Alice In Chains??????????
flyinwhole313
Posts: 1,651
Seriously folks, WHAT THE FUCK? Alice In Chains should have changed their name after Layne died...This is so pathetic that I am almost at a loss for words...I LOVED AIC...One of my favorite bands...but how can the guys continue marketing themself and making money as a band whose centerpiece has been deceased for YEARS?????...They should be ashamed...I know this is OLD NEWS, but I keep seeing AIC around in the news and it makes me fucking sick to think about it...
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
So funny how you are telling the band what to do, when its their band, they can do what they want.
If it makes you sick then don't get the new album, go to their shows or do anything, hey don't even make a thread about it. 'Pathetic' enough for you to waste your time complaining about it.
They make their living through playing music so it's wrong for them to start making the music they love again?
I'm not fussed as i have been able to have seen 3/4 of AIC as they reformed, i dont care what their name is to be honest as its the music that counts.
Another one of these??
Jerry Cantrell IS Alice In Chains, if he wants to get the other guys back together with a new 'lead' singer then so be it.
Yep. Get over it. Jerry was/is the driving force behind AIC. Can't wait to see them & to get ALICE IN CHAINS' new album!
Apparently you dont know how to read. My pont is- New band, change the name. They are making money off of the name that a deceased legend created. Pay him enough respect to change the name. If they are so damn good, they should be able to succeed under a new name, right? Get off your horse...its the same crap The Doors have been doing for years. Sure, make music...do what you love...but "Alice In Chains" is DEAD.
Not new band. Same band. Same members, minus the one that killed himself with heroin. And Jerry made the band, it was his songs, harmonies, and guitars that carried AIC. Layne's voice is unbeatable, but without Jerry's songwriting, he'd have gotten nowhere. It's all the original members, they play all the familiar songs.
ACDC
Van Halen
Black Sabbath
All seemed to do ok when they got new singers. Did you bitch about them?
Amen dude! AC/DC is the icing on the cake with this whole reformed AIC thing. They went in to record with blessings from Bonn's family and the fans and came out with the 2nd biggest selling record in History according to wikipedia.
Yes, Bands with "new" singers face hardships and backlash from fans but they need to give this record a chance. I know I will. I was not a huge AIC fan (Bigger Mad season fan), but I am willing to listen to this album with open arms. Yes Layne is Gone, He sufferered from addiction and sadly it claimed him.
Bands have changed members for years (lead vocalists) included obviously.
AIC sold out the majority of their tour with Duvall on vocals so obviously to the fabs he is a welcomed assett to helping AIC carry on.
I will listen to the album, and it seems like AIC could do very well. if they sold out shows before an album and now in London or Europe they sell out shows that is a sign that people still support AIC.
Yes the band name can have an influence on the album, but fact is that AIC is really doing nothing new. Bands have carried on before and done well. Seems very likely AIC will have that opportunity.
EV Solo: 7/11/11 11/12/12 11/13/12
Just a thought, the same one I had when Blind Melon reformed. Brad could have taken over the vocals there instead of geting an outsider in
(Jeff Tweedy, Sydney 2007)
“Put yer good money on the sunrise”
(Tim Rogers)
Maybe Brad didn't want to. As to Jerry, he already sings a ton of AiC's songs. Part of their allure was the way he trades vocals with Layne. A lot of their material has to have 2 singers. And why is it ok to bring a new hired gun at guitar and keep the same name, but it's not ok to bring in a new guy to sing and keep the same name? That doesn't make sense.
I would much rather have another AIC album then to have them named Cantrell or Boggy Depot-the band.They deserve and have earned the right to be named AIC. Try looking at it from the bands point of view and all they've had to endure.
You misunderstand my point about an extra guitarist. I'm not saying it would be ok to have a new guitarist but not ok to have a new singer, I was merely pointing out that Jerry is a more than capable singer and he could do the job. However I don't think he would be able to sing all of the leads and play all of the guitar parts live. Two guitarists would help them keep a full sound live (like Nirvana did with Pat Smear). That way it would still be the three AIC guys and we wouldn't have to put up with any more reactionary posts like this one!
(Jeff Tweedy, Sydney 2007)
“Put yer good money on the sunrise”
(Tim Rogers)
Who actually 'owns' the name Alice in Chains? For example, Axl Rose had the rights to the name Guns 'n' Roses... so he leaves and keeps the name. The other Guns, though in majority, find a new name for their band....
