Can a 60's group be justified in using name if no members

[dedicated_follower]

There will no doubt be numerous other examples , Drifters for one, Four Tops another, where no original members remain.

Clearly one recognises that the passing of time means that no group can retain the original members from their fame years so to speak, but to me once there are NO members in a band that have any connection to the group who made their name then in my view the group ceases to be.

I do not necessarily disapprove of a group going out as The NEW whatever, though do feel they lack credibility.

So when should the use of a name became defunct by virtue of the fact there is NO link to the hit years.

An act should finish and not be allowed to continue the name, when all the original members have gone.
There must be 50+ versions of The Drifters going now. More discerning music fans wouldn't fall for such a scam. I definitely wouldn't go to see them.
I do go to see The Stones, The Who and the Davies Brothers separately though and that is fine by me.

[royclough]

Yes I agree with you there.

[winston]

An act should finish and not be allowed to continue the name, when all the original members have gone.
There must be 50+ versions of The Drifters going now. More discerning music fans wouldn't fall for such a scam.

Amazing! That's exactly why I cannot support a famous band (in name only) continuing on without any of its original members remaining an active part.

[neilhunt]

There must be 50+ versions of The Drifters going now.

Amazing! That's exactly why I cannot support a famous band (in name only) continuing on without any of its original members remaining an active part.

To be fair, that would exclude "Save The Last Dance For Me" and "Up On The Roof" from being Drifters records.

There just aren't easy answers to this question. Continuity is certainly a factor, but it's not conclusive.