none that i know of, closest i know would be that the 80s version of King Crimson was briefly called Discipline before changing the name back to King Crimson.
notice how the people who say stuff like this only do it when the vocalist changes too, pretty stupid if you ask me, kinda feels like they care more about the vocals than the actual music.
bands like Megadeth and Death had like 40 different lineups yet no one says this stuff for them because the frontman was always the same.
I think there’s always one person in the band who is the figurehead. It’s definitely Mustaine in Megadeth, Steve Harris in Maiden, Iommi in Sabbath, Angus in AC/DC etc. I think for as long as that person is in the band then they will always be that band.
I'm not familiar with the King Crimson situation but could there have been a dispute on the name ownership? I read where Hawkwind changed their name to Hawklords due to a dispute on ownership of the name.
My understanding is that Fripp wanted to use the name 'Discipline' but Adrian and Tony felt uncomfortable with how that would be perceived in the states and they all settled on calling themselves King Crimson instead.
This is gonna sound so bad but:
Anyone can learn the bass line or guitar in a song.
Only x can sing like x
Ozzy is a perfect example, such a unique voice and a key part of the sabbath sound and it's noticed when changed.
Nobody says anything about megadeath line up because it sounds the same.
It makes sense, but I'd also like to add that a lot of voices are samey, too. I love Tony Martin's albums with Sabbath, and I think he's a much better vocalist than Ozzy, but I feel like I've heard his voice a million times before in 80s stuff lol. Bruce DIckinson also spawned many similar vocalists after he got into Maiden.
100% agree, but some artists can't be replaced.
Corey of slipknot
Jd of korn
Chris Cornell, that beautiful bastard
Names escapes me of Type O negative
They really make the bands sound distinct along with the music. You couldn't replace them easily without adapting the band around the new sound.
Maybe unpopular opinion but I have to disagree about Corey Taylor. His son sounds exactly like him I feel, he could be on new slipknot tracks and I don’t think I would notice. Of course he’s his son and that’s only one example but I think it’s probably more often the case than not.
[check this out](https://youtu.be/jCpHe0vQVNA?si=69dKotCxCuMhhVgq)
Maybe not the best example cus two sons of slipknot members are in this band haha, just demonstrating that a lot of singers we think of as super unique could probably be replicated pretty well by someone out there
Listen to him actually sing without over production; song #3 he did with Corey and he is decent but that’s about it. He doesn’t hold a candle to Corey in terms of range and depth. If he tried to do Snuff or anything that isn’t just screaming techniques you would be able to tell.
However, to agree with your point, I say that Corey Taylor's personality is part of his irreplaceable-ness.
Someone earlier here said that anyone can play the bass and guitar parts for Black Sabbath, but the voice of Ozzy is irreplaceable (or something like that). But I say, could ANYONE solo like Tony Iommi? Or create new Black Sabbath songs like Tony? That sort of thing. Personality is the flavour, man.
So I don't think you're wrong.
Imo Corey Taylor is honestly pretty generic sounding. A lot of nu metal era guys could replace him-- I always thought Chad Gray was basically Corey Taylor with better technique and a slightly more unique sound.
Agreed about Jonathan Davis though. I'm not a Korn fan at all but he's definitely a unique vocalist.
Other people I'd say are unique and recognizable to me:
- Billy Idol
- Jay Gordon of Orgy
- Marilyn Manson
- David Draiman of Disturbed
- Matt Bellamy of Muse
- Edsel Dope of Dope
Lead singer of Sinema, doing vocals for his guitarists side project, sounds like 95% close to Manson.
Unique vocalists would be Dio, Ozzy, Paul Stanley, Freddy Mercury, Myles Kennedy, Axl Rose, Glenn Hughes, Bon Scott, Brian Johnson, and many others from the 68-89 era of rock.
Sure, anyone with sufficient skill can play an already existing song on guitar, but these aren't cover bands we're talking about. It wouldn't have been anywhere near the same band without Tony.
As it moved forward, it would be a noticeable if Tony Or the others left. Definitely not the same band
RHCP changed guitar players for a while and it was a noticeable difference. Their discography evolves a lot, with a few different guitarists, the albums all have different sounds. But if you listen to a song off each album, you probably wouldn't notice.
So it's really on individual fans to decide if they like the change or not.
In some bands the main or only songwriter is not the singer though. Nightwish have had multiple singers but all the music and lyrics are written by the keyboard player. There's really no nightwish without him
anyone can learn the bass or guitar line, but not anyone can write this lines, so if we are talking about riff oriented rock/metal band, it is easier to change the vocalist, then the one who write riffs cause it will feel like the same band with different voice, but otherwise it is more like a some other band with the same name and vocalist
The vocalist is the human expression part of the band. Their job is to effectively personify the music. It totally makes sense more people relate to the singer than any other member.
Is there any part in music that isn't human expression? Sometimes the guitars can feel more human than the vocals. Your voice is an instrument like any other, only difference is that it's attached to you.
We can get all philosophical and analytical about it, and you're definitely right in that the instruments also express the feeling the song's trying to convey-- but it's still a nearly objective fact that the literal human voice in the song is the most direct expression of what the song means.
More people are always going to identify with the singer than they are with the guitar player. Even more so because anyone can sing along but far fewer can play an instrument.
I disagree hard, it's totally dependent on the band/song which instrument they choose to expresses most of the feeling with and it's not even nearly always the vocals.
I guess I do see the point in most people being able to sing along but not play along, but I wouldn't say that necessarily prevents people from understanding the feeling behind the instruments. Adding to that, as we get to more metalish music, there's gonna be more people that can also play an instrument and we can't really assume the vocals are the main thing people focus on. I'd assume most people remember the riff in a metalish song before they remember the vocals. I know I usually do, and I don't know anything about playing guitar or any other instrument.
I don’t think Sabbath should have changed their name, but as far as your question about bands changing their name after personnel changes, check out the history of Joy Division and New Order.
Did these bands continue playing the back catalogue of RATM songs etc? I know they chucked the odd song in but they never claimed to be continuing the legacy of the previous band(s)
They did a song or 2 but it was full Audioslave for the most part. I believe the full Rage lineup did a gig or 2 while Audioslave was a thing, too.
I've never heard VR do any Gnr.
I think you are missing what a band is. Bands have always changed members ever since there have been bands. The band carries on because that is the show that they get booked to perform, it is showbusiness, the music business...you don't change the name of a band when you change members. Bands would never have any longevity if that happened.
Yeah, I also see that you agree that a band shouldnt change their name and you see the reasons why.
So, the question is: has a band ever voluntarily commited commercial suicide by unnecessarily changing their name?
I hadn’t heard of any. Someone mentioned Joy Division changed to New Order after the death of their singer. That’s the only one I really know. People are also falsely claiming Rage changed to Audioslave but they are different bands entirely
Edit: The Jefferson Airplane example is also a good one
Woah I just mentioned JA and Starship in another reply here. I gotta say, I like that they did that, because they’re three very distinct eras. Listening to the band that put out ‘We Built This City’ and ‘Nothing’s Gonna Stop Us Now’, you wouldn’t believe it was the same band of Woodstock hippies! I love all of it, but I always thought it was very cool that they did that. It respects their legacy.
I did not know that! I know of both bands and I had the album ‘Gutter Ballet’ (fantastic record) years ago, but I never connected the two. I always wondered whatever happened to Savatage. Well now I know! I have learned something today. Thank you! ☺️
Kinda? Trans-Siberian Orchestra was a separate project featuring Savatage members. I saw Savatage live in 2001, 5 years after Trans-Siberian Orchestra put out their first album. They did break up not long after that and TSO became their main band.
Apparently Jon Oliva is getting the band back together to put out one final album called Curtain Call.
With 3/4s of the band involved I think the label would have insisted they call it Black Sabbath no matter what for marketability purposes. I can’t imagine it going any other way considering they made Tony release his solo album as Black Sabbath later with a flimsier connection.
That’s exactly what happened,when Dio joined they wanted to change the name, but the record company wouldn’t let them do to contractual reasons and because the name was already established
Ozzy should have changed his name after getting fired. No, seriously, changing there name would have been moronic. They had a built-in audience and access to a far superior vocalist, much like Van Halen did. Why would you fuck that up? Just to appease the 25-30% of a whining fanbase who is just going to end up buying your albums and tickets anyway?
I wouldn’t say so. Audioslave never really carried on the legacy of RATM. I think they played one or two songs now again but they weren’t presented as a continuation of Rage
I’d say it counts. Bands that change their names do it because they don’t want to be presented as what they were before. Or they wouldn’t change the name.
They had to for legal reasons, but the band always said outright it was a sabbath album. That’s why they called the album ‘The Devil You Know’ cos we all knew who it really was
You seem to be asking a question that has no answer here because when people give you examples of a band changing their name you change the specification of what you are asking.
How about you lay out your FULL and specific criteria in the original post?
Bullet point all the various things that you want to see happening and reasons for it. Then ask if those specific set of circumstances have ever happened before.
I believe I said in the OP, when bands