What's in a name?

[doct...@gmail.com]

While strolling through the various e-mails, I a came across a posting
on a 10cc group about fans opinions about using a band's name after
the band has "broken up." This came out because Graham Gouldman has
been touring under the name "10cc featuring Graham Gouldman and
friends." But some promo material just cites "10cc" as the group.

Casual fans may be upset when they go to concerts and not see the
original line-up. Can you imagine the furor if Joe Walsh or Don Felder
toured alone as "The Eagles?" A lot of older groups (Do-Wop Groups
especially) do this, but other than The Rolling Stones, what sixties
or seventies band line-up is the same anyways?

As Chris Dvorak points out:

"I am in the camp of people who think that it really isn't that big
of a deal. 10cc is no longer an active creative entity anymore. They
have a great legacy behind them, but unfortunately the group is not
as well remembered as it should be. In fact, the group is really at
the point of complete obscurity in the US. I have never seen a
single 10cc CD at any music stores here, even in stores with a quite
diverse selction, and that's a real shame. Graham's tours, even if
you think they're a pale imitation of the original lineup's
greatness, are a way to keep the music alive and maybe bring some
new fans into the fold and get a few journalists' attention.

But, some of you might say, it's just one member... why doesn't he
just go out as Graham Gouldman? Well, it's economics, pure and
simple. The 10cc name has more recognition than Graham Gouldman.
And... here's the bottom line: people seem to like the concert. In
all the reviews I've read, people say the musicianship is good and
they're getting their money's worth. Graham wouldn't be able to
perform these songs without the other guys' blessing and if the
general public thought it stinked, and aren't some
songwriting/performing royalties paid out to the other writers as
well? I'm not sure what the laws are in England.

This same situation has happened in Beach Boy land, and I used to
get worked up about it but I'm not anymore. It's actually a more
complicated scenario though with three distinct touring groups
featuring original Beach Boys. You've got "The Beach Boys" touring
group which includes one original member (Mike Love) and one other
guy who joined a little later (Bruce Johnston). They concentrate
more on playing the crowd pleaser songs, local festivals, casinos,
that kind of thing. It's not my bag but people enjoy it and it keeps
the music out there. Original member Al Jardine used to call his
group "Beach Boys Family and Friends" (not unlike the 10cc billing
Graham uses), and he was sued by Mike Love who wanted to retain the
name for his group. Mike won and now he's just "Al Jardine". Less
name recognition than "Graham Gouldman" there probably. Then of
course there's Brian Wilson, who does tour on his own name (because
his name is marketable) and draws decent crowds and plays more
interesting and obscure Beach Boys material, but he has no problem
with the other groups' existence and he gladly collects royalty
checks from them. Somehow it all works and everyone is happy, except
maybe for poor old Al. The Beach Boys' musical legacy seems to
continue to strengthen despite all the factions and one could argue
that maybe a lot of the promotion is helping them remain visible
long after they stopped creating new music (other than Brian who is
still putting out some interesting material)."

[Holmes Online]

> "I am in the camp of people who think that it really isn't that big of a
> deal. 10cc is no longer an active creative entity anymore. They have a
> great legacy behind them, but unfortunately the group is not
as well remembered as it should be. In fact, the group is really at the
point of complete obscurity in the US. I have never seen a single 10cc CD at
any music stores here, even in stores with a quite diverse selction, and
that's a real shame.

Nice to be in the camp, but none of those reasons are justifiable. That's
like serving me a bowl of cooked noodles - no cheese, meat or sauce - and
passing it off as lasagna. I'm sure some people will like it, but it's still
not lasagna.

Names should be revered. I get PO'd when I see some beat-heads from the UK
using Artful Dodger when a perfectly great pop band made enough of a public
stamp to lock that down. If a band splits up and someone carries on with the
name because the rest of the band sold him/them the rights, fine...but buyer
beware. Band members change all the time when the band is current - when
someone is reviving a dormant band, they should be upfront about who it
represents. Otherwise Ringo's All Starr Tour might as well be The Beatles.

off soapbox
b

[doct...@gmail.com]

Sadly, this lack of respect for a band's name will continue... For
example is anyone from the original sixties group The Vogues ( "Five
O'Clock World") touring in the oldies circut? And even when a band is
true in advertising, audience expectations can be too high in most
cases.

Personally I felt this way seeing Roger Waters last year at Jones
Beach Theatre. The band did the entire classic album "Dark Side Of The
Moon" - yet without Gilmour, it sounded like a really good Pink Floyd
cover band. Okay I don't expect a Pink Floyd reunion, but even so the
show was a bit of letdown.

[doct...@gmail.com]

So Graham Gouldman himself responds to the billing controversy at:

http://www.johnbruinsma.nl/news.html

Should he tour as "10cc" or "10cc featuring Graham Gouldman" or just
"Graham Gouldman"? At least he responds to the fan controversy about
this.