Legitimate or Cover Bands?

[METALPRIEST]

You're kinda gettin' a bit far out/ long stretch....but Pete Best?? Nope. because though he was a member he was fired which basically states the company no longer wanted him. However he did put this DVD out a few years back which is really good and I recommend many to see it.



Though he tours as The Pete Best Band

Now if it was Ringo or Paul? sure it's legit..again do we have to like it? Nope...but then again they've all played with each other on solo albums anyway so it wouldn't bother me.

Now, IMO a far out example, if someone bought the rights to the "entity" of Thin Lizzy?

OK...if the band is dumb enough to sell than they have to deal with whatever consequence. Technically I guess it would be legit....would it be as "proper" as say Gorham or Sykes or anyone that is part of the history or general make up of a band? Nope

 

[TheFeldster]

but are they legitimately the Beatles? what if Pete Best took random musicians and got the right legal papers and toured as the beatles? would you say that is a legit lineup of the beatles?

or, hypothetically, what if some bored billionaire (with nothing to do with the band) bought the rights to the entity of Thin Lizzy and got three friends together and they toured as Thin Lizzy?

yeah these are just hypothetical situations but they fall in line with what you claim to be a legit band. all you need is the right legal paperwork and the rights to the name and you can be a legit lineup of that band which i think is pretty absurd

I'd disagree with it if the band, as it is now - dormant, started up as "The Beatles" with Paul and his current backing band, certainly - or Ringo, or Pete Best or whoever.

However, as I said, if the Beatles hadn't dissolved after Let It Be and kept going, replacing musicians as they walked out/sadly passed away, then that's what I'd describe as a legit band, yet inferior to the original. So long as it's just substituting this person, then substituting that person etc etc. Not "Ok I'm going to buy this piece of paper which says I have the rights to call myself The Beatles and tour as it with Joe Bloggs, John Doe and Billy Citizen."

So, basically, Thin Lizzy, Nicks era Fleetwood Mac etc are all legit incarnations of the bands, regardless of whether they are as good as the original or not.

 

[Tiny Tim]

Sure it does...just not the Thin Lizzy that most of us like.

Are you saying that Scott Gorham and Sykes were never in Thin Lizzy?

Are you also saying that Scott didn't write any music?

You don't believe that they claim to have written most of the music with little starter ideas from Phil?? (This is on an official DVD)

Just checking...for the record I never paid too much attention to this new Thin Lizzy though you may have....but I'm just answering the question which is the topic of this thread.

Not a "cover" band.

Has the band ever said this "wasn't" a tribute to Phil ever?

No, I don't beleive his claim that Gorham wrote most of the music with little starter ideas from Phil. I think that's a lie. If Gorham was such a great song writer, where are all the great songs he wrote after Lynott died? Every interview I've read with Gorham he says he and the rest of the band were just as messed up as Lynott back in the day. Personally I don't think the music Synyrd recorded after Ronnie's death holds up to the original version, but at least they forged ahead.

And you are right, John Sykes has called it a tribute band. So what are you arguing about?

 

[METALPRIEST]

And you are right, John Sykes has called it a tribute band. So what are you arguing about?

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.

 

[Soot and Stars]

The only things that MIGHT survive once this argument is finally over!

 

[METALPRIEST]

 

[Tiny Tim]

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.

For the record, I never said that Gorham's Thin Lizzy tribute band sucked. They're pretty good actually. They just aren't Thin Lizzy.

And I said you had no point about Peter Green specifically. And as long as you keep responding, you are, in fact, arguing. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Lynch]

Seems to pretty much be a round-robin on the same questions and same responses. Varying opinions and thoughts don't really seem to be changing too much. Just pointing out the semi-obvious.

As you were.

 

[Soot and Stars]

Seems to pretty much be a round-robin on the same questions and same responses. Varying opinions and thoughts don't really seem to be changing too much. Just pointing out the semi-obvious.

As you were.

Yeah, the horse is beyond dead!

 

[TheFeldster]

Yeah, the horse is beyond dead!

Naw, poor horse