Rock and Roll Lagacy Embarrassment

[styxfansite]

Interesting Blog and Styx Was Listed.


How To Save Rock & Roll Legacies From Wayward Embarrassment

Written by Peter Chakerian
Published February 22, 2007


And now, for a very special public service announcement. This one goes out to all you rockers and popular music outfits from the last 50 years. Have you lost any critical membership and had any portion of your career deemed “important” or celebrated as “legacy?” If so, please stop. I mean it. Right now. You’re embarrassing yourselves.

There’s hope for you artistic savants with obsessive-compulsive disorders, writer’s block, short term memory loss, self-centeredness, greed, depression, drug and alcohol addiction, college savings questions and lack of financial planning in their backgrounds. And yes, even those of you who lack of angst and originality these days.

Yes, this one goes out to every New Cars, Foreigner, Journey, Styx, Guns N’ Roses and INXS who will listen. And hey, if we manage to snag a 10,000 Maniacs, Pogues, [Talking] Heads or quote-unquote Queen who will listen, then even better.

Of course, I’m referring to bands who continue to exist (and often tour) as a shell of their former glory. Some have only one or two original members remaining. Others have lost the person(s) associated as key to their sound through death, dismemberment, bad blood, poor management, drugs, breakdowns, bizarre gardening accidents and spontaneous human combustion.

Nearly all have fallen victim (slave) to cash-ins for nostalgia and are surrounded by bloodthirsty vampires – as we can only assume director George Lucas must be – who won’t tell them no. Honesty goes out the window. They’re not to be told of the umpteenth coming of the Emperor’s New Clothes because a jackpot is imminent.

Before you corner me with the "the other folks deserve to make a living" argument... just think about it for a minute. This is more than just a trend now. It has been going on for a long while, but in the last 10 years or so, really seems to be ramping up. Are all artists inevitably ready to take heed of Jane’s Addiction’s call (”Cash in now, honey… ”) these days? Have all the stock portfolios tanked, addictions raged, alimony checks come due, managers squandered and the general malaise, greed and lack of creativity gone so amok that artists are willing to compromise the very things that once made them great?

Even if it was only a respectably steady career to begin with? And, perhaps most importantly, why can't the fans and these remaining band members let go of the past? You know, try to explore something new instead of clinging to the frivolity of their youth? It’s only a partially rhetorical question. Artists wouldn’t bother if there wasn’t a demand. And yet, some of the decisions these rock stars have made (not even to mention the fans who have supported them) for the love of the almighty buck are just downright sad.

For me, this article started when the Bad Company hit the road without Paul Rodgers… nay! When a group called The Heads opened for The Who on their Quadrophenia Redux tour. Look, I love Concrete Blonde. Johnette Napolitano is a real kick in the breadbasket most of the time, with that nicotine-toasted growl and raspy, Chrissie Hynde-like bravura. But should she have been the one tapped to replace David Byrne?

Hoo-boy. Heavens, no. Isn’t that like having Rick Astley front the Pogues?

How revolting were the Doors of the 21st Century? Even if Ian Astbury is a great, histrionic singer with Morrisonesque shades and similar Shamanic fetishes, what were these guys gonna do without him? We’re all due to find out: Seems Astbury’s working on a new Cult album and the D21C is skating around John Densmore and the Morrison Estate again, this time by calling themselves Riders on the Storm. Word is that Val Kilmer and the snide caveman from the Geico insurance commercials are among the finalists for LV duties.

But it gets worse… Styx without Dennis DeYoung? Blasphemy. INXS on television, attempting to replace Michael Hutchence? Sick and twisted. Foreigner without Lou Gramm… and with Jason Bonham on drums? Shameful! Skid Row without Sebastian Bach? The aforementioned Rodgers singing in Queen? Todd Rundgren trying to jumpstart the Cars without Ric Ocasek?

Shuddering just thinking about it all. I could go on… but you’re probably rattling off a bunch of them right now, even as you read this. It’s enough to make one shake their mullet in disgust... assuming one still had enough hair for a mullet, that is.

For the sake of pure entertainment value alone, let’s take everyone’s favorite train wreck, Axl Rose, for example. By now, the whole world knows that Guns n’ Roses is going to release Chinese Democracy tomorr… next wee… er, well, probably never. We could all hope that the Howard Hughes of Rock might someday enjoy a rectal-cephalectomy and get the original band back together. Or most of it, anyway… rumors are that Steven Adler is a mess, but going on the road without Slash, Duff, and Izzy? What’s been on the road lately as GNR is a tribute band with a lead singer that just so happened to be in GNR once.

A well-rehearsed, talented (and bordering on a sonically tasty) substitute, for sure... but a substitute nonetheless. Why couldn’t they call themselves NutraSweet?

Okay, seriously. How about Night Train? It’s not like fans wouldn’t “get it,” right? Most of the diehards have been to see “Paradise City, the Ultimate Tribute to GNR” and similar ilk already. So the concept wouldn’t be lost on the fans. Geez, even the other GNR guys decided on a new name: Velvet Revolver.

