We advance as a society, allegedly, and yet the more things change...
The concept of bands performing with little or no connection to their origin, or at least their commercial heyday, is nothing new. I don't know when the first known instance of a bunch of identity thieves selling their act under the name of a famous group of musicians occurred, but I know it became an issue in the 1980s and '90s with bands from the early '50s or '60s.
I don't know if there were knockoffs of the big bands of the 1920s, but if your band The Influencers had a hit in 1957 with the song "Please Like and Share," some form of that band might have existed on the oldies circuit in 1987, playing to small crowds who wanted to hear those sweet vocal harmonies of yesteryear. Was anyone who sang on the hit record 30 years earlier still in the band? Maybe. But not always, so the story goes.
Times change, and some bands are more savvy than the groundbreakers that influenced them. Some bands know that they not only have to protect themselves and their music rights from the preying tactics of the companies that promise to record, distribute and promote a band's original music, they also have to protect themselves from each other. They have to set up a business and define who owns what when it comes to the business interests of the band. I have to imagine it's rather complex.
The business aspects of a band lend themselves to interesting situations. Despite the efforts to detail who is entitled to what, under all circumstances, there are plenty of legal messes that result, despite the best intent. As a fan of the late '80s rock known as the hair band era, we've seen it plenty of times.
To this point I have yet to see a hair band performing with no original/classic members, as best I know. But that day is probably coming. Arguably it has happened with a hair band or two already, as well as a '70s rock band or two. The internet is quick to suggest several bands that have lived in perpetuity sans original members during the past decade.
The topic of bands performing sans their original/classic era members, sometimes all of them, came up recently in an article by Sam Novak, who writes for Vegas 411, the best website out there these days for a variety of Las Vegas topics beyond the standard internet trappings.
Sam shared an article looking at some of the acts that are a shell of what they were when it comes to personnel, with an eye toward the Vegas showrooms. I loved it, as it's a subject I have pondered many times.
The question is not limited to musical acts, of course. We accept that the stage performers are not always going to remain the same for longtime productions. The Blue Man Group, which has toured the world and had a long Vegas residency, is not the same three guys every night. The creators have hired others to play the parts in their shows over the years. I've never heard anyone suggest that a Blue Man Group show is a tribute because the guys who created it aren't performing on stage at every BMG show.
A band doesn't cease to exist automatically because one member dies, retires or is fired. So why do we place authenticity expectations on The Beach Boys, Foreigner or any act that has the legal right to the band's name?
We don't expect the same three guys to perform as the Blue Man Group for the next 50 years, but some form of that show will exist as long as there's money to be made and an ownership interested in making money. Shouldn't the same apply to KISS, Motley Crue or U2?
Sam does a nice job of explaining what makes a band different than the Blue Man Group or other entertainment entities in the second paragraph of his follow-up article.
That article includes a hefty contribution from me. I've followed Sam's work via numerous Vegas outlets for more than a decade, was fortunate enough to have met him nearly a decade ago on the closing day of the Riviera and have since been privileged to call him a friend. As a friend, I have access to him via social media, (we all do, to some extent, I know,) and when I saw his post about the original article and read it, it brought several examples of similar situations to mind, as it's a topic I suspect many of us have pondered when it comes to our favorite music of yesteryear.
I have familiarity with some examples Sam might not be familiar with, and opinions on what is and isn't fair when it comes to the business of music in the 21st century. I rambled off plenty of those opinions, with great haste, and Sam enjoyed some of the thoughts and examples I shared in response. Suddenly I'm featured in his second Vegas 411 article on the topic. Me, a guy who is famously not an expert on anything. Go figure.
I may double back to this topic in a few days and share thoughts on a few bands that have divided their fan bases regarding fair use of the trademarked name. Nobody is demanding this, of course, but I have avoided writing with passion for far too long. I write about crime and local government nearly every week of my life, and it's not easy to make time weekly for all the things I'd like to pursue creatively. There are plenty of reasons for that, which is a topic for another day, as well.
