« Rapid Album Review: Poison'd | Main | Wild, Beautiful, Damned »

Look What the Cat Dragged In

Posted on Tuesday, June 5, 2007 at 10:01AM by Registered CommenterAllyson B. Crawford | Comments25 Comments

Today is the day.

Poison's new album POISON'D! is officially released.

To celebrate, the band is planning a live webcast performance on www.poisonweb.com. The performance and chat session will be hosted by adult film star Kristen Price and will air at 3pm EST. During the chat session of the webcast, band members will answer fan questions submitted via www.myspace.com/poison.

On Thursday, Poison will perform "What I Like About You" on The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. The Romantic's classic "What I Like About You" is the first single from Poison'd and Pennsylvania's favorite glam sons even made a video for this track. You can watch the very cute video at http://music.yahoo.com/premieres. The page wouldn't let me steal the code to post as a clip here, but I'm sure some programmer will figure out a way to post on YouTube by the end of the day.

Here's a screen shot from the video:

poisonvideoclip.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember, Poison'd is a covers album including David Bowie's "Suffragette City," the Sweet's "Little Willy" and The Marhall Tucker Band's "Can't You See." If I can get away from my computer long enough during lunch, I fully intend on heading to Target to purchase the disc. Patrons who choose to buy the album at Wal-Mart will get a special bonus track of Justin Timberlake's "Sexy Back."

Seriously.

Expect an album review within the next two days.

Reader Comments (25)

Very cool! I am a huge Poison fan, but wasn't so sure about the all covers album. I would much rather have a new studio release from them. But, I watched the video for "What I Like About You", and I liked it a lot.
June 5, 2007 | Unregistered CommenteraXe mAn
Of course, I don't have high hopes for this one because a) it's a covers album and b) it's Poison whose "good" years weren't good enough to merit their continued existence. Covering the Romantics doesn't help matters. However, a Sweet cover might be worth hearing. "Little Willy" is a simple song that should play to Poison's strengths. Of course, "Rock n Roll All Nite" is also simple and should have been a good cover, but Poison drained the life out of it.
June 5, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbob_vinyl
Hey, Poison'd is on Rhapsody, so I could check it out without buying it. It's a good thing too, because even with my low expectations, I'd be pretty disappointed. I was wrong about "Little Willy." It should have been good, but Poison manage to suck the fun right out of it. The same is true of the cover of Bowie's "Suffragette City" although my expectations weren't as high for that one. "What I Like About You" is a bad song to start with, but Posion does a decent job with it nonetheless. Their version of the Cars' "Just What I Needed" picks up in the chorus, but the verses drag and the solo is pathetic (even for CC Deville). They don't do any favors for Jim Croce's "You Don't Mess Around with Jim" either, although it was an admirable effort to pick something outside what would be expected. The "Rock n Roll All Night" cover is as bad as I remember, but "Your Mama Don't Dance" is a little better than I remember. They wasted their time with Grand Funk's "We're an American Band," because they don't really do anything to make it their own. On a positive note, the "Squeeze Box" and "Dead Flowers" covers both came off better than I expected. By and large, this album (like so many other covers albums) is a waste of time, but there are a couple tracks worth hearing if you really like Poison. Save some money and buy the few decent ones on iTunes or Rhapsody.
June 5, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbob_vinyl
Thanks for the heads up, I've bought a copy on Amazon, but I'll buy a copy at Walmart while I'm in the US, I collected all the Def Leppard Yeah discs last year, even though the bonus tracks suck, it's good to be able to say I have them...
June 5, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChristian Graus
BASTARDS - they won't let me see the clip b/c I am not in the USA.
June 5, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChristian Graus
Alright Bob.. Until now I have read your snide comments about glam, and kept my opinions to myself. But seriously, who are you to say that "Poison's good years weren't enough to merit their continued existence"? Have you sold millions of albums? Do you have millions of fans lining up to see you? Somehow, I don't think so. You don't have to like them, or their music, but at least respect their success.
Based on your comments, it sounds to me like you are a former glam wannabe who couldn't cut it and has now grown bitter.
June 5, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterHeather
Heather, as I've said before, commercial success doesn't necessarily translate to good or important music. Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys have both outsold Poison, yet I think we'll both agree that record sales don't make them better. If you look at bands like the Stooges or the New York Dolls or the Velvet Underground, none of them were huge commercial successes, yet their influence is still felt today even by bands outside of their genre. The reason that I said that even Poison's best years don't justify their continued existence is because their influence is meager at best. It seems that everytime someone gets aggravated with my comments all they can say is that the glam bands of the 80s sold a lot of records, but no one ever shows any other proof of their purported greatness.

