don't care. How would you feel if a baseball team called itself the "New York Yankees" if none of the original members are in it?Originally Posted by Rickenbacker
don't care. How would you feel if a baseball team called itself the "New York Yankees" if none of the original members are in it?
I didn't know all this - Jeff Lynne sounds like a real wanker. He should be glad Roy Wood didn't stop him from using the ELO name from the outset - ELO was Roy's baby after all!!!!!!
Good point, Jim. But then again, I'm not into any sports. So I have no emotional investment in it. So if, for example, I were to see The Who or The Spinners, I'd keep having this nagging feeling that I missed out on the best years & that I was watching the "Pete & Roger" show.
Yeah it amazes me how powerful the "brand" name of a band is. It's all about getting people to buy those tickets. That's why some legacy bands just keep plugging in new members and keep plugging away touring. I'm not sure if they are still active but a few years ago I was tempted to go see Grand Funk Railroad. I didn't go for whatever reason, but this was a case of a band who had two original members and 2 or 3 new members (minus Mark Farner of course). To me the whole thing smacked of "tribute act" even if the original drummer and bassist are in the band today. GFR are similar to Thin Lizzy in that the main singer/musician is the "signature sound" of the band. In other words, no Mark Farner, no GFR, imo. I do commend Scott Gorham and the other members for changing the name of the band though. The little history I've read about Thin Lizzy was that the name was Eric Bell's idea. So even if you have a band with Eric Bell, Brian Downey, Scott Gorham, and Robo, you still cannot call it Thin Lizzy because Phil Lynot is not in the band.I think it all goes to show what marketing has done to music - it has created brands which are independent of the actual people involved in the creation of the "product".
But you have to take all this on a band by band basis. For example, Jethro Tull comes to mind. Ian is the only original member. But Ian Anderson is Jethro Tull. There's been continuity with JT since 1968 at least. I guess you could argue that JT without Martin Barre isn't really Tull either but I really think that Ian Anderson can throw together whatever group of musicians he wants and still call the band Jethro Tull. You obviously can't have a JT without Ian but JT can continue on without Martin Barre.
No, but what if they changed their name to "The Stones" like the Grateful Dead did (The Dead) when Jerry Garcia passed away? Somehow I don't see that working though. Should Roger and Pete continue as The Who even though 2 key members are gone? Some would say no, some would say yes. In The Who's case I think it's okay since you've got the main visionary (Pete), guitarist, whatever, and the "the voice" still wanting to tour and play all their legendary music.Ask yourself: If Mick Jagger quits The Rolling Stones, does Keith Richards and Charlie Watts have every right to continue?
^I think it's the same with ELO, Jeff Lynne sang on/wrote most of their songs.
Having said that, the 'Zoom' album doesn't really have the same sound as the older ELO albums did. It has that same sound he brought to 'Cloud Nine', 'Mystery Girl', The Travelling Wilburys etc.
I thought Jeff Lynne threatened legal action against ELO Part 2 after Bev Bevan retired and ELO2 wanted to keep the name.
I agree..."Zoom" may as well been labeled a Jeff Lynne solo album because it sounded, and felt, like "Armchair Theatre" or the ones you mentioned...
On the other hand, ELO Part IIs eponymous 1990 debut album (which hit #34 on the UK albums chart) has that hey-day ELO sound from the late 70s. It certainly is more ELO than Zoom to this listener.....The second Part II album, 1994's "Moment Of Truth", is <wiggle-hand> "meh", so-n-so, not-so-great to this listener, but the first album should be a "must" for ELO fans over any JL solo effort ($.02)
Pete & Roger were in the Spinners? Wow, I missed that one!
The whole legal thing was a pain-in-the-ass to Bevan throughout Part IIs career. The way I understand it (and please correct me if I am wrong), both Bevan and Lynne had the rights to the name, but Lynne was a majority owner (51%) and Bevan a minority owner (49%), and this is why the legal battles were so long and tedious. When Bevan left Part 2, he sold his share of the name to Jeff Lynne. At this point, Lynne - now the full owner of the name - shut down Part IIs use of the name, and they changed their name to The Orchestra
The accuracy of the details really isnt the issue. This is the issue in relation to this thread:
Bevan should have been able to call the new act Electric Light Orchestra (sans the Part 2) and carried the torch - especially that the band consisted of some previous - and popular - members, regardless if Lynne wanted a part of it or not. He earned it.
Last edited by klothos; 11-16-2013 at 12:25 PM.
Rickenbacker -- completely agree with you. Something has been missing from the Who since Moonie died, and I refer to the current band as The Two.
Cobra handling and cocaine use are a bad mix.
I miss our chats, Jim!
The name of the Guess Who is owned by the drummer. Randy Bachman and Burton Cummings have to tour as Bachman and Cummings. It's insane.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart
A work colleague recently went to see the "Benny Goodman Orchestra". What connections could they possibly have to the original? Maybe BG's estate owns the name? I think the "Count Basie Orchestra" is still active as well.
Somehow with these groups, it just doesn't seem like such a big deal... Just because it is not "my" music?
So is the Mingus Big Band.
Well, I think the mistake Brian and Roger made was even using the Queen name at all. There's only one Freddie, and to me, Queen will always be Brian, Roger, Freddie and John.
Now, once the decision was made to continue using the Queen name, Paul Rodgers was actually a pretty good choice, for the simple fact that he was a different style singer from Freddie. If they had gotten someone who was too much like Freddie, it would have been a disaster. Getting someone who was very different telegraphed the point that they knew Freddie was irreplaceable, and they were not trying to "replace" him, as such.
