bleghman wrote:

Monkzum wrote:

A lot of people write off a band because they don't have the 'original' line up.

but god forbid anyone disses Napalm Death

Well considering they couldn't keep the same line up on the first record (Scum), it really just something accepted from the start.

I mostly agree with snippets of what others have said. It really depends on the band and what they are doing in the context of the music.
If they are merely trading on an illustrious past for profit(KISS), then it is annoying to me. If the band is still creating relevant music that adds to their legacy(SAXON, DEEP PURPLE for example), then it's more than OK.
While I haven't heard any new material from Lynyrd Skynyrd for a long time, I have been keeping track of DEEP PURPLE. Believe it or not, they have created some of their most exciting music over the last 10-15 years, or more specifically since Blackmore left. "Purpendicular", "Abandon", and "Rapture of the Deep" are stellar albums that belong in the pantheon of their library. And all of this with only two original members(Paice and Lord)!!!! Even with Lord gone now, their music(in the studio anyway) has still maintained a level of quality rarely matched by other "nostalgia" bands.
URIAH HEEP also fall into this category. There has only been one original member in the band for over 30 years now, but they still put out exciting music, albeit far removed from their metal beginnings.

Monkzum wrote:

I disagree..

A lot of people write off a band because they don't have the 'original' line up. This is piss as far as i'm concerned. If you've joined the band you're in the band and that's how it is until you leave. Cliff Burton was no more Metallica's bassist than Jason Newstead and it doesn't matter who was better. There's no/or there shouldn't be hierachy within the band. If a totally new band are taking over then the name should change of course but just because people aren't 'original' band members doesn't mean they aren't as important to the band as any others. All bands change and people just have to accept that they are still the same band regardless of whose in it. Tell me, if Cronos of Venom were to leave then would it still be Venom? yes, I think if the other band members can find a replacement.

Well that depends on the band. You can't have Megadeth without Dave Mustaine, you can't have Death without Chuck Shuldiner, you can't have Porcupine Tree without Steven Wilson, and so on. I mean I guess you could but those guys literally ARE their bands, you know?

I do see what you mean though, and agree.

Also, for me at least Jason Newstead is and will always be Metallica's "true" bassist.

So, we're in agreement that this is a basically case by case issue where examples can be used, but not to definitively decide what is or is not OK for a band to due when they lose members because of death, disease, or personal issue, basically the same idea that has to be applied to every fairly broad topic?

Who'd have thunk it?

Pastor of Muppets wrote:

Alice in Chains is another good example. I think that Layne Staley made that band. But the new singer isn't bad at all. People were saying that they shouldn't continue with the name Alice in Chains after Layne died, but I don't have any problems with it.

BTW: their new album comes out the end of this month.

I was a HUGE proponent of them changing the name. Like you, I believed that Laynes voice brought something to AiC that no other voice could.


BUUUT....I like the new single. I can't help it. I even listened to it the first time "knowing" I was going to hate it. But, I didn't. I was made for a bit that I didn't hate it, but then I was happy that the new guy works. Obviously it's a different feel without Layne, but it still has that AiC feel for the most part.

Bright_Eyed wrote:

So, we're in agreement that this is a basically case by case issue where examples can be used, but not to definitively decide what is or is not OK for a band to due when they lose members because of death, disease, or personal issue, basically the same idea that has to be applied to every fairly broad topic?

Who'd have thunk it?

If a band simply uses an established name to garner respect and collect more money and retain the huge fanbase, then it's bullshit. Especially in the case of Queen.

I've never considered KISS anything more than a money-making machine, so I don't care about them.

LegionOvDoom wrote:

If a band simply uses an established name to garner respect and collect more money and retain the huge fanbase, then it's bullshit. Especially in the case of Queen.

I've never considered KISS anything more than a money-making machine, so I don't care about them.

You are spot on with Queen. Look at the their last album cover.


Queen in these huge letters and Paul Rodgers underneath. Looking at it like this is seems OK. But imagine how it looks in a record store. It was done on purpose to get you to see Queen. Hoping that name would make you buy the record even though it was not really Queen.

Not to mention it looks like a shit-ton of sperm...

Who cares about this. Through different processes some members of the band end up being able to operate under the moniker, then they use it to make money. They want to make music, and make some money. Good for them.

It's up to the fans to be well informed before they make their purchases. The band actually belongs to the band members not the fans. They can do what ever they want with it. Read some accounts of what it's like to make it as a band. After all the hard work you think they don't have a right to capitalize on it for long as they can.

Get real, the only people who really care about this are people who have never created something themselves, but wish they had, so they latch on to someone else's creation and try to dictate what the band should do.

LegionOvDoom wrote:

Not to mention it looks like a shit-ton of sperm...

Not as much as this.

I liked Queen + Paul Rodgers. How is that different in the past from Queen + Whitney Houston, Queen + David Bowie, Queen + Elton John, etc.

Nautilus wrote:

I liked Queen + Paul Rodgers. How is that different in the past from Queen + Whitney Houston, Queen + David Bowie, Queen + Elton John, etc.

Those were one song and this was an album.

Well hey, at least they made sure it was known as Queen + Paul Rodgers, rather than just using the name Queen. Sure it won't and will never be the original, but I don't care. The album itself wasn't so great but I heard the live shows were spectacular. Unlike some people here, I'm not old enough to have seen Queen or Pink Floyd or any bands like that live. As far as I'm concerned of course it won't be the "real deal" but it's the closest I have and who cares? It's BRIAN MAY, ROGER TAYLOR, AND PAUL RODGERS! Three fantastic musicians with great legacies of work behind him. Also, they're getting older and they're still musicians. They want to keep making music and want to be part of the biggest single entity they've ever been in their lives. Sure you can form a different band with the same members and call it something else but it still won't be Queen, and it'll still be compared to Freddie. I really doubt Freddie would have reacted the way some fans did anyway, he probably would've loved it. Apparently PR was one of his favorite singers.

Nautilus wrote:

Well hey, at least they made sure it was known as Queen + Paul Rodgers, rather than just using the name Queen. Sure it won't and will never be the original, but I don't care. The album itself wasn't so great but I heard the live shows were spectacular. Unlike some people here, I'm not old enough to have seen Queen or Pink Floyd or any bands like that live. As far as I'm concerned of course it won't be the "real deal" but it's the closest I have and who cares? It's BRIAN MAY, ROGER TAYLOR, AND PAUL RODGERS! Three fantastic musicians with great legacies of work behind him. Also, they're getting older and they're still musicians. They want to keep making music and want to be part of the biggest single entity they've ever been in their lives. Sure you can form a different band with the same members and call it something else but it still won't be Queen, and it'll still be compared to Freddie. I really doubt Freddie would have reacted the way some fans did anyway, he probably would've loved it. Apparently PR was one of his favorite singers.

I love all three of them also. But the absence of John Deacon can not be overlook either. If it had been called something else I would not have this reaction. You can not deny they are using the Queen name to sell the record. That, to me, is sad.


P.S. I too am not old enough to have seen Pink or Queen. Just in case.

But it still would've been compared to Queen anyway.

Nautilus wrote:

But it still would've been compared to Queen anyway.

Not as much as when you call it Queen. But yes.

Ahmedeus wrote:

There are many bands today who have been around for a long, long time. Most of them have been successful, like Black Sabbath, who still have their original line-up and have been playing for over 40 years. Their contribution to out beloved genre is immeasurable. But then there are bands like Deep Purple, and Lynyrd Skynyrd who have maybe 1 original member each, and they are still producing albums and touring. One of Lynyrd Skynyrd's new songs was just made official to WWE, so we know they're doing pretty well in the mainstream. I am not questioning their talent as they are now, but the question is this: is it fair for these bands to make money under a name that everyone knows? I hardly doubt Deep Purple are followed around by their original fanbase. I think Machine Head(1972) was a monumental album and it's one of my favorites, but there's no way I'll go to a Deep Purple concert. Without their original line-up, it's just an empty name. Metallica have the right idea. Many of their fans liked them because of Cliff Burton. And the band doesn't disappoint, they play the old songs that made them famous, and which is what the fans pay to see.

I'm not talking about bands like Motorhead, AC/DC and KISS though. They've been around for a long time too, but they're more "consistent" than "fraudulent". So lets save the "they've been playing the same music over and over again" argument for another thread.

Is it fair for arguably washed-up bands to make money under a name that everyone knows?

It has been stated before in this thread but I do take issue with the inclusion of Deep Purple in this discussion. The lineup of Deep Purple is broken down into "Marks"

Mark I- Blackmore-Evans-Paice-Lord-Simper

Mark II-Blackmore-Gillan-Paice-Lord-Glover

Mark III-Blackmore-Coverdale-Paice-Lord-Hughes

Mark IV-Bolin-Coverdale-Paice-Lord-Hughes

Current-Morse-Gillan-Paice-Airey-Glover

If your favourite lineup is Mark II, then the current formation has 3 of those five members. Personally, I don't like Purple without Blackmore. If you like Machine Head, I strongly recommend you get the album "In Rock." IMO it is the best Mark II offering. Machine Head is good but not as aggressive as In Rock. I would put In Rock up against any Zeppelin album from the same era.

AarO)))n wrote:

LegionOvDoom wrote:

Not to mention it looks like a shit-ton of sperm...

Not as much as this.

Isn't that actually blood mixed with semen?

Malleus wrote:

AarO)))n wrote:

LegionOvDoom wrote:

Not to mention it looks like a shit-ton of sperm...

Not as much as this.

Isn't that actually blood mixed with semen?

So it is said. I was never sure if that was confirmed though.

AarO)))n wrote:

Malleus wrote:

AarO)))n wrote:

LegionOvDoom wrote:

Not to mention it looks like a shit-ton of sperm...

Not as much as this.

Isn't that actually blood mixed with semen?

So it is said. I was never sure if that was confirmed though.

Who knows. I will admit, though, that if you combine songs from this album and Re-Load, you'd have a pretty solid hard rock album. Never considered either of the albums metal.

Malleus wrote:

If your favourite lineup is Mark II, then the current formation has 3 of those five members. Personally, I don't like Purple without Blackmore. If you like Machine Head, I strongly recommend you get the album "In Rock." IMO it is the best Mark II offering. Machine Head is good but not as aggressive as In Rock. I would put In Rock up against any Zeppelin album from the same era.

Deep Purple MK II wins, although Fireball was kinda weak. Machine Head and In Rock were monumental albums. And I think Who Do You Think We Are wasn't too bad either.

BTW: I've got some semi-rare Deep Purple shows if anyone wants them

Burn was a fantastic album.

Should Glen Benton be allowed to use the name Deicide even though hes the only original member? i personally enjoy the guitar work on the new stuff, but without the Hoffman brothers are they really Deicide?

Deicide is horrible no matter who is in the band.