I'm shocked that you figured me out. Yeah, I'm a former glam wannabe and I'm so bitter that I just come here and bust on all these great, important bands to compensate for my own shortcomings! I feel so exposed. C'mon. You can't really think that's true.

Christian, I'm trying to capture that video. If I do, I'll let you know how to contact me so I can send it to you. No promises, but I'm trying. It's actually pretty good.
June 5, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbob_vinyl
Christian, I tried everything, even modifying their javascript to extract the "real" url of the video, but it's too hard. Hopefully, it'll be on youtube soon and you can see it there. Sorry I couldn't help.
June 5, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbob_vinyl
Bob,
How do you define greatness? If I didn't think the bands were great musicians, I wouldn't be a fan, and wouldn't spend money on their albums and concerts.
June 6, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterHeather
I think there's a difference between what we like and what we think is great. Everyone is entitled to guilty pleasures. Greatness should take a lot more than sales into account (although sales can't be disregarded altogether). I think the biggest two things are 1) did the band do something unique and 2) was their influence broad (crossing genres). After that, I think longevity and consistency are important. A few good albums followed by a bunch of mediocre ones doesn't cut it. Nor does just sticking around forever. Commercial success probably comes next in the consideration of greatness, because it's important to touch people's lives. That one can be tricky, because plenty of bad stuff sells (and I'm not even picking on glam here, because the ranks of platinum sellers have a lot worse than glam had to offer). Not every "great" band is going to measure up in all ways unless you limit greatness to bands like the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, U2, etc. Others like the Velvet Underground or Nick Drake who never sold many records but are consistently listed as an influence by artists from all over the musical map make a solid case for greatness despite poor sales. I know this topic is somewhat subjective, but I don't think it's so subjective that we can just say a band is great because people like them. There are many bands that fall into a bit of gray area regarding greatness and it's important to make a good case for or against them. I can say with confidence that the Beatles were great. I can also say with confidence that Poison was good for a few albums, but aren't truly great. If you wanna talk about Motley Crue or Def Leppard, I think we could make a good case to argue for or against them.
June 6, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbob_vinyl
Bob - thanks for trying. I'll be in the US in a month anyhow, so I guess I'll wait until then.

I have to weigh in on the debate here:

Poison will never be 'influential', because they're 'just' a good time rock band. I saw them live last year, with Cinderella opening. I was more stoked about Cinderella, but I had to admit, Poison put on the better show. I was in the 3rd row, and even after the lights had gone out, Brett was on his knees talking to fans in the front row. CC is not a great guitarist - his 'solo' was a sweep picking lick played over and over. I can play most Poison songs. They are richer than I am because I can't *write* songs that are as good, as Lemmy says, Poison are exactly what they set out to be, and no-one can blame them for that. They continue to exist because they care about their fans and put on a good show. I am very excited about seeing them again.

My friend in Texas who I took to see them was not convinced, and he left the show a fan. That's not the same as having critics line up to praise you, but I think it's worth *something*.
June 6, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChristian Graus
This topic is subjective and neither you or I can define greatness for everyone. I believe Poison is a great band and a great group of performers. I will continue to defend that for as long as you want to debate it.
June 6, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterHeather
I doubt anyone could disagree that they are great performers, not if they've seen them live.
June 6, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChristian Graus
Thanks Christian, so true. All I'm saying, is Poison has sold more than 25 million albums. They continue to sell out concerts after more than 20 years. Someone must think they're great, or that wouldn't be the case. I doubt Britney Spears fans will be lining up to see her 20 years from now!
June 6, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterHeather
This doesn't excite me at all. I would rather hear some new material. Unless I find this really cheap used (under $5), it won't be in my collection.

