A band is still a band is still a band until....

Yellow Ledbelly

I don't recall this being discussed before, but the question is at what point does it become a joke for a band with departed members to continue going by the same name?

To start:
Is Axl's current GNR really GNR without Slash, Duff and Izzy?
Is Alice In Chains still really Alice in Chains without the voice of Layne?
^^ Ditto for Blind Melon
Paul Rodgers in Queen??? WTF
If Jeff, Stone and Matt walked out of Pearl Jam tomorrow and Ed found another group of guys to play with, is it really Pearl Jam?

I for one cannot turn my head and pretend Chinese Democracy is a GNR album any more than I think Blind Melon's new stuff is Blind Melon. That's not to say it can't be good music, but it's not the same band, right?

markymark550

IMO:

When a band member dies, I think there's extenuating circumstances. If the person who died wrote the vast majority of material solely, then I don't think it's right to continue on under the same name (this would have been like Nirvana continuing on with a new guitarist/vocalist). If another band member writes most of the material or the writing is done collaboratively within the band, I don't have a problem with them replacing a member and continuing on under the same name (Blind Melon, Alice in Chains).

If a band splits up because the members start to hate each other, then one person goes out and recruits completely new musicians to continue on, the old name should not be used. It's a completely new band with different influences, ambitions, etc. and they should write/record under a new name. This would cover Axl without the rest of GNR, Audioslave, Velvet Revolver.

Obviously this is all up to debate, but it seems that most issues arise when a band is labeled as one person's band, and that person ceases to be in said band for whatever reason (quit, death, etc.).

Kann

I'd go with a rule of majority :
if more than 50% leaves the band (health, death or ego reasons) ==> you change the name.

Yellow Ledbelly

I guess there are different situations, but in the cases of AIC and Blind Melon where the singers were the real face of the group I just can't see continuing with the same name. AIC, in my opinion, can never be AIC again without Layne. I just can't see the point in continuing with the same name aside from maintaining the name recognition...it just seems like there should be a fresh start to me.
I mean I want to hear Paul Rodgers sing Queen songs about as much as I care to hear Ian Astbury sing Doors songs, but to me touring is one thing and recording is another. If Queen wants to go on the road with Rodgers and play their songs, fine and dandy, but when it comes to recording a new album (which I believe they are doing) I don't see it being called Queen...because it isn't and never will be

pirlo21

Yellow Ledbelly wrote:

I guess there are different situations, but in the cases of AIC and Blind Melon where the singers were the real face of the group I just can't see continuing with the same name. AIC, in my opinion, can never be AIC again without Layne. I just can't see the point in continuing with the same name aside from maintaining the name recognition...it just seems like there should be a fresh start to me.
I mean I want to hear Paul Rodgers sing Queen songs about as much as I care to hear Ian Astbury sing Doors songs, but to me touring is one thing and recording is another. If Queen wants to go on the road with Rodgers and play their songs, fine and dandy, but when it comes to recording a new album (which I believe they are doing) I don't see it being called Queen...because it isn't and never will be

Yeah, only seems to be an issue when it's the lead singer that dies/leaves etc. It's never seen as a problem that Soundgarden get a new bassist or Pearl Jam get a new drummer and a new drummer and a new drummer....
But, it can go too far the other way. GNR being a prime example!

Although personally I don't have a big problem with what Blind Melon & AiC are doing, it just won't be the same.

dirtyT

Yellow Ledbelly wrote:

I don't recall this being discussed before, but the question is at what point does it become a joke for a band with departed members to continue going by the same name?

To start:
Is Axl's current GNR really GNR without Slash, Duff and Izzy?
Is Alice In Chains still really Alice in Chains without the voice of Layne?
^^ Ditto for Blind Melon
Paul Rodgers in Queen??? WTF
If Jeff, Stone and Matt walked out of Pearl Jam tomorrow and Ed found another group of guys to play with, is it really Pearl Jam?

I for one cannot turn my head and pretend Chinese Democracy is a GNR album any more than I think Blind Melon's new stuff is Blind Melon. That's not to say it can't be good music, but it's not the same band, right?

i agree with all of these examples.

Van Halen is ok to be called Van Halen with new singers, because of Eddie Van Halen.

If the Beatles reunited with Ringo and Paul and 2 new members, how do you think people would respond to them calling themselves the Beatles?

tybird

Yellow Ledbelly wrote:

I guess there are different situations, but in the cases of AIC and Blind Melon where the singers were the real face of the group I just can't see continuing with the same name. AIC, in my opinion, can never be AIC again without Layne. I just can't see the point in continuing with the same name aside from maintaining the name recognition...it just seems like there should be a fresh start to me.
I mean I want to hear Paul Rodgers sing Queen songs about as much as I care to hear Ian Astbury sing Doors songs, but to me touring is one thing and recording is another. If Queen wants to go on the road with Rodgers and play their songs, fine and dandy, but when it comes to recording a new album (which I believe they are doing) I don't see it being called Queen...because it isn't and never will be

At least Paul Rodgers and Queen were billed as "Paul Rodgers and Queen." I think that AIC and Blind Melon should seriously consider changing their name in some form.

markymark550

Yellow Ledbelly wrote:

where the singers were the real face of the group

When is the singer not the face of the group? More often than not if someone mentions a band, the first member I think about is the singer.

Yellow Ledbelly

pirlo21 wrote:

Although personally I don't have a big problem with what Blind Melon & AiC are doing, it just won't be the same.

I really don't have a problem with what they are doing either, but I do feel like it kind bastardizes the history of those bands in a way.

Here's another: What if Keith Richards told Mick to piss off and refused to play with the Stones ever again. To me, any incarnation of the Stones without both Mick and Keith couldn't be called the Stones

Yellow Ledbelly

markymark550 wrote:

When is the singer not the face of the group? More often than not if someone mentions a band, the first member I think about is the singer.

I know what you are saying that is true, but AIC and Blind Melon in particular were more readily and almost completely identified by their singers. There are some groups that could pull off losing their singer, replace him and move on, but those just aren't two that I think can or should

nowayimfaithfull

Yellow Ledbelly wrote:

I don't recall this being discussed before, but the question is at what point does it become a joke for a band with departed members to continue going by the same name?

To start:
Is Axl's current GNR really GNR without Slash, Duff and Izzy?
Is Alice In Chains still really Alice in Chains without the voice of Layne?
^^ Ditto for Blind Melon
Paul Rodgers in Queen??? WTF
If Jeff, Stone and Matt walked out of Pearl Jam tomorrow and Ed found another group of guys to play with, is it really Pearl Jam?

I for one cannot turn my head and pretend Chinese Democracy is a GNR album any more than I think Blind Melon's new stuff is Blind Melon. That's not to say it can't be good music, but it's not the same band, right?

Differant circumstances all over the place.

They should not use the bands name if the percentges dont add up.
If its 1 memebr, like with dave a. of course. If its more than that, no.
I forget, are the other members with jerry on that tour, kinney, inez, becasue , no they shouldnt call it aic, I change my mind.

aspoonfulweighsaton

Yellow Ledbelly wrote:

I know what you are saying that is true, but AIC and Blind Melon in particular were more readily and almost completely identified by their singers. There are some groups that could pull off losing their singer, replace him and move on, but those just aren't two that I think can or should

If you think about it, you could make an argument that most bands are identified by their singer. The thing is, is the singer DIES, then people get pissy about the band moving on under the same name. The ONLY time this hasn't been the case was with AC/DC.

Now you can argue that Eddie Van Halen is the centerpiece of his band, but most people know that DLR is the only true frontman that band has had, but people are willing to let it go because of the name.

If it's a simple breakup and guys go their seperate ways, then it's a much tougher call. There was a time back in 2000 where Sebastian Bach was playing with his band one night and a few nights later at the same venue "Skid Row" was playing with a new singer.

Guns N' Roses is a unique example and one that I personally don't mind because Axl has always been running the show and if he decides to replace the attitude of the original lineup with more skilled musicians then I have no problem with that.

So basically death is the key factor. People DO NOT like it if bands try to carry on no matter how little input the original singer may have actually had.

dirtyT

tybird wrote:

At least Paul Rodgers and Queen were billed as "Paul Rodgers and Queen." I think that AIC and Blind Melon should seriously consider changing their name in some form.

you are right, but the problem is, they are maintaining fans by keeping the same name. If they changed their name, not so sure they ahve any success, which pisses me off even more, using the name of your original band when the singer is fucking dead.

Miss Irenka

Well...
I`m Irene of Chile
Nice to know you guys...

About the Topic, i think the = like Yellow ledbelly...
AIC never will be AIC without Layne...
But i think...
Pearl Jam, could be the same without Eddie...?¿?¿?¿
Off course NOT!
The music, will be the Pearl jam Music, but the point is...
Ediie have something like an iman with her fans...
And Eddie + pearl jam music, is the perfect mix...

Sorry for my english...

markymark550

Yellow Ledbelly wrote:

I know what you are saying that is true, but AIC and Blind Melon in particular were more readily and almost completely identified by their singers. There are some groups that could pull off losing their singer, replace him and move on, but those just aren't two that I think can or should

In AiC's case, sure Layne Staley was the most identifiable member of the group, but to me that is Jerry Cantrell's band. Other than a few mediocre songs penned solely by Staley, Cantrell contributed on every song, was more involved with the musical direction of the band, and probably was more involved than Staley/Starr/Kinney/Inez business-wise as well. Staley fit the role of the "tortured soul" which was an ingrediant for success with the early 90s bands. I do think he was a talented vocalist, but I think he is a little overpraised. Since I see it as Cantrell's band, couple with the fact that Inez and Kinney are back, I've got no problem with them keeping the name.

Flagg

markymark550 wrote:

When is the singer not the face of the group? More often than not if someone mentions a band, the first member I think about is the singer.

How about AC/DC? I guess the face of that group is Angus Young, but still, Bon Scott was pretty popular.

markymark550

Flagg wrote:

How about AC/DC? I guess the face of that group is Angus Young, but still, Bon Scott was pretty popular.

That may be the exception that proves the rule. Although, if it weren't for his gimmick of wearing the schoolboy uniform thing, he wouldn't really be the face of that band, it would be Brian Johnson.

aspoonfulweighsaton

dirtyT wrote:

you are right, but the problem is, they are maintaining fans by keeping the same name. If they changed their name, not so sure they ahve any success, which pisses me off even more, using the name of your original band when the singer is fucking dead.

See I completely disagree. There are some bands where the drummer writes all the music and lyrics. Yet we have the mentality that drummers are completely interchangeable. Just because the singer is front and center doesn't mean they can't be replaced in the same manner.

Jeremy1012

markymark550 wrote:

In AiC's case, sure Layne Staley was the most identifiable member of the group, but to me that is Jerry Cantrell's band. Other than a few mediocre songs penned solely by Staley, Cantrell contributed on every song, was more involved with the musical direction of the band, and probably was more involved than Staley/Starr/Kinney/Inez business-wise as well. Staley fit the role of the "tortured soul" which was an ingrediant for success with the early 90s bands. I do think he was a talented vocalist, but I think he is a little overpraised. Since I see it as Cantrell's band, couple with the fact that Inez and Kinney are back, I've got no problem with them keeping the name.

Layne wrote the lyrics and music to Nutshell, Angry Chair, Shame in You and countless other amazing songs. People seem to think Jerry wrote a lot more than he did. Yes, he wrote the greater proportion of the songs but Layne wrote some of the masterpieces.


Alice are the only band with which I care about this issue. It just seems wrong to me without Layne. That guy and his songs mean a lot to me. It's not right without him. I don't blame or begrudge Jerry, Sean and Mike but I'll have no part in it.

facepollution

Jeremy1012 wrote:

Layne wrote the lyrics and music to Nutshell, Angry Chair, Shame in You and countless other amazing songs. People seem to think Jerry wrote a lot more than he did. Yes, he wrote the greater proportion of the songs but Layne wrote some of the masterpieces.


Alice are the only band with which I care about this issue. It just seems wrong to me without Layne. That guy and his songs mean a lot to me. It's not right without him. I don't blame or begrudge Jerry, Sean and Mike but I'll have no part in it.

I hear where you are coming from, but at best Layne wrote maybe a third of the material, and a lot of those would be co-writing credits. I don't want to take anything away from the guy, cause I think he was an incredible singer and writer - but the truth is, Jerry Cantrell was responsible for the vast majority of AIC's songs. Not only did he write most of the music, and the majority of the lyrics, but he also did far more singing than one would expect from most 'backing singers'. It is for this reason that I think it is ok for them to go on under the same name. Having seen the band with William DuVall, I don't think it's the same, but purely from a selfish point of view, I would rather have the option of hearing those songs live, than not. I fully understand why that might not work for some people though.

I think AIC are an exception to some extent, becasue Jerry was more than just the guitarist in that band. I also think you have the problem, that if they renamed themselves and continued to make AIC-sounding music, they would be accused of not evolving or riding on the coat-tails of that sound - catch 22 kind of situation.

Oh and I don't like to be picky, but Layne didn't write the music to Nutshell.

Jeremy1012

facepollution wrote:

I hear where you are coming from, but at best Layne wrote maybe a third of the material, and a lot of those would be co-writing credits. I don't want to take anything away from the guy, cause I think he was an incredible singer and writer - but the truth is, Jerry Cantrell was responsible for the vast majority of AIC's songs. Not only did he write most of the music, and the majority of the lyrics, but he also did far more singing than one would expect from most 'backing singers'. It is for this reason that I think it is ok for them to go on under the same name. Having seen the band with William DuVall, I don't think it's the same, but purely from a selfish point of view, I would rather have the option of hearing those songs live, than not. I fully understand why that might not work for some people though.

I think AIC are an exception to some extent, becasue Jerry was more than just the guitarist in that band. I also think you have the problem, that if they renamed themselves and continued to make AIC-sounding music, they would be accused of not evolving or riding on the coat-tails of that sound - catch 22 kind of situation.

Oh and I don't like to be picky, but Layne didn't write the music to Nutshell.

Yeah I included Nutshell by mistake. It was his lyrics though and as far as I'm concerned, lyrically AIC's most beautiful song. His songwriting contribution to the band is all to often overlooked. The fact is, he was the face, heart and soul of the band for me. The songs that Jerry wrote, he wrote them to be sung by Layne. I don't have a problem with the guys touring and stuff and I don't blame people who want to go and see them, it's just not for me. I hear they do a tribute to Layne with some sort of visual backdrop? That would kill me.

tybird

Yellow Ledbelly wrote:

I know what you are saying that is true, but AIC and Blind Melon in particular were more readily and almost completely identified by their singers. There are some groups that could pull off losing their singer, replace him and move on, but those just aren't two that I think can or should

The problem with those two examples (you are correct in your argument about them being the face of their bands) is that both singers had very unique and easily identifiable voices.

eyedclaar

facepollution wrote:

I hear where you are coming from, but at best Layne wrote maybe a third of the material, and a lot of those would be co-writing credits. I don't want to take anything away from the guy, cause I think he was an incredible singer and writer - but the truth is, Jerry Cantrell was responsible for the vast majority of AIC's songs. Not only did he write most of the music, and the majority of the lyrics, but he also did far more singing than one would expect from most 'backing singers'. It is for this reason that I think it is ok for them to go on under the same name. Having seen the band with William DuVall, I don't think it's the same, but purely from a selfish point of view, I would rather have the option of hearing those songs live, than not. I fully understand why that might not work for some people though.

I think AIC are an exception to some extent, becasue Jerry was more than just the guitarist in that band. I also think you have the problem, that if they renamed themselves and continued to make AIC-sounding music, they would be accused of not evolving or riding on the coat-tails of that sound - catch 22 kind of situation.

Oh and I don't like to be picky, but Layne didn't write the music to Nutshell.

I have to agree here. Cantrell was easily the biggest songwriting aspect of AIC. Plus, I could teach a total novice to play the guitar as well as Layne in about 10 minutes and I'm a gee-tar hack.

Jeremy1012

eyedclaar wrote:

I have to agree here. Cantrell was easily the biggest songwriting aspect of AIC. Plus, I could teach a total novice to play the guitar as well as Layne in about 10 minutes and I'm a gee-tar hack.

I dunno man, the riffs on Hate to Feel are pretty cool.

Tone

I see AIC as Staley and Cantrell's voices harmonising... just incredible to hear. Staley live was mesmorising to watch. I just don't think I can listen to AIC without their voices together, to me it doesn't work. Same goes for Blind Melon. I think both bands should change their names and start again.

Same goes for INXS. That Rockstar INXS had me wanting to punch the Farriss brothers, Pengilly & Beers into the middle of next week. INXS is not INXS without Michael Hutchence and I don't accept a non-Australian singer fronting them either... sorry.

When something's over, it's over.

augustwest

when people stop showing up, the band no longer exists

live music is better

elmer

Yellow Ledbelly wrote:

To start:
Is Axl's current GNR really GNR without Slash, Duff and Izzy?
Is Alice In Chains still really Alice in Chains without the voice of Layne?

I for one cannot turn my head and pretend Chinese Democracy is a GNR album any more than I think Blind Melon's new stuff is Blind Melon

Yes.
No.

Axl, thank God, didn't die. Shannon did!

mouthfulofsoup

Yellow Ledbelly wrote:

but I do feel like it kind bastardizes the history of those bands in a way.

Exactly. Everything Blind Melon did is gold. While not a large one, their catalog is flawless. Throwing some new kid in all these years later & putting out a new album under the same name taints the perfection that we've all come to love as BLIND MELON.

The other 4 members have every right to go on playing music & doing what they do best, & I'm sure they wanna keep the amazing music alive, but they chose a piss poor way of doing so. Start another band with a new singer & a new name...but to make some crappy ass new album under the Melon name with some wannabe Shannon on vocals is an insult. This Faux Melon can never hold a candle to anything Shannon touched...the fact that it will be lumped in with their stuff is so beyond sad. :(

NewJPage

Yellow Ledbelly wrote:

I really don't have a problem with what they are doing either, but I do feel like it kind bastardizes the history of those bands in a way.

Here's another: What if Keith Richards told Mick to piss off and refused to play with the Stones ever again. To me, any incarnation of the Stones without both Mick and Keith couldn't be called the Stones

as for the stones...their most popular and influencial and important member (at the time) died (brian jones), and they got a new guitarist and played a show the VERY NEXT DAY. they, of course, are still the stones, but some of the freaks think their only good shit was done when brian was still in the band.

keeponrockin

I don't think Axl's new GN'R is GN'R. It isn't that band without Slash, I'm sorry. I could even make the arguement for Izzy.

Alice In Chains, it's not Jerry's fault Layne fucked up. He should be able to continue what he started.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

lead singer and lead guitar arent replaceable. everyone else is.

usually