Nikki Sixx Officially Announces The End Of Motley Crue

Bassist talks about the group's plan to call it quits.

Ultimate Guitar

After hinting at a farewell Motley Crue tour in the near future, the group's bassist Nikki Sixx recently went on to discuss further details regarding the whole situation. Although a final tour will definitely be a reality soon, the band will keep themselves quite busy before leaving the music scene.

"I wanna finish our movie [adaptation of Motley Crue's New York Times bestselling collaborative autobiography 'The Dirt: Confessions Of The World's Most Notorious Rock Band'] and put out a new album. We'll be back in Australia and, ah, that'll be it. I can honorably say, 'We did it our way and we're never coming back,'" Sixx tells

So there will be a new album, a movie with a soundtrack and a farewell tour. That sound like a lot of work and we can clearly see the band wants to go out in style. But according to the bassist, there won't be as much as a slight chance for Motley Crue to ever come back, which is not easy for him to take.

"It's important that when you do a farewell tour that people understand that when you put a bullet in the back of the horse's head, and it goes down, it's not a plastic bullet it's a f--ing shotgun blast. You know, blow its f--ing brains out, it's never coming back. It has to [be that way]. It's the only way I can look at myself in the mirror and do a farewell tour. That's it. So when we take our final bow, it's IT. I will cry. I cry thinking about it."

Sixx went on to stress the importance of Motley Crue in his life, saying that he has a greater bond with the band than with his own family.

"I love this band. I f--ing spent my life doing this band. I've been doing this band longer than I've been doing anything else. And I've been in this band longer than I've known any woman, longer than I've known my children - only my family, and I have a closer relationship with my band than I have with my family, and a rockier relationship with my band than I've had with anybody in my family as well."

"So it's very emotional and I just think it's important that we finish what we started and then, you know, it will be whatever it will be. It could be beautiful. It could be a beautiful ending! When you go and see a great movie - I'll leave you with this: when you go and see a great f--ing movie and it ends and you go, 'F--!' like, you walk out and you go, 'That was amazing! That blew my mind!' It's not like, 'That blew my mind and, um, maybe there'll be a sequel to it'."

As far as the new record goes, the band has released a new single "Sex" in July 2012, with both Sixx and guitarist Mick Mars supposedly having "a ton of riffs" at their disposal. However, no further details have yet been revealed.

So this really seems like the end of Motley Crue. Do you think they are making a right decision here? And how do you see the entire situation? Post your thoughts in the comments section below.

