The Band remains the same

First off I don`t think waters would have done any better had he called "himself" Pink Floyd. As far as I`m concerned al his solo stuff outside Pink Floyd is pretty weak. If anything, he would have killed the name. Good thing Dave and the boys won the rights, they did produce some great music without Rog.

I think some bands should just ditch the name if the essence of the music changes for whatever reason, personel change, abrupt change of musical direction etc.

I mentioned in a previous thread and in a review that I think that Thijs van Leer could have gotten away with calling the latest Focus incarnation something like The Thijs van Leer Project or The Thijs van Leer Band because of his reputation I`m sure people would have bought it just the same because it is a killer album in it`s own right but it`s not the Focus of old especially without Jan Akkerman!

When Bob put King Crimson back together again in 1980 with Adrian, Tony and Bill I saw them here in Montréal playing stuff from what was to become Discipline and that`s what they were billed as Discipline. And that would have been fine with me because it didn`t have anything to do with the earlier 1970`s Crimsons. I was even suprised that the band was even called King Crimson when the album did come out.

I saw Black Sabbath with Ian Gillian butcher some old Ozzy songs but for the encore they did Smoke on The Water and Child In Time and the crowd were chanting for more Deep purple songs. If they would have come out and played a whole set of Deep Purple Classics I think everyone would have walked away a lot more satisfied because that`s all everyone was talking about the next day! So go figure

Vibrationbaby wrote: First off I don`t think waters would have done any better had he called "himself" Pink Floyd. As far as I`m concerned al his solo stuff outside Pink Floyd is pretty weak. If anything, he would have killed the name. Good thing Dave and the boys won the rights, they did produce some great music without Rog. I think some bands should just ditch the name if the essence of the music changes for whatever reason, personel change, abrupt change of musical direction etc. When Bob put King Crimson back together again in 1980 with Adrian, Tony and Bill I saw them here in Montréal playing stuff from what was to become Discipline and that`s what they were billed as Discipline. And that would have been fine with me because it didn`t have anything to do with the earlier 1970`s Crimsons. I was even suprised that the band was even called King Crimson when the album did come out.

The chameleonic changes Fripp regularly put King Crimson through would probably justify the KC name during the 80's version. Each incarnation was markedly different then the next, except Bob's tone.  

I agree with you about Watters solo output.  At least Dave and the boys kept the basic sound of Pink Floyd, even if they had to add a few members and hire a lyricist.

Most of us here would have preferred to have Genesis changed to the Phil Collins Band after Hackett left. Spock's Beard is defintely a different band, sonically and lyrically, with Neal Morse. A name change would be appropriate.

I remember when John Bonham died, the remainder of Led Zeppelin said they would never use the name again, because LZ died with Bonzo.    

I think keeping a bands name no matter how much the people and the stlye changed is mostly marketing ie: you'll sell more album by using a popular known name versus a new unfamiliar name .

 Its a legal issue really which has nothing to do with artistic values/integrity.

I guess Its about who owns and controls the name of the band (members and/or record company)  and to what percentage.  Maybe a rule of 50% of the original members must be there or 50% of the original composers must be there in order to keep the name ?

 I think with ABWH it was a legal issue and were not legally allowed to use YES although logically it was a YES album !

danbo wrote: Spock's Beard is defintely a different band, sonically and lyrically, with Neal Morse. A name change would be appropriate.

How about SPOCK'S MUSTACHE?

Stormcrow

Tommy Bolin.... I loved his work with Billy Cobham "Spectrum." Blistering solos.

Quote: What about Emerson, Lake & Palmer?... then Powell then "3" then... booom!!!, it is not the same without the original members, and considering a vey tight group... you can figure that out

Totally agree.ELP was Emerson,Lake and Palmer.Cozy Powell changed the band significantly ,so much so that Greg Lake was forced to change his singing style and adopt a more 'gutteral' approach.The album that followed was a dissapointment to me.I would have rather they had used a different name altogether to promote it and not 'tainted' ELP with it.

Marcelo wrote: And what about Genesis without Gabriel and Hackett? Band must be re-named "The Phil Collins Band" or "Poppy Boys" or something...

This really is one of the majure disasters in the history of prog (as far as I know)

XTC (brilliant somgsmiths though not prog in the classical sense, I admit) recorded some great neo-retro-psychodelia under the name THE DUKES OF STRATOSPHERE. Two bands playing totally different music, consisting of the same line-up simultaneously. Saves a lot of confusion.

On the pre/post Gabriel/Hackett question, when a band that once produced "Selling England" ends up knocking out sad rubbish like "I Can't Dance", it's clear they lost the right to call themselves progressive a long time ago. Regressive, more like!