What was the Wishbone sound?  To me, those twin lead guitars are the signature sound, so it's Andy and Ted Turner who made the band.  The question is, which band is showing up for the gig?  Who owns the name?  Is it Martin or Andy or Ted, or even Steve? 

 

 

 

 

... read my reviews! 

 

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21435&KW - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21435&KW =

 

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=53080&KW - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=53080&KW =

 

 

Hopefully in both cases good sense will prevail, and the founding members (or at least as many as possible) will reunite.

 

The NAME is owned by all four original Core members equally. None of them ever sold or gave up their residual rights to either the name/brand nor the business entity that it is. Sadly, one of them - and I won't mention who - decided to try and co-opt the whole shebang for his own personal use/profit/career etc. Three of the core members (Turner, Upton, Turner) have stated they also accept that Laurie Wisefield can express his rights to the name (he was Ted's replacement in the classic years) if he chooses.

 

One of the core members has tried to suggest repeatedly that Wishbone Ash effectively belongs to him, and registered the trademark in his own name, without even bothering to consult the others. He also suggests that he never left the band. This is a fallacy since in the early 1990s the band effectively foundered with one after the other leaving or being edged out. In about 1994 there was no band with all members doing something else.

 

The Wishbone sound clearly revolved around the twin harmony guitar arrangements. It might surprise many to realise that a lot of those melodies were actually written by the bassist. For those of us that have followed the Ash story since the 70s - it was always clear that Wishbone were not a twin-guitar band ... they were a triple guitar band, because Martin Turner's strident bass was always up there with the other guitars. Without MT's bass power, the resulting sounds were always weak and lacking something - even if the harmony guitar motifs were all present and correct.

 

So who made the band? I would say by and large Martin Turner did. Why? Well because he wrote the lion's share of their output (and helped arrange the other's material) especially Argus which is 80% his. He did most of the singing and seems to have pushed the others in the artistic direction the band followed. This is not unusual with many bassists actually leading supposed guitar bands. You only have to look at the control the likes of Phil Lynott, Geddy Lee, Jack Bruce, John Wetton or Paul McCartney had to realise the importance of the singer/bassist/leader.

 

Martin of course founded the band along with Steve Upton. It evolved from the ashes of Tanglewood, a band which Miles Copeland was managing and had included Martin's brother Glenn. When GT left and returned to his native West Country, the hunt was on for replacements. Initially the plan had been to get a new guitarist and a keyboard player. However, Martin and Steve couldn't decide between Andy Powell and Ted Turner for guitar. MT decided they should forget the keys and try out a twin-guitar line up - not lead and rhythm - but two lead/harmony players (like The Yardbirds had tried with Page and Beck). So the idea for a twin-harmony guitar band was once again Martin Turner's idea.

 

I hope all of that helps fill in some of the gaps.

 

Agreed - I think I have clearly outlined that here and on other Ash threads

 

They're both a single member from the original band and a bunch of replacements. One is the bassist's Wishbone Ash (why? The bass in the band was nothing special),

 

Not quite. Martin has quite categorically called his band Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash - for two reasons: firstly he agrees it is not the actual band and secondly because he wishes to reinforce that by the suffix aluding to the fact it is his own legacy band interpretation. Martin's band are not replacements. He has never tried to pretend he is carrying on with Wishbone Ash - his is a new band with new people. BTW1 - he was hardly just the bassist which would become clear if you had read the previous post - and BTW2 the bass was definitely something special in WA's sound. If you can't hear that - you weren't listening...

 

and one is the IMO less important guitarist's Wishbone Ash. Either way you're getting nothing better than immitation and nostalgia.

 

Here I am more inclined to agree with you. Immitation? Well, perhaps that is not quite fair as both bands feature guys who created the music - so in a way they are merely playing to their own strengths. Nostalgia is definitely a component, however, althought they are far from alone in that these days...

 

The main problem with APWA (Andy Powell's WA) is he pretends he is continuing with a band which never broke up (i.e. people just came and left). However, he also tries by default to appear to have been the one who always controlled its destiny and that is manifestly not true. Back in the 70s he was certainly the least important member writing and singing little. He also persists with the line that his band is just Wishbone Ash rather than adding his own name as a suffix, which at least Martin Turner more honestly has done. All of this is hugely disingenuous towards former colleagues and fans alike...

 

I understand where that comment comes from but you have to weigh up whether he should have been doing (for ten years) what he was doing in the first place. The other original members clearly do not think so. It is so easy to fall for the hype of the brave sole warrior enduring all to keep the flame of Wishbone Ash alive, and bringing it to the fans. The alternate viewpoint would say he took something that was only 20% his in the first place - without asking the other four guys (including Laurie Wisefield) and has proceeded to profit from a brand and material that was largely created by the others. It's a bit like Ringo Starr getting a bunch of sidemen and going out as The Beatles.

 

I remember in 2002, while visiting Disney World, I came across a little hole in the wall. A shack almost. It was on the end of a busy street corner near Tower Records. The place had an odour and that odour smelt like Wishbone Ash. After reading the name posted on the marquee, I walked away with my head down. I thought to myself.....Talk about paying your dues? But Powell obviously wants to continue till he dies it seems to me. He is a real die hard for his personal life and it would be a drag for him to compete, otherwise suffer financial loss over the band name at his age. Good luck to the Ash and all members.

 

What about the other four guys? They have been losing out financially for years. They own the rights to the material. They wrote the songs. What Martin Turner has done has been a long time coming. It's about time that one of the real creative forces behind Wishbone Ash wrestled back the legacy from the bogus outfit that has been misrepresenting WA for over a decade.

 

What goes around comes around. It's all about honesty and integrity in the end...

Your right. In this case it would be. I never payed attention to writing credits and this is all alien to me. Yeah, it's true. Honesty and integrity.