What is a band?
Is a band defined by the members of the group?
- Is this band required to change its name if a significant number of members change?
- Is this band required to change its name if the sound changes?
Is a band defined by its sound?
- Is this band required to change its name if a significant number of members change?
- Is this band required to change its name if the sound changes?
I don’t think either is self inclusive. There are band that are defined by the members and there are bands that are defined by their sound. There are some that are very easily defined by both and an alternate lineup would completely alter their sound.
Led Zeppelin is one of these. They are easily recognizable by their sound but it was also the specific members that allowed that sound to happen. They knew this and is the reason they folded after John Bonham died. Some other bands defined by their sound and members are The Beatles, Styx and Pink Floyd to name a few. Out of those, there is only one band that ceased and that was The Beatles. Styx lost/fired one of their founding members and songwriters (Dennis DeYoung) and continued with a replacement. Their drummer (John Panozzo) passed away and the bassist (Chuck Panozzo) does limited shows. Their saving grace is that the replacement for Dennis DeYoung sounds just like him, so the band has not lost their sound. But Styx currently only has 2 (sometimes 3) original members. Those 2 members (and the 3rd sound-alike) are large enough that it works to keep calling it Styx.
Bands that are defined by their sound would be like Miami Sound Machine, The Commodores, Blood, Sweat & Tears, The Temptations. While each of those certainly had breakout members, they were not defined by the members, but were defined by their sound. Most of those bands have had a rotating list of singers and players throughout their career and it didn’t affect the sound of the band. You can go to a BS&T show and enjoy their bigest hits and never know that there is no one on stage that was part of the original band, and it doesn’t really matter.
So, in these regards, bands that have changed some members but still function and sound like the original (ie, Styx) or bands that were never reliant on a certain set of members, name changes are really unnessesary.
Now, there are those bands that push the boundries of name usage when they shouldn’t, all because the brand/product/name is worth its weight in gold. The first that comes to mind is Foreigner. There is no one on stage that is an original member. While the band as a whole created a sound, Foreigner is a band that had one distinct member that stood out and made the band recognizable, and that was singer Lou Gramm. While the band tried to continue after he left, they pretty much disappeared. They are doing the same thing that BS&T is doing, touring a collection of musicians playing Foreinger songs. For those that don’t know any different, they are getting an amazing Foreigner show because the band is stellar and the current lineup has been “Foreigner” for almost 2 decades! But it is really nothing more than a Foreigner tribute act that gets to use the real name because the original guitarist Mick Jones runs the show (and occasionally appears when his health allows). Foreigner really should have ceased after Lou Gramm left. Journey is another that is propelled by the popularity of the brand/product/name. While Steve Perry was actually not a founding member, the band became what it is because of the addition of him to the lineup. Journey has survived only by hiring Steve Perry sound-alikes throughtout the years and maintained most all of its members. But, I feel it is a band that should have called it quits when Steve Perry was out of the picture. I could also bring up Kiss, but that is a whole other discussion!
So, in these regards, bands that have changed members, especially key members, and their sound or perception of the band changed drastically because of the difference, this should warrant a serious look and keeping a recognized name when you could be tarnishing the brand.
An instance where these things became legal issues.
Great White
Great band, very recognizable singer (Jack Russell). Singer is fired for various reasons. Singer forms his own version of Great White and tours. Now there are 2 versions of Great White and no one know which version they’re getting when they buy tickets. Why? Because the singer and the original drummer both owned 50% of the name. Most bought tickets expecting to see Jack Russell (the voice) and got the band with a new singer, that was nothing like Jack Russell. After a short legal battle, they both were allowed to use the name but, to tell the difference, Jack Russell added his name to the title (Jack Russell’s Great White) so fans knew what they were getting before buying a ticket.
Love your words. The key, in my opinion, is not to get typecasted. Could you ever accept the actor Bruce Dern to play anything other than a villainous character? I could never accept a group to be called Journey without that distinctive sound. Some bands/musicians are talented enough to play and sing a wide variety of genres and be successful. The group Blonde started off as a Punk/Rock band but had a hit single in Disco, “Heart of Glass.” She followed it up with other hits in different genres. Yet, she had a distinctive sound and if anyone else took her place and didn’t closely match her then, I believe, they would not be Blonde.
