When ( if ever ) should a band stop using it's name?

[FatesFan]

I saw a posting about the new Quiet Riot singer and how they have recorded some of the old catalog with this guy. I looked up the band to see who was even still in it and the only original member is Frankie. That made me ask myself, is this really Quiet Riot and thought is it right to continue using the name for a band with only one original member and it being the drummer at that.

I don't seem to have as much an issue with it when it comes to bands talked about here on this forum cause lets face it, members come and go like the seasons. But, it does seem to bother me when a band that was once as big as a Quiet Riot are selling themselves as Quiet Riot when they are not.

So should a band ever stop using a name and when should they?

Some have said that the last couple Avantasia albums should not have been called Avantasia but rather Tobias solo albums due to the change in sound. I think it harder to say a band should not call themselves by their name due to a sound change as many bands change over time. Fates Warning changed quite a bit and I had no issue with it. And although Fates Warning has only one original member in it, lets face it, it is a core if not the core member. And Ray has been there forever and Mark was there forever and Joey has been there a while etc.

I don't really think there is a right or wrong answer but just wondering what the different opinions are on the matter. It just seems in some cases these bands who have lost all but maybe one member ( original or not ) are really nothing more than tribute bands in some cases.

 

[Diabolik]

I think once the founding members are out of the band. They started it....they should be able to end it. Also, when a band completly changes up thier sound when adding new members.

 

[BenMech]

Argument against you:

Napalm Death

 

[Locust0311]

No opinion really, but I find this amusing: DGM has no original members left and the name DGM is the first initials of 3 of those original members.

 

[adaher]

I'd say sound matters more than who is in the band. If a band has no original members left but still makes music that fans of that "brand name" love, I see no issue. but even a band with all original members that makes an album completely different from what they've done before and their fans don't appreciate the change, they should probably be marketing that work under a different band name.

I think a good example of the former is Stratovarius. Despite no original members left and the main songwriter gone, their last album was very much a Stratovarius album. Shaman is another good example, all they've got is the original drummer, but the band has evolved well.

A good example of the latter is Labyrinth. After Olaf Thorsen left, it became a completely different band and probably shouldn't have shared a discography with the likes of Return to Heaven Denied.

Likewise, if Rhapsody decided they wanted to put out an AOR album minus any fantasy elements, it wouldn't seem right to deceive the masses by calling it a Rhapsody album.

 

[AeonicSlumber]

Whenever the hell it wants to.

 

[booB]

Whenever the hell it wants to.

This.

Unless some of you also think a business should change its name when it has been around a long time, and most (all) of the employees are different.

 

[FatesFan]

No opinion really, but I find this amusing: DGM has no original members left and the name DGM is the first initials of 3 of those original members.

That is amusing.

 

[Mardoch]

I had been wondering what the hell DGM was supposed to mean.

To the topic. Mostly it's whenever the hell they want. Personally I think if your style changes dramatically, you might want to label yourself as something different, just so that it doesn't seem like false advertising.

 

[adaher]

No one questions the right of owners of a name to keep using it. The discussion is about what they SHOULD do.

Unless some of you also think a business should change its name when it has been around a long time, and most (all) of the employees are different.

Actually, businesses usually do change their names when their business model undergoes a drastic change.

Bands, once they start doing it for real money, are also a business, although with a lot less business savvy in most cases. Defining and then protecting a brand name is very important in the business world, and the most successful bands know that as well. KISS is probably the pinnacle of a band knowing the importance of its trademarks.

But a band that uses a well-known brand name to put out something its fanbase isn't likely to appreciate, while it is certainly their right, just aren't being very smart, or fair, to their customers. Nightwish shouldn't put out a country record, Edguy shouldn't put out a rap record, and Sonata Arctica shouldn't put out a jazz record. Drastic changes in sound SHOULD be done under a different name. But of course the owner of the name has every right to put out whatever they want. If Tobias Sammet wants to put out just spoken word poetry and slap the Edguy name on it, he can do it, but it would be a very bad idea.

 

[spag]

I had been wondering what the hell DGM was supposed to mean.

To the topic. Mostly it's whenever the hell they want. Personally I think if your style changes dramatically, you might want to label yourself as something different, just so that it doesn't seem like false advertising.

That's a pretty tough call to make IMHO. There will always be some purist that thinks any deviation at all from some popular album is a change. Some evolve over time. At what point does the band have to change their name? How about when their music just sucks? Should Queensryche have changed their name when Q2K came out? Before that?

I do think it's a little lame when a band has no founding members, but I guess if there is still a founder it's ok. That's just a lineup change to me. Iced Earth is always going to be Iced Earth if Schaffer is still leading the band.

 

[FatesFan]

That's a pretty tough call to make IMHO. There will always be some purist that thinks any deviation at all from some popular album is a change. Some evolve over time. At what point does the band have to change their name? How about when their music just sucks? Should Queensryche have changed their name when Q2K came out? Before that?

I do think it's a little lame when a band has no founding members, but I guess if there is still a founder it's ok. That's just a lineup change to me. Iced Earth is always going to be Iced Earth if Schaffer is still leading the band.

I tend to agree with this.The Iced earth / Schaffer comment is like the Fates Warning/ Jim situation. If the lone founding member is a singer, or song writer, or just a higher profile guy, I think keeping the name makes sense. If the lone member is a drummer or bass player ( exceptions to this of course if we are talking bass players who are front men ) then it makes it harder for me to identify the band with the name. Not knocking on drummers and bass players as I am a drummer. I am just saying I would rather see a Skid Row band fronted by Sebastian with none of the original members vs. a Skid Row with only the drummer being the original member.