Monday, October 17, 2005
What's In A Name?
Thanks to the fantastic book I'm currently reading ("Fargo Rock City" by Chuck Klosterman, which I can not recommend highly enough), I've been reminiscing quite a bit recently about a lot of the music I listened to back in my formative years. What I've realized is that a lot of the bands are still around in some form or another, but mostly with new members touring under the band names that made the few remaining original members famous to begin with. Lord knows this isn't exactly a new practice, but just because it has been going on for years doesn't necessarily make it right. I guess ultimately it doesn't really matter what I think, because as long as there is money to be made it will continue to be a common occurrence.
But just because it doesn't matter what I think doesn't mean I'm not going to bitch about it anyway. And I'd like to know what you all feel about this subject, too.
For example, Ratt. Yes, they are still around. But are they? Original vocalist Stephen Pearcy has been replaced by Jizzy Pearl (formerly of Love/Hate). In fact, the only two remaining original members are guitarist Warren DeMartini and drummer Bobby Blotzer. If a band is touring with only 2/5 of the lineup that made them stars back in the '80s, should they be allowed to use the Ratt name? I vote no. Legally, I guess, they can. But I at least think it's an insult to the fans to advertise "RATT" on the marquee and not be delivering 100% of the goods (which technically they can't, as Robbin Crosby passed away a few years ago). It's almost like a Ratt cover band.
Which brings me to Warrant. It seems that they might have a case for using the name, as they are currently touring with 4 out of 5 originals. But the one that's missing is Jani Lane, lead singer and co-writer of just about EVERY song in their repertoire (I just pulled out "The Best Of Warrant," and Lane is credited on 14 out of the 15 tracks). When a band was successful for such a relatively short period of time (in Warrant's case, roughly 3 years covering only two albums that would be classified as "hits"), it seems almost like stealing money from people to tour using the name without Jani Lane. Again, I guess legally they have the rights, but it still doesn't sit right with me.
This isn't just limited to lead singers being replaced, by the way. Sometimes it's the other members that get the boot, only to have the singer soldier on, still waving the band's original banner. Axl Rose has the nerve to call the bunch of misfits he's bossing around these days "Guns N Roses," but that doesn't make them Guns N Roses. As far as I'm concerned, GNR is dead and buried, and no matter whether Axl ever releases "The Chinese Democracy" (the long-delayed new album) or not, it's just plain wrong to stick the GNR logo on it. I'm actually kind of surprised; Rose is clearly so full of himself, you'd think he'd want to put his own name in big bold letters on the cover. Just picture it: "THE W. AXL ROSE PARADE (with friends) PRESENTS THE CHINESE DEMOCRACY."
And there are so many others that are open up to debate: Was Judas Priest still Judas Priest without Halford? Sabbath without Ozzy? Van Halen without Diamond Dave? So what does everyone think? Any other examples like these that really just burn you up? Or am I just making a mountain out of a molehill? Let's discuss.
But just because it doesn't matter what I think doesn't mean I'm not going to bitch about it anyway. And I'd like to know what you all feel about this subject, too.
For example, Ratt. Yes, they are still around. But are they? Original vocalist Stephen Pearcy has been replaced by Jizzy Pearl (formerly of Love/Hate). In fact, the only two remaining original members are guitarist Warren DeMartini and drummer Bobby Blotzer. If a band is touring with only 2/5 of the lineup that made them stars back in the '80s, should they be allowed to use the Ratt name? I vote no. Legally, I guess, they can. But I at least think it's an insult to the fans to advertise "RATT" on the marquee and not be delivering 100% of the goods (which technically they can't, as Robbin Crosby passed away a few years ago). It's almost like a Ratt cover band.
Which brings me to Warrant. It seems that they might have a case for using the name, as they are currently touring with 4 out of 5 originals. But the one that's missing is Jani Lane, lead singer and co-writer of just about EVERY song in their repertoire (I just pulled out "The Best Of Warrant," and Lane is credited on 14 out of the 15 tracks). When a band was successful for such a relatively short period of time (in Warrant's case, roughly 3 years covering only two albums that would be classified as "hits"), it seems almost like stealing money from people to tour using the name without Jani Lane. Again, I guess legally they have the rights, but it still doesn't sit right with me.
