Who is Linkin Park?

[Numbrocker]

Ok so I've been keeping an eye on the STP fans reaction to this new move of Chester now being the official frontman for STP, and it seems their biggest problem is that they won't change the name.

 

I don't know too much about STP, but from what I read Scott (lead singer of STP) was heavy into drugs, stopped singing well, and was unreliable in shows and even showing up 2 hours late. I also saw someone say that the remaining 3 members of the band would record in one studio and Scott in another. So obviously they have problems, and so Scott was fired in March.

 

I've read A LOT about this and it made me curious about LP. This is just a little HYPOTHETICAL curiosity.

 

If Chester left the band, do you think they should still be called Linkin Park with whatever new singer they got?

 

If Mike left the band, do you think they should still be called Linkin Park with whatever new rapper/guitarist they got?

 

I'm pretty sure I know what you guys would say about Joe, Rob, Brad, and Dave.

 

Just curious because the STP fans are so incensed about it. Personally, I think regardless of who left, if the majority members are there then they should get the name. I know Linkin Park is Mike's baby, but LP does a lot more equal sharing of the work (with their voting methods and whatnot) then most bands.

 

Just curious what you guys thought.

[sotrix]

If any one person except Mike leaves, the band can still be called Linkin Park.

[Skipees]

in my opinion, when the lead singer leaves the band, they should stop using the band name (any band).

 

there are a millions bands that replaced one/more/all of the members, unless it's the lead singer - nobody cares. of course there's a huge different between famous band that released X albums, to new band with 3 songs.

 

usually the bands doesn't change the name, when the former/s not include the singer.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Skipees

[gorast]

Mike is Linkin Park. That's it. That's all there is. It's his baby, if he leaves, then the band collapses, especially because Chester will probably bolt right after Mike does.

[JZLP-Benningstrong]

question for ASTAT

 

who the hell holds the right of the name LINKIN PARK? that's the key for the whole thread.

[FearOfTheDuck]

Massive bands including AC/DC, Iron Maiden and Genesis have all replaced their lead singer and continued to be hugely successful, in fact even more so. I agree with Dmitry and Somedude- Mike is the creative lynchpin of Linkin Park, and the only truly indispensable member. Replacing Chester would be extremely difficult, but possible. There'd probably be a backlash initially, but the band could still go on. In the case of Mike, it's likely the band would just end if he decided to quit- or otherwise become pretty much a completely different band musically haha.

[Qwerty18]

Agree on what have been said so far about Mike. If he leaves, there is no LP anymore, simple as that!

Edited May 23, 2013 by Qwerty18

[hahninator]

My opinion is that if any member leaves except Mike you can still call it Linkin Park. If Chester leaves, it's still Linkin Park. However, if Mike leaves, you need to change the name. Linkin Park is essentially his band in a way....he creates the core of the music, he co produces the albums, he is the one who has trouble sleeping because he's always holed up in the studio, etc.

[LinkinMark]

I can't imagine the band carrying on if one of them left.

 

Anyway, I pretty much agree with what others have said. You could probably get away with keeping LP if Chester left but they'd have to change it if Mike left.

[Geki]

I'm not going to be one of the people who says ''Mike IS LINKIN PARK'' because to me, that's just stupid and obviously the band is a collective with it's 6 members. No one would ever leave LP and if they did, I'm sure they would just call it quits. Maybe if a member besides Mike or Chester left, and they DID decide to keep making music, LP would keep the same name, but if either Mike or Chester left I think they would change the name/or stop making music. As for STP, I think they should keep the name, and it's obvious that they still are. Scott had a good run with the band, and it's his own fault that they fired him, he can't blame anybody but himself, and Chester is 1000X better vocally than him, and he knows that deep down. If he is mad, it's just pure jealousy.

 

EDIT: Bottom line, though, is that no one will ever leave LP. I am 99% positive. Mike can't leave because and Brad created Linkin Park essentially and he would never do that. Chester won't leave because he has stated MANY times that we would never leave LP for anything, he said this during the making of DBS and now with STP even. The rest of the guys are content with the band I assume, no one in the band fights, etc. They are a healthy group who luckily evolved from their ''nu-metal'' sound of the past and are able to make music that is new and fresh, which excites everyone IMO. I think if LP were ever going to call it quits, or if a band member were to leave, it would have been 2005 for sure for a bunch of reasons.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Geki

[lgr]

agree mostly with what people are saying re: Mike and Chester. although I honestly think that LP won't end due to member changes - they're too stable a unit.

 

where I think I stand upon the notion of "(he/she) is the band name, once they're gone, that's it!" (Weiland's case) is that if you get fired, you can't really claim to be in ownership of that name since it is that one person being consciously removed from the project by the others. choosing to leave too, i think, falls under this category.

 

I'm not really sure though, I see tons of those small punk bands on wikipedia where all the founding members are no longer involved and yet the current outfit still keep the same name.

 

it's a tough thing to decide where there is a line on this subject

[Geki]

agree mostly with what people are saying re: Mike and Chester. although I honestly think that LP won't end due to member changes - they're too stable a unit.

 

where I think I stand upon the notion of "(he/she) is the band name, once they're gone, that's it!" (Weiland's case) is that if you get fired, you can't really claim to be in ownership of that name since it is that one person being consciously removed from the project by the others. choosing to leave too, i think, falls under this category.

 

I'm not really sure though, I see tons of those small punk bands on wikipedia where all the founding members are no longer involved and yet the current outfit still keep the same name.

 

it's a tough thing to decide where there is a line on this subject

I guess my opinion on the whole Scott Weiland and STP thing is that he was the lead singer of the band from the start, and was for a very long time. They released Core in 1992 and he was the lead singer until earlier this year. That's over 20 years, and plus the years before Core was released, too. He made a lot of bad decisions and was a total douche to the band earlier this year, and in the past. They fired him. Chester has been a long time friend of the band, and I think he was probably the best option for them. I'm not saying this just because I'm a huge Chester fan, and I do understand where the STP fans are coming from, but they have to understand that all the original members of STP are still there, just not Scott. Scott has done shitty things. Canceling tons of shows and tours, sometimes an hour before the show when everyone is there waiting because he was high on heroin and couldn't perform. The man needs serious help or he WILL end up dead. I'm sorry, but it's true. Chester is actually helping keep STP alive right now. Someday if Scott does end up getting better, I'm sure the band will welcome him back, as will Chester. He just needs help right now more than anything and if I was Scott, I would focus on help more than the the band name at the moment.. Just my two cents.

[lgr]

yes, quite frankly if I was an STP fan, I'd rather not have to a go through that lottery of "will I actually get to see them play tonight?"

 

it's a Guns N Roses situation (minus the baffling egotism), no fan wants to pay a fuck ton for a ticket only to find out you actually wasted your money. it's not fair to them.

[Geki]

yes, quite frankly if I was an STP fan, I'd rather not have to a go through that lottery of "will I actually get to see them play tonight?"

 

it's a Guns N Roses situation (minus the baffling egotism), no fan wants to pay a fuck ton for a ticket only to find out you actually wasted your money. it's not fair to them.

It's really wrong. It sucked when LP canceled Uncasville 2011 and Pensacola 2011 because I had tickets for both of those, and even airfare and hotel reservations for Pensacola. But I couldn't IMAGINE being front row, pumped up and waiting for my favorite band to come on in a half hour, only for the band to ''not be able to play'' because the lead singer was too high on dope to perform. It's extremely fucked up to do to the fans.

[Numbrocker]

Again I was just curious. I honestly don't think this would happen anytime soon because the band is so solid.

 

I think Mike is Linkin Park and they would never be the same without him, but I think Brad as a co-founder has some rights to the name, and Chester to an extent since they didn't really go anywhere till he became the singer, and the rest of the group having been their since day one.

 

So I don't think I'd freak out about the name so much if they miraculously found a half way decent replacement for Mike. Would it ever be the old Linkin Park sound? No. But do I think the other 5 members deserve to use the name? Yeah.

 

But in reality I think if Mike left they probably wouldn't even try to continue as Linkin Park.

 

Remember this is all just HYPOTHETICAL!

[Wayne2kx]

I think this question might better be considered as "WOULD" they continue and "SHOULD" they continue as Linkin Park.

 

In terms of whether they "would" continue with the name LP, I think what would apply to most other bands wouldn't apply here. I can only see Mike staying or leaving as determining whether they would keep the name. Not even Chester. Mike is the core of the actual foundation of LP, being a founder as well as (as others have said) the one who quite apparently "holds" everything in order for the most part. He's the main speaker/voice of LP both during and between album cycles. He seems to be the one who has to bear the most stress. One could argue that LP is actually a reflection of Mike's personality/interests at any given point in time, significantly more than any of the other band members. And this is as much as they may say that they "all" decide that LP should go in any particular direction. So even if Chester were to leave, and they were to replace him with someone bringing an obviously different sound, the essence of LP's sound would still be there to a greater extent than would apply to most other bands who lose their lead singer.

 

"Should" they continue as LP, to me, would be in consideration of two things. Firstly, was the person who left a founding member and if so, do they have his 'blessing' (for lack of a better word)? Obviously that's just on moral grounds. Secondly and separately, would the sound and image change so much without the person that LP would lose what the majority of the public uses to identify them? In this case obviously Mike is still the main factor, but an argument could be made for Chester.

 

I wouldn't go into commercial interests and whatnot since I don't believe such a decision should be determined by any of that. And legally, I really don't know who, if any single member holds the rights to the name.

[RogueSoul]

Mike is Linkin Park. And to a somewhat lesser extent so is Chester. All the guys are, but they can be replaced. Without Mike it just isn't LP.

[Geki]

Mike is Linkin Park. And to a somewhat lesser extent so is Chester. All the guys are, but they can be replaced. Without Mike it just isn't LP.

I can almost guarantee that if Mike or Chester ever left LP, they wouldn't continue onwards. I could POSSIBLY see one of the other band members being replaced, but definitely not Mike or Chester.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Geki

[FearOfTheDuck]

Actually, come to think about it, they couldn't really replace Joe either.

