What's The Point Of These Bands Still Going On?

sad...well we get old. Love Tull since day one...

 

So IOWs you aren't forced to go see any of these bands or musician?
Why are you chasing Windmills?

Do you go around your neighborhood and make sure people all
are doing the right thing? And making sure they are doing it the
right way?

 

It's not idiotic, you just reinforced what i said.
Dylan and Petty in Perth west Australia were brilliant, sorry your show wasn't

 

Are you drunk?

How would you feel if someone stole your identity and made money off it?

 

The "reformations" that bother me the most are those where...

Member A leaves a band and strikes out on a solo career. Years later, with the solo career still going, but to less and less reward, the original band is suddenly "back together" - but when you look closer, it's just Member A, with a bunch of new faces. Granted, he's playing all the old songs, same arrangements and everything else. But it's still just the same old solo artist who could barely get arrested the last time he was out.

I do agree, everybody has a right to earn a living, and if you can do so more successfully using this name instead of that, go for it. But personally, it leaves a bad taste. Or, is that when we'll finally see the Beatles get back together... when there's only one of them left?

 

Name one popular touring band whose name has been 'stolen' and a group
is touring under the moniker?

 

So I suppose you would be indifferent to all of those working musicians pictured in that photo of The Glenn Miller Band out of work rather than be guilty of involvement in a crass commercial enterprise that feeds off the remains of the 75 year old carcass of Glenn Miller.

I'm happy that they have work in today's environment which is not especially friendly to the working musician.

 

Extremely impressed.

 

I saw them in Seattle in 2008. His voice was not as robust, he has had coaching I believe I read somewhere. Flute and Martin Barre were excellent.

 

We are talking about them. Little River band.
The original band lost their singer in the early eighties. Over a couple of years the rest of the members left. Somehow one of the johnny come lately guitarists got the rights to the name purely by being the last man standing.
He has rented the name out to a bunch of guys that regardless of their ability, aren't anything to do with the original band.
This went to the point that when three of the original members toured as birtles, shorrock and goble ( the voices of the original little river band) and released a dvd of their own songs, he sued them and they were refused permission to release their own music.
If that is all good and right in your book, we have nothing to talk about buddy.

 

Lol

 

Dylan has been a hot mess for years. I saw him at the Beacon Theater in NYC in 2005 and the band was so loud you couldn't understand a damned thing. I'd catch snippets of lyrics from a song I recognized but I'd lose the thread on the next line. Since lyrics are a large part of the attraction of Dylan for me, this concert where I couldn't hear the lyrics seemed like a giant waste of time and money.

He came around to Buffalo about five years back and I figured I should give him another shot. Wrong move. I think the guy is using volume and reverb as a cover for the fact that his voice has been reduced to a weak croak. And you still can't hear the lyrics.

 

Exhibit A: The Alarm.

Exhibit B: Big Country which Peters fronted for a while.

Still like the music but, as I recall, Mike Peters is the only original member. Granted, he wrote the songs and sang them but the chemistry does change with each different member replacing an original one.

 

If the musicians are happy playing in a tribute band, and people are happy to come out for an evening of KISS covers by Mr. Speed or Destroyer, that's one thing. I see that Gene Simmons says that they allow KISS tribute bands to exist, "although we could snuff the life out of them immediately with cease and desist letters and do all that. But actually, we think it's kind of cool," as long as the bands send letters of thanks for allowing them to use the make-up, etc. All right. Cool.

The surviving members of the Grateful Dead sort of encourage a scene of Dead repertory acts, who may keep the performance of their music alive even after everyone in the Dead is gone. Bob Weir's Dead & Co. and Phil Lesh's Terrapin Family Band are basically Dead repertory acts, themselves. And I respect that, too. There's an organic element to it, there's an enduring community built around it. Some might say that they're feeding off the remains of Jerry, but the Other Ones helped build the Dead's legacy, they have a right to it--and yet none of them bill themselves as The Grateful Dead, which speaks to their integrity. I think this is practically the ideal way to go about it. Very cool.

On the other hand, to sell your name and identity, so that people who had nothing to do with your band or building your legacy have exclusive rights to take the name on the road and copy the stage show, and your descendants can passively rake in another revenue stream long after you're gone, is on a different level. It doesn't encourage any level of creativity or community. It's not about giving musicians work. I get the feeling from Gene's interview, in which he goes on about how they have the right to protect their trademarks and set the price on their properties, that they probably would snuff out the KISS tribute bands if they ever decided to sell their name and image. What's the point of selling or buying the trademarks if Destroyer can carry on with the show, too?

Is that cool? Some would say that's just good business, but maybe some things shouldn't be for sale.

 

Would you please speak up, I don't think anybody heard that clearly..

 

Well, putting your “resume” in an ad is not very catchy, compared to saying “Chicago”

 

well but then there's some bands or artists that have hundreds of millions of dollars and keep going (I'm thinking now of the Stones and Springsteen), and yet CHARGE THE MOST! (Oh yeah, I forgot McCartney)
Nothing wrong with continuing with wanting to play forever and keep making music but if you're set economically with enough money for numerous lifetimes, give the fans a break, for the sake of decency!

 

Onya Mark.

Maybe Americans don't understand this, but it's particularly galling to Aussies; and I'm no great fan of the band.

 

seeing Martin playing Aqualung would have been a highlight to me...

 

WAR has one original member. Lonnie Jordan. The other 4 living members have played together over the years under different names. B.B. Dickerson had a stoke years ago so now it's down to three. They play as The Lowrider Band.

 

As long as they have fans willing to pay money to see them or buy their records, I don’t see the problem.

 

I see your point, and agree ~ actually I had something a bit different in mind as
a more formal standard, which I feel is served quite well with a stage name.

 

I also got to be upfront for the first 3 songs photographing for the Seattle Weekly. I really enjoyed Martin Barre’s guitar playing.

 

But imagine if they start charging 5 $ per ticket - then there would be a massive black market for their concerts with huge tax free profit for some unauthorized "middle men"". So it's better they to take the money, if there's such a demand. Also, in the show-biz there's a hierarchy, and if you start charging less for your concerts, you automatically drop in a "lower league" and you are not treated in the same way as the biggest/most successful acts.

 

The Shangri-La's in the 80s.