John Moyer gives details about the Art of Anarchy lawsuit

A place for all Creed discussion.
Post Reply
chtimixeur
On The Rail
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:15 am

John Moyer gives details about the Art of Anarchy lawsuit

Post by chtimixeur »


It starts at 4:04.

John Moyer basically confirms what we already knew.
This is not pretty for Stapp.

Here's the transcript:
And then, for some reason, we decided to do it again with another Scott. We did it with Scott Stapp from Creed. On this record, I did a lot more writing. The record's called The Madness. That was a tough record to make. A lot of sitting in the jam room with Scott Stapp and Bumble and and the whole band and just trying to get everybody on the same page.

I was in a super creative zone at that point, so I brought in a ton of songs: I probably wrote half that record. It was good. It was difficult working with Stapp because you just don't know which Stapp you're gonna get. Like, some days, you're gonna get creative Stapp, and some days, you're gonna get the Stapp who just wants to sit in the corner and say everything sucks. He was kind of moody and he was only into it so much. It was very frustrating. It was like dragging an elephant uphill, sometimes. I don't mind saying this because it turned into an entire sh*tshow.

We signed to a label, again. He had promised to do 90 shows with us. He did six and then bailed. That was all in the contract and I can talk about this because we are in a dispute with him legally. That's already been around, so I'm not letting the cat out of a bag or saying anything that hadn't been already told in the press years ago. It's been years but we're getting to the end of that dispute.

It's frustrating because when you get into a band, you trust people. I want to say it's like a marriage but it's a relationship and when somebody's in that relationship and they're not being truthful and they're there under false reasons and they're already planning an exit plan... You're buying the house and they're trying to figure out a way to ditch you! It hurts. I'm a trusting person. I'm not gonna say I'm naive but I refuse to get hardened. The music industry will break your heart. There's a reason that the SIMS Foundation exists because it is not a mentally friendly industry but I'm not gonna allow that to happen to me. I'm not gonna allow myself to get hardened by things. So even though the thing with Scott Weiland didn't work out, even though Disturbed was on hiatus, even though I had dealt with the losses in Union Underground, a lot of heartbreak, I was still like "all right Scott Stapp, let's go!", fresh and as a daisy and willing to do it even though he didn't have a great history, coming into the camp.

He'd just come off of his whole thing where he was traveling across the country in the back of a truck, homeless. He's telling us all these stories and he's just back sober, so we're his sober camp. We're supporting him. There is no drinking. "What do you need, Scott Stapp, to make make this work? All hands on deck, we believe in you, we want you to be a part of this. You're going to agree to this? Awesome!"

You put all that into somebody, and they turn your back on you?! I don't really have a lot of remorse for that. It really hurt my feelings. It hurt my soul because I put a lot into that record and he had no intention of touring it. So much has come out in the wash that I just can't believe the things that were said that weren't true. So, there's that story! I'm gonna get in trouble for this. Some lawyer is going to call me... I'm just telling the truth, man! It just sucked. Promises were made. They weren't kept and I wouldn't do that to you. I wouldn't do that to you, Jason. I wouldn't do that to you, David. I wouldn't do that to anybody. How people can go through life and do that and think it's okay because they're somebody is the worst kind of rockstar ego I can imagine.

nagpo
On The Rail
Posts: 1996
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:11 pm

Re: John Moyer gives details about the Art of Anarchy lawsuit

Post by nagpo »

i mean, it is one side of the story. it's relatively consistent with stapps behavior in the past i think. But that might just mean it's easy to portray him a certain way because of the past. I wonder if stapp will ever share his side of the story.

But at the end of the day I just think it's kind of obvious stapp is not really a "band" type of guy. Some say ego, maybe mental illness, but regardless, eventually you just have to stick with what works. Maybe being a solo artist is strictly whats best for him. I wouldn't want him to do another creed and screw it up a third time. And if what motivates him is his own vision and not a shared one, than stay solo. So then you are motivated on your own goals. I don't think that's a bad thing - just be honest with everyone before you start a project that they are there to support you.

And the way moyer describes him as being creative one day and lackadaisical the next, really sounds like a symptom of his bi-polar. Which at the time could still not have been sufficiently treated.

