Dean + Chester Fuse Interview - some pretty direct comments from Dean

[Blue]

Sorry, but I just don't hear the lack of passion from Chester that you guys keep bringing up. Does he put the same level of passion Scott used to? Maybe not quite. Does he put more passion in it than Scott does these days? I'd say he does, but maybe that's just my opinion.

I can appreciate a passion over technique type singer... Someone like Dave Grohl, who goes out there and just screams his balls off... But STP's just not one of those bands. Scott's melodies have always been technique driven melodies. Even Scott has said his priority is melodies before lyrics. It's not music where you can go out there and scream the lyrics and say "Hey, that's close enough."

I'd rather have a technique driven singer who maybe doesn't have quite as much passion as a Grohl, over someone who would sacrifice the melody for volume.

Besides... People are just gonna complain either way. We;d be having this exact same conversation, except complaining that the singer doesn't have the range if he were more passionate. It's just the way the cookie crumbles. An idol and hero to many people has been replaced. It wouldn't matter if they physically cloned a younger version of Scott, people would just complain that it wasn't the original Scott.

[Chris Pepper]

Love the LA Times reference. 

My take is a reference to Dean's remarks.  Just because you put 20 years into something doesn't give you the right to call it yours.  Regardless of your participation.  Scott included.  I've never said the Deleos were nothings, but Scott is a significant part of their success.  And attempting to rip it away in the fashion they've done is deplorable.  My underlying argument is that STP doesn't work w/out Scott and I'd have similar feelings if the role was reversed.  But it's not.  I'm not necessarily pro Scott, more pro STP.  Not pro STP w/ Chester or whatever they would do otherwise. 

To me it does matter who wrote/recorded it.  Hell, the world recognizes this in credits, royalties, ect.  To say that it doesn't matter doesn't fly with me.  Slash murdered STP songs with VR but it was OK because he wasn't playing 90 minutes of STP.  It was a couple of takes and it was fun.  Hearing Chester sing a set of STP songs is just silly.  Not because he doesn't do it justice..........but for the same reason as Slash wouldn't try to do Dean's guitars for a 90 min, its not the same.       

I'm going to leave the VR and AOA comparisons alone.  Apples v Oranges.  Similar to people trying to compare STP w/ Chester to Scott solo.  It's not comparable.  Slither was amazing, though.

It may be 3/4 of STP in numbers but not in soul, style, connection to fans.  At least not in my book.  For me it's clear that Scott was the face of STP.  Will stop there as I don't care to argue their importance vs. each other anymore.  But I will say that the Deleos were a significant hindrance to STP as well.  They blame Scott when they should look in a mirror, too.  I cringe to think in a few years the full impact of the decisions the Deloes have made the past few weeks. 

I think it's easy to pick a 30 min you tube clip of Scott and bash the hell out of him.  Is some of it deserving?  Perhaps.  But as with most performances, theatrical, concert, sports.  How many fuck ups are there in any given one.  Some you don't pick up on and some you say oh shit.  Bottom line, at the end of the night was it entertaining?  I saw Scott at the Viper Room in early August and it was well worth the $$.  Small shows are cool IMO cause there's no hiding.  Scott killed some of the songs.  He's did the others justice.  And a couple of others should sound better.  I've never been to a show from Scott that wasn't worth the $$ I paid.  Never.  Almost, all of them have been amazing and those few that weren't were solid (only because they didn't change the setlist and it was the same show I had seen earlier). 

Did I say I loved the LA Times reference.

I think you're putting too much stock into edited comments that are taken out of context (this particular video). We have no idea what the question is. We have no idea what he said before or after.


But if we're going to analyze it, remember that he starts off by saying, "This is our livelihood. [These are] our boyhood dreams," before he says it is his and that no one can take it away from him.


