Interesting subject. Sort of the opposite of yesterday's thread about bands touring with ALL of their original members. This is about bands (1950s vocal doo wop groups, mostly) touring with NONE of their original members.

[www.vocalgroup.org]



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-25 16:21 by tatters.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-25 15:42 by tatters.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-25 16:22 by tatters.

It a terrible thing to see this going on.

For a guy born in 1947, who was only 12 when the 1950s ended, making him younger than most 1960s rock stars, Bowzer sure had an affinity for this kind of music. Not sure why this performance has a laugh track attached to it, though. Sha Na Na certainly had an element of humor about them, but it's not as if the whole thing was supposed to be a joke.






Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-25 16:38 by tatters.

Here is a modern day Grassroots. Rob Grill had passes away a few years ago. This is his backing band with a new lead vocalist. No one in this band had ever played on the the original recordings. But I think they are still managed with the Rob Grill Co. Something like that.

[www.youtube.com]

"Lynyrd Skynyrd" has only Gary Rossington from the classic line-up. Johnny Van Zant (Ronnie's brother - not bad, but no Ronnie by any stretch) on vocals. Rick Medlocke on guitar - he played drums on some early Skynyrd stuff.

Perhaps Gary should call the band "Freebird" or something other than LS.

Thoughts on this, stonesrule?

One of my favorite 70's band Foghat is touring with only the original drummer.

Sucks that this can happen as new fans will never know what a great band they were back in the day.

Back in the '80 I took some classes at UCLA Extention on the Music Industry. Bauman was one of the co-chairs of the department. His wife was principal at the elemenary school my son attended.

I know that there are three women touring as the Shangra-Las who, of course, weren't in the Shangra-Las. Yet, they talk about the songs as "our first number 1" etc...

First: I understand and support the legal rights that one organization should have to use a name and restrict other organizations from using that name.

Second: Did Sha-Na-Na ever record an original song?

Although I totally support what Bauman is working for, I find humor that he's most associated with an act (which I really enjoy) that, to my knowledge, performed the music of other acts either exclusively or at least in the majority of the time.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Hi Elmo...re Skynyrd, there is no doubt in my mind that Ronnie Van Zant and Allen Collins especially would be VERY unhappy about this.

I think back to how much they had long admired the Rolling Stones and how excited everyone in the "real" Skynyrd was when they played Knebworth.

I was once a good friend to and with Gary Rossington so it truly pains me to say here that the person he became,largely because of drugs,is not someone I want to know. Ronnie wrote "That Smell" about him, but Gary just didn't want to get the message.

Quote
mr_dja
First: I understand and support the legal rights that one organization should have to use a name and restrict other organizations from using that name.

Second: Did Sha-Na-Na ever record an original song?

Although I totally support what Bauman is working for, I find humor that he's most associated with an act (which I really enjoy) that, to my knowledge, performed the music of other acts either exclusively or at least in the majority of the time.

Peace,
Mr DJA

right, but he's not calling himself, or his band, the name of a band that was around in the 50's or 60's. Paying tribute is different than saying you are an original.

Quote
stonesrule
Hi Elmo...re Skynyrd, there is no doubt in my mind that Ronnie Van Zant and Allen Collins especially would be VERY unhappy about this.

I think back to how much they had long admired the Rolling Stones and how excited everyone in the "real" Skynyrd was when they played Knebworth.

I was once a good friend to and with Gary Rossington so it truly pains me to say here that the person he became,largely because of drugs,is not someone I want to know. Ronnie wrote "That Smell" about him, but Gary just didn't want to get the message.

Thanks, stonesrule. The story is so tragic.

On a lighter note, the young Sean Penn would have made a great RZV in a movie version.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Quote
BluzDude

Quote
mr_dja
First: I understand and support the legal rights that one organization should have to use a name and restrict other organizations from using that name.

Second: Did Sha-Na-Na ever record an original song?

Although I totally support what Bauman is working for, I find humor that he's most associated with an act (which I really enjoy) that, to my knowledge, performed the music of other acts either exclusively or at least in the majority of the time.

