Different names for different bands - Music

Polythene Pam

I was writing in the DSOTM thread before and the Joy Division vs The Kinks game.

And it got me thinking. What causes a band to stop being a band

The main reason I started thinking this is because twice Pink Floyd's "frontman" left the band (under less than agreeable circumstances) and their music changed radically as a result. However history still considers it to be the same band, this also applies to The Velvet Underground and others I'm sure.

And then their is the other part concerning Joy Division and Jefferson Airplane

These Bands had members leave and changed their name and thus became different bands, so does that mean if Pink Floyd changed their name when Roger Waters or Syd Barret left they would be a different band? Or is it to do with the arrival of new band members such as Gillian Gilbert in New Order.

I guess the best example is that Syd Barret left Pink Floyd and they gained David Gilmour, and yet they were still Pink Floyd. Ian Curtis died and Joy Division became New order, then later Gillian Gilbert joined them.

Why is one really different form the other?

Any other examples you have would be great as well Very Happy

cartoken
The Seer

Gender: Male
Age: 39
Location: Paris

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

GARY

I voted for when the name of the band changes. That would make sense to me.

Compare it to a sports team if you will. The players are constantly changing but it's still the same team. But if the team is sold and moved to a different city and they have a new name (but still have the same players) they are still a different team.
_________________
.
I owe $100,000 and wasted 4 years of my life.

And all I got was this silly hat

.

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

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.

Polythene Pam

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.

Thanks that was helpful Very Happy

Necharsian
Best Ever User

Gender: Male

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.

Bork
Executive Hillbilly

Location: Vinson Mountain, GA

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.

Necharsian
Best Ever User

Gender: Male

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.

40footwolf

Gender: Male
Age: 33

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

-John Cassavettes

Wombi

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.

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