Apostate_Nate t1_iy7f69i wrote
Most of them? Honestly there's no way to give an exhaustive list. Most bands don't continue after losing or firing a vocalist. There are many that did, there are far far more that did not.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_iy7fv9b wrote
Didn't New Order form from the ashes of Joy Division?
Apostate_Nate t1_iy7geia wrote
Sorta? And honestly I think they did the right thing by not using the old name, since it wasn't the same band anymore. At the same time I can understand not wanting to lose name recognition for the work already done. It's an odd and unfortunate question to contemplate.
Fluffy_Little_Fox t1_iy7gpsb wrote
And then you have a murky situation such as ELO vs ELO Part 2.
"""In 1988 drummer Bev Bevan approached Jeff Lynne, wanting to record another ELO album.[2] Lynne declined to participate, so Bevan signaled that he intended to continue the band without him.[3] Lynne, however, objected over use of the ELO name, and the final agreement reached between the two resulted in ELO officially disbanding and Bevan forming a new band in 1989 called Electric Light Orchestra Part Two.[4] Another term of the agreement was that Lynne would get a percentage of ELO Part II's record royalties.""
Apostate_Nate t1_iy7k5zc wrote
Sure, but then you also have to mention stuff like K.K.s Priest instead of just plain old Judas Priest, and other similar examples. Where does one draw the line?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments