Bands That Need To Give It Up

There is no problem here. If a band ceases to be relevant to anyone, then no one will show up and eventually the band will become economically non-viable. In this case, the 'market' is perfect.

 

When a band doesn't have any original members left, it's time to retire the band's name. A quite a lot of glorified tribute bands have gone around masquerading as the real deal, and that's not right.

 

That's why I'm not tempted to see The Temptations when they roll through town.

 

Also not totally non-legit, as they include the one surviving original (Otis Williams) and the singer (Ron Tyson) from a later lineup that still had a few hits. Though if "The Temptations Review with Dennis Edwards" come to town, then go. He's the real deal.

 

seen The Drifters line up? their senior member joined in 2008

 

Bands with less than 50% of their 'classic' members AND without their primary creative force (specifying 'classic' over 'original' for cases like the Moody Blues, Purple, Yes, where the original lineup is not the most famous one) should, in most cases, not be allowed to use the band name. So Skynyrd, the Beach Boys, Kansas, Yes...done.

There should be a committee for this, to review on a case-by-case basis. ELO with just Jeff Lynne seems fine, but Kansas with just the guitar player and the drummer, neither of which wrote any of the material they're playing? No. Bands are more than the singer, so Journey with 3/5ths of the lineup that did Escape and Frontiers doesn't bother me (more if Steve Smith decides to rejoin at some point), but Foreigner with just Mick Jones (and when I saw them on a package tour in 2011, even without Mick Jones) probably should have to get a new name.

No one's stopping anyone from playing these songs...musicians deserve to make a living. But they should have to use some truth in advertising...like "Mick Jones' Foreigner" or "Steve Howe & Alan White Of Yes", and I do wish there was something in place to arbitrate these things. I'm just seeing more and more bands (even bands I remember from the 90's) going out with increasingly questionable lineups. I guess the audience doesn't care, or else these guys wouldn't be able to tour, but it's still kind of a bummer.

 

Well there are some bands where one member truly IS the band. Gramm and Jones were the essential members to my mind, I tend to see it with Jones (like you) as still being Foreigner although some version of the previous memersh would make it seem more legit.

As for yes while they no longer have an original member they at least have members that have recorded and played with the band so long that they avoid that cover band title for me.

 

There was a committee that tried to pull this off in the doo-wop world, at least shutting down the groups that only operate under a legendary name because somebody bought it. Not sure how successful they were.

 

Interesting. I wasn't suggesting that as if it was realistic, but i mean, it would be a pretty useful thing.

OH, and The Guess Who. No one should ever get to use that name unless it involves Burton Cummings. Sorry, bass player and drummer who didn't write or sing any of the songs.

 

There was a running joke in Blue Cheer from Dickie Peterson - He's introducing the band and when he gets to "Duck" McDonald - he says...our newest member of the band, since 1988.

Maybe what I said previously was wrong. BUT.....when I go to see a band with a "name", I expect to see a band with member(s), not some cover type touring outfit. Little River Band came here a few years ago and the only "member" in the band present was someone who was in the band for 30 years. If I want to see cover bands, I can go to clubs and theaters and pay far less money to hear the music.

Lets face it, for some bands still out on the road, you need a scorecard. But for comic relief, I love hearing some asking about members that haven't been in bands for 20 years. Styx and Grand Funk come to mind. I guess some don't keep up with the times....... I loved Foghat, but when Dave and Rod died, that did it for me. Even if Tony Stevens was still in the band, seeing him and Roger Earl don't cut it for me.

 

They are called The Drifters after all.

 

Marvin Gaye
Bonnie Raitt
KC and the Sunshine Band
James Brown

And possibly Robin Thicke

 

Yeah, that they ended too soon.

 

First thing I thought when I saw this thread. I came here to read about music, not people who want to determine who can and can't perform.

 

I'm lost. Why this combo? Is there a joke I'm too stupid to get? Lol!

Ed

 

Well, I wouldn't call you stupid, but yes.

Look at the thread title and then the artists I listed.

 

As an example,

Lynyrd Skynyrd isn't fooling or conning anyone with what they're doing and really, anyone that is fooled by this point can't be helped.

I love classic Skynyrd. I personally don't follow the new lineup or buy their albums, but I have no issues with them using the name or playing the songs for those that want to hear them.

 

This type of thread happen a lot.

The only viable position, I feel, is that if an act has a big enough audience then it is justified in continuing, whether it's still creating new/good music, or not.

People need to make a living, after all.

 

DAH! LOL! Got it. How slow can I possibly be?

Ed

 

Doing what?

 

I was getting ready to add that the Robin Thicke listing was connected to the Marvin Gaye.

 

Making rock 'n roll music. What else?

 

None. Who are you to decide if a band stays together or not?

 

Somewhat arbitrary, but when all the band members are two generations away from those involved in recording the key material then it's time. Skynyrd and Foreigner are two borderline examples, and Graham Gouldman's 10cc is a third.