What's In A (Band) Name??

[Alex]

So I recently made a thread discussing Chester Bennington becoming the new Stone Temple Pilots singer

http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=255121

Some of the responses were saying if they changed the name it would be ok.



Its seems that when a member is replaced (most of the time the singer) there are calls for the band to change the name my question is why??

I get that sometimes a member is so integral to a band that carrying on without them would be strange but if they're replaced why should the name be changed. I mean Black Sabbath, Judas Priest, Van Halen and others replaced their singer and carried on (as well as others). Others have had revolving line ups and kept the name of the band (Guns N Roses)

I understand sometimes it's better to try something new with a new slate like Audioslave (who were a different style of music to Soundgarden and Rage Against The Machine) but at the same time similarites are going to be brought up with the previous bands anyway so it's a moot point. I also know keeping the name and releasing new material with different members can actually hurt the material (Guns N Roses with Chinese Democracy) so changing the name would seem appealing and help the new material but I feel it's a moot point also.

My personal opinion is that the music should speak for itself. If you like it good on you if you don't just stick with the stuff you like.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

I think the shortest answer would be that guitarists, drummers and bassists can come and go without anyone really being able to identify a huge difference in "musical direction", but a different singer is a much more identifiable change.

Bands like KillswitchEngage and Alice In Chains have replaced their singers, while Alter Bridge and Audioslave took the percussive groups from RATM and Creed to become something new. I guess it depends somewhat on how much the group members want to refer to their former enterprises?

 

[Dagger Dias]

It depends on the level of success the band saw under their old lineup. For example.... Def Leppard used to be called Atomic Mass. They were unheard of under their old name and thus a name change was fine. Granted this was VERY early into their career, but still a name change. Then you have Alter Bridge. They are Creed minus Scott Stapp the singer, with the spot of the singer taken by Myles Kennedy. To a lot of people Alter Bridge is still "Creed with a new singer". Their discography hasn't even made a fraction of what Creed's did and had they been able to still use the Creed name then I think they would have done better despite having a different singer. Alex mentioned both Black Sabbath and Van Halen in his post. I highly doubt that Black Sabbath under a new name with Dio or Van Halen under a new name with Sammy would have been nearly as successful. They were huge bands who just happened to change singers, and kept their names in what I consider a smart decision. The fans were more aware of the new material than they would have been of albums released under a new name.

The name of a band helps fans recognize them and they risk getting overlooked if fans do not know about the name change. Using the Alter Bridge example again, I had never heard of them at first, and it was due to Edge's theme music that I found out about them. One of my roommates in college liked them but other than that I still to this day do not hear too much about them and still hear about Creed a lot. When you change your product (in this case, a band who performs the music) name it's almost like starting over because you're introducing a new brand for your product that has to gain the awareness among the consumers that the old name/brand had. For some bands it works and for some it doesn't, I prefer sticking to an old name personally. From a marketing perspective, I'd rather introduce a new member of a band than introduce an entirely new band, which is how it would get viewed in the customer's eyes, until word spreads on who remains from the old lineup. Even if a band lineup changes, it's still that same band as long as old members remain.

 

[Starcaller_Nasath]

I can see the advantage of keeping the old name.

But some people won't be happy with either option. You still have people calling Hagar era Van Halen Van Hagar.

I don't think Chinese Democracy hurt the name Guns N' Roses any, I think it was more the delays surrounding the album.