The only downside to having Paul Rodgers in the band, I thought, was that they insisted on playing the Bad Company hits...well, a couple of them anyway, during the Queen+Paul Rodgers shows. I didn't mind All Right Now, because that's a good rock n roll song (though I personally feel Wishing Well and Mr. Big are both better rock n roll songs), but stuff like Feel Like Making Love and Bad Company itself I could have lived without.
It may be insane, but is another case where both Cummings and Bachman left the band at some point and the drummer and bass player continued on. Whether this is really the Guess Who anymore can certainly be debated, but both Jim Kale or Gary Peterson have been members of every version of the band with Kale being the most consistent member and Peterson being in just about every lineup. Both are original members.
Steve Sly
Didn't Paul, Roger, and Brian do some Bad Co and Free songs when Bad Co was inducted into the British music hall of fame? Maybe the Bad Co stuff went over well? To be fair, Bad Co did have other singers besides Paul. So, maybe doing those songs with the Queen members was Paul's way of reclaiming them?
I remember finding a late 70's album by one of the Cummings-less lineups. I don't remember the name of the album, but I was surprised to find out there had been a version band without Burton Cummings, and even more, that they had made an actual album. I think it might have been All This For A Song, judging from the front cover photos on Discogs.com (actually, it's the back cover I remember more than the front cover...the back cover had a big photo of the band playing what looked like a high school dance, and individual photos of the band members, with the picture of Gary Kale looking like he was in the process of buying the bass he's shown playing in the other pictures).
According to Wiki, what happened was the group actually broke up at one point the mid 70's. After a couple years, the CBC asked them to do a reunion concert. Burton and Randy weren't interested, but the other guys were. Apparently, Gary Kale got Randy and Burton's blessings, but then found out that the name had never been trademarked in the first place. So Kale basically trademarked the band's name at that point.
Apparently, there's also been iterations of the band without Gary Kale. I guess there was a point in the mid 70's (before he actually owned the name) where they carried out without him, and later in the early 80's and for awhile in the 21st century, they toured without him (though presumably with his blessing). Weird thing is, when the band was inducted into the Canada Rock Walk Of Fame (or whatever it's called), they inducted the then current lineup, which included everyone from the "classic" lineup but Kale.
Last edited by GuitarGeek; 11-16-2013 at 10:15 PM.
There are a bunch of Doobies. The main singers / songwriters from their original heyday are still there (Tom Johnston , Patrick Simmons) and their other main singer / songwriter, Michael McDonald even made an appearance on their last album. Three of there percussionists and their sax player have passed but the Doobies keep going.
Last edited by Tangram; 11-16-2013 at 10:18 PM.
What do you mean "reclaiming them"? If he wants to "reclaim" his crappy pop hits from Bad Company, he should save that for when Bad Company tours. And in fact, Paul Rodgers had been performing regularly with Bad Company both before and after Queen+Paul Rodgers. I would have thought he'd want to "take a vacation" from having to play the same crap night after night, but I guess not.
And of course, the chosen Bad Company songs "went over well" with the audiences. Those are classic rock radio staples. Not very good ones in my opinion, but ones that are gonna get a certain segment on their feet and screaming for more in a way that better but perhaps lesser known songs wouldn't have.
Personally, I'd rather have heard some stuff from The Firm, say Radioactive or Satisfaction Guaranteed, than Bad Company or Feel Like Making Love. If they needed to do the "piano rising up out of the center of the stage" thing, they could have done with Live In Peace instead of Bad Company. But then, I imagine The Firm songs wouldn't be as immediately recognizable. Oy!
The thing that stunk was the show I saw, they didn't do anything off the first three Queen albums at all. OK, I can understand them not doing any of Freddie's songs (well, they did Bohemian Rhapsody, Crazy Little Thing Called Love and We Are The Champions, obviously, and Brian did a solo version of Love Of My Life, but that was it), most of those songs basically wouldn't have worked with anyone other than Freddie.
But I think Paul would have done a nice job with something like Keep Yourself Alive or Now I'm Here or maybe Father To Son. And I wish Brian and Roger had sung more songs themselves. It might have been cool if they had done Long Away or Tenement Funster or Loser In The End. But then, you come back to the thing of 4/5's of the audience not recognizing it (same excuse used by Def Leppard for not doing stuff off their first album when they tour).
I seem to recall Paul Rogers and Simon Kirk trying to stop Mick Ralphs from using the Bad Co name at the same time that Paul was touring with Queen. Also, I happened to like Feel Like Making Love and Bad Company. Sorry, just playing Devil's advocate. I actually thought that doing the Bad Co songs was a bad idea as well. I wonder how Paul would've done with stuff like Liar and Headlong?
There is no Gary Kale. Jim Kale and Gary Peterson are two different people. They are both original members and are in the current lineup, but as you say have not been in every lineup. Burton Cummings is technically not an original member as the very first Guess Who lineup did not include him. Anyway……it is still a big soap opera, and yea that is strange that Kale was not inducted as he has been the most consistent member of the band.
Steve Sly
OK, then it's Jim Kale I'm thinking of who apparently owns the band's name (or was the one who trademarked it initially anyway, as I understand the phrasing on Wikipedia, the name is currently owned by him and Peterson jointly). I guess that's what it really comes down to, whoever actually owns the band's name, versus who is an original member or whatever.
I remember reading about the Little River Band situation. I gather that what happened was again, nobody actually owned the name "Little River Band", so at some point, one of the replacement guys copyrighted the name, and therefore technically could hire anyone he wanted and use the band's name. And I gather the other thing that goes along with that is that the original guys who subsequently challenged him court had left voluntarily and therefore forfeited their rights to the group name. Or something to that effect.
SWEEEEEET!!!!!! My great great grandkids are gonna get to see Yes!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks