Members Eye_Of_The_Liger Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 Here's what I mean: Helmet got back together in 2004, but Page Hamilton is the only original member. To me that's a little weird. Even though he's sticking pretty closely to the the musical vision of Helmet, their new album just doesn't quite capture the same vibe that "Meantime" had, and it's because the original members aren't there, IMHO. The members of Led Zeppelin have not released any material under the name Led Zeppelin since John Bonham died, understandably. The music just isn't the same with anyone else. So what does a band name represent? Is it nothing more than just a name given to a certain group of people who get together to play music, or is it representative of a musical vision? If the members of Metallica decided to put out a bluegrass album, that would be funny, but they couldn't release it under the name Metallica, because that's not what "Metallica" is all about. On the other hand, what would happen if James, Lars, or Kirk left the band for one reason or another (especially James)? Would it be Metallica still? I guess it's a little of both, but in different proportions, depending on the band. Just thinking out loud about an interesting observation... So what about your band(s)? What would happen if one of the members left, or the musical style of the band suddenly were to evolve from the original musical vision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 Originally posted by Eye_Of_The_Liger Here's what I mean:Helmet got back together in 2004, but Page Hamilton is the only original member. To me that's a little weird. Even though he's sticking pretty closely to the the musical vision of Helmet, their new album just doesn't quite capture the same vibe that "Meantime" had, and it's because the original members aren't there, IMHO. The members of Led Zeppelin have not released any material under the name Led Zeppelin since John Bonham died, understandably. The music just isn't the same with anyone else. So what does a band name represent? Is it nothing more than just a name given to a certain group of people who get together to play music, or is it representative of a musical vision? If the members of Metallica decided to put out a bluegrass album, that would be funny, but they couldn't release it under the name Metallica, because that's not what "Metallica" is all about. On the other hand, what would happen if James, Lars, or Kirk left the band for one reason or another (especially James)? Would it be Metallica still?I guess it's a little of both, but in different proportions, depending on the band.Just thinking out loud about an interesting observation... So what about your band(s)? What would happen if one of the members left, or the musical style of the band suddenly were to evolve from the original musical vision? Since I used my own name, I guess for me it would be the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SanDiego333 Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 I think it can come from any combination of those... vision....members...a dream...whatever. But, if they hit the big time...it's mostly ALL about the name and it's monetary value. You telling me that original singer Mike Love and long time side-kick Bruce Johnston are "The Beach Boys"?! Dude, it's two old {censored}ers and a bunch of kids! That's an extreme example from way back, but come on.... you sell 50 gazillion records and still use the name after two of the founding members are dead (Dennis and Carl Wilson), the primary songwriter (Brian Wilson) is solo, and the other founding member (Al Jardine...or David Marks...depending on your point of view) are pursuing other interests.... People pay the $50 a seat because "We're going to go see the Beach Boys!!!" No, you are going to go see a bar band with the Beach Boys' singer. Bad Company without Paul Rodgers? Queen without Freddie Mercury? INXS.....etc., etc. But check the bank they're making. I'm not suggesting that these people are not good, I'm just saying...if I pay 300 or 500 bucks for a ticket to "The Beatles"...all four of those {censored}ers better show up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Picker Posted February 2, 2006 Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 lol.... More often than not the Record company owns the right to the name so they can call whoever they want by the band name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Eye_Of_The_Liger Posted February 2, 2006 Author Members Share Posted February 2, 2006 I'm thinking less of the financial/buisness aspect of it, and more in terms of the deeper philosophical aspect of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members brassic Posted February 3, 2006 Members Share Posted February 3, 2006 Originally posted by SanDiego333 if I pay 300 or 500 bucks for a ticket to "The Beatles"...all four of those {censored}ers better show up! Thanks for the biggest laugh I've had all week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members