Strangler in the light

[jason]

I thought the comments on Paul were fairly well balanced but I thought the phrase "he wasn't a Strangler" wasn't needed - he literally was for over 15 years... poor old John Ellis though!

I would think he meant he was nothing like an "Original" Strangler he's "stage "actions", Singing ,"Looks", "Song writing", "Voice", "Attitude" , "philosophy" "abilities! and Stage presence were nothing like the original Stranglers. It just shows by JJ's words how he would put up with just about any replacement and carry on regardless as the Stranglers when Hugh was replaced just because it was easier and guaranteed success as some of the old original fans would put up regardless too.

Paul was so different then, JJ for artistic reasons and for credibility should have started another band with Paul and the other members like John,Jet and Dave.

I wonder if they would have been successful as a new band?

[ThinkTank]

I thought the comments on Paul were fairly well balanced but I thought the phrase "he wasn't a Strangler" wasn't needed - he literally was for over 15 years... poor old John Ellis though!

I would think he meant he was nothing like an "Original" Strangler he's "stage "actions", Singing ,"Looks", "Song writing", "Voice", "Attitude" , "philosophy" "abilities! and Stage presence were nothing like the original Stranglers. It just shows by JJ's words how he would put up with just about any replacement and carry on regardless as the Stranglers when Hugh was replaced just because it was easier and guaranteed success as some of the old original fans would put up regardless too.

Paul was so different then, JJ for artistic reasons and for credibility should have started another band with Paul and the other members like John,Jet and Dave.

I wonder if they would have been successful as a new band?

Well Paul has an interesting and a very good voice on record anyway. I just thought live he tried far too hard to look and sound how he thought he should rather than just be himself and let the music do the talking so he very much acted how he thought a rock star should act (maybe some of his heroes) which looked far too over the top and false for a band like The Stranglers.

I do ask myself your question all the time and i think its possible as i think JJ would have been more focused with enthusiasm as his reputation would be on the line and would be excited about the prospect of a fresh new sound and possibilities all of his own doing.
When i saw them on their first ever gigs with out Hugh i among lots of others in the audience I had the biggest WTF moment ever and one i live with today. One thing i am certain about, if it had been different i am pretty sure Hugh and the band would have reformed for the odd live performances and tours and continue as separate entities as well.

I cant always take what JJ says as gospel before or after an event i always watch his actions and his behaviour to get to the bottom or nearer to the truth. I don't fall for his explanation its a wind up when he's caught out.

[Arthur Streeb-Greebling]

2 Tits in a Pan with some Peas.
Lovely stuff.

[ThinkTank]

I would think he meant he was nothing like an "Original" Strangler he's "stage "actions", Singing ,"Looks", "Song writing", "Voice", "Attitude" , "philosophy" "abilities! and Stage presence were nothing like the original Stranglers. It just shows by JJ's words how he would put up with just about any replacement and carry on regardless as the Stranglers when Hugh was replaced just because it was easier and guaranteed success as some of the old original fans would put up regardless too.

Paul was so different then, JJ for artistic reasons and for credibility should have started another band with Paul and the other members like John,Jet and Dave.

I wonder if they would have been successful as a new band?

Well Paul has an interesting and a very good voice on record anyway. I just thought live he tried far too hard to look and sound how he thought he should rather than just be himself and let the music do the talking so he very much acted how he thought a rock star should act (maybe some of his heroes) which looked far too over the top and false for a band like The Stranglers.

I do ask myself your question all the time and i think its possible as i think JJ would have been more focused with enthusiasm as his reputation would be on the line and would be excited about the prospect of a fresh new sound and possibilities all of his own doing.
When i saw them on their first ever gigs with out Hugh i among lots of others in the audience I had the biggest WTF moment ever and one i live with today. One thing i am certain about, if it had been different i am pretty sure Hugh and the band would have reformed for the odd live performances and tours and continue as separate entities as well.

I cant always take what JJ says as gospel before or after an event i always watch his actions and his behaviour to get to the bottom or nearer to the truth. I don't fall for his explanation its a wind up when he's caught out.

Also I meant to add that Hugh always suggested that the name "The Stranglers" always worked against them for what they were trying to achieve outside the punk arena even though it was very successful career . That's not my opinion by the way though but I do appreciate that it could be, so another reason the success could have followed as another band.

[jason]

Yes I definitely don't think the name the Stranglers wasn't probably the best commercial decision but it certainly suited their early image and music. Maybe they could have been massive worldwide with a different name or certainly even more successful?

[theraven1979]

Yeah would have helped I reckon but there was no way JJ would have taken that risk. His attack on JE in his book makes him look worse imo. Apart from the money grabbing thing a lot of what is written about JE you kinda think "yeah standard rock n roll shit"


Jim

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

[Waffle waitress]

Yeah would have helped I reckon but there was no way JJ would have taken that risk. His attack on JE in his book makes him look worse imo. Apart from the money grabbing thing a lot of what is written about JE you kinda think "yeah standard rock n roll shit"


Jim

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

I thought JJs point was JE was supposed to be representing The Stranglers, not just a standard rock band.

[Waffle waitress]

A few of the instances mentioned were JE being at least unsociable, if nor just nasty, to fans?

[jetblacksdad]

I spoke with JE a couple of times and he was very pleasant. Not an exuberant chap perhaps but a decent sort.
No idea what JJ says about him as I have no interest in the book, but from other bits n pieces it won't be positive will it?

[jason]

I always presumed they got on well because they worked together before on a couple of projects. I haven't got the book yet.

[theraven1979]

Why do you have no interest in the book?

Jim

I spoke with JE a couple of times and he was very pleasant. Not an exuberant chap perhaps but a decent sort.
No idea what JJ says about him as I have no interest in the book, but from other bits n pieces it won't be positive will it?

[jetblacksdad]

Why do you have no interest in the book?

Jim

I spoke with JE a couple of times and he was very pleasant. Not an exuberant chap perhaps but a decent sort.
No idea what JJ says about him as I have no interest in the book, but from other bits n pieces it won't be positive will it?

It hasn't grabbed me and I fear that the stories have all been told before. Plus I've got loads of books to get through!