Case in point: Ronnie James Dio is going out on the road with part of the Heaven and Hell version of Black Sabbath, post-Ozzy, this summer. What are they called? Why, Heaven and Hell, of course! And they’re selling out shows already... in arenas. Can someone phone Gene and Paul from Kiss and tell them to go and do likewise? The makeup ain’t foolin’ anyone that Ace and Peter are gone. Again. But hey, I might pay to see Cold Gin… or The Love Guns.

Okay, so enough with the preamble. None of what you are about to read is blatantly hard-lined. Exceptions do exist and I fully expect to read a bunch of comments at the conclusion of this bit, along with some other "Rock Math" I didn't think of. What I'm about to share with the world isn't just for poking all you tigers out there -- though that’s fun, too. Just the same, this simple arithmetic might save the artform of rock and roll as we know it:

1) If you have half of the same people in the band (or fewer), you’re no longer the same band anymore. Eddie Van Halen knows this. That’s why his new band is still called Van Halen. His kid Wolfie replacing Michael Anthony left him with only one option: dig up David Lee Roth. Anything less is Bad Wailin’. (It’s also why “Van Hagar” was VH somehow, even when “Extreme Van Halen: Cherone Edition” wasn't... see #3 below). An example of where #1 makes sense? The recent "Queen + Paul Rodgers" tour. I woulda stuck with George Michael, personally... but that still wouldn't have been Queen. Which leads us to #2…

2) If your former lead singer had a) an iconic persona, b) indelible idiosyncrasies or c) was the vocal equivalent to the size and brawn of Paul Bunyan, you must replace that person with someone else who has at least two of those three things going for them. This is why Nirvana is done. No one to fill Cobain’s shoes. Ready? Let’s try it… AC/DC’s Bon Scott, replaced with Brian Johnson? Two for three. Hutchence replaced by J.D. Fortune? Sorry, but we have some lovely parting gifts. Okay, Genesis. Gabriel replaced by Collins? Sure. But not Collins replaced by Ray Wilson (see #3 below). Dio in Sabbath? Some say yes, others say no. Dickinson replaces Di’Anno in Iron Maiden? Hell yes. Buckingham and Nicks pony up in Fleetwood Mac? Check. Chicago? Still Chicago. Four of six founding members are still in, even though Peter Cetera has been gone since the late '80s (see #1). Heck, I’d even give ya Steve Augeri in Journey (the voices and noses match) except that he’s gone now… who is this Jeff Scott Soto? This naturally leads us to #3…

3) If you’ve had to replace your former lead singer more than once after the so-called “classic” lineup, you’re done. You should be rooting through the Funk & Wagnall’s for a new name, or the phone book and trade papers for new band members to form a new band... with a new name. Unless you "reunite" and the number of those reunited members meets the criteria outlined in #1 above, as Porky Pig says, “That’s all, folks!” Adios.

There is but one exception: progressive rock bands. With their rotating memberships, and because apparently these concepts of “math rock” and “rock math” cancel each other out, thereby creating some Phantom Zone in the universe where light and sound cannot escape... so it just doesn’t apply to them. And when you attempt to use these rules on prog rockers, let it be known... they send Jon Anderson of Yes and Gollum from Lord of the Rings after you.

All told, maybe Axl’s right: "Nothing lasts forever… even cold November Rain." But this is how the hot new rock acts can get a better shot: by forcing the old kids to have to work harder than just sing for their supper. I am moderately convinced that if these simple concepts were employed 85% of the time –– we might just preserve the artform's integrity and ultimately save rock and roll as we know it.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled blogcritics.org, already in progress.


Peter Chakerian is the Managing Editor of CoolCleveland.com, a free, subscription-based “e-blast” newsletter in Northeast Ohio. His work has appeared in The Plain Dealer, Akron Beacon Journal, Northern Ohio Live, Scene Magazine, Cleveland Magazine, Sun Newspapers and the Cleveland Free Times, among others. His blog joyrides4shutins.typepad.com has nothing to do with the Cavedogs.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/02/22/134115.php

Thanks

[stabbim]

And now, for a very special public service announcement. This one goes out to all you rockers and popular music outfits from the last 50 years. Have you lost any critical membership and had any portion of your career deemed “important” or celebrated as “legacy?” If so, please stop. I mean it. Right now. You’re embarrassing yourselves.

I was with him up to this point, because he seemed to be expressing the opposite opinion (that the idea of a band's "legacy" is deeply silly and something no one should care about, particularly if they're not actually in said band, which I fully agree with) of the rest of the article

Then he lost me for a dozen or so paragraphs, but this...

There is but one exception: progressive rock bands. With their rotating memberships, and because apparently these concepts of “math rock” and “rock math” cancel each other out, thereby creating some Phantom Zone in the universe where light and sound cannot escape... so it just doesn’t apply to them. And when you attempt to use these rules on prog rockers, let it be known... they send Jon Anderson of Yes and Gollum from Lord of the Rings after you.

...was actually pretty amusing.

The rest of it, though: Pfffffffbt. Band lineups change. Sometimes it makes them better, sometimes it makes them worse, sometimes you hardly notice. Listen or don't, but making it a moral issue (even with tongue-sort-of-in-cheek, like the "Rock Math" bit) is moronic.