Look, I was the guitar player in a band for a while. 3 of the 5 of us were the primary creative force. We changed drummers once and changed bass players once. If we'd signed to a label, been successful, had some hits, and then we changed drummers, people would have probably noticed. The original guy we played with used double bass and was a metal drummer through and through. What was probably our best written song (at the time), however, was not something he could put drums to. We realized that we could not continue creatively with him on drums. We held "auditions" and found a guy who was closer to the direction we were headed creatively, but he was unreliable and didn't fit personality-wise. Then we asked a guy with whom we'd shared a bill with his band. It worked great. He wasn't reliable either, but very good, we got along, and he played the shit out of the old stuff and newer stuff (he now plays professionally and his currently on tour).


But he sounded WAY different than the initial guy we had. If we'd gotten signed, had some hits and success after he joined the band, no one would have noticed. We would have just been "us" with no preconceived notions about the "right" or "original" drummer.


The point I am making is that sometimes we draw arbitrary lines. Is Jimmy Eat World only the true Jimmy Eat World when Tom Linton was the lead singer, or is it the real Jimmy Eat World now that Jim Adkins is the lead singer?


With Layne Staley and Mike Starr dead and the true money lying with the name Alice in Chains, are Jerry Cantrell, Sean Kinney, and Mike Inez wrong for recording and touring as Alice in Chains? Does it matter why there is a new singer? It shouldn't. Alice in Chains is either only Alice in Chains in its "original" incarnation (Staley, Cantrell, Starr, Kinney) or Alice in Chains is malleable and can change with time. It can't be both. Same goes for AC/DC, Van Halen, Rush, The Eagles, etc.


I pick up on lots of mistakes as a musician. But mistakes here and there happen. I cringe when I listen to an otherwise pretty good performance of Atlanta on Craig Kilborn when Robert misses a note pretty early on. But overall, the rest of the guys in the band have kept up their chops and actually gotten to be better musicians over time.


Ask yourself these questions. 1) Is Scott a better singer today than in 1992? 2) Songwriter? 3) Is Dean a better guitarist today than he was in 1992? 4) Songwriter? My answers are:


1) Not even close. He peaked in 2000/2001. He could be the same singer he was then, but he has kept smoking and imbibing, and he often goes on stage in a state where it is impossible to sing well.
2) Probably. His melodies and harmonies are more complex and he writes different kinds of music.
3) Not even close. Yes.
4) Probably. He doesn't write as much as his brother, but he contributes a good amount of variety and well-crafted guitar music.


As far as the LA Times goes, it shouldn't be a surprise. Just like Alice in Chains, STP as a name is worth money. 75% of the band believes the best thing for the band is to have a new singer moving forward. When Scott created issues for them in the past, they tried A) no name singer and new name and B) well-known singer and new name. Neither attempt was able to come close to what they helped create, so they have decided to wrestle control over what they helped create.


Fine by me. If Scott isn't going to be healthy, I'd rather see the DeLeos be successful than not.

A little too technical for me.  I don't think it's fair to ask if Scott's voice is as good 10-15 year ago.  Like most physical attributes they get worse when you start pushing 50.  Especially in the context vs. a guitar player.  I would hope that he's technically better over time.  Feels like a false comparison.    I just don't think Scott is that far off in STP.  I saw him one year ago w/ STP and he sounded great.  The solo shows again are false comparisons.  Lesser production, less preparation.  I don't expect as much.  And the STP v AIC comparisons again are tough.  AIC could've gotten a new singer when Layne was alive but they didn't for whatever reason.  Obviously, Scott's not dead. 

[Chris Pepper]

Besides... People are just gonna complain either way. We;d be having this exact same conversation, except complaining that the singer doesn't have the range if he were more passionate. It's just the way the cookie crumbles. An idol and hero to many people has been replaced. It wouldn't matter if they physically cloned a younger version of Scott, people would just complain that it wasn't the original Scott.

It's not about Chester for me.  Although, I'm starting to see that some people hate Chester as much as people used to hate Scott back in the day. 

[Chris Pepper]

I had no idea that "Stone Temple Pilots" was Dean's boy hood dream, or that he started the band himself, let alone the band is entirely HIS, and that he alone deserves it more than anyone else.

There's a big difference between "MINE" and "OURS", which he seems to have forgotten.  If his dream was to play music for a living then he should be thanking his brother for inviting him into the band, or Corey Hicock for leaving; without whom he'd be working a regular job.  But even despite all that, he's acting like Scott was holding him back from his childhood dream, which is ridiculous.  He was ONLY able to realize his dream in part due to Scott, so despite how things ended AFTER 20 YEARS, he should be thankful for that.  STP's success is the only thing that allowed him to continue his "dream".  But two attempts without Scott failed by comparison, and now he's back to milk the one thing that worked.  So this "fired up" sense of self-entitlement is bullshit.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear Dean ever say that he wasn't thankful to Scott (or Robert or whomever) for helping him realize his childhood dream. You talk about the difference between MINE and OURS. How would you feel if your "OURS" project was shared by someone who completely sabotaged it, day after day, for years? Would you just sit back and continue to kiss that person's feet because he gave you the opportunity in the first place? Is that what you expect Dean to do? Yes, Scott started the band more than 20 years ago, and Dean should be thankful to him for that. But Dean worked his ass off contributing to that band's success for many years, and he all wants is to continue to do so today. Unfortunately, his "OURS" partner, Scott, is unwilling or unable to do the same. Should that mean that Dean is basically screwed? Dean should just let Scott drag him down into oblivion along with him? Then there would be two tragedies instead of one. Well, in this case, there would really be four tragedies instead of one, but we're talking about Dean here.

 
And please, spare me the bullshit about Dean having some obligation to save Scott. It's unfortunate, but some people simply can't be saved.

You may have missed it? ?  Shit, what would they've done if they weren't grateful?  I would argue that Scott's contributions far outweigh any negatives I could ever imagine.  Scott has never said he's unwilling and he's certainly able.  Even after the Deleo backstabbing, he still has been rather polite.  The STP pattern is to play for 2,3,4 years and take a breather.  Which they just completed.  Now the Deleos are saying they can't work with him?  They've been trying to distance themselves from Scott for years and they decided to pull this stunt.  I think they believed the fans would understand and come to their side, but it's clear that many do/will not.  Really unfortunate. 

[Blue]

The shame about Scott is that his voice IS in pretty good shape. Watch a video from '09... That the physicalcondition Scott's voice could still be in.

The issue is that Scott isn't putting the effort into keeping his voice in that condition that he should. If he quit smoking, quit drinking, and did vocal exercises every day, he'd has probably about 85%-90% of the range he had in his peak.

[Kingpetty]

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't hear Dean ever say that he wasn't thankful to Scott (or Robert or whomever) for helping him realize his childhood dream. You talk about the difference between MINE and OURS. How would you feel if your "OURS" project was shared by someone who completely sabotaged it, day after day, for years? Would you just sit back and continue to kiss that person's feet because he gave you the opportunity in the first place? Is that what you expect Dean to do? Yes, Scott started the band more than 20 years ago, and Dean should be thankful to him for that. But Dean worked his ass off contributing to that band's success for many years, and he all wants is to continue to do so today. Unfortunately, his "OURS" partner, Scott, is unwilling or unable to do the same. Should that mean that Dean is basically screwed? Dean should just let Scott drag him down into oblivion along with him? Then there would be two tragedies instead of one. Well, in this case, there would really be four tragedies instead of one, but we're talking about Dean here.

 
And please, spare me the bullshit about Dean having some obligation to save Scott. It's unfortunate, but some people simply can't be saved.

Well said. +1

[Kingpetty]

I think you're putting too much stock into edited comments that are taken out of context (this particular video). We have no idea what the question is. We have no idea what he said before or after.


But if we're going to analyze it, remember that he starts off by saying, "This is our livelihood. [These are] our boyhood dreams," before he says it is his and that no one can take it away from him.


Look, I was the guitar player in a band for a while. 3 of the 5 of us were the primary creative force. We changed drummers once and changed bass players once. If we'd signed to a label, been successful, had some hits, and then we changed drummers, people would have probably noticed. The original guy we played with used double bass and was a metal drummer through and through. What was probably our best written song (at the time), however, was not something he could put drums to. We realized that we could not continue creatively with him on drums. We held "auditions" and found a guy who was closer to the direction we were headed creatively, but he was unreliable and didn't fit personality-wise. Then we asked a guy with whom we'd shared a bill with his band. It worked great. He wasn't reliable either, but very good, we got along, and he played the shit out of the old stuff and newer stuff (he now plays professionally and his currently on tour).