What bothers me is the live show. Poison already does 'Your Momma Don't Dance', 'Rock And Roll All Nite', and they have been rotating in 'Squeeze Box' or 'We're An American Band' depending on the tour. They play close to 75 minutes and they do three covers as it is, shouldn't they do some original songs even if they aren't the popular singles?

June 6, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterRhodeislandrock
I wished they had played 'Flesh and Blood', and while they obviously can't, I'd love to hear them do 'Stand'. In all honesty, they were never an 'album' band, it's not surprising they stick to the hits.

June 6, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterChristian Graus
I think a lot of this comes down to semantics. there is no doubt that Poison had their charm, perhaps they still do. I don't have much of an argument with Christian's analysis which seems to me to boil down to something like this if I'm reading it correctly: Poison are great at what they do even if what they do doesn't make them great in the grand scheme. Your point about great performances may be the thing that makes the case for their continued existence that I questioned (quoting Lemmy doesn't hurt either!). On the other hand, Heather still seems to be stuck on the idea that they're great because she likes them (and some other people do as well since they've sold a bunch of records), which I still think is a sketchy position. Heather, I certainly don't have a problem with you defending why you like them so much, but I don't think you've made an objective case for their greatness and, as I said before, I think the whole thing is not entirely subjective. However, I do hope you're right about Britney Spears not being able to sell albums 20 years for now. That would certainly be a blessing. I shudder to think what her covers album will be like if she's still around twenty years from now.

Christian, your point about CC not being a "great" guitarist brings up something interesting. I completely agree. Actually, I think he's rotten, but he's also a good fit nonetheless. I have that album with Richie Kotzen who can play cicrles around CC Deville and it's horrible, because Kotzen doesn't fit in. The same thing is true about the original Kiss lineup. Ace and Peter are totally outclassed by Eric Carr and Bruce Kulick, yet Ace and Peter are the better fit. It isn't always about being the best technical player, because sometimes that leads to a disjointed effort. I'm not saying this as a knock on Poison, because I'm a big fan of many bands that don't have the "chops" yet make great music.
June 6, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbob_vinyl
Hey Bob,
after all the ranting you are doing, and all the hatred you are showing towards glam, I can't help but wonder....

What kind of music do you listen to?
June 6, 2007 | Unregistered CommenteraXe mAn
aXe mAn, I listen to nothing but glam! Seriously, I listen to a lot of stuff. There probably isn't a genre in which I don't like at least something (glam included). Growing up in the 80s, I was mostly into punk and metal, but still liked variety (my favorite album was and still is Paul Simon's Graceland). While punk is perhaps closest to my heart to this day, I spend a lot of time with other things like indie rock, prog, post-rock, stoner rock, jazz, country and bluegrass. I even check out some of the newer glam bands that Allyson writes about here (and some are fairly good). I wouldn't say that I like everything, but I at least like some of the better stuff in every genre. In some genres, I even like the stuff that's just average (like punk). I've invited you to read my blog before. You can find out more about what I like and dislike if you come over and read a little. I'd like to see your opinion, because I think it will differ from mine on a lot of things.
June 6, 2007 | Unregistered Commenterbob_vinyl
I think Poison were very much a "right time, right place" band. They have never been highly talented, but were sort of original and maybe most importantly they were fun and their album came out before a lot of other people. They were very important for the glam scene at one point and a lot younger glam bands even now have been influenced by them. However their covers have largely stunk royally and that says something. They have already done a number of covers before this new album and they just seem unable to put into their covers. They have picked some simple songs and some artists that would fit their style, but they struggle. I don't if it's lack of talent or fire or what, but it'sthe truth.
June 6, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterMetal Mark

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.