Different names for different bands - Music

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

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.

40footwolf

Gender: Male
Age: 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.
_________________
I love all music. It makes you feel like living. Silence is death.

-John Cassavettes

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

Necharsian wrote:

Bork wrote:

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.

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.

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

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.

Necharsian
Best Ever User

Gender: Male

Bork wrote:

Necharsian wrote:

Bork wrote:

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.

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.

40footwolf

Gender: Male
Age: 33

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.
_________________
I love all music. It makes you feel like living. Silence is death.

-John Cassavettes

Polythene Pam

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

purple

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).

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

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.

Polythene Pam

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.