Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gatorhugger

The firing of Stan Lynch

Recommended Posts

Todays topic-

In the behind the music interviews Stan Lynch said in effect " hey when is somebody going to call this game" Meaning his tenure with the band.

Tom Petty said in the movie that Stan was getting more and more removed, he had moved back to Florida, was telling people Petty wasn't his biggest priority.

So the Behind the music interviews and the movie paint a picture that Tom Petty was almost forced by Stan lynch to fire him.

However in the Modern drummer interview Stan says Tom called him and told him he wasnt digging what stan was doing, implying the drumming, and that after being "fired he didn't know whether to cry or barf"

He was so insecure about the drums, apparently because he was fired for his playing, he refused to touch them.

He was lost and showed up at Don Henleys door to "start a new chapter" in his life. Why would he be "lost" if he had forced Tom's hand and had already basically quit by moving back to Florida?

So what are the opinions on the Lynch departure? Did Stan Lynch basically leave on his own, like his early 90's interviews suggest, where he says he didn't like the music anymore, had rode the train as far as it would take him and forced TP to finally "call the game"

Or was he shocked and stunned that TP called him and complained of his playing and fired him?

Discuss among yourselves.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think he tried to get fired then regretted it immediately? That's why he felt sick and lost?

Cause if I am screwing up at work to get fired and move to another state, it would seem he would have already processed the fact he was going to get canned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt he must have instantly said oh No!

Stan seems like he remembers (2008) Tom telling him it was his PLAYING Tom did not like, not his attitude or not showing up. otherwise why the insecure feelings about the drums?

Or maybe that is just the way Stan Lynch is now rationalizing a HUGE mistake. Tom probably said it isn't working out, goodbye and good luck, Stan's pysche couldn't stand to admit it was his own fault, his poor attitude, so he transformed Tom's "firing" as being because of his drumming. Or maybe a little of both?

MD: What was your state of mind when you finally got the call that you were fired from the band?

Stan: Tom had basically told me I wasn’t the right drummer for him anymore. He decided whatever I was doing he wasn’t digging. So I wanted to put the drums down. I was feeling very insecure about them. I felt like, perhaps, I’d made all the noise I could. And I’m a guy that always wanted to be in a band. And when the set lists and all that stuff went away, I was really lost. I sat down at the drums and I didn’t know whether to cry or barf.

I had a kit in my house, and I had to take it away. I just couldn’t look at it. I had to take all the mementos from the band out of my house, everything. I had to forget all that. It was almost like in Men In Black. I had to hit myself in the face with one of those lights; when you wake up, you won’t remember you were ever in a band. You’re a guy who wants to write songs now.

MD: And it was Don Henley who helped you on that path, right?

Stan: Absolutely. I had gotten the phone call signifying one part of my life was over. Within twenty-four hours, I was talking to Don and he said, “Man, what are you doing?” I said, “I’m probably losing it, I don’t know.” He said, “When The Eagles broke up, I was thirty-three. I know what you’re feeling, so get on a plane.” So I did. I pretty much showed up at his door the next day, and he said, “Welcome to the next chapter.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing how memories change over time, and the way we remember events are molded to our own framework.

And the truth? Who knows.

It's like Artimus Pyle after the Skynryd crash or Billy Powell, they have come up with the most elaborate stories of being shot at the plane crash, or speaking to Cassie Gaines, and it is told as the God's honest truth. But it couldn't have been the truth.

And I don't think it's deliberate People changing their stories, its just the way memory flows and changes and adds in stuff that was never even there.

So now Stan Lynch remembers a traumatic firing, based on his drumming more than anything, when I doubt it was his drumming at all. It seems like it was his attitude more than anything. I think he thought he was bigger than the band. Big mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Well I read an interveiw and Stan said this:

“The drums for me were not really a discipline but more of an expression. After a while, drums became relegated to sort of just the timekeeper. It was a different job, and not a job I wanted to have. I began to think I was getting in the way more than anything, and it was time for me to step aside and let everyone get on with their lives and get what they needed. I was making the wrong noise. There’s a graceful time to walk away from anything.”

so...... I don't know what to think.....

heres the interveiw:

http://www.songwriteruniverse.com/lynch.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just re-read the Playback book on a (pretty short) plane ride the other weekend, so a couple quotes from that book are fresh in my mind on this subject.

