Did bands like Styx, Journey, Boston, etc kill Rock N Roll?

[chowhall]

The premise of the question is that bands like Styx and Journey who were so polished, sang so much better than most Rock bands, and combined so many aspects into one song, they couldn't be out done. Obviously Punk and Grunge didn't try, but no band other than maybe U2 hasn't even tried. Did the musicianship and skills of these bands intimidate others to not even attempt it?

[yogi]

Good, no GREAT Question.

I have often thought that these bands( Styx, Journey, REO, Kansas, Boston, Queen etc...) being polished and faceless was the reason that the so call 'music experts' hated them.

People forget but the 'music experts HATED Queen until they found out that Freddy was gay and had AIDS. How pitiful is that???

[Toph]

Good, no GREAT Question.

I have often thought that these bands( Styx, Journey, REO, Kansas, Boston, Queen etc...) being polished and faceless was the reason that the so call 'music experts' hated them.

People forget but the 'music experts HATED Queen until they found out that Freddy was gay and had AIDS. How pitiful is that???

Damn, if only Chuck had come out sooner....

[Jodes]

Just when you think you've read everything on here..

[yogi]

But he would of had to been gay, had AIDS & died to been embraced by the rock 'experts'.

Chuck was not the front man, and he only covered the first two criteria.

[Higgy]

The premise of the question is that bands like Styx and Journey who were so polished, sang so much better than most Rock bands, and combined so many aspects into one song, they couldn't be out done. Obviously Punk and Grunge didn't try, but no band other than maybe U2 hasn't even tried. Did the musicianship and skills of these bands intimidated others to not even attempting it?

If that is the case, and it may well be - then it speaks to the idiocy of the record buying public. Which is to say, that is if it takes thought and a mastery of craft it is too difficult to listen to and so we'd rather have "The Knack".

For all the shit Journey gets for being "corporate rock", there is a true artistry to their albums - both thematically and musically. I think this, to a large extent, is why Journey captured something with the public. They were able to take every day life and kind of give it a spiritual and artistic spin. I think Styx, at times, had the ability to do this.

[Don]

The premise of the question is that bands like Styx and Journey who were so polished, sang so much better than most Rock bands, and combined so many aspects into one song, they couldn't be out done. Obviously Punk and Grunge didn't try, but no band other than maybe U2 hasn't even tried. Did the musicianship and skills of these bands intimidated others to not even attempting it?

If that is the case, and it may well be - then it speaks to the idiocy of the record buying public. Which is to say, that is if it takes thought and a mastery of craft it is too difficult to listen to and so we'd rather have "The Knack".

For all the shit Journey gets for being "corporate rock", there is a true artistry to their albums - both thematically and musically. I think this, to a large extent, is why Journey captured something with the public. They were able to take every day life and kind of give it a spiritual and artistic spin. I think Styx, at times, had the ability to do this.

I thinks Journey's penchant for using ambiguous lyrics has helped there cause. You can interpret their songs so many ways. The lyrics are simple but not to the point of total nonsense, though some songs come close. Everyone loves Anyway You Want It, especially the movie studios but what is the song actually about?

[yogi]

The way I see it was rock & roll was suppose to be the anti establishment. The music that your parents wouldnt listen to, music with an edge etc.......

Then Styx, Journey, Queen & the lot came along and had GREAT almost opera type vocals, perfect muscianship, they were faceless ......... and the critics hated this. Where had the edge gone?

Like I stated they even hated Queen until Freddy stated he was gay/ Aids, and finally died.

The entertainment establishment & critics thought gay was cool, AIDS was a cause & death meant immortality. Almost overnight Queen went from a band lumped in with Styx & Journey that the critics hated to a great band. All it took was being gay, having AIDS & dying.

How damn sick is that????

[chowhall]

The way I see it was rock & roll was suppose to be the anti establishment. The music that your parents wouldnt listen to, music with an edge etc.......

Then Styx, Journey, Queen & the lot came along and had GREAT almost opera type vocals, perfect muscianship, they were faceless ......... and the critics hated this. Where had the edge gone?

Like I stated they even hated Queen until Freddy stated he was gay/ Aids, and finally died.

The entertainment establishment & critics thought gay was cool, AIDS was a cause & death meant immortality. Almost overnight Queen went from a band lumped in with Styx & Journey that the critics hated to a great band. All it took was being gay, having AIDS & dying.

