Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Great subject! I know we're basically talking about the 60s bands who are now touring strictly as "oldies" acts, but there are other names I would like to throw into the discussion - e.g. the Who, Rolling Stones, Byrds, Flying Burrito Brothers, the Band, Ventures, Shadows, Dire Straits (all relevant to the subject, all 60s in origin except the last).
I agree with all who have said or implied that the Beatles would have had to be all 4 - and Paul and Ringo (and indeed George) have all said as much.
All this is very subjective, and we, as fans, may see it differently than those involved do. Daltrey and Townsend are apparently happy, or at least willing, to continue as the Who... To me, personally, so long as Mick, Keith and Charlie are there, I'm prepared to accept the band as the Stones. (Parenthetical thought: if Charlie ever decided to retire permanently, Mick and Keith could get together with Paul and Ringo to form the ULTIMATE 60s UK supergroup )
The Byrds' story is probably well known to most on this forum. Again, for me personally, the McGuinn/White/Parsons/Battin version was quite acceptable - but not to Crosby, among others
Conversely, I didn't really feel comfortable with a post-Robbie Robertson "the Band" - but I think Levon, Garth and Rick are/were men of principle, and they were happy to do it - again, a delicate subject altogether.
In general, though, my feeling on the original subject of the thread is that there should be at least one member of the group who was a member during the group's "hit period" - OR, as in the case of Gerry, the front man has to be the same. (Hermits is OK, but Herman's Hermits without Noone is daft!) We had a discussion a while back about the Beach Boys, and who should be entitled to use the name. My vote basically was Brian Wilson yes, Mike Love, no. But all this is subjective, and varies on a case by case basis, almost. Fun to talk about though... apparently... at least for me.... anyone left awake out there...?

I do agree it on a case by case basis. Thinking back over the years, I was never as upset when someone left to pursue their own creative muse. I did get upset when band members fought, then broke up, then each faction tries to continue on using the name and it becomes a whole legal mess. If the leeaving was due to illness death, or was voluntary on the part of the person leaving, I have no problem with the others carrying on. Again, for me, it is more how they perform. If they are doing their ownthing but using the name, no go! If they are faithfully carrying on the performance of the "band".


Maybe another way of saying what I mean is, did the character of the band change, or did someone play the same parts. For example, Timothy B Schmidt plays New York Minute a lot like John Pattatuci who played on Henley's solo record. It wouldn't matter who the bass player is, they would play it like first written. Maybe not the best analogy, but I think it gets my point across.

jps wrote:How would you relate this to something like The Count Basie Orchestra? I saw them with Basie in '82, but have been very reluctant to see the current band.

I saw them with Frank Foster leading them in the mid 80's after Count Basie had passed on, they were phenomenal.

They come to my local jazz club once in a while, one of these days I will go see them.

Interesting posts...my first reaction is to agree if there are no founding members the group's name should be retired...then Paul has a could pount as it relates in particular to larger outfits...so what about groups where one member was the main focus...Jimi Hendrix...Big Brother and The Holding Company....Ten Years After if Alvin left..The Stones w/o Keith or Mick...but then....I thought Paul Rogers did a good job w/Queen and Eddie Veder did well w/The Doors...then again!

admin wrote:... Legal issues aside ...

Well, that's the crux of the matter - legal issues. If a band becomes successful then soon enough it's the name that becomes tradeable. The individuals are the group of people, the employees if you like, that support the tradeability of the registered name of the band. In other words they provide the "company" with differentiated products that sell.

As employees leave, if profitable the company will keep trading and will bring in new employees to help keep it trading. Those employees that leave and are still alive might even spinoff into their own little niche.

Ultimately, whoever owns the rights to the name will continue trading if there is some sort of demand and the product is generally still accepted.

For example, should you stop buying Rickenbackers, Gibsons and Fenders simply because the original guys are long gone? ... hmmm ....

To answer the topic question from this viewpoint, it is YES, the group of people (whoever they might be) are quite justified in using the name that "trademarks" that type of sound - provided they legally own the name.

And, from the other viewpoint that considers that the band (the "company") may have lost credibility, well that may be the case for some, but there may be a whole bunch of new buyers of the product that, unaware of who was who (or maybe they don't really care), are quite happy to accept the current lineup of "employees" and so part with their dollars.

It's like - it's not the clown, it's the circus.

My opinion, of course.

Getting to this one rather late, but I agree with a lot of what I read here on both sides. It's funny, I actually saw Herman's Hermits in the late 70's at a local amusement park and Peter Noone wasn't with them. My wife was sorely disappointed, having seen the orginal group in the 60's at a concert that had The Who as the opening act!
I agree that Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr would probably never go out again as The Beatles, but it sure hasn't stopped Don Henley and Glenn Fry from calling their band The Eagles, even though they are the only two original members left, and both have had successful solo careers.

I suppose I could use the example of Steve Winwood. When he does solo stuff his sound is way different than when he plays under the Traffic banner. I like his Traffic stuff much better BTW........ To me it is about the sound, songs, and general look, sound, and feel of the band.

I wasn't aware that Winwood went out under Traffic banner, band was shortlived anyway.

I saw the Fortunes before Christmas on the Call up the Groups tour here in the UK, must have been one of Rods Allens last concerts. Marmalade, Tremeloes and Barron Knights were also on the bill. Fortunes were pretty good but cannot see how they can continue without their front man. Are they going to replace him? Maybe if they got a sixties performer to replace him that might give them the credibility to continue on the nostalgia tours? If they continue without him then they hold no interest for me and I believe they should change the groups name. Of course they can continue as long as they want but without an original member, there should be no place for them on any of the Sixties nostalgia tours.

From Rob

Sadly Rod Allen of The Fortunes has passed away today.

Here are The Fortunes in 66 with the song they are best remembered for in UK.

Rod was the only original member of the group which started the debate on this topic.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HliDSRte ... re=related

royclough wrote:Sadly Rod Allen of The Fortunes has passed away today.

Here are The Fortunes in 66 with the song they are best remembered for in UK.

Rod was the only original member of the group which started the debate on this topic.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HliDSRte ... re=related

Oh! I am very sorry to read that piece of bad news Roy.

royclough wrote:I wasn't aware that Winwood went out under Traffic banner, band was shortlived anyway.

\

Hey now (to the shortlived comment!), I saw them in 94-95. Jim Capaldi and Steve went on tour as Traffic to promote a new album called Far from Home that has some great stuff!

Here's a link to the discography.

http://www.connollyco.com/discography/t ... index.html

This topic reminds me of the recent Little River Band debarcle in which the three orginal founding members (Beeb Birtles, Glenn Shorrock and Graeham Goble), tried to take back the name from the current band who, although not original members, have been in the band for more than 25 years, and have been continously using the name "Little River Band". What's more is that Glenn Shorrick actually sold the name rights to the band when he left, rather than pay to keep it for himself!

Clearly the current band has all the legal and moral rights to the name because they have been continuously using and defending the band (and brand) name, without the orginal 3 members for the last 20 years, but the fact remains that no one would ever consider the current Little River Band is the actual Little River Band that became famous in the 70s without Birtles, Shorrick or Goble.

When the band was inducted into the ARIA Hall of Fame, no current members were included, and as the result they were inducted under the name "The Classic Lineup of the Little River Band", which is funny because there's never been an Australian band with that actual name, even though they are in the hall of fame!

royclough wrote:Sadly Rod Allen of The Fortunes has passed away today.

Here are The Fortunes in 66 with the song they are best remembered for in UK.

Rod was the only original member of the group which started the debate on this topic.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HliDSRte ... re=related

Very sad news.

From Rob