6 Comments

Just as an aside (and I thought we discussed this before), the name Yes was trademarked by Anderson, Howe, Squire, and White back in 1980 (when Anderson was leaving the band). They agreed that, as long as someone stayed in the existing band, that band would have sole right to the name. Eventually only Squire and White were left, and then Squire died and Howe came back in with White. When White retired, that left the name with Howe.

Expand full comment

You did, and I recall the info. I noted an exclusion of the legalities here, because when I saw ABWH playing an all-Yes setlist, no one was going to convince me I didn't see Yes performing.

Expand full comment

I rarely see an improper fraction (“8/5” in this case). But what the heck is up with “5/3 Bank”? There must’ve been a bank naming convention back in the day.

Expand full comment

I heard a comedian do a bit about Fifth Third once on satellite. Can't find it now but it had me in stitches.

Expand full comment

The power of a brand (or band) name...

People spend their entire lives rooting for the same baseball team, even though there's a complete turnover of players every few years.

Expand full comment

Oh, indeed. Sports is the best example. It's a proxy and outlet for our tribalism. Which is, IMO, a good thing - we can vent it in an innocuous fashion rather than being at each others' throats in more consequential ways.

But as to bands... After several conversations, I can only conclude it's both an individual and circumstance-based "conclusion" as to whether a band is still itself. Each case is unique.

I don't consider Foreigner to be the original band without Lou Gramm. Ditto for Journey without Steve Perry. But, I did declare that I saw Yes even though only one original band member was there. I suspect, in the latter, the fact of lineup changes across the band's productive years breaks the "purity" aspect down.

Perhaps it has to do with what makes the band distinctive in my mind. Is it the singer? Is it the guitarist or the combination of 'players?'

Van Halen had its Roth years and its Hagar years. It's a common gag, and people can prefer one or the other, but it's hard to argue that Van Halen was no longer Van Halen with Sammy. Sabbath is obviously forever associated with Ozzy, but Dio made his mark, and I've never heard anyone claim that the Dio years weren't "real Black Sabbath."

Was The Who no longer after Keith Moon died?

And on and on.

Expand full comment