In the David Crosby book, 'Long Time Gone' he claims that The New Christy Minstrels had at least two touring bands at the height of their fame but that band is a bit of an outlier, more synonymous with a touring symphony orchestra. It's one of the reasons CSN were so named - you couldn't fire a member and carry on. Nearer to home, my home anyway, is the curious case of Jethro Tull. They have undergone numerous personnel changes in their 50 odd years of existence and as a fan I find Ian Anderson's hiring and firing a bit odd. It remains the case unfortunately that Jethro Tull has only been Jethro Tull if Anderson was in it. At least after the first three albums. In that sense the sound, the look and the vibe that propelled them to superstardom has long gone. This was brought home to me when at one point, Tull had fewer original members in it than other bands with former Tull members - and it sounded a lot livelier. I know this muddies the water as far as your thesis goes, but it is irksome when you find you are listening to what is, in effect, a tribute band.
As a longtime fellow Tull fan (on them since '68's "This Was" release--I was 13; and, I've seen them about 1/2-dozen times, mostly in the early-'70s), my dos centavos: Generally speaking, Tull has always been Ian's baby, from not only a PR standpoint (silhouette of him playing flute), but musically. If, literally, every living track was written by him (and I haven't checked to verify), Ian can be Tull a little more (if not a lot more) than a gaggle of cats who used to be Tull, and now tour sans Ian, IMO.
I saw Ian in a little club in Austin, TX just shy of a decade ago, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't billed as "Jethro Tull" (but, I can't recall)..."Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull"? More probable.
As Eddie Trunk has always said, make sure you know who'll be on stage when you buy your ticket. That should be the end of it. We can debate, all day, this, that, and the other regarding "artistic merits"....but, as we're decades, now, into the "rock era," we shoulda seen this day coming, at least to some degree, with EVERY band/act/artist. Be aware, consumer....period.
Oh Brad, I am normally quite rational about bands but for some reason Tull got under my skin at the beginning. I know a little of the dynamics of Jethro Tull because Glenn Cornick was a friend for many years. So I get very anal about them. You are right when you say that IA wrote every track but in the early days the others put a lot of their own ideas in. Of late IA just hires good players and they play it the way he says it should be played, albeit with key changes to accommodate Ian's voice. All Glenn's parts were Glenn. The bouncy, melodic, jazzy stuff was all his. When he was given the push (at the airport, by the manager) they never really had a bass player after Glenn who could add anything. This Was partly to do with the fact that the band members were employees and they did what they were told. You would think Martin Barre would have had some loyalty due after over 30 years of membership, but no. He was taken to a room by Ian and told JT was over. Sometime later JT appears, sans Barre. Go figure.
It gets worse. I have never believed that the sound quality on their albums have been first rate. Ian blamed new equipment for Aqualung and then there was the notorious Chateau D'Isaster stuff. The production on later albums was frankly ordinary. At some point, I think it was Stand Up, Paul McCartney offered to produce it and was given the polite thank you and no. Notwithstanding, some embryo called Steve Wilson has remixed the albums and the result is tragic. Compare this farrago of tatterdemalion blackboard scraping with Tull contemporaries, The Strawbs, who have gone from great to completely fantastic over the years and despite the odd change of personnel, are full of energy and grace and a delight to see live.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful and thorough reply, Titus! I certainly understand your feelings....so few of us get to know those inner workings, and how treatment within bands sounds, so often, like the way workers get treated at our various companies and offices!!
That's amazing that Paul OFFERED to produce "Stand Up".....I'd-a had a hard time believing he'd even know (or care) about Tull back in that day! I hear he was a bit busy in 1969, anyway! But, at the same time I'd be jaw-dropped at ANY band who turned down an offer by Paul to produce your SECOND album, I guess it shouldn't surprise me a head-strong band and/or Ian would even WANT anyone (even Paul) to "interfere" with the vision they had for their soph effort. All the "what-ifs" and "might've beens" there are in rock! Thanks again, Titus!
I’m going to respectfully pushback here a little. If that’s the case, then why not just go to the closest county fair and watch a cover band?
The changing of one (or even 2 members) over time is one thing. But in the case of Lynyrd Skynyrd you could could make the argument that you actually are watching a cover band.
I hear you. What I was trying to get at is if you go see the current iteration of “Lynyrd Skynyrd” and you enjoy it, don’t get bogged down in semantics.
That said, you raise a great point. If one member leaves a band, then we’d probably call it the same band. But does our thought process change depending on the member? Is the lead singer leaving the same as the bass player? I don’t know. I’m not sure if there’s even an answer.
Music + Voice + Performance + Charisma = Identity. If any of this components stays the same or improves with replacements, then maybe it’s wort to keep the Band’s name and adopt a new identity, as an evolution of the original. Otherways, it might become just an artificial franchise.
May 18, 2023·edited May 18, 2023Liked by Chris Dalla Riva
I think there’s a fifth option to consider for completeness’s sake, even though it is much less artistically satisfying: the band is whatever the person or organization that owns the band’s trademark says it is. If whoever owns the trademark of AC/DC says some random kid they find on a playground somewhere is AC/DC now, then that’s what AC/DC is, just like Disney gets to decide what is and what isn’t an official Mickey Mouse cartoon (and who is and isn’t legally allowed to use the trademark of Mickey Mouse). That’s the legal reason why I can’t be AC/DC, even if I start a band that plays exclusively AC/DC songs.
The one advantage of this option (which for fans of a band’s music, is certainly outweighed by all the disadvantages) is that intellectual property law usually (though admittedly not always) provides a pretty clear answer to the question.
I agree, and also with Chris's reply to your comment, JJ. That IS the bottom line, literally and figuratively. Chris nails it by saying, yes, it IS unsatisfying, but biz is biz, and while we'd all LOVE to have a purely (and simpler, admittedly) musical resolution to this dilemma, it all boils down to the contract, the legalities, the agreements, the law, the publishing, the ownership, the signature at the bottom of a document.....all those "icky" establishment reasons FAR removed from the actual music we all grew up loving.....and, it's very OK to absolutely abhor that predicament! Rock on!🤘
I would say number four, that it's a matter of popular consensus, is the best answer. It underlines that it's a matter of judgement rather than hard rules.
Smash Mouth is currently out there touring without their original lead singer. T. Rex tried touring multiple times without Marc Bolan. And the Beach Boys barely even count as the Beach Boys. This is incredibly common, and it’s kind of annoying.
Personnally, I think it's all about the members. When you're going to see Led Zeppelin, you don't want to see a cover band playing all they're hits. You want to see Robert Plant, Jimmy Page, Bonham, and JPJ. Wether they play their classics or covers of taylor swift or whatever. I want to see Jimmy improvise, Robert Plant wale and Bonham's incredible groove. I think this line of thinking is more aligned with the jazz mentality. Seeing Pat Metheny play All the things you are is a fundamentally different experience from watching Charlie Parker play it with Dizzy. Same song, different listening experience. But that's just me.
I didn't know that. Now do 'Yes'. No original members left. Steve Howe came along for the third lp but left to form Asia. Still fine music but I guess it's just a registered trademark or high quality cover band.
As far as Chicago goes, I thought they were'nt Chicago after Terry Kath died. Love Toto but really, isn't Lukather the last of the originals?
It is a tough thing to decide. If you look at the Beatles- their sound changed over the course of their life as a band, but they were always the Beatles. Are the Stones still the Stones? When you've seen the original line-ups of any band, and you loved that sound, it's hard to accept, sometimes, what their replacements bring to the new line-up. Good article and arguments all around..
I think the definition of a band comes from a combination of the 2nd and 3rd proportions you listed, couched by the 1st. A band is temporal in that it consists of a group of people who have come together to convey music, which means it is necessarily predicted on the temporality of the musicians themselves who make up the group. Any music produced by that group is a reflection of the artists involved in its creation, under the guise of the group.
The band is then committed by whoever contributes to its identity, regardless of the music expressed through it, as it is what is expressed through the group itself that defines it. That being said, its musical qualities inherently shift dependent on the temporality of its contributors. Should all original group members be replaced, the band will naturally have a slightly different expression of itself, and may experience a shift in musical focus and commitment as well. This does not mean that any original band member would not themselves possess the musical qualities that were present in said band’s identity if they contributed towards it, it just means their association or orientation of expression has shifted elsewhere. Equivalently, any band predicated on original member continuity is still liable to similar aesthetic shifts over time based on what they decide to express.
The first proposition becomes the priority relevance with arrangements or covers of the band in question, as the priority is now placed on what musical ideas themselves were expressed by the band.
Just before the pandemic I saw Jethro Tull in Windsor Ontario. I enjoyed the concert but was pretty sure it was identical to the JT concert I saw in Baltimore in 1973. This is a little sad but I think that JT now has the same essential qualities as JT 30 years ago -- Anderson's voice, his unique use of the flute. Take away either of those and I'd say naming the resulting band JT would be close to a fraud on the public. Though the firing of Martin Barre does weaken the claim of the current lineup to be JT to my mind. Some of the solo work Anderson has recorded is really good. If he mixed some classic JT with some solo stuff. Would a slight tweek of the title of the band be more honest? Maybe we should be less tied to the month-by-month tempo of popular music and take a longer view? After all it's been a long time since Mozart showed up to play one of his concerts and no one calls fraud. The current Yes, with no original members, or even members from their glory days will never convince more than a few that they are the real thing, while there is a chance that in 500 years some of the best Yes will still be alive and inspire emulation.
Kraftwerk now is Ralf Hutter and 3 guys who I believe have never written a single note for the band. Then again, I guess it has been 20 years now since their last new material.
We have a similar case in France. A metal band called Sortilège released two albums back in the 80s that got little notice at the time but became cult classics after the band broke up. 40 years later, they decided to reunite... except things did not go well and there was a split. Now we have two bands with the same name. On one side, one with the lead singer; on the other, all the other members. Fans consider the former the real band, probably because the singer's voice is very unique and that he pretty much wrote all the songs. Also, they're the only ones to have released new material, the other band just tours. So there you have it. Another case scenario.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus seems apropos
Exactly. I linked to it in the article.
In the David Crosby book, 'Long Time Gone' he claims that The New Christy Minstrels had at least two touring bands at the height of their fame but that band is a bit of an outlier, more synonymous with a touring symphony orchestra. It's one of the reasons CSN were so named - you couldn't fire a member and carry on. Nearer to home, my home anyway, is the curious case of Jethro Tull. They have undergone numerous personnel changes in their 50 odd years of existence and as a fan I find Ian Anderson's hiring and firing a bit odd. It remains the case unfortunately that Jethro Tull has only been Jethro Tull if Anderson was in it. At least after the first three albums. In that sense the sound, the look and the vibe that propelled them to superstardom has long gone. This was brought home to me when at one point, Tull had fewer original members in it than other bands with former Tull members - and it sounded a lot livelier. I know this muddies the water as far as your thesis goes, but it is irksome when you find you are listening to what is, in effect, a tribute band.
As a longtime fellow Tull fan (on them since '68's "This Was" release--I was 13; and, I've seen them about 1/2-dozen times, mostly in the early-'70s), my dos centavos: Generally speaking, Tull has always been Ian's baby, from not only a PR standpoint (silhouette of him playing flute), but musically. If, literally, every living track was written by him (and I haven't checked to verify), Ian can be Tull a little more (if not a lot more) than a gaggle of cats who used to be Tull, and now tour sans Ian, IMO.
I saw Ian in a little club in Austin, TX just shy of a decade ago, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't billed as "Jethro Tull" (but, I can't recall)..."Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull"? More probable.
As Eddie Trunk has always said, make sure you know who'll be on stage when you buy your ticket. That should be the end of it. We can debate, all day, this, that, and the other regarding "artistic merits"....but, as we're decades, now, into the "rock era," we shoulda seen this day coming, at least to some degree, with EVERY band/act/artist. Be aware, consumer....period.
Oh Brad, I am normally quite rational about bands but for some reason Tull got under my skin at the beginning. I know a little of the dynamics of Jethro Tull because Glenn Cornick was a friend for many years. So I get very anal about them. You are right when you say that IA wrote every track but in the early days the others put a lot of their own ideas in. Of late IA just hires good players and they play it the way he says it should be played, albeit with key changes to accommodate Ian's voice. All Glenn's parts were Glenn. The bouncy, melodic, jazzy stuff was all his. When he was given the push (at the airport, by the manager) they never really had a bass player after Glenn who could add anything. This Was partly to do with the fact that the band members were employees and they did what they were told. You would think Martin Barre would have had some loyalty due after over 30 years of membership, but no. He was taken to a room by Ian and told JT was over. Sometime later JT appears, sans Barre. Go figure.
