Much is still made of authenticity in music, and by and large it's cliched rockist nonsense. But what to make of bands who continue to perform under a particular name despite having no original members left?
Gong? Fair enough - as a self-styled collective, the fact that they're a protean project, always evolving as members come and go, makes sense. And the period when each of the original Sugababes had been replaced could be seen as underlining the importance of pop as being about a brand rather than individual personalities - no one is indisposable. But otherwise pressing on without any founder members runs the risk of looking like a cynical marketing ploy, an attempt on the part of latecomers to capitalise on (and make capital out of) the hard work, creativity and reputation of their predecessors.
That said, that much can also be true of acts that retain one original member. Take Mike Love, for instance, who wrestled control of the touring rights to the Beach Boys name from his former bandmates and has since dragged it through the mud in pursuit of cash.
Meanwhile, though I certainly don't begrudge Greg Ginn from continuing to tour under the Black Flag banner - another name that has been the subject of much dispute and contestation over the years - his current outfit (albeit excellent) do feel a bit more like a tribute act than the real thing.
And then there's Guns N' Roses, whose set at the Leeds Festival in 2002 remains one of the best things I've ever seen. Or, rather, heard - I largely had my eyes shut, savouring all the Appetite For Destruction tracks and trying to block out the fact that of the bizarre motley crew on stage, including Buckethead and the Replacements' Tommy Stinson, Axl Rose was the only person involved in the original recordings.
No comments:
Post a Comment