Art or product… what’s in a name?

So when does a band no longer become that band? What defined them in the first place? Was it the frontman, the key musicians, the songwriter or simply the owner of the brand copyright?

The most recent Guns N Roses album was deemed by many fans and critics to be merely an Axl Rose solo album with the Guns name printed on it. Surely there’s no GNR without Slash? But then again Velvet Revolver was essentially GNR without it’s frontman and voice but nobody seemed to make a fuss about the name there… although there was a wry smile on the faces of those who knew.

Oasis had a constantly shifting rhythm section for over a decade but it didn’t seem to matter as long as you had Liam and Noel present… the voice and the “songsmith”. Was it the shambling original Defiantly Maybe members that endeared a nation or the seasoned professionals that joined later on? Did it matter? The last two of their albums were filled up with more and more non-Noel Gallagher songs, so was his input so crucial anymore?

And what of the pop diva troupe Sugarbabes that has non of it’s original members in it’s current line-up? I assume non of them ever wrote songs and non of them are musicians (apart from their voices). So does the person fronting the group/band even matter so much if they can all be lifted out and replaced? Could you have had the Spice Girls with anybody involved just as long as they had catchy nicknames?

Queen are at least being fairly honest about the state of things and separating themselves in name from their new “voice”. They bill themselves as Queen + Paul Rodgers nowadays, which feels a little more respectful to the memory of Freddie Mercury.

In 1996 Guided By Voices split up and Robert Pollard continued the brand with a backing band consisting of an existing group called Cobra Verde. So was this the band Cobra Verde with a new frontman or a solo project by Pollard under the banner of GBV? But then again had GBV always been Robert Pollard with a constantly shifting backing band? Is he the heart and soul of the group?

A few British bands from the 80s have been fighting for ownership of their brand during the recent nostalgia craze. Cash has been available for old favourites from the past to reform but since a lot of them split for bitter money reasons they now have to slightly re-name themselves as if becoming their own covers band… just with actual original members.

In film you have a similar issue with the “auteur” director. Stanley Kubrick was drafted in to direct Spartacus at the last minute but his mark is nowhere to be seen. He was just a director for hire. Spielberg has a very distinctive visual style but has been working with the same composer and editor for most of his career, so how much of his craft is down to them?

There’s also the nagging issue of regional identity where a film is largely made in a certain country with local talent but will forever be know of as an American film due to the financing. Look at the first two Alien films, basically British films which always turn up on Top Greatest American Films charts. The same could be said about the rush of films made in Australia in the late 90s and early 00s. The Matrix and Star Wars prequels were handled by crews down under, are we to forget their imprint?

There is a central creative force in all these examples that makes a band or a film what it is. The writing and the inception often has a point of origin and is picked up by a trusted team to flesh out it’s creation. Mainstream media is a collaborative process after all, even great historical artists often had a group of assistants working for them while they simply directed the piece. In some instances though it is just a legal matter that defines a creative brand. These instances are often fairly cynical affairs and those dedicated to the purest form of that endeavour may not be convinced by an exercise in naked profiteering.

I suppose an individual who enjoys a piece of creative work must decide how it is defined… and whether it really matters. In the digital age the importance of cover art is shown up for what it is when a listener or viewer is left with just the music or film. Did it ever really matter how it was packaged, or were we just told it mattered?

The debate continues!!