Music Philosophy

[eclipsedmoongoddess482]

If the remainging original members of Nirvana regrouped and made a new album, do they still deserve the title of being the original Nirvana without Kurt Cobain?

The same goes for Van Halen. Without David Lee Roth, should Van Halen have been considered the original Van Halen even with Sammy Hagar?

Or remember when Guns 'N Roses replaced Steve Adler with a new drummer? Should they have still been considered the orginal Guns 'N Roses even with their signiture Axl Rose and Slash still in the band but the first drummer is missing. Do drummers even matter?

Or on the flip side, Axl Rose is the only original member of the new Guns 'N Roses. Should he deserve to have the band name or would Velvet Revolver be a more deserving candidate? He may have been the personality of the band but he wasn't all of Guns 'N Roses, right?



Just a few things to ponder about. Try answering them. We discussed a lot of these in my Philosophy class which is really great. Having a young teacher is really interesting lately. He likes Nirvana just as much as I do.

[ragingflea002]

Whether it's deserved or not isn't really the best question. The better question is more like "are they really what they say they are?". It's more like a question of identity.
Sepultra just lost its second founding member, Igor Cavalera. If the two founding members are gone, is it really Sepultra? Is it still what it was even though its lost the drive that gave birth to it?
The name is just a name, it's what the band is that really counts. I've had to change my band's name 3 times, but we're the same band. It doesn't make us less of what we are.
The moral arguement is that it's wrong because the band isn't what it used to be. Is Lynyrd Skynyrd really Lynyrd Skynyrd?
The answer is that if you use the band's name to define the band, then it doesn't really matter. The name is to be remembered through the ages, but the music is the legacy. If Guns N' Roses isn't Guns N' Roses without the original members, then Nirvana wasn't Nirvana with Dave Grohl. It's unecessary. The name is just that, and all the dysfunction that the name will be associated with defines the band as much as the music does. That's how I feel.

[Ogrim_Doomhammer]

That's why Led Zeppelin rocks.... they loose a member and dont replace him, just stop playing.

Saying that Nirvana without Cobain can't be called Nirvana is an obvious yes.... Cobain was the frontman, without the frontman its not the same thing. The same with Guns, Axl shouldn't have called his "new" band GNR but since all the changes happened gradually instead of suddenly it still can have the name GNR, although Velvet Revolver can't have that name because its not the same frontman.....

Changing frontmen is a thing most bands can't do and survive (at least with the same name)...... and that is why Iron Maiden rocks..... it happened to them twice
_________________
[url=http://www.fanart-central.net/user-Ogrim_Doomhammer.php][img]http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b167/Ogrim_Doomhammer/lennonbannercopy.jpg[/img][/url]

www.pandora.com Find New Music You Like.... Free

[slavetotheWALL]

Typically hard to say... it would truly have to depend on the bands decision to carry on the original sound (If hypothetically one of the frontman were taken away) to completely come up with a different sound.

For instance Paul Mcartney left the Beatles and decided to create a band of his own (Wings) Which had a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SOUND. For the time they were ok (Though no comparison to the musical genius of the beatles). Although sadly the only thing most people recall from wing is "Live and let die" the song did have a grat new sound though not of the Beatles.

Along with the more well-known frontman story leaving was Pink Floyd. Now here's alittle homework for you. Try to find the song Arnold Layne (which is by Pink Floyd). Then Compare and contrast with how much they changed through in a song like Time.

You listen to these songs and you would assume that two different bands did it... wrong only one change

Along the years of 1967-1969 Syd Barret suffered from drug addiction (Vomiting zoning out yadda yadda). Why do I bring up Syd? The reason is when The Song Arnold Layne was performed Syd was in the band. Now fast forward not even five years later and the band recoups with David Gilmour. Though Syd was a good guitarist DAVID FAR SURPASSES HIM. After Syd leaving, the band made one of the most remarkable album feats in history (Darkside Of The Moon). With Gilour there are far more complex lyrics and sounds insteads of just "See Emily Play".

(For alittle more on Gilour's talent I would suggest listening to the Delicate Sound Of Thunders Version of "Comfortably Numb" The Chords and just plain genius of the solo will send chills).


The Point of this is if the band can in fact continue the hype and (Whether starting all over again is required) then yes the band deserves the respect of keeping the name.

[fallenangel]

God I'm bored....

Nirvana - no for obvious reasons. I don't even like Dave or anything he does (nevermind the member no one remembers lolz). Nirvana was Kurt and Co.

Van Halen - Technically they should be able to, given it's Eddie and Alex's last name and not "ROTH!" or some such thing. But it's still a dumb thing to do and not true VH. The band completely changed, even if Eddie was still there (and his style changed as well, what with Sammy's love of shitty songs).

GN'R sans Steven - Uh, yeah. Bless little Steve Adler, but the boy was rather unimportant. His sound is better than Matt and more "original gn'r". Izzy was Axl's writing partner, Slash wrote a little, even Duff (though he probably shouldn't have), but Steven...did a lot of drugs and turned himself into the bumbling stroke victim he is today.

Rose N' Roses - Heh, Axl DID acquire the rights to the name fair and square. Duff and Slash shouldn't have been such enablers. Ok, so he probably would've followed through on his threat and not played the stadium show and caused yet another riot, but how's the boy going to learn if you don't put your foot down? It's incredibly disrespectful to everyone involved, but respect has never been high on Axl's list of priorities. I'm more ok with new Gn'R being called Gn'R than if Velvet Revolver had been. Frontmen and writers are the most apparent influences on the sound of a band, no Axl singing, no Gn'R, no Axl lyrics, no Gn'R, Slash and Duff? Signature but not essential.

I think this was most apparent when VR kept playing Guns songs in concert. Scott fronting was just....ugh. At the time I didn't care 'cause Duff was 3 feet in front of me all half naked and sweaty, but looking back, the covers were pretty terrible.


Bands should only change singers and keep their name if their next release is a hit tribute to said missing singer (a la AC/DC).
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall