Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: What makes a band?

  1. #1

    What makes a band?

    I just played a live DVD from Birth Control with the following line-up: Peter Föller; vocals, guitar (played on Rebirth, Plastic people and Backdoor possibilities), Martin Ettrich; guitar, Sascha Kühn; keyboards, Hannes Vesper; bass, Manni von Bohr; drums (played on Increase, Titanic and Count Dracula)
    Besides I got a message from Amazon about a new Coloseum-album (well, relatively new) which appeared to be a line-up without Jon Hiseman, but with Chris Farlowe, Mark Clarke, Clem Clempson and 3 new members.
    In a way these groups made me wonder what makes a band? There are groups that had one settled line-up, like Rush (yes, they had a different drummer on their first album), Led Zeppelin, Cream, The Beatles, Golden Earring (more or less), that stopped when one member died, or decided to break up. Then there are bands which have one, 2 or, perhaps 3 core members, like King Crimson (Robert Fripp), Rolling Stones (Mick Jagger, Keith Richard (and in the past Charlie Watts)), Jethro Tull (Ian Anderson), Kayak (Ton Scherpenzeel), Camel (Andy Latimer), Genesis (Tony Banks, Phil Collins and Mike Rutherford), Eloy (Frank Borneman, though they used to have a few more or less stable line-ups for a couple of albums). Camel had in the past a more stable line-up. And then there are groups that are some kind of revolving door kind of things, like Deep Purple. Pink Floyd is a bit between things. Had a stable line-up, till Richard Wright left. (Well and of course Syd Barrett was forced to leave)

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2022
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    450
    An interesting question. In my view, the answer is subjective and in the "ear of the beholder". I've talked to people who think Pink Floyd is only Pink Floyd when Syd was leading things, others say the same about Roger. In effect, you could say there are three Pink Floyds.

    More objectively, bands, like everything else, are composed of people - they grow, go through phases, change and ultimately die.

    My subjective view: if they're making noise, they're a freakin' band. They may stink to high heaven, they may even be a rip-off, using a name to make money with no original members, but in the moment, they are a band.

  3. #3
    At the core for me, it's this:

    band-venn.jpg
    If you're actually reading this then chances are you already have my last album but if NOT and you're curious:
    https://battema.bandcamp.com/

    Also, Ephemeral Sun: it's a thing and we like making things that might be your thing: https://ephemeralsun.bandcamp.com

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by battema View Post
    At the core for me, it's this:

    band-venn.jpg
    I think so. Though there are no real original members in Birth Control, I still like their output. What I've read about the latest Colosseum-album makes me a bit reluctant.

  5. #5
    Member interbellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Xymphonia-city
    Posts
    4,603
    The real question should be: Which musicians are entitled to use the name of a band?

    Plenty of examples of course, but for me the members of It Bites sans Francis Dunnery should have picked another name when they reunited. Dunnery's guitarplaying, voice and personality "made" the unique sound of that band i.m.o. John Mitchell is an excellent musician, but with a complete different musical dna than Dunnery.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by interbellum View Post
    The real question should be: Which musicians are entitled to use the name of a band?

    Plenty of examples of course, but for me the members of It Bites sans Francis Dunnery should have picked another name when they reunited. Dunnery's guitarplaying, voice and personality "made" the unique sound of that band i.m.o. John Mitchell is an excellent musician, but with a complete different musical dna than Dunnery.
    It's a kind of sub-question. In some cases one person might be the most important part of the sound, in other cases it's a group of people, or it's in a way just the DNA of the band. Without Robert Fripp, it isn't King Crimson. But I don't really mind who is playing in Birth Control.
    Which musicians are entitled to use the name of a band? I think that one might be tricky. Often the name of the band is kept alive, because they play the music the band made in the past and with a known name, they might sell more tickets, than if they decide to work under a new name.
    Is Camel still the same band with Andy Latimer at the helm and in full control, as they were with Peter Bardens and Andy Ward?

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    434
    Quote Originally Posted by interbellum View Post
    ... the members of It Bites sans Francis Dunnery should have picked another name when they reunited.
    It Bit ??
    "Normal is just the average of extremes" - Gary Lessor

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by bigbassdrum View Post
    It Bit ??
    Bite Me

  9. #9
    Jazzbo manqué Mister Triscuits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    5,390
    Until a year or so ago, I had no idea that Ten Years After still existed without Alvin Lee. And not only that, they had already been playing without him for ten years before he died.
    Hurtleturtled Out of Heaven - an electronic music composition, on CD and vinyl
    https://michaelpdawson.bandcamp.com
    http://www.waysidemusic.com/Music-Pr...MCD-spc-7.aspx

  10. #10
    Am I remembering correctly that an Eric Woolfson-led band continued touring as "The Alan Parsons Project" without Alan Parsons?

