Come up with a new name. That is my point. I'm NOT saying the music sucks, but it is NOT AIC without Layne, period.
Ok, Alice in Chains has not been for how many years??? Answer here:
IMO, there never was an official end to AIC, but the limbo started in 2002 with Layne's death.
And WHY exactly is that??? Answer here:
Remember, although they didn't record together since 1998, Layne died in 2002, and the guys were hopeful that would play again in those 4 years. I would imagine some grieving took place since 2002, solo projects,.....
OK. So Why pick it all up NOW and call it Alice in Chains???
Again, I don't think there was an official end and they just didn't pick it up NOW. Cantrell, Kinney, Inez picked up again in 2005 at that benefit concert and the ball started rolling. I figure 3 years of limbo status.
Look, I agree with you that Layne was a big part of the band. Bit IMO he wasn't bigger than the band. With that said though, I enjoy the music these guys put out, and FOR ME, I really don't care what they call themselves.
Come up with a new name. That is my point. I'm NOT saying the music sucks, but it is NOT AIC without Layne, period.
Ok, Alice in Chains has not been for how many years??? Answer here:
IMO, there never was an official end to AIC, but the limbo started in 2002 with Layne's death.
And WHY exactly is that??? Answer here:
Remember, although they didn't record together since 1998, Layne died in 2002, and the guys were hopeful that would play again in those 4 years. I would imagine some grieving took place since 2002, solo projects,.....
OK. So Why pick it all up NOW and call it Alice in Chains???
Again, I don't think there was an official end and they just didn't pick it up NOW. Cantrell, Kinney, Inez picked up again in 2005 at that benefit concert and the ball started rolling. I figure 3 years of limbo status.
Look, I agree with you that Layne was a big part of the band. Bit IMO he wasn't bigger than the band. With that said though, I enjoy the music these guys put out, and FOR ME, I really don't care what they call themselves.
I wish people would stop with this......they do have to make a living.
AND, for a Seattle example, if they were money grubbing whores, they would try to play Key Arena or some other big venue and selling tickets for $70 a pop instead of playing at the Moore Theatre and charging $23 a ticket like they were on Sept. 24th. and they just played a secret acoustic show in Seattle.
sounds to me like they just want to play music.
OH MY GOD!!!!! CAN I NOT VOICE MY OPINION WITHOUT PEOPLE GETTING SO "HOLY" ABOUT IT??? WTF??? I THINK IT IS LAME TO BE PART OF SOMETHING NEW AND CALL IT SOMETHING OLD!!!!!!!!! DON'T AGREE??? SAY "I DONT AGREE", NO NEED TO PSYCHOANALYZE ME AND MY COMMENTS.
Though I will send a box of tissues to anyone who needs them.
So let me get this straight. You just want to post your opinion, and have everybody nod silently in agreement? Nobody can disagree with you?
It doesn't seem like you fully understand the concept of a message board.
Because it didn't seem like there was anything out of line about that guy's post. He just didn't agree with you. Last I checked, this is America. That is allowed.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Was not impressed with the first single I heard from the new AIC and I am being kind when I say not impressed. Is there more than just the one song floating around?
Ok, this has probably been addressed already and I am way behind here, but do we like that "moving on with a new singer" thing? Alice in Chains isn't the same band without Layne Staley. Isn't it also kind of disrespectful to him that they just go on with the same name? Because that's all it would be- the same name, not the same band.
In most cases, it's the lead singer who defines the band. - agree or disagree? I think it is the case.
Ok, this has probably been addressed already and I am way behind here, but do we like that "moving on with a new singer" thing? Alice in Chains isn't the same band without Layne Staley. Isn't it also kind of disrespectful to him that they just go on with the same name? Because that's all it would be- the same name, not the same band.
Yes it's been covered.
My opinion: AIC was always Jerry Cantrell's band. He can do with it what he wants. If Layne wanted to be a part of it, he shouldn't have been such a fuck up. As far as "disrespectful" goes ... Layne's family has given the band their blessing for them to move on under the AIC banner. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think Jerry and Company should have to suffer because Layne was a fuck-up.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Ok, this has probably been addressed already and I am way behind here, but do we like that "moving on with a new singer" thing? Alice in Chains isn't the same band without Layne Staley. Isn't it also kind of disrespectful to him that they just go on with the same name? Because that's all it would be- the same name, not the same band.
Yes it's been covered.
My opinion: AIC was always Jerry Cantrell's band. He can do with it what he wants. If Layne wanted to be a part of it, he shouldn't have been such a fuck up. As far as "disrespectful" goes ... Layne's family has given the band their blessing for them to move on under the AIC banner. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think Jerry and Company should have to suffer because Layne was a fuck-up.
Are we referring to addicts as fuck-ups?
Isn't addiction a mental illness? Yes, I think it is. Perhaps a little bit more sensitivity is in order.... :?
Are we referring to addicts as fuck-ups?
Isn't addiction a mental illness? Yes, I think it is. Perhaps a little bit more sensitivity is in order.... :?
I am, but I'll go with your definition.
I don't think the rest of the band should have to suffer because their lead singer was, ahem, mentally ill.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Are we referring to addicts as fuck-ups?
Isn't addiction a mental illness? Yes, I think it is. Perhaps a little bit more sensitivity is in order.... :?