[Astat]

question for ASTAT

 

who the hell holds the right of the name LINKIN PARK? that's the key for the whole thread.

I'm sure it's shared jointly, at least between Mike/Brad/Joe/Rob. Chester's not technically an original member of the band, but he was a member by the time Hybrid Theory signed their record deal with Warner, so he might legally have part of the naming rights...it basically depends on how early on they were able to hire a lawyer and get all this stuff down in writing (and whether they amended that information when Chester joined, if he joined later). I doubt Phoenix has a share in it unless they grandfathered him into their already-established contract once he rejoined the band. It's kind of a grey area though, because who's officially a band member and who owns the naming rights are often different.

 

I don't think you can really define a band by any of its members. There are a lot of bands out there touring with only one original member left (Guns N' Roses, Lynyrd Skynyrd) that still do a good job of staying faithful to the material/style established their predecessors. In this sense, I don't think Mike or Chester or anyone in particular "is Linkin Park." However, I would say Mike is Linkin Park in the sense that if he were to leave, I don't think the band realistically COULD continue whether they wanted to or not. There are other vocalists who can sing like Chester, and I'm sure you could find another DJ who could figure out how to work Joe's rig, but if you lose Mike, you lose at least 75% of your songwriting capability and a lot of production know-how.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Astat

[Geki]

Chester's not technically an original member of the band, but he was a member by the time Hybrid Theory signed their record deal with Warner, so he might legally have part of the naming rights...it basically depends on how early on they were able to hire a lawyer and get all this stuff down in writing (and whether they amended that information when Chester joined, if he joined later).

In the Inked Magazine 2008 interview, Chester said this about his ex-wife: ''All my money and half of my publishing up until Minutes To Midnight is hers. There is a lot of anger that goes along with that - like, you did not DO that. All she did was piss me off''.

 

So basically, doesn't that confirm he probably got some rights for Hybrid Theory, possibly even Hybrid Theory EP? Also, what about Chester Chaz publishing?

[Skipees]

In the Inked Magazine 2008 interview, Chester said this about his ex-wife: ''All my money and half of my publishing up until Minutes To Midnight is hers. There is a lot of anger that goes along with that - like, you did not DO that. All she did was piss me off''.

 

So basically, doesn't that confirm he probably got some rights for Hybrid Theory, possibly even Hybrid Theory EP? Also, what about Chester Chaz publishing?

Astat talking about the name rights, not about the royalties. of course he gets royalties.

[JZLP-Benningstrong]

I'm sure it's shared jointly, at least between Mike/Brad/Joe/Rob. Chester's not technically an original member of the band, but he was a member by the time Hybrid Theory signed their record deal with Warner, so he might legally have part of the naming rights...it basically depends on how early on they were able to hire a lawyer and get all this stuff down in writing (and whether they amended that information when Chester joined, if he joined later). I doubt Phoenix has a share in it unless they grandfathered him into their already-established contract once he rejoined the band. It's kind of a grey area though, because who's officially a band member and who owns the naming rights are often different.

 

I don't think you can really define a band by any of its members. There are a lot of bands out there touring with only one original member left (Guns N' Roses, Lynyrd Skynyrd) that still do a good job of staying faithful to the material/style established their predecessors. In this sense, I don't think Mike or Chester or anyone in particular "is Linkin Park." However, I would say Mike is Linkin Park in the sense that if he were to leave, I don't think the band realistically COULD continue whether they wanted to or not. There are other vocalists who can sing like Chester, and I'm sure you could find another DJ who could figure out how to work Joe's rig, but if you lose Mike, you lose at least 75% of your songwriting capability and a lot of production know-how.

It's always a pleasure to read your posts! thanks!

you just said it all, i just want to add this: Chester somehow is an original member, yes he wasn't in XERO, but he was in HT and of course at the very beggining of Lnkin Park, if i remember correctly he even created the name of the band

 

my guess is that the name belongs to everybody except Phi.

[Skipees]

However, I would say Mike is Linkin Park in the sense that if he were to leave, I don't think the band realistically COULD continue whether they wanted to or not. There are other vocalists who can sing like Chester, and I'm sure you could find another DJ who could figure out how to work Joe's rig, but if you lose Mike, you lose at least 75% of your songwriting capability and a lot of production know-how.

why you left your direction?

- There are other vocalists who can sing like Chester

- and I'm sure you could find another DJ who could figure out how to work Joe's rig

- but if you lose Mike, you lose at least 75% of your songwriting capability and a lot of production know-how.

- but if you lose Mike, you need someone with songwriting capability and producer (probably separately).

 

-----

 

i guess i'm the only one with different opinion.

 

everybody in the band are replaceable. everybody here talks about if Mike leave, the band will collapse etc.. no. if Mike leave the band needs to sit down and write songs, and when they finish, they need to find good producer. but in that case the band will not sound like the way it was. but it's the same case if Chester leave, because then Mike will need to conform the songs and the production to different voice.

 

my point is everybody are replaceable, but if Mike or Chester will leave the band will sounds different.

 

Mike is a big part of the band, but you guys exaggerate with it too much.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Skipees

[Geki]

This thread is full of fail. Lol.