| Author |
 Topic  |
|
kdion11
Old Love
USA
552 Posts |
 Posted - 17/08/2009 : 17:40:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by John9
What is important is that a bunch of gifted musicians will be paying tribute to a musical genius...and in so doing will help to perpetuate his memory well beyond the marker of his years.
KD: There's that word again ! "Tribute" .
'nuff said.
Free the butes ! |
 |
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 17/08/2009 : 19:21:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by boombox
quote:
Originally posted by Kula John
For me this current form of Love is as important as any other. The BL guys were key to Love's revival and if it wasn't for them I'd have never seen Love's music performed right infront of me. Yes, it's still hard to take that we can never see Arthur performing again but surely the fact we can still enjoy his great music performed by some fine musicians and fantastic ambassadors of Love is something we should all be truly grateful for.
Add to that the fact Johnny is still involved, I find it very hard to accept negative comments about the current situation. I saw Love once with Arthur and once without and both gigs were unbelievable. The BL guys seem to care so much about the music we love and as I said before the longer they can keep performing the better.
LONG LIVE 'LOVE'.
This is the time and this is the time and it is time, time, time, time, time, time, time.....
Well said!!
As has been said in other posts, Arthur is gone - naysayers get over it. However, the music is, for now, still with us. And if we needed any further justification for Mike, Rusty, Johnny and Co to carry on, see jazmaan's comment!
Exactly, and I wish people would get over the idea that it's a tribute act... last time I looked 'tribute acts' are people who have no connection with a band and just play their music, often dressing up as characters from the original act. I'd love to know how a group of musicians who were the band for over ten years plus the original guitarist can possibly be a 'tribute act'
|
|
|
|
Joe Morris
Old Love
3491 Posts |
Posted - 17/08/2009 : 20:30:17
|
because they're not Love 
no, seriously, its cool that the Baby Lemonade boys are doing justice to the band, and people may say that I'm beating a dead horse
But if you're saying that an original member is ok to be called Love, then whats to stop Snoopy touring as Love with Snoopy Pfisterer
Mike Stuart definitely had a problem continuing as Love cos he felt the live band was creating nothing new; which is why he didn't continue with Arthur
of course it didn't help that the odd band member was hocking the instruments they got for the California gig LOL!
Free the instruments! |
|
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 17/08/2009 : 20:47:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Morris
because they're not Love
no, seriously, its cool that the Baby Lemonade boys are doing justice to the band, and people may say that I'm beating a dead horse
But if you're saying that an original member is ok to be called Love, then whats to stop Snoopy touring as Love with Snoopy Pfisterer
Mike Stuart definitely had a problem continuing as Love cos he felt the live band was creating nothing new; which is why he didn't continue with Arthur
of course it didn't help that the odd band member was hocking the instruments they got for the California gig LOL!
Free the instruments!
Is that why Mike Stuart was going to play on this current tour until he had a bereavment?
There's a world of difference between Snoopy and a group of unknowns playing as Love and the band who were Love for many years and Johnny doing it. |
|
|
|
kdion11
Old Love
USA
552 Posts |
Posted - 17/08/2009 : 21:52:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Morris
because they're not Love
no, seriously, its cool that the Baby Lemonade boys are doing justice to the band, and people may say that I'm beating a dead horse
But if you're saying that an original member is ok to be called Love, then whats to stop Snoopy touring as Love with Snoopy Pfisterer
Mike Stuart definitely had a problem continuing as Love cos he felt the live band was creating nothing new; which is why he didn't continue with Arthur
of course it didn't help that the odd band member was hocking the instruments they got for the California gig LOL!
Free the instruments!
KD: I'm with Joe. - people seem to be attacking him over
this - lighten up ! It's just his opinion - we all get one
around here remember ?
Speaking of "Tribute Bands" - John E (no longer with us I hear)knows all about the Michael Clark / Gene Clarke "Byrds" group who were actually shut down by the other "Real" Byrds, McGuinn, Crosby and Hillman. The Clark / Clarke version was deemed to be nothing but a "Tribute" by the courts and not the real McCoy.
I'm sure Johnny and the guys are going to put on a great show as always - all power to them - but again, look back to the obituaries for Mitch Mitchell. When he was on the road playing with a bunch of "other guys" all playing songs as originally recorded by Mitch's group, but minus the lead singer and songwriter ?
= T-R-I-B-U-T-E
Free the butes !
|
|
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 17/08/2009 : 21:59:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by kdion11
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Morris
because they're not Love
no, seriously, its cool that the Baby Lemonade boys are doing justice to the band, and people may say that I'm beating a dead horse
But if you're saying that an original member is ok to be called Love, then whats to stop Snoopy touring as Love with Snoopy Pfisterer
Mike Stuart definitely had a problem continuing as Love cos he felt the live band was creating nothing new; which is why he didn't continue with Arthur
of course it didn't help that the odd band member was hocking the instruments they got for the California gig LOL!
Free the instruments!
KD: I'm with Joe. - people seem to be attacking him over
this - lighten up ! It's just his opinion - we all get one
around here remember ?
Speaking of "Tribute Bands" - John E (no longer with us I hear)knows all about the Michael Clark / Gene Clarke "Byrds" group who were actually shut down by the other "Real" Byrds, McGuinn, Crosby and Hillman. The Clark / Clarke version was deemed to be nothing but a "Tribute" by the courts and not the real McCoy.
I'm sure Johnny and the guys are going to put on a great show as always - all power to them - but again, look back to the obituaries for Mitch Mitchell. When he was on the road playing with a bunch of "other guys" all playing songs as originally recorded by Mitch's group, but minus the lead singer and songwriter ?
= T-R-I-B-U-T-E
Free the butes !
John E still posts here, occasionally, he posted on a topic a few days ago.
I've said many times it's up to Joe what he wants to do. However, it is clear many people feel strongly about this topic so it's hardly surprising that people wish to speak up and support the current touring 'Love'. I do find it interesting that the people who seem the most negative about the current band seem to be people who have never seen them, I wonder how anyone can be so sure of something without seeing it?
And, how many more times does it have to be said, the current band toured as 'Love' for many, many years. They were 'Love' then, they are 'Love' now... they are not a 'Tribute' band, they are, as they have been since the early 90's, 'Love'. |
|
|
|
jayson_valentine
Third Love
USA
72 Posts |
Posted - 17/08/2009 : 23:07:11
|
| I've always believed that once a band broke up, the name shouldn't be used continually. Arthur may have been the front man and leader, but I for one have equal admiration for all four original band members, and therefore I believe all further uses of Love's name past Forever Changes were disrespectful. Echols may be an original member, but like Arthur's, his presence alone should not privilege the usage of the band name. Love is dead. |
|
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 17/08/2009 : 23:27:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by jayson_valentine
I've always believed that once a band broke up, the name shouldn't be used continually. Arthur may have been the front man and leader, but I for one have equal admiration for all four original band members, and therefore I believe all further uses of Love's name past Forever Changes were disrespectful. Echols may be an original member, but like Arthur's, his presence alone should not privilege the usage of the band name. Love is dead.
But 'Love' didn't really break up, they have existed in many forms for well over forty years with many, many different members. Are you trying to say only one incarnation of a band can be called by the name 'Love', so are you saying that, for example, 'Four Sail' isn't a 'Love' album as it's Arthur and different members? An interesting view, I suppose.... |
Edited by - caryne on 17/08/2009 23:28:52 |
|
|
|
jayson_valentine
Third Love
USA
72 Posts |
Posted - 17/08/2009 : 23:30:06
|
| Yes I am. That's exactly what I'm saying. |
|
|
|
Kula John
Old Love
United Kingdom
756 Posts |
Posted - 17/08/2009 : 23:38:28
|
And Pink Floyd were not Pink Floyd once Gilmour joined the party????
This is the time and this is the time and it is time, time, time, time, time, time, time.....
|
|
|
|
John9
Old Love
United Kingdom
2154 Posts |
Posted - 17/08/2009 : 23:40:43
|
| I never called this latest venture a 'tribute act' - it clearly isn't that and I fully accept Caryne's definition of that questionable form of entertainment. The term I actually used was 'Love Celebration'. I don't think that we are going to resolve this short of accepting that we each of us define 'Love' differently. The nearest parallel I can think of here is.... wait for it...The Supremes. In 1967, as the group's fortunes faltered slightly, they changed their name to 'Diana Ross and The Supremes'. Did that mean that Diana Ross was no longer a supreme? Did the name change alter the essence of the group in some way? (I leave aside the tragic case of founder member Florence Ballard) And when the great lady herself left in 1970 and the group reverted to their former title to enjoy renewed popularity........what then? If I go down into Manchester tomorrow and have my name changed by deed poll to .......let's say 'Harry Scroggins'...does it actually alter my true self? All names are merely labels.....it is the ESSENCE of the thing that's important. It is almost a bit like two email correspondents five time zones apart having a debate about what time it really is! |
Edited by - John9 on 17/08/2009 23:49:30 |
|
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 17/08/2009 : 23:48:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kula John
And Pink Floyd were not Pink Floyd once Gilmour joined the party????
This is the time and this is the time and it is time, time, time, time, time, time, time.....
That's right and The Beatles were never the same after that Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe went..... |
|
|
|
caryne
Old Love
United Kingdom
1520 Posts |
Posted - 17/08/2009 : 23:49:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by John9
I never called this latest venture a 'tribute act' - it clearly isn't that and I fully accept Caryne's definition of that questionable form of entertainment. The term I actually used was 'Love Celebration'. I don't think that we are going to resolve this short of accepting that we each of us define 'Love' differently. The nearest parallel I can think of here is.... wait for it...The Supremes. In 1967, as the group's fortunes faltered slightly, they changed their name to 'Diana Ross and The Supremes'. Did that mean that Diana Ross was no longer a supreme? Did the name change alter the essence the group in some way? (I leave aside the tragic case of founder member Florence Ballard) And when the great lady herself left in 1970 and the group reverted to their former title to enjoy renewed popularity........what then? If I go down into Manchester tomorrow and have my name changed by deed poll to .......let's say 'Harry Scroggins'...does it actually alter my true self? All names are merely labels.....it is the ESSENCE of the thing that's important. It is almost a bit like two email correspondents five time zones apart having a debate about what time it really is!
Good points John, especially regarding The Supremes example. However, Joe clearly wanted to hear what other people thought about this and people have spoken |
|
|
|
ladylove
Fifth Love
276 Posts |
Posted - 17/08/2009 : 23:56:49
|
Let's see, I guess The Four Tops shouldn't be called by that name because all the original members aren't there, only Duke...they're all dead. Same for The Temptations, who only have one original member. How about WAR? Only one original member while two of the originals have passed on, the other four original members are forced to tour under a different name, Lowrider Band, because ONE original member is touring under the name WAR with a completely different band. Here's my take on it: As long as there is an original, founding member performing with the group LOVE, they should still be billed as LOVE. Johnny Echols is a co-founder and the ONLY original member left standing. It is his RIGHT to use the name LOVE. Like I said earlier, a little respect is in order for this incredible talent who has come back to bring the world a little more LOVE. Let's embrace him and stand behind him united in the cause of keeping the music alive. It is HIS music, too. LOVE didn't have any real success after the first three albums, so the later incarnations don't mean anything to me. If Johnny wants to tour with Baby Lemonade and call the group LOVE, he has every right to do so. Isn't that what we all want? LOVE is not a tribute band if it's headed by the co-founder who is playing the music that made LOVE famous. "LOVE is dead"???? I think not. They are alive and well and working very hard to keep those wonderful songs blazing in our minds. And doing a terrific job IMHO. Long live LOVE!!!
LOVE and peace to all,
JJ |
Edited by - ladylove on 18/08/2009 00:04:46 |
|
|
|
dyecraig
Fourth Love
USA
203 Posts |
Posted - 18/08/2009 : 00:11:12
|
| Speaking of Tops/Temps - saw them both Saturday at Wolf Trap. Yes, only one original member each, but still enjoyable for the sheer number of great tunes done well. Capacity crowd did not mind one bit, I'm sure. And Otis still rules the classic Temps dance moves! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Is it Love without Arthurly?
