Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 50 of 50

Thread: Serious: why didn't these bands change names?

  1. #26
    Member Digital_Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Philly burbs PA
    Posts
    5,395
    I just was thinking that technically speaking Spock's Beard currently only have one original member(Alan). Dave wasn't there from the very beginning and Ryo didn't join until after the first album came out. I'm not saying they should change their name but they lost two key members and now with a different sound(I'm guessing I kind of lost track a long time ago. Lol)it could be argued they are a very different band then they were even five years ago.
    Do not suffer through the game of chance that plays....always doors to lock away your dreams (To Be Over)

  2. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    No one really wanted Fleetwood Mac to retain that name when they became the Hollywood Buckingham Nicks Band

    No one really wanted Black Sabbath to retain that name when Tony was the only original member left

    No one really wanted Bevan to call his version of the band in 1988 ELO Part II (the Part II was legally forced on Bevan by Lynne) just as no one wanted Lynne to use the ELO name when he recorded Zoom.


    Cashing in on a band name is all that seems to matter to some bands.


    But kudos to Black Star Riders for not resurrecting the Thin Lizzy name.
    There is also, however, the value of branding. It's why a festival like the Montreux Jazz Festival, which is far more about other genres now than it is about jazz, doesn't change its name...it's built a brand over decades and to change it now....right though it may by...would be detrimental.

    Yes, it is about the money, but that's not always an unreasonable thing; the truth is that as long as the band still plays the material the fans identify with the brand and are happy (as is often the case), then the majority of these artists are clearly (otherwise they'd be unsuccessful) making the right choice. Not necessarily the moral choice, but if Supertramp were to go on the road as OKTramp, saying "featuring most of Supertramp's original members," they'd not sell as many tickets as they would under the Supertramp moniker.

    Yeah, it's business and about making money. But is it that hard to afford these guys a chance to make some? After all, Yes only has one original member...two from its three largely considered best albums and three who participated in at least some of its classic 1970-77 years. Downes was on only one album and tour 35 years ago; Davison a complete newbie, replacing one of the band's most unique voices (I mean in the broader sense, not just a singer). So, is it a cash grab for Yes to tour as Yes? An argument could be made for answering that with a resoundung "yup!"

    So, while it might seem exactly what it is - about business and money - branding has always been important. And most fans are not like the more expert (and demanding) found here on PE; as long as they get to hear the hits,most won't even know the difference.

  3. #28
    Member at least 100 dead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Treetops High
    Posts
    274
    On the other hand, I'm still pissed they renamed the Polka Tulk Blues Band.

    "Dem Glücklichen legt auch der Hahn ein Ei."

  4. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Lopez View Post
    I find it hard to consider the current Slade without Noddy and Jimmy. Same for Grand Funk with Mark. They'd be playing the Ramada Inn without the name recognition.
    Exactly. Branding. The music business is still a business, after all. Guys like Steven Wilson, who walk away from a band with a brand, and actually do as well are in the minority.

  5. #30
    Isn't that what I said

  6. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Kalamazoo Michigan
    Posts
    9,578
    Quote Originally Posted by 3LockBox View Post
    Fleetwood Mac wasn't exactly a household name back when Buckingham and Nicks joined... but they were afterwards. So if any of the fans of the first or second incarnations stopped buying FM albums they didn't make a dent in sales. Most of the FM fans who came on board after Buckingham/Nicks weren't concerned with the earlier incarnations and few even knew of them before Buckingham/Nicks.

    I'll agree that most of the time though, having one lone band member carrying on a brand is rather lame, when I saw Foghat in the '80s and the only member of the band that had actually been in the band was the drummer or bassist or something. And a couple of years ago the wife and I saw Little River Band at a casino and the only actual member was the lead singer and he wasn't the original, he was only on one or two mid-80s albums.
    I think we have had this discussion before, but along with the monetary aspect it is also about continuity. In the case of all 3 of the bands you mention there was continuity in that the members remaining in the band had been constant members who kept touring and never left. Even with all of the debate among fans of who is the real LRB, the Wayne Nelson version has toured and put out albums ever since he joined. It is the other band members who left. Same is true with Foghat. Roger Earl has never left the band and has toured with them non-stop since the beginning which is why he owns the rights to the name. Fleetwood Mac had Mick Fleetwood and John McVie as constant members.

  7. #32
    Member since 7/13/2000 Hal...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Buckeye Nation
    Posts
    3,584
    Quote Originally Posted by NogbadTheBad View Post
    I'll be the first one to post Fripp changing the name from Discipline back to King Crimson. Personally doesn't bother me at all as I always thought of them as Crimson.

    But as others have said, Money, its all about the Money.
    That's not what Fripp claimed. It was during rehearsals and their first show that he realized Discipline was actually KC. And I'm only going by what he said.

    When I first heard KC4, it was the Three of a Perfect Pair album I borrowed from a friend. After the first 4 songs, I turned it off. As far as I was concerned, that was not KC and I thought it actually sucked. And then, by chance, I happened to hear "Industry" on the local college radio station. I did a complete 180 and went out and bought all three KC4 albums and grew to love them. Still hate the song "Sleepless", tho. My point is I don't have a problem with them using the KC name post Red.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian View Post
    As some have already noted, it's not always even the band's choice. Atlantic talked Cinema + Jon Anderson into using the Yes name, when not everyone in the band (especially Rabin) was keen on the idea.
    I agree. It's not always about the money. John McLaughlin was pressured into using the Mahavishnu name for a couple albums in the 80s. He was opposed but Sony pressured him into it. I speculate there was some sort of compromise because those two albums were "Mahavishnu" albums, not "Mahavishnu Orchestra" albums.
    “From thirty feet away she looked like a lot of class. From ten feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from thirty feet away.” – Philip Marlowe

  8. #33
    As a side note on the (yick!) "branding" issue (I hate when that word is used in reference to music), Ronnie Spector was asked one time she continues to use her ex-husband's surname despite all the shit Phil did to her (he basically beat her on a regular basis and even threatened to kill her if she tried to leave...she and their daughter literally had to sneak out of the house in their bare feet while he was snoozing one afternoon).

    So anyway, she basically said people know who Ronnie Spector is, they know her by that name. If she changed her name again, went back to her maiden name or whatever, nobody would know to connect the "new" name with her work with the Ronettes, etc. She'd literally have to start over as if she was a new artist.

    I remember David Gilmour saying something similar when he put out About Face, his second solo record, after Pink Floyd had apparently bit the dust. I'm betting the relative failure of the About Face album and tour (at least in comparison to how the Floyd records and tours had performed and no doubt how the twats at Columbia was expecting) was a big part of why he reverted to using the band name on his next record.

  9. #34
    ALL ACCESS Gruno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Dio, Alabama
    Posts
    3,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Man View Post
    I just was thinking that technically speaking Spock's Beard currently only have one original member(Alan). Dave wasn't there from the very beginning and Ryo didn't join until after the first album came out. I'm not saying they should change their name but they lost two key members and now with a different sound(I'm guessing I kind of lost track a long time ago. Lol)it could be argued they are a very different band then they were even five years ago.
    …or just progressing, perhaps?

    Do they have to sound the same from album to album in order to retain their band name?

  10. #35
    Studmuffin Scott Bails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Near Philly, PA
    Posts
    6,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Hal... View Post
    I agree. It's not always about the money. John McLaughlin was pressured into using the Mahavishnu name for a couple albums in the 80s. He was opposed but Sony pressured him into it. I speculate there was some sort of compromise because those two albums were "Mahavishnu" albums, not "Mahavishnu Orchestra" albums.
    So...how is that not about the money?
    Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally

  11. #36
    Member since 7/13/2000 Hal...'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Buckeye Nation
    Posts
    3,584
    Because McLaughlin owned the name Mahavishnu and didn't want to use it. If it was about the money he would have used the name without being pressured into it.
    “From thirty feet away she looked like a lot of class. From ten feet away she looked like something made up to be seen from thirty feet away.” – Philip Marlowe

  12. #37
    Studmuffin Scott Bails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Near Philly, PA
    Posts
    6,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Hal... View Post
    Because McLaughlin owned the name Mahavishnu and didn't want to use it. If it was about the money he would have used the name without being pressured into it.
    It was about the money for Sony. And he only did it, then, to please Sony, who no doubt paid him. He could have told Sony "no" and broken his contract.
    Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally

  13. #38
    Member Oreb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    No one really wanted Fleetwood Mac to retain that name when they became the Hollywood Buckingham Nicks Band
    Although to be fair in this case the name derived from two musicians who stayed in the band for all its incarnations.

    It's always seemed to me a striking example of Roger Waters' feral hypocrisy that he whined about the retention of the name Pink Floyd following his departure while seemingly content to keep it after Barrett's burn-out.

    Does it matter that this waste of time is what makes a life for you?

  14. #39
    Pendulumswingingdoomsday Rune Blackwings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Durham NC
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by davis View Post
    doesn't Iomi own the 'black sabbath' name?

    Monster Magnet is Dave Wyndorf and a number of other musicians at various times. French TV is Mike Sary and whoever he has playing on records/touring. no big deal.
    Ironically, Wyndorf was not an original member and Monster Magnet is not the first name. The original members were McBain and Cronin and lord knows what the original name really was, although it seems the popular stories have either Dog of Mystery or Airport 75. The sound was originally about as stoner as you could get: heavy doom avant garde. Wyndorf was one of the musicians that played with them originally and was not even the lead singer at first: Cronin was. Wyndorf became the leader at some point, which was either a hostile take over or a frustrated songwriter deciding to be the boss because no one else was interested in doing it, depending on the version.
    "Alienated-so alien I go!"

  15. #40
    Pendulumswingingdoomsday Rune Blackwings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Durham NC
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitarGeek View Post
    That depends on the outcome of that lawsuit that Sharon brought against Tony a few years back. I forget exactly what happened, but given that Ozzy continues to share the stage with Tony and Geezer, I'm guessing they worked an agreement that was to Sharon's liking.



    But it's mostly the same sound throughout their career, isn't it? I haven't heard much of their recent stuff, but I know the stuff I heard from the 90's, all those records sounded like the same band.
    On Monster Magnet: No. The earlier stuff is very heavy and psychedelic. Wyndorf steered it into hard rock/space rock
    "Alienated-so alien I go!"

  16. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Oreb View Post

    It's always seemed to me a striking example of Roger Waters' feral hypocrisy that he whined about the retention of the name Pink Floyd following his departure while seemingly content to keep it after Barrett's burn-out.
    I think he admitted years later in that one documentary that VH-1 was showing for awhile, that the real reason he was so pissed off was because Pink Floyd were selling out multiple nights in the biggest stadiums in America, while he was struggling to fill theaters and sheds in most cities.

  17. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterG View Post
    But kudos to Black Star Riders for not resurrecting the Thin Lizzy name.
    Well, they went by Thin Lizzy for many years before finally deciding on changing the name.
    I live in an ephemeral eternity

  18. #43
    Pink Floyd, Deep Purple, Trapeze, Capt Beyond, Savoy Brown, Jethro Tull, Freedom's Children, Wall of Voodoo, Argent, Jade Warrior, Roxy Music, Steely Dan, Little Feat, Pretty Things, Procol Harum, Small Faces, James Gang, Camel, Curved Air, Focus, Family, Traffic, Santana... off the top of my head. Thank heavens they didn't, I might have missed them like I did with Japan.

  19. #44
    That's Mr. to you, Sir!! Trane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    in a cosmic jazzy-groove around Brussels
    Posts
    6,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Bails View Post
    Money
    yup, the only reason why they allowed Gilmour to keep the name (unworthily too, might I add) that Waters wanted to retire
    my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.

  20. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitarGeek View Post
    That depends on the outcome of that lawsuit that Sharon brought against Tony a few years back. I forget exactly what happened, but given that Ozzy continues to share the stage with Tony and Geezer, I'm guessing they worked an agreement that was to Sharon's liking.
    That lawsuit had to do with merchandising, and was already resolved.

  21. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Kalamazoo Michigan
    Posts
    9,578
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fantastic Progo Rican View Post
    Well, they went by Thin Lizzy for many years before finally deciding on changing the name.
    As mentioned in another thread, they did at one time have 3 former members of Lizzy in the band. Once two of them left, and they decided that they wanted to record new material they changed to Black Star Riders.

  22. #47
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    32S 116E
    Posts
    0
    I heard somewhere that "Maroon 5" was not their original name. They discarded the original name, whatever it was, because it sounded a bit too wimpy and effeminate.

  23. #48
    ALL ACCESS Gruno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Dio, Alabama
    Posts
    3,167
    Quote Originally Posted by bob_32_116 View Post
    I heard somewhere that "Maroon 5" was not their original name. They discarded the original name, whatever it was, because it sounded a bit too wimpy and effeminate.
    They were known as Kara's Flowers. I have their CD from that (high school) era. Pretty good stuff, actually.

  24. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    An established brand/band name is an asset, for concert draw and album sales. Surely you're not suggesting they discard all that recognition just for perversity's sake?
    As Mark E Smith said "If it's me and your granny on bongos, it's still The Fall"

  25. #50
    Pendulumswingingdoomsday Rune Blackwings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Durham NC
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by bob_32_116 View Post
    I heard somewhere that "Maroon 5" was not their original name. They discarded the original name, whatever it was, because it sounded a bit too wimpy and effeminate.
    too much like their music, I guess
    "Alienated-so alien I go!"

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •