Should bands (in name) carry on after large lineup changes?

[Twincam]

Inspired by a post I wrote in the for sale section. Where I said basically I'm a fan of Big Country and support the band carrying on but when your lineup has changed by at least 50% and you sound nothing like the original, then really you should be thinking of changing your name. I love the fact groups carry on but really your not such and such anymore your a tribute act. And I would say that with massive respect, it's just how I honestly feel.

I'm not talking about certain bands/groups that have always had a revolving door from the get go. Or bands who have had to change one member. But the bands that made it and were together for a significant time you would say there is a classic line up, then you look at the new lineup and think "nope".

I'm actually in two minds about what I've said because in a way if there's at least one original member and your in the spirit of something you can't get anymore (live) then surely it's a good thing.
Then I think well your not such and such and you don't sound anything like the original either so really your kinda trading off the good name of others (not in a bad way).

[CamdenRob]

Given that playing live (especially with a name behind you) is pretty much the only avenue left to make money from original music, I expect remaining members of pretty much any band would keep going as long as possible whatever the lineup.

But yes it's a fair point... If a band contains no original members, it's pretty much a tribute of the original.

[TheGreek]

I can think of a number of bands which split thus having two, three sometimes even four Bands using the same name. Not sure it's the public that benefit from this.

[Twincam]

[quote name='CamdenRob' timestamp='1464785522' post='3062479']
Given that playing live (especially with a name behind you) is pretty much the only avenue left to make money from original music, I expect remaining members of pretty much any band would keep going as long as possible whatever the lineup.

But yes it's a fair point... If a band contains no original members, it's pretty much a tribute of the original.
[/quote]

I think it's unfair to suggest it's for the money as I'm sure for many it's the love of music. Or am I nieve there.

What if it does have half or less original members though? Adding the sound has changed so much they sound nothing like the original?

[Mykesbass]

Think you already have your own doubts, biggest being where do you draw the line? Yes, Deep Purple, Fleetwood Mac have all got huge fan bases for their different line ups. Then there are some bands who keep the line up bit go completely off piste, and yet remain the same band - Commodore, ByrdS, Status Quo...

[discreet]

If it's a famous name that has sold a lot of records over decades then that name has a current value which can be calculated to the decimal point. No-one in their right mind is going to give that up for a moral principle or some half-baked idea of 'respect' for the brand.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1464785817' post='3062485']
If it's a famous name that has sold a lot of records over decades then that name has a current value which can be calculated to the decimal point. No-one in their right mind is going to give that up for a moral principle or some half-baked idea of 'respect' for the brand.
[/quote]

No, not at all. But as an audience we can decide whether or not to go an see a band based on who is still in the line-up. I think you have to take every case on its individual merits, but IMO once the main creative force(s) and focal point(s) of the band (not always the same people) have gone the are unlikely to be worth my time as a live act any more.

A case in point is one of my favourite bands - The Pretty Things. The line up has changed massively over the years and the only constant member has been singer and lyricist Phil May. The currently gigging line-up includes original guitarist Dick Taylor and three new members (although one of those has been in the live band for over 20 years now!) and consequently the set draws on the material recorded before 1969 when Taylor left the band. I was lucky enough to be able to have a brief chat with Phil May after one of their 50th Anniversary gigs and asked what the chances were of seeing them play some of their 70s material, to which he replied it would be very unlikely without a line-up containing more of the people who played on those recordings than just him. That IMO is the proper way to do it.

Edited June 1, 2016 by BigRedX

[RhysP]

[quote name='TheGreek' timestamp='1464785602' post='3062481']
I can think of a number of bands which split thus having two, three sometimes even four Bands using the same name. Not sure it's the public that benefit from this.
[/quote]

Then it's up to the public to vote with their feet & wallets.
If they're willing to keep paying to see these bands then you can't blame the bands for cashing in.

Edited June 1, 2016 by RhysP

[Dad3353]

Does the London Symphony Orchestra count in the 'revolving door' category..? Or maybe it's the conductor that carries the renown..? Why should rock bands be different..? Should the Beatles have stopped when Macca died..?

[r16ktx]

The band name is a brand name, so is Apple not Apple without Jobs (and/or Wozniak), in which case it would have had to flip from Apple to Not Apple and back over time. As regards sounding different that is something that happens over time anyway as in the first time the original Big Country lineup played together would not sound like the last

[Dad3353]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1464786680' post='3062503']... The Pretty Things...
[/quote]

Ah, Twink..! He's unlikely to be able to clamber to the top of the PA to mime jumping off any more..! Fond memories, heady daze...

[EliasMooseblaster]

Arguably the other factor is how important a given member is to the original lineup. We're playing a festival this summer at which the headliners are Dr Feelgood. Trouble is, this will be Dr Feelgood without Lee Brilleaux or Wilko - with no disrespect to Sparko and John Martin, would it still really feel like "Dr Feelgood" without its distinctive frontman and guitarist?

(It's a moot point in any case, as I gather none of the current members were in the original lineup!)

My own personal favourites (The Who) are a particularly good case study in which changing any one band member completely changes the sound and dynamic of the band - the two studio albums following Moon's demise demonstrated this amply, and even after the Ox sadly left us, it's clear their live sound is not the same (despite Pino's sterling efforts).

On the other hand, "Hawkwind" is now just Dave Brock plus some younger guys. Some people don't feel like it's really Hawkwind any more; some other people insist that Dave Brock [i]is [/i]Hawkwind.

