New Alice in chains album soon!!

[Mattmc74]

What about AC/DC then? Should they have changed their name after Bon Scott died? They didn't.

 

[lobee]

What about AC/DC then? Should they have changed their name after Bon Scott died? They didn't.

Led Zeppelin/John Bonham? Pink Floyd after Syd Barrett left? Lynyrd Skynyrd?

 

[synrgy]

A) you're not answering my honest question

B) you're comparing examples in which ONE original member was replaced, not two or more.

Would Zeppelin have still been Zeppelin missing Bonham AND Plant?

AC/DC missing Bon AND Angus?

Pink Floyd missing Syd AND David?

I feel like this is an awfully valid point that you guys are dodging..

 

[kung_fu]

I think we all get the point you are trying to make, but its not like Mike is just some random dude they got to play the bass. Besides, i recal hearing stories about their old bass player getting arrested a few times for car theft. Perhaps they could have gone with a new name, but since they will most likely continue to play AIC songs it just makes sense to keep the name. It's their call.

I suppose while we're at it, Metallica shouldn't be called Metallica anymore as Lars and James are the only two founding members.

 

[lobee]

A) you're not answering my honest question

B) you're comparing examples in which ONE original member was replaced, not two or more.

Would Zeppelin have still been Zeppelin missing Bonham AND Plant?

AC/DC missing Bon AND Angus?

Pink Floyd missing Syd AND David?

I feel like this is an awfully valid point that you guys are dodging..

A) What was your honest question? I don't feel like sifting right now.

B) You gave an example of your band's drummer leaving and you changed your name. You also asked about RHCP if Anthony OR Flea left. You also dodged Lynyrd Skynyrd in which damn near the WHOLE BAND got wiped out in a plane crash.

 

[lucasreis]

I apparently ruffled some feathers, so just let me clarify:

I have no issues with Jerry and company making new music.

I just don't feel that it should be called Alice In Chains. That band under that name is history in my eyes. If it hadn't been 10 years since they last recorded a song as a band I might feel differently.

All I'm really getting at is this: Jerry+Mike+Sean does not Alice In Chains make. Mike wasn't even the original bass player.

My band lost a drummer and changed our name as a result, because we knew how different the music was going to be with a different guy behind the drum kit.

I'm not trying to troll here -- I'm just sharing my opinion. I'd be interested to see somebody tell me why if it ISN'T about the money, they insist upon using the Alice In Chains name?

*edit* for example: Would you still consider Pearl Jam to be Pearl Jam if they replaced Eddie and Jeff? Would the Red Hot Chili Peppers still be the Red Hot Chili Peppers without Anthony or Flea? Come on...



Moreno/Carpenter

I actually agree with Moreno/Carpenter, very good duo.

 

[synrgy]

A) What was your honest question? I don't feel like sifting right now.

B) You gave an example of your band's drummer leaving and you changed your name. You also asked about RHCP if Anthony OR Flea left. You also dodged Lynyrd Skynyrd in which damn near the WHOLE BAND got wiped out in a plane crash.

I did give an example of my band, yes -- but we were discussing Alice In Chains, which has lost more than one of it's original recording members. I only brought up my band (which is irrelevant really because nobody knows who the fuck we are) because it was an illustration of the point I was trying to make.

As far as my honest question -- If it isn't about the money, why insist upon calling the new project Alice In Chains? Somebody did go on to mention that they'll likely play a bunch of the old material, and I guess I get that.. but it still just reeks of dollar signs to me. You know -- kind of like the 800 seperate "final reunion" tours Black Sabbath played in the 90s.

I mean, let's all be honest with our selves: If PANTERA released a new album tomorrow with a new guitar player, would none of you find that just a little wrong?

Maybe I'm just jaded.

*edit* I purposely didn't mention Skynard because I quite simply know fuck all about that band or their music or their history. I only know what Freebird sounds like because of Guitar Hero, and before that I only knew Sweet Home Alabama, and the classic line "Play some Skynard, man!!" which some of my old metal bands used to hear shouted at us in southern Delaware bars. Anyway, point being I didn't mention them because I'm not well enough informed to have any kind of rational discussion about them.

 

[Zepp88]

I'm excited for this, Jerry is still as great as ever, the new singer is pretty good from what I've heard, I'm glad to see they're moving on.

Also, Jerry can call it whatever the hell he wants to call it, he wrote most of if not all of the material.

 

[SteveDendura]

I definitely want to hear this new album! And if anyone's interested there's a brief article with Jerry in the new Guitar World on page 25. Read it! It's got some good points and after like 14 years since the last AIC album, I'm really looking forward to a new one

 

[ArtDecade]

I was never a big AIC fan, but I dug some of Jerry's tones and riffs. I'll give it a listen.

 

[Mattmc74]

I was never a big AIC fan, but I dug some of Jerry's tones and riffs. I'll give it a listen.

Thats all i'm asking - Keep an open mind and give it a try.

 

[fire engine]

Some people are too quick to say "oh, they have no right to call themselves that."

It's their name to do what they want with. Mike Starr left the band, and Layne is dead. Unfortunate as it is, Layne's death means that Jerry Cantrell inherited the creative force behind the band, and it's their decision whether to go on or not.

 

[GH0STrider]

I did give an example of my band, yes -- but we were discussing Alice In Chains, which has lost more than one of it's original recording members. I only brought up my band (which is irrelevant really because nobody knows who the fuck we are) because it was an illustration of the point I was trying to make.

As far as my honest question -- If it isn't about the money, why insist upon calling the new project Alice In Chains? Somebody did go on to mention that they'll likely play a bunch of the old material, and I guess I get that.. but it still just reeks of dollar signs to me. You know -- kind of like the 800 seperate "final reunion" tours Black Sabbath played in the 90s.

I mean, let's all be honest with our selves: If PANTERA released a new album tomorrow with a new guitar player, would none of you find that just a little wrong?

Maybe I'm just jaded.

*edit* I purposely didn't mention Skynard because I quite simply know fuck all about that band or their music or their history. I only know what Freebird sounds like because of Guitar Hero, and before that I only knew Sweet Home Alabama, and the classic line "Play some Skynard, man!!" which some of my old metal bands used to hear shouted at us in southern Delaware bars. Anyway, point being I didn't mention them because I'm not well enough informed to have any kind of rational discussion about them.

Yeah but your missing a major point that completly flaws your argument- Jerry is just as crucial to AIC, if not more so, than Layne was. He is their founder and main song writer. Not to mention he does a good portion of the lead vocals, almost all towards the end when layne got really bad. Jerry is AIC. You add the other original members and one new guy and it's not that big of a deal. As tough as it is to admit, layne and his addiction held that band down. It's sad because even with all the missed opportunities he is one of the most influencial voices of rock. That being said, this is still 3/4 of AIC. Not to mention the driving force that has always been- Jerry Cantrell is still running the show. It's also different because Jerry and Layne split vocal duties so often. I know by definition Layne was the lead vocalist but you could easily make an argument for Jerry. Bottom line- AIC is jerry's band and wether you want to admit it or not it always has been. So if he decides to keep the group going and bring a new member aboard he can do so. Because while with bands like the chili peppers and pearl jam if you replace their frontmen you do lose the band pretty much but with AIC a good part of what made them so great is still there and still kicking. Unlike other bands you have used as an example, Jerry was very important to their vocal sound as well. Layne wasn't harmonizing with himself.

 

[Mattmc74]

^ well said.

 

[synrgy]

Yeah but your missing a major point that completly flaws your argument- Jerry is just as crucial to AIC, if not more so, than Layne was. He is their founder and main song writer. Not to mention he does a good portion of the lead vocals, almost all towards the end when layne got really bad. Jerry is AIC. You add the other original members and one new guy and it's not that big of a deal. As tough as it is to admit, layne and his addiction held that band down. It's sad because even with all the missed opportunities he is one of the most influencial voices of rock. That being said, this is still 3/4 of AIC. Not to mention the driving force that has always been- Jerry Cantrell is still running the show. It's also different because Jerry and Layne split vocal duties so often. I know by definition Layne was the lead vocalist but you could easily make an argument for Jerry. Bottom line- AIC is jerry's band and wether you want to admit it or not it always has been. So if he decides to keep the group going and bring a new member aboard he can do so. Because while with bands like the chili peppers and pearl jam if you replace their frontmen you do lose the band pretty much but with AIC a good part of what made them so great is still there and still kicking. Unlike other bands you have used as an example, Jerry was very important to their vocal sound as well. Layne wasn't harmonizing with himself.

That's all completely fair. Thanks for not trying to immediately invalidate what I was saying and treating it like an actual conversation!

Your points are probably where my bias comes in. When I was a kid I always felt like Jerry took vocal duties WAY more often than he should have, but I also at the time didn't realize that this was more than likely due to Layne's personal issues rather than any musical or ego issues between bandmates. I just frequently forget about those details.

My mind isn't exactly changed, but I certainly see 'the other side' better now. I'll keep my mouth shut from here.

 

[Mattmc74]

Were not trying to beat up on you man it's just that we are die hard fans of AIC and were pretty excited about their return. But do give it a listen.

 

[synrgy]

Were not trying to beat up on you man it's just that we are die hard fans of AIC and were pretty excited about their return. But do give it a listen.

But of course! I'm always willing to give *anything* a good objective listen at least once.

 

[Mattmc74]

Thanks for keeping an open mind.

 

[7 Dying Trees]

If AC/DC had stopped after Bonn Scott's death, the world would have been an emptier place. The same can be said of iron maiden when they replaced Paul Di'Anno, or a multitude of bands were a vocalist has come and gone. Vocalists define a sound of a band more than most people will admit.

I'm sad Layne isn't here anymore, but am really happy about a new AIC record and a new chapter

 

[Mattmc74]

Well said James.