It touches a lot on the fact that Stan had either "quit" or "been fired" numerous times through the first 20 years of the band's career. So there was definately a lot of build up to the final actual end. Of course the Playback book says "...Stan and Tom had their last blowout and Stan left the band."

"I don't think I'll ever be around that good a group of musicians in my life again. I'll never have access to that sound. That's the thing I dream about, it's like having a great old horse. I really miss the feeling of being on that horse. For me, the whole Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers experience was so incredibly rich. Out of a thousand dollars there was a nickel's worth of down side. What a life! Tons of dough, tons of women, tons of adulation, tons of miles that you'd never get to see without this. Enough experience for twenty lifetimes and at a time in your life when you're strong enough to take it. And it couldn't have happened to me without those particular players. Great characters to have been on stage with a couple of thousand times. Great guys to jump around with, funny as shit, wackiest of the wacky. They don't get any crazier than those assholes. They're wonderful."

The feeling I get, my personal take, is when the sound really started to change, it wasn't Stan's forte anymore. I think he probably felt pushed out as much as he moved out, and that was probably completely valid. I think he was probably ready to go as much as the band (Tom?) was ready for him to go. However, when it became real, when it was actually over, it became a little bit of a different story. Reality sets in, hindsight is twenty-twenty, all that. They were together a long, long time. They had a pretty rocky ride at times. Of course when its over you're going to sit back and reflect on everything, good and bad. Of feelings, of memories, of desires, everything.

Just my two cents.... I personally never followed Stan's story very closely, so I welcome any discussion for/against my opinion :)

Edited by decacerata
I type too fast.... formatting/typos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's a very valid point, He wanted it over, and then didn't want it over. Like a bad divorce.

Like heartbreak girl quoted, he is talking about a graceful exit, and then he turns right around and says how hurt he was, wanted to barf, that Tom Told him he wasn't "digging his stuff".

Then he doesn't talk to the band for years. Some graceful exit.

Everytime Stan lynch gives an interview he says something different.

Stan seems like a very confused guy that Tom finally put out of his misery. Stan seems to have resented that. Today they would have just had an intervention and Stan would still be playing :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the early days of southern rock (a category that TP and the HB fit into both off and on) some of the bands tried a two drummer approach, i.e.: The Allman Brothers, 38 Special, Grinderswitch etc.. To me, that would have been the best way to keep to really great drummers in the band! I'm kidding of course, but for lots of old time TP fans, the "Stanley" period showcased the very best of the raw energy of the first five or six albums, and that takes nothing away from Mr. Ferrone. Perhaps Petty needed Stan's "Keith Moon" application to the drums to really motivate him and the other musicians. What is clear is that eventually (after FMF was released) the Heartbreakers left their early sound behind and with Tom's direction, simply drifted away from where Stanley (and many of the early fans) were still at. Personally (and I know I'm probably in the minority here) I preferred the first phase of the band, a phase that was so perfectly captured in the bootleg video of TP and the HB's playing on December 30 th, 1978 at Winterland in San Francisco (and introduced by Bill Graham).  Check that out if you want to see 1970's classic rock delivered with a nuclear payload! After a half dozen or so encores, Petty finally admits "hey folks, we  just don't know any more songs"! He probably wasn't too damn far from the truth! What a great album that Winterland show would have been! I've often wondered if Tom's hip problems didn't have their roots from him being pulled of the stage and nearly crushed that night. Rock history folks and God bless Tom Petty...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too prefer the first half of TPATH history, but I have a deep respect for that long ride down the river in total.  It would have been a terrible thing to succumb to entropy,

I think one of the things I miss in the latter years was summed up by a comment Tom made in the Zollo book (I believe) which was that Tom and Stan were the dominant personalities in the band and everyone else was trying to negotiate those poles, lol.  It seems to me in latter-day documentation you don't get as much of a sense of the band behind the scenes like you do in the earlier years.  Onstage, of course, it's always about the band, as it should be.  But a big part of why I love TPATH is that band, those personalities, in the first 20 years.  They're all important to me.

