Jump to content
Kvothe

Why did Scott get a harder time over alcoholism than the other members?

Recommended Posts

I think the main reason is probably because he wasn't as good looking and talented as Travis, Mark and Tom were closer, and that Tom was more irreplaceable. Mark didn't have a big issue with alcoholism from what I can recall, at least not on stage. Travis owned up to his issues and has had such a crazy streak of bad luck, can't really fault the guy for substance abuse. 

Your guys thoughts? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Travis was indeed more good-looking and talented. And Scott was less willing to go big, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Scott's drinking was mainly an excuse for kicking him out. I'm not saying it didn't cause any problems, but if not for other issues/preferences, they would have made it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as someone who knew scott at the time, he is not an alcoholic, in the clinical definition. he was depressed and unhappy in the band, and as a result was drinking too much. it's important to note that "drinking too much" at a certain time in your life is not the same as being an alcoholic.

mr. raynor has talked about this at length, most notably in this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Blink-182-Band-Breakdown-Return-ebook/dp/B01BB7R9EU/

scott was unhappy about signing to a major label (he had hoped for epitaph) and wanted the band to stay smaller and more punk. he did not want to be an MTV star, and that lead to tension with tom and mark (who totally wanted it). that's why he was depressed, and that's why he was drinking too much.

i last hung out with him on the tour bus at the san diego sno-core date. he was super down for sure. i was at the josie video shoot a number of weeks later but we didn't talk.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if his age had to do with anything. I've always been surprised how young he was being in the band (14 years old). I don't even think he's in his 40s yet. 

As far as looks, he looked like a normal guy to me. Travises rock star tattoos and crazy appearance help in this business, but if Scott was as good as Travis, the band would have been just as successful probably. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, daveyjones said:

as someone who knew scott at the time, he is not an alcoholic, in the clinical definition. he was depressed and unhappy in the band, and as a result was drinking too much. it's important to note that "drinking too much" at a certain time in your life is not the same as being an alcoholic.

mr. raynor has talked about this at length, most notably in this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Blink-182-Band-Breakdown-Return-ebook/dp/B01BB7R9EU/

scott was unhappy about signing to a major label (he had hoped for epitaph) and wanted the band to stay smaller and more punk. he did not want to be an MTV star, and that lead to tension with tom and mark (who totally wanted it). that's why he was depressed, and that's why he was drinking too much.

i last hung out with him on the tour bus at the san diego sno-core date. he was super down for sure. i was at the josie video shoot a number of weeks later but we didn't talk.

i mean, how old was scott was he was kicked out? 19 or 20? wanting to remain small, punk, and on the lower end of middle class seems like something that would only appeal to someone with little life experience (a teenager). i don't doubt that this was a reason for him being unhappy at the time but for him to not own up to it in his 30s and say he probably made the wrong decision is pretty lame.

look at matt skiba. his band had the kind of success scott was maybe hoping for but now that skiba is older he's more than happy to put that shit on the back burner and make crazy good money.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never want to be as famous as blink got, but to not sign with a major label in their situation at the time, a young punk band that was poppy and pretty much their only future would be sheer arrogance/idiocy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Mark and Tom are sell outs. They would of replaced him with Britney Spears if they could. 

  • Haha 3
  • Wow 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kevin. said:

i mean, how old was scott was he was kicked out? 19 or 20? wanting to remain small, punk, and on the lower end of middle class seems like something that would only appeal to someone with little life experience (a teenager). i don't doubt that this was a reason for him being unhappy at the time but for him to not own up to it in his 30s and say he probably made the wrong decision is pretty lame.

look at matt skiba. his band had the kind of success scott was maybe hoping for but now that skiba is older he's more than happy to put that shit on the back burner and make crazy good money.  

Regardless of his age, not everything is about money.

I would personally be wary about signing to a major label at his age, and I would be even more wary about it now. I don't blame him at all, if it's not what he wants then it's not what he wants I don't see anything wrong with that. It's pointless comparing him to Skiba, they're two completely different people with different backgrounds. For all we know if Scott had been in a band like Alk3 he would be completely content with the level they reached, as the rest of alk3 are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like Scott was just a moody teenager trying to be "punk rock"

I think Mark and Tom knew deep down that they needed a better drummer to make it big as well, Scott's drumming was so limited at times.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Feeling_This_1 said:

I wonder if his age had to do with anything. I've always been surprised how young he was being in the band (14 years old). I don't even think he's in his 40s yet. 

As far as looks, he looked like a normal guy to me. Travises rock star tattoos and crazy appearance help in this business, but if Scott was as good as Travis, the band would have been just as successful probably. 

his 40th brthday was a month ago. and he was kicked out 20 years ago, around this time of the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ...Dan... said:

Sounds to me like Scott was just a moody teenager trying to be "punk rock"

I think Mark and Tom knew deep down that they needed a better drummer to make it big as well, Scott's drumming was so limited at times.

Yeah but at that point, so was Mark and Tom's abilities. neither have been particularly good musically, Scott fitted them skill set wise a lot more than Travis does. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Kay said:

Yeah but at that point, so was Mark and Tom's abilities. neither have been particularly good musically, Scott fitted them skill set wise a lot more than Travis does. 

I agree but I still thought Mark and Toms playing was always more passable than Scotts drumming. 

Maybe it's my music taste changing but I hate some of the drumming on pre Travis blink now and think it really takes away from some songs, just constantly hammering the snare quickly for songs on end with the same fills over and over again does my head in...then I just imagine how good some of the Enema Travis could of sounded on those Dude Ranch tracks. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Scott. said:

Because Mark and Tom are sell outs. They would of replaced him with Britney Spears if they could. 

You cannot be a sellout if you never had any principles to begin with. Tom & Mark always wanted to be big.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's such a shame that he had to stick with the stigma of alcoholism when he clearly hadn't a big problem. Even though they paid very well his way out and his silence about it so he can't complain. He probably wasn't made for the level of fame that blink was going to get but I've always like the guy and his style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't there meant to be tension with the band in Scott's last 2 years with blink? Always heard of the alcohol stories or him quitting to go to college or something. But apparently arguments were frequent. I think that added in with the drinking as well as not being as talented as Travis led to him being kicked out of the band. I don't think it's anything to do with looks. He looks like a typical punk rock drummer really. He wasn't a bad looking dude. Travis definitely had the more rockstar look though.

Blink have always seemed like guys that were able to handle the others being drunk or whatever. There's no way alcohol is the reason considering Tom's performances in the past 10 years. Drugs were pretty frequent with Travis' lifestyle too. Seems to me they couldn't really care less about how they live their lifestyles as long as they're all following the same goals and are committed.

Scott by the sounds of it didn't want to be signed to the label blink signed with. I think the alcohol thing was just a minor thing. Mark & Tom probably felt Scott had far too many minor things about him to ruin the band. If alcohol was the only minor, I doubt they would've cared too much. So alcohol merged with disagreements and constant arguing and his drumming ability would've been the factor. Any sane guy would take the way better drummer that is ready to come in straight away and cause no trouble.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kay said:

Regardless of his age, not everything is about money.

I would personally be wary about signing to a major label at his age, and I would be even more wary about it now. I don't blame him at all, if it's not what he wants then it's not what he wants I don't see anything wrong with that. It's pointless comparing him to Skiba, they're two completely different people with different backgrounds. For all we know if Scott had been in a band like Alk3 he would be completely content with the level they reached, as the rest of alk3 are. 

There's a difference between not wanting to be major and on MTV and wanting to keep them small to remain punk rock and broke in San Diego.

We don't know forsure what he thought, but the latter is kind of childish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott is a bad drummer=False.

Scott was a really good punk rock drummer.

 

Scott didn't want success=False

Scott didn't want gimmicks.

 

Scott was a bad fit for Blink=False

Travis is far more unlike them, he just clicked in a way no one expected. And his drumming worked perfectly for the direction they wanted to go (more pop).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always wondered why Scott never joined a real band after blink. It's very odd that he only plays with crappy garage bands.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ghent said:

I've always wondered why Scott never joined a real band after blink. It's very odd that he only plays with crappy garage bands.

every band starts as a garage band, as blink did. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×