How damn sick is that????

If those are my choices, I'll stick with having the critics hate me and being alive.

[styxfanNH]

Back to the original question...It was never the rock bands that "killed" rock n roll. It was the change in tastes of the public that focussed on music that was based on rhythmic tendencies instead of those that included the full orchestration of a 4 or 5 piece band. One or two people rapping with no real instruments becoming the mainstream made it difficult for rock bands to cut through the popularity of that genre. It is still happening today. Rock bands have a level of popularity, but many of them are short lived.

[Monker]

Back to the original question...It was never the rock bands that "killed" rock n roll. It was the change in tastes of the public that focussed on music that was based on rhythmic tendencies instead of those that included the full orchestration of a 4 or 5 piece band. One or two people rapping with no real instruments becoming the mainstream made it difficult for rock bands to cut through the popularity of that genre. It is still happening today. Rock bands have a level of popularity, but many of them are short lived.

I disagree with this. I've always believed that 'glam' fueled the desire for something new...because the music took second place behind image and lifestyle. That something new became Grundge...which was the polar opposite of 'glam'.. When Grundge became mainstream, that killed real rock bands. The labels proppped up glam because it was making them money...and the artists who wanted signed followed that trend...and when popularity shifted to Grundge, rock died....killed by both the industry and the glam bands all wanting $'s. After the Grundge and alternative sound died down, rap/hip-hop REALLY took off and what you say above happened...but the damage to rock music had already been done by then.

[bugsymalone]

I think it is the "law" of generations that each one thinks the one after it killed, or at least ruined, "their" music.

I grew up in a time when an awful lot of variety was to be had in music, and it was all very accessible. And what I and my friends liked could very often be found on the radio and in the record stores.

Rock and roll was pretty multifaceted starting in the mid-60's right up to the 90's and I always felt you could find your niche music and be very happy with it and actually get to hear it on the radio (which is pretty much not the case now).

I don't feel the melodic groups killed anything, just as I don't think grunge killed what was popular in the 80's. I just feel like each group of teenagers latched onto what was not exactly like what the last group of teenagers liked and so on.

And, of course, there were always the groups and singers who transcended all of those various styles of music and were popular with more than one decade's worth of teens and twenty-somethings (and beyond).

I do think it speaks volumes that many of the melodic groups many of us liked then and now (Journey, Styx, Boston, Foreigner, Queen etc. etc.) still have broad appeal today. While so much music today is ephemeral, it seems these groups made music that was built to last.

Bugsy

[Ehwmatt]

I do think it speaks volumes that many of the melodic groups many of us liked then and now (Journey, Styx, Boston, Foreigner, Queen etc. etc.) still have broad appeal today. While so much music today is ephemeral, it seems these groups made music that was built to last.

Bugsy

Great post but I quote this part in specific to make a point often lost: Look at the late 60s and the entire 70s. There was an astounding amount of stylistic contrasts in the big bands of the day. You have anything from Styx to the Eagles to Journey to Steely Dan to Yes to Sly and the Family Stone to The Bee Gees to the survivors of Motown/Soul etc. etc.

While those example are not exhaustive by any means, it sure paints a pretty diverse picture of how many styles of music caught on back then. What was the common link then that got all of these bands on the radio and commercial success? The music was performed impeccably well, regardless of what genre/type it was.

Talent endures.

[chowhall]

While those example are not exhaustive by any means, it sure paints a pretty diverse picture of how many styles of music caught on back then. What was the common link then that got all of these bands on the radio and commercial success? The music was performed impeccably well, regardless of what genre/type it was.

Talent endures.

That goes back to the original post, the talent was so overwhelming by some standards, many quit trying to out do or better their ancestors. I remember a show on The Who where they were making fun of some of The Beatles harmonies. I don't think Styx, Journey, etc gave their critics room to criticize their talent or abilities, just the content. As a result, very few garage bands cover this type of material. They don't have the talent or skills for it. Most certainly don't have the voice to cover a Steve Perry or DDY song.

[bugsymalone]

Most certainly don't have the voice to cover a Steve Perry or DDY song.

Very few do.


Bugsy

[Everett]

Most certainly don't have the voice to cover a Steve Perry or DDY song.

Very few do. Bugsy

Bobby rouse (light up) can he's as close to ddy's voice as you can get.