211 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    "...the band has released a new single "Sex" in July 2012" I wonder what deep subject material Vince will sing about on that track.
    "Dont need no lovin, no respect Cos it's all about the sex (SEX!) Cos it's all about the Ohh (Ohh) Yeah (Yeah)" It's like Shakespeare wrote it
    Okay,this one is funny. But i think you shouldn't put it down until you have actually heard it.
    Sex? I`m sure it`s profound haha
    Dude,have you never heard a song like "You're All I Need"? At first - you think it's a love song,but when you look inside,you realize that it's like a diary of a madman. The same could be with that "Sex" single. Well,maybe. Maybe not. That's what i meant.
    I really like that they are openly letting fans know that they are going to quit soon, and that they are doing it in such a calm and collective way. Other bands could learn from this, in that they are giving their farewells, and have decided for themselves that they are at their stopping point. I have no intention in saying this to start a comment war about bands, but with the recent news of Metallica's statements of never stopping, Axl Rose's continuous changing statements of stopping or going further, and old bands attempting comebacks (Black Sabbath, mainly,) I really like that they are cool enough to do this. And again, I was only using those bands as examples of other big news headlines that are always on UG. I am fans of all the bands mentioned (I dislike Axl, however.)
    Motley Crue may not be the greatest musicians of all time,but I do enjoy their songs...they are simple but very tightly constructed. Nikki comes across as a positive ,genuine guy....he might be a dick at times,but he's the first to admit it. Good way to end it.
    I think that they COULD be the greatest musicians. At least Mick and Tommy could be. Nikki,on the other hand, may be just an alright bass player,but you've got to admit,that he is very talented in composing music. In fact,MOST of their greatest songs are that great thanks to Mick's and Nikki's songwriting abilities.
    Sad to see the end of Motley Crue, but at least they're ending because they want to...
    I really like his statement - very honest and he makes a very good point. I do like reunion tours of bands, some of them really are something, but closure is important.
    Best to put a bullet in the horse's head than to beat it for several more years.
    I know this is said countless times before... Never the less, I think we all know the true reason people noticed your comment...
    I got to say, WholeLottaIzzy posts relevant and agreeable comments consistently. The upvotes are really not just because of the avatar (but it's really hard not to get distracted. hahahahaha).
    Wow, I'm impressed by how many elitist cock ends there are here. If you don't like Crue then fine. That's up to you but ya don't need to be a c_unt about it. I honestly don't understand why all these people who hate Crue are that wrapped up in what happens to them. I get the feeling that there are a lot of very bitter people here.... but whatever.
    Exactly. If I see a band I don't like in the news feed, I don't go and read it just so I can be angry about how other people DO like the band.
    My thoughts exactly. Love how metalheads are always percieved as elitists on this site, while this proves grunge/alternative rock fans can be just as bad, if not worse.
    I dont understand why anyone who hates any band, or anything for that matter, goes and deliberately takes time to talk trash about them on internet websites about that band or thing.
    Oh my
    What is it? Are you happy or sad?
    I'll believe it when I actuallly see it occurr. The Who , The Stones and many other aged bands have made the same claim ....and end up doing FAIRWELL TOURS for the next 35 years....
    When it comes to Vince's live vocal performance, I wouldn't call it a day just because I used to be better at what I love doing 20-30 years ago. People are still buying the tickets and they're still putting on a great show. Having said that, the band has been around for 30 years. If they feel it's time to quit, and on their own, respectable terms, by all means go for it. They've earned it. They've stuck out the majority of their career together, and no one is leaving on bad terms. Not too many bands can say that nowadays.
    It's sad to see it end, but on the other hand I think they're right to call it quits before they have to replace the motorcycles with wheelchairs when doing Girls Girls Girls
    ginger ninja102
    even thou what i saw saturday night sucked (recently found out vince had to go to hospital so ok then alls forgiven) ill go see them **** some of the earliest memories are to crue songs. may even shed a tear myslef for the old bastards.
    Awesome news!
    I love some of their songs personally, but its definitely about time they should break up
    Fuck Nirvana and all that grunge suckers! Motley Crue rulz!
    You gotta be kidding me. This whole "war" between hair metal and grunge was 20 years ago. Get over it. And besides, there are a LOT of really good musicians from grunge such as as Jerry Cantrell, Andy Wood, King Buzzo, and many others.
    Grunge vs hair metal? Wasn't it thrash vs hair? Anyways I never really liked motley Cre well at least their stupid looks. Like all those stupid emo bands dress gay and if a motley Cre fan called emos gay, that's just hypocritical .
    The word "glam" or "hair metal" never really crossed my mind when I was listening to some Motley Crue, Nirvana, Poison, Twisted Sister, Extreme or Exodus cassettes way back then. It can be ridiculous to see people categorize musicians based on trivial aspects. There is no "war" not unless someone stirs it up. But anyway, just because it's got distortion and tuned to drop C doesn't mean it's metal or "heavy". It could just be "fast noise" so listen carefully.
    The word "glam" or "hair metal" never really crossed my mind when I was listening to some Motley Crue, Nirvana, Poison, Twisted Sister, Extreme or Exodus cassettes way back then. It can be ridiculous to see people categorize musicians based on trivial aspects. But anyway, just because it's got distortion and tuned to drop C doesn't mean it's metal or "heavy". It could just be "fast noise" so listen carefully. There is no "war" between music genres not unless someone stirs it up.
    I think you wanted to say "some", not "a lot" because often,music of Glam metal bands was more diverse,more virtuoso,more metallic,and more interesting than those of Grunge bands. I will admit,though,that AIC,Pearl Jam,and Soundgarden are the greatest of all of the Grunge/somewhat Grunge oriented bands(remember - AIC are actually a metal band,not a grunge band).
    Insanity ninja
    It's all a matter of opinion, sometimes I don't want to listen to amazingly technical music.
    Lol at metal being more diverse - The grunge scene was probably as diverse as it gets - The big 4 of grunge (PJ, Soundgarden, AIC, Nirvana) didn't sound like each other at all - the only part they had in common was their lyrics, and even though they shared a simular feel to them (gloomy, dark, frustrated) they had widely different approaches to them. Each bands sounds differed very heavily, with Nirvana being a blend of punk, metal, with pop sensibilities, AIC mainly residing on the border between rock and metal, PJ being classic 70's rock, and Soundgarden blending metal and stoner rock. And when you take the entire grunge scene, it gets impossible to compare them. Many of the bands had little in common when regarding sound. They were just labeled "grunge" since it became a term for "music from Seattle" which, at the time the term was coined, actually excluded Nirvana since they came from Aberdeen WA. And for the record, I have listened to glam for a brief period of time for comparison's sake, and many of the bands sounded awfully simular in both songwriting, sound, and lyrical approach. Still, I acknowledge that you were just expressing your opinion. But to claim that the glam-metal scene was more diverse is simply ludicrous.
    I lean more towards the grunge scene than the hair metal scene, but to an outsider I can see why they would think MOST grunge sounds alike. Think about bands like bush and stp and then all of the one hit wonders in the grunge/alt scene.
    If you take the guitar solos out of those glam/pop metal songs there is NOTHING interesting about them. They're boy band songs with boring and generic guitars, drums and bass. They're images say "rock band" but their music says "sh*t" with VERY FEW exceptions. I hated that crap back then and I hate it now. I still remember being 12 or 13 years old back in the late 80's/early 90's and discovering Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, The Melvins, Sonic Youth, etc. and being SO HAPPY. Just my 2 cents. PS - F*ck Motley Crue.
    Listen to "Youth Gone Wild" by Skid Row. Listen to the vocal chops, the subtle bass hooks, the tasteful guitar licks and the effect that the drums give the song. Take the guitar solo out and it would still be an impressive show of tasteful technicality.
    exactly the song I thought of when I saw that "glam/pop metal sucks post. amazing song. and im not even all that into glam.
    I agree, Skid Row is one of those few exceptions, solid rock and roll band.
    Oh piss off. You say that glam metal has "boring and generic guitars, drums and bass", I could say the same thing for grunge. If I generalize just as you do, I could argue that grunge is just the same "heavy" and "raw" guitar riffs with "sad" vocals over and over again. Plus calling all glam metal bands "boy bands" is the equivalent of me calling all grunge bands "bitchy emo bands". Now I'm sure lots of people would disagree with that, wouldn't they? For the record I listen to both genres. I don't intend to bash grunge, I only intend to show another perspective on this whole ordeal. No genre is inherently better than another, cause when it comes down to it, it's a matter of opinion (obviously).
    This is untrue on many levels. Not all of glam metal songs are simple. Some have varying time signatures. Some are in 4/4 time,but have interesting passages;arpeggios;technically VERY complex solos. Plus,the vocals often had to be good. Some glam vocalists were not too diverse(or at least didn't show that much diversity) in the range of notes they can sing. But, for the most part - you just HAD to be good at singing,and be able to either hit some strong, very high notes,to the point of being like an opera singer,either be able to transform your not-so-high voice into an enchaning weapon. Blackie Lawless is a great example of that. His vocal range is baritone. When you listen to WASP you don't hear many MEGA-SUPER-FREAKIN'-HIGH-SCREAMIN' notes(he does sing high notes,but not as high as,for example, Rob Halford or Axl Rose) but his somewhat raspy voice just hooks your heart,and you feel the emotion of the song almost like you are experiencing that emotion yourself. And that's just the beginning. One could rant on and on about how great is Glam metal,and how good you had to be to be acknowledged as a good musician. P.S. I'm NOT stating that a technically simple,easy song is inherently bad or just not worth listening. I just tried to show you how wrong you are.
    Rocknrolla35 got destroyed. It doesn't even seem like he was intentionally trolling, and he still got eaten alive. Good job musically competent UGers.
    Well,sometimes people get destroyed for saying the truth right into other peoples' eyes. But i bet yer gonna downvote this comment too,because you think that i'm just a stupid,cross-dressed,hairy,hairspray-soaked, glam metal elitist with completely no respect to other genres of music,huh?
    Who cares if music is more technical or not? Sometimes keeping it simple is a good thing. Also glam songs were pretty simple. If you want complex music, listen to Dream Theater or some other prog rock/metal band. I sometimes like complexity but sometimes something like AC/DC blows my mind, even though they are like the most simple music you can make. Grunge, same as punk, wasn't meant to be really technical. Actually grunge could be considered as "90s punk". They are not really the same thing but they have a lot in common. You don't need to be virtuoso to write good songs. A technically advanced guitar solo doesn't make a song. There are so many more cool things in a song than a guitar solo.
    Are you kidding? Soundgarden's music is infinitely more complex than anything glam bands put out. Glam is essentially top 40 pop music chord progressions that do nothing interesting with lyrics that are just as cheezy and fake. Chris Cornell's solo work (euphoria morning album for ex) alone is more complex and musically interesting than anything a joke cross-dressing band like Poison could ever try to put out. And lets talk voices - none of those glam bands have an iota of the talent vocally as Chris, nor even Layne or Eddie (and lets not even get into lyric writing). Yeah, like learning "Here i go again" or "Every Rose has its thorns" is difficult? Those songs are an easy joke. Jesus Christ Pose, Them Bones, Black Hole Sun, Even Flow, I stay away, all require more talent and have melodies that are more complex and interesting.
    Two things. First, being more complex doesn't mean better. If it did, then Dragonforce would be considered one of the best bands in the universe. But they're not. At least, most people don't seem to think so. Second, who's to say Grunge bands are somehow more talented than Glam metal bands? Glam metal has had it's share of great singers like Sebastian Bach or Don Dokken. And there is some fantastic guitar work and melodies in glam metal songs. Just listen to some guitar work by Eddie Van Halen, or George Lynch, or Slash (Since I'd argue that GNR are pretty close to glam metal). I mean if you lead yourself to believe that one genre of music is infinitely better than another genre, then yes, that's what you'll see. But that doesn't mean that that's the way it really is.
    Dude, when i said that glam metal is more diverse than grunge,i meant it only in the long run. I DO admit that some bands like PJ,AIC and Soundgarden ARE complex and artistic. ps - Yes,Every Rose Has It's Thorn is a simple song(if you DON'T both play and sing simultaneously), but your generalization "Glam is essentially top 40 pop music chord progressions that do nothing interesting with lyrics that are just as cheezy and fake" just shows how little do you know about Glam metal.
    Don't hate on Nirvana, man! If I had to say anything negative about them is that too many people are in to them. Sure, they're a really good grunge band, but definitely not the best. People only like them because Cobain shot himself with a shot gun.
    is there something so wrong with a lot of people liking a particular band? don't be snobbish just because a band is really popular, what matters is the music they make. i can't stand it when people say crap like "oh they make really good music, but they're way too popular so they annoy me." load of shit if you ask me.
    Well, i did not make the claim that Nirvana is bad because they were/are too popular. I simply think that there were better bands than them. But i still show some respect.
    nirvana was the biggest band in the early 90s...that was before cobain shot himself. im pretty sure thats not the reason why people listen to nirvana.
    Yeah, Nirvana was in decline when Cobain did himself in and while the event certainly gave them a bit of a boost at the time, it was nothing like the surge they had with Nevermind. Personnally, I like Bleach and Incesticide better than Nevermind, but only a couple of songs from In Utero. Nevermind whacked the world in the face with a 2x4 just like Appetite for Destruction did a few years earlier. Certainly others have sold more, but nothing has come close to that kind of cultural impact in the rock world since.
    Nirvana were the biggest for only a brief time,like maybe 1 year or so. Pearl Jam outdid them later,and became the most popular grunge/hard rock band of the 90s.
    What sucks about Nirvana is Kurt always got the most attention even though he was, in my opinion, the least musically talented. I mean, Dave and Krist are both fantastic, but nobody recognises Dave for anything but Foo Fighters and his infinite collaborations.
    Dave came in pretty late. Kurt did most of the writing and was the front man after all. He got all the attention when he was alive, too.
    Nah,Nirvana ain't a "really good band". I will admit,that Kurt Cobain was artistically expressive,and some of his songs definitely had an interesting message, but musc wise - Nirvana WAS NOT the best of their own kind. Not to mention,that,for the most part - Grunge doesn't hold a candle to most genres of metal(Glam metal included).
    Think of it this way, if your comment is down voted then you are probably right. If it is up voted than you are probably part of the mainstream thinking. So really, its okay to be down voted cause you know your speaking the truth lol
    The point of Nirvana was that it was the opposite of things like glam metal. It was a lot about performance and doing the punk rock stuff. Besides, Kurts writing style had a lot of simplicity in it that was beautiful. I mean, look at sliver. It's a song about being a kid when your parents go out to a show of some sort and you're stuck at your grandparents. Its way more real and down to earth than anything glam artists write.
    I can't fully agree with that. Yes,Glam bands were more about partying,sex,girls,cars,love,and all the rest of the stuff that makes us think that life is good. But some songs ere serious too. For example, some stuff that White Lion have been putting out is really serious and/or NOT that happy. And they put it out in a GLAM context. "When The Children Cry","Little Fighter","You're All I Need","Broken Heart". Then you've got songs like "Time For Change","Dr. Feelgood","Misunderstood","Wild Side","You're All I Need","Knock 'Em Dead","Fight For Your Rights","On With The Show" from Motley. Then again, "Under The Blade","We're Not Gonna Take It","Evil","The Price" by Twisted Sister. "Fallen Angel","Every Rose Has It's Thorn","I Won't Forget You","(Until You Suffer Some) Fire And Ice" by Poison... If you dig deep enough,you find out that Glam metal had it's serious and down-to-earth side too.
    Soundgarden , Nirvana, Alice in Chains, And many other "grunge" bands kick just as much ass as Motley Crue..It is okay to like 80's metal and "grunge" at the same time...If it rocks it rocks
    About 20 years too late for this argument to be as relevant as it once was
    Yeah, take that! Motley Crue are retiring while Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, and Pearl Jam are all still going strong.
    AiC destroys those lame ass hair metal bands! ps: G'N'R and Van Halen are not hair metal bands 'cause they're too good.
    That's the stupidest statement i have ever read,dude. No offense. G'N'R and Van Halen ARE Glam metal bands. Well,at least they are quite close to Glam metal.
    The difference between GnR and van Halen from glam metal is that GnR and VH don't dress like women
    sooo... what you're saying is that rolling stones, lady gaga and aerosmith are glam-metal?
    Actually, they both had their moments. GNR played with makeup a little before they got too big, and David Lee Roth and Michael Anthony looked like they were ready for a glamour shot at any moment for the first few years of their career.
    I remember the Rolling Stone review of the first VanHalen album and it was described as "ACID ROCK".....
    Haha, my dad and uncle call any hard rock made after 1970 "Acid Rock". It always bugs me but cracks me up too.
    Earlier material from Judas Priest or Pantera could also easily be labelled as "hair-metal". Not all hair metal is bad. One band (or a few bands) shouldn't be able to define an entire genre.
    AiC was a glam metal band when they first started out in the late 80's. Listen to stuff from that era and Facelift.
    Weren't they Alice AND Chains before a lineup-change-or-something?
    I'm pretty sure it was Alice N' Chainz. Also, even once they got their lineup set, they were still a borderline glam metal band. You can hear a heavy GNR sort of influence in some of their demos and even some stuff on Facelift.
    Ya there is nothing Glam about Van Halen. You can pretty much credit David Lee Roth for every glam front man.
    Face R1pper
    Dokken and Lynch write better songs alone than the whole grunge scene could write combined.