[MrsRoboto]

ohman...that was amusing. If people still want to pay to see them play....that pretty much negates the whole article.

[rajah2165]

And now, for a very special public service announcement. This one goes out to all you rockers and popular music outfits from the last 50 years. Have you lost any critical membership and had any portion of your career deemed “important” or celebrated as “legacy?” If so, please stop. I mean it. Right now. You’re embarrassing yourselves.

I was with him up to this point, because he seemed to be expressing the opposite opinion (that the idea of a band's "legacy" is deeply silly and something no one should care about, particularly if they're not actually in said band, which I fully agree with) of the rest of the article

Then he lost me for a dozen or so paragraphs, but this...

There is but one exception: progressive rock bands. With their rotating memberships, and because apparently these concepts of “math rock” and “rock math” cancel each other out, thereby creating some Phantom Zone in the universe where light and sound cannot escape... so it just doesn’t apply to them. And when you attempt to use these rules on prog rockers, let it be known... they send Jon Anderson of Yes and Gollum from Lord of the Rings after you.

...was actually pretty amusing.

The rest of it, though: Pfffffffbt. Band lineups change. Sometimes it makes them better, sometimes it makes them worse, sometimes you hardly notice. Listen or don't, but making it a moral issue (even with tongue-sort-of-in-cheek, like the "Rock Math" bit) is moronic.

Band lineups may change, but I challenge you to tell me where a band has changed it lineups after experiencing success, and gotten better..

[cinj]

Band lineups may change, but I challenge you to tell me where a band has changed it lineups after experiencing success, and gotten better..

I guess you would have to define "success" and "better", but Genesis and Yes come to mind. A band like Van Halen comes down to a matter of opinion.

How about The Eagles? Foreigner? When I say "Foreigner", I'm not talking about the band that's out there <I>now</I>, but they went through a big lineup change right before the <B>4</B> album.

Oh, and Journey was pretty successful before Jonathan Cain replaced Greg Rollie and then they became tremendously successful right after that.

I would agree, though, that in most incidents, the band is worse off than before. Especially when a "key" member is replaced.

Cinj



Cinj

[stabbim]

Band lineups may change, but I challenge you to tell me where a band has changed it lineups after experiencing success, and gotten better..

I'm not sure what you mean by "experiencing success," and "better" is in the eyes & ears of the beholder anyway, but having said that...

I like Yes more with Trevor Rabin, I like Fleetwood Mac more with Lindsey Buckingham, I like the Eagles more with Joe Walsh, I like Pink Floyd more without Syd Barrett and I like Genesis more without Peter Gabriel.

And, trying to be objective: although I love both the Roth & Hagar eras of Van Halen more or less equally, I think that with Hagar they were more versatile, and had a better chance of growing old gracefully, developing into an institution that could have played well into middle age like The Who or The Stones.

I would also say that I detect no difference in overall quality when it comes to AC/DC with Brian Johnson or Tears For Fears without Curt Smith.

[Zan]

I'm not sure what you mean by "experiencing success," and "better" is in the eyes & ears of the beholder anyway, but having said that...

I like Yes more with Trevor Rabin, I like Fleetwood Mac more with Lindsey Buckingham, I like the Eagles more with Joe Walsh, I like Pink Floyd more without Syd Barrett and I like Genesis more without Peter Gabriel.

And, trying to be objective: although I love both the Roth & Hagar eras of Van Halen more or less equally, I think that with Hagar they were more versatile, and had a better chance of growing old gracefully, developing into an institution that could have played well into middle age like The Who or The Stones.

I would also say that I detect no difference in overall quality when it comes to AC/DC with Brian Johnson or Tears For Fears without Curt Smith.

I like Styx better with Tommy in JC's place...

(And I'm pretty sure that after "Lady" was introduced to radio, and Equinox was released, Styx had experiences success.)

Stabbim, I couldn't agree more with you on all counts, except that I think AC/DC *was* more successful with Johnson than Scott.

[LordofDaRing]

I am not so sure I want to see STYX in the Hall of Shame anymore, based on what it has become. Just look at past Monday night cluster, Grandmaster who? Patti Smith huh? Van Halen, I can get with that and cudos to Sammy and Michael for showing up. Eddie decided to enter rehab after 100 years of being an alcoholic/drug addict. He could not push that back one more week to show up, I don't think he would have done anymore damage to his liver/body. Alex probably thought Sammy/Mike would kick his ass so he decided not to show. Then Roth is told that Velvet Revolver (again who what) refuses to do the song that Diamond David wants to perform. I must be missing something, was Velvet Revolver being inducted or Van Halen. All in all a total embarassment to ROCK and Van Halen music fans alike. JY and others halfway defend the selections based on a coupld of good songs that this act did or that act did. I have already heard next year Men At Work are elligible and have a good chance. I think the article summed it up best, we know who you liked, but these are the groups you should have liked you ignorant record buyers.

[LordofDaRing]

My bad, this belonged in the other forum about the rock and roll hall of shame.