=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
Unsung Forum »
Carrying On With The Name
Log In to post a reply
71 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Piquiod
Piquiod
525 posts

Re: Carrying On With The Name
Feb 11, 2011, 18:16
this is a very interesting topic...I don't know where I fall yet.
Should Santana have changed their name when lead singer Gregg Rollie left?
I get what VJ is saying, and on the grounds of credibility, I agree...change the name.
But is it that cut and dry? We's talking about rock and roll, a kiddies pasttime...so why so regimented? -> cuz some bands have worked hard at what they do and have defined rock, and others moved it forward. I take my rock serious, so I'm considering all sides.
The Who is Pete's vision made real by the Ox, Moon, Roger and Pete...But it's still Pete's world manifested by brilliant musicians, and Roger (ha-ha). Are they The Who since Moon died, yes, because Pete's vision of what the Who are has not changed. I think we need to think about the bands conceptually rather than the rank and file.
Zep died w/ Bonham. Their concept was a band comprised of those 4 guys. In it to win it...they changed the game, and took total charge of their direction. Sharks aside, there was integrity, and honesty there.
Robert still feels that way, and mini-reunions aside, Zep is dead.
Floyd- the 86 version should have changed the name since there was no real concept other than we're 3/4's (or 3/5's) Floyd...the name sells.
Jane's Addiction- revolving bassists, but still Perry's concept...they can stay Jane's, but will they make a good new cd? we'll see.
Maybe majority rules...50% of band w/ concept intact you are ok to use the name. Let's integrity and legacy weigh on their minds as they make the decision...if it's good for the legacy of the name, it might be ok for us fans.
In reply to:
Carrying On With The Name (Vybik Jon)
Topic Outline:
Unsung Forum Index