Difficulty in accepting the new singer...

[skunkyfunk]

Why is it hard for many to accept new players to an old band, ESPECIALLY SINGERS?

It happened to


SKID ROW  (and ZP Theart sings much more in tune than Seb nowadays)
VAN HALEN (happened twice - Hardcore members did not like Sammy and Gary was crucified despite doing a great job too)
JUDAS PRIEST (and Tim did a GREAT JOB)
JOURNEY (Arnel killed it FOR 9 YEARS ith the band, and had more consistency in his tenure than old Steve Perry's stay collectively, who was on and off from the late 70s to 1987.[size=78%])[/size]
ALICE IN CHAINS (I believe William Duvall resurrected this great band from the dead, and blends well with Jerry Cantrell)
BLIND MELON (For my Friends was a great album but had very poor marketing)

 

[JugeSTP]

Faith No More is probably the best example, they actually became bigger with the change.

[CoconutBackwards]

When you start swapping out members people start to lose their ability to identify with the music they grew to love so much.


Alice in Chains is a good example since Layne Staley was such a unique, generational voice.  You start replacing the guy that wrote those lyrics that were so personal and meaningful and people are going to react.

[DrLymphNode]

edit: wrong thread

[Pingfah]

It's harder for people to accept when the band has done 20+ years without a lineup change, like STP did.

FNM made the change very early on, Layne was pretty much done within 5 years of hitting the big time and Cantrell was at least equal to him in terms of the band's sound and creativity, Van Halen only did 9 years with DLR, and besides the band was called Van Halen, Not Lee Roth.

Bands like Journey, Priest, Sabbath, they all had revolving casts of musicians right from the outset, drummers, guitarists, keyboardists and later vocalists were all subject to regular change and change back. It was considered more normal to their fanbases.

STP are a different animal, they were always sold to the fans as a unit and made a lot out of the brotherhood angle of being in a band together, and that is reflected in how rabid a lot of their fans are about it. However, I don't feel that way personally, I am quite happy for the band to continue however they see fit without throwing a tantrum about it, although that doesn't mean I'll necessarily like or buy their music.

[Blue]

When you start swapping out members people start to lose their ability to identify with the music they grew to love so much.

Alice in Chains is a good example since Layne Staley was such a unique, generational voice.  You start replacing the guy that wrote those lyrics that were so personal and meaningful and people are going to react.

If you need a certain person singing a song to like it, then you aren't identifying with the song at all. You're identifying with the singer.

The point of music is it transcends individuals. You know how people shared music before records? The wrote it down, so that other people could play it. A song isn't about a person or a band, it's about the quality of the song.

And what made Scott great as a lyricist was that while he wrote from a personal place, he made sure to keeps his lyrics broad and abstract so anyone could relate to it. Seven Caged Tigers doesn't have to mean the same thing for both you and me for us both to identify with it... So whoever goes on stage doesn't need to have lived Scott's life, they just need to love the music.

[CoconutBackwards]

When you start swapping out members people start to lose their ability to identify with the music they grew to love so much.

Alice in Chains is a good example since Layne Staley was such a unique, generational voice.  You start replacing the guy that wrote those lyrics that were so personal and meaningful and people are going to react.

If you need a certain person singing a song to like it, then you aren't identifying with the song at all. You're identifying with the singer.

The point of music is it transcends individuals. You know how people shared music before records? The wrote it down, so that other people could play it. A song isn't about a person or a band, it's about the quality of the song.

And what made Scott great as a lyricist was that while he wrote from a personal place, he made sure to keeps his lyrics broad and abstract so anyone could relate to it. Seven Caged Tigers doesn't have to mean the same thing for both you and me for us both to identify with it... So whoever goes on stage doesn't need to have lived Scott's life, they just need to love the music.

I identified with the songs Alice in Chains wrote along with the lead singer who described very personal, intense struggles with drugs.  I don't hate Alice in Chains with William Duvall, but I'm also not gonna act like I can't understand why people were upset when the talk of them starting up without Layne began. 

