Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

A long winded topic but one which I think may provoke some forthright views.

Sadly the topic is raised because Rod Allen the only surviving orignal member of The Fortunes has had to announce his retirement from the industry due to health reasons.

The Fortunes never really made it big in US or even UK for that matter but did have a number of hits in 60's and 70's and it has always been widely recognised that Rod Allen had one of the great voices of the era.

His departure leaves no orignal members now in the band, such bands as The Dakotas have also no member that was part of the 60's group, likewise The Fourmost.


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.

The name should retire when the last active original member retires IMO. Simply put, the "new" members have no claim to the legacy that the band built in their formative years and therefore they do not deserve to use the name to their common advantage.

To some degree I concur but playing devil's advocate, in case of say The Fortunes, the other members of the band could argue that they have been in the band longer than any of the memebrs who were there in the formative hitmaking years.

I have no interest is paying good money to see a band that has claimed lineage to a pedigree but where there are no original members still active. I would feel ripped off. Most of the draw to seeing these older bands is to see if they still have got what it takes and to perhaps re-live some old nostalgic memories over again.

A band full of late comers to the name are marginally much better than a tribute band trading on the original name. Don't get me wrong I have seen some great tribute and cover bands but at least they are not claiming to be the original band.

I suppose my views are a bit on the strong side but I have been known to go off the odd band when they changed out key members, so I guess no one should really be surprised with my take on this.

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.

This is a hypothetical...supposing a legendary band with a 7 year lifespan on top of the heap, loses a founding member about 2 years into that 7 years, and he is replaced by another musician. Gradually, as their place in the pecking order leaves them well in the public eye, but not on top anymore; other band members leave, and are replaced, too. Eventually the only guy from the old times who is left, is the guy who joined 2 years into their 7-year streak.

See what I'm getting at? Is it the original band? Where do we draw the line? Now, supposing the 2-year guy leaves, and is replaced. But the other band members have been with the two year guy (who was schooled by the other original members way back when), longer than the original band was together, and they still play the old stuff exactly like the 2-year guy taught them, and he was trained by the original guys to the point where he could possibly be considered an original, if not founding, member.

Now we have a well-schooled unit that's definitely not the original band, but plays all the material in their style and as well or better than they did. Should they stop playing and touring? Should they change their name? That would be the kiss of death. They've put in the hard work; the blood, sweat and proverbial tears, for longer than the original guys did. So, is it the material, the name, the personnel, or, frankly, the celebrity, that allows the group to keep its DNA through the years?

And--where do we draw that line?

Great post Paul. There is a big dif in what you are saying and what Brian is saying. I would agree with him if they are just using the name, but in your case, I am fine with that!

There's plenty of big bands originally formed in the 30's, 40's and 50's that are still touring; The Glenn Miller Orchestra, Tommy Dorsey Orchestra, The Cab Calloway Orchestra, Guy Lombardo's Royal Canadians, the Count Basie Orchestra, etc. Why should a 60's group be any different?

But the big band guys are playing the same arrangements. They are upholding the sound of the original.

To use a name just because it was popular with no "nod" to the original is crass at best. To have the sound. look, and arrangements carry on is a high honor for those who play.

Some interesting replies, though took me a while to digest Paul's post,but I'll consider it my brain training for the day.

Only kidding Paul.

I do believe 60's groups are different to the big orchestras of the 30's, 40's.

Don't want to elaborate too much on reasons why, as essentially a 60's forum, but as time moved forward it was far easier to know who the members of a group were rather than an orchestra.

I also agree with Paul's observation that group's with no original members perform more than competently and in some instances probably better.

But for me personally I'm with Brian.

First thought: the band (a 60s etc band, i'm not talking big bands now) loses the "right" to use the name if there's less than a half original members left; that means unless it's a duo with session musicians helping, one original member is not enough to keep the name.
But that's too harsh, imho, and we should also bear in mind that there may be different types of bands as far as members go.
1. The band with one leader who's strongly associated with the band and perhaps whose name is mentioned in the band's name. In that case, as long as the leader is in the band, the name exists, and as soon as he retires, the name should also be retired. That's like, take Gerry Marsden for instance. Now i don't know how many original members, apart from him, are still in the band, so don't beat me too hard. As long as there's Gerry, no matter who the other members are and for how long they've been playing together, they'll be Gerry and the Pacemakers; but there can be no Gerry and the Pacemakers without Gerry, or Freddie and the Dreamers without late Freddy, for that matter, even if all the remaining members have been there from the very start.
2. The band with two equal leaders, both original members, other members are more like session musicians. See the first paragraph. As long as one of them stays in the band, they have every right to use the original name.
3. A band with no particular leader. See the first paragraph. But in order not to be too harsh, i would say, as long as one significant/representative original member remains in the band, the name could be kept. It would be strange if the big name, in four decades from big time and fame, was represented by some backstage trumpet player who's been there from the start. Imho, of course.
Just my $0,2.

