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

What about if one of the post-original lineups enjoy more success than the original? For example, Pink Floyd, Kraftwerk, the Eagles, etc. Where do you draw the line? Is it the main songwriter, or the singer, or the guitarist etc that MUST be present for the band to be legitimate?

As has been already stated, no one forces the punter to see these bands.

 

I saw you there. You were happy indeed!

 

The band members have the right to earn a living and people enjoy it.
That being said, The "Little River Band" is a full-on scam. They should call themselves a tribute and lower ticket prices.

 

This has been going on since . . . forever. Think of the girl groups, the Motown groups, and 60's "pop" acts like The Association, The 5th Dimension, The Grass Roots and Paul Revere & the Raiders. Many still tour, and fortunately, most people in the audience just want to hear the songs so as long as there is some connection to the original group (usually one remaining member, sometimes the son of an original member), they are happy to attend the show. The advantage that most of these "names" have is that people don't always remember the original members (I mean, for me the Temptations' David Ruffin and Eddie Kendricks are two of the greatest vocalsts of the 20th Century, but I don't think others care). And, most of these bands were playing theaters, dinner shows, Vegas, and oldies revues, so people accepted it.

But, I think that it was groups like Journey and Van Halen that demonstrated that even when you lose a critical member that fans love (like the lead vocalist), if you play your cards right, you can keep your audience and still play arenas and stadiums. Journey found their lead vocalist on youtube and they played a couple of stadium dates with Def Leppard last year!! That's a LOT of people, so I'm not sure what would happen if for example, Journey were to be left with only Schon. Not sure if audiences would still accept the band, and maybe they would need to go the theater route.

 

I like Steve Hackett's approach, touring old Genesis material but making it clear he isn't "Genesis" (Genesis Revisted)... without saying other acts are being somehow dishonest, Hackett is being completely open.

 

Exactly. That's a great example.

 

Wasn't there a "bogus" version of Fleetwood Mac going around in the mid 1970s, and a less-than-genuine Deep Purple somewhere around 1980?

 

that's cool! He's fabulous...

 

Isn’t there a “bogus” version of Fleetwood Mac going around right now?

 

No, Mick and John are there.

 

I believe the band you saw was Creedence Clearwater Revisited.

 

Well really as soon as you take it out of the garage or off front porch you enter the "crass commercial enterprise" category. I'm just sayin'. Making a living, or a little walking around money doing something you enjoy ain't a sin.

 

That's right. It was a band called Stretch. Hired by Clifford Davis (the Mac's then manager) to fulfill some Fleetwood Mac US commitments in 1974. Initially, Mick Fleetwood was supposed to tour with them but withdrew & denied he knew anything abut them

Very decent in their own right - had a hit in the UK, the following year with Why Did You Do It? - but they never really escaped from the Mac debacle.

 

The Shangri La's? You mean the gal band that quite working in
1966 - the ones who didn't own the name, the corporation or
the finances? You mean the people who funded everything
and paid their salaries - stole the bands name from themselves
and toured a nostalgia act under a different management team?

 

Yes for a single tour - Clifford Davis the supposed manager of Fleetwood Mac decided
to take 5 unknowns and tour them as Fleetwood Mac to make up dates the real band
canceled. AFAIK he got to date #5 and was legally told to quit - and then had to pay
the Real Fleetwood Mac for the pleasure.

In 1980 Rod Evans toured as Deep Purple in name only. He said a management team
contacted him and had a album - he toured for about 8 months - and then was sued
by the real Deep Purple for about $800K - supposedly what he made during the bogus
tour. Since he couldn't pay he was forced at lawyer point to sing away all royalties to
the album he did make with the DP.

 

Yes...I was autocorrected by Siri.

 

It sounds greedy and probably is, but if people are paying those ticket prices and filling arenas it's probably the correct pricing.
We don't have to go (I know I'm happy not to).
Also a big part of the audiences is likely not hard core fans.

 

Supposed? Clifford was their manager, and he and the band were facing a big debt for cancelling a tour with short notice.
According to Clifford, Mick and at least one other member were in on the whole thing but then turned and stabbed him in the back.

 

Or pay the dope man , to keep the monkey off their back

 

Of course he's going to say that. He sure didn't say any of that in court -
which begs the question - if he was going down - why wouldn't he at least
try to take them down as well?

From what I've read - he didn't because there wasn't any agreement struck.
Mick Fleetwood is a lot of things - but most of all he and McVie are honorable
people.

 

Haha, now Mick is honorable? He fired Lindsey Buckingham through his manager a year ago.

 

How is that not honorable? Buckingham has a reputation for
going off the rails angry - If I was Fleetwood - and I have been
dealing with Buckinghams crap for 40 years - I wouldn't talk
to him directly.

 

Alsao a fake Zombies (all Americans) set out on tour to capitalize on Time of the Season: also Moby Grapes former manager put a fake Moby Grape on tour to compete with the original band.

 

I refuse to see the New York Philharmonic anymore. They haven't had an original member in over a century!

 

The answer is money. It doesn't really compute to me, as a rational person who tries to live within my means, but these guys who've been famous forever can't just go back to living on a normal person's income, I guess. I think some musicians always had a plan for getting off the road, or were used to biding time for long periods between activity. Others probably burned through all their money, made some bad investments, had a few too many divorces/children, etc etc etc, and it's really just a matter of them needing to make X dollars per year to maintain their lifestyle, and that amount can't just be accrued from royalty payments.

But I agree, there's a lot of bands that really shouldn't be out there under their band name, Chicago definitely being one of them (I'm presuming the majority of their set comes from the 69-75 era, plus a couple later Cetera/Champlin-led pop hits).