[Rumori] devo, erm. version 2.

[Anthony Hall]

At 02:52 27/01/2006 -0800, M.Simons wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Anthony Hall wrote:
>>>or how about how a group *name* and *song catalog* gets used by an
>>>entirely new group of folks doing a 'nostalgia' type tour.. even though NO
>>>original (or logical/historical successor) members are in the group, this
>>>is only possible because the groups name and their entire song catalogs
>>>are entirely owned by various record companies/management groups.. often
>>>times the audience doesn't even realize.
>>
>>That's exactly what I meant - We've had tribute acts, and "mini" acts -
>>mini-Guns'n'Roses, Mini-Kiss - but this is the first "authorised" tribute
>>act - sure it won't be the last - look out for New New Kids on the Block,
>>New New Edition, Gary Nu-Numan (groan - sorry) etc...
>>
>>Or how about Neil Younger & Rocking Horse? "When I get big, I'm gonna get
>>me an electric guitar..."
>
>You're talking about COVER bands.  Cover bands are expressly NOT what I am 
>referring to.  Cover bands use different names and are usually tribute 
>oriented, or just bar-band types.  I'm talking about groups entirely 
>representing themselves as if they are the actual and geniune original 
>band.  cover bands are clear an explicit in the fact that they are NOT the 
>geniune group.  a cover band that actually tries to impersonate the 
>original members, say if you had a group with distinctive members such as 
>guns n roses, and you had impersonators playing the parts, say, someone 
>who specifically tried to look (and possibly even took on the 'name' of 
>slash and axl) they would still be honest about it, and it would be fairly 
>transluscent.  I'm talking largely about do-wop and other similar era 
>groups where the knowledge of members are not so distinct or clear and 
>where they specifically cast the presentation so as to deceive. often 
>these groups touring as if they are the original band are NOT approved or 
>appreciated by the original band and are only able to do so because the 
>original band does not actually own any rights to their work or name.

Ah, sorry - my misinterpretation. I do know what you mean - would mostly 
affect 50s, 60s and 70s acts (I can't think of specific examples, but I'm 
sure several UK 70s glam rock and pop acts survive on the nostalgia circuit 
with no original members).

Interestingly, as MTV and the like took over, this kind of trade-off became 
near impossible, as the image of an act became as important as the sound, 
and thus far more difficult to counterfeit - This still mostly holds sway 
today, with occasional lapses - Euro-dance act Snap, at one point had four 
different legitimate live PAs touring simultaneously, and allegedly some 
enterprising promoter once even put together a bootleg live PA version of 
The KLF, which toured European clubs miming to their singles...


A