I think they should have after layne passed.It's not the same,they just want rights to all the old songs.

It stands to reason, since Jerry Cantrell WROTE most of the songs! Layne Staley was not the entire band.

Alice in Chains is a rockin band very deep, and yes we miss layne and they sound different, but they still are Alice in Chains regardless. They have all worked hard to EARN those royalties, to claim those rights to the songs. One man out doesn't stop everything that was put into the music and lyrics. Life goes on, the show must go on!!!

Isn't it amazing that so many people can completely miss the obvious??

It's like when Van Halen let Roth go and picked up Hagar.

Everyone was screaming that they should change the band name. Eddie's response was classic.

He simply said.." Why should I change it? It's MY NAME ".

Often the lead singer gets the recognition of the bands identity. He (or she) becomes the "Voice" of the band. When the "voice" changes, its as if they have become a different band, and its hard to recognize them.

When Jerry did his solo albums, which sounded almost exactly like A.I.C., he changed the name. He should have just kept it as his own, he doesn't need the recognition.

Why change the name?

Saw Alice in chains earlier this year in Dublin and i gotta say they kicked ***.Why change the name if 1 member leaves or dies.Should AC/DC have changed their name after Bon Scott or Metallica after Mustaine left or Cliff Burton died.