It gets worse. I have never believed that the sound quality on their albums have been first rate. Ian blamed new equipment for Aqualung and then there was the notorious Chateau D'Isaster stuff. The production on later albums was frankly ordinary. At some point, I think it was Stand Up, Paul McCartney offered to produce it and was given the polite thank you and no. Notwithstanding, some embryo called Steve Wilson has remixed the albums and the result is tragic. Compare this farrago of tatterdemalion blackboard scraping with Tull contemporaries, The Strawbs, who have gone from great to completely fantastic over the years and despite the odd change of personnel, are full of energy and grace and a delight to see live.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful and thorough reply, Titus! I certainly understand your feelings....so few of us get to know those inner workings, and how treatment within bands sounds, so often, like the way workers get treated at our various companies and offices!!
That's amazing that Paul OFFERED to produce "Stand Up".....I'd-a had a hard time believing he'd even know (or care) about Tull back in that day! I hear he was a bit busy in 1969, anyway! But, at the same time I'd be jaw-dropped at ANY band who turned down an offer by Paul to produce your SECOND album, I guess it shouldn't surprise me a head-strong band and/or Ian would even WANT anyone (even Paul) to "interfere" with the vision they had for their soph effort. All the "what-ifs" and "might've beens" there are in rock! Thanks again, Titus!
“The music is more important than the musicians”
I’m going to respectfully pushback here a little. If that’s the case, then why not just go to the closest county fair and watch a cover band?
The changing of one (or even 2 members) over time is one thing. But in the case of Lynyrd Skynyrd you could could make the argument that you actually are watching a cover band.
I hear you. What I was trying to get at is if you go see the current iteration of “Lynyrd Skynyrd” and you enjoy it, don’t get bogged down in semantics.
That said, you raise a great point. If one member leaves a band, then we’d probably call it the same band. But does our thought process change depending on the member? Is the lead singer leaving the same as the bass player? I don’t know. I’m not sure if there’s even an answer.
Music + Voice + Performance + Charisma = Identity. If any of this components stays the same or improves with replacements, then maybe it’s wort to keep the Band’s name and adopt a new identity, as an evolution of the original. Otherways, it might become just an artificial franchise.
I think there’s a fifth option to consider for completeness’s sake, even though it is much less artistically satisfying: the band is whatever the person or organization that owns the band’s trademark says it is. If whoever owns the trademark of AC/DC says some random kid they find on a playground somewhere is AC/DC now, then that’s what AC/DC is, just like Disney gets to decide what is and what isn’t an official Mickey Mouse cartoon (and who is and isn’t legally allowed to use the trademark of Mickey Mouse). That’s the legal reason why I can’t be AC/DC, even if I start a band that plays exclusively AC/DC songs.
The one advantage of this option (which for fans of a band’s music, is certainly outweighed by all the disadvantages) is that intellectual property law usually (though admittedly not always) provides a pretty clear answer to the question.
Totally right. Probably the cleanest answer but still unsatisfying. Though if you started telling people you were AC/DC I’d support you
Very unsatisfying. Maybe legally that would be the answer but I believe it's up to the fans.
I agree, and also with Chris's reply to your comment, JJ. That IS the bottom line, literally and figuratively. Chris nails it by saying, yes, it IS unsatisfying, but biz is biz, and while we'd all LOVE to have a purely (and simpler, admittedly) musical resolution to this dilemma, it all boils down to the contract, the legalities, the agreements, the law, the publishing, the ownership, the signature at the bottom of a document.....all those "icky" establishment reasons FAR removed from the actual music we all grew up loving.....and, it's very OK to absolutely abhor that predicament! Rock on!🤘
You shook me. And I'm grateful for Ted Gioia pointing me to your substack. :)
In 1991 the "Lovin' Spoonful" toured without John Sebastian and Zal Yanovsky. That's quite a stretch.
