Page 1 of 2

Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:39 am
by joey78
They always seemed like a blend of Aerosmith and Guns n Roses.

Consistent records with catchy songs .

Josh Todd is right up there with Steven Tyler as a front man .Keith Nelson is a great songwriter

They should have been way bigger

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:45 am
by pieceofme
You must have been listening to a different buckcherry than i was. At most a few good songs.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:45 am
by VinnieVincentsVag
Josh Todd can’t sing

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 6:17 am
by HottKarl777
VinnieVincentsVag wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:45 am Josh Todd can’t sing

Plus he looks like he cooks meth. And it's not even good meth.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 6:29 am
by Tommy2Tone84
Why weren’t they bigger? Cause bands like Foo Fighters, Nickelback, Creed, Limp Bizkit, Seether, Kid Rock, Slipknot and Good Charlotte were what was happening at the time.


Piece of Me and VV’s Vag are also right. Although I would say a singer’s voice is subjective territory. I liked a couple of songs and I appreciated they were trying to do a 70s and 80s mix of old school rock. I probably shortchanged them at the time, I had a tough time understanding the hype online about them. As derivative as they were, I liked Airborne better when they came out a few years later. I’m not a huge fan I thought they did the retro trip better than Buckcherry. Buckcherry also seemed to change members often. Like Vag said, I was never a big fan of Todd’s voice. Same with The Darkness. I thought the band were great but could never get past Justin’s singing style. I know that’s subjective. But to this day, I’m still not a big fan.


The problem with this scene is, everyone ran for the exits in 1992 and 1993. The back biting, squabbling and petty infighting became public in the wake of the scene change. Everyone acted like they were so humiliated to be a part of or attached to the scene. Then, magically everyone became “bros” again over the last twenty years. While I appreciate a lot of the musicians and hangers on (I’m looking at you Riki Rachtman) have grown up to a degree and gotten over themselves, it’s way too late. It was too late by the time Buckcherry came along.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 6:34 am
by LitaStrauss
I saw Buckcherry open for Motley Crue and Josh Todd said pussy so many times in his stage banter that even Steel Panther would go, "that's a bit much."

"Who likes pussy? I like pussy. Everybody getting some pussy tonight? Who likes cocaine? Who likes pussy and cocaine? I like pussy and cocaine."

It felt like something out of South Park. It was like "we get it dude, you're sex, drugs and rock n roll. Good for you."

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 6:39 am
by LAglamrocker
Band C-
Image C-
Sound C-
They got what they deserved C-

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 6:58 am
by Tommy2Tone84
LitaStrauss wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 6:34 am I saw Buckcherry open for Motley Crue and Josh Todd said pussy so many times in his stage banter that even Steel Panther would go, "that's a bit much."

"Who likes pussy? I like pussy. Everybody getting some pussy tonight? Who likes cocaine? Who likes pussy and cocaine? I like pussy and cocaine."

It felt like something out of South Park. It was like "we get it dude, you're sex, drugs and rock n roll. Good for you."

In fairness, I saw Motley Crue years ago and way past their prime. It was mostly the same thing between Nikki and Tommy. Vince didn’t really say much and came off really normal. We left the show early and I seriously began to question why I was ever a fan of those clowns. Those two made Sebastian Bach sound like a college professor.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 7:14 am
by Tommy2Tone84
LAglamrocker wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 6:39 am Band C-
Image C-
Sound C-
They got what they deserved C-
That’s a fair grade point average. They made the original Nelson band look like Deep Purple. That’s the thing with this place and the scene. If BC had come out in 1990 fans would’ve been mocking them mercilessly and relentlessly in 1999. Which was an argument made at the time. But because they were “new” back then fans were acting as if they were the second coming. I think it’s great they’ve lasted for so long. But I never got it. I thought there were other bands that were better. The scene had nothing left in the tank. The industry killed it and many of the musicians involved in the scene willing helped the suits. Listening to people like Tracii Guns, Nikki Sixx, Tommy Lee, Don Dokken, George Lynch, Joe Elliott, CC Deville and even Gene Simmons was like watching someone stab themselves or jump off a building in desperate attempts to gain the approval of people who didn’t matter.


To the OP, Keith isn’t in the band anymore and hasn’t been for a long time.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 7:42 am
by Alessa
Didnt have any good songs.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 7:56 am
by Black Stuff
pieceofme wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:45 am You must have been listening to a different buckcherry than i was. At most a few good songs.
this

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 9:08 am
by Nate S Axel
Probably because Josh Todd did a lot of drugs and was skinny and anorexic looking -- not very big.

If they had been lazy slobs and didn't tour so much, they could sit around, get older, and get bigger and fatter like the tubs of lard in Bowling For Soup.

The lead singer is fatter now than the fat-ass guitarist used to be, and the fat-ass guitarist had to retire because he had two toes amputated.

That's why Buckcherry wasn't bigger.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 9:26 am
by dmbrocker
"Lit Up", "Crazy Bitch", and "Sorry" were pretty big when they came out, weren't they? That's about the right amount of success for them, I think.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 9:48 am
by joey78
Josh Todd and Keith Nelson got sober before they formed Buckcherry

Keith and Xavier quit due to musical differences

They had the potential to be the next guns n roses

Their post comeback records from 2005 until 2017 are pretty solid.

I wonder how Velvet Revolver would have turned out if Slash persisted with Josh and Keith . They probably would have lasted longer as a band . But on the flip side there would be no Buckcherry comeback or Slash/Myles

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 10:11 am
by pieceofme
joey78 wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 9:48 am Josh Todd and Keith Nelson got sober before they formed Buckcherry

Keith and Xavier quit due to musical differences

They had the potential to be the next guns n roses

Their post comeback records from 2005 until 2017 are pretty solid.

