Best Ever Albums

Re: Different names for different bands

TrekkiELO — Sat, 3 Mar 2012 14:37:31 GMT

Author: TrekkiELO

Posted: 03/03/2012 19:37

It is dependent on the circumstances.

Re: Different names for different bands

monosyllables — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:54:26 GMT

Author: monosyllables

Posted: 12/12/2011 16:54

Just some fun examples of all manner of extremes:
The Fall (Mark E. Smith is the ONLY consistent member of the band. To quote him, "If it's just me and your granny on the bongos, it'll still be the Fall)
Minutemen (Once D. Boon died, Mike and George decided it would be wrong of them to keep using the name Minutemen, the genesis of bands like fIREHOSE and Mike Watt and the Missingmen)
Elvis Costello has toured with a number of backing bands, The Attractions, The Imposters, The Confederates
Bob Dylan has released albums with "The Band," who also have their own discography.
Dinosaur Jr. used to be Dinosaur, but due to legal complications was forced to change names after their first LP
Doom, MF Doom, Madvillain, Danger Doom, ad infinitum

Re: Different names for different bands

Charicature — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:57:15 GMT

Author: Charicature

Posted: 06/21/2011 16:57

I'd say it's when 50% of the creative influence of the band leaves, thus rendering the band different than it was before.

I say this thinking of many bands that have one guy who writes all the songs and most of the music and the rest of the band's composition really doesn't have much influence on their sound, then realizing some other bands made up like that have lost members and become completely different.

Smashing Pumpkins comes to mind. Four members, Billy Corgan, Jimmy Chamberlain, James Iha, and D'Arcy Wretzky. Corgan wrote all the songs, even reputedly would take over performing the others' instruments on the albums to get the sound right. So you'd think he was all that mattered in the band. Chamberlain gets kicked out after OD'ing with a tour keyboardist in a drug-fest that left the keyboardist dead. Band still sounds good with a drum machine replacing him. Band breaks up two albums later, Corgan and Chamberlain reform the band years later without Iha and D'Arcy, and they suck balls. So clearly the lead guitarist and bassist (who were also backing vocals) had a significant input in the band's creativity even though no one knew it, while the drummer was vestigial to Corgan's talent.

Re: Different names for different bands

Mr. Shankly — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 21:21:08 GMT

Author: Mr. Shankly

Posted: 06/11/2011 01:21

The way this was worded, I had to go with the last one. I used to ascribe to the romantic notion of a band, where the members must stick together for it to be the same band, but over the years, I've discovered and enjoyed a number of "bands" who don't fall into the classic definition of band. What about a situation like R.E.M. where one of the original members left, so the other three carried on without him? The weird thing about R.E.M. too is that Scott McCaughey and Bill Rieflin have played consistently with Peter, Mike and Michael for like 10 years, but they are not considered members of the band because R.E.M. is trying to be traditional in that sense, and maybe honor Billy Berry as a member(?) Similarly, were the John Lennon songs that the Threatles released for the Beatles anthology project, Beatles songs? They were released with the Beatles name. And what about oldies groups with and /or motown groups like the Temptations? To play live, the members have changed constantly.

What about artists with backing bands that are fairly consistent? The Attractions and the E Street band come to mind. What about a "band" like Guided by Voices? With them there was one artistic mastermind, Bob Pollard, but the actual band members changed many times over the years. The name always stayed the same though. What about Arthur Lee touring with Baby Lemonade and calling it "Love?" After all, he was arguably the artistic mastermind behind the group. Also, a couple of the members of the group are dead. Similarly, what about the band that toured as Big Star for a few years? It had two original members and two acolytes. I'd be inclined to say the name matters the most, but that's mainly an identity thing. But what about those moments where bands are forced to change their name due to potential copyright infringements? There's too many gray areas to answer this question definitively.

Re: Different names for different bands

40footwolf — Thu, 9 Jun 2011 15:07:06 GMT

Author: 40footwolf

Posted: 06/09/2011 19:07

Applerill wrote:

Bork wrote:

I thought of an example:

Parliament/Funkadelic. The name change came about because of legal reasons, and later on albums were released under both names.

Same band or not same band?

I'd say same band. The other huge P-Funk fan here, 40Footwolf, would probably say the same thing.

I was hella confused about his question, I just realized! It may surprise you to hear that I don't think they're really the same band-I think the tone of each is different enough to merit them being listed separately. Of course Funkadelic started to sound more like Parliament as they went on, so you could make a case for them being the same band by around 1978 or so, by the time One Nation Under a Groove came out.

Re: Different names for different bands

Applerill — Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:23:01 GMT

Author: Applerill

Posted: 06/09/2011 18:23

Bork wrote:

I thought of an example:

Parliament/Funkadelic. The name change came about because of legal reasons, and later on albums were released under both names.

Same band or not same band?

I'd say same band. The other huge P-Funk fan here, 40Footwolf, would probably say the same thing.

Re: Different names for different bands

40footwolf — Thu, 9 Jun 2011 14:22:51 GMT

Author: 40footwolf

Posted: 06/09/2011 18:22

Bork wrote:

I thought of an example:

Parliament/Funkadelic. The name change came about because of legal reasons, and later on albums were released under both names.

Same band or not same band?

My default response to this is that if George Clinton says it's Parliament/Funkadelic, then it's Parliament/Funkadelic, which means that Connections and Disconnections is NOT a true Funkadelic album, both because it's bad and because it sonically has nothing to do with Funkadelic.

Re: Different names for different bands

Anonymous — Thu, 9 Jun 2011 13:27:43 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 06/09/2011 17:27

Bork wrote:

I thought of an example:

Parliament/Funkadelic. The name change came about because of legal reasons, and later on albums were released under both names.

Same band or not same band?

Unfortunately I couldn't say as I haven't listened to them

Re: Different names for different bands

Bork — Thu, 9 Jun 2011 12:56:15 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 06/09/2011 16:56

I thought of an example:

Parliament/Funkadelic. The name change came about because of legal reasons, and later on albums were released under both names.

Same band or not same band?

Re: Different names for different bands

Anonymous — Thu, 9 Jun 2011 11:57:06 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 06/09/2011 15:57

Bork wrote:

Again maybe. Can you think of an example that doesn't involve a breakup or key members leaving?

No I can't, then again a name change of a developed band would need such a catalyst.

Re: Different names for different bands

Bork — Thu, 9 Jun 2011 10:42:41 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 06/09/2011 14:42

Polythene Pam wrote:

Also the bands mentioned above like The Beatles and The Byrds were only famous after there name change, so is that why we consider them to be the same band?

Maybe. The only example I can think of that comes close is a weak one. When The Animals split up Eric Burdon and the drummer continued as Eric Burdon and the Animals. I still refer to their songs (San Franciscan Nights, Monterey, Sky Pilot...) as by the Animals, but then I'm not a big follower of the band. If I was I might not. And of course, its hardly a name change.

Polythene Pam wrote:

So if a already famous or "good" band changes it's name then it is a different band?

Again maybe. Can you think of an example that doesn't involve a breakup or key members leaving?

Polythene Pam wrote:

And if The Beatles never existed, would be consider The silver Beatles and The Quarrymen the same band? I'm thinking no

I'm thinking yes. Of course, we wouldn't have heard of them.

Re: Different names for different bands

Anonymous — Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:37:53 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 06/09/2011 13:37

The Velvets are the fucking Velvets because the Velvets are the fucking Velvets. Just because Cale left doesn't mean they weren't as great. I like the last two albums more than the first two nowadays (though my favorite song comes from the first).

Re: Different names for different bands

Anonymous — Thu, 9 Jun 2011 04:09:54 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 06/09/2011 08:09

Bork wrote:

Necharsian wrote:

Bork wrote:

cartoken wrote:

i guess Kiss is a good exemple, it's more a name than a real band

I don't know about that. Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons have remained ever since the start and were pretty much always the two most dominant members.

It's not an easy distinction to make and I don't believe you can make a rule for it. I guess people tend to make the call based on their relation to the band and whether they are fine with the changes or not. A name change normally isn't really enough. Both the Joy Division and Jefferson Airplane example includes a breakup with key members leaving in addition to a name change. In the case of Pink Floyd the band just kept on going and brought in a new member to replace one that left (as have Kiss, Iron Maiden, AC/DC, Van Halen, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles and pretty much every other band that has existed for a long period of time). It's a fine line, admittedly, and your examples are ones that are close to that line.

In conclusion, it depends on the circumstances and neither a name change or a member leaving are in themselves enough.

But wouldn't the main thing be a name change? I mean, what if Joy Division would have just stayed Joy Division, rather than changing to New Order? Nobody would consider them a different band, even if their sound changed.

Probably true. Joy Division/New Order is a really good borderline example. Think, however, of all the bands that have changed their name early on in their career. We still consider them the same band despite the name changes. Some examples:
- The Quarrymen/The Beetles/The Beatals/The Silver Beatles/The Beatles
- The Robins/The Coasters
- Skid Row (no, not the hair metal band)/Pen Cap Chew/Bliss/Ted Ed Fred/Nirvana
- On a Friday/Radiohead
- The Detours/The Who
- The Jet Set/The Beefeaters/The Byrds

All these name changes took place early on in the career, although in some cases singles were released under one of the old names, yet not many would say they are not the same bands. Point being, a name change in itself is not enough. Normally it's a breakup and reformation together with a name change that does the trick.