Jeez people, it if doesn't concern you-let it go!
By the way, redrock, I'm not referring to you about letting it go. I read your previous post about getting the new AIC, I just can't believe people think there is a reason not to keep their band name! Using the arguement of respect for Layne isn't valid either. Do you think he was being respectful to family/friends/bandmates etc. when he OD'd. It was just an accident due to over-use and it really sucks he's gone! I've posted this before on another Layne topic, but I got to meet the whole band back on 12/5/92 and have Laynes autograph on my ticket stub. That was one of 3 times seeing them play live which is pretty good seeing how I was living in southwest Ohio at the time. Not an AIC hotspot by any means! Anyways, yes they DESERVE to record and tour under the name AIC! PERIOD! I will be picking up a copy for sure. I'd even see 'em again if they tour close enough!
My question about ownership of the name was just a question out of curiosity. GNR example was just to illustrate what I meant by ownership. Just wondering, really.... Same for PJ (or any other band I like!). Is the name a 'group' ownership or belonging to an individual... Anyway... I'm off topic.
I agree. AIC is AIC, even without Layne. When I saw them a couple of years ago, it was not Cantrell + 'touring' band/singer, it was AIC. Same when I see them in August. Can't wait to see Alice in Chains again.
That was my point though. With this new singer, it IS still the three AIC guys... so what diff does it make if the 4th guy is a singer or guitarist?
If Jerry was the singer it might put a stop to all the whining about Layne fucking Staley for a few minutes. A new singer is always going to be compared to him, there's no getting away from that. Jerry's voice is already an integral part of their sound so I just though that there would be less reationary moaning about that than there is about the new guy.
Is now a good time to mention that I always thought Layne was overrated as a singer?.... no, maybe not!
(Jeff Tweedy, Sydney 2007)
“Put yer good money on the sunrise”
(Tim Rogers)
What? :evil:
The intensity of his voice on Dirt and the sensitivity of Jar Of Flies made him an extremely diverse and potent singer! Anger, beauty, drugs, despair etc. His singing truly reflected the lyrics of the song being sung. He could pull off the angry growl of a song ( We Die Young, Sickman) and follow it up with the soft emotions of Don't Follow and Down In A Hole. Sheer brilliance in vocal ability and a talent sorely missed.
Mad Season really showcased his vocal abilities as well!
I think if anything having only one singer would be a bigger change, 2 different voices was always one of the defining and most distinctive things about AIC for me at least. Surely replacing 1 member of the band for someone else who plays the same role is less of a departure than shuffling band members roles around completely. Besides Jerry is an incredible guitarist with a distinctive style and finding someone to replace him would be as big a job as filling Layne's boots.
Personally I'm reserving judgement untill I hear the new material/direction the band are going in. If they release something which is clearly trying to be dirt/facelift2 or release a much poppier sounding album then I'll call cash in, but I doubt that is going to happen. Whatever Alice in Chains and Layne meant to any of us I think we can be damned sure it means a hell of alot more to Jerry and the guys. If they wanted to cash in they probably would have done it years ago, In Jerry's case in particullar there is no way that man can be short of money. I would have thought they could all live of the royalties/find places in other bands/projects easily enough.
This is turning into one of those "why did I comment on this?" posts! I'm not saying replace Jerry as a guitarist, I'm merely pointing out that he's a great singer and his voice is already a huge part of the AIC sound so why shouldn't he be the lead singer as well as the guitarist. There's no shuffling around of the band's roles, I just suggested an extra guitarist when they play live to take some presure off Jerry and faten up the sound.
The thing about Layne being overrated was a joke by the way...
He was an ok singer I suppose!
(Jeff Tweedy, Sydney 2007)
“Put yer good money on the sunrise”
(Tim Rogers)
it was always Jerrys band, not Laynes. It was Jerrys decision to start playing again under the AIC name, nobody elses. like it has already been said, i am sick of seeing these threads, and i can only think that there will be more before the album comes out.
and to answer a question that has not been asked yet.... yes i would see pearl jam if ed was not singing... it is not ed's band, it is jeff and stones so
bring on sepember for the new AIC and PJ albums
I wave to all my Friends... Yeah!