Anyone else noticed how Malcolm Young's once bemoaned departure from AC/DC has been completely overshadowed by the replacement of Brian Johnson with Axl Rose?

In short...I think it's a case-by-case thing!

[discreet]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1464786808' post='3062508']
Should the Beatles have stopped when Macca died..?
[/quote]

[TimR]

[quote name='r16ktx' timestamp='1464786839' post='3062509']
The band name is a brand name, so is Apple not Apple without Jobs (and/or Wozniak), in which case it would have had to flip from Apple to Not Apple and back over time. As regards sounding different that is something that happens over time anyway as in the first time the original Big Country lineup played together would not sound like the last
[/quote]

Precisely. It's a financial entity. It's the Music Business.

Many companies change over time, some diversify into other products. If they have customers who have brand loyalty it would be odd to throw away your most valuable asset.

.

[Twincam]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1464786808' post='3062508']
Does the London Symphony Orchestra count in the 'revolving door' category..? Or maybe it's the conductor that carries the renown..? Why should rock bands be different..? Should the Beatles have stopped when Macca died..?
[/quote]

The thing is though orchestras play the exact same thing near enough, notes, timing etc since they were invented. An orchestra is made to play original pieces pretty much exactly as intended. The original composer written the piece for any orchestra to play.
The conductor be it someone else or the original composer only has so much say from what is written. Where other music has many more variables.
Not saying classic music is boring or doesn't have a difference between conductors or orchestras as it does but it does have less variables despite having more people playing the piece.

[discreet]

[quote name='Twincam' timestamp='1464788588' post='3062544']
The thing is though orchestras play the exact same thing near enough, notes, timing etc since they were invented. An orchestra is made to play original pieces pretty much exactly as intended.
[/quote]

Orchestras are actually covers bands!

Edited June 1, 2016 by discreet

[Twincam]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1464788124' post='3062538']


Precisely. It's a financial entity. It's the Music Business.

Many companies change over time, some diversify into other products. If they have customers who have brand loyalty it would be odd to throw away your most valuable asset.

.
[/quote]

The thing is this. Companies launch brand new products they are not trying to copy the original models, they evolve naturally. Where a band with only so many original members doing the old songs is trying to be pretty much like the original as that is what people want.

So that argument doesn't not apply. You could apply it to fender etc whom are doing original models but are different ownership but even then they are keeping to pretty much the exact formula and trying to keep the tradition and history close to there hearts. The product hasn't changed even though manufacturing techniques are totally different.
Again in music this can not apply people have more variables if they sounded pretty much the same it might be better or ok but they don't, they but there own stamp on it changing the original to much that in the end they sound a covers band.

[troubadour]

Interesting one for me was the reformed Magic Band John French put together. It contained various former members, and loosely associated musicians, spanning the years - many of whom would not have played together originally. Still great fun though!

[chris_b]

Why do fans think that a band should be fixed in time and that they all should just stop playing if the band line up changes?

I saw the Four Tops and Temptations at Wembley Arena and it was a great night, in spite of there being only one original member in each band. And the Commodores without Lionel Ritchie is still a band worth going to see.

Little Feat, Pink Floyd, Genesis and many more carried on after loosing a leading band member and reinvented themselves. IMO those 3 bands are just as good as the bands they evolved from. Dave Gilmour has been touring and playing Comfortable Numb. Does that make him a tribute act?

The opinions of the band quite rightly outweighs the opinions of the fans. If a band carries on after line up changes and remains a good band then there is no problem.

[Cato]

I think the Temptations may have taken things a bit further than most.

I heard an interview with them around Christmas and got the impression that there are no original members in the current line up and there hasn't been for a good few years.

It's a kind of immortality in a way. The name of the group and the songs could pontentially live forever.

Edit: Just checked their wiki page and apparently Otis Williams has been in from the beginning, although I'd swear in the interview I heard they said there were no original members performing on the current tour, so maybe he doesn't do all the live dates, or maybe I dreamt it.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Cato

[chris_b]

This was in 2009. The original guy did come on stage with a walking stick, so I suppose it's entirely possible he has passed on by now.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1464789829' post='3062562']
Why do fans think that a band should be fixed in time and that they all should just stop playing if the band line up changes?
[/quote]

No, not at all, a new line-up with new material that reflects the current composition of the band is a good thing. I think what both myself and the OP object to is bands that become "Triggers Broom" and continue to just live in a past that few of the current line-up have any real connection to.

[RockfordStone]

bands are quite often a revolving door. my view is that as long as there is a core of a band left, like one or two of the founding and writing members crack on.

the only time this doesnt apply of course, is if a massively key cog or massive character in the band leaves... for example, queen without freddy mercury is almost a parody of itself now, and thin lizzy without phil to me isn't thin lizzy.

but then it is all opinion really, some people may prefer new line ups to older ones. at the end of the day it's all about the music.

Edited June 1, 2016 by RockfordStone

[chris_b]

As I said, it's their decision.

I saw the Animals a few years ago and the only original member was John Steele, the drummer. They did a great show that consisted of hits so they were exactly what this thread is opposing. It was a great night and they did the songs and memories proud. It didn't matter one bit that the others had moved on.

[sykilz]

I think if the new guys have recorded and released music with the band, that helps validate the line up, I'm thinking Alice in Chains, a fave of mine, through tragedy have only two of the original four, including the very distinctive vocals of Layne, but the new singer has recorded some decent albums with the band IMO, and live he manages to nail the older material and sound as near to Layne as possible without mimicking him, again, IMO.

Edited June 1, 2016 by sykilz