mr dave

how about Jane's Addiction?

according to published reports Perry Farrell decided to wait until they were in the contract signing meeting (not negotiations) to announce to the band that where the royalties for the band are split between lyrics and music and he was the sole lyricist he should get that 50% of the royalties entirely and the other 50% should be split between the 4 band members since he also helped write some of the music. it prompted Dave Navarro to wear a 12.5 shirt for their first big show as a major label band.

... that's how the band STARTED.

suffice to say the stress and tension only escalated from there. drug overdoses and on-stage fist fights between band members lead to an inevitable implosion just as they were starting to really peak within the mainstream (they were the band - well, Perry F - that started Lolapalooza after all).

__________________
i am the universe

Farfisa

I'm gonna go with BJM, cause **** like this happened and on the same tour Anton got arrested for narcotics and ended up finishing the rest of the tour solo.

OctaneHugo

well dead kennedys is a good one because there's still tons of tension everywhere and nobody knows what to believe and there were lawsuits and ughhh all that.

i've read about mayhem before, pretty hilarious in a really morbid, terrible sort of way

__________________

Flyingpig437

marc rilye' leaving the fall was rather unpleadint

duga

I said Stone Roses only because I felt it was the saddest, career-wise. They released one phenomenal album, everyone had such high expectations, and then due to a bunch of legal BS it was a long while before their next one came out. By then, no one cared. Then they broke up. There could have been so much more.

I'm sure there are nastier band break ups out there....but I'm always left to wonder what they may have done if circumstances had been different.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

Flyingpig437

They were always massively hindered by the limitiations of their lead singer. Fact is, and i say this as a fan of their debut album, without studio effect's Ian Brown's vocals would have been shown up

TheCunningStunt

Most people's vocals would be shown up if it wasn't for studio effects. A lot of singer's voices are shite live and good in the studio. What's your point?

I agree with The Stone Roses though. Not the nastiest, could be a subject of another thread. The saddest, people around Manchester were saying the best thing since The Beatles etc.

Overhyped yeah but there was excitement there and they could've gone on to be absolutely brilliant. Very sad indeed.

__________________

Last FM

loveissucide

Dunno, I personally think the Roses would have been brought down with the rest of Madchester in the same way as Oasis were with Britpop by virtue of being so synonymous with it.

__________________
www.last.fm/user/p-mccusker
http://www.mixcloud.com/pmccusker
www.valjester.wordpress.com

TheCunningStunt

The Roses WERE brought down in the same way as Oasis really. Except it wasn't their third album that did it, it was their second. But I dunno, they were tipped for greatness. As much as I love(d) Oasis I think everyone knew they were the biggest thing around at that moment. I think with The Roses people felt they could've gone on to bigger and better things. But then again, if Oasis did actually split up in like 97. People would've said the same about them so meh. We'll never know.

__________________

Last FM