Chad Bowar of About.com recently interviewed very own Eddie Trunk. Portions of the discussion appear below.
Q: Is a second book like a second album, where you have your whole life to do the first one, but only a few months for the second one and a lot more pressure and expectations?
A: That’s a great question. (laughs) Certainly the expectation is there for people who have the first book. The first book was incredibly well-received by most people, more so than I think me or my publisher ever envisioned. All the elements
that people loved about the first book: the layout, the mix of photos versus text, the personal stories, the playlists, all the anecdotes; they are all there. This book is a sequel in the truest sense of the word.
The big difference of course is this one has 35 chapters on bands that were not in the first book. I really wanted to include many of these bands in the first book, but I ran out of space. I hope it lives up to the expectations and the precedent that was set by the first book. Obviously, as you move into another 35 bands, not every one is going to be a household name. But a lot of people are looking forward to reading about some of the more off-the-radar bands. And there’s plenty about established bands, as well.
Q: Was there an artist or artists that people complained weren’t included in the first book that you were able to put in this one?
A: I didn’t really hear from so many people about bands that weren’t in the first book. I did hear from a lot of people about bands that were in the first book that they were kind of surprised about. An example of that would be Bon Jovi. Younger people especially don’t quite understand the connection that Bon Jovi had with this scene when they first came on it. If you’re not my age (I’m 49), you might not understand that they were very much a part of the hard rock/metal scene early on, and have evolved past it. Billy Squier, same story, from book one.
There were a couple of bands that I’m personally very close to that weren’t included in the first book that are in this one. People were like, “I can’t believe you didn’t include Overkill in the first book.” Overkill is a band that I was personally very close to from the beginning, being they were a Jersey band, and they are still friends to this day. One of the guys said, “Jesus, we’ve known this guy for 30 years and didn’t make his book!” (laughs).
It was nothing personal, I love Overkill. But each book has to be a balance between bands I feel are important to include, bands I feel are important to include because of my personal relationship with them, and there are bands that I’m a really big fan of that maybe weren’t ever all that popular, but I want to include. So it’s got to be a balance. Obviously you have to have some name bands in there so that the book sells and enough people recognize the names. Then there are those bands that I love and want to talk about. So I’m happy to say Overkill is in this book, as are Testament, who were a big part of my early years in the music industry. Same with White Lion. I have a huge history with those guys. In this book I was able to include those guys and get their stories out.
Q: One band that’s included in the book that you have championed is Y&T, who I think are very underrated.
A: I’ve always loved Y&T. As a kid I used to go see them at clubs like L’Amours in Brooklyn in the early ‘80s. I’ve seen them so many times over the decades. I think Dave Meniketti is one of the great singers and guitar players who doesn’t get the accolades he should. I was really glad to be able to include them. One of the things that happened with the first book that I hope happens with this book is that you have the big bands that everybody knows like Ratt and Whitenake. But you also have Y&T and Riot and Angel, bands that maybe not everybody knows. That is something I hope people get turned onto through the book. Everything I’ve ever done is about sharing music that I love and maybe getting people to discover stuff they didn’t know about.
Q: Some classify Y&T as “hair metal,” a term you do not like and have talked about on your show. Do you have a problem with it if it’s used as a term of endearment?
A: I’m not the thought police (laughs). I just say how I feel about things. Why I was vocal about that is that mostly younger people that didn’t grow up in the times where these bands were crucified, don’t realize that was born as a derogatory term. It was a statement that was applied to these guys that really hurt them for decades. I had Jake E. Lee on That Metal Show recently, and he said he couldn’t get gigs throughout the ‘90s because every time he’d go in for an audition, bands would say, “There’s that hair metal guy.”
Read more at About.com.
75 Responses
Shit metal. Garbage like WASP, Keel, Kick Axe, Faster Pussycat, Kix, Slaughter, Vixen, Great White. All of it derivative and shallow. MTV providing the only chance for “success”, because not one of these stiffs could have ever had a hit based on radio play. A horrible era overall. When you’re stealing from Def Leppard, Kiss or Motley Crue, you are on the lowest rung of the creative process.
Clearly, if you’re lumping Great White in with Vixen then you don’t know what you’re talking about. And several of those bands really don’t represent what that ‘era’ was about. Kick Axe and Keel? Those are like 4th tier bands from that era. You’re obviously not a fan of that genre, or you might be aware of some of the more talented bands that made some kick ass music, and Great White is certainly one of those bands. Kix was pretty damn good as well.
Yeah, Faster Pussycat and Vixen sucked, but the fact that they had record contracts speaks volumes about how screwed up the record industry is. Once those idiots see that a certain style is popular, they go about signing every fringe copycat band out there, and some of it is shit. They saturate the market with a lot of garbage, and then inevitably there is a shift to something different in terms of what is ‘popular’. In this case, we got grunge music, which actually flamed out a lot faster than ‘hair metal’ did. In fact, there are still a lot more of those ’80s bands playing today compared to the ’90s bands.
Hey Rich, I agree with you as far as the longevity of the 80’s bands versus 90’s bands. When is the last time you’ve seen a festival (like M3) for grunge? Lallapalooza?? In my opinion, the only major bands that kicked ass from the 90’s were Pantera, Tool, AIC, and Soundgarden. And if I have to hear one more time how Kurt Cobain and Nirvana killed 80’s music I’m gonna puke. Nirvana sucked. The only reason they were big is because 80’s music was so watered-down and overexposed that ANYTHING different in the early 90’s would have killed it.
I’ll stick up for some of the grunge bands. Obviously Cobain and Staley are dead, so you won’t be seeing two of the biggest grunge era bands around. Weiland is a train-wreck, but the older STP stuff still holds up well. Pearl Jam is also still doing well. They don’t need a big festival, cause Pearl Jam probably would sell more tickets by themselves than 6 hair bands on a bill.
Cobain’s lyrics apparently got through to a generation. There’s more to life than “Fuck like a beast” and the other one-dimensional stuff that most hair bands are obsessed with.
Agree Rich. Great White was not a Hair Metal band. Again if the only song you heard from them was ‘Once Bitten Twice Shy’, you might lump them into that category. But that would be wrong. I’m also going to stick up for WASP (which is really bizarre)- hair metal bands didn’t write songs like ‘Fuck like a Beast’, or ‘The Torture never stops’, or ‘The Headless Children’ or ‘The Crimson Idol’. They might not have been everyone’s cup of tea, but Blackie Lawless definitely isn’t/wasn’t hair metal.
Yeah, good call on WASP. They looked as stupid as anybody but were musically a lot more “real metal” than a lot of those other bands. I’m not saying they were the greatest ever or anything, but much better than many probably realize.
The Crimson Idol is a great album.
LOL! well said. you should write a book, might even be on par with Eddie’s if not better.
Let’s make one thing perfectly clear: KISS from 1974 to 1979 was an amazing band.
Point two: No one borrowed or stole from KISS. Inspired by, maybe, but not borrowed or stole.
No one touches KISS. Why? Great fucking songs. Even their solo albums (except Peter) had great songs, if not great performances (Gene’s).
No self respecting band would steal from such lameass Alice Cooper/New York Dolls rip like KISS. But plenty of bands with no self respect did. Like WASP.
KISS music was generia. They probably had a hotline in the studio with Russ Ballard and Desmond Child faxing them songs. How did Bob Halligan Jr not hone in ?
Yes speedking, cause the fax machine was a real popular form of communication back in 1975. Apparently you know it all Genius. Got a real hate on for WASP I see. What happened, did you get a cod piece in the face at one of their shows?
I know this you douche. In ’75-78, Bob Ezrin wouldn’t use your heroes on their own records. The fax reference was to the 80’s you fag.
Wow speedking – fantastic homophobia on your part. I haven’t been called a fag since about 1984 which I suspect is the same year as the high tops your currently wearing. Let me ask you something expert. If KISS is so absolutely shitty and nothing more than a bunch of rip offs, how in the hell do you think it is possible that they are still around more than 40 years after they started with Mr. Ezrin? Love’em or hate’em but they’ve been around longer than you’ve been living in your parent’s basement. So I can appreciate your opinion, I cannot tolerate your immature language which does nothing more than show what a true embarrassment you really are. So I would suggest you cut your mullet and stop making out with your sister Backwoods and realize that in 2013 we’ve tried to bring our commentary up to a more suitable level than the heresy you like to spew. If you don’t know the meaning of the word heresy, perhaps you can run upstairs and ask your Mom what that means. And then you and her can spend some quality time looking it up in the dictionary together. Clearly you haven’t spent enough time with her and explains the language you like to use which shows your complete immaturity and overall complete lack of class. But thanks for playing today. We’ll send you home with some subsidiary prizes like a toothbrush for your one tooth and some soap that your mom can use to wash your mouth out with.
I agree – I’m not a KISS fan, and obviously Eddie Trunk is a huge one – so I’m not going to be a troll on his site, but I’ll say this:
I think what really has to bother even the most rabid KISS fan is the realization – one that many of us had at a very early age/stage in our music fandom, that KISS is completely contrived and exists only to line Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley’s pockets. Say what you want about Led Zep stealing a few licks/riffs here and there – 90% of what they did was brilliant in terms of rock. And they disbanded due to artistic reasons when Bonham died.
With Peter Criss and Ace Frehley being replaced by imposters, the die-hard fan finally must realize that this is the truth. It was all about the money and nothing else. The band was completely contrived from the first ad in a newspaper looking for musicians. Every move they ever made while playing their instruments – completely rehearsed and posed, like Paula Abdul choreographed it. All a fan does is call Eddie’s show and mention it – and the next 10 minutes we get Eddie’s passionate rantj, which I look forward to. I’d dare say, that the fact that Ace and Peter are being impersonated is just the symptom – it’s not the main thing that bothers fans. Look deeper and the real wound is knowing the frame of mind and way the creators of this band think – and that’s what has to hurt the most. All the KISS vs. Aerosmith or Led Zep arguments and officially null and void. You’ve all been suckered. At least you enjoy the music, but it is to music what McDonalds is to food – every ingredient carefully manipulated with zero real value.
The hate for KISS always amazes me. Forty years later, who really cares what you think.
Goes double for your opinion, you infant.
I’m not a huge KISS fan, but I do own a couple of their CDs. So I’m not ‘hating’ on that band, but if you’ve watched the way that Gene and Paul have carefully controlled the KISS brand, and recognize that they were always more about style rather than substance, you have to concede that a lot of what John says is true. Look, I’ll give props to KISS for all they’ve accomplished and that they definitely gave their fans a hell of a show. But musically, you can’t honestly tell me that this was a band on par with other great rock bands of the same era. Compare them to Zepplin, Deep Purple, Sabbath, Aerosmith, Pink Floyd, Queen? I could go on with that list but you get the picture.
Nobody innovates 100%, everyone has their influences. But KISS really did have a unique sound. Ace Frehley told me once, that one thing he was proud of, is that KISS had 4 unique lead vocalists, and maybe only the Beatles did that. But KISS from 1974 to 1979 were amazing, even through the hard times. What happened in the 1980s and 1990s and now are not something I like, but back in the day, KISS really did rule. Brian is right: The hatred for KISS amazes us. We can talk about KISS’ successes and fuckups because KISS has been around long enough to do both. Most other bands would give their nuts to have even their failures!
You have to take KISS for what it is…a brand and a business. Gene has never hidden from that. Yes they wrote some great music but I don’t look at them like any other band. They were always a business and whether you like em or not, they are still here. That’s not my endorsement of them, but rather a factual comment. Guys who hate on bands that have had more success in one minute that we’ve had in a life time are hilarious to me. There are bands out there today that I truly loathe (GNR being one of them), but if people are paying the money to see the concert, or download the album or buying the shirt, how can you deny their success? If KISS were the piece of shit loser band that some of you suggest, then they wouldn’t be here anymore. I agree with John G as it relates to the ‘replacements’. But to Gene and Paul those identities/characters belong to the brand which Gene and Paul paid for when they bought out Ace and Peter. Did they do something ethically wrong? No they didn’t. But did they do something that upsets our morality? Yes they did. But they don’t care because people keep showing up at their concerts as they are now trying to sell to the next generation and not us. And to some small degree its working.
I respect your opinion on this site DR, and also anyone else that can keep it civil. The tagline at the end of every article on Eddie’s site says “SPEAK YOUR MIND” – and that’s what Eddie’s show is about. So Brian, if it bothers you that KISS is still loathed, sorry man. But I was a fan as a 12 year old like Eddie, except after a while I realized a few things – basically one was how mediocre they were. I also like sugary garbage-like cereal when I was 12, and I guess some adults still eat Captain Crunch and Count Chocula, but it amazes me when 30 to 50 year old people still think KISS is a great band.
Bob Ezrin obviously didn’t take KISS too seriously. Gotta love his screaming kids on “God of Thunder” – maybe subliminally he put his kids on, because he knew that most of the fans of the band were about the same age as his kids. The kids add nothing to the song and actually detract from any “seriousness” in their music.
We can respect something’s popularity but it doesn’t mean it’s great. Longitivity doesn’t mean something is great either. You can still buy Captain Crunch, but I wouldn’t consider it great food. And I’m sure it’s made millions of dollars.
Gene said there will never be a blond haired guitar player in KISS. Cause it’s about image. Forget about how well he meshes with the rest of the band, Gene calculates everything.
The KISS guys were big Humble Pie fans – who also featured 4 lead vocalists.
KISS was a great band in 1974 to 1979. Now they are just decent. But the best of KISS stands with anyone.
The bands who ‘coined’ the term “hair metal” only have themselves to blame: it was embarrassing then and it’s still ridiculous now in retrospect. Personally I completely went off bands who felt the need to emulate all of those posers with lipstick and hairspray dressed like street trash. Even the likes of Judas Priest and Whitesnake had their fling at looking like the Wilson sisters!
Ironic, half of these musicians are now balding.
“I’m not only a member of ‘Hair Club for Men’ but I used to be in Great White”
what”s the matter eddie the truth hurt ?( i”m a fan( just trying to give you constructive ideas.)jim ladd, bob colburn,donkirshner, casey kasem ,dick clark all they cared about was the music.sorry, if your feelings got hurt,
I have no idea what your issue is or what your agenda is, but you clearly have some issue with me so why are you here wasting my time and everyone else’s? Last time I will respond to you. No time for haters and have no idea what your problem is. But please spend time on another site or show you are a fan of.
give em hell eddie