But he sounded WAY different than the initial guy we had. If we'd gotten signed, had some hits and success after he joined the band, no one would have noticed. We would have just been "us" with no preconceived notions about the "right" or "original" drummer.


The point I am making is that sometimes we draw arbitrary lines. Is Jimmy Eat World only the true Jimmy Eat World when Tom Linton was the lead singer, or is it the real Jimmy Eat World now that Jim Adkins is the lead singer?


With Layne Staley and Mike Starr dead and the true money lying with the name Alice in Chains, are Jerry Cantrell, Sean Kinney, and Mike Inez wrong for recording and touring as Alice in Chains? Does it matter why there is a new singer? It shouldn't. Alice in Chains is either only Alice in Chains in its "original" incarnation (Staley, Cantrell, Starr, Kinney) or Alice in Chains is malleable and can change with time. It can't be both. Same goes for AC/DC, Van Halen, Rush, The Eagles, etc.


I pick up on lots of mistakes as a musician. But mistakes here and there happen. I cringe when I listen to an otherwise pretty good performance of Atlanta on Craig Kilborn when Robert misses a note pretty early on. But overall, the rest of the guys in the band have kept up their chops and actually gotten to be better musicians over time.


Ask yourself these questions. 1) Is Scott a better singer today than in 1992? 2) Songwriter? 3) Is Dean a better guitarist today than he was in 1992? 4) Songwriter? My answers are:


1) Not even close. He peaked in 2000/2001. He could be the same singer he was then, but he has kept smoking and imbibing, and he often goes on stage in a state where it is impossible to sing well.
2) Probably. His melodies and harmonies are more complex and he writes different kinds of music.
3) Not even close. Yes.
4) Probably. He doesn't write as much as his brother, but he contributes a good amount of variety and well-crafted guitar music.


As far as the LA Times goes, it shouldn't be a surprise. Just like Alice in Chains, STP as a name is worth money. 75% of the band believes the best thing for the band is to have a new singer moving forward. When Scott created issues for them in the past, they tried A) no name singer and new name and B) well-known singer and new name. Neither attempt was able to come close to what they helped create, so they have decided to wrestle control over what they helped create.


Fine by me. If Scott isn't going to be healthy, I'd rather see the DeLeos be successful than not.

Agreed. +1. I wish Scott was still our lead singer, but unfortunately the hand writing was on the wall. The other 3 exhausted themselves w/ him. It sucks, but the legacy marches on. Scott is the only person who could change this down the road. Will he ? Time will tell. The ball is in his court. He knows what he needs to do to ever have another chance to be STP's frontman again & it will take a major sacrifice for the other 3 to accept him once again.

[STEAK]

Love the LA Times reference. 

My take is a reference to Dean's remarks.  Just because you put 20 years into something doesn't give you the right to call it yours.  Regardless of your participation.  Scott included.  I've never said the Deleos were nothings, but Scott is a significant part of their success.  And attempting to rip it away in the fashion they've done is deplorable.  My underlying argument is that STP doesn't work w/out Scott and I'd have similar feelings if the role was reversed.  But it's not.  I'm not necessarily pro Scott, more pro STP.  Not pro STP w/ Chester or whatever they would do otherwise. 

To me it does matter who wrote/recorded it.  Hell, the world recognizes this in credits, royalties, ect.  To say that it doesn't matter doesn't fly with me.  Slash murdered STP songs with VR but it was OK because he wasn't playing 90 minutes of STP.  It was a couple of takes and it was fun.  Hearing Chester sing a set of STP songs is just silly.  Not because he doesn't do it justice..........but for the same reason as Slash wouldn't try to do Dean's guitars for a 90 min, its not the same.       

I'm going to leave the VR and AOA comparisons alone.  Apples v Oranges.  Similar to people trying to compare STP w/ Chester to Scott solo.  It's not comparable.  Slither was amazing, though.