[Ehwmatt]

While those example are not exhaustive by any means, it sure paints a pretty diverse picture of how many styles of music caught on back then. What was the common link then that got all of these bands on the radio and commercial success? The music was performed impeccably well, regardless of what genre/type it was.

Talent endures.

That goes back to the original post, the talent was so overwhelming by some standards, many quit trying to out do or better their ancestors. I remember a show on The Who where they were making fun of some of The Beatles harmonies. I don't think Styx, Journey, etc gave their critics room to criticize their talent or abilities, just the content. As a result, very few garage bands cover this type of material. They don't have the talent or skills for it. Most certainly don't have the voice to cover a Steve Perry or DDY song.

I don't know if that's the real reason... the 80s had a LOT of talent and that was well after bands like Boston and even Styx and Journey began making their mark (ok, maybe Journey you say 81 when they made their first BIG splash... but that's pushin it).

The thing is, there's still a lot of good music out there... it's just a lot harder to find. Radio/music aren't as much of a centerpiece of our entertainment culture as they once were... videogames, DVDs, big screen tvs etc. have all just made music not as essential for a lot of (deprived) people in their lives. There's not as much of a venue for bands of so many varieties to make a commercial splash. There's also not as much incentive to try and make it any more.

Sterling is very well-spoken/read on this issue, so hopefully he can pop in, but I also think the old "three strikes" rule, where you got to make three records through your label before potentially "making it" allowed bands to develop and gel... especially when you have a lot of raw talent but not a lot of songcrafting skill (yet). See: Styx. Nowadays you're one and done if you don't make it. There's probably a lot of raw talent that slips through the cracks because they just don't have a venue to get noticed on a big stage anymore.

[Rockwriter]

The premise of the question is that bands like Styx and Journey who were so polished, sang so much better than most Rock bands, and combined so many aspects into one song, they couldn't be out done. Obviously Punk and Grunge didn't try, but no band other than maybe U2 hasn't even tried. Did the musicianship and skills of these bands intimidated others to not even attempting it?

If that is the case, and it may well be - then it speaks to the idiocy of the record buying public. Which is to say, that is if it takes thought and a mastery of craft it is too difficult to listen to and so we'd rather have "The Knack".

For all the shit Journey gets for being "corporate rock", there is a true artistry to their albums - both thematically and musically. I think this, to a large extent, is why Journey captured something with the public. They were able to take every day life and kind of give it a spiritual and artistic spin. I think Styx, at times, had the ability to do this.

I thinks Journey's penchant for using ambiguous lyrics has helped there cause. You can interpret their songs so many ways. The lyrics are simple but not to the point of total nonsense, though some songs come close. Everyone loves Anyway You Want It, especially the movie studios but what is the song actually about?

I think "Any way You Want It" is the one of the worst lyrics ever written.

Sterling

[Rockwriter]

Good, no GREAT Question.

I have often thought that these bands( Styx, Journey, REO, Kansas, Boston, Queen etc...) being polished and faceless was the reason that the so call 'music experts' hated them.

People forget but the 'music experts HATED Queen until they found out that Freddy was gay and had AIDS. How pitiful is that???

Actually they changed ther mind because the band such got so huge, and stayed so huge so long, they couldn't do anything else but change their minds and then pretend that it never happened. Like they did with The Eagles. And Zeppelin. And we're starting to see it with Kiss now, too.

Sterling

[Don]

When Mike Judge started having his Beavis and Buthead characters ridicule certain bands on their cartoon, I wouldn't be surprised if viewers not already on the grunge bandwagon didn't start to follow the new trends in music that MTV was introducing, allowing a cult like following of alternative music to simply explode over night to become the new cool thing to watch and talk about. MTV jumping the shark proved (to me anyway), that is quickly as it helped bands lke Journey gain major exposure, it was just able to alienate these bands by shutting off their number one marketing venue, when it's board of directors decided to take the channel in another direction. VH1 was a way of trying to keep the older genres alive but it was a little to late and ended up morphing into what it's parent company had become, and really removing the last piece of life support for AOR in the television market.

[Rockwriter]

While those example are not exhaustive by any means, it sure paints a pretty diverse picture of how many styles of music caught on back then. What was the common link then that got all of these bands on the radio and commercial success? The music was performed impeccably well, regardless of what genre/type it was.

Talent endures.

