Would You Support Merchandising in Rock Bands...

Motley Crue

We wanted to put together the band we never saw onstage. Period. And whatever it would take to do that - that's what we would do
Gene Simmons

So, imagine the situation, it's 2031 and Gene Simmons is 81 and he's the current manager of KISS. For the last 10 to 15 years Simmons has been managing the band with a revolving line up featuring the hottest musicians. The line up have recorded, and re-recorded, some KISS classics in the studio and have also released some new material.

He's not the only one, since the death of Mick Jagger in 2020, Keith Richards (now aged 87) has organised a Rolling Stones touring line up to perform the band's classic hits and also to release new material with his blessing and legal permission. The band's newest member, 31 year old Michael Sanders, has said he was inspired to play bass by Bill Wyman and has been a fan since the Jagger days.....

Thinking about this, would you be happy to see this kind of "legacy" in a rock band, essentially a name (and an image) that continues long after many of the original band members are either dead or octogenarians....would this be something that you think spells the future of the Industry or do you believe that when every band, regardless of cultural significance or impact, reaches a certain age that they should bow out gracefully?

It's easy to ask yourself the kind of hypothetical question like "What if the Beatles were still around?" or "What if Led Zeppelin had continued to tour?" but with a band like KISS or the Rolling Stones who have continued to tour well into (or just near) retirement age, should their legacy live on in more then just their music?

lord lucan

No original members means they're just a cover band imo. Better to pay €20 to see some decent cover band in a pub/club than pay rip off prices to see a franchised cover band in the point.

Wolfe Tone

Well people are prepared to se bands with like only 1 original member are they not?

Malice

I thought this was going to be something to do with band t-shirts!
Anyway, I have always regarded Kiss, The Beatles and The Rolling Stones as "music that my dad listens to". As to whether I'd support the band if the name was the only thing left, the answer is no. I don't support the bands in their current format so changing members wouldn't affect their relevancy to me. Now, if the band with no original members happened to release some top-quality music then they might become of interest to me but it would be because of the music, not because of anything the original band may have done.

blastman

Malice, I think you're missing the point slightly. Apply the scenario to a band that are relevant to you and ask the same question. Kiss or The Stones are just used as examples as they're entering that period where the age of the members is becoming an issue. The question could just as easily apply to Metallica or whoever in 20-30 years time.

For me, I don't think it's a good idea. A covers band will always be a covers band. Although it's hard to know where the line is drawn exactly e.g. Lynyrd Skynyrd.

Malice

Good point blastman. I'll extend the analogy to, let's say Fear Factory. If in 20 years time it's 4 people with no relation to the current lineup releasing music then I would definitely be checking it out but it's the merit of the music that matters to me. I would not be in favour of the name of the band remaining the same since it's not the synergy of the original members anymore. It was the original members that got me into the music, not the hired hands that came afterwards.

Motley Crue

Malice_ wrote: »

If in 20 years time it's 4 people with no relation to the current lineup releasing music then I would definitely be checking it out but it's the merit of the music that matters to me.

Granted, but I don't think a band like Fear Factory would continue in this regard, and I think band's like Metallica won't either. The reason I used KISS or the Rolling Stones is because, with KISS, many argue that behind that facepaint it could be anyone - as long as they look to have relatively the same build and use the same facepaint and costumes and mannerisms those artists use?

That's not say Gene Simmons is simply replaceable, or the voice of Paul Stanley can be easily replicated, but it does make you question if a band with a kind of superhero or comic book branding can simply continue beyond the lifetime of the original members?

In the case of the Rolling Stones, we've a band who have made their impact during the cultural period of the Beatles and the 60's and 70's, who then found a rejuvenation in touring in the late 80's and early 90's and who have profitably toured since.

But ask yourself, are their latest releases still getting people as excited as 'Exile On Main Street' - probably not, no, so they make their money in nostalgia. Some could argue a lot of band's do that, nothing wrong there, but how far does that need to go - can you see Keith Richards and Mick Jagger being wheeled out at the start of a gig to welcome onstage their younger counterparts?

Wolfe Tone

Malice_ wrote: »

Good point blastman. I'll extend the analogy to, let's say Fear Factory. If in 20 years time it's 4 people with no relation to the current lineup releasing music then I would definitely be checking it out but it's the merit of the music that matters to me. I would not be in favour of the name of the band remaining the same since it's not the synergy of the original members anymore. It was the original members that got me into the music, not the hired hands that came afterwards.

But what if one member leaves tomorrow, and the replacement is there for ten years, then another leaves and another new guy etc, until the "original" band is entirely gone but the band is not entirely "new"?

Somnus

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

But what if one member leaves tomorrow, and the replacement is there for ten years, then another leaves and another new guy etc, until the "original" band is entirely gone but the band is not entirely "new"?

That's where the real problem lies. And in that case I think it comes down to how much the new member has contributed to the band. They might be there 10 years, but if they replaced an original member may not have been held in the same regard.

seachto7

Aren't Sepultura and Thin Lizzy kind of doing it at the moment?

Malice

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

But what if one member leaves tomorrow, and the replacement is there for ten years, then another leaves and another new guy etc, until the "original" band is entirely gone but the band is not entirely "new"?

I'll still check out the music that the band releases.

Angron

I wouldn't be keen on it if it was just crappy music under the name of the band, released for the sake of it. It'd have to be decent for me to wanna support it.

GLaDOS

Dr.Poca wrote: »

That's where the real problem lies. And in that case I think it comes down to how much the new member has contributed to the band. They might be there 10 years, but if they replaced an original member may not have been held in the same regard.

Alternatively, they could make a huge impact and help bring the band ina new dirction to great success, Dave Gilmour for example, you could then argue for them continuing the band.

It reminds me of when I saw Smashing Pumpkins play Primevera a couple of years ago. Billy Corgan replaced D'arcy with another female bass player (Ginger Pooley) and James Iha with another Asian guitarist, Jeff Schroeder.

After the gig, a friend of mine said we just half of a great tribute band, and half rock gods in serious decline.

I've always thought the singer (guitarist in some cases) would be the main stumbling block, but when you think of Queen and Alice in Chains replacing legends of singers, anything is possible.

Nevyn

Doesn't the blue man group work that way, with several franchies active at once but I guess they reason used that it is preformance art...

Wolfe Tone

What about bands like Deep Purple who go through lots of members

Nevyn

Yeah the Sabbath/deep purple family rock tree is something to behold.

stateofflux

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What about bands like Deep Purple who go through lots of members

yea but take away ian gillan, lord, then blackmore, at what point does it cease to become 'Deep Purple'?

Take led zeppellin...it was kind of weird to see them reform because zep were all about youth energy & without bonham there is no led zeppelin...even plant said that himself....

Kiss is different i think...they were always about 'The show', the spectacle, charachatures, four star symbols onstage rather than people...

But a lot of people simply don't care if they buy tickets to a substandard shadow of what was.....take Guns and roses Ticket buyers at the last dublin concert.And i dunno if i can blame simmons, axl etc for making money off suckers....

Motley Crue

stateofflux wrote: »

.....take Guns and roses Ticket buyers at the last dublin concert.And i dunno if i can blame simmons, axl etc for making money off suckers....

By all accounts KISS put on an excellent, and entertaining, performance that was cheaper than Metallica and Guns N' Roses - plus you've got the original voice of the band which helps a hell of a lot....

Guns N' Roses are not the band they once were, Duff McKagan and Slash may be long since departed, but Bumblefoot and DJ Ashba are excellent performers in their own right and Axl Rose is still an icon (maybe not along the same lines as Michael Jackson, but he's still a performer you want to see).

Some may argue that Velvet Revolver was nothing more than an excuse for Slash, Matt and Duff to relive their GNR glory days, since the majority of fans went for that very reason or because Weiland fronted STP - regardless, they were a great band, and put on one hell of a show (even at a time when they did want to kill each other)

A few years ago I went to see David Lee Roth in Vicar St, he did a few Van Halen tunes that night, and I certainly wasn't complaining because he was a bloody great performer and I am confident I got my money's worth that night. And that gig was rescheduled as well as far as I remember.

Riddle101

I don't think I would support such an idea. As people have already said, a cover band is just a cover band and that's all they'll be. The originals will always be the ones who people care about. So if you have a band like Kiss with new members, it wouldn't be the same even if Gene Simmons was managing it.

But even more so, I think it would just diminish the bands reputation as well. I think a band should retire when the orginals are all gone. Revamping a band would just be bad in my opinion because it's not the same.

Somnus

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Alternatively, they could make a huge impact and help bring the band ina new dirction to great success, Dave Gilmour for example, you could then argue for them continuing the band.

Very true.... but if you think that now the only long time members will be him and Nick Mason...

If David Gilmour was the only one left and still touring under that name I wouldn't consider it Pink Floyd, despite him being the main man.

Nevyn

The thing is often 'replacements' can be in the band and contribute more material and then originals so I guess it depends how much the contributed to the band, the music and it's sound.