[Blue]

When you start swapping out members people start to lose their ability to identify with the music they grew to love so much.

Alice in Chains is a good example since Layne Staley was such a unique, generational voice.  You start replacing the guy that wrote those lyrics that were so personal and meaningful and people are going to react.

If you need a certain person singing a song to like it, then you aren't identifying with the song at all. You're identifying with the singer.

The point of music is it transcends individuals. You know how people shared music before records? The wrote it down, so that other people could play it. A song isn't about a person or a band, it's about the quality of the song.

And what made Scott great as a lyricist was that while he wrote from a personal place, he made sure to keeps his lyrics broad and abstract so anyone could relate to it. Seven Caged Tigers doesn't have to mean the same thing for both you and me for us both to identify with it... So whoever goes on stage doesn't need to have lived Scott's life, they just need to love the music.

I identified with the songs Alice in Chains wrote along with the lead singer who described very personal, intense struggles with drugs.  I don't hate Alice in Chains with William Duvall, but I'm also not gonna act like I can't understand why people were upset when the talk of them starting up without Layne began. 

I'm sorry, but the idea that you need one person to sing a song to identify with it is pretty ridiculous to me. Literally speaking, these are words written by a person, and just like with a novel or a movie you don't need to hear the author read them to appreciate them.

And in AiC's case, you've go the fact that Layne didn't even write the lyrics on half the songs. Many of the band's biggest hits, like Rooster, Would, Them Bones, and Down in a Hole, were written by Cantrell. Are those songs less impactful then, because Layne is singing someone else's deeply personal words instead of his own?

I understand why people are reticent about hearing a one of a kind voice like Layne's be replaced, and I definitely understand the concern about finding a singer with enough vocal range to fill Weiland's shoes, but I don't get the idea that anyone thinks only one person can sing a song to make it relatable.

[SoftVinyl]

"I'm sorry, but the idea that you need one person to sing a song to identify with it is pretty ridiculous to me"

Why is it ridiculous? I could never listen to a Queen song without Freddie. Some vocalists are SO powerful that the song doesn't have the same emotion when someone else sings it (no matter how well the song was written).

"but I don't get the idea that anyone thinks only one person can sing a song to make it relatable"

When you hear an artist sing a song for a decade, relate to it, invest your soul in it...it is VERY understandable when a new guy comes in to sing it that a person won't and can't relate to it.

[skunkyfunk]

"I'm sorry, but the idea that you need one person to sing a song to identify with it is pretty ridiculous to me"

Why is it ridiculous? I could never listen to a Queen song without Freddie. Some vocalists are SO powerful that the song doesn't have the same emotion when someone else sings it (no matter how well the song was written).

"but I don't get the idea that anyone thinks only one person can sing a song to make it relatable"

When you hear an artist sing a song for a decade, relate to it, invest your soul in it...it is VERY understandable when a new guy comes in to sing it that a person won't and can't relate to it.

You must have not heard Marc Martel.

The assumption here is that doing justice to a song is not exclusive to one person.

[stontemplpilot]

All I know is that if Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr decided to hire 2 new guys to take John Lennon and George Harrison's place and started to tour and record using the name "The Beatles", it would not be The Beatles to me.  Same goes for Scott Weiland and STP in my opinion.  My feelings would be the same if it were Robert fired from STP.  The music, writing, performing, etc. wouldn't be STP without him. 


However, I do understand the rest of STP wanting to move on and continue their career that was sabotaged, but it is completely reasonable for an STP fan to not be on board with supporting some unknown singer coming in and taking the place of one of the most iconic and unique frontmen in Rock history.  There are interviews out there from the 1999/No.4 era where the members of STP themselves essentially say that exact thing, that STP is these 4 guys and they wouldn't be STP without any one of them, which was the reason for the Talk Show band name not being STP.

[CritterTypeThing]

People don't accept change easily.

After you've identified with and created such an enormous love & bond with a band for 20 years as many of us here have, it's not easy just to move on and accept a big change.

It's just not easy for a lot of people to just wipe the slate clean and be open to a new change, especially when (intentionally or not) it's going to be compared to the previous lineup, which people probably hold even bigger than it was because it's in the past and perhaps glorified a bit more.

Plus when you add on the "failed" reboots this band has already attempted, which had great aspects of their own, part of you starts to think "what's gonna be so different this time around?"

They can, and I hope they do, find a new singer who brings them success in this new formation of the band.  But it definitely has to be earned.

[CritterTypeThing]

I understand why people are reticent about hearing a one of a kind voice like Layne's be replaced, and I definitely understand the concern about finding a singer with enough vocal range to fill Weiland's shoes, but I don't get the idea that anyone thinks only one person can sing a song to make it relatable.

I definitely agree.  However, in order to be taken seriously and appreciated by many, it'll have to be proven that a singer can do justice to the words & sounds many people already identify and glorify, and even make it his/her own.

Until a new identity comes to life and recaptures the fan base, it's essentially a cover song.

Anyone can sing the songs and give it meaning (even new meanings perhaps) and hit the qualities of voice to really do a song justice.  But in regards to the initial question, it's just not that easy for people to expect a new member to do that.  Thus the hesitancy.  If someone comes in and tries to sing it just like Scott, they'll be branded a copy and unoriginal.  It really must be a terribly hard position to be in.  But I think it gives reason to why them having some new material ready when the announcement is made, is a very important key.

[Blue]

"I'm sorry, but the idea that you need one person to sing a song to identify with it is pretty ridiculous to me"

Why is it ridiculous? I could never listen to a Queen song without Freddie. Some vocalists are SO powerful that the song doesn't have the same emotion when someone else sings it (no matter how well the song was written).

"but I don't get the idea that anyone thinks only one person can sing a song to make it relatable"

When you hear an artist sing a song for a decade, relate to it, invest your soul in it...it is VERY understandable when a new guy comes in to sing it that a person won't and can't relate to it.

But here's the issue, if you listen to Scott singing Plush in 2002 vs 1992, it sounds completely different. Hell, a person with no knowledge of the band would be absolutely justifiable in thinking the band changed singers after Purple. Any performance of any Core or Purple song Scott gave after 2000 sounds exactly as different from the album version as William Duvall does for Alice. So why is Scott singing with a different voice acceptable, but a different singer isn't?

The problem isn't with the singer, it's with you. You have such an emotional connection to the original singer that you are unwilling to see someone else perform the song. I'm not saying it's wrong to feel that way, but you have to accept that the problem isn't with the singer, it's with you.

From front row I saw STP with Chester play Adhesive one of the very few times that song has ever been played live. It's one of my all time favorite songs, and I have dreamed of seeing it live the entire time I have been an STP fan. Seeing it performed live is probably my single greatest concert experience, and the fact someone other than Scott sang it doesn't change the fact that it was a decades long wish come true. The song absolutely connected with me as much then, with a different singer, as it did years ago when I heard it for the first time.

[Pingfah]

"I'm sorry, but the idea that you need one person to sing a song to identify with it is pretty ridiculous to me"

Why is it ridiculous? I could never listen to a Queen song without Freddie. Some vocalists are SO powerful that the song doesn't have the same emotion when someone else sings it (no matter how well the song was written).

"but I don't get the idea that anyone thinks only one person can sing a song to make it relatable"

When you hear an artist sing a song for a decade, relate to it, invest your soul in it...it is VERY understandable when a new guy comes in to sing it that a person won't and can't relate to it.

Adam Lambert does an amazing job on the tours, as did Paul Rodgers, I saw them with both. You don't have to relate emotionally to the vocals to enjoy the show, it's a spectacle. I think Freddie would have liked it, he saw his music as disposable pop, not something sacred.

Sure if Lambert recorded an album of Queen covers I would not be interested, but don't write off the live show because he isn't Freddie.