That goes back to the original post, the talent was so overwhelming by some standards, many quit trying to out do or better their ancestors. I remember a show on The Who where they were making fun of some of The Beatles harmonies. I don't think Styx, Journey, etc gave their critics room to criticize their talent or abilities, just the content. As a result, very few garage bands cover this type of material. They don't have the talent or skills for it. Most certainly don't have the voice to cover a Steve Perry or DDY song.

I don't know if that's the real reason... the 80s had a LOT of talent and that was well after bands like Boston and even Styx and Journey began making their mark (ok, maybe Journey you say 81 when they made their first BIG splash... but that's pushin it).

The thing is, there's still a lot of good music out there... it's just a lot harder to find. Radio/music aren't as much of a centerpiece of our entertainment culture as they once were... videogames, DVDs, big screen tvs etc. have all just made music not as essential for a lot of (deprived) people in their lives. There's not as much of a venue for bands of so many varieties to make a commercial splash. There's also not as much incentive to try and make it any more.

Sterling is very well-spoken/read on this issue, so hopefully he can pop in, but I also think the old "three strikes" rule, where you got to make three records through your label before potentially "making it" allowed bands to develop and gel... especially when you have a lot of raw talent but not a lot of songcrafting skill (yet). See: Styx. Nowadays you're one and done if you don't make it. There's probably a lot of raw talent that slips through the cracks because they just don't have a venue to get noticed on a big stage anymore.

I don't think anything killed rock music or rock bands, because I don't think they're dead. They might be wounded, LOL, but they plod on. As an earlier post noted, each generation grabs onto certain cultural touchstones and sees them as the way things ought to be, and when change inevitably comes, it is seen in an unwelcome light. But the truth is, there has been great music and terrible music in every era of music. That which is great endures, that which is not great generally fades. Styx, Journey, et al have lasted, but there are certainly other bands since then that have great talent and great merit. We won't know the real long-term value of some of these bands until more time passes, that's all. On top of that, the wheel always spins back around and we will eventually go through another period that produces more music in that vein. It may never be the mainstream again, but neither will rockabilly, or disco, or any other trend that eventualy cooled. But I point to the current success of a band like Dream Theater, for instance, as a sign that people will still accept great musicianship if it is presented in the right context. That band is doing better than ever right now. I'm actually more encouraged right now than I was a few years ago. Hell, Kiss, Journey and Foreigner have all had hit records, along with The Eagles, and the new Kansas DVD went to #5 in Billboard. I can't complain about that! I love it.

I hope all is well.

Sterling

[Ehwmatt]

I don't think anything killed rock music or rock bands, because I don't think they're dead. They might be wounded, LOL, but they plod on. As an earlier post noted, each generation grabs onto certain cultural touchstones and sees them as the way things ought to be, and when change inevitably comes, it is seen in an unwelcome light. But the truth is, there has been great music and terrible music in every era of music. That which is great endures, that which is not great generally fades. Styx, Journey, et al have lasted, but there are certainly other bands since then that have great talent and great merit. We won't know the real long-term value of some of these bands until more time passes, that's all. On top of that, the wheel always spins back around and we will eventually go through another period that produces more music in that vein. It may never be the mainstream again, but neither will rockabilly, or disco, or any other trend that eventualy cooled. But I point to the current success of a band like Dream Theater, for instance, as a sign that people will still accept great musicianship if it is presented in the right context. That band is doing better than ever right now. I'm actually more encouraged right now than I was a few years ago. Hell, Kiss, Journey and Foreigner have all had hit records, along with The Eagles, and the new Kansas DVD went to #5 in Billboard. I can't complain about that! I love it.

I hope all is well.

Sterling

Great points all around.

I mean part of the thing is the market is fragmented beyond belief. No matter how many albums DT sells, they aren't getting on MTV or top 40 radio. Back in the day, even the 80s, there was a place for a lot of different kinds of music in the mainstream and to gain exposure that way.

The "mainstream" is so narrow as far as what gets played there and that's what really hurts things when bands like Journey and Styx release new albums... there's no place to go. Classic rock radio only wants to play the hits, mainstream stuff only wants to play rap, hot little starlets, and crap like Nickelback. It's just fragmented beyond belief. So yes, as you said, it's not actually dead in reality. Rather, it's just dead to the casual observer.

DT's success is somewhat of an anomaly - the Internet has really helped them get to the point they're at because they (Portnoy in particular) are so damn Internet savvy and they give their fans a lot of love. It's great for them, they are one of my favorite bands, but man, a lot of things have lined up just right for them... starting when MTV DID play Pull Me Under back in the day, which got them their core, which they have built into quite a juggernaut with said Internet savvy and fan friendliness.