I like your Led Zepplin paragraph and wholeheartedly agree. They knew they could not produce the same sound so they ceased to be. But this did not hinder the individuals from doing other things. So, I guess it all boils down to this: If a band loses that which makes them distinctive, whether it be a particular member (Could you imagine the Rolling Stones without Mick Jagger?) or a particular sound then they need to stop and become something different under a different name. Anything else waters down the previous greatness.
I’ll be the one to open the can of worms that Adam refused to – regarding KISS. Their original lineup formed in 1973, and remained together until drummer Peter Criss was fired in 1979. Peter was taught by legendary jazz drummer Gene Krupa. The quirky, swing-jazz beats and fills Peter infused into KISS’ first three studio albums (and even more on their first live album) absolutely set KISS apart from other 70’s rock bands such as Aerosmith and Cheap Trick. Unfortunately for Peter, KISS’ kabuki-monster looks and over-the-top stage shows absolutely overshadowed any musical recognition the band ever could’ve attained.
When Peter was replaced in 1980 by Eric Carr (RIP), the band’s sound changed drastically. While Eric was incredibly versatile (before joining KISS, he played with a NY Top 40/Disco Cover Band), he idolized drummers like John Bonham & Keith Moon – who were vastly more bombastic. Eric’s revved-up drumming style drove KISS to be a heavier band live than they ever were with Peter. Should KISS have changed their name then? No, even at that time they were just as much a “brand” as they were a band. They created a character for him (“The Fox”), designed a costume for him, and it was back to business as usual for KISS. Until 1982, when Lead Guitarist Ace Frehley decided to leave the group.
While certainly not a guitar virtuoso, Ace’s style was a mash-up of Jimmy Page & Jeff Beck, with a tinge of Jimi Hendrix thrown in for good measure. When Ace left KISS in 1982, he was immediately replaced by TV Theme Songwriter Vincent Cusano. A Stage Name change (Vinnie Vincent), a new character (The Egyptian Ankh Warrior), and a new costume were created virtually overnight, and again “The Fearsome Foursome” were back in business. However, Vinnie’s guitar style was nothing like Ace’s. Where Ace’s solos were all about melody and flashy attitude, Vinnie was all about speed-shredding. He claimed to have similar guitar influences as Ace, but it never materialized in his solo work. Should KISS have changed their name then? Surely with a more bombastic early 80’s musical style, on stage they sounded more like Judas Priest or Iron Maiden than they did Aerosmith or AC/DC… but no, The general public “heard with their eyes” the guys from the 70’s whose stage act had become so mainstream that even whitebread American TV stars like Donny & Marie Osmond, and Sonny & Cher would actually parody the band on their TV Variety shows.
With their record sales plummeting and their live show attendances dwindling, KISS made the only choice left to them to save their collective career – they took off their makeup in 1983. Some say that they could’ve taken off the makeup, changed the band’s name and would’ve been just as successful, but it was their public unmasking on MTV that got them radio airplay with their first non-makeup album.
I’m going to end the “KISStory” lesson there, but even with half of the original lineup gone, and a drastic live sound change, KISS never changed their name. They set trends, they followed trends, they’ve had incredibly high AND low points in their career, but what those four guys initially created has by now become an undeniable, indelible part of American Pop Culture. And THAT will never change.
I believe, in your own way, your dialogue supports my statement about distinctiveness. KISS lost that which, in your mind, made them KISS. Paul Stanley said, in a quote to Dan Rather, “KISS” was the band that they never saw.” – So maybe in Paul’s mind, regardless of the change-ups that they still were holding true to the band they never and continue to never see.
I think you are spot on that when they took the makeup off they should have become a different name but KISS was and continues to be a “Brand” for which millions of merchandise are sold. So maintaining the KISS name perpetuates the sale of “stuff.” They are locked into being KISS, no matter how they look or how they sound.
But are they the “KISS”. Probably not.
Cheap Trick is a group, that in my mind is still the Cheap Trick of old but as soon as Robin Zander leaves, it is all over.
Very interesting question. I think bands are a fluid entities that are not strictly defined by either their sound, which can change over time nor the membership, which can also change over time. Fleetwood Mac changed it’s sound and membership radically over time. The Wrecking Crew was a fluid group of LA session players who defined the sound of scores of bands in the 60’s and 70’s. So, I think there is no particular structure that you can package up to definitively answer the question. To all the arguments I would quote Tevye and say: “you’re right.”