Do you feel
a band should be able to continue on with the same name if they
loose the front man or other key member?
Dr. Espling - I can go both way on this one. You look atbands like Primus and without Les, therewould be no Primus. Then, from the otherend, you have a band like Guns and Roseswho have none of the original members butAxel because he owns the name. That’sjust not Guns and Roses anymore. Butstill, you have situations like the one thatexisted with AC/DC many years ago. Theylost a very distictive singer only to be re-placed by somebody who made a realname for the band. So with me, I can go either way, it reallydepends on the direction the band goesafter the tranformation and the product theyput out. It all goes back to the old rock de-bate of Van Halen -vs- Van Hagar. Who wins? Ru-DoGG—Mojo Filter - I think this could go either way. On one hand, you have bands like Anthrax and Metallica, who have changed key players, kept their names and did well. Then you have Gun’s and Roses...Let’s get it together Axl. Pick a hairdo, a new name for your “not-a-former-member-of-G-N-R” band and move on with your musical career pops. Fred - Kitchen Knife Conspiracy - Yes and no. For example, Dying Fetus has only one originalmember left but that new disc they just put out RULES!They need to keep pushing forward because that music isunique, punishing and sounds great no matter who is infront of the amps. Now, if it’s a band that has undergone afew major changes and continues to go downhill in bothstatus and music quality (remember Gary Cherone and“Van Halen III?”—didn’t think so), then they should go homeand open a comic book store. Give it up before you smearyour name. Brent W. Dreier of Mojo Clad - Only if a name is worth keeping should you keep it. In other words, if you’re talking about a big national act that completely depends on the voice and lyrics of that individual, such as the Doors or Nirvana, then the name must be gone with the singer. On the contrary, other bands like Journey, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, AC/DC, Lynard Skynard and so on can get away with it because for one, the guitarist or bassist for those projects were the main song writer/leader and it showed through the music. Their bands all had semi-replaceable sounding singers, either good or bad. That to me is one way to find out who’s good and who’s great. Led Zeppelin is one of those bands that had the guitarist who ran everything but the audience was almost fooled by the incredible irreplaceable sound of Robert Plant. Rush follows that on a semi-similar spectrum. I guess it’s all in the “eye of the beholder” or in this case, “ear of the beholder.” Hey, good album name if not already taken. Just kidding. . |