When is a group no longer worthy of their name?
I watched Jonathan Ross on Friday night with some mild bemusement.
No, I wasn't weirded out by his lame attempts at humour, but the adulation given to The Temptations.
Or rather 5 people singing together claiming to be The Temptations.
As the show wore on, it transpired (not that you had to be a genius to work it out) that only one of the line-up was in the original group.
All credit to the one who'd been going for 47 years, but what about the rest?
One had been there for 25 years, while the others had been with the line-up for 11, 5 and 1 - yup, you read that right - one year respectively.
They sounded great, but clearly this wasn't the Temptations.. more like the Temps.
I find it hard to believe that people are that excited by a group when they're only 20% genuine.
Much as I hate to bring them into this thread, the Sugababes are another example. Only 1 of the original 3 is now in the line-up. Does this mean they're not the true group any more?
Surely I can't be the only person who thinks this?
- More from robram.
- Login or register to post comments
The Drifters
Currently there are 357 groups called themselves The Drifters. One lot come from Billingham in Teeside. About as far from Clyde McPhatter as you can get I'd think.
indeed...re the sugababes.
if current trends continue, they will have become 100% caucasian in another few months...
I read somewhere...
...last time they replaced a member that their manager said something like "the Sugababes brand will continue". So they're actually a brand, not a band then ?
There was a showbiz website that carried a 'story' recently where Kerry Katona claimed that the recent Atomic Kitten reunion (yes, I missed it as well !) failed because they hadn't involved her in it, clearly ignoring the fact that they had almost all their success after she'd left.
I see that there's not one but two..
...Glen Miller Orchestras playing live. Isn't that nearly 70 years since Miller died? Now imagine that when Paul and Ringo have passed on or retired Sean, James, Dhani and Zak go on the road as "the Beatles"? Not impossible.
Now That Would Be A Spectacle
That I would part with a serious amount of cash to see - no matter how crap they might be.
On paper
Little Feat, The Allman Brothers Band and The Beach Boys are still going strong. That's despite the deaths of Lowell George, Duane Allman, Berry Oakley, Dennis Wilson and Carl Wilson.
Yet we live in a world where Brian Wilson tours Pet Sounds or Smile with a group that sounds more like The Beach Boys than The Beach Boys - sometimes with Al Jardine; whilst Mike Love and Bruce Johnston beaver away under the official band name, and Mike Love even files a lawsuit against Wilson because Smile sounds like The Beach Boys.
Go, as they say, figure.
On this very page
People have been talking about the current incarnation of the Feelgoods. To my mind, any group missing Wilko and Lee has no right to call itself Dr Feelgood (presumably Sparko and The Big Figure are still there?) but the people who have seen them recently would suggest that they were magnificent and - by inference - still worthy of the name.
I can also admit that I saw one of the 357 incarnations of the Drifters in Southport in the late 80's. There *might* have been one original member in the band (certainly one of the group that resurfaced and had some chart success in the 70's) but at least two of the group couldn't have been born when 'On Broadway' came out. They were actually pretty good, but you would think there was enough depth in the Drifters' back catalogue for them not to need to churn out Commodores and Michael Jackson songs, wouldn't you?
Dr Feelgood
I saw the Feelgoods in the late 80s, Lee Brilleaux was the only original member present. As far as I know the current line up is still without Sparko and The Big Figure. I did read somewhere that it was Lee's wish that the band should carry on after his death.
Take your point, Robram
but The Temptations have had a pretty fluid line-up since David Ruffin first left about 40 years ago. It‘s also a group in which, rather unusually, the lead vocals have been shared amongst the group and no individual has ever been the star or focal point (which is why David Ruffin left because he thought he ought to have been). Nor is their appeal about a personality cult or one individual’s artistic talent and vision. Queen without Freddie Mercury or Nirvana without Kurt Cobain would be just plain daft. For a group like the Temptations it doesn’t necessarily matter who the individual members are at any given time as long as they’re up to the job.
The Temptations isn’t a case of a band splitting up and re-emerging ten years later with barely a trace of the original line-up. It’s a group which has always been going, but naturally shedding and hiring people along the way. If the vocal blend is right and they’re performing Temptations material to a standard worthy of the name they are entitled to call themselves The Temptations.
It’s an interesting question though and I suppose as time goes on we’ll see more and more instances of an act’s pulling power as a money-spinning brand outliving all its members.
There are some dodgy acts out there trading under false pretences (the Beach Boys, as mentioned, being an obvious example) and not doing the band’s name and reputation justice. But I’m not sure The Temptations are one of them.
I’d say your question answers itself. Groups are worthy of the name for as long as they’re still worthy of the name, which the five men that currently comprise The Temptations are.
it's sorta the musical equivalent
of the philosophers axe, is it? x new handles, y new heads...is it the same?
Good points
I suppose the ridiculous thing about the line-up on Jonathan Ross was that there was one member who performed 'lead vocal' who. although I couldn't be sure, clearly wasn't even born when The Temptations were at their peak.
I'm not even sure if I think it's false pretences, more that a band that was mainly famous in the 60s/70s now contains members who were born in the 80s.
At least the Beach Boys have had a hit in the last 20 years (Kokomo was '88), regardless of who actually performed on it.
Perhaps we should apply the
Perhaps we should apply the same rigour to solo acts who aren’t half what they used to be. Is it right, for example, that David Bowie is still allowed to be called “David Bowie” when the style and quality of his output bears no relation to what it was in 1973. I remember Tom Hibbert writing a singles review in Smash Hits once in which he suggested that it was high time for Phil Collins to split up.
Quite right..
at least that nice Mick Hucknall has decided to split up Simply Red, hasn't he...
MARK STEEL
He uses this phrase To Illustrate a point in one of his TV lectures,Aristotle i think. " I once saw the Four Tops without any original members,One of them was White! ,Does this mean i can say i've seen The Four Tops ?"
It's a very good point.Is the original Line-up/Classic Line-up the only one we allow. The Caberet Circuit has various Incarnations of THe Drifters,Temptations etc but wasn't this also the case in the US where the managers owned the Name and sent out as many versions as possible to maximize the "Brand name" Personally i go with as many original members as Possible these days, because in many cases they are the Last ones standing.But if i saw McCartney and Starr i wouldn't say I'd seen the Beatles. It's all down to personal opinion i suppose.
The Doors withut Morrison
E:L.O without Jeff Lynne
The Stranglers without Cornwell
The Jam without Weller
Have seen All of these advertised recently.
s'funny you say that about the Beatles...
cos you just have Pete'n'Rog left in The 'oo and they still trade under that name. Obviously the rhythm section wasn't really the band, was it!
The Who and "The Who"
I saw The Who (in all their glory) in 1975, supported by The Steve Gibbons Band at the Manchester Apollo, and it was one of the best evenings of my (then) young life.
I also saw "The Who" at Glastonbury last year. Enjoyed them immensely, but whatever it was, it wasn't The Who. If they'd played exactly the same set as Daltrey/Townshend, it would have felt a tad more honest. It was good enough for Jimmy Page and Robert Plant...
Steve Gibbons band.
Still going, several different line ups later, some co-existing. All with the estimable and o so dapper Mr G, so allowable.World famous, still, in Brum.
"The Band"
I saw The Band's first UK gig for twenty odd years, in 1996. It was my only chance as an adult. No Richard Manuel, no Robbie Robertson; Rick Danko three years from death and looking a lot worse. But at least they had the dignity to quietly call it a day when Danko died. Despite Levon Helm's earlier claim that it would always be The Band if Garth Hudson showed up, it quite clearly wasn't the case.
Mark Steel Talks Bullshit To Make Cheap Joke Shock
Both complete nonsense and enormously disrespectful and offensive to a truly great, highly professional act. (And this clown likes to think he can teach us all a thing or two about integrity and respect for others).
From their formation in the mid 50s to the death of Lawrence Payton in 1997 the Four Tops had exactly the same line-up: Levis Stubbs, Abdul Fakir, Renaldo “Obie” Benson and Lawrence Payton. When he died they changed their name to The Tops before recruiting one of the (many) former Temptations and going out as the Four Tops again. Since then Levi Stubbs has retired and Obie Benson has died. They have been replaced (Benson by Lawrence Payton’s son). None of their replacements have been white.
Hope you like our new direction?
Longevity is the problem: in a band, the chances are that one or other may leave at some stage, whatever the reason. Does that mean the others have to stop? Presumably there is a demand for 237 versions of the Drifters, but I accept also a degree of dishonesty if you expect one and get another. Tribute copycat bands seem all the rage, so perhaps where there is a buck to be made, a buck will be made.
Maybe Pete wylie had the right idea, changing the name with every output. Or the chap behind the various Spizz incarnations?
SAHB
This is a slight twist on the rest of this but The Sensational Alex Harvey Band are still going. I think I'm right in saying they have ALL the original members with the one obvious exception (one would assume rather central to the project).
I've had more time to ponder...
and it seems to me that, by and large, if at least half of the originals are involved, then they can probably get away with it.
No-one took any offence at the Led Zep reunion, although clearly having the offspring of the deceased original member does help immensely.
I was never a big enough fan of The Who to start with, so couldn't really comment on how different they sound now.
There are always going to be exceptions, granted, but 50% is a good figure.
Lynyrd Skynyrd
Still going and still rather good. With Ronnie van Zandt's brother on lead vocals and assorted others replacing Gaines and Leon etc....
If I leave here tomorrrow, will you still remember me?
C'mon, no greater couplet in the history of rock music!
Also - Bucks Fizz and David van Day's Bucks Fizz (who sing Dollar songs)
Fair Play robram
"I watched Jonathan Ross on Friday night with some mild bemusement."
I dont even give Mr Ross my bemusement any more. Utter tat for a self congratulatory bore.
Had to give something up for Lent!
Different rules apply
...in the pantheon of Folk Rock, where you can be a member, simultaneously, of many different bands, many of whom you have left, sometimes more than once. To paraphrase a certain song, "you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave" as Cropredy confirms every year.
Come to think, it is not as if the Eagles are particularly representative of, um, themselves. If you discount the received wisdom that Henley/Frey are the Eagles, you miss out on the early excellent songs and singing of Bernie Leadon and Randy Meisner (2 good pornstar names, unnoticed until I put them together then),let alone the contributions of the two (other) Dons on guitar.
What's in a name? Oasis by any other name would smell as sweet..
This is a pretty circular argument. It has no resolution. Some bands have a classic line-up, and will always be that line-up in everyone's mind and no other line-up will be entertained (The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Easybeats). Some bands start up with a great line-up and then change, but are still pretty good (The Rolling Stones). Some bands are OK, but go through line-up changes which means the quality ebbs and flows (Fleetwood Mac, Temptations, The Eagles, AC-DC). Some bands were nonsense and a put-up job in the first place, or were just a marketing brand anyway (The Sex Pistols, The Archies, The Monkees, Spice Girls). And then there are bands that are just a cloak for dominant personalities (Oasis, Kinks, Wham!). And so on and so forth. I tend to take the view (taken from classical music) that it is the pieces (or songs)that are important, not the personalities that play them. Not very rock and roll, I know, but a great song is a great song forever, while a great band generally has a time and a place.