Like any long-lived band there will always be fans with preferred eras and line-ups.

But back to the break - what makes me really sad is not that they outgrew each other, so to speak, but that it had to be such a painful occurrence for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it's sad in its way.

Stan came up with Tom so therefore he didn't see him as TOM PETTY but as Tom or Tommy or whomever, seen all different sides of the man and probably was one to call him out on his shit. But a little bit of that can go a long way in the shifting dynamics of a band. The well known clip of Stan shouting out after Tom "We just never recorded it well" or whatever he said was funny; even made it on the live anthology. But it's a fine line between being funny and passionate into being too much of a good thing. Whatever was going on, Stan wasn't afraid to be opinionated perhaps in a way others were not. After FMF and during ITGWO things had changed, especially with Lynne. 

Maybe it all just added it up over the years and reaching a bad breaking point; hard to say since we're not privy to all that went on. 

No dispresepct to Steve but Stan could've continued playing on Tom's music, how is something like Crawling Back To You that different from Southern Accents, i.e. both are tender songs in their way or Wildflowers (the song). Stan could've added some interesting elements to It's Good To Be King and so on. 

Tom has written quite a lot of mellow songs yet there were still some fast ones or heavy groove songs, not just one style so I don't think Satn would've neccessarily been bored over the long run. In concert, sure there were a lot of FMF songs but had he played on Wildflowers (or only on TPATH) albums there were still plenty of songs he'd had a hand in on the set list as well as other band's covers for him to play.

Steven came into an established successful band and he was a session player, seemed smart, easy to get along with and quite the player so if Tom told him less fills he gave him what he asked for; he hadn't known Tom when they moved out to L.A. together, he wasn't going to give him a hard or anything, just enjoy his amazing good fortune. 

From the outside looking in it seems obvious why they stayed with Steve and I do like his drumming as well.

I guess I agree, sad that it had to be so painful but I've heard it said bands are a five-way marriage in a way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that was priceless - considering that both Tom and Mike had to sign off on leaving the intro on "Surrender," as well as understanding that some people would get the joke, but others might not.  It's another little "wink" so to speak.  But it was really touching to me to read in interviews of the period all the praise which Tom and Mike and Benmont gave to Stan in terms of those recordings, and his role in the band.

I would say that we now understand - thanks to the biography - that there was a few bad breaking points.  It really hurt to read about Mike and Stan falling out, for example, but it helped me understand why things could not ultimately be fixed.  Only one piece of the shattered dream, but a big one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chimera said:

I would say that we now understand - thanks to the biography - that there was a few bad breaking points.  It really hurt to read about Mike and Stan falling out, for example, but it helped me understand why things could not ultimately be fixed.  Only one piece of the shattered dream, but a big one.

I totally agree with you on this point.  I never understood why the relationship couldn't be fixed until they finally got it across in Warren's book.  Man, that was a good book.  I'm listening to it again in the car on the commute to work this week.  I always pick up something new. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the ebook and the audiobook too!  I especially love that Warren narrated it himself - he doesn't do "voices," but, the way he phrases Stan's parts, for example, is amazing.  I feel like he's lifting nuances directly from their recorded conversations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, chimera said:

Yeah that was priceless - considering that both Tom and Mike had to sign off on leaving the intro on "Surrender," as well as understanding that some people would get the joke, but others might not.  It's another little "wink" so to speak.  But it was really touching to me to read in interviews of the period all the praise which Tom and Mike and Benmont gave to Stan in terms of those recordings, and his role in the band.

 Yes, probably time healing and all of them largely being in a good place with the band and each other. It's fun to wonder how some songs like You Wreck Me, or Room at the Top etc. would've sounded with Stan. Like I said, I also like Steve's drumming and liked how TPATH's guitar sound grew heavier with time in the live setting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

I agree, that was rough to read, especially how after the incident their friendship was over. 