[Rockwriter]

I don't think anything killed rock music or rock bands, because I don't think they're dead. They might be wounded, LOL, but they plod on. As an earlier post noted, each generation grabs onto certain cultural touchstones and sees them as the way things ought to be, and when change inevitably comes, it is seen in an unwelcome light. But the truth is, there has been great music and terrible music in every era of music. That which is great endures, that which is not great generally fades. Styx, Journey, et al have lasted, but there are certainly other bands since then that have great talent and great merit. We won't know the real long-term value of some of these bands until more time passes, that's all. On top of that, the wheel always spins back around and we will eventually go through another period that produces more music in that vein. It may never be the mainstream again, but neither will rockabilly, or disco, or any other trend that eventualy cooled. But I point to the current success of a band like Dream Theater, for instance, as a sign that people will still accept great musicianship if it is presented in the right context. That band is doing better than ever right now. I'm actually more encouraged right now than I was a few years ago. Hell, Kiss, Journey and Foreigner have all had hit records, along with The Eagles, and the new Kansas DVD went to #5 in Billboard. I can't complain about that! I love it.

I hope all is well.

Sterling

Great points all around.

I mean part of the thing is the market is fragmented beyond belief. No matter how many albums DT sells, they aren't getting on MTV or top 40 radio. Back in the day, even the 80s, there was a place for a lot of different kinds of music in the mainstream and to gain exposure that way.

The "mainstream" is so narrow as far as what gets played there and that's what really hurts things when bands like Journey and Styx release new albums... there's no place to go. Classic rock radio only wants to play the hits, mainstream stuff only wants to play rap, hot little starlets, and crap like Nickelback. It's just fragmented beyond belief. So yes, as you said, it's not actually dead in reality. Rather, it's just dead to the casual observer.

DT's success is somewhat of an anomaly - the Internet has really helped them get to the point they're at because they (Portnoy in particular) are so damn Internet savvy and they give their fans a lot of love. It's great for them, they are one of my favorite bands, but man, a lot of things have lined up just right for them... starting when MTV DID play Pull Me Under back in the day, which got them their core, which they have built into quite a juggernaut with said Internet savvy and fan friendliness.

It seems to me - and I can verify this from my own experience - that the Internet offers the greatest chance for a creative person to offer his/her products to the world that's ever existed. The bands who are not taking advantage of that are fading, in my view. The ones who are finding creative ways to use the Internet to move forward are the ones who will win in the trenches, because the trenches have moved from radio to the Internet. DT is one example. Marillion is another. That's something I hope to talk to Steve Rothery about; I'm interviewing him Tuesday. But yeah, bands that are Internet savvy and cognizant of that personal link to the fans have an opportunity to move forward now that is not related to the tastes or decision making of some corporate entity.

Sterling

[Ehwmatt]

It seems to me - and I can verify this from my own experience - that the Internet offers the greatest chance for a creative person to offer his/her products to the world that's ever existed. The bands who are not taking advantage of that are fading, in my view. The ones who are finding creative ways to use the Internet to move forward are the ones who will win in the trenches, because the trenches have moved from radio to the Internet. DT is one example. Marillion is another. That's something I hope to talk to Steve Rothery about; I'm interviewing him Tuesday. But yeah, bands that are Internet savvy and cognizant of that personal link to the fans have an opportunity to move forward now that is not related to the tastes or decision making of some corporate entity.

Sterling

Good luck with Rothery, that guy is an absolute tonal monster on guitar. Amazing what he can do with some chorus, delay, and a Strat.

[Toph]

The premise of the question is that bands like Styx and Journey who were so polished, sang so much better than most Rock bands, and combined so many aspects into one song, they couldn't be out done. Obviously Punk and Grunge didn't try, but no band other than maybe U2 hasn't even tried. Did the musicianship and skills of these bands intimidated others to not even attempting it?

If that is the case, and it may well be - then it speaks to the idiocy of the record buying public. Which is to say, that is if it takes thought and a mastery of craft it is too difficult to listen to and so we'd rather have "The Knack".

For all the shit Journey gets for being "corporate rock", there is a true artistry to their albums - both thematically and musically. I think this, to a large extent, is why Journey captured something with the public. They were able to take every day life and kind of give it a spiritual and artistic spin. I think Styx, at times, had the ability to do this.

