General Music Chat

This may seem weird but if you think of a band as a base ball team or a business sometimes the players change but the name stays the same.

As long as there is one member of the original lineup in the roster I think they should be able to continue carrying on with the band name. These guys invested their lives and talents in these entitys and should be able to make a living as such.

Just a different point of view.

The only band mentioned that I've listened to is Queen with Paul Rogers. I was a huge Queen fan when I was a teenager and into my early twenties. I had every album. IMO Queen with Paul Rogers is really Bad Company with Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon. A number of years ago I saw a concert of Queen on TV with George Michael filling in for the deceased Freddie Mercury. George did a much better job than Paul Rogers IMO. THAT sounded much more like Queen. Not that I like Michael, I don't, but I was surprised what a good job he did.

Well I read through the postings, and let's just say I seriously beg to differ with some peoples opinions here and leave it at that

This may seem weird but if you think of a band as a base ball team or a business sometimes the players change but the name stays the same.

As long as there is one member of the original lineup in the roster I think they should be able to continue carrying on with the band name. These guys invested their lives and talents in these entitys and should be able to make a living as such.

Just a different point of view.

To show this a little. A few months ago on another forum I saw ads for some of Robert Fripps guitars. Robert played in King Crimson for those who dont know. Anyway I went to the site and Fripp wrote that he was selling gear to make ends meet. King Crimson I always considered to be on the level of Yes or others of that era. Its scary a guy of that stature was reduced to selling guitars to pay his bills.

I just think players in these great bands should be allowed to continue on without all the original players. Bands like Zep shouldnt need the money, they play I think cause they feel the need for the applause.

That being said I dont know if I would pay to see Zep with another singer other than Plant, I dont even know if I would pay the price to see them with Cornell. It would be interesting cause when I originally heard Louder Than Love by SoundGarden I thought that Cornell sounded as close to Plant as any other male singer Ive ever heard. Maybe Zep should contact a female singer such as Ann Wilson or Gretchen Wilson to fill the spot to have a little different angle on things.

Still I think as a fan we shouldnt slam bands for trying to carry on after theyeve invested their lives in a band.

Well stated, Sentient,

I still have to take issue with you regarding Led Zeppelin being little more then a bar band. (by the way, I like bar bands, I've been in lots of them)

Led Zeppelin' was pivotal in the transformation of radio as we knew it in the 60's, to the concept of AOR (album oriented rock) which was a breath of fresh air to most of us at the dawn of the 70's.

The Zep pioneered the large concert venue, with their assosiation with Shoco, spawning a whole new level of live performance.

I was never a big Zeppelin fan after their first couple of albums, but I just want to offer some historical perspective .
Those guys contributed much. Bar band? No way.


Back on topic,
I always liked the way Clapton's carear went down. Ive been listening to him from his playin' with Powerhouse, Yardbirds, Mayall, Cream, Blind Faith, Derik & the Dominoes, etc. etc , up to the present. He never found the need to bill himself behind any legendary band, and he was in a lot of them.

I do see the logic in keeping a well established name if a performer was integral to the group from its early days, if it means it will keep them working. From a listeners point of view, however, the resurrected band should be performing on the same level as the original version.
later
HJ

Howlin,

I was just thining that if I was the bass player is some former super star band and the rest of the guys didnt want to play. I think I should still be able to tour under the name provided the other members didnt mind and not get slapped so hard. Building a musical career is tough work and a lot of players step out of a successful band and basically have to start over.

Locally on my level I was faced with this. Every thing I got involved in was started at the bottom. When our old group got back together it helped cause a lot of people, fans and club owners remember the name some fondly and some not so fondly, but they remember.

Im not saying the big acts should be on the level they were at one time, just that they should be able to make a living under the name that they built their name with. Its up to the people that go to decide what they think or not. We as listners have to decide what its worth to us.

Also some of the best bands have off nights. I think of Aerosmith in the 70s they were horrible in my opinion, but when I saw them in the 90s they were brilliant. Theres nothing like a sober original lineup in my opinion.

Not meaning to diss anyone here cause what difference does it make, but it makes me sad to see former greats that I loved growing up having problems paying their bills. Around 15 yrs ago we did a gig in a small club in my area, the next night Foghat was playing, I came back and thought they were awesome, the same venue had Molly Hatchet a couple of weeks later and we watched Danny Joe put on a girdle in the parking lot to hold his gut in. The guitarist in that band were awesome, his voice had lost something but I still enjoyed the show. The crazy thing is that our little band outdrew both of these former greats, so I guess the law of the jungle determines a bands fortunes.

