What really makes a band name???

[ODogg]

i'm wondering what you guys think really makes a band a band in regards to their name? Is it dependent upon the band members contribution or what?

I ask because as a Kiss fan I have a difficult time saying it's really Kiss without Ace. And I recently saw Journey with a girl from work who says it's not really Journey without Steve Perry. It got me thinking, what is in a bands name?

[BlueNGold]

Re: What really makes a band name???

Do you mean is a band really still the same without its original members? Guns N Roses is a good one that's similar to the examples you mentioned in your post. Only 1 guy left there but it isn't the same without everyone else.

[ODogg]

Re: What really makes a band name???

Yeah perfect example...how can that be Guns n' Roses without slash???

[savoie2006]

Re: What really makes a band name???

Well a groups name is just that, a name. Are they the same group if they lose members? As long as the sound is there, then I guess it's fair to still call them by the group name. Alot of groups have gone through numerous line up changes, it would hardly be fair to expect 1. A Breakup or 2. A Change Of The Band Name. In the case of Guns & Roses and Smashing Pumpkins, I think the motive was quite clear, to milk the band name for more money. Some groups do well with line up changes while keeping the bands familiar sound. Some groups, such as Alice In Chains and AC/DC, aren't left much choice due to the death of their respective singers.

As for KISS, there will never be a lineup that compares to the original, without a doubt. However, it is and always has been Stanley and Simmons band. If Ace and Peter didn't have such issues with drugs and alchohol, they might still be in the band. I mean it took Ace how long to sober up and get even his solo career back on track? Since he has though, look at the results, Anomoly. Considered by many to be his best cd since his 78 solo disc. It's great for Ace, but a shame for Kiss fans that this type of dedication and payoff couldn't have come when Kiss was recording Psycho Circus.

[ODogg]

Re: What really makes a band name???

I guess maybe it just depends upon the contribution and uniqueness of the member.

As for Kiss, Ace is not in Kiss because he says he has outgrown it and wants to do new stuff. I don't think he feels he has the creative control when he's in the band that he wants as Stanley & Simmons view it too much as a business and not as a creative arena.

And from all that i've read from both camps Ace did contribute to Psycho Circus but Gene rejected most of his material. Gene says that Ace should have submitted more material but Ace said he's more about quality than Gene. And even Gene admits, or brags depending upon how you view it, that he came up with hundreds of songs for Psycho Circus. Which you know with that many songs it had to have been a lot of crapola.

Anyways, I remember when I was younger I always just thought a band was a lead singer, like Steve Perry's solo cd, i thought - hey it's journey!! LOL, now i realize though just how much Neal Schnon added to that band.

On a related note, I'm going to see Kiss this Friday at the United center in Chicago so I'll see what I think and post a review of it here.

[HiJumpr111]

Re: What really makes a band name???

Interesting discussion.
I have read many articles that indicate in one way or another that many of Ace's potential contributions to the Psycho Circus record were nixed by Gene and Paul. I find it ironic that "Into The Void" is considered one of the album's strongest tracks!
While it is true that KISS is a different band without Peter and Ace, I'm not so quick to say it is not a better band. Eric and Tommy are tremendous musicians and have both contributed some great things on the Sonic Boom album. I am a big Ace, fan, though and while I can easily dismiss Eric's presence on the drums as being unusual, I still miss Ace.

Journey is a bit different. They definitely found a "once-in-a-lifetime" replacement for what I feel to be one of the greatest voices in rock and roll history. While Arnel Pineda isn't Steve Perry, he possesses a gift that closely replicates Perry's. I have many many friends who think Pineda is even better. I love Pineda's voice, but still slightly prefer Perry. Pineda has incredible stage presence and gives Journey a more visually dynamic frontman.

There are so many groups -- too many to mention -- that have undergone line-up changes and still persist. When that change involves a lead singer, it appears that the difference is much more pronounced.
For example:
Styx without Dennis DeYoung
Chicago without Peter Cetera
Van Halen without Dave
Van Halen without Sammy
Queen without Freddie
There are tons more......I know.

Can you imagine REO without Kevin Cronin?

I'm not saying that a line-up change involving a guitarist isn't just as detrimental.
GnR without Slash is a good example.

Can you imagine Van Halen without Eddie?


I have been a huge Night Ranger fan for many years, and feel that they are as strong (live) now as they ever were despite 2 of 5 members changing. Luckily the three with more prominent writing and vocal influence remain and therefore, the "sound" seems unaffected.

Hopefully this thread will persist. I'd like to see other's thought. Good job, O-Dogg.

[ODogg]

Re: What really makes a band name???

Yeah, well it got me thinking that it was a bit odd that I consider Kiss not truly 100% Kiss without Ace but yet I was ok with seeing Journey in concert without Steve Perry. That was pointed out to me as a double standard but maybe I have less issue with it because i'm not a huge Journey fan so i'm more able to just enjoy the music instead of focusing on what is NOT there.