But I guess my thoughts on the situation with stapp, perhaps, is that he needed money and found a band that needed a singer. The band was collaborative and he possible didn't like that as much - maybe he didn't fit well with them creatively. This possibly lead to his bipolar acting up. And when the time to tour came - he probably didn't care to stick through it because he could make more money off the solo tour and felt more creatively fulfilled with his own songs.

But I still like the record

MaraCarr
Hardcore TABN'er
Posts: 946
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2020 12:12 am
Location: Everywhere

I love Metallica!

Post by MaraCarr »


chtimixeur
On The Rail
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:15 am

Re: John Moyer gives details about the Art of Anarchy lawsuit

Post by chtimixeur »

@nagpo: good call about the money and the quality of the material.
I guess it was not a good match musically for Stapp, and once he realized the small rooms were far from being filled, he bailed.

But in the end, he signed a contract which he should never have. 90 dates for an upcoming band? That sounds crazy to me, especially if you've "just" been given a 200k advance. That's the kind of money he was probably making in a matter of weeks during the Creed days.

nagpo
On The Rail
Posts: 1996
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:11 pm

Re: John Moyer gives details about the Art of Anarchy lawsuit

Post by nagpo »

chtimixeur wrote: Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:32 am @nagpo: good call about the money and the quality of the material.
I guess it was not a good match musically for Stapp, and once he realized the small rooms were far from being filled, he bailed.

But in the end, he signed a contract which he should never have. 90 dates for an upcoming band? That sounds crazy to me, especially if you've "just" been given a 200k advance. That's the kind of money he was probably making in a matter of weeks during the Creed days.
I agree he shouldn't have signed it for a few reasons.

1. he hadn't the intention to follow through in case the venture fell through for various reasons
2. if he believed he was worth more

You're pointing out that it was a bit of 1 and 2? Interesting. Stapp may have believed he was worth more than that initial payment, and it's possible whatever following money wasn't enough to keep him interested either. I mean, if he accepted a payment he felt he was worth more than, than that could easily lead to resentment especially if the album and tours don't do well.

A 200k advance is nothing to stapp in some ways I think. I'm sure he clears that quickly even in his solo shows and doesn't have to share as much with his solo band as he probably had too with AoA. Stapp has the pedigree of a 50mil selling artist. That's his perceived worth and ego.

You know, the suit kind of sounds like BS to me in some ways. He shouldn't have ditched, but depending on how the tickets were selling, I highly doubt they were going to do 90 shows. That's A LOT of touring. You could make the argument that the venues weren't even booked yet or they would likely cancel because of low attendance. I mean, the only reason why anybody cared about this band in the first place was because of its singers.

Signing on confirmed 90 dates is impossible. It's a potential 90 dates. And what is that, over 1 tour? 2 tours? or 2 years? It's a nebulous contract. He shouldn't have signed. I think he was probably desperate for cash at the time.

But they're probably suing him for potential $ lost. Which i don't see how you can really prove unless you can have hard numbers on what venues were booked and what tickets were sold. How can you sue a guy for potential bookings lost? That's not how it works as far as I know. You have to prove damages

Finaldecision
White Knuckled
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:26 am

Re: John Moyer gives details about the Art of Anarchy lawsuit

Post by Finaldecision »

John Moyers' frustration is absolutely understandable. The album was his baby. And that Stapp wasn't really stable shortly after his meltdown is no surprise either. But should John Mayer have told this publicly? Probably not.

I hope that the lawsuit ends well and in the best case everyone can look each other in the eye again in the end. It was kind of stupid of Stapp to enter into such a contract in the first place. Then again, no one here knows the details, so most of this is speculation. What also makes me suspicious here is that the Votta brothers had also filed a lawsuit with Scott Weiland back in the day. So I'm reluctant to put all the blame on Stapp.