I thinks Journey's penchant for using ambiguous lyrics has helped there cause. You can interpret their songs so many ways. The lyrics are simple but not to the point of total nonsense, though some songs come close. Everyone loves Anyway You Want It, especially the movie studios but what is the song actually about?

You have a point - their lyrics are ambiguous - I've heard people imply some large things from their lyrics (i.e. Can't Tame the Lion- the Lion is God?!?!??) and I guess if you think about some of their lyrics, you can read larger things into them - or you can appreciate them on their most basic level. Probably the mark of good songs - let people interpret them how they want without making it too personal. Styx has sometimes been able to do that - but other times get too specific - (i.e. DDY has way too many specific references to Suzanne that if they were more general, could be more appealing to the masses). Anyway, I've read where Journey's lyrics actually are subtlely more spiritual than you realize - that Perry like to put vagueness into them that on the surface meant one thing, but down deep meant something else. Not sure if that is BS or not, but certainly the last Perry album (TBF) was over the top in the spirituality department (some biblical references and even Star Wars like themes) - and was even some recording was done at the Skywalker Ranch in Marin County. Again, interpretations become all the more personal, but when you say things like "I remember that night in Roseland..." (DDY) not a whole lot of people are going to relate...

[Pacfanweb]

I think it says something when you see all these teens and 20-somethings at 80's rock shows today.


Name 10 big rock/grunge bands of the 90's.

Now name how many of them are still big.

Styx/REO combos still sell pretty close to full venues.

Poison/Cinderella or Poison/whomever does, too.

Def Leppard/whoever does.

Journey/Heart did very well last year

Van Halen did ridiculous business in 2007

Aerosmith still sells, when they tour. (they're really an 80's to early-90's band, that's when most of their success was)


So from the grunge/nu-metal-90's: Pearl Jam will still sell tickets. Foo Fighters also.

Who else? How many bands from the 90's can still headline a tour? Creed, maybe?


Joe Elliott had it right, most of those kind of bands had no melody, and they aren't standing the test of time.

[blt man]

I think it says something when you see all these teens and 20-somethings at 80's rock shows today.


Name 10 big rock/grunge bands of the 90's.

Now name how many of them are still big.

Styx/REO combos still sell pretty close to full venues.

Poison/Cinderella or Poison/whomever does, too.

Def Leppard/whoever does.

Journey/Heart did very well last year

Van Halen did ridiculous business in 2007

Aerosmith still sells, when they tour. (they're really an 80's to early-90's band, that's when most of their success was)


So from the grunge/nu-metal-90's: Pearl Jam will still sell tickets. Foo Fighters also.

Who else? How many bands from the 90's can still headline a tour? Creed, maybe?


Joe Elliott had it right, most of those kind of bands had no melody, and they aren't standing the test of time.

I know we all like to think there are so many twenty somethings at these concerts. It is a minority at these concerts and not the majority. These bands tour as nostalgia acts and often together to get the maximum exposure. Even Elton John and Billy Joel tour together. Two nostalgia acts together is better than and makes more money than one.

You also can’t compare these groups to the grunge groups – grunge is not part of the nostalgia circuit yet. Many of the grunge groups today are where Styx were in the mid 80s to mid 90s – broken up, not recording, not touring. (I am not counting Edge).

[Jodes]

Newer? come on.. its closing in on 20 years that some of these bands had their heyday..

I think the "big" grunge bands are realizing just how much money their is on the reunion circuit.. Stone Temple Pilots just
reunited and thats pretty much a "nostaliga" show.. Nobody's banging down their door right now for new music. Another example would have been 2007's Smashing Pumpkins realise.. one single then.. nothing.

Pearl Jam's sort of the engima in all of this.. they put out new stuff that gets a lot of airplay, but they know if they don't play the big hits from 10 they're in trouble. They are the "best off" of them all..

Alice In Chains is also pretty much a nostaliga act now, regardless of a new singer.

Soundgarden would more then likely be the same as the groups listed above.

[paste]

Pearl Jam's sort of the engima in all of this.. they put out new stuff that gets a lot of airplay, but they know if they don't play the big hits from 10 they're in trouble. They are the "best off" of them all..

The thing with Pearl Jam is that since they change their setlist every night, they don't always plays their early hits like "Jeremy." You never know what kind of set you are going to get with them.