It may be 3/4 of STP in numbers but not in soul, style, connection to fans.  At least not in my book.  For me it's clear that Scott was the face of STP.  Will stop there as I don't care to argue their importance vs. each other anymore.  But I will say that the Deleos were a significant hindrance to STP as well.  They blame Scott when they should look in a mirror, too.  I cringe to think in a few years the full impact of the decisions the Deloes have made the past few weeks. 

I think it's easy to pick a 30 min you tube clip of Scott and bash the hell out of him.  Is some of it deserving?  Perhaps.  But as with most performances, theatrical, concert, sports.  How many fuck ups are there in any given one.  Some you don't pick up on and some you say oh shit.  Bottom line, at the end of the night was it entertaining?  I saw Scott at the Viper Room in early August and it was well worth the $$.  Small shows are cool IMO cause there's no hiding.  Scott killed some of the songs.  He's did the others justice.  And a couple of others should sound better.  I've never been to a show from Scott that wasn't worth the $$ I paid.  Never.  Almost, all of them have been amazing and those few that weren't were solid (only because they didn't change the setlist and it was the same show I had seen earlier). 

Did I say I loved the LA Times reference. 

Came back to this thread ready to argue with those arguing with my views.... but I think Chris Pepper pretty much covered anything I missed.   







The thread is devolving into the same old argument, which is the ONE sticking point amongst us fans (regardless with who you side with).  I'll argue plenty for my side; but I still see "why" the other side is arguing too.  Regardless of side projects, Scott will always be mentioned as the frontman for STP, AND the DeLeos/Eric will forever be mentioned by their respective parts of STP.  So, no matter who's side your on, the rest of the world will always associate these four guys with STP, regardless of what they're doing, or WHO they're playing with in the future. 

I've explained in many other threads why I'm siding with Scott, but but these are just my opinions.  Just like everyone arguing against my opinions, siding with the DeLeos/Eric, those are YOUR opinions (even if they're childish and poorly worded like those of 'Down-Plush').  At the end of the day, there really is no right answer, that's why they're opinions.  Really, we're just hostages of a bad situation involving a band we all love, a shitty rock 'n roll landscape in today's music, and time (which may fix things or make them worse).   So yeah, I think the monotony of it all is finally getting to me.

[VelvetLounngeFly]

Those who say Scott is the heart of STP would have a lot more credibility with me if they reacted similarly regarding any band member departure of a loved band. As I've said before, just because vocals are the most easily relatable and identifiable parts of a song don't make them the heart.

Too bad every song STP has written is credited to S Weiland.  Every single one.  It will never be his......ever.

Nope. Scott's only credit with "Words by", he's very RARELY been credited with the actual songwriting.

Songwriting credit is whatever the band wants it to be. Van Halen, for example, always gave credit to Alex Van Halen, Edward Van Halen, Michael Anthony, David Lee Roth/Sammy Hagar. Not sure royalties were split equally, but their attitude was that everyone contributed even if Sam/Dave and Ed were the driving force, so Ll got credit.


STP lists it individually by song. It's a band's prerogative.


For copyright purposes, though, lyrics are just as important as anything else.


To Blu'es point, it seems that solo Scott relies on a songwriting partnership. He got lots of help on 12B. Since then it's been Doug.

The point I was trying to make was that Scott is given credit in each song in STP's catalog.  100% of them.  Can't be said with any other member of the band.  Agreed that Scott does rely on a partnership, just like the Deleos do.  The difference, though, that Scott has found success outside STP and success has eluded the Deleos. 

I get what you're trying to say. VR is a weird thing. Scott is very talented, but Slash is the "frontman" of that band, and the size of the GnR fan base ensured success. By contrast, Talk Show hired an unknown singer and Army of Anyone released a bad first single. Filter also isn't exactly at the same level as GnR.


Part of what you're saying, though, exists because Scott insisted on being the lyric writer. He said he couldn't maintain honesty if he was singing others' words. Dean, on the other hand, had no problem playing songs written by Kretz or his brother. At the end of the day, what was best won out. I wonder if any better melody or lyrical ideas were tossed by Scott because he wanted that to be his? Did the rest of the band, for example, have a better idea for the chorus to First Kiss On Mars that was rejected by Scott because he wanted it to be his (I know the DeLeos came up with some melodies, such as Interstate Love Song).

