Legitimate or Cover Bands?

[METALPRIEST]

I'll add a few

 

[annie]

Are you really going to suggest that I'm arguing?

You started the thread and I'm responding again to a post you made to me on page 5...

..where you told me I "had no point"

I didn't say Sykes called it a tribute band...I remember him saying it was Thin Lizzy's tribute to Phil's memory.

I said it wasn't a cover band and that it was legit and haven't found anything in this thread that proves otherwise.

Also I made it pretty clear that I don't care for the new version of Thin Lizzy or paid too much attention to it...so you should be happy with that at least.

Why do I have the feeling that I haven't changed forums?

 

[METALPRIEST]

You have...this debate is over IMO...and getting pointless.

....and a couple more

 

[Tattoo'd Lady]

You have...this debate is over IMO...and getting pointless.

....and a couple more

you're just adding to the longevity of this thread, congratulations

 

[runtfan]

legalities aside...
is T.Rex still T.Rex without Marc Bolan?
Are the Rolling Stones still the Rolling Stones without Keith and Mick?
Would Mitch Mitchell and Noel Redding be the Jimi Hendrix Experience?
or what about the Mothers of Invention without Frank Zappa?

The answer to all these is "If they can sell tickets as such, then of course". Whether any of these meets an acceptable standard of authenticity is up to the subjective opinion of the people doing the listening and if not enough people are doing the listening, then it's a moot question anyway.

I personally know of several people who've seen the John Sykes-fronted version of Thin Lizzy...does everybody miss Phil? sure, of course...I didn't hear of anybody demanding their money back or feeling cheated or complaining about the show.

 

[FoxyPage]

IMO, if a band has only one original member, it doesn't exactly seem the same to me. It still feels like a cover band. If two are there, it still doesn't feel the same but it feels a little bit closer to the original, BUT, in both of these cases, if the original singer is with the band, it's more original to me as opposed to a cover band.

Basically, it depends on who the original members are (for me, personally). The singer brings the main sound so if the singer is there and the rest of the band is a bunch of replacements for original members, I'd still think of them more as the original group than if the singer isn't there.

Kinda like INXS. To me, they were just a new band who took the name, even though the singer was the only new guy, but he wasn't Michael so it wasn't the same at all for me. Dio was an awesome singer but Black Sabbath wasn't Black Sabbath for me without Ozzy.

 

[aeroplane]

Perfect example.... I'm a big Kiss fan. KISS that we see on stage now without Ace Frehley, Eric Carr (RIP) or Peter Criss is still Kiss. Their faces look different, but the musical ability is better than the originals. I'm sorry, I LOVE Kiss. I LOVE Ace Frehley with all my heart. He was one of the two biggest influences on me to pick up a guitar and learn to play many years ago. But Tommy Thayer can play Ace's Kiss riffs better than Ace. Maybe he can't do original stuff better than Ace did, especially back in Ace's heyday, but Kiss doesn't really have to worry about that aspect, do they? Current drummer Eric Singer is a midget (compared to the other guys) but is 5x the drummer that Peter Criss ever was.

Could Zeppelin have continued after Bonham left? Absolutely. They could have found any number of really good drummers to take his place and it would have been fine. Instead they chose not to, which was/is their perogative. The Who reformed a few times and toured without Moon. Hell, they are playing the Super Bowl this year without arguably the two best musicians in the band. Are they still The Who? Are they still legit, or are they a cover band now?

*shrug*

Regarding Kiss, both Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley have said in recent years that Kiss will still be around when they are gone. They both said something to the effect that Kiss has taken on a life of its own and is bigger than any of the individual band members.

Led Zeppelin could have carried on just fine with a fellow like Cozy Powell.

 

[aeroplane]

by touring with the name Thin Lizzy they are implying they are the legitimate Thin Lizzy. have they toured as this with just a name change then the problem would be solved. but this band touring is not a legitimate representation of Thin Lizzy without their most important member

Then the issue becomes what do Gorham and Sykes call the band? If the point is to play a live set of Thin Lizzy songs, how is the average joe ticket buyer going to know what songs are getting played without something making reference to "Thin Lizzy" in the advertising. The way you market a show can make the difference between the venue being less than half full and packed close to capacity, which could ultimately determine whether or not that venue ever books the artist again.

Promoters have a lot to do with this, too. Some club or theater promoter who books Gorham & Sykes for a show and is trying to fill a venue is going to rather that they call the band "Thin Lizzy" than anything else, especially if they are going to playing Thin Lizzy songs for over an hour. They don't want any of that confusing solo artist or "formerly of" stuff on the poster outside the door.

Let's say they still change the name. What do you change the name to that is going to get a reasonable number of people into the venue and make a promoter satisfied with the turnout?

Given the type of venues that Thin Lizzy has probably been playing over the past decade or two, I don't see what difference it makes. If they are playing dates at state fairs, outdoor rock and roll festivals with a package of other bands or inside of some small clubs, it is a lot easier for everyone involved that they are using the name Thin Lizzy than it is to run newspaper and radio ads with anything but "Thin Lizzy" in the advertising.

I'm sure you'll find a third of the people who see "Thin Lizzy" at a state fair don't even know the difference, the second third of the audience knows but doesn't care and the final third agrees with you 100% about their "legitimacy" but yet they still paid to see the band play (go figure). You'd be surprised how many people bitch about bands missing their original members, claim the new lineup is "fake" but they still end up going (and paying) to see them live every time they are in town, just to bitch some more.

Frankly, if the band isn't recording new studio albums every year under the name Thin Lizzy and if nobody is taking them to court for using the name, then my attitude is that Sykes and Gorham have every right to use the name and make a decent living.


Actually, when it comes to bands replacing members, I believe the BEST quote I've ever seen on the topic comes from Tony Iommi of Black Sabbath. A few years ago, he said the following about continuing on with Black Sabbath after Ozzy and Dio were gone.


"I took a lot of criticism over the years for keeping Black Sabbath going even though I was the only one left and we had all those different lineups.
You know, you don’t close the bloody factory if a worker quits, do you? No, you carry on." (Tony Iommi, 2004)


Tony Iommi Official Website