A growing music debate: Band vs. brand. Here's what that means
By: By Alan Cross - Canada's Global News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A growing music debate: Band vs. brand. Here's what that means
How many original members must a band feature before it stops becoming that band? What we have is a 'band vs. brand' situation.
Come next May 26 in Moncton, N.B., Burton Cummings and Randy Bachman will kick off a national tour under the name The Guess Who. The last time they played a show like this was July 30, 2003 for SARSfest in Toronto.
Why so long? Because each of them left The Guess Who before it was done.
Randy exited in 1970 and Burton in 1975, and the group carried on with bass player Jim Kale and drummer Garry Peterson. It was Kale who realized that there was no clear ownership of the name "The Guess Who," so he filed for its trademark in the U.S. in 1986 without telling Burton or Randy. The group continued without its two main players and songwriters.
And it got weirder. Kale stopped appearing with The Guess Who in 2016 and Peterson was semi-retired, appearing with the band only once in a while. Fans turning up to see the band saw and heard a performance from musicians who had no connection to the original group. The name was the same. The songs were the same. The members of the band were not.
In 2023, both Cummings and Bachman sued to get the name back, saying that this version of The Guess Who was "nothing more than a cover band," and did nothing to disabuse audiences of the fact that Cummings and Bachman were no longer with the group. Kale and Peterson fought back, arguing a form of "you snooze, you lose," saying that the statute of limitations on trademark disputes had long passed.
The good news is that everything was settled in September 2024. The trademark is now owned jointly by Cummings and Bachman, enabling them to embark on this 2026 tour officially as The Guess Who.
This is an example of the "band vs. brand" debate that's only getting louder, something that I first starting writing about in 2022. How many original members does a band need in order for it to legitimately market itself as that group? Two? One? None?
Musical nostalgia continues to be a major moneymaker, and artists are still touring into their 70s and even 80s. However, members of those acts are being claimed by the calamities of old age, if not the Grim Reaper.
The Rolling Stones will continue to be The Rolling Stones as long as Mick and Keef are there. Fleetwood Mac without Christine McVie and Lindsey Buckingham? That's cutting it close. ZZ Top with just Billy Gibbons and Frank Beard? They've been able to pull it off.
And I have no doubt that Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson will be just fine as a reunited Rush, although it will be tough for many fans to see the band onstage without Neil Peart. Was it tough watching The Who with just Pete and Roger? For me it was.
There are dozens of bands with only one original member remaining: Bush (frontman and leader Gavin Rossdale), Danzig (Glenn Danzig), Everclear (Art Alexakis), Jethro Tull (Ian Anderson), Megadeth (Dave Mustaine), Ministry (Al Jourgensen), Queens of the Stone Age (Josh Homme), Soul Asylum (Dave Pirner), The Cure (Robert Smith), The Beach Boys (Mike Love), Boston (Tom Scholz), Emerson Lake and Palmer (drummer Carl Palmer), and Deep Purple (drummer Ian Paice) are just a few examples.
Then we have what can charitably be called "successor bands." Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley have said many times that the KISS experience is so big that it doesn't matter who's onstage in the costumes. There's a version of The Allman Brothers band that's still playing gigs but doesn't include a single member of the original group formed by Duane and Gregg back in 1969. This current iteration is being promoted an entity that's keeping the spirit of the Allman Brothers alive, something that has the full endorsement of the Allman families.
Next will bring a double-headliner road trip featuring Foreigner and Lynyrd Skynyrd, two bands that have been inducted into The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The Double Trouble Double Vision tour will feature some version of Foreigner that might not include guitarist Mick Jones, the last remaining original member. He hasn't toured with the group since 2022 because of health reasons related to Parkinson's.
Meanwhile, there are zero original members left in Skynyrd following the death of Gary Rossington in 2023. Everyone else in the lineup joined later, although John Van Zant, brother of Ronnie who died in that 1977 plane crash, at least keeps a familial connection going.
This, however, is not going down well. Paste calls this a "rock and roll con job" that "promises all the hits, all the nostalgia, and none of the original members." It's akin to an old airliner that has gone through so many D checks, the most exhaustive maintenance procedure needed every six to 10 years. Eventually, so many of the plane's original parts are replaced, it stops being the plane it was when it left the factory. (For more of this philosophy, read up on the Ship of Theseus problem.)
There's a certain level of ick here that also applies to Blood, Sweat & Tears, Quiet Riot, Ratt, GWAR (but who would notice with all that costuming?), Iron Butterfly, Canned Heat, Little River Band, Molly Hatchet, Sepultura, and the Spinners. There's even a version of The Glenn Miller Orchestra (est. 1938) still playing gigs. All that we're really left with are the logos and related IP.
Which brings me back to this "band vs. brand" debate. How long will fans continue to buy in? I predict it'll get worse with AI, holograms, and avatars. T-shirts will still be sold, and there will be the usual meet n' greets, special ticket packages, and all the other sundry offerings. There's money to be made. Who cares if it's the same band you grew up with?
Today, the band never has to break up, and no matter how many members leave or die, we'll probably always be able to buy a ticket to the show.
The administrator of this group reserves the right, along with the site moderators, to moderate all and any postings to this group, including the right to enforce the ToS, the CoC, and also including anything that the administrator deems within his sole discretion to be offensive, including but not limited to political and/or off topic comments, with the power to delete in exercising that right.
It would be best, therefore, to be civil in posting on this group and not contravene the CoC, the ToS, and to not post comments that are political, insulting, taunting, trolling or offensive.
By now it should be well known that I am unable to open certain sources, videos and pictures. If I cannot, I will ask that they be described and explained. If the poster refuses to comply, their comment will be deleted. Instagrams are banned.
Tags
Who is online
94 visitors
Would Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr playing together still be called The Beatles?
Lets face it, these bands have to keep the original names to attract an audience.
I dont think 70 year olds should even be playing rock and roll, its a young person's game. Of course, they dont know how to play anything else, so if they need the money or the ego massage they keep going.
The Motown group The Four Tops still perform under that name even though all four of the original members are dead.
IMO, when the Beatles lost Lennon, they were no longer the Beatles. I guess it depends on who is replaced. If Mick Jagger left The Rolling Stones, then IMO they would no longer be The Rolling Stones, but thinking of the dress and makeup of Kiss, would Kiss still be Kiss without Gene Simmons?
They never performed as the Beatles after Jan 30, 1969, the famous rooftop concert.
"Lennon and Ono married in Gibraltar in 1969 and the Beatles announced their split the following year, prompting vicious speculation from the media and fans who blamed Ono for the rupture." (People Magazine)
Being a fan of GWAR, there are still 2 original members in the band:
There are bands still performing with no original members such as Sepultura and Napalm Death. (My taste in music is a bit on the heavy side)
My taste runs from folk music and original rock and roll to classical. Noise like heavy metal and rap are a turnoff for me.
Check out the early origins of heavy metal with Elf, Rainbow, Deep Purple, Captain Beyond and other bands from the 60's and 70's. I think you'll get a new appreciation for heavy metal roots and perhaps an appreciation for the heavy metal that was born from it. Check out DIO: Dreamers Never Die if you want a deeper dive into what many consider the true roots of metal.
Just listened to a couple of them on bilibili. I'd still rather listen to Andrea Bocelli.
Mine runs from almost the full spectrum like yours. Rap / R&B and Techno are fingernails on chalkboards to me.
For the heavier genres, I do admit there is a bit of an "acquired taste" with them. For me it started with Air Supply, Bee Gees, The Beatles then went to 80's rock (Motley Crue, Ratt, Quiet Riot) and heavier (Slayer, Helloween, Iced Earth, Annihilator, etc.) and it progressed heavier from there.
I started out with classical music - my mother played piano. I used to listen to classical music while I read Sci-Fi stories, but as i got into my late teens I got involved with folk music, and about a decade later became a director of the Mariposa Folk Festival, eventually in charge of the festival when the director was touring Europe. It was the year that Bob Dylan, totally uninvited and unexpected, showed up at the festival with his wife and son Jesse. I had many folk and early rock musicians as both friends and clients, and I also liked the earlier Rock and Roll.
I was in my early 20's when I started to actually pay attention to the nuances of classical and see how it transitions from the original writings to what is in a lot of genres today. Once I found that, somehow, I always found the link between classical and modern music.
Was stationed in Europe at that time and took full advantage of that and used it to go see where they performed and lived.
I have to admit I never looked for it.
I didn't actively look for it. It was something that popped out at me after a while of listening different styles.
Good for you.
Dio and Mercury were two of the best vocalist in my lifetime.
How long do you have to play with a band as a non-original member before you before you earn the right to continue to play and call yourself that band when all the original members die or quit. Some of these non-original members have been in these bands for 30-40 years or more, far longer than the people they replaced were in the band.
Can anyone answer that question?
I think it's a legal thing. Take the metal Sepultura as an example. The band was formed in Brazil by brothers Max and Igor Cavalera in 1984. The line up for their 1st release was:
Since that there were a lot of changes (and it's confusing to outline them all including "touring members")
Since their 1st release it's been a revolving door of members with Derrick Green and Andreas Kisser the only constant but neither are "originating members". I believe, LEGALLY, Adreas Kisser owns the rights to the name "Sepultura" allowing him to still use it.
Max and Igor Cavalera have a new project "Cavalera" and are releasing new material. During live shows they play the early Sepultura songs and albums ("Beneath the Remains" and Arise") they wrote.
Hope this makes some sense.
I didn't mean legally, obviously somebody owns the rights to the band's name and the music. I always liked that Pink Floyd had officially approved a tribute band when they decided not to tour anymore. I've never seen them live (I saw them on TV) but I would go and they do a big time production. I've always liked tribute bands, same music, lower ticket price, as long as they do a good show I could care less who's in the band.
Was putting out one aspect. Really, I guess it comes down to the individuals opinion.
I rarely do the big production shows. I prefer the smaller venues. Sound is much better, ticket prices are much lower and the chances of meeting the band(s) is much higher.
As long as their style of music remains the same and they have the right to use the name I guess there's no problem with carrying on with new members. But sometimes the lead member has a charisma that can't be replaced. For example, as I said above, how could The Rolling Stones continue without Mick Jagger?