Like Bon Jovi or Van Halen or do you think they should have more of a team name (Mammoth was Van Halen's original name)?
I generally dislike this naming after one person as it places too much importance on that member.
It depends on the name. "Bon Jovi" and "Van Halen" both sound good as a band name. If their last names had been something like Smith or Jones, those wouldn't be good sounding names for a band. Not many people have names that would make for a good band name. And in the case of Bon Jovi, that's not even his real last name; it's a stylized spelling of his real last name.
"I generally dislike this naming after one person as it places too much importance on that member."
That doesn't matter to me. The important thing is to come up with a good name for the band. If that happens to be the name of one of the members, so be it.
The Smiths are actually a pretty good band. Oddly enough none of the members were named smith
shareBoth those bands are shit so I say its best to avoid doing similar things to them. Honestly, I don't think solo artists should go by their name either.
share"Both those bands are shit so I say its best to avoid doing similar things to them."
I checked my music folder and I have one Van Halen song (Panama) and three Bon Jovi songs (Blaze of Glory, Living on a Prayer, and You Give Love a Bad Name). I'm not entirely sure why I have the Van Halen song, because when I listened to a bit of it to refresh my memory, it's okay at best. I do like those three Bon Jovi songs though, especially Blaze of Glory, since it was created for one of my all-time favorite movies (Young Guns II).
"Honestly, I don't think solo artists should go by their name either."
That's corny IMO. I can't think of many who don't use their real name or at least a stage name that sounds like it could be a real name. There was "Prince" (which was, surprisingly, his given name) who decided to have no [pronounceable] name at all for a while and was referred to as "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince," which was asinine.
I used to think "Madonna" fit into that category too, but it's her actual given name.
I'm not saying that that a solo artist should go by a stage name. All solo artists are accompanied by a band, they should all be treated as a band. For example, Billy Corgan wrote almost every song by the Smashing Pumpkins with the exception of about 4 songs. But he also had a solo career where he simply went by his own name. I don't see why one is a band, but the other isn't. The band contributes to the music whether or not they are credited as a band or solo.
shareSolo artists often don't have a stable lineup, though. When recording they often use session musicians, and the musicians they use when touring often change from tour to tour, or even within the same tour.
And in some cases, people thought of as solo artists do have a band name, like The Waylors (Waylon Jennings), The Buckaroos (Buck Owens), The Strangers (Merle Haggard), The Crickets (Buddy Holly), and so on, but for whatever reason they are far better known by their frontman's real name.
I get it, but bands often have lineup changes too. Quiet Riot and Blackfoot are two bands that still perform and have no original members.
shareYeah, but their members were typically considered permanent/official when they joined the band. There are many solo artists who never have any musicians who are considered permanent/official members. Session musicians by their very nature are not permanent/official members of a band, at least not the band they are working as a session musician with.
A good illustration of the difference can be had by watching appearances on SNL or late night talk shows. Do they bring their own band with them or do they use the "house band"? If the latter, they are probably a solo artist who has no permanent/official band members.
But a problem is also when solo artists never write a song themselves and don't play an instrument. I don't understand how they are considered a solo artist when their bassist, guitarist and drummer put in the same amount of work.
share"Solo artist" isn't usually meant literally. There aren't many successful solo artists who have released truly solo material. Stevie Ray Vaughan released the song "Life by the Drop" which is truly solo (just his vocals and his acoustic 12-string guitar playing, though he didn't write it). He's another one who is generally thought of as a solo artist despite having a named band (Double Trouble).
Tom's Diner by Suzanne Vega (the a cappella version) is another one.
Music is an industry and I guess it comes down to what the industry bigwigs think will be more profitable. If you've got someone like Elvis Presley on your hands, it obviously makes more sense to market him as a solo artist. He wrote nothing but he had over-the-top star power on his own.
And don't forget, it's who the industry thinks is good looking that will make them marketable.
shareespecially Blaze of Glory, since it was created for one of my all-time favorite movies (Young Guns II).
As above already mentioned, it depends on the name. But maybe, with a team name all components of the group feel a little bit more that they are also important.
shareSometimes yes, sometimes no. I thought The Butthole Surfers' name worked by naming the band after their guitar player Harry Butthole. Marshall Tucker was such a big part of The Marshall Tucker Band. And, of course, Pink Floyd was so important to the group Pink Floyd ("Which one's Pink?").
sharePink Floyd was the bass player and Animal was the drummer with Doctor Teeth on keyboards and lead vocals.
shareHa! There was a recent thread about The Muppets and several people mentioned Dr. Teeth! That thread brought back a lot of memories! 😃
I forgot to mention (much to my chagrin) The Doobie Brothers in my first post. There was a DJ I listened to all the time in the 80s who frequently referred to them with, "They ain't related, but they Doobie Brothers!" 😃 Great band, though.
From SoCal, did the punk scene big time in the 80's. Surf punk was a thing but the Butthole Surfers were a crap band.
Here's Pink:
https://d3kinlcl20pxwz.cloudfront.net/imgs/webstory/alecia-pink-songs-jewelry-_-more-3.webp
I never really listened to a lot of the Butthole Surfers' music, but there is one song of theirs that I love and that's "Pepper." I love the guitar playing in that song... one of the many great songs of the 1990s, IMO.
I'm not much of a Pink fan either. However, a couple of my co-workers saw her in concert around a month or so ago and they raved about her performance. A lot of people like her music.
Okay, I remember that one. Didn't know it was them to be honest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRXty8lDUW0
And oh, I was joking about Pink!
shareUnless everybody in the band has the same last name it probably should not be named after one of the members. There are usually enough inflated egos in famous groups, one more reason to breed resentment would be a bad idea.
shareYes
shareEddie Van Halen was the musician and creative genius behind the band, but David Lee Roth was the frontman and lead singer. I really think Van Halen was a bad name for the band even if we've become so accustomed to it.
Use your creativity and invent a good band name.
I have to disagree with you here. I think Van Halen was a great name for the band. It's not a very common last name, but it's memorable and kind of "rolls off the tongue," so to speak. I've been known at certain fast-food restaurants to use "Van Halen" for the name on my order. I've gotten some interesting reactions from people when the name gets announced! 😃
If I remember correctly, even though Eddie and Alex were from California, their ancestry is mostly Dutch. Truthfully, as great as Eddie was as a guitarist, the band could have called themselves any name and they still would have become famous. Finally, a lot of DJs used to refer to them as "The Mighty Van Halen" and I thought that sounded so cool as well.
I like the name too. I just disagree with the concept.
Yeah, the Van Halen's were Dutch Indonesian. There's a large community in SoCal.
Manfred Mann had two different bands named after him.
share