weslgarlic Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I've been told that in the USA if an act as less than 1 original member in its line-up ,then its no LONGER considered that act ,but a tribute. acts that have played live &/or recorded new material without original members like Thin Lizzy , DR feelgood & The Sugababes would all be considered tributes Some bands have got members that have been solo original members in every line-up of multi line-up groups Ian Paice - Deep Purple , Tony Iommi -Black Sabbath ,Chris Squire -Yes , Ritchire Blackmore -Rainbow , David Coverdale- Whitesnake ,Rober Smith -The Cure ,MARK "E"SMITH -The Fall .Nick Mason -Pink Floyd Mick Fleetwood -Fleetwood Mac ,John Lydon -PIL ,Dave Brock -HAWKWIND ,Angus Young -AC/DC Before you ask AC/DC did a tour without Malcolm Young , John McVie was not in Fleetwood mac for the first 6 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janvier Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Good question. I've asked myself the same about Jason Bonham's Led Zeppelin Experience. From interviews I've read, he doesn't consider his live show as being a tribute act, but I suppose opinions may vary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achi Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 I can tell you of the examples you put: Rainbow is Ritchie Blackmore, Whitesnake is David Coverdale, Deep Purple is Ritchie Blackmore and Jon Lord (so the band actually is not Deep Purple since 1993). For me AC/DC is Angus, Malcolm and Bon Scott, but still are with Angus and Malcolm... I saw John Fogerty few years ago, and HE is Creedence... Creedence Clearwater Revisited??? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStairwayRemainsTheSame Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 The Led Zeppelin experience is a live tribute acts, there is no two ways about it even if they don't dress up it is just a tribute act. A good one though. Well right now KISS is still the band-ish with Gene and Paul but when they go they'll be a tribute act no doubt even if they do dress it up as "KISS 2.0". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achi Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 Tony Iommi and Geezer are Sabbath. The best line with Ronnie James Dio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crizman Posted November 26, 2012 Share Posted November 26, 2012 journey without steve perry is a tribute band. And Skynyrd with only 1 original guy is a tribute band too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thezepguy Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Any band that only plays covers, usually of the same artists. It's weird, in my area (Oregon and Washington -Portland + Seattle), tribute bands are MUCH more popular than bands that play originals..they do a lot more touring. Maybe it's because they are what people are familiar with? I just think it's a ripoff that people with actual talent don't get "well-known" while guys up there imitating Jerry Garcia or Jimmy Page do. As for real successful artists, I think a band stops becoming a band when it only tours and does not put out new albums. The Beach Boys are pretty much the epitome of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishhead Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 Once that plane unfortunately went down, and Ronnie was gone, any band calling themselves Lynyrd Skynryd after that, was a tribute band IMHO.... God bless em all of course...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Knebs Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 looking at the word tribute it seems that tribute is paying respects in word/deed/ca$h to one who is in authority or position above you so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenman Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 I'd say it really depends on the music they play, a band that plays mostly tracks that none of the current memgers had a signifcant part in originally is a tribute band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1fan Posted November 27, 2012 Share Posted November 27, 2012 how bout the Who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weslgarlic Posted November 29, 2012 Author Share Posted November 29, 2012 how bout the Who. The Who are in a bit of Page / Plant situation except they had Enswistle on board when he was alive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilRocksinOHIO. Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 For the most part I believe Lynyrd Skynyrd falls in that catagory. While Gary Rossington and in small part Rick Medlocke remain in the original lineup they are just not the same band they once was. Johnny Van Zant is NOT his brother and never will be. And without Rick Medlocke, Blackfoot is just a cover band. He WAS Blackfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiser Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 PiL would be considered a tribute act by the second album, Metal Box, by these standards as they changed drummers on practically every album. PiL is essentially John Lydon just as Trent Reznor is Nine Inch Nails. Members come & go but their is always the main driving force directing others. The latest incarnation of PiL have been in different line ups of the band just not at the same time. Also they actually recorded a new album of original material so they're not merely relying on former glories. PiL's most succesful song "Rise" features no one outside of Lydon who was in the band before or after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weslgarlic Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 Deep Purple have 1 original member & 2 mark 2 members So Whitesnake could have easily called themselves Deep Purple when they had 2 original Deep Purple members & a Mark 3 member Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACrowley Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 When Roger Waters departed Floyd and they recorded "A Momemtory Lapse..." the court case came about because Waters felt that Guilmour was using the band's name for what was essentially a solo project (despite Mason and Wright having minor roles on the album). Should Guilmour have been allowed to use the name? The courts judged that he could.Likewise 10cc are touring the UK at the moment with only the one original member (Graham Gouldman). I think if they are clear about this when selling tickets I don't have a problem but often they're not.I have no problem with Tribute bands - for me they help keep a band's music alive. Most of the ones I've seen are extremely well rehearsed and perform well - I just don't like them when they're wearing blonde wings to look like Robert Plant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles J. White Posted June 20, 2013 Share Posted June 20, 2013 1) When a band refuses to drive a new album, instead coming up with excuses why new songs mustn't be played or 2) They are called Foreigner (no one person was there for any of the 1st 3 albums except for Mickey) or 3) They are called Journey because they have a revolving door of 21 lead singers that come and go on the whim of the guitar player or 4) He is called Clapton and loads the entire set with covers songs written by other people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfman Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Tony Iommi and Geezer are Sabbath. The best line with Ronnie James Dio Ozzy. FYP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomloge Posted June 22, 2013 Share Posted June 22, 2013 Good valid points on most counts. I definitely understand people's viewpoints on this. I have pretty much an opposing view. Many of the bands I used to listen to have lost one or members over the years but managed to keep the band's music going with new guys. I guess they could be called tribute bands, but in most instances they keep the name of the original band alive. That being said, I've seen a number of them live many times and they put on great shows. In fact. some of them have put out CDs with new material or re-recorded older material. I'm just glad that the band keeps playing. Without them it would really suck. True, you always have the memories of the original band, but to me anything is better than nothing. In many instances, I'll agree that the current line-ups are not as good as the original line-ups, but they are still good (usually). I've seen a bunch of bands like this from the 60s and 70;s who have been great in concert and have put out CDs with new stuff and even some live stuff. Some of the better ones I've seen (multiple times): Foghat Molly Hatchet Lynyrd Skynyrd The Outlaws Steppenwolf Uriah Heep Nazareth Wishbone Ash I will say this: I always liked Blackfoot and saw the current line-up-probably the worst band I have ever seen in my life. Seems their attitude is crank the volume to 100 and blow everyone's ears out. They were probably the worst band I ever saw live. Just my 2 cents worth. I understand and respect all the different opinions on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutrocker Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 how bout the Who. Opinions do vary on that, but a valid point is, since replacing Keith Moon with Kenney Jones and making two more albums and continuing to tour wasn't much of an issue, why is it an issue replacing the Ox after he passed? Ultimately Townshend and Daltrey nkow which side their bread is buttered on, and it ain't their respective solo careers- otherwise Endless Wire probably would have been another Townshend solo album; but I reckon Pete saw how successful Psychoderelict wasn't and reaffirmed his allegiance to The Who. At least they do have the class to pay homage to Moonie and Entwhistle on their current Quadrophenia tour. When Roger Waters departed Floyd and they recorded "A Momemtory Lapse..." the court case came about because Waters felt that Guilmour was using the band's name for what was essentially a solo project (despite Mason and Wright having minor roles on the album). Should Guilmour have been allowed to use the name? The courts judged that he could. And I feel the courts were wrong in that case (no pun intended)...Even Columbia wasn't fooled when Gilmour first submitted AMLOR; "This doesn't sound a fucking thing like Pink Floyd!" being the infamous reaction. "A fair forgery" was what Waters thought of the album (Richard Wright had similar views in spite of his addition to the sessions at the eleventh hour) but IMO the only reason David Gilmour presented Momentary Lapse as a Pink Floyd rather than David Gilmour album was purely due to financial considerations. At least with The Division Bell it was more of a collaborative effort between Gilmour, Wright and Mason. I have always questioned Gilmour's motives in continuing with the Pink Floyd name following Roger's departure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 ^ Spite is probably the best word to describe it, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weslgarlic Posted June 23, 2013 Author Share Posted June 23, 2013 Iron Maiden had many different lead vocalist before settling on Paul DiAnno , But it's Bruce Dickinson who's best know On Top Of The Pops 2 they showed a video of AC/DC's Touch Too Much featuring original vocalist ( they said ) Bon Scott and likewise ITV'S quiz show question was which vocalist was the original vocalist with australian rockers AC/DC answer Bon Scott , wrong on both accounts it was Dave Evans ....But nobody knows him ,Bon;s dead so it's down to Brian Johnson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.