EDIT: A better direct response might be, yes if they'd continued as Joy Division we'd consider them the same band. But on the other hand, if Ian Curtis had not died and the band had just kept on going but for some reason decided to change their name to New Order, we would also have considered them the same band.

Also the bands mentioned above like The Beatles and The Byrds were only famous after there name change, so is that why we consider them to be the same band?

So if a already famous or "good" band changes it's name then it is a different band?

And if The Beatles never existed, would be consider The silver Beatles and The Quarrymen the same band? I'm thinking no

Re: Different names for different bands

40footwolf — Wed, 8 Jun 2011 23:45:34 GMT

Author: 40footwolf

Posted: 06/09/2011 03:45

I don't know about that. I think if you take out John Cale's fearless experimentalism you take out a very important part of what makes the Velvets the Velvets, just like how if you take out Keith Moon's cyclonic-but-precise percussion you take away a very important part of what makes The Who The Who. It's more than just sucking, it's that you take away a lot of the band's soul too when stuff like that happens.

Re: Different names for different bands

Necharsian — Wed, 8 Jun 2011 23:44:09 GMT

Author: Necharsian

Posted: 06/09/2011 03:44

Bork wrote:

Necharsian wrote:

Bork wrote:

True, very true. But has there been any band that became fairly well known, and then changed their name without losing a member or reforming or whatever? I mean if your example with Joy Division/New Order were actually true, some people would only know them by Joy Division, and some would only know them by New Order.

I thought of that too, and I can't come up with a good example (except for some fringe artists that have made it a point to record under different names, like that Featus bloke). I think we can conclude that the name change is essential, otherwise they will not be considered a different band. But...a successful band well into their career does not change it's name without a reason. The only reason for that is if they actually break up and reform, possibly due to a key member dying or leaving.

Agreed. I guess it's up to the band. If the remaining members want to keep the legacy and history of the band, than the name stays the same. But if they feel as though they should start fresh, than change the name and the band changes too.

Re: Different names for different bands

Bork — Wed, 8 Jun 2011 23:40:01 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 06/09/2011 03:40

40footwolf wrote:

Often it is, but when you develop it from something exciting and wonderful to something boring and shitty I can't really call that a good choice, no matter how much chutzpah it took to make. As far as I'm concerned, once Cale is out of the picture the VU is just Lou Reed and Company.

If you just stick to the same formula until it is so milked out that it becomes boring that isn't a good choice either. It's still the same band though, just the same band gone bad.

Re: Different names for different bands

Bork — Wed, 8 Jun 2011 23:37:53 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 06/09/2011 03:37

Necharsian wrote:

Bork wrote:

Re: Different names for different bands

40footwolf — Wed, 8 Jun 2011 23:33:57 GMT

Author: 40footwolf

Posted: 06/09/2011 03:33

Often it is, but when you develop it from something exciting and wonderful to something boring and shitty I can't really call that a good choice, no matter how much chutzpah it took to make. As far as I'm concerned, once Cale is out of the picture the VU is just Lou Reed and Company.

Re: Different names for different bands

Bork — Wed, 8 Jun 2011 23:31:15 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 06/09/2011 03:31

40footwolf wrote:

I think it's all about whether the music stays true to its original function and spirit. King Crimson has had more lineup changes than David Lee Roth has had botox shots, but anyone who says that that band at any point "stopped being King Crimson" is completely insane, since the spirit of tasteful, compelling virtuosity stayed the same even when the actual sound of the band changed radically. On the other hand, I would say that The Velvet Underground died the moment John Cale left, since they turned from making exciting avant-garde/pop hybrid music to AOR.

Sure...and you may lose interest in them, but it's still The Velvet Underground. The best example of this is probably Fleetwood Mac. They completely changed direction in the mid 70's, and some (including myself) think of the Peter Green era when they think Fleetwood Mac, while others think of Rumours and Tusk. Is it two different bands or the same band that just decided to go in another direction? Often not sticking to a formula but actually developing the band's sound is considered a good thing.

Re: Different names for different bands

Anonymous — Wed, 8 Jun 2011 23:10:08 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 06/09/2011 03:10

40footwolf wrote:

Isn't Crimson Crimson as long as Fripp is there? he's the one constant I think