Yes fair point Sheena, for info Gerry Marsden has been only original member of Gerry and The Pacemakers since about 66.

Interesting in case of Freddie and The Dreamers, again since late 60's Freddie was only orignal member using various lin ups as The Dreamers. One of these line up's though went out on their own, still do I think but called themselves The Dreamers, Freddie Garrity could not prevent them as he only owned the name to Freddie and The Dreamers.

One interesting thing is in the case of Herman's Hermits, Peter Noone left and initially band chnaged their name to The Hermits but soon reverted back to Herman's Hermits, Barrie Whitham was the original drummer and still tours as Herman's Hermits, within last few years Noone decided he relaly wanted the name back and legal proceddings took place, clearly I do not full in's and out's but in my view Noone wasn't interested for years.

As far as I know Noone lost the case but is able to go out as Peter Noone's Herman's Hermits.

It could be argued that without Noone there is no Herman's Hermits.

The Searchers experienced a similair scenario, when Mike Pender left he decided he wanted to use the name Searchers, legal battle commenced and it was agreed though flouted, that John McNally and Frank Allen were legally entitled to use the name The Searchers but Mike Pender could call his group Mike Pender's Searchers provided all lettering was the same.

Good examples. Well, two of them illustrate the point 1. Noone's case is of particular interest since, as it seems, he was the face of the band but couldn't get back the name. Maybe the key was timing, and the fact he didn't claim for it earlier on, after he left, played a significant role.
The Searchers, however, fall into category 3, imho. Hence we had two bands using the name (funny that, neither Jackson nor Curtis who both in some way were the face of the band in their heyday tried to claim their rights for band's name or legacy, how's that?). Now, as it seems, only one has remained, like Duncan McLeod. Or is Mike's band still alive and performing?

A great discussion on this subject, everyone.

Legal issues aside, I consider that the circumstances under which a group is formed and overall contribution to the music scene are factors that need to be considered. I do not think that there is any easy way to make firm rules that will apply across the board.

One way to demonstrate what may fit a model of what may constitute a group and what may not is to consider practical examples.

Should Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr want to go on tour tomorrow, would The Beatles' name be accepted by the fans? Would it be an appropriate group name for this new group? I would argue not. Simply stated, the Beatles time has gone.

If John McNally decides to retire tomorrow, should the remaining Searchers change their name. Again, I would argue not even though all of the original members of this 1960s group would have come and gone. To complicate further, if Mike Pender is the last original performing then would The Searchers name fit his new group?

At the end of the day, I believe that the answer to our question is whether the group in question captures the interest of the fans who are supporting it at the time. Chances are, the market will decide for us.

Should Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr want to go on tour tomorrow, would The Beatles' name be accepted by the fans? Would it be an appropriate group name for this new group? I would argue not. Simply stated, the Beatles time has gone.

Good example, Peter, but... i don't think they ever would. They simply don't need that. They both have big names of their own, therefore they don't need the Beatles moniker to attract the fans.
The Searchers' is a different long and sad tale. They've never been regarded as a bunch of individuals each (or even some of them) having his own big name. I'm not even sure all members of public who go to their concerts know their individual names. Therefore, if McNally retires and is replaced by somebody else, some listeners may not even notice the change. The other thing is, i doubt it would happen, not only because i cannot imagine John-less Searchers.
Back to the Beatles and on, my point is, the bands who fight for their names are generally those who cannot attract public with their own individual names and talents. The likes of ex-Beatles, who have their own potential and their own fans and are recognized as individuals, simply don't need that — they can go with any other name and the public will still recognize and love them. Say, Paul McCartney is Paul McCartney and much more than an ex-Beatle; while Mike Pender will always be not much more (if anything at all) than an ex-Searcher.
Just my $0,2 again.