As for Ace, I think all the badmouthing Gene and Paul does of him and Peter actually make people more sympathetic and pro-Ace. I did a recent poll on a Kiss forum and Ace got 74% of the vote out of about 3,000 votes, with Peter coming in second with about 18%, Paul at 8% and Gene with 4%. I knew Ace was pretty popular but even I was shocked with those numbers.

P.S. - No I really can't imagine REO without Kevin! I do think it's harder with a lead singer too. Since they are the band's face, it's like it's not really the band without that face if you identify so strongly with it for so many years and then it's someone else.

[savoie2006]

Re: What really makes a band name???

I guess maybe it just depends upon the contribution and uniqueness of the member.

As for Kiss, Ace is not in Kiss because he says he has outgrown it and wants to do new stuff. I don't think he feels he has the creative control when he's in the band that he wants as Stanley & Simmons view it too much as a business and not as a creative arena.

And from all that i've read from both camps Ace did contribute to Psycho Circus but Gene rejected most of his material. Gene says that Ace should have submitted more material but Ace said he's more about quality than Gene. And even Gene admits, or brags depending upon how you view it, that he came up with hundreds of songs for Psycho Circus. Which you know with that many songs it had to have been a lot of crapola.

Anyways, I remember when I was younger I always just thought a band was a lead singer, like Steve Perry's solo cd, i thought - hey it's journey!! LOL, now i realize though just how much Neal Schnon added to that band.

On a related note, I'm going to see Kiss this Friday at the United center in Chicago so I'll see what I think and post a review of it here.

Well have fun at the concert. As a Kiss fan, what are your views on Thayer and Singer wearing Frehley and Criss makeup design? Personally I'm against it, even if they are property of the band(Simmons and Stanley basically). I think it's false representation. They gave Vinnie Vincent and Eric Carr their own design, why not Thayer and Singer? I realize they are celebrating their past glories(Alive), but I feel if they are gonna do it, with the makeup then they should also do it with the original lineup since it was the original lineup that created that glory.

As for Ace, I love his guitar work and his vocals are unique, if not the best, but his lyrics usually leave much to be desired. I still loved him when he was with Kiss and respect his desire to do his own thing creatively. I couldn't imagine Gene and Paul being anything less than control freaks honestly. You are right though, they look at Kiss more as a money machine than they do a creative outlet. It seems to have been that way since they decided to do the reunion tour, which I'm almost positive was done for no other reason than money. Not for the genuine desire to have the original lineup together again.

[VDusen04]

Re: What really makes a band name???

I think a lot of this depends on who's leaving the band. I have a lot tougher time accepting a band who loses their lead singer than a band who loses an instrumentalist. Also, I think the uniqueness of the member leaving plays a role as well as any given listeners' familiarity with the specifics of said band. That is, with me not being a huge Journey fan, if they replaced the lead singer with some random guy who just sounds exactly like the lead singer, I probably would still accept them as Journey.

However, if Rage Against the Machine (who I'm very familiar with) had tried to remain RATM by simply hiring a sound-alike for Zach De la Rocha, I would have been up in arms. If Rage replaced Brad Wilk, on the other hand, I think I'd still be okay with them being RATM. So I guess that sort of means all of this stuff is in the eyes of the beholder.

[ODogg]

Re: What really makes a band name???

I'm 100% against it. And I don't buy into that whole thing about they can't create another persona beacuse they did it quite well with Eric Carr's makeup and whole Fox persona. His makeup and costumes were awesome and they were unique to him. I think it does Tommy and Eric a huge injustice to make them pretend to be someone else. I don't have any anger toward those guys because they are just doing what they're told, but I find it horrid that Gene would have them do this.

I find it especially sickening that they are now having Thayer sing Shock Me, a very Ace-unique track. No one that is a fan of the original band really wants that. I've heard some fans say "Well Ace sings Kiss songs at his show"...well that's true but he doesn't do Calling Dr. Love or God of Thunder, two very Gene-unique songs now does he? Nor would I nor any other Ace fans ever want him.

I think we're 100% in agreement. I had no issue with brining the makeup out of retirement and bringing back the originals. And I have no issue with them continuing to tour, even if it is mostly about money. But they should not have Tommy and Eric not just wearing the old makeup but basically trying to copy Ace & Peter. I mean have you seen how Tommy struts around on stage and his mannerisms? It's completely Ace he's trying to copy, not the character. Those movements and gestures and such are the way Ace moved and played, that's not the character of Space Ace!

Anyways /end rant heh...

I'm going to enjoy myself and have a good time on Friday but I will not applaud Shock Me...or God forbid if they have Singer perform Beth.

I'm actually looking forward to seeing Ace more 4 days later here in Columbus than I am Kiss really. I saw him twice last year and had the time of my life!! Plus the tickets are a little more affordable for that show hehe heh ($20 vs. $150!)

[ODogg]

Re: What really makes a band name???

Ok, after seeing "Kiss" perform last Friday I don't think they can call themselves Kiss anymore without Ace Frehley. The band is more like an uninspired tribute band than the Kiss I grew up with at this point.