Band member vs. cast member.

Lee-Bro

Senior Member
Quiet Riot plays a show w/o any of the classic lineup members, first since Banali's passing: https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/video-quiet-riot-plays-first-concert-after-frankie-banalis-death/

I didn't realize that Chuck Wright was on the "Metal Health" album, nonetheless. Q.R. has passed (IMO) from band to production w/ cast members, each playing their role/part. I'm guessing the Banali and DuBrow estates/families own the rights to the band's name and license it to a production or management group. Just as the "Journey" named is owned by a corporate entity of which Steven Perry has an ownership stake, yet his "role" as lead singer is performed by Arnel Pineda. -who last I read is a band member in that he shares in revenues rather than a flat rate salary, yet is NOT a stake holder in the parent ownership company.

Trans-Siberian Orchestra has two touring/performance units, west coast crew and the east coast crew. And there's not a shortage of other examples similar to Q.R., Journey, or TSO.

Philosophical question: I know a hammer will last forever if you occasionally replace the handle and head, but at some point you have to realize you've gone through several hammers when only 1 occupied your toolbox at a time. At what point, how many original member or classic lineup deaths, does it take before the band touring isn't really "the band" and what's out there is the official tribute band? If the name is licensed in perpetuity and ownership is transferred, Quiet Riot (and others) could release new material in the year 2283.

Am I making sense, know what I mean?
 

Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX

Well-known member
absolutely

...and it is real hard for me to take "bands" that devolve into this type of setting seriously...I feel like Black Sabbath, and Iron Maiden started heading in this direction at certain points in their careers, and I hated it...Queensryche has also sadly fallen into this category as well, but an even worse way in that both productions are claiming ot be "The Original"...and neither one is...

and, relating to another recent thread here, I feel like Metallica did even worse because the original members didn't even leave the band
 

Push pull stroke

Platinum Member
Some members are more replaceable than others. But I agree, this is just ridiculous. Although at least these players are getting to play and get paid for it, so there’s at least SOME silver lining lol
 

C.M. Jones

Well-known member
Sometimes there's money in a band's name and history, not in a specific set of members. If there's money to be made, certain bands will choose to persist. Music is entertainment. Entertainment is money. Money is alluring. To some, artistic integrity is permissible only when it doesn't prevent them from making money. That will never change. The universe marches on, albeit in a potentially unpromising direction.

Fortunately, Rush had the good sense to call it quits.
 

Griffin

Well-known member
This is the element of the “classic rock” scene or “legacy acts” or whatever that I detest. I have no problem with cover bands and tribute acts but this kind of licensed “official band” bothers me. It’s just a way of cashing in on brand recognition, I also think it robs younger performers of recognition. It’s the musical equivalent of ghost writers pumping out RL Stine or Tom Clancy novels or whatever. At that point it’s not art, it’s just a factory.
 

Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX

Well-known member
Sometimes there's money in a band's name and history, not in a specific set of members. If there's money to be made, certain bands will choose to persist. Music is entertainment. Entertainment is money. Money is alluring. To some, artistic integrity is permissible only when it doesn't prevent them from making money. That will never change. The universe marches on, albeit in a potentially unpromising direction.

Fortunately, Rush had the good sense to call it quits.

absolutely, and this just gets them even more respect in my eyes...
 

dboomer

Senior Member
If the name is licensed in perpetuity and ownership is transferred, Quiet Riot (and others) could release new material in the year 2283.

Am I making sense, know what I mean?

It’s already happening. Check out the current Jefferson Airplane, The Grass Roots
Paul Revere and the Raiders. Zero original members.
 

Lee-Bro

Senior Member
I will add that this topic parallels discussions such as "What makes a Slingerland a "real" Slingerland" and the subject of continuity as part of the discussion.
 

Griffin

Well-known member
I will add that this topic parallels discussions such as "What makes a Slingerland a "real" Slingerland" and the subject of continuity as part of the discussion.
I think that’s an interesting topic also, I do think corporate continuity is a different from i continuity, but there are definitely cases of Frankenstein brands I don’t like— Mini coopers v Morris minis is an automotive example of one such frankenbrand
 

DrummerJustLikeDad

Well-known member
Even this conversation itself fits the very description of what you’re lamenting. We are, after all, only this generation’s participants in the latest re-staging of a discussion whose original members died off years ago.

The music world and its fans have been discussing “band name legitimacy” and “Legacy Acts” since at least 1946 when the Glenn Miller Estate authorized his orchestra to play their first show following their namesake’s disappearance (fatal plane crash) two years earlier. They continue playing to this day.

 

doggyd69b

Well-known member
Sometimes there's money in a band's name and history, not in a specific set of members. If there's money to be made, certain bands will choose to persist. Music is entertainment. Entertainment is money. Money is alluring. To some, artistic integrity is permissible only when it doesn't prevent them from making money. That will never change. The universe marches on, albeit in a potentially unpromising direction.

Fortunately, Rush had the good sense to call it quits.
I don't know if you have read some of the latest interviews that Neil Peart did. He mentioned that he was going to be leaving music altogether because it was not fun for him anymore. While I was never a Rush fan I can see how Peart influenced many, he had a very unique style and was very creative. But, when you do that constantly for close to 40 years (and as your job) even your passion becomes stale and you want to move on. I have been in bands that I really liked, but sometimes we were practicing so much that it felt like a chore to just even go practice. I am glad that life didn't allow me to make a living as a musician not because I am a mediocre player, I am an Ok player maybe even better than Ok, I just never found the right people to play with. I guess things happen for a reason so I got to keep my passion separate from my job and I am still as excited to play drums as I was back in 1988 when I got my first kit. For those bands that are basically one original member left, I just lost interest because regardless of how true to the original the new members play, it is still someone else's take, if I wanted to hear covers of music I like, then I prefer to play along than to pay to listen to someone else do it. The other part is when bands in that scenario attempt to release new material.. It really is not what the band you like will sound like, it is what the new member's sound like which is basically a different band just sharing the name. Greed ruins everything and it is why this world is dying sooner than it has to. On a funny side note my father in law is Neil Peart's twin, I showed him a picture and he asked me where did I get his picture, I told him is not you is a famous Canadian drummer. He thought it was the funniest thing and showed me a picture where he was basically in the same place and I then understood why he asked me where I had gotten the picture I showed him. He is South African but coincidentally happens to live in Canada.
 
Last edited:

CommanderRoss

Silver Member
Great White fits into this as well.
I saw Jack Russell's Great White last year with he & Mark Kendall. The rest are doing another version of the band as just Great White.
Hear them both & there's a big difference.
Seems Jack didn't own the rights to the band's name, but Michael Lardie (who does), allowed him to use it along with his own name.

Issues of the same band, split in two doing separate shows is just weird to me. But money & contracts being what they are, I see why they'd do it.
Ya gotta keep playing as best you can I suspect.
 

mikyok

Platinum Member
It makes me chuckle when bands become tribute bands to themselves. Usually after losing an iconic frontman.......see Journey, Boston and countless others.

Yet they still charge eye watering ticket prices.

Some outfits are franchises, I think it's the Driftors, owned by some businessman and all the member are on salaries (none are original)

There's a market for it and divorces don't pay for themselves in a lot of cases, I'll never understand it personally but if we'd all take the gig if we were offered.
 

mikyok

Platinum Member
There was a beatlemania show with impersonators in the 70s. Seemed to be popular.

Real thing doesn’t exist. A copy is just fine with a lot of people.

Check the Matthew Street festival out in Liverpool, the city centre is a tribute band festival and there's a stage just for Beatles tributes all day. I'm not really into tribute bands but it's a good day.

There's Beatles tributes on daily in the Cavern, it's a cool night. We saw the Rutles last year at the Cavern, not long before Neil Innes died. They were the original tongue in cheek tribute band.
 

jimb

Member
Its all a scam. If the singer and primary lead player are replaced then its not the original band anymore...period and anyone can cover the bass, drums, horn parts etc.... its a cover band, yet they charge these ridiculous prices..... none of them get my patronage.
 

Woolwich

Silver Member
I can’t speak to the Quiet Riot situation because I don’t know the details of it, however I sympathise towards the “non all original members” band in many cases. I was in a band in 2006, it disbanded then reformed 18 months later. Before our first gig both the singer and bass player left and were replaced and another guitarist was added to the lineup. (Whether or not this is relevant, mine and pretty much everyone else's opinion was that the "new" members were better than the outgoing ones). To me and to our audience we still had every right to go by the same name and perform many of the same songs. Several years later we called it a day, and then the band reformed again earlier this year. I decided not to be a part of the band anymore so they’ll play with a new drummer. In my eyes they’ve got every right to play and use the name even though they’re down to one original member. And if he leaves my opinion won’t change because even though some of the most creative members of the band would be gone, there’s still members there who’ve been in the band since 2009.
It’s all very nuanced, there’s a friend of mine who strongly argued about which was the best lineup of Rainbow due to how Ritchie Blackmore replaced members at will. In his opinion the best lineup is the original lineup before money ruins everything Then in a subsequent discussion he praised the Dio led version of Black Sabbath as being much better than the Ozzy led original lineup!
We’re all musicians and we want to play, whether we’re in a pub band or an international stadium band members leaving or being replaced shouldn’t be viewed as a reason for us to stop to avoid hurting the sensibilities of fans. I liken it to me having an ex girlfriend. If we split up and moved on because we weren’t a good match I’m not going to get back with her just because other people liked her and I’m not going to stop dating other women because it offends the purists.
 
Last edited:
Top