R+

[Kovenant84]

Agreed with Rahvin on this. The name was associated with a certain style, and I don't know that they'll be able to keep that style going without Till.

~kov.

 

[plintus]

Saddest part of the news. I think bands should at least modify their name and reform after such a dramatic change as losing a charismatic leader or switching to a completely different style. But who's going to stop them from cashing in on their already-established popularity?

Agreed with Rahvin on this. The name was associated with a certain style, and I don't know that they'll be able to keep that style going without Till.

This is, like, so wrong and twisted: unless everyone calls it quits, there's no point of making any changes.

Shame though.

 

[Magrathean]

I'll ask somethng that has been sitting on the back of my mind for a while. Why do some people here criticize bands for changing style or singer and keeping their name but never DT? DT has done both things, and one of them has happened more than once. Their style has undergone many changes throughout the years, not all of which have been exactly gradual (The mind's i - Projector and Projector - Haven, for example), and yet nobody seems to mind that they've kept the name Dark Tranquillity all the while. And when Anders left and Mikael became the singer nobody seemed to care either even though the change from Skydancer to The gallery wasn't as small as most other album-to-next-album changes for DT. Is this because it is our beloved Dark Tranquillity and nobody dares speak words against them save for a few shy "i didn't like the last album" remarks now and then? Try as i might, i can't find another reason. If Rammstein should change their name for losing Till (we don't even know how different their next album will be from what they've done so far), why is it ok that DT kept their name when they lost Anders or when they lost Fredrik (which also came with a big change in sound, even-bigger than when Anders left)? Or, if it is ok for DT to keep their name while changing their style and some of their members, why isn't it ok for Rammstein --and many other bands-- to do so?

 

[La Rocque]

I'm sort of hoping(grasping for straws) that its all just a rumor that I read on blabbermouth.
It was not the kind of thing I want to start out the week with. Maybe it was started just
to get a buzz going for their new CD?
If Till is leaving why would he stay until the new CD is finished?
BTW I agree if it is true a new name would be best -

 

[Taliesin]

I'll ask somethng that has been sitting on the back of my mind for a while. Why do some people here criticize bands for changing style or singer and keeping their name but never DT? DT has done both things, and one of them has happened more than once.

They changed their singer very early in the band's history, so I guess until a significant amount of people had heard of the band, Stanne was already their singer.
I think people only criticise bands when the change in style means a drop in quality or is oriented towards a much bigger public, in the most popular case of In Flames, it was both. Why should someone crticise a band for a new style, when it's just as good as the old one?

 

[Kovenant84]

The way I look at it, we're mostly referencing bands that have long-established traditions and sounds that, while they might deviate from album to album, do not change dramatically. Rammstein would be one such band, and so a change of this magnitude (one of the first things I notice is the voice in a band), will almost certainly (though I might be wrong) engender a change in sound.

Dark Tranquillity has also undergone changes - however, the switch out of Anders took place relatively early in their career, long before they had truly established themselves, and to be quite honest both Mikael and Anders had the same exact singing style back then. I'm embarrassed to say I can't tell the difference in Shadow Duet. Thought I bet I could if I tried, and actually bothered to look at who sang what. The point is, it was almost negligible. If I understand my history correctly, as well, other lineup changes were totally subsumed by total sound changes in the band - changes that indicated directions the band was heading in anyway, not as a result of a change in membership. If anything, DT has been defined by their overall sound, not the individual contributions of its members.

To take another example, try my namesake here. Covenant had a very distinct sound on In Times Before The Light, and it did mellow slightly into a more Dimmu-esque sound for Nexus Polaris. But at the same time, when they released Animatronic, they had lost over half the band, and undergone a name change. I still believe that the name change was for the better, as it truly was a new incarnation of the band, and not simply a new release from the same old band.

~kov.

EDIT: Damn T sniped me...

 

[rahvin]

Seconding Taliesin and Kov on the subject of the singer. As for the style, I'm talking more dramatic changes than DT's. I wasn't implying anything of the sort about Rammstein, by the way, it was merely an example.

But if you consider, say, a not well known band like Pyogenesis... they started playing pop-punk overnight, and they used to be a melo-death act. Theatre of Tragedy also changed their style to the point it was hard to recognize them (take Velvet Darkness They Fear and Assembly, for instance). Dark Tranquillity - and the vast majority of bands - don't really qualify for the category I was speaking about. Sure, Projector and Skydancer are miles apart, but it's still death metal.

 

[Magrathean]

They changed their singer very early in the band's history, so I guess until a significant amount of people had heard of the band, Stanne was already their singer.

