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.