When should a band change its name??

[Simo]

I have often thought about this and would like your opinions on when a band is no longer the same band and as such should change there name.

Some examples:

Axl Rose's new band is called Guns N Roses and there is all the talk of the comeback! However...its just him! To me the new band, whilst I will buy the CD and listen to the music is not Guns N Roses.

But then I think at what point did it stop being GNR? When Steve Adler got the boot? Or does it not count when its a drummer because they dont shape the distinctive sound to the same extent as a vocalist or guitarist?

Or was it when Izzy left? Or then when Slash left? Or then when Duff left?

Velevet Revolver have more of a claim to the GNR name than GNR now do, with 2 original members and 1 second generation member.

Then there is Van Halen..... now I got into them after it had all happened but do you consider Van Halen with Roth and Van Hager with Sammy? What about Gary Cherone, is it still Van Halen? Well I guess they kept the same core.

Then there is the issue of dead people. Should a band continue with the name and replace dead people? Eg the new Alice in Chains band or INXS?
Could Dave Grohl get the old Nirvana bass player and a new singer and legitimatelly be called Nirvana?

What are your opinoins on when people should leave there old name in the memory of the band it was and start a fresh....they still cash in on the previous popularity with instant record deals and there name.

I say the GNR situation is silly, to me it is not GNR without Duff, Slash, Izzy.

But Metallica when Cliff Burton died...I can see them continuing with the name after he was replaced.

But Nirvana wont ever be Nirvana without Cobain (I know they are not trying, just an example).

Thoughts of my rant?

 

[Samwise]

I'd say definitely if the lead singer leaves, and probably if the main songwriters leave. Also if a band changes their name to something stupid like pacifier, they should immediately change it back.

 

[Simo]

lol ...agreed with Pacifier!

 

[Weasels Ripped My Flesh]

I'd say definitely if the lead singer leaves

Faith No More kicked out their lead singer of 7 years (Chuck Mosely) in 1989, only to replace him with Mike Patton and become a huge success.

 

[Dr Crane]

I'd say definitely if the lead singer leaves, and probably if the main songwriters leave. Also if a band changes their name to something stupid like pacifier, they should immediately change it back.

Or they shouldn't do it in the first place.

 

[strewth_mate]

I'd say definitely if the lead singer leaves

Generally agreed. No matter what you think of Genesis though, because it's irrelevant, they continued under that moniker with some success when Gabriel left, just as example of potential exceptions.

That said, look at someone like Led Zeppelin. Page and Plant were the faces of the band and if either of them left, it wouldn't be the same even with the other one still there. If Jagger had left the Stones, regardless of the fact every member of that band has enough fame due to the fact they've been around together so long, some would say there'd be less of an impact if Richards had gone, even considering his status and how crucial he is to the image of the band.

And you have the situations like those of the Little River Band and Pink Floyd, who has the rights to the name. Birtle Shorrock and Gobles were effectively LRB when they went around again a while ago in lineup, even if neither they nor the legitimately named LRB were any good any more.

Probably comes down to the "hmm... I dunno..." factor depending on how comfortable someone is calling the band by the same name when a member leaves. Matter of opinion perhaps.

Although in the case of a band like Van Halen, Bon Jovi or Ringo Starr & His All Starr Band, if the frontman leaves it's probably a good idea to change the name...

 

[Once Dead]

Only if the band owns the copyright to the name......E.G. Axl Rose owns the GnR name and Roger Martinez owns the Vengeance Rising name thus they are allowed to use the name

 

[choc_soldier]

Pacifier was way too reactionary. Luckily sanity prevailed, and changed their name back to Shihad.

 

[strewth_mate]

They should have changed their name to Jihad, that would have upset a few

 

[KevinArnold]

The name change didn't do Shihad any good in the States anyway. They will never do another record like "The General Electric". Top album. It's been down-hill ever since.

 

[Weasels Ripped My Flesh]

They should have changed their name to Jihad, that would have upset a few

Would of got more press, too.

 

[sydraider]

The only member you can never replace is the singer. Instruments can be made to sound the same, vocals never can.

 

[bartman]

I reckon 50% rule. 50% of original members of a group gone = group should change it's name.

So INXS can stay INXS if they want. Guns n Roses shouldn't.

 

[carcharias]

AC/DC are the only band who replaced the singer that still had some cred I feel.

Back in Black was the comeback of the century.

 

[Simo]

Only if the band owns the copyright to the name......E.G. Axl Rose owns the GnR name and Roger Martinez owns the Vengeance Rising name thus they are allowed to use the name

Whilst legally thats corrrect I dont agree with it though.....in theory using this logic Donald Trump could pay Axl 100million for the name then release an album and claim to be Guns N Roses! Music isnt about legal documents, thats not real. This is how you end up with artists formally known as Prince!!

There seem to be exceptions to the rules e.g......AC/DC I agree with, but would I accept Queen as Queen without Fredy Mercury?

Heres one I thought of, but am not 100% sure. When reading the booklet in my Twisted Sisters Greatest hits book, im sure the band members changed that much over the years that there may have been no original band members in the end band! Im going on 10 year old memory here so I could be very wrong, but I was sure none of the names matched up!

 

[Once Dead]

Whilst legally thats corrrect I dont agree with it though.....in theory using this logic Donald Trump could pay Axl 100million for the name then release an album and claim to be Guns N Roses! Music isnt about legal documents, thats not real. This is how you end up with artists formally known as Prince!!

There seem to be exceptions to the rules e.g......AC/DC I agree with, but would I accept Queen as Queen without Fredy Mercury?

Heres one I thought of, but am not 100% sure. When reading the booklet in my Twisted Sisters Greatest hits book, im sure the band members changed that much over the years that there may have been no original band members in the end band! Im going on 10 year old memory here so I could be very wrong, but I was sure none of the names matched up!

I understand where you're coming from but as long as a band member owns the name then its ok...

 

[newtownbluebags]

The Farris Brothers was a band that changed it's name to INXS in 1979 and IMO should have packed it in in 1997 when Hutchence fell off his perch! They'd lived the times and made the money/fame and it's now quite painful to watch the search for a new lead singer every time the one before hasn't worked out!............
Unfortunately there will only ever be one Michael Hutchence and although it was a band the very public face of INXS was/will always be MH. I'm sure other bands suffer this problem............?

 

[2 True Blues]

Mick was THE only lead singer mate, but their new album is still good. bought it the other week and it has still got musical TOP qualitly !!! But Mick will be a class act tough to follow. I was at Heathcote Park at the SWING, and Shark Park when Mick was on stage doin Good Times with Jimmy Barnes. Great memories and top musical talent to follow.

 

[Rexxy]

All bands should be forced to split up after their fourth album.

 

[HevyDevy]

:lol:

Most bands are lucky to make two decent albums let alone four.

Correction: Most bands are lucky to make ONE decent album.