  11. #11
    Studmuffin Scott Bails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Near Philly, PA
    Posts
    6,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Triscuits View Post
    Until a year or so ago, I had no idea that Ten Years After still existed without Alvin Lee. And not only that, they had already been playing without him for ten years before he died.
    Missed opportunity not to call themselves "Ten Years Before"


    (Yes, I know)
    Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally

  12. #12
    Member hippypants's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,134
    The simple answer is it takes musicians that want to make music. With a lot of professional and known bands a lot of time it's chemistry that makes them successful, which takes on a lot of different forms ie., songwriting, vocals, instrumentation, direction, etc.: ie. Beatles, Rolling Stones, Yes, etc. Sometimes they can introduce new members like Yes and Crimson and the chemistry is still there. For Crimson I think it may be because of Fripp. For others that can shift around like Pink Floyd, some members get along better and work better with other members--egos sometimes get in the way. Sometimes a band like the Doors lose a member, and the magic is loss.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2021
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    675
    To me the question of whether it's the same band seems less relevant than whether it's a more or less worthwhile version of the same band. It's not a binary thing. Anderson/Squire/Bruford/Banks/Kaye is Yes, and an excellent version of Yes. Anderson/Squire/Bruford/Wakeman/Howe is an excellent version of yes. Howe/Downes/Sherwood/Davison is Yes, because they use the name and release albums, but YMMV as far as whether it's a good version of Yes. When Howe retires or dies and it becomes Downes/Sherwood/Davison/some guy/some guy then it'll still be Yes, but probably an even less good version.

    It's a bit like... I took a class in college that spent a lot of time grappling with the question of whether this or that thing "is art." The eventual conclusion was that anything is art if presented as such contextually, but it might be vastly more or less effective. If you can do shows and release albums as "Yes" and people show up and you don't get sued, then congratulations, I'd say you're Yes! But you might not be a very good Yes.

  14. #14
    So we're talking about the old "Is it really the same band without (insert name of key band member)" or "Is it really the same band with no original members" or whateer? Complicated issue.

    I suppose it depends on who owns the band name, and what that person decides. There's been a lot of high profile fights over band names, most famously Pink Floyd, but there's also been Yes, the Little River Band, and a number of others.

    One that I remember was Molly Hatchet. When their original lead singer (who had actually left the band for a couple albums in the early 80's before returning) became too sick (I think he had diabetes) to tour, he gave the rest of the band (none of whom were original members) his blessing to continue touring without him. After he passed away, they continued to do so,t hough I know at one point, they brought original guitarist Dave Hlubek back into the band. But after he passed away, they reverted to having no original members.

    I suppose in some cases, the leader of a group is so iconic, you couldn't imagine that band without that person. I remember when Lemmy passed away, Motorhead put out an official statement saying they were disbanding. Well, yeah, of course you're breaking up! How the frell can you be Motorhead without Lemmy?!

    Likewise, the Grateful Dead disbanded after Jerry Garcia died. Yeah, they eventually got back together and have toured in various configurations, and with different names over the years, but they've never called themselves the Grateful Dead (though I've heard fan theories that Jerry's widow may have something to do with that).

    Then there's things like Berlin, the synth pop band from the 80's. I guess when the group started to fall apart, Terri Nunn copyrighted the band's name, so that she became the de facto boss of the group. John Crawford, who actually founded the group and wrote most of their material, said that he asked her "What if I want to do something with Berlin?" and Terri told him, "Then you'd be working for me", which was apparently the last conversation they had for about 13 years (note: in recent, Terri, John, and original keyboardist David Diamond have toured together, so apparently they eventually got over it). Hey, at least it was an actual band member and not the manager, who could theoretically copyright a band name, then at any time, throw together any combination of musicians and put them on the road to live off whatever legacy said band has.

    I think with Yes, I think they reason they kept going is because 1. whichever combination of musicians actually enjoy working together, and 2. really, is anything else that Jon Anderson, Steve Howe, Chris Squire, etc could have done musically that would generate the kind of revenue that perpetuating Yes would? I mean, Steve did do All Four Original Members Of Asia for awhile, but was it ever as successful as Yes was, as a continuing touring entity? And I think at times, number 2 became a bigger than thing than number 1. I get the impression that it eventually got to where Anderson wasn't on speaking terms of with Howe or Squire, yet somehow they were in a band together and even still making records (well, for awhile they were). And sometimes when you hear performances, especially from the post Anderson years, it seems like number 2 is definitely where it's at.

    I also get the feeling that Chris Squire somehow got it in his head that he did'nt want Yes to die. That's why they kept goingn with new singers after Jon left (or was fired, whichever it was that happened). And he apparently gave the others permission to keep going without him, when it became known that was going to be an issue in the near future.

    I think at the end of the day, if enough fans are willing to give up their hard earned money, just about any configuration of musicians can be "the band". I remember reading an article about the issue of multiple bands with the same name going on the road, e.g. the dual Asia thing we had Geoff Downes reformed the original lineup and John Payne had his own Asia. There were other examples too, I know at one point there were two Wishbone Ashes (Andy Powell's lawyers put an end to that, though), two versions of Foghat, etc. And I read this piece where someone said something to the effect that audiences just want to hear the music (or at least the hits) played live, they don't necessarily care that it's not the same four or five guys who actually made the records.

  15. #15
    What makes a band?

    Lots of beer.
    NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF STUPID PEOPLE IN LARGE GROUPS!

  16. #16
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    It's all marketing. If the OLD band had some hits and old people would go to country fairs and casinos to hear their old hits, then any group of musicians who can play the hits might qualify as "the band." I remember seeing The Beach Boys, The Turtles, The Grass Roots, Paul Revere & The Raiders, Mitch Ryder & The Detroit Wheels, Herman's Hermits, and a couple others in a traveling roadshow. Each band had--at MOST--one original member and the rest of the members were shared between all the groups. I would've felt ripped off, but they were playing for free.

    Then there's this:
    https://www.facebook.com/RockLegendsCruiseRLC/

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
  •