You do have a point, but take the Johansson / Brändström+Nicklasson change or everything that happened around Projector; the band was definitely well-known, if not as much as today, by then.

I think people only criticise bands when the change in style means a drop in quality or is oriented towards a much bigger public, in the most popular case of In Flames, it was both.

Funnily-enough, i haven't read a single sentence on UM (or elsewhere, for that matter) saying or implying that In Flames should have changed their name after [insert release here].

Why should someone crticise a band for a new style, when it's just as good as the old one?

I wasn't talking about people criticizing sound changes, i was talking about people criticizing the fact that bands don't always change their names concomitantly with a style change.

Dark Tranquillity has also undergone changes - however, the switch out of Anders took place relatively early in their career, long before they had truly established themselves, and to be quite honest both Mikael and Anders had the same exact singing style back then. I'm embarrassed to say I can't tell the difference in Shadow Duet. Thought I bet I could if I tried, and actually bothered to look at who sang what. The point is, it was almost negligible.

Granted, but then at some point (i'm too-lazy to be bothered to make out when exactly or how it happened) Mikael changed his singing style to what it currently is (not counting the clean vocals, which i'll get to later), but why does nobody say anything?

If I understand my history correctly, as well, other lineup changes were totally subsumed by total sound changes in the band - changes that indicated directions the band was heading in anyway, not as a result of a change in membership. If anything, DT has been defined by their overall sound, not the individual contributions of its members.

My question still stands. Whether the changed in sound were caused by the changes in lineup or not, i've never heard or read that DT should have changed their name when their lineup changed OR when their style changed. I mentioned before the transition between The mind's i and Projector, which, i think, is the biggest one yet. I've read a few praises for Projector and a ton of terrible reviews (i mean reviews that say that the album is terrible, not reviews that are terribly-written), but, again, nobody has ever said that DT should have changed their name into something else. Moreover, their name was never really characteristic of their sound except perhaps in Projector and MAYBE, just maybe, Haven, but nobody ever mentioned that except the band members themselves in a couple of interviews, and they've always said that it doesn't matter. The only name change ever happened between two demos that, at least music-wise (i don't believe anybody knows what the lyrics say although if someone does i beg them to share the information with all of us), had virtually-no change from one to the other (except maybe that Trail of life decayed has a slightly-more-refined sound than Enfeebled Earth).

As for the style, I'm talking more dramatic changes than DT's. I wasn't implying anything of the sort about Rammstein, by the way, it was merely an example.

I doubt any change in Rammstein's sound due to Till's leaving will be bigger than the two DT examples i mentioned above (The mind's i - Projector and Projector - Haven). Anyway, whether they do change their sound a lot or not, i believe the two DT changes i mentioned are as worthy of a name change as any Rammstein or any other band could have, except perhaps for Theatre Of Tragedy after Aégis.

But if you consider, say, a not well known band like Pyogenesis... they started playing pop-punk overnight, and they used to be a melo-death act. Theatre of Tragedy also changed their style to the point it was hard to recognize them (take Velvet Darkness They Fear and Assembly, for instance). Dark Tranquillity - and the vast majority of bands - don't really qualify for the category I was speaking about.

That's what i was saying. Rammstein will undoubtedly still be a metal / industrial / whatever-it-is-they-are-currently-classified-as band after/if Till leaves, and DT has remained a metal band throughout their history. I'll repeat what i said before: i'm not saying that DT should have changed their name or that they shouldn't have, i'm just saying that it's not fair to say one thing about DT and another thing about other bands just because the other bands aren't DT. I do believe that TOT should have changed their name either after Aégis or before it, though.

 

[rahvin]

@UndoControl: but that's exactly what I said Here:

I wasn't implying anything of the sort about Rammstein, by the way, it was merely an example.

To sum it up: I don't think and I never thought R+ should change their name because they're going to stop making industrial music. I said they should because they're going to be an utterly different band since they lost a charismatic singer at the height of their success. ToT should have changed for different reasons, when you said, like you said.

 

[Matse]

For Germans:
http://laut.de/vorlaut/news/2007/07/17/15984/index.htm

Short summary:
The label doesn't believe they will split up because they do not have any information about them splitting up and Blabbermouth erased the news without further comment.

 

[Dark_Silence]

When the singer leaves a band, it has often more impact than when the guitarist leaves a band, because the singer is usually the leader while the bands performs, he is the person who speaks for the band during the concert, and people, according to their personality, will act differently while being on stage.

I think that when a band changes their singer, you can most of the time, tell immediately because of the voice. And Till has a very recognisable voice, that is a very important part of Rammstein's style I'd say. I have never seen them in concert, so i dont know how the band is on stage. But I think that Rammstein without him wouldnt be Rammstein anymore.

 

[La Rocque]

It has not been confirmed that Rammstein's management actually sent out a press release. It seems all of this may have started on Blabbermouth and everyone is getting their information from them or other sources that also got their information from them. If this were a real press release (which strangely cannot be found on either Pilgrim-management.de or Rammstein.de), you would expect at least one major German news source to have picked up on the news as well. But none have. This seems to be a hoax and in fact, Blabbermouth has now pulled the story.

 

[QRV]

You people should know Blabbermouth by now. Never believe anything it says unless it's official.

 

[La Rocque]

You people should know Blabbermouth by now. Never believe anything it says unless it's official.

I'm not a know it all like you

My mail box has been full of R+ info since this appeared yesterday ...
here's part of two:

"Hi Dave,
Yes I saw it. Wouldn´t you expect THEM to only announce such news after talking to management?
On one hand it's always the same ... as soon as Rammstein is having a break (or working on a new album) there are rumours that they split up.
What's highly unlikely in the press statement as well is that Richard and Schneider would talk to the press together. If two of them don't get along it's them two(*La Rocque note, She knows as She is friends with the band*). And if they were to talk to the press together: where are those interviews then?
So I stick to my initinal thoughts: let's wait and see. I always thought that if someone was to quit the band it would definitely not be Till. Never heard stories that someone in the band couldn't get along with him (or he with them). It's always between Schneider and Richard or Paul and Richard. But who knows ... I still wait and see.

Another ...
apparently hunter from the herzeleid forum had contact with blabbermouth and they mailed her back that it was most likely a hoax.
Hi,
I think that you are correct and I removed the press release from
Blabbermouth yesterday because I believe that it was a hoax. I have tried to
confirm this with RAMMSTEIN's management but have not received a response
from them. However, after being in contact with various RAMMSTEIN fan sites,
I am told that this is not unusual behavior for the band's management as
they are not very responsive to any requests for information.
The press release that was sent out yesterday contained the official
management e-mail and address but apparently originated from a free e-mail
service, which is not consistent with the management's past practices.
Furthermore, the management usually puts out press releases via the band's
web site and does not send out separate press releases that are not included
on the band's web site.
It would take the management about five minutes -- literally -- to put an
end to these rumors by releasing a short statement on the band's web site
about it, but they are either highly incompetent or they believe that the
extra publicity is good for them.
Borivoj K.
BLABBERMOUTH.NET"

As for me all I can say is ...
Everything is beautiful -

 

[Taliesin]

Funnily-enough, i haven't read a single sentence on UM (or elsewhere, for that matter) saying or implying that In Flames should have changed their name after [insert release here].

I read a few posts suggesting they change their name to New Flames
Maybe a name change is just not common enough to be applied after a change in styles. I think it would be silly, too, just like changing one's name with every birthday would be. After all, many fans want a band to change and to evolve, but what evolving means for everyone is up to them.

What I find bizarre are situations like Sirenia/Tristania, with Morten Veland writing all the music and leaving the band he should have taken the name with him.. now we have old Tristania and Sirenia sounding the same and new Tristania sounding like a cheap copycat..

Generally, I think a new album name is change of name enough.. everything else would just confuse me

 

[rahvin]

What I find bizarre are situations like Sirenia/Tristania, with Morten Veland writing all the music and leaving the band he should have taken the name with him.. now we have old Tristania and Sirenia sounding the same and new Tristania sounding like a cheap copycat..

Hold on, I'm not in the know of this whole running away from Sirenia/Tristania thing... basically, what other records of which band should I listen to if I like the first Sirenia album a lot?

 

[Taliesin]

As far as I know, Morten Veland was the "mastermind" behind Tristania up until World of Glass, in 2001. Then there was a major dispute and Morten left the band, creating Sirenia, where again, he is the mastermind so the sound is pretty much the same.
If you liked "At Sixes and Sevens" a lot, you'll like "Elxir for Existence" as well I think. The third Sirenia album, I havent heard yet. The best album by Morten is "Beyond the Veil" imo, that he made back in 1999 with Tristania, but "World of Glass" is pretty good as well.

 

[Magrathean]

To sum it up: I don't think and I never thought R+ should change their name because they're going to stop making industrial music. I said they should because they're going to be an utterly different band since they lost a charismatic singer at the height of their success. ToT should have changed for different reasons, when you said, like you said.

Well, it still depends on whether the change of singer will affect the band in a big way or not, which is yet to be seen, right? But thanks for clarifying.