This isn't just limited to lead singers being replaced, by the way. Sometimes it's the other members that get the boot, only to have the singer soldier on, still waving the band's original banner. Axl Rose has the nerve to call the bunch of misfits he's bossing around these days "Guns N Roses," but that doesn't make them Guns N Roses. As far as I'm concerned, GNR is dead and buried, and no matter whether Axl ever releases "The Chinese Democracy" (the long-delayed new album) or not, it's just plain wrong to stick the GNR logo on it. I'm actually kind of surprised; Rose is clearly so full of himself, you'd think he'd want to put his own name in big bold letters on the cover. Just picture it: "THE W. AXL ROSE PARADE (with friends) PRESENTS THE CHINESE DEMOCRACY."
And there are so many others that are open up to debate: Was Judas Priest still Judas Priest without Halford? Sabbath without Ozzy? Van Halen without Diamond Dave? So what does everyone think? Any other examples like these that really just burn you up? Or am I just making a mountain out of a molehill? Let's discuss.
Comments:
<< Home
Very interesting topic.
I agree that legal matters aside it just isn't right to present a product that doesn't contain all of the original ingredients.
Brian Wilson was on Larry King a few months ago and was asked if it bothered him that Mike Love was touring with a group that he called The Beach Boys. Wilson's reply was that he didn't have a problem since Love was paying him for the name. I'm sure these licensing agreements aren't unique to The Beach Boys.
I think a bigger question would be do most people who are going to see Ratt or Warrant even care? The marquee says "Ratt" so as far as they know they are seeing Ratt.
In regards to your last question Sabbath, Priest and Van Halen all continued to produce new music after they lost key members. This fact alone made what they were doing seem valid. Is Ratt performing new material? Is Warrant?
One band that didn't retain it's name after a key member left was Stone Temple Pilots and you have to respect that regardless of why. Instead of recording and touring when Scott Weiland was in rehab they carried on as Talk Show. Of course Talk Show was a complete failure and STP was back together with Weiland a few months later.
I agree that legal matters aside it just isn't right to present a product that doesn't contain all of the original ingredients.
Brian Wilson was on Larry King a few months ago and was asked if it bothered him that Mike Love was touring with a group that he called The Beach Boys. Wilson's reply was that he didn't have a problem since Love was paying him for the name. I'm sure these licensing agreements aren't unique to The Beach Boys.
I think a bigger question would be do most people who are going to see Ratt or Warrant even care? The marquee says "Ratt" so as far as they know they are seeing Ratt.
In regards to your last question Sabbath, Priest and Van Halen all continued to produce new music after they lost key members. This fact alone made what they were doing seem valid. Is Ratt performing new material? Is Warrant?
One band that didn't retain it's name after a key member left was Stone Temple Pilots and you have to respect that regardless of why. Instead of recording and touring when Scott Weiland was in rehab they carried on as Talk Show. Of course Talk Show was a complete failure and STP was back together with Weiland a few months later.
I hadn't considered the angle of whether or not new music was being produced. The fact that no new material was forthcoming makes the cases against Ratt and Warrant even stronger, at least in my view.
I agree with Craig's point. Granted Judas Priest was not the same after The Hot LEather Dude walked out, but certainly the other members should be able to carry on.
As far as Ratt and Warrant are concerned, it is hard to say. I can only raise two points.
First, in Ratt's case Warren DeMartini was that entire band. He was by far the only redeeming quality the band ever had, and since the Love/Hate guy was a clone of Ratt's oroginal singer anyway (listen to Black out in the Red Room by Love/Hate) no big loss.
I guess point two is more general in that it is up to the fans to know who they are seeing. When I saw Iron Maiden with Blaze Bayley on vocals, I knew I was not getting Bruce Dickinson. If you see a Warrant show advertised, go online and see who is presently in the band. As they say "Buyer Beware".
As far as Ratt and Warrant are concerned, it is hard to say. I can only raise two points.
First, in Ratt's case Warren DeMartini was that entire band. He was by far the only redeeming quality the band ever had, and since the Love/Hate guy was a clone of Ratt's oroginal singer anyway (listen to Black out in the Red Room by Love/Hate) no big loss.
I guess point two is more general in that it is up to the fans to know who they are seeing. When I saw Iron Maiden with Blaze Bayley on vocals, I knew I was not getting Bruce Dickinson. If you see a Warrant show advertised, go online and see who is presently in the band. As they say "Buyer Beware".
For the record, I absolutely LOVE Love/Hate's "Blackout In The Red Room." A great album that holds up to this day.
Post a Comment
<< Home