Why did Stan and Mike fall out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, Stan was a little sh*t.  He really was. Don't get me wrong, I loved what he brought to the music and I loved his charisma  but he really caused a lot of trouble between the members of the band.  He just made things harder than they had to be.  He was part of something big but he thought he......well, he was just a little sh*t.  😏

Share this post


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

Why did Stan and Mike fall out?

Someone more versed in Zanes's book could explain it better but I think Mike's family joined the tour bus at the same time Stan arranged to have some multiple groupie sex on the tour bus they shared.

Mike asked Stan to cancel this, he hadn't seen his family and this was a special visit and Stan disagreed and they fought. 

Before this incident Mike was somewhat of a peacemaker in the band between Stan and Tom and after this he quit playing that role.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was towards the end of the Dylan tour in '87.  The band was traveling from Switzerland to Paris.  Mike had brought his family out to Europe and they had planned to take the bus.  Stan also planned to take the bus and he was bringing along some girls, as he was wont to do.  The ride between the two locations was most of a day, I believe.  Everyone else was flying.  There was the band bus and also a bus that was used by Dylan's backing singers but it appears neither Mike nor Stan wanted to take the other bus.  They tried to negotiate and in the course of their discussion Stan did the unthinkable - he insulted Marcie (specifically her speaking voice).  I don't know what the outcome of the fight was as far as transportation, but Warren states that their friendship never recovered and Mike didn't speak to Stan at all for at least a year, maybe longer.  And Stan lost his advocate in the band, or at least the one who had any power.

It would seem to me that the fight is probably the main reason why Stan didn't play on Full Moon Fever because over and above whatever issues he had with Tom, Mike probably would have tried to get Stan involved in the sessions but as they were no longer friends, Mike didn't want to have anything to do with him either.

It is interesting, though, that Warren notes not many people on the crew were happy with Mike bringing his family along (in that era) since they were on the bus with the band, as opposed to Tom doing it and having a separate bus.  So it was kind of a case of: "He just said what we were all thinking."  Not that it excuses it, but... there was definite resentment building up from that situation and it just exploded.  Stan was a brat, for sure, but it seems like there was an expectation in those days towards a certain kind of behavior and if anything happened to interfere with it then it caused problems.  

And Mike had said (in another article) that he wished he could have afforded to rent his own bus and bring his family out more often, but then he'd never make any actual money from touring, which just goes to underscore the difference in power and affluence between himself and Tom.  And then there was the time that Mike wanted to bring Marcie on the bus and he came up against the whole "No Wives" rule and so she had to drive herself between gigs.  That's the crazy part, to me: she had to drive herself and Mike went on the bus.

It was a weird dynamic in that band, sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thread to bring back. The issues of Stan the man, Stan the drummer and the rest of the band's, most notably Tom's relationship to both of them, been covered in various threads over the years. But back in 2008, when this thread started, I was more of an official bbs type of guy 😲 so some of this was interesting to revisit. 

I really think I've said my piece on these issues many times already, but basically I agree with what people here say about the complex personality dynamics. Most of all I like Chimera's bold:ing of the word band. Like I said elsewhere, in the past, I think that aspect is key, in this and all other issues. This was a band that became a solo project with back-up, that became a band, that went back to a soloproject and so on... Tom distancing himself a little from his "hands" for each of these steps (and I'm not just talking about Tom's solo albums here, mind you), changing, if ever so little, the dynamics. A ride that Stan of all people, may not have been the best suited to take in the long run, all things considered. He was - as I understand him and apart from him being the "loud mouthed madman" character that people love and hate - quite a band guy, musically, where Tom more and more seemed bent to cultivate the obvious fact that he rose above and beyond all that. Tom and Stan were really big egos on a mission in two very different ways, and with very different tones, I would argue. Collision was inevitable. A good thing for the peace of mind of all involved, I'm sure. Musically, it's not as obvious...

 

On 6/10/2018 at 7:17 AM, MaryJanes2ndLastDance said:

No dispresepct to Steve but Stan could've continued playing on Tom's music, how is something like Crawling Back To You that different from Southern Accents, i.e. both are tender songs in their way or Wildflowers (the song). Stan could've added some interesting elements to It's Good To Be King and so on. 

Tom has written quite a lot of mellow songs yet there were still some fast ones or heavy groove songs, not just one style so I don't think Satn would've neccessarily been bored over the long run. In concert, sure there were a lot of FMF songs but had he played on Wildflowers (or only on TPATH) albums there were still plenty of songs he'd had a hand in on the set list as well as other band's covers for him to play.

 

Yeah, I said this before too, but why not say it again: I don't personally see how Stan's trademark style would have added much to most of Tom's material on Wildflowers onwards. Or even that his unique Stan:ness was put to any use at all on ITGWO either, for that matter. With Jeff/Tom in charge of the cut and paste buttons, the drum machines and the keys to the empire, more or less any drummer could have done that gig. Him being there in person still was the big difference compared to later albums. As been stated around these boards and others before, Tom' approach to drumming changed, the way he produced his music in studio too. It may all have been a "coming home" for his artistic vision, but it meant, for all intents and purposes a switch for The Heartbreakers, a switch from TPATH, the  band, to Tom Petty session musicians with benefits. (The drums just happens to be the only aspect of this that is audible to the listener, since the drummer changed). It may not mean much to some, but I think the change in character is obvious - if not sudden and easy to pin down and if not without exceptions (what was to become the last stage of Tom's creative life seem to suggest a reorientation back towards more of a band mentality again, both in songwriting and in production ideals,  if very unclear to what extent that would mean him reconsidering his ideals).

Either way, the drumming is the big divide for me. "Less fills", as you say. Less of a lot of things. Less temper? Less soul? It's Tom's vision that happened, and had Stan been there in the studio of the 00s, he'd just be miserable, I'm sure. At least he wouldn't have bought much Stan:ness to these records, since that is not what Tom would've wanted on there. Jeff showed Tom the backdrop machine that keeps time, and he fell in love with it. If some late 80s or 00s songs are quite imaginable with a true-to-Stan studio treatment, it's totally theoretical, since Tom was beyond that type of quality by then.

Further more, going back it seems as if Stan was a problem already for Iovine. As always, it's hard to know what was personal and what was about the music, but it seems like Iovine's vision for this band had him struggle quite a lot with what to do about the drums.  But the beauty is, at least to me, that he managed  to use whatever spooky place Stan have had in the music's DNA since the Shelter records, and refine it and make it work quite perfectly within the contexts of his productions. That is, I'm sure he fought and worked and pulled and pushed a lot with Stan, hurt feelings on all sides. But the result being an artistic victory, probably some aspect of which they both (all) took with them for future adventures, and the records sound good and they sound band and in short, they prevailed. "We were all fingers of the same hand" as Tom puts it. Iovine didn't like Stan, supposedly, but he ultimately, rather than killing him and cutting him from the enterprise, he worked him and used him, and by doing so, helped create what is in my world the classic TPATH sound and in essence made the whole career for this band. Once that career was established, the success and riches made, when the band saw the end of the 80s, not only had personal tension reached breaking point, it was way pratctical, if artistically lazy (or bold, depending on viewpoint) to quit trying to work Stan into the blend, but rather just keep brushing him and all he stood for more and more under the carpet, till the TPATH sound one day had become something else, and all have moved on without Stan. Before long also without Howie, incidentally. It's all bound to eventually become a different game, is all I'm saying.

Live - on the other hand - of course Stan could have brought a lot of nerve and excitement to a lot of the post Stan material, I'm sure. In the live context there would've have been no stopping him and Tom would perhaps even have sailed on that groove and liked such different band dynamics, classic TPATH, as it were, well enough. But that is all very hypothetical, of course, since that's obviously is not how things work. It is a sweet thought though, trying to imagine - all respect to Steve for all he brought to the band, within this aestetic dimension and era of TPATH - what some of the last few tours, with their crisp grit in the guitar, their heavy groove and all, would have sounded like if the drums were allowed to run wild a bit more, to speak with the strange voices of this band long ago.

 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×