kapsiz
Member
that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet...
Posts: 1,337
Location:
|
Post by kapsiz on Oct 7, 2011 21:22:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Craazyforadam on Oct 7, 2011 21:26:19 GMT -5
Alright, I may be a little dense here, but I am not sure why the fact that Monte's name is on that bastard album is of significance. Adam's name is on it too, that does not mean anything. Monte also got pulled in and paid for his work without knowing how things were going to turn out later.
Then he was obviously asked to play guitar and be in the video of this Steve Cooke guy. At that time probably nobody was discussing a shared album, which is the dumbest thing I have ever heard anyhow. Tommy got corralled into that video too, and probably had no clue what was going on behind the scenes.
Why do we assume from these basic situations that Monte is guilty and by the way guilty of what? I do remember all this fuzz about his wife's 'big mouth' problem, so I am aware that at least artistically and perhaps in other areas too Adam and Monte sometimes see things differently.
But somehow I have a hard time making that leap from having a professional disagreement to some kind of 'act of betrayal of some sorts'. I just don't see the latter and I am having a tough time understanding these negative innuendos that seem to permeate the twitter world and shine through in Neil's tweet. What exactly is the 'world of hearsay and gossip' accusing Monte of?
Here is what I am thinking of Monte:
a) he has 4 little and 1 big mouth to feed. If somebody gives him money, he needs to take it, just like Adam had to sometimes take a job if it was offered to him, before he was famous. Having said that I don't think that Monte has any intention of screwing Adam over, but was not aware at the time that this would be the eventual outcome. So he saw nothing wrong with recording those Cooke songs either.
b) I don't think that Monte has the same artistic vision as Adam or the same sense of quality to strive for, or the same taste in music. They overlap in certain areas, but there are also significant differences.
c) Adam knows that Madonna is going to request Monte back and probably does not mind if the ties to him get looser over time. I don't think that means that they are at each other's throats though.
Bottom-line, I am not sure that Neil did anything but put oil into flames tonight with that tweet. And I don't quite get it. So can somebody please explain all this. Inquiring minds want to know.
Am I seeing this whole thing too naively?
|
|
rad1109
Member
Posts: 1,074
Location:
|
Post by rad1109 on Oct 7, 2011 21:27:18 GMT -5
I blame Lisa. There I said it. JK...sorta
|
|
|
|
Post by chunkeymonkey81 on Oct 7, 2011 21:30:39 GMT -5
I think one of this things that raised the most eyebrows is that Adam knew nothing about this project and yet Monte who presumably has rights to the songs, seems to know that Welsford(the person responsible for one of the new albums...the mercy one I think? Not sure..) person because he thanked him in the liner notes of his new cd.
I mean I am a little sketchy on ALL the specifics of all the bastard albums, but that plus the fact that Monte seems to be buds with that Cooke guy as well...it's just thing that make you go hmmmm. Not concrete evidence by any means, but it def shows some kind of connection. And Neil chiming in now is even weirder bc I would think he would def be one to address directly if he knew Monte had nothing sketchy going on....it's all just weird.
|
|
|
|
Post by nica575 on Oct 7, 2011 21:32:27 GMT -5
Alright, I may be a little dense here, but I am not sure why the fact that Monte's name is on that bastard album is of significance. Adam's name is on it too, that does not mean anything. Monte also got pulled in and paid for his work without knowing how things were going to turn out later. Then he was obviously asked to play guitar and be in the video of this Steve Cooke guy. At that time probably nobody was discussing a shared album, which is the dumbest thing I have ever heard anyhow. Tommy got corralled into that video too, and probably had no clue what was going on behind the scenes. Why do we assume from these basic situations that Monte is guilty and by the way guilty of what? I do remember all this fuzz about his wife's 'big mouth' problem, so I am aware that at least artistically and perhaps in other areas too Adam and Monte sometimes see things differently. But somehow I have a hard time making that leap from having a professional disagreement to some kind of 'act of betrayal of some sorts'. I just don't see the latter and I am having a tough time understanding these negative innuendos that seem to permeate the twitter world and shine through in Neil's tweet. What exactly is the 'world of hearsay and gossip' accusing Monte of? Here is what I am thinking of Monte: a) he has 4 little and 1 big mouth to feed. If somebody gives him money, he needs to take it, just like Adam had to sometimes take a job if it was offered to him, before he was famous. Having said that I don't think that Monte has any intention of screwing Adam over, but was not aware at the time that this would be the eventual outcome. So he saw nothing wrong with recording those Cooke songs either. b) I don't think that Monte has the same artistic vision as Adam or the same sense of quality to strive for, or the same taste in music. They overlap in certain areas, but there are also significant differences. c) Adam knows that Madonna is going to request Monte back and probably does not mind if the ties to him get looser over time. I don't think that means that they are at each other's throats though. Bottom-line, I am not sure that Neil did anything but put oil into flames tonight with that tweet. And I don't quite get it. So can somebody please explain all this. Inquiring minds want to know. Am I seeing this whole thing too naively? I can't figure out what is Monte being a "suspect" for? why is he singled out? Adam's, Monte's Tommy's, SteveCook's names are on the album, like craazyforadam mentioned... I guess I missed something.... ??? |