When the singer leaves a band, it has often more impact than when the guitarist leaves a band, because the singer is usually the leader while the bands performs, he is the person who speaks for the band during the concert, and people, according to their personality, will act differently while being on stage.

I think that when a band changes their singer, you can most of the time, tell immediately because of the voice. And Till has a very recognisable voice, that is a very important part of Rammstein's style I'd say. I have never seen them in concert, so i dont know how the band is on stage. But I think that Rammstein without him wouldnt be Rammstein anymore.

As i said, it depends on whether the singer change really affects the band a lot. Let's suppose the Rammstein story is true and they happen to get another singer with a similar personality and similar voice to Till (i know it's probably not true, it's just an example). It obviously can never be Till anymore because, unlike punk-band singers (who all have the same voice), Till has a unique voice (as you said), but if it's similar-enough then i don't believe it is a good reason to change the band's name. If, on the other hand, the new singer has a completely-different voice, writes totally-different lyrics and takes the band in a whole new direction, i would suggest a name change.

What I find bizarre are situations like Sirenia/Tristania, with Morten Veland writing all the music and leaving the band he should have taken the name with him.. now we have old Tristania and Sirenia sounding the same and new Tristania sounding like a cheap copycat..

If it hadn't been for him leaving Tristania and starting Sirenia, i'd never have gotten to listen to his music (i never paid much attention to Tristania, but the first time i saw a Sirenia album in the store i was intrigued and i bought it after one listen), which would be terrible for me. But, putting aside the fact that, if Veland was the head of both bands, both bands should have been called Morten Veland Band or something similar, i agree with what you said about it being silly to leave a band just to make another one that apparently (i still haven't listened to anything from Tristania except for Lethean river) sounds exactly the same and has a different name.

Generally, I think a new album name is change of name enough.. everything else would just confuse me

If the smiley applied only to the last part of that line, read on. If it applied to the whole line, ignore this entire paragraph. When i look at an album, the name of the band is one of the first things i look at and one of the most-important things to me. If the album is good, by looking at the band's name i can proceed to check out their other stuff. If it's bad or mediocre, i know that, in most cases, i'd best keep away from the band. But if a band starts out with one style and then switches to a totally-different one overnight (take the Theatre Of Tragedy example before) then it destroys all of that completely. If i had listened to Musique, Assembly or even Storm (which, without being old TOT, is a huge step up from their previous few albums) before listening to Aégis and their pre-Aégis stuff, i would never have known a band that used to be great in the 1990s. Bands take that risk (losing fans who would like their old stuff) when they do that. While evolution and change and whatnot is a good thing (Children Of Bodom became boring to me after their third album because they all sound exactly the same), changing into a totally-different genre is likely to draw away all the already-established fans while failing to draw in new ones (because somebody who is into electropop and already knew that TOT was a gothic band wouldn't suddenly buy a TOT album to see if they changed to electropop suddenly) (so the band can't really take advantage of their already-known name), while leaving the name and starting over with a new one would be a much-wiser commercial move. And if they're not interested in the commercial side at all and just love to make music then they should know that it is a horrible thing to do to suddenly destroy all that a band is by changing its style completely from one release to another.

basically, what other records of which band should I listen to if I like the first Sirenia album a lot?

Taliesin already answered your question, but i'd suggest Sirenia's Nine destinies and a downfall (2007) rather than An elixir for existence (2004), as Elixir just sounds like a copy of Sixes that didn't turn out right (it's a great album, but it's nowhere as good as Sixes) while Nine destinies is as good as Sixes (in my opinion, of course). Oh, and avoid Sirenian shores (2004 ep) at all costs, since it's akin to what happened to TOT after Aégis (i thought Sirenia was going to suffer the same fate, but then i heard Nine destinies). I can't recommend anything from Tristania for reasons stated above. Now, if you like Sirenia's style but want to listen to other bands and not just Morten-Veland-related stuff i would suggest the italian gothic-rock band Macbeth, especially their first two albums (Romantic tragedy's crescendo from 1998 and Vanitas from 2001). The only thing that puts me off from Macbeth is the girl's horrible pronunciation of english words.

 

[afz902k]

I shall not estate an opinion on Rammstein's decision to keep their name before listening to their post-till era music, that is, if Till actually left, which I doubt will happen!

 

[rahvin]

@Taliesin; Undo: Thanks for the suggestions, I'll look into those records. In fact, I already know Elixir (and I find it good but inferior to Sixes), so I guess I'll check out the newest and some material by Tristania, for a start. And yes, Undo, it depends on whether the change of singer will affect the band in a major way.