I am, but I'll go with your definition.
I don't think the rest of the band should have to suffer because their lead singer was, ahem, mentally ill.
Ok, this has probably been addressed already and I am way behind here, but do we like that "moving on with a new singer" thing? Alice in Chains isn't the same band without Layne Staley. Isn't it also kind of disrespectful to him that they just go on with the same name? Because that's all it would be- the same name, not the same band.
Yes it's been covered.
My opinion: AIC was always Jerry Cantrell's band. He can do with it what he wants. If Layne wanted to be a part of it, he shouldn't have been such a fuck up. As far as "disrespectful" goes ... Layne's family has given the band their blessing for them to move on under the AIC banner. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think Jerry and Company should have to suffer because Layne was a fuck-up.
Are we referring to addicts as fuck-ups?
Isn't addiction a mental illness? Yes, I think it is. Perhaps a little bit more sensitivity is in order.... :?
I think some people have addictive personalities that need help and medication and doctor's care to fight their addictions.
But if I walk out my job today and drive through crack town on the way home, buy some heroin, shoot up when I get home, become addicted and lose everything including my house, job, family, money, etc. then I am a fuck up.
And it is still Alice withought Layne. I am with slightofjeff on this one. Jerry's band and with Layne's family's approval, it is still Alice.
Are we referring to addicts as fuck-ups? Isn't addiction a mental illness? Yes, I think it is. Perhaps a little bit more sensitivity is in order.... :?
here's a hot topic......IMO when it comes to drugs, there's that FIRST CHOICE that throws things into question. While addiction is curable, its a long hard road that most people can't journey through successfully.. Too bad Layne couldn't make that journey to success.
Comments
Ok, Alice in Chains has not been for how many years??? Answer here:
IMO, there never was an official end to AIC, but the limbo started in 2002 with Layne's death.
And WHY exactly is that??? Answer here:
Remember, although they didn't record together since 1998, Layne died in 2002, and the guys were hopeful that would play again in those 4 years. I would imagine some grieving took place since 2002, solo projects,.....
OK. So Why pick it all up NOW and call it Alice in Chains???
Again, I don't think there was an official end and they just didn't pick it up NOW. Cantrell, Kinney, Inez picked up again in 2005 at that benefit concert and the ball started rolling. I figure 3 years of limbo status.
Look, I agree with you that Layne was a big part of the band. Bit IMO he wasn't bigger than the band. With that said though, I enjoy the music these guys put out, and FOR ME, I really don't care what they call themselves.
Cool, so we can be friends now?
So let me get this straight. You just want to post your opinion, and have everybody nod silently in agreement? Nobody can disagree with you?
It doesn't seem like you fully understand the concept of a message board.
Because it didn't seem like there was anything out of line about that guy's post. He just didn't agree with you. Last I checked, this is America. That is allowed.
for the least they could possibly do
In most cases, it's the lead singer who defines the band. - agree or disagree? I think it is the case.
Yes it's been covered.
My opinion: AIC was always Jerry Cantrell's band. He can do with it what he wants. If Layne wanted to be a part of it, he shouldn't have been such a fuck up. As far as "disrespectful" goes ... Layne's family has given the band their blessing for them to move on under the AIC banner. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think Jerry and Company should have to suffer because Layne was a fuck-up.
for the least they could possibly do
Are we referring to addicts as fuck-ups?
Isn't addiction a mental illness? Yes, I think it is. Perhaps a little bit more sensitivity is in order.... :?
I am, but I'll go with your definition.
I don't think the rest of the band should have to suffer because their lead singer was, ahem, mentally ill.
for the least they could possibly do
That's much better, thank you.
I think some people have addictive personalities that need help and medication and doctor's care to fight their addictions.
But if I walk out my job today and drive through crack town on the way home, buy some heroin, shoot up when I get home, become addicted and lose everything including my house, job, family, money, etc. then I am a fuck up.
And it is still Alice withought Layne. I am with slightofjeff on this one. Jerry's band and with Layne's family's approval, it is still Alice.
BOS-9/28/04,9/29/04,6/28/08,6/30/08, 9/5/16, 9/7/16, 9/2/18
MTL-9/15/05, OTT-9/16/05
PHL-5/27/06,5/28/06,10/30/09,10/31/09
CHI-8/2/07,8/5/07,8/23/09,8/24/09
HTFD-6/27/08
ATX-10/4/09, 10/12/14
KC-5/3/2010,STL-5/4/2010
Bridge School-10/23/2010,10/24/2010
PJ20-9/3/2011,9/4/2011
OKC-11/16/13
SEA-12/6/13
TUL-10/8/14
it's usually either/or. seems to be two different camps here, Layne's voice and Jerry's sound. I vote AIC is Jerry's sound.
here's a hot topic......IMO when it comes to drugs, there's that FIRST CHOICE that throws things into question. While addiction is curable, its a long hard road that most people can't journey through successfully.. Too bad Layne couldn't make that journey to success.
For what it's worth, this sums up my feelings on it (along with my items for argument in previous posts)
look up all the threads in the 'Other Music' forum. It's always this way.
Find be yourself.
Don't follow the herd.
Don't repeat in spite of the encores.
Be yourself.
Otherwise you'll bore us.