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

There was something Lemmy said in the documentary that was made a few years ago. The interviewer referred to playing in Motorhead as "what you do" & Lemmy said something like, it stopped being what I do a long time ago. It's who I am.

 

I guess that's why some people have been desperate for Zeppelin and others to reunite. Of course I say just listen to their music via radio or YouTube and remember them the way they were.

 

My sister loved the Little River Band concert she went to. I didn't have the heart to tell her the truth. I suspect most of the audience for these nostalgia tours is like that. Guys are on stage performing accurate replicas of the songs, why would anyone who isn't a liner-note-reading music nerd notice?

 

Considering they (the original members) later wanted to perform once again as The Little River Band but couldn't because one of their hired hands legally got the rights to the band name after they had quit years earlier, most people would say, yeah, it was an definitely unwise part on their part to quit! I don't get your point.

 

$

 

Not just the drummer, also Stu Cook, the bass player (unless he's retired recently). Honestly, I'm not interested...but I think if that classic rhythm section wants to play those songs again, why not as long as they're making pretty clear with "Revisited" that it's not the original band. (Though I guess it is still CCR, come to think of it.)

I saw Manzarek & Krieger together and it was a thrill to hear those guys play their parts on a set list of Doors songs. I know Densmore had to sue them out of calling it Doors of the 21st Century, but to me it was fine, I wouldn't have mistaken that name for The Doors. Though I did prefer the "Manzarek-Krieger Band," I must admit.

Generally, it's gotten pretty stale for me seeing a classic band's actual name utilized. The current version of Yes comes to mind. Also Grand Funk Railroad, after Mark Farner was legally hoodwinked out of the reunited band by his ex-bandmates. Lame.

 

The problem lies not with these musicians who understandably enjoy the money and fame. The problem lies with the music consumer (or at least a subset of this group) who cling to the music of their youth and want to hear it over and over again even if it's played at a lower quality by musicians not in the original group. They could go to a bar and hear a bar band play generic versions of their favorite oldies, but they find it more "authentic" to go to a concert performance by a name band. The fact that its the band in name only is not important. The important thing is "I saw the Beach Boys or Little River Band or whatever". Sad turn of events.

 

This reminds me a bit of Fairport Convention, which organically morphed and re-morphed into the band-with-only-one-original-member (and another dating to 1970) that it's been for many years, apart from reunion shows (that demonstrate its family dynamic ~ once a member, always a member).

 

It was amusing to me that one of the fake Zombies bands turned into ZZ Top.

The True Story Of The Fake Zombies, The Strangest Con In Rock History

 

As long as Fogerty is touring, it makes little sense (to me anyway) to see these other guys play. Fogerty WAS CCR, rhythm section not withstanding.
In the case of Manzarek & Kreiger they were a major part of the Doors, so seeing them would be more special. I certainly don't think that's lame at all.

 

Knowing that you can keep an entourage you curated genuinely employed is also a motivator. Some techs/support musicians/handlers are connected to some performers for 40-50 years.

 

Why is it a problem? If the consumer enjoys the show (and there’s no guarantee that the quality will be less. It will be different to an extent but I digress). Music fans want to hear the music that they had and made them feel good. By this definition, for example, if an original stage play was put on by others not affiliated with the original, they shouldn’t bother. Whatever these musicians being with them, for better or worse, it does keep the music alive in a sense and continues to resonate. I have no problem with people going to see bands even if not all (or any) original members are there. If they have a good time, I say no harm no foul. I’d also point out that it’s not the consumers fault either. They go because they tour. If they didn’t go see them they would go see other bands possibly bar bands (hey, don’t diss bar bands there are some pretty terrific ones out there and everyone starts someplace) playing the same music. Frankly, most bands that don’t have original members, most fans often don’t know because to them it was about the music.

I don’t understand the issue of the band plays well, the customers have a good time, honestly no one is getting hurt. Seems like a victimless crime.

 

They are good - they just haven't found their own voice yet.

 

It's called the music business and not the Artist Business for a reason.
Anyone in a band established as Little River Band was in their day
who doesn't own the rights to the band name are idiots. Great Musicians
but idiots.

It really doesn't matter what any of us think about the ethics -
if people are buying tickets to the fake Little River Band it's on
them. It's 2019 - if you can't search the internet about upcoming
concerts and the band bios you deserve what you get.

I'm not going to address the rights or wrongs about touring under
a band guise. The late 50s and early 60s bands have been doing that
ever since the members started dying off or got to sick.

 

I think it is more a point of the original writers of the songs not even being able to perform them.

As for people getting tickets to the fake band, how TF are they supposed to know? Most people aren't music nerds absorbing the information that's out there.

 

It's not that any particular countries people don't understand anything -
it's that people don't care - I imagine that people don't know who the
original band members were to begin with - so when the name tours
now days - they just think it's the same band - and they don't sound the
same because they are older -

The General public rarely has the same sense of ownership of a band that is on
display here - they own the songs in a sense - that's what they remember.
And taking a band like the LRB - I seriously doubt many people saw them
twice in their heyday - one and done was the usual course. Those people
rarely remember the band members.

On a side note - The Little River Band website is blocked in Australia.
I found that interesting.

 

If you don't have to buy tickets - and the people that do buy tickets
enjoy themselves - how is that greedy or selfish or a disservice.

The poster who said Brands - has it right. These bands that
tour can do so because they have enough name recognition
in the brand to sell tickets. And usually the people buying the
tickets only know the brand name - and rarely know who
the members are/were - except once in a while people will
know the singer - due to the amount of publicity a band
received back in their heyday - most of which focused on
the singers.

 

This is 2019 - people have smart phones - people have tablets.
They have access to google. If it was/is important to anyone
they only have to spend a minute or two searching things out.

I would argue that people just don't care that much anymore.
They are buying nostalgia and the music when they were
young - which means if the songs are played well then
the band will continue to sell tickets.

 

This is such a silly thread that I'm compelled to comment. So many people (maybe 10?) being outraged that someone is trying to make a buck or two.

Guess what? These bands don't care if you like it or not, because most of the general public likes it, and they're the ones buying the tickets. How would you like it if we all started telling you that you can't go do your job anymore, because we just don't like the idea of it?

I mean c'mon, do you really think a band is going to say "Oh no, we can't go on tour because ten members of SHTV don't think we should be doing it".

Bottom line is, if you don't like, don't buy a ticket, but don't tell me (or anyone else) what bands I can and can't go see.

 

Right, but the issue is whether or not they should be doing this. IMO, it's greedy and a disservice to the rightful legacy of the band.

Let them try to make their own music tour under a different name - nobody's saying they can't do that.

 

Again, who are you to say what they can or can't do?

 

That's the point of the thread. Whether or not people *should* do it, not whether they can.
IMO, those that do are greedy, undignified clowns who - lacking the ability to make it on their own - have grasped onto the legacy of someone else.

 

But there are very few bands as yet doing what Little River Band is doing, using the name for a fake lineup while the real one is stranded (The closest US equivalent would be War, and they still have one real guy). For the most part, all veteran bands have had their changes and replacements in plain sight over a long period of time.

If you demand that a longrunning band have something close to its original lineup, you're pretty much left with ZZ Top and U2.

 

Why?!?
Because stupid people pay stupid amounts of money to go see them.

 

Right - then it's time to hang it up.

There's always the albums.