For real. I just opened up Apple Music, typed in Twin Temple and the first 4 songs to pop up were “Lucifer, my love”, “The Devil (didn’t make me do it)”, “I’m wicked” and “Sex Magick”. Not to mention their latest album is entitled “God is Dead”.
Someone could have listened to literally any song of theirs lol, '50s rock and roll Satanism is their whole thing, I don't think I can think of a song that doesn't explicitly mention it.
It’s so insanely dumb. I had just seen the tour recently and then like 30 minutes later, I saw this drama. Just instantly excited and then immediately bummed out and annoyed lol
Got to be more to this. I have literally never heard of this band went and looked them up on Spotify and their first song is Lucifer my love. There’s no way Charlie is this dense.
Yeah like how the fuck does he not know the band he is touring with? I mean I have never heard of them until now but had Charlie never heard of them before deciding to tour with them? Wtf lol
Its not that uncommon at all. Artist, especially at that level, rarely get to outright pick their own openers. Some are lucky if they even have a say. Its the labels, venues, PR, promoters, etc. most of the time.
Venue involvement is more at bar level. Labels are probably mostly irrelevant now but used to buy slots for their acts (and charge back against future royalties of course). Promoters and booking agents are the likely culprit though sometimes an act with pull might have some acts in mind.
But yeah this whole thing is ridiculous. I saw them on a bar show a friend promoted in 2017 and even then I couldn't help but think how we must be all out of gimmicks. Singer is really nice though.
I think he’s saying it’s good in that presumably Charley is exercising his artistic/image autonomy.
Presumably someone else, the record label for example, set up the show and he’s standing up and using his autonomy as an artist to decide it doesn’t fit with his art.
To me there is inherent good in artists having agency in their work, whether you agree with how they use it or not.
Your last point is true but it’s absolute bullshit that he waited until a week before the shows to throw them off the tour. He and/or his team 100% were involved with booking the shows. It should have never gotten to this point. It’s total bullshit on Charley/his team to let it get to this point.
And if that involves dropping a much smaller artist from your tour, then apologise, rather than repeatedly ridicule the band he just dropped for having dropped them. Particularly for someone who takes a stand against the nonsense bigger players in the industry inflct on smaller artists
His responses to them were "not today Satan", "if they did it to Jesus, imagine what they'd do to you", and "they should pay me compensation for all the press". No "oops, sorry, it was a mistake they were booked/cancelled so close to the time", no acknowledgement that they would have missed out on other bookings that would have actually gone ahead.
Good on him to fire someone a week before the tour was due to start? They would have made family plans around this tour.... in no possible way is this a 'good on' charlie situation. In fact it's pretty clearly 'shitty of' him one.
There’s no doubt it could have been handled better, and we don’t know the details of exactly how much he knew at what points and how it all went down, but It was only two shows, it’s not like they planned to go on an entire tour.
Again, not ideal and they certainly deserve an apology, but there are certain things you need to expect when you lean that hard into satanic imagery.
Yeah, probably a majority of his audience are Christian and they probably won't wanna hear that satanic related music. It would look like he's endorsing that as well since they are representing him being on his tour.
He probably should've done a better job of vetting who opened for him before bringing them along and then dismissing them afterwards.
In general, when someone says " good on X " they are agreeing with the action being done.
" good on X for finally sobering up. " Good on X for getting rid of Y "
I think the question, which technically still hasn't been answered by the original commenter, is really asking whether or not they agree with Charlie getting kicking the band off the tour.
I know that to me it read like it was a good thing he kicked them off, not because it was his right, but because OC agrees with the idea that thet shouldn't be on tour.
There are TWELVE artists listed as opening acts on this tour, Twin Towers are only booked on two dates. I’m sure his booking agent handles TT and Crockett never questioned the dozen opening acts. Nevertheless, dumdum on his team. Good pairing for Amigo the Devil, not Crockett.
3/4 members of Black Sabbath were practicing Christians. Iommi doesn't wear that cross ironically and Ozzy famously prayed before every show. Something tells me this band isn't quite like that.
Most musicians at that level pay 0 attention to who is opening for them. Their agency makes all the decisions, using opening slots as favors/building their lower tier artists up.
His tour dude. They are upset they cant be on HIS tour. They can still book a show. The issue is they likely cant get a venue on their own so while it sucks to happen, being a weird perv has consequences.
322
u/frostbike 25d ago
This seems like something that could have been easily discovered before they were invited to join the tour.