should bands carry on when there's only one original member?

[Woodinblack]

12 hours ago, peteb said:

I believe that Gene Simmons used to talk about KISS operating as a franchise with others assuming their characters when he & Stanley finally retired. But really, with the growth of tribute bands, what would be the point?? 

Money. More people are going to see a tribute band called Kiss and pay more money to do so, than going to see a kiss tribute band with a different name. Same sort of thing with Yes, they are fundamentally a Yes tribute band but they probably get more money because of the name.

As I noted in an earlier point somewhere, i have seen tribute bands (at the time it was pink floyd, but it goes for others) who are easily better than the group themselves, but they don't have the name. In fact this was always my problem with tributes bands, and why I wouldn't really be interested in being in one. Really, to be a decent tribute band you have to be at least a bit better than the original group, but you are still not that original group.

And its why you end up with 3 version of popular old bands but with the name of the backing singer or triangle player in front of the name.

[Woodinblack]

10 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Boss of Ryan Air, the airline that charges you extra for everything. In case of an emergency a mask drops down and a sign lights up saying 'Insert 1 euro in slot for 5 minutes oxygen'.

Note for blue - this is an exaggeration to prove a point of course, there is no way you would get the full 5 minutes for that!

[peteb]

1 hour ago, Woodinblack said:

Money. More people are going to see a tribute band called Kiss and pay more money to do so, than going to see a kiss tribute band with a different name. Same sort of thing with Yes, they are fundamentally a Yes tribute band but they probably get more money because of the name.

As I noted in an earlier point somewhere, i have seen tribute bands (at the time it was pink floyd, but it goes for others) who are easily better than the group themselves, but they don't have the name. In fact this was always my problem with tributes bands, and why I wouldn't really be interested in being in one. Really, to be a decent tribute band you have to be at least a bit better than the original group, but you are still not that original group.

And its why you end up with 3 version of popular old bands but with the name of the backing singer or triangle player in front of the name.

Yes, I'm sure that it would generate money in the short term. My point is that there will be a very sharp rate of diminishing returns as the official tribute band has to compete directly with the many other very good tributes out there. The drummer in one of my bands is a big Kiss fan and paid a fortune for two tickets for the farewell tour. I'm sure that he would be interested in an official tribute tour, but there's no way he would pay anything like the same amount and he would expect a similar show. 

There's also the point of the legacy of a band like Kiss, which I'm sure will be a big thing for Simmons and Stanley. Like them or not, Kiss have a big place in American rock & roll history. I don't think that they would want to undermine that. Look at the impact that Led Zep had when they announced a one off reunion gig. That comes from them never having done anything to tarnish their legacy. 

[12stringbassist]

Kiss could license the name Kiss to a band to perform using the name, but it wouldn't be Kiss. Not by a long way. They'd probably have to call it THE KISS SHOW. I could never see the show being staged like an actual Kiss show.

I haven't read mention of Thin Lizzy without Phil Lynott.
Scott Gorham said it felt wrong for it to continue with the Lizzy name after a while.

Slade have been continuing without Noddy Holder and Jim Lea since 1992.
In the world of Slade fans, this causes either much controversy or delight.

Some guys I used to be in a band with joined up with some other guys who had bought the name of a 60's chart band, (who were long defunct) for a couple of grand. The funniest thing I have ever heard is them announcing "This was our big hit in 1965" or whatever, then doing a hatchet job on it. It's a way to make living, I suppose - playing to people who have no clue about the original bands in social clubs and on holiday camp weekend bashes.

Edited September 29, 2019 by 12stringbassist

[Woodinblack]

8 hours ago, 12stringbassist said:

Kiss could license the name Kiss to a band to perform using the name, but it wouldn't be Kiss. Not by a long way. They'd probably have to call it THE KISS SHOW. I could never see the show being staged like an actual Kiss show.

I am sure it would be - if that is what is in the name. Bet it would sell. It is a business rather than a show to Mr Simmons, he is all about the franchising.

8 hours ago, 12stringbassist said:

I haven't read mention of Thin Lizzy without Phil Lynott.

Scott Gorham said it felt wrong for it to continue with the Lizzy name after a while.

No? They performed quite a lot of Phil Lynotts death.

8 hours ago, 12stringbassist said:

Slade have been continuing without Noddy Holder and Jim Lea since 1992.
In the world of Slade fans, this causes either much controversy or delight.

Thats sad to hear. ie, Slade continuing!

 

[Bluewine]

16 hours ago, prowla said:

Here's one passing down the family...

 

I have no problem with this.

Blue

[dmccombe7]

On 29/09/2019 at 08:12, prowla said:

Here's one passing down the family...

 

Now that works and is very good. Liking that.

Somehow the family link makes it feel right and a good way to go if possible. Not sure how i'd feel if the full original band were replaced by younger family members tho. Not forgetting Tim B Schmit aint the original bass player either but he's probably the more famous one these days.

Edited September 30, 2019 by dmccombe7

[Stub Mandrel]

11 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

Quote

I haven't read mention of Thin Lizzy without Phil Lynott.

Scott Gorham said it felt wrong for it to continue with the Lizzy name after a while.

No? They performed quite a lot of Phil Lynotts death.

Yes, but no new albums. All the new recordings are as Black Star Riders.

[ubit]

On 21/09/2019 at 13:39, ambient said:

UB40 split and became two, as if one wasn’t already too many.

I remember seeing a documentary back when they first started. It was basically because their father was a famous folk singer. Anyway, they said that they were singing for the people and oppression etc. If we ever play love songs then you know we have sold out. I guess they admit they sold out then.

[chris_b]

1 hour ago, ubit said:

. . . .  they said that they were singing for the people and oppression etc. If we ever play love songs then you know we have sold out. I guess they admit they sold out then.

Ah, the silly things kids come out with!

[TimR]

“The Beatles could have made another album” - well, I suppose there’s nothing really stopping them doing one now...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-49991164

[Bassfinger]

Seeing as Lennon had Clapton lined up as a potential replacement for Harrison, perhaps the opposite could now take place - reform Cream, but with Starkey on drums and McCartney on bass.  A sort of semi skimmed Cream?

Edited October 12, 2019 by Bassfinger

[el borracho]

On 29/09/2019 at 11:25, Stub Mandrel said:

Boss of Ryan Air, the airline that charges you extra for everything. In case of an emergency a mask drops down and a sign lights up saying 'Insert 1 euro in slot for 5 minutes oxygen'.

He's called Michael O'Leary. The Ryan Air founder was Tony Ryan who died about 10 years ago. I've made the same mistake before!!

 

[Stub Mandrel]

1 hour ago, el borracho said:

He's called Michael O'Leary. The Ryan Air founder was Tony Ryan who died about 10 years ago. I've made the same mistake before!!

 

I can change his name in my post, but it will cost him £30. Plus VAT, I  am registered.

[prowla]

On 12/10/2019 at 13:43, Bassfinger said:

Seeing as Lennon had Clapton lined up as a potential replacement for Harrison, perhaps the opposite could now take place - reform Cream, but with Starkey on drums and McCartney on bass.  A sort of semi skimmed Cream?

Clotted Cream?

[Stub Mandrel]

2 hours ago, prowla said:

Clotted Cream?

Beatle Juice.

[ubit]

Rainbow is Ritchie Blackmore. Enough said. I went to see them and enjoyed it but there was not one original member apart from old men in  tights himself. Rainbow have changed personnel regularly anyway. 

[4000]

On 29/09/2019 at 13:08, 12stringbassist said:

Kiss could license the name Kiss to a band to perform using the name, but it wouldn't be Kiss. Not by a long way. They'd probably have to call it THE KISS SHOW. I could never see the show being staged like an actual Kiss show.

I haven't read mention of Thin Lizzy without Phil Lynott.
Scott Gorham said it felt wrong for it to continue with the Lizzy name after a while.

Slade have been continuing without Noddy Holder and Jim Lea since 1992.
In the world of Slade fans, this causes either much controversy or delight.

Some guys I used to be in a band with joined up with some other guys who had bought the name of a 60's chart band, (who were long defunct) for a couple of grand. The funniest thing I have ever heard is them announcing "This was our big hit in 1965" or whatever, then doing a hatchet job on it. It's a way to make living, I suppose - playing to people who have no clue about the original bands in social clubs and on holiday camp weekend bashes.

John Sykes said he didn't believe there could be a Lizzy without Phil. 

[MacDaddy]

W.A.S.P. are touring this year. As Blackie Lawless is W.A.S.P., him being the only original member isn't really a problem.

[Lozz196]

22 minutes ago, MacDaddy said:

W.A.S.P. are touring this year. As Blackie Lawless is W.A.S.P., him being the only original member isn't really a problem.

I might well go to one of those, loved W.A.S.P. back in the day.

[Billy Apple]

24 minutes ago, MacDaddy said:

W.A.S.P. are touring this year. As Blackie Lawless is W.A.S.P., him being the only original member isn't really a problem.

I’d beg to differ. I think Chris Holmes is pretty integral to the WASP schizzle

[Woodinblack]

33 minutes ago, MacDaddy said:

W.A.S.P. are touring this year. As Blackie Lawless is W.A.S.P., him being the only original member isn't really a problem.

My wife met blackie lawless (who she knew) in a bar in LA with a woman. She said 'Hi Blackie, its nice you are bringing your daughter out'. Apparently he didn't find it funny

 

[MacDaddy]

18 minutes ago, Billy Apple said:

I’d beg to differ. I think Chris Holmes is pretty integral to the WASP schizzle

I dunno. Another guitarist playing his guitar parts, doesn't make as much difference as say, another guitarist playing Richie Sambora's part in what's left of Bon Jovi. IMO.

[prowla]

On 28/12/2019 at 12:53, ubit said:

Rainbow is Ritchie Blackmore. Enough said. I went to see them and enjoyed it but there was not one original member apart from old men in  tights himself. Rainbow have changed personnel regularly anyway. 

They were really Dio's backing band.

[Bassfinger]

On 29/09/2019 at 13:08, 12stringbassist said:

Kiss could license the name Kiss to a band to perform using the name, but it wouldn't be Kiss. Not by a long way. They'd probably have to call it THE KISS SHOW. I could never see the show being staged like an actual Kiss show.

I haven't read mention of Thin Lizzy without Phil Lynott.
Scott Gorham said it felt wrong for it to continue with the Lizzy name after a while.

Slade have been continuing without Noddy Holder and Jim Lea since 1992.
In the world of Slade fans, this causes either much controversy or delight.

Some guys I used to be in a band with joined up with some other guys who had bought the name of a 60's chart band, (who were long defunct) for a couple of grand. The funniest thing I have ever heard is them announcing "This was our big hit in 1965" or whatever, then doing a hatchet job on it. It's a way to make living, I suppose - playing to people who have no clue about the original bands in social clubs and on holiday camp weekend bashes.

Thin Lizzy is a case in point.  Even worse than simply carrying on, Lynott had called time on the band and it had folded, so it wasn't even a continuation effort with simply less one more member.  I'm a big TL fan myself and can't help thinking the revival without Phil was nothing more than an attempt to milk money out of the name of the act while they still could.