Steppenwolf toured w/out John Kay - I didn't bother to go. He's back, now, & I'd go.

If Jethro Tull toured w/out Ian Anderson, I wouldn't bother. Yes w/out Jon Anderson? That's real iffy for me. Queen with Paul Rogers? I'd go cuz I already know how great he is as a singer, & how great the band is, musically, but I wouldn't expect to hear the same "Queen" sound at all.

If the missing members are alive & capable, they should still use them if they're gonna keep the same name, imo. But, if they choose not to, like Floyd did when Waters left, sometimes I'd still go, & sometimes I wouldn't. Depends on the band, & my expectations. Still, all in all, they are NOT the same band as the one that recorded their songs. Let's face it.

On the other hand, as JW pointed out, these bands would probably sell very few tickets if they had to change their names.

In the end, the meat of this thread is very similar to the one that asked if the production should mirror the live performance. Trading off key band members, or trading off great productions in the studio for a rawer live sound, means that the band will NOT be what you may expect when you buy the tickets. Only the listeners & critics will tell if it will work out in the end. It has for some, like Genesis & Van Halen. Others haven't been quite so successful, like Deep Purple.

I didn't even know at the time about George Michaels doing it.

You don't wanna know lol
Oh cmon it was funny!

Sentiant,
Seems to me that we actually share similar opinions of Led Zeppelin.

Back on topic.

This thread has got got me thinkin' ,

When I seen "Squeeze" some years back, One of my favorite keyboard players at that time, Jules Holland, had been replaced by the guy that played in the band "Ace" (They had the hit song "How long has this been going on") I must admit, I enjoyed Squeeze's performance just the same without Jules. They even covered the big Ace tune, which sounded great live, even though I never cared for it that much.

Another case,
I really liked the band "Sparks" in the early 70's. After checking out some of their videos on You Tube that they produced over the years, I was surprised at how long they managed to keep their act together. The only continuity with the early band that I recalled in the early days were the two brothers, Ron (keyboards) and Russel (vocals). They successfully retained the essence of the group while continuously evolving musically and changing personnel.

Yet another case.
I liked the British band "The Honeycombs" in the early 60's. They had a big hit with "Have I the Right" in the States, and featured one of the first girl drummers to play in a big name, otherwise male dominated, rock band. Her name was Honey Langtree, and I recall having a teenage crush on her.
After the group pretty much ran it's course, some of the original members continued to use the name, even though they had very little of the dynamics of the original group that I respected. In this case, I think they should have retired the name The Honeycombs after Honey was out of the band,even though others in the group, as well as their producer Joe Meek, were major contributors of their sound and success. (this is obviously personal opinion on my part)

Last but not least,
On a local level, I have resurrected the name of the first successful band that I was in in the 60's (The Lost Minds) in the 80's , even though these bands had nothing in common. I am considering retaining the name "The Gin House Rockers" for my next project, even though I have used it twice before. Sometimes it seems that its just a matter of liking the name.
(I think Shredd 6's old band name "One Day Broken" is one of the best names that I ever heard.I'd keep that one in my hip pocket for possible future use if I were him. Again, just a matter of personal opinnion, I guess.)

There doesn't seem to be a general answer to "Tuxedo Cat Sings" original query. As J.W. rightly pointed out "What Difference doe's it make".
The subject has got me thinkin', however, and I have enjoyed the debate.
later
Howlin'

Howlin',

You sold me. The guy from Ace was Paul Carrack, right? Wow, what an amazing vocalist. I guess that if the spirit of the band is still there, then, for the most part, it's cool. I would pay to see it.

Also, when you get down to personal band names, I've been holding onto "The Suspicions" for some time-even though there have been two previous incarnations of said band. I have every intention of using that name again.

Fact is, there is a demand for bands that have a catalog, organisations set up with the skills to produce an arena show that fans will pay to see. Life goes on, the players need to work, do you stop your life because you lose a bandmate?

I come from a jazz background, though I play r&r today. The Dizzy Gillespie All stars is out there, as is The Duke Ellington Orchestra, and The Count Basie Orchestra. Should this great music, done live, just vanish because their founders are no longer with us?