How do you feel about bands...

[coloradodem2005]

...that keep their name after a major personnel change. Where the lost member(s) are very important to the sound of the band. AC/DC soldiered on after Bon Scott died and I am forgiving in this case. Black Sabbath dumped Ozzy after 8 good to great albums and got Ronnie James Dio and while the material on the next two albums was good, it wasn't the same and the Dio-led Sabbath collapsed as did the band until the reunion of the original four. Van Halen were a cutting edge band when David Lee Roth fronted it and became a pop band under Sammy Hagar and yet still kept the name. Even though the fanbase dwindled under Hagar, they still were commercially successful. Yes reformed without Steve Howe in the 80's. Sound was significantly different.

In addition, many bands seem to reform when someone important to the band is dead. Queen without Freddie Mercury is reforming with Paul Rodgers. And while I think it's cool that Paul and Brian May want to work together, I don't like that they are using the Queen moniker. The Doors with Ian Astbury, who I know was influenced by Jim Morrison, but now is trying too hard to be Jim Morrison, when he was in a good band (The Cult). Lynyrd Skynyrd has been at this since maybe the late 80's. Even though Ronnie Van Zant and many other people are dead. Now I hear that INXS wants to do it through a reality T.V. show.

[livinginphotographs]

1. As a fan of Joy Division, I agree.

Especially if it's the lead singer, just from a marketing standpoint. The singer is usually the most visible member of the band, and to see what you thought was the same band with a completely different singer is pretty lame.

Just my opinion.

[kick-ass-bob]

2. Some of them can pull it off

if they don't change their sound.
Van Haggar changed too much for me, but AC/DC did not.

Ones that take huge breaks (like a decade) and come back with the same name & diff members is just punk.

[lazarus]

3. Styx is doing that, too

Only 2 of the original 5 (3, maybe?) are left. And they don't have Dennis DeYoung anymore. That's not Styx.

And Queen w/out Freddie is just a crime.

[fit4life]

4. Van Halen

The two members of the band who actually have the name are still in the band, so I think they were well within their rights to keep the Van Halen name. If it had been Van Roth or David Lee Halen I would think they should change though.

Axl Rose tried to do it with Guns n Roses after the entire band left him and it didn't work out either. I still didn't understand how they kept the name when the original guitar player (Traci Guns) left the band.

[flvegan]

5. Isn't some of it about recognition?

I mean if you went to a concert and heard "Dirty Deeds (Done Dirt Cheap)" performed by a band called, I don't know, Solar Powered, you'd lose some of the vibe, even if it is Angus, Malcolm, etc. At least AC/DC stayed true to it's roots, as I have no idea what the hell the VH bros are doing.

As for reforming, it can be a good thing, a la Velvet Revolver (though Axl isn't dead, his career might be).

Besides, if Spinal Tap changed IT'S name every time a drummer spontaneously combusted...

[coloradodem2005]

9. Reforming is fine.

But using the old name the way Styx and Queen are doing is wrong.

[Withywindle]

6. There's a double standard, of course.

If you're crap without the departed member(s), then ditch the name. If not, you can keep it.

But Joy Division/New Order is a weird example, because they really did become a whole different band in sound and image and all that. Not many bands have the creativity to do that.

I respected it a lot when Led Zeppelin decided they weren't going to go on without Bonham. But they could have gotten a new drummer and gone on if they wanted to; the Who did it after all.

That's different to my way of thinking from, say, Skynyrd--which lost several members at once, including their main songwriter/front man and once swore they'd never play together again under that name, and then reneged on the promise to make money. (Or, even worse, second-rate imitators Molly Hatchet, who have not one original member left and don't even have the excuse of big tragedy.)

The Doors with Astbury, ick.


Edited to add: HOLY SHIT! THAT WAS MY 700th POST! I'm in the dread 700 club!

[Montresor]

7. mixed

I can't imagine Rush w/o drummer Neil Peart, but didn't join until the second album. But when Roger Waters left Pink Floyd, I was torn. And why did Gene and Paul get to keep the KISS name?!?!

[AllegroRondo]

8. Pink Floyd after Roger Waters left

should never have kept the name.

I'm willing to give Van Halen a pass on this, only because its also the name of two of the band members.

[coloradodem2005]

10. True.

But then the comparisons started. And it was kind of lying to the fans saying it was the same band with a different singer when the sound was obviously different. And naming the band Van Halen was David Lee Roth's idea.

[Squeech]

11. Hogwash

If you don't approve of Pink Floyd without Roger, how can you approve of Pink Floyd without Syd?

Seriously, where do you draw these lines? How can you come up with a consistent policy? These arguments boil down to I'm-David-Lee-Roth-and-I-approve-this-message.

I strongly dislike the thing that lumbers around now calling itself King Crimson. (Some of you may know that the feeling is apparently mutual.) But I'm not gonna get on a high horse and say that they should have given up after Bill Bruford left, or after John Wetton left, or after Jamie Muir left, or after Greg Lake left (as Lake himself thinks). Obviously, having a *famous name* is money in the bank for a working musician, and given how much musical capital has already been stolen from working musicians by the record companies, anything a musician can fairly hold on to for himself is fair game.

I declare that David Gilmour's Pink Floyd sounds more like the Pink Floyd I like (Piper, Ummagumma, Echoes, WYWH) than the Roger Waters House of Pain version of Pink Floyd (The Wall, Final Cut) and even though Division Bell sucks, Momentary Lapse is important. So there.