|
|
|
Post by midwifespal on Oct 7, 2011 21:37:52 GMT -5
Yeah, I just saw that. So this means Neil thinks Monte is in on the scam albums? If so, wow. Just... wow. Of course, Neil has conspiracy-theorist leanings, so his thoughts may not be proof of anything, but stil... :-/ ??? we need a shrug smiley... I second this possibility (or third? dunno, haven't read all the rest of the thread, sorry)...weird (ie stupid) thing for Neil to tweet, granted, but to me it read, very possibly, as simply a put down to a rabid-ass tweeter who's been obsessing unhealthily about all this, saying, "are you really surprised, lady, that Monte's being pulled in? He is involved. His name is on the damn thing too. Stupid people should shut up." You know, in my best Neil voice. (eta: lol, but I'm a closet Neil fan, so maybe I just want to think a touch better of him than that he would stir to this extent.) |
|
|
|
Post by HoppersSkippersMiners on Oct 7, 2011 21:41:41 GMT -5
Oh, I definitely can't see Adam calling Monte out publicly for all the reasons you state. But he could very easily come to his defense publicly, in a way that fans would understand and would probably fly under the radar of gossip sites. Agreed. So the fact he hasn't said anything raises eyebrows. Unless he doesn't feel it has any merit and doesn't want to address it...however that would be eyebrow raising as well seeing as how he wouldn't be defending Monte's honor so to speak. LOL. IDK...I am really caring too much about this. Well, Adam's silence could mean he simply doesn't know for certain what's going on. [speculating wildly here] Malcolm and Monte, if I remember correctly, have a long history and - at least at one point in time - Monte trusted him. There could have been verbal agreements, poorly checked written agreements, etc. between Malcolm and Monte that were only ancilliary to Adam. However, fast forward to now and Adam's the $$$ draw. Monte MAY have indeed done and said something at some point in time that gave Malcolm the legal ability to pull this fuckery off now. Did Monte intend for this to happen? Don't know. If I had to bet, I'd say no. Just can't personally see Monte blatently double-crossing his friend and professional employer. However, he may have enabled the situation to occur. Monte's a musician, not a lawyer. He's also a musician who's been knocking on doors for a long time for "his" music, the Citizen Vein material was as much his as Adam's, and he loved it. Could he have tried to open a door that's now kicking him and (primarily) Adam in the ass? Perhaps. That's why this situation may be a big gray area. |
|
|
|
Post by rihannsu on Oct 7, 2011 21:44:27 GMT -5
Didn't it take Adam a few days before he responded to all the wank over Lisa Pittman's twitter meltdown? At the time Monte was being tried and convicted by the fans on the basis of the fact that Adam had not publicly responded to the whole situation. Then Adam shut the whole thing down with one tweet. At this point we don't know if the Citizen Vein songs are involved at all because the names of those songs were also touted as being the track list for Take One and when that album came out none of those songs were on it. It's my understanding that the same memo that listed the CV songs as being on "On With The Show" (which was later changed to "Take One") is being used to imply that Beg for Mercy is CV songs. Even if the song they gave to that UK dj to remix was Beg for Mercy, since they didn't pay him up front and he was only to get paid once the project launched there is still no way to know for sure that they actually intend to release CV songs. They are probably doing the same bait and switch that they did before with Take One trying to pull the wool over the fandom's eyes. They could even be trying specifically to tarnish Monte in the fans eyes.
There are perfectly good legal reasons why neither Adam nor Monte should be addressing this in public at this time. They may very well have been cautioned by their lawyers to say nothing yet. The fans have done the service of alerting both RCA and Adam of this situation but everybody really needs to just step back and let them handle it because going off half cocked on speculation about Monte's involvement does not help Adam in any way shape or form.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2011 21:44:41 GMT -5
IMO, the fact that Neil replied to this nutcase's question at all, is telling. He could have ignored her or blocked her, but he chose to reply. As NoAngel said on Twitter, 'Neil doesn't get his info about Adam off of the internet. He gets it from Adam.' Perhaps Neil is playing "bad cop" and what he said is a statement about what happened.
|
|
NoAngel
Member
Take a bow, Adam Lambert, you fucking legend.
Posts: 2,575
Location:
|
Post by NoAngel on Oct 7, 2011 21:44:44 GMT -5
I think the thing that seems oddest to me is that Monte thinks highly enough of Malcolm Welsford to thank him on his new album's liner notes. Whereas Adam thinks the guy fucked him over for a buck. If both Adam and Monte were equally fucked over, why would Monte be grateful to him? Of course, it's possible that the scam album fuckery came to light after Monte had finished printing his album covers. But then I would think that Monte could just as easily chastise Malcolm as Adam did.
I'm seriously not a Monte hater. I want very much for everything to be good between him and Adam. But I must admit things look a bit odd. JMHO YMMV etc etc
|
|