Anyway, I listened to the Madness album again and it's quite good.

chtimixeur
On The Rail
Posts: 1673
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:15 am

Re: John Moyer gives details about the Art of Anarchy lawsuit

Post by chtimixeur »

I'm not saying what Stapp did is honourable.
He should have tried a least a little more, IMHO.
But I have very little respect for the Art of Anarchy guys, especially the twins, who have sued both their singers.
Weiland and Stapp were known to have mental issues, and there was a high probability they would bail sonner than later.

Did the 4 other guys expect to become an arena band just like that?
It's rock n' roll, and most bands fail.
Suing your ex-bandmates is just lame to me, especially when your band name talks about a rebellious act such as anarchy... :rolleyes

nagpo
On The Rail
Posts: 1996
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:11 pm

Re: John Moyer gives details about the Art of Anarchy lawsuit

Post by nagpo »

chtimixeur wrote: Thu Mar 09, 2023 2:53 pm I'm not saying what Stapp did is honourable.
He should have tried a least a little more, IMHO.
But I have very little respect for the Art of Anarchy guys, especially the twins, who have sued both their singers.
Weiland and Stapp were known to have mental issues, and there was a high probability they would bail sonner than later.

Did the 4 other guys expect to become an arena band just like that?
It's rock n' roll, and most bands fail.
Suing your ex-bandmates is just lame to me, especially when your band name talks about a rebellious act such as anarchy... :rolleyes
I agree with you especially on this point. It doesn't look good for the AoA band members having sued both their singers - one who is now dead. Many bands break up and don't end in lawsuits. It just doesn't seem common to me, mostly because being in a band is usually a short lived venture to begin with. You have everything in the world going against you from day 1 and even when you make it things only get harder. In reality, to think they would be extremely successful (90 shows?) from jump street was ridiculous. The only notable band members were Moyer and Stapp. Thumbleweed or whatever his name is, is only known for being a Slash stand in for GnR and the twins are nobodies. Like I said, this band would be nothing without its singers. And they just so intelligently picked singers (BOTH times) that have either mental or drug abuse issues.

Aren't they kind of dumb for hiring Stapp in the first place after his so public meltdown and how the previous singer turned out? One could put a lot of the blame on them. These are litigious people who deal in lawfare. Would hate to be their next singer! If they ever get one. If they do, it most definitely wont be someone so famous that they can still use the term "supergroup".

User avatar
Mr. Slash
On The Rail
Posts: 1761
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 6:40 am
Location: Germany

Re: John Moyer gives details about the Art of Anarchy lawsuit

Post by Mr. Slash »

You guys can rant as much as you like about AoA. In the end it was Stapp's own decision to sign that contract. Don't know how to defend him from being foolish enough to do that.

And from AoA's perspecitve... I totally can see why they would sign Weiland or Stapp. Both are iconic singers. Stapp probably told them some heartwarming stories about how much he has changed over the past years and that he wants to be a good person and successful musician again. At least people on this board seem to buy this story so why shouldn't AoA do so as well?

nagpo
On The Rail
Posts: 1996
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:11 pm

Re: John Moyer gives details about the Art of Anarchy lawsuit

Post by nagpo »

Mr. Slash wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:03 am You guys can rant as much as you like about AoA. In the end it was Stapp's own decision to sign that contract. 1.Don't know how to defend him from being foolish enough to do that.

And from AoA's perspecitve... 2.I totally can see why they would sign Weiland or Stapp. Both are iconic singers. Stapp probably told them some heartwarming stories about how much he has changed over the past years and that he wants to be a good person and successful musician again. At least people on this board seem to buy this story so why shouldn't AoA do so as well?
1. I think he did it because he needed money. My previous post i was kind of being a devils advocate, but I don't think, from what we've been told, that stapp came out as doing the right thing in this situation.

2. My issue with them is they seem to have put together a shitty contract for the singers. There has to be reasons why the situation happened both with weiland and stapp. If they were so innocent, it wouldn't have happened twice. And you would think that after being burned once, and seeing stapps history, they would be a bit more hesitant to sign him. I think maybe they were desperate for a singer. Who wants to work with the band that sued weiland?

I don't think either parties are particularly innocent and neither hold ALL the blame. It's a shame it happened but im sure AoA is done for. I don't see how any singer would want to work with that band now. Seems like a cursed position.

Post Reply