Peace,
Mr DJA

right, but he's not calling himself, or his band, the name of a band that was around in the 50's or 60's. Paying tribute is different than saying you are an original.

Believe me, I know the difference. That's why I said I support him in his efforts. Heck, I owe a debt of gratitude to Sha Na Na as, due to my age, they are the one's who introduced me to some of the great music from the 50's & early 60's. Them & my mom & dad anyway! Always used to enjoy their tv show.

One thought I had after reading this topic/article was how this legislation may apply to some of Classical Music acts. I know I've seen recordings and maybe even performances by groups with names like the "Bach Chamber Orchestra" or the "Beethoven Corale", etc where the group only plays music by that composer. Obviously Bach & Beethoven are not alive and I doubt that there were acts when they were alive that used those names but it is kind of along the lines of what Bauman is protesting. Except that, now that I think of it, I'm thinking that many of these types of acts also typically have the name of a city or state involved as well. Also, I know I've seen the Woody Herman Orchestra, as well as acts using the names of Benny Goodman, Tommy Dorsey & Glenn Miller all since the original artist died although I think in each case, the particular orchestra was liscensed by the estate/name owners to use that title.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
BluzDude

Quote
mr_dja
First: I understand and support the legal rights that one organization should have to use a name and restrict other organizations from using that name.

Second: Did Sha-Na-Na ever record an original song?

Although I totally support what Bauman is working for, I find humor that he's most associated with an act (which I really enjoy) that, to my knowledge, performed the music of other acts either exclusively or at least in the majority of the time.

Peace,
Mr DJA

right, but he's not calling himself, or his band, the name of a band that was around in the 50's or 60's. Paying tribute is different than saying you are an original.

Believe me, I know the difference. That's why I said I support him in his efforts. Heck, I owe a debt of gratitude to Sha Na Na as, due to my age, they are the one's who introduced me to some of the great music from the 50's & early 60's. Them & my mom & dad anyway! Always used to enjoy their tv show.

One thought I had after reading this topic/article was how this legislation may apply to some of Classical Music acts. I know I've seen recordings and maybe even performances by groups with names like the "Bach Chamber Orchestra" or the "Beethoven Corale", etc where the group only plays music by that composer. Obviously Bach & Beethoven are not alive and I doubt that there were acts when they were alive that used those names but it is kind of along the lines of what Bauman is protesting. Except that, now that I think of it, I'm thinking that many of these types of acts also typically have the name of a city or state involved as well. Also, I know I've seen the Woody Herman Orchestra, as well as acts using the names of Benny Goodman, Tommy Dorsey & Glenn Miller all since the original artist died although I think in each case, the particular orchestra was liscensed by the estate/name owners to use that title.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Excellent point.
I guess I could see someone like Jimi Hendrix's step sister whom he met once or twice in his life, allow for the licensing of a band called "Experience Hendrix" (which she owns). Here I think most people that would be interested in such a thing would know that Jimi is no longer around....in a physical sense.

A friend of mine from high school got in the business of promoting these phony acts. He would put together the Drifters, Platters, Coasters and the Crests, where he would play the part of Johnny Maestro, or as he called it, the cream filling in the oreo. When I would ask Stan where he found these guys, he would claim that one of the guys was in the official group for a short period of time and the rest of the guys he found at the local car wash. He eventually got into a lot of trouble by doing other fraudulent things and mysteriously died a few years back.

I doubt many people feel ripped off or misled when they attend a performance of the Bach Chorale and the man himself fails to show. Not quite the same as going to a Temptations show and finding out that it's five guys who used to listen to the Temptations.

Quote
Rokyfan
I doubt many people feel ripped off or misled when they attend a performance of the Bach Chorale and the man himself fails to show. Not quite the same as going to a Temptations show and finding out that it's five guys who used to listen to the Temptations.

Agreed. Especially where classical music is concerned I'd hasten to guess that the audience would be particularly apathetic about the authenticy or legal rights to use a name as long as the music was of a quality that was acceptable. I mainly brought up the example due to the nature of the legal wrangling over names that is being discussed here.

Since "Pop/Rock" music is still fairly new, it's pretty easy for an audience to say they'd like the performers to have a legitimate claim/connection to the original group of people who performed under that name.

That said, when I saw the Temptations (only using the group you mentioned since I actually saw them) in 1988, I'm pretty sure that there was only 1 original Temptation vocalist (maybe there were two) and none of the original musicians on stage that night. I still had a great time listening to the classic music of the Temptations that night. It never crossed my mind that there might be another "Temptations" with other original members playing elsewhere.

Interestingly, this apparently has been a problem going back to the 60's. If I remember correctly, in "Standing In The Shadows of Motown" one of the Funk Brothers told the story that on Motown revue shows of the time, audiences sometimes complained that the band (not the singers) weren't and couldn't play what was on the records. Although the singers WERE the originals, the musicians weren't and it apparently caused the music to suffer noticably.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Arthur Lee until his death in 2006 was touring for several years as Arthur Lee and Love, which was really Arthur Lee and Baby Lemonade. Their most notable release during this time was the DVD and CD of the Forever Changes Concert recorded at the Royal Albert Hall in 2003.

Since 2009, original lead guitarist Johnny Echols has been touring as Love Revisited, which briefly included drummer Michael Stuart (1966-1968), with members of Baby Lemonade and Probyn Gregory of the Wondermints. Someone named "Rusty Squeezebox" (member since 1994) now does the vocals.

In 1997, there was an ad in the Ann Arbor News, advertising a concert by "The Byrds," which was to have taken place inside a tiny VFW hall located in the middle of a supermarket parking lot. Tickets were $30, but included free food and beer, I think. This concert was suddenly canceled when it was announced that Roger McGuinn was going to be in town at the same time, playing a solo club date. To this day, the identity of these alleged "Byrds" remains a mystery. I know there had been issues with original drummer Michael Clarke's touring with a "Byrds" lineup in which he was the only member who had ever had anything to do with the actual group, but he was already dead by this time, so it wasn't him. Anyone have any clue as to who these jokers might have been?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-26 01:44 by tatters.

Apparently those "Byrds" flew under the radar.

The real Byrds should have reunited to put such imposters--or merely illegal users of band names--out of business.

This also happened with The Zombies, since the original line-up refused to regroup, so a number of groups toured to capitalize, with one even going so far as to use the name The Zombies and having a bass player with the same name as the actual Zombies drummer while claiming the drummer merely switched instruments. Most fans on the oldies circuit probably wouldn't have noticed anyway, with "the look" of a given band no longer a factor after so many decades.

With these faux "Byrds" restricting themselves to a VFW hall in the Midwest, chances are they've got no write-ups online to trace their actual identity--can you scan and post the add for this "concert"? I wonder how the food and beer was.

Quote
tatters
In 1997, there was an ad in the Ann Arbor News, advertising a concert by "The Byrds," which was to have taken place inside a tiny VFW hall located in the middle of a supermarket parking lot. Tickets were $30, but included free food and beer, I think. This concert was suddenly canceled when it was announced that Roger McGuinn was going to be in town at the same time, playing a solo club date. To this day, the identity of these alleged "Byrds" remains a mystery. I know there had been issues with original drummer Michael Clarke's touring with a "Byrds" lineup in which he was the only member who had ever had anything to do with the actual group, but he was already dead by this time, so it wasn't him. Anyone have any clue as to who these jokers might have been?

A similar thing, but on a larger scale happened out here in L.A. in 1977 a year after Deep Purple's recent Break-up. There was a tour announced with non of the past known members. I'm pretty sure these shows were cancelled before they ever took place once the lawyers got involved.

Quote
stonehearted
Apparently those "Byrds" flew under the radar.

The real Byrds should have reunited to put such imposters--or merely illegal users of band names--out of business.

This also happened with The Zombies, since the original line-up refused to regroup, so a number of groups toured to capitalize, with one even going so far as to use the name The Zombies and having a bass player with the same name as the actual Zombies drummer while claiming the drummer merely switched instruments. Most fans on the oldies circuit probably wouldn't have noticed anyway, with "the look" of a given band no longer a factor after so many decades.

With these faux "Byrds" restricting themselves to a VFW hall in the Midwest, chances are they've got no write-ups online to trace their actual identity--can you scan and post the add for this "concert"? I wonder how the food and beer was.

...call yourself "The Birds", might have worked back then, but not today (legally speaking).

This is just ME, but I have always gone by the "Rule of Three" - if you have at least three original members in the band, you can still use the band name.

The Stones with Mick, Keith, and Charlie are still in this category, obviously.

If you have seen the "Beach Boys" but there was NOT at least one person on the stage with the last name of WILSON, well......you have not really seen the Beach Boys.

I have a hard time calling it the WHO with only Roger and Pete.

There are exceptions, of course. If you have seen Ray and Dave Davies together, you have seen the KINKS, no matter who was on drums or bass.

Becker and Fagan ARE Steely Dan, no matter the other musicians.

Generally, though, I think a band using the old name with only ONE original member is an abomination. NO original members is a sin.

There. I said it. Now get outta here.....

Quote
BluzDude


A similar thing, but on a larger scale happened out here in L.A. in 1977 a year after Deep Purple's recent Break-up. There was a tour announced with non of the past known members. I'm pretty sure these shows were cancelled before they ever took place once the lawyers got involved.

I remember that but I thought it was 1979 or 1980. The bogus Deep Purple was going to play at the Long Beach Arena but then a big ad appeared in the newspaper listing all the former members of Deep Purple who were not involved in this in any way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-09-26 05:41 by likecats.

Quote
stonehearted
Apparently those "Byrds" flew under the radar.

The real Byrds should have reunited to put such imposters--or merely illegal users of band names--out of business.

They tried that at least once. When Michael Clarke was touring using the Byrds name, I think Crosby, McGuinn, and Hillman tried to block him legally. In order to establish that they had a claim to the name they had to show they were an active band, so they did two club gigs in 1989, one at the Bacchanal in San Diego and I think the other was at the Coach House in San Juan Capistrano. Their lawsuit was unsuccessful but at least I got to see them at the Bacchanal. In 1990 they reunited again briefly at a Roy Orbison tribute concert at the Universal Amphitheatre. They played "Turn, Turn, Turn" and then Bob Dylan came on and played "Mr. Tambourine Man" and "He Was A Friend Of Mine" with them. If I recall correctly they even played them twice because it was being recorded and the first take didn't work.
Well, that's probably more than anyone ever wanted to know.

Quote
likecats

Quote
BluzDude


A similar thing, but on a larger scale happened out here in L.A. in 1977 a year after Deep Purple's recent Break-up. There was a tour announced with non of the past known members. I'm pretty sure these shows were cancelled before they ever took place once the lawyers got involved.

I remember that but I thought it was 1979 or 1980. The bogus Deep Purple was going to play at the Long Beach Arena but then a big ad appeared in the newspaper listing all the former members of Deep Purple who were not involved in this in any way.

That's right! And now that I think about it, you are probably right about the date.

Quote
likecats

Quote
stonehearted
Apparently those "Byrds" flew under the radar.

The real Byrds should have reunited to put such imposters--or merely illegal users of band names--out of business.

They tried that at least once. When Michael Clarke was touring using the Byrds name, I think Crosby, McGuinn, and Hillman tried to block him legally.

By "imposters" I was replying to a post where a band that had nothing to do with the actual band The Byrds was just using the name, some covers band trying to up their ante through fraudulent advertising.

I've read of the legal conflicts between Mickael Clarke and his former band mates over legal use of the name.

That's a great experience you have though, being lucky enough to have seen the original Byrds when you did, before the death of Gene Clark the following year made that impossible forever after.

Just curious, does anyone know how Axl Rose got to own the name Guns and Roses?