastically) to ask Tate when the band would do a video that picked up the storyline from the "Queen of the Reich" video cuz y'know, it ends with a "TO BE CONTINUED" and it was never continued!

...Mind you, I was being a wise ass and I didn't think he'd actually ask Tate that question, but he threw it in there at the end of the interview for a goof and Tate just chuckled and said something like "Uh....no, I don't think we'll be doing that anytime soon."

It is not uncommon for novelists, filmmakers and painters to dislike their earliest work. They may find the early technique shoddy or they may no longer agree with the viewpoint they had at the start of their careers...or a hundred other reasons.

Why that should be any different of musicians is beyond me.

exactly. Perhaps Geoff now feels that there IS an escape from the Queen.

S.D. wrote:

It is not uncommon for novelists, filmmakers and painters to dislike their earliest work. They may find the early technique shoddy or they may no longer agree with the viewpoint they had at the start of their careers...or a hundred other reasons.

Why that should be any different of musicians is beyond me.

It shouldn't be, and I don't think anyone suggested is should be. Geoff Tate is one person in a group of five. If he wants to do something different from the majority...well, he gets a situation much like what we have here.

More lawsuit documents up:

http://www.anybodylistening.net/breakdownroom/index.php?topic=2906.0

Tate's response to Queenryche's filing to keep Tate from performing as Geoff Tate's Queensryche featuring Geoff Tate, he Original Douche.

Highlights:

Geoff is now saying he wasn't violent with the band (I see a copy of That Metal Show being used as evidence in the future)

Tate also claims that Wilton once kicked him in the face. Wilton was drunk. And it occurred on the Metallica/Queesnryche tour back in 1988......

He also claims that Queesnryche offered the lead singer job to Jason Ames before he was fired for $600 a week when touring. Jason was a touring musician with Queesnryche whose touring salary was higher than what he was offered to sing for the band. On tour, he played keys, some backup guitar and sang back up vocals (to help out Tate on some of the tracks) He's also Geoff Tate's wife's ex husband and biological father of his daughter (via Tate's Wife)

In other news, Pamela Moore (Sister Mary) will be joining Queensryche (the real one not the Tateryche) on stage.

Don't lawyers go over this stuff?

"The three of them speculated with me about Geoff leaving the band to possibly pursue a solo career and they didn't want to stop the band."

That's one declaration by this keyboard player. Then a few points later he says:

"She responded that Geoff wasn't thinking of leaving Queensryche. This left me with an uneasy feeling, seemingly fueled by an ulterior motive. They offered me one-half my normal pay and wanted to get rid of Geoff."

He then goes on to elaborate more, but never saying anything that shows the other guys did anything shady. Did he ever think that the band might have actually thought Geoff might pursue a solo career?

Lastly, he points out that he was fired by the other guys. Hmmm... Lots of speculation on this guy's part that, in my opinion, shows the ulterior motive in this instance.

And quote of the day: "He said that 'Geoff will fight me because he has balls," and proceeded to kick Geoff in the face." —Eddie Jackson

I also love how they're making declarations against a band member who might have assaulted someone while drunk in his twenties, as if it compares to a sober, 53-year-old man assaulting someone.

This lawsuit is getting to be even more absurd, I wish Geoff Tate would drop it, stop making these lawyers even richer and go out as Geoff Tate, not Geoff Tate's Queensryche that is just stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!

I feel if Geoff figured he could make a run at it without the "Queensryche" moniker attached, he'd a gone and done just that. If he's willing to spend money on lawyers and such, It's obvious which eggs are in what basket.

http://guitarinternational.com/2012/11/05/geoff-tate-talks-about-his-new-creation-kings-thieves

Geoff's ass is talking again.

"Spending 30 years with the man, it was tough to have a conversation with him. I have only had about 10-15 conversations with him in 30 years."

Here's referring to Wilton. But didn't Tate say that everything was fine before he got fired, nothing out of the ordinary?

The Thread That Will Not Die

Eyesore wrote:

http://guitarinternational.com/2012/11/05/geoff-tate-talks-about-his-new-creation-kings-thieves

Geoff's ass is talking again.

"Spending 30 years with the man, it was tough to have a conversation with him. I have only had about 10-15 conversations with him in 30 years."

Here's referring to Wilton. But didn't Tate say that everything was fine before he got fired, nothing out of the ordinary?

Geoff is quickly climbing the list of my most reviled personalities within the music industry. He has a long way to topple the likes of Axl Rose, but he's gaining ground on that douche. Geoff reminds me of the most unscrupulous of politicians, as he seems to flip flop on stories pertaining to his relations with band members and just what HE perceived to be the overall malaise that led to him getting fired. I don't know,.... it's just irritating and frankly disingenuous to hear this guy and his revisionist history exploits. It's like dude, get over your narcissistic ways, which are quickly taking you down the road of becoming a sociopath. Granted, this is not the ridiculousness of East Coast/West Coast rapper wars (which left people and a few losers dead), but this guy sucks on so many levels. He didn't want to cop to the fact that he spit on one of his band members, UNTIL video evidence proved other wise; he also tried to say that the physical assaults which he was responsible for didn't really happen, UNTIL he gave reasons for their justification (I.E: Wife getting fired as band manager, etc). This guy is an idiot!

S.D. wrote:

The Thread That Will Not Die

There are too many similar threads and none are really appropriate. Someone change the title of this one to Geoff Tate is a Wackadouche. Then it'll be perfect.