woodsmandan Posted February 3, 2006 Members Share Posted February 3, 2006 Originally posted by Eye_Of_The_Liger I'm thinking less of the financial/buisness aspect of it, and more in terms of the deeper philosophical aspect of it. i believe there is always a "core" of one or more people in a band that ARE the band...AC/DC survived loosing Bon Scott because the core was the Young brothers...Van Halen the same...You would never buy a Metallica without James or Lars...but admit that Kirk woul easily be a disposable hero (sorry, i'm tired ) But when the "core" is gone, you can talk about selling a name...Pink Floyd anyone ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SanDiego333 Posted February 3, 2006 Members Share Posted February 3, 2006 How about when most of the members are still there, but one is gone...AKA Jim Morrison or similar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members woodsmandan Posted February 3, 2006 Members Share Posted February 3, 2006 Originally posted by SanDiego333 How about when most of the members are still there, but one is gone...AKA Jim Morrison or similar... in my world renowned "core theory"...core can be one or more band members...it can even be a mascot...can Iron-Maiden exist without Eddie??? so in that case, Morrisson is core enough to call the new-doors-of the-30th-century-raiders-of-the-lost-ark-in-the-storm complete sell-outs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LeftyDan Posted February 3, 2006 Members Share Posted February 3, 2006 our band name's a bit of an odd parody, sounding heavy metal (we think) but being funny at the same time. our name's lisdexia, a Dislexic's (no offence to any dislexic's or people who know dislexics, ) way to pronounce his disorder. i don't really know if anyone else is gonna find that funny, but we like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members woodsmandan Posted February 3, 2006 Members Share Posted February 3, 2006 Originally posted by LeftyDan our band name's a bit of an odd parody, sounding heavy metal (we think) but being funny at the same time. our name's lisdexia, a Dislexic's (no offence to any dislexic's or people who know dislexics, ) way to pronounce his disorder. i don't really know if anyone else is gonna find that funny, but we like it. I like it ! ...i'm putting together a 80's metal cover band on the parody side that is going to be called Headless Metal Hairs...kind of dyslexic way of sayn Hairless Metal Heads (cauze our hais is shorter and thinner than they were in the 80's...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RockGirl Posted February 5, 2006 Members Share Posted February 5, 2006 I agree with you for the most part SanDiego333 but in the case of INXS their singer died and they replaced him. All the other members are original so why should they change their name? I like the way they found a new lead singer. They did up front and in the public eye in a unique way and they let their fans help influence their decision to a cretain extent as well. They could have held private auditions but didn't and I admire them for going about it the way they did. They are not trying to say JD is Michael in any way and that is what I respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SanDiego333 Posted February 5, 2006 Members Share Posted February 5, 2006 Originally posted by RockGirl I agree with you for the most part SanDiego333 but in the case of INXS their singer died and they replaced him. All the other members are original so why should they change their name? I like the way they found a new lead singer. They did up front and in the public eye in a unique way and they let their fans help influence their decision to a cretain extent as well. They could have held private auditions but didn't and I admire them for going about it the way they did. They are not trying to say JD is Michael in any way and that is what I respect. No disagreement with that. Sure beats the revolving door that is Van Halen / Roth / Hagar / Cherone. And is it just me or is David Lee Roth a bit of a freak show these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Eye_Of_The_Liger Posted February 5, 2006 Author Members Share Posted February 5, 2006 Originally posted by woodsmandan But when the "core" is gone, you can talk about selling a name...Pink Floyd anyone ? That's what bugs me, and sort of what got me started with this thread. Like when Axl Rose "reunited" Guns 'N Roses, yet he's the only original member. God, how pathetic... It's just weird when someone brings back a band, or keeps a band going when more than half of the original members aren't part of it anymore. Sometimes you can get away with it and keep the musical vision largely intact, but other times the music is just too different to be represented by the original bandname. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SpacedCowboy Posted February 5, 2006 Members Share Posted February 5, 2006 For the most part, you're right, SD333...however, there ARE exceptions, rare though they are. For all intents and purposes, Genesis was the vision of Peter Gabriel and to a lesser extent, the guitar work of Steve Hackett...but they sold way more records when Gabriel and Hackett left and Phil Collins took over lead vocals and co-writing duties with Mike Rutherford and Tony Banks. (Yeah, we can all argue all day whether they made BETTER records with the Collins/Rutherford/Banks lineup, but the fact remains.) Another example...Bon Scott. Amazing singer and frontman. I'm sure a lot of folks wrote AC/DC off when he died. But, it wasn't until Brian Johnson stepped in with "Back In Black" that AC/DC really broke through. Of course once again you could argue that AC/DC was on the cusp of their big breakthrough anyway and Brian Johnson was just at the right place at the right time...and anyway if there is one person who "makes" AC/DC, it's Angus, and you'd have a point. But those are the exceptions...nine times out of ten, a certain member or members ARE the band for lack of a better phrase, and when they leave or die, the band just isn't the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RockGirl Posted February 5, 2006 Members Share Posted February 5, 2006 Originally posted by SanDiego333 No disagreement with that. Sure beats the revolving door that is Van Halen / Roth / Hagar / Cherone. And is it just me or is David Lee Roth a bit of a freak show these days? You mean VanHagar? Yeah DavidLR is freak central lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Eye_Of_The_Liger Posted February 6, 2006 Author Members Share Posted February 6, 2006 Last I heard, DLR was a paramedic. Check it out: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138684,00.html "Somebody git me a doctoooooor!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SpacedCowboy Posted February 6, 2006 Members Share Posted February 6, 2006 Doesn't sound too out of place for Diamond Dave...I read in his book "Crazy From The Heat" he was an orderly, or a similar medical assistant in a California hospital when he was a teenager. He talked about removing his rubber gloves (which most of the time were covered in blood) just to take his smoke breaks at 3:00 in the morning. (Anyone who even bothered to read CFTH and sees anything I've gotten wrong, please feel free to correct me.) EDIT: BTW, when did this become the DLR thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members essentialnose Posted February 6, 2006 Members Share Posted February 6, 2006 Look at Deep Purple they dont have one (really original) member left. I like the current line up but of course it sounds nothin like what DP are famous for (hard hittin 70s hard rock if u dont know which u have to have just been born to not) if you remove the difference in sound that Steve Morse on guitar has given them they have changed a lot and as a band moved in a different direction. It is a debatable question if they really are Deep Purple anymore, it just isnt the same (although Ian Gillan can still blast away at 60+) I myself am not sure of the answer myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members essentialnose Posted February 6, 2006 Members Share Posted February 6, 2006 Oh ye I forgot to mentioned when I let my friend listen to DP's new album "rapture of the deep" he thought it was audioslave - another good band to think about in stakes of names (ie rage against the machine anyone?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tunz4all Posted February 7, 2006 Members Share Posted February 7, 2006 Funny, but I JUST HAD this conversation with a fellow band mate last week. I feel that the band and it's 'output' makes the name, more than anything, even tho a clever, well thought-out name that evokes certain images that relate to the band's music, style, etc can certainly help. If you say 'Emerson, Lake, and Palmer', or 'Crosby, Stills & Nash', but for the memorable music they put out, someone may think they are law or accounting firms. If you said 'Beatles' to me pre-1964, can't say that it would evoke any image other than insects, even with the cute spelling. I think one can get away with just about ANY name, particularly these days, especially if you have a hit or 2 to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Eye_Of_The_Liger Posted February 8, 2006 Author Members Share Posted February 8, 2006 Originally posted by essentialnose ...audioslave - another good band to think about in stakes of names (ie rage against the machine anyone?) Great example of what I'm talking about. I was very surprised to hear that Chris Cornell was jamming with the remaining members of RATM before they put out their first album. It didn't make any sense to me at all whatsoever at first, but they managed to pull it off very well. I especially liked the fact that they changed their name, not only because they changed went in a different musical direction due to the vocals, but it acknowledges that RATM can't be RATM without Zach DeLaRocha (sp?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.