I would say number four, that it's a matter of popular consensus, is the best answer. It underlines that it's a matter of judgement rather than hard rules.
Smash Mouth is currently out there touring without their original lead singer. T. Rex tried touring multiple times without Marc Bolan. And the Beach Boys barely even count as the Beach Boys. This is incredibly common, and it’s kind of annoying.
Personnally, I think it's all about the members. When you're going to see Led Zeppelin, you don't want to see a cover band playing all they're hits. You want to see Robert Plant, Jimmy Page, Bonham, and JPJ. Wether they play their classics or covers of taylor swift or whatever. I want to see Jimmy improvise, Robert Plant wale and Bonham's incredible groove. I think this line of thinking is more aligned with the jazz mentality. Seeing Pat Metheny play All the things you are is a fundamentally different experience from watching Charlie Parker play it with Dizzy. Same song, different listening experience. But that's just me.
Beware the Little River Band.
I think we were saying that in 1978, but for, likely, far different reasons!
I didn't know that. Now do 'Yes'. No original members left. Steve Howe came along for the third lp but left to form Asia. Still fine music but I guess it's just a registered trademark or high quality cover band.
As far as Chicago goes, I thought they were'nt Chicago after Terry Kath died. Love Toto but really, isn't Lukather the last of the originals?
It is a tough thing to decide. If you look at the Beatles- their sound changed over the course of their life as a band, but they were always the Beatles. Are the Stones still the Stones? When you've seen the original line-ups of any band, and you loved that sound, it's hard to accept, sometimes, what their replacements bring to the new line-up. Good article and arguments all around..
I think the definition of a band comes from a combination of the 2nd and 3rd proportions you listed, couched by the 1st. A band is temporal in that it consists of a group of people who have come together to convey music, which means it is necessarily predicted on the temporality of the musicians themselves who make up the group. Any music produced by that group is a reflection of the artists involved in its creation, under the guise of the group.
The band is then committed by whoever contributes to its identity, regardless of the music expressed through it, as it is what is expressed through the group itself that defines it. That being said, its musical qualities inherently shift dependent on the temporality of its contributors. Should all original group members be replaced, the band will naturally have a slightly different expression of itself, and may experience a shift in musical focus and commitment as well. This does not mean that any original band member would not themselves possess the musical qualities that were present in said band’s identity if they contributed towards it, it just means their association or orientation of expression has shifted elsewhere. Equivalently, any band predicated on original member continuity is still liable to similar aesthetic shifts over time based on what they decide to express.
The first proposition becomes the priority relevance with arrangements or covers of the band in question, as the priority is now placed on what musical ideas themselves were expressed by the band.
Just before the pandemic I saw Jethro Tull in Windsor Ontario. I enjoyed the concert but was pretty sure it was identical to the JT concert I saw in Baltimore in 1973. This is a little sad but I think that JT now has the same essential qualities as JT 30 years ago -- Anderson's voice, his unique use of the flute. Take away either of those and I'd say naming the resulting band JT would be close to a fraud on the public. Though the firing of Martin Barre does weaken the claim of the current lineup to be JT to my mind. Some of the solo work Anderson has recorded is really good. If he mixed some classic JT with some solo stuff. Would a slight tweek of the title of the band be more honest? Maybe we should be less tied to the month-by-month tempo of popular music and take a longer view? After all it's been a long time since Mozart showed up to play one of his concerts and no one calls fraud. The current Yes, with no original members, or even members from their glory days will never convince more than a few that they are the real thing, while there is a chance that in 500 years some of the best Yes will still be alive and inspire emulation.
Kraftwerk now is Ralf Hutter and 3 guys who I believe have never written a single note for the band. Then again, I guess it has been 20 years now since their last new material.
We have a similar case in France. A metal band called Sortilège released two albums back in the 80s that got little notice at the time but became cult classics after the band broke up. 40 years later, they decided to reunite... except things did not go well and there was a split. Now we have two bands with the same name. On one side, one with the lead singer; on the other, all the other members. Fans consider the former the real band, probably because the singer's voice is very unique and that he pretty much wrote all the songs. Also, they're the only ones to have released new material, the other band just tours. So there you have it. Another case scenario.