I wonder how Velvet Revolver would have turned out if Slash persisted with Josh and Keith . They probably would have lasted longer as a band . But on the flip side there would be no Buckcherry comeback or Slash/Myles
:lol:

Now you're just trolling!

Aren't you the same guy who loves the Blaze Maiden albums as well?

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 10:28 am
by DangerZone
is this a parody post?
Their big hit was a blatant “shock me” rewrite.

Crazy bitch is just embarrassing.
But Phil lewis lowered that bar even further

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 12:22 pm
by TREVERLAST
I remember loving the first CD. I was excited to see ROCK coming back! I didn't like the 2nd CD as much. So I guess I lost interest then. 'Crazy Bitch' got a lot of attention but I didn't buy that CD. I did get to see them open for Crue in 08, KISS in 09 & a couple of club shows since. They always deliver live.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 12:31 pm
by aznsquirt
joey78 wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:39 am They always seemed like a blend of Aerosmith and Guns n Roses.
The same reason that a band that was a "blend of Black Sabbath and Deep Purple" weren't megastars in the 80s and a band that was a "blend of Nirvana and Pearl Jam" weren't megastars in the 2000s, etc.

I would argue that, given the market, they probably achieved as much success as a band like that could've reasonably expect to have had without them pivoting their sound/image.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 2:56 pm
by HueyRamone
joey78 wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:39 am They always seemed like a blend of Aerosmith and Guns n Roses.
They were in no way that. A blend of Nugent and Johnny Crash, maybe.
joey78 wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:39 am
Consistent records with catchy songs .
Horrible songs like Crazy Bitch and I Love the Cocaine might have been catchy? But were not good.
joey78 wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:39 am
Josh Todd is right up there with Steven Tyler as a front man .
lol
joey78 wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:39 am
They should have been way bigger
They should have been less big.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 3:41 pm
by ParaDime77
Bigger?

Everyone and their brother knows who Buckcherry is. In the grand scope of music, there are very few bands that play stadiums.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:01 pm
by Slippery Pete
I remember having the thought with friends in the late 90s that they might bring back sleazy GnR style rock after their debut and we anxiously awaited the follow up. While we liked the second album, the public absolutely did not and the rise up was over.

Even when Crazy Bitch hit a few years later, it never felt like they'd start to climb again.

Still a solid hard rock band and as I mentioned in the other thread, I've liked a decent few songs over the years.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:07 pm
by Michael Hotts Ghost
They got pretty big with Crazy Bitch. I remember every girl saying: "that's my song" and me thinking "no kidding". 8)

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:34 pm
by aznsquirt
Michael Hotts Ghost wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:07 pm They got pretty big with Crazy Bitch. I remember every girl saying: "that's my song" and me thinking "no kidding". 8)
Crazy Bitch and Before He Cheats. What a bar combo.

Man.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 6:01 pm
by rockker
They sure are fucking road dogs. I’ve seen them multiple times with out trying to (opening for Kiss, Motley, Skid Row, etc).

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 6:39 pm
by Ozzy Stradlin
They were fairly successful, and they made a few solid albums that have their moments.

But, the notion that Josh Todd is anywhere near Steven Tyler (in his prime) is absurd.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2025 10:38 am
by superglide88
Wrong timing, average songs

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2025 11:21 am
by HORRORHOLIC1979
joey78 wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:39 am They always seemed like a blend of Aerosmith and Guns n Roses.

Consistent records with catchy songs .

Josh Todd is right up there with Steven Tyler as a front man .Keith Nelson is a great songwriter

They should have been way bigger
Because their singer sounds like absolute shit and comes across as a complete tool!!! I don't get the Aerosmith/Guns N Roses comparison at all. I'm shocked some people expected them to be bigger back in the day.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2025 11:24 am
by SterileEyes1
Always wondered why they ever got big in the first place and how they’ve managed to still be out there now. They always struck me as one of those bands who proudly wear their influences on their sleeve but don’t come close to being as good or better or making anything new with it.

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2025 11:34 am
by joey78
Josh and Keith were in an early version of Velvet Revolver.

If they were good enough for Slash to consider …..

Here is that lineup doing a tribute to Randy Castillo

https://youtu.be/nhmMETa_i9U?si=bDg7JjKvY2bb3_LJ

Re: Why weren’t Buckcherry bigger ?

Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2025 11:56 am
by aznsquirt
HORRORHOLIC1979 wrote: Sat Apr 12, 2025 11:21 am
joey78 wrote: Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:39 am They always seemed like a blend of Aerosmith and Guns n Roses.

Consistent records with catchy songs .

Josh Todd is right up there with Steven Tyler as a front man .Keith Nelson is a great songwriter

They should have been way bigger
Because their singer sounds like absolute shit and comes across as a complete tool!!! I don't get the Aerosmith/Guns N Roses comparison at all. I'm shocked some people expected them to be bigger back in the day.
The timing was right for people in their mid 30s+ who were over the 90s to get excited about a band bringing their youth back. I remember the pseudo-hype when they first broke, and then they just sort of flash in the panned, and I remember thinking "of course they did, that was never really going to work".

And then they reformed and came out of nowhere with Crazy Bitch, which crossed over to a larger audience. It was a perfect song to pull it off with (it just crushed it among 30-something-ish women who are in their barfly phase). But they were never going to have major staying power without some kind of major pivot towards pop, e.g. some huge ballad which I don't think they even tried.

Like I said before, rather than "why weren't they bigger" I think it's easy to argue that they got most of what they could've gotten out of what they were at the time.