It's the same argument for me w/ VR as it is with STP.  Scott made VR go.  There were other synergies going on including the Guitar Hero phenomena that was going on right then.  But at the end of the day Slither was an undeniably great rock tune and you had Slash/Duff and GnR and STP and they had a nice run.  Hence, my argument to get Chester, slap a name on it other than STP, and make a run with some great music.  Instead, the Deleos make a foolish decision IMO.  Because the discussion is not about the music or EP.  It's about Scott and STP legacy and everything else except the music.  It's a lose lose lose.  Sucks for Chester to have to be compared to Scott.  Sucks for the new music cause alot of fans will never accept it.  Sucks for the fans to have to hash out.  All so the Deleos can tour shitty casinos for the next few years??  Ugh.  Frustrating.

At the end of the day, honestly, from what I hear from friends, it's the fact that its Chester Bennington. My friends are casual STP fans, but some of them have a really good taste for rock music. To them, it seems like Chester is just an awful choice, and sort of makes them band seem like a karaoke act. They don't seem to care about them using the name; just the fact that its Chester.

I made a comment on here about how Chester just sounds so robotic, and there's really no soul or emotion when he sings these lyrics. What I mean by this, is that even though he sings in key, he's not really feeling the story behind the lyrics. That's what I hate about those American idol talent show people; they stand there and hit all these notes, yet completely ignore what the words mean. A perfect example of this, is when Scott sings the bridge part for Atlanta. He's not just hitting notes, but he's singing these words for what they mean. It's a bit hard to explain.

I watched a video from artisan news (same interview from above) except Chester was talking, and he said he really didnt care about the words.. Just the melodies and notes. That right there summed it all up for me.

Interesting take.

I'm not anti Chester so I'm not totally feeling that side of the argument.  It's definitely karaoke that I would never pay to see but not because of Chester.  It's more that the Deleos are fucking idiots and they always have been and they can't get out of their own way.  Then this decision is the cake topper, it's the most idiotic decision I've ever seen from them which is saying alot.  When you need an adult in the room you hope the Deleos provide the levity that Scott lacks but instead they go lower than Scott when you think it's impossible to do so.  I would've respected them so much more if they said, hey life's too short and we're never ever going to work with Scott again.  We've got Chester and we're gonna rock some new shit.  So come out and see us, we'll sprinkle in some STP and LP in the set and it'll be all good.  Instead, you get Dean getting all pissy, it's mine, mine, mine.  And Rob trying to be dignified and failing miserably and sounding like a bigger douche by the day.  And  poor Chester just trying to be above it all, probably thinking what the fuck did I just get myself into.   

If you watch Scott's Stern interview, you get a lot of answes there; even his last Stern interview about VR.
When you have guys in the band, who have certain problems, and one of them is pissing you off more than the other, you side with one to throw the other under the bus? That's what this whole mess looks like.

Sorum relapsed, VR canceled some gigs, and they kept it all quiet... Scott relapsed, they canceled shows, and he's told he needs to pay the band the money for the gigs they canceled. He said the exact same thing happened with STP, and it scarred him pretty badly. I suppose it's easier to blame it all on the guy who's known to be a bigger mess to the public.

Dean's self entitlement, and Robert's "Fuck you" attitude is something we've never seen from Scott, no matter how bad things have gotten publicly.

Chester claimed he wouldn't sing for VR because he respects Scott, but also, besides now singing for STP, has revealed he told his wife a while back that he would someday be STP's singer. I know he's basically caught in the middle of the mess, but I can't see him being completely innocent in all of this. Scott has all the right to call Chester out on bullshit, but remained classy, which is definitely nice to see.

Hey, if Dean says its his because he worked on it for 20 years, more power to him. I hope they keep the name and make a ton of money with Chester while they can. Some day, some promoter is gonna call them and offer them more money than they've ever been offered to reunite with Scott, and the cycle will repeat.