thongrider Posted September 26, 2019 Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 1 minute ago, Ry-Bread said: but again those are completely at his convenience. Is that a bad thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzz Posted September 26, 2019 Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 3 minutes ago, thongrider said: Is that a bad thing? Given the history of the band and their inability to get Tom to commit to anything from basically 2012 onward = YES Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aria Posted September 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 No @thongrider it’s an irrelevant point lol. Tom very Adamently made it clear he did not quit, and even cut ties with his manager. Him saying he stepped away seemed legal/good relations smart on his part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzz Posted September 26, 2019 Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 4 minutes ago, Ari said: No @thongrider it’s an irrelevant point lol. Tom very Adamently made it clear he did not quit, and even cut ties with his manager. Him saying he stepped away seemed legal/good relations smart on his part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aria Posted September 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 What it boils down to, for me, in my opinion is: more songs means zero/nothing/nada lol to the extent that pointing it out is confusingly misleading in regards to serving a point that goes nowhere. time periods/album cycles/hiatuses/writing credits/tour schedule/behind the scenes shit all have to be factored in when it comes to this, and that’s valid to bring up when one brings up a statistic regarding something like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aria Posted September 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 2 minutes ago, Ry-Bread said: Bold my next sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aria Posted September 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 Look at it from a business standpoint. Tom immediately upon word getting out made it clear that he did not quit, even thought the article was wrong or misleading and was completely thrown off by the whole situation. He's since changed his wording by saying he did leave, on his terms which legally keeps him part of Blink because he hasn't departed completely, he's taken a leave of absence. This was no doubt agreed on by Mark and Travis, so that's the conversation that has moved forward since Skiba first stepped in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghent Posted September 26, 2019 Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 Why in the world would you defend Tom in this situation? Dude took the biggest shit ever on blink starting in 2006 and ending when he got kicked out/quit again. He never committed to the band, he used it to promote his other shit, he didn't take it seriously, and the songs weren't great enough to make it worth it. Had he stayed in the band they'd probably have one mostly garbage album out that would have dragged on for 4 years just for 3 or 4 good songs that Mark managed to salvage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champ182 Posted September 26, 2019 Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 I feel like this has gotten blown out of proportion and confusing hahah. I think all @Ry-Bread was doing was pointing out a pretty wild fact. Skiba-182 has released a crazy amount of songs in a short amount of time. Such a crazy amount, in fact, that Blink took 14 years to release the same amount of songs. That's it. Yeah the songs are lesser quality, yeah Tom dragged his feet like crazy, yeah there were breakups, yeah there were co-writers, all of these things are true. I don't think Ry was trying to argue any of that? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aria Posted September 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 Regarding Tom in general: Hearing Tom's perspective of the first blink break-up, his response regarding the second fall-out and other things have led me to feel like there's too much we don't know to place all of the blame on Tom li ke that. I think that if I was Mark, in regards to BCR, I would've been bummed (He had every right to be) but Tom truly, truly apologized - Even told him he'd never do that again, and in interviews regarding BCR he would downplay it as just this thing he did that wasn't a big deal. I think Mark let that singular thing completely blow up their entire friendship/working relationship. They were on top of the world, and he couldn't let it go. I mean, I recall Mark mentioning that it was Rick's idea to tour the last single and how weird it was that when Tom didn't want to, Rick didn't want to either. But look at it from the perspective of friends talking, and understanding each other. Tom: I don't know, we've toured two years straight - I miss my family, I need to see my kid, I'm burned out. Touring the album for two years seems fine, we don't have to tour a single. Rick: That makes sense, and I see where you're coming from. Guys, maybe the tour isn't necessary after all, all things considered. Just - There's two sides to every story, and I think if you meet those two somewhere in the middle you get your honest answer. From how DED was explained, Tom was the one who pushed that release, and wanted them to get together to work on it together, but Mark and Travis showed up at the end, something neither contested, and even then tension was overwhelming. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aria Posted September 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 But at the same time, I don't consider my points as siding with Tom. The argument in general was in reference to how silly and completely irrelevent I found the statistic in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thongrider Posted September 26, 2019 Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 34 minutes ago, Ry-Bread said: Given the history of the band and their inability to get Tom to commit to anything from basically 2012 onward = YES Why force a guy to do something he doesn't want to? Why not let him do it at his own convenience? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champ182 Posted September 26, 2019 Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 In my personal opinion Blink releasing 45 songs in 3 years or whatever was too much and didn't make them seem like more of a band BECAUSE so many of them were mostly quick cheap scraps. The first 30 should've been condensed to the 10-12 best songs and a single album at that time and they would've had a way bigger impact (in my opinion). That doesn't automatically mean Tom being MIA for multiple entire years of his Blink tenure was a better approach though haha or even that they were going for quality over quantity for most of that time. It didn't take them 2 years to release Neighborhoods because they were working so hard on it, it took them 2 years because they were fucking around and NOT working hard on it. So my main point, as usual, is that Blink has been messy for a very long time hahah they just changed their tactics when they changed the lineup. Hopefully Nine becomes some kind of turning point! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aria Posted September 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 Just now, thongrider said: Why force a guy to do something he doesn't want to? Why not let him do it at his own convenience? That's not the question you should be posing. The fact is, Blink as of now is just as at Mark and Travis's convenience as AVA is to Tom, that's why the point is irrelevant. Part of being in a band, as Mark has mentioned probably a thousand times, is deciding things together and I don't think in regards to this either side could meet in the middle. I also think the amount of songs Blink has churned out since is partly influenced by wanting to "show" what Tom was preventing, in a manner that is excessive to a certain degree. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aria Posted September 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 @Champ182 I get what he was doing haha keyword wild fact, but by doing that it invites/welcomes a debate. I’m having a good time as kindly and respectably as possible driving home my opinion that it was an absurd thing to point out lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thongrider Posted September 26, 2019 Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 I think if we can say that the band was 50% Tom and 50% Mark (Scott left and Travis wasn't an original member) The two of them seem to have had very different ideas of how the band should continue. I think in that aspect people seem to side with Mark (the band being a full time gig not a side gig) out of selfish reasons. Tom's life is more important than fans wanting constant gratification. Fans aren't entitled to a single song. I think if Mark and Tom didn't have the same vision for the band in 2015, they should've ended it. This band without Tom is nothing (like it would be nothing without Mark). The weird idea that this band needs to exist regardless of what an inevitable member feels is ridiculous. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aria Posted September 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 1 minute ago, thongrider said: I think if we can say that the band was 50% Tom and 50% Mark (Scott left and Travis wasn't an original member) The two of them seem to have had very different ideas of how the band should continue. I think in that aspect people seem to side with Mark (the band being a full time gig not a side gig) out of selfish reasons. Tom's life is more important than fans wanting constant gratification. Fans aren't entitled to a single song. I think if Mark and Tom didn't have the same vision for the band in 2015, they should've ended it. This band without Tom is nothing (like it would be nothing without Mark). The weird idea that this band needs to exist regardless of what an inevitable member feels is ridiculous. This, while controversial, is a very strong argument man. I'm impressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheerios4u98 Posted September 26, 2019 Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 I'd rather get sub-par blink from here on out than have blink call it quits for good. Luckily I don't think what we're getting is sub-par. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSandt Posted September 26, 2019 Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 1 hour ago, Ari said: From how DED was explained, Tom was the one who pushed that release, and wanted them to get together to work on it together, but Mark and Travis showed up at the end, something neither contested, and even then tension was overwhelming. Hah, DED was the perfect demonstration of Tom working on blink when he feels like it, and expecting others to follow his schedule and show up when he rings the bell. Didn't he try to make it a Modlife exclusive too or something? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aria Posted September 26, 2019 Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2019 10 minutes ago, MSandt said: Hah, DED was the perfect demonstration of Tom working on blink when he feels like it, and expecting others to follow his schedule and show up when he rings the bell. Didn't he try to make it a Modlife exclusive too or something? But I think it's less to do with when he feels like it, and more to do with when he can given his other responsibilities. If you wanna film something fun with friends, but you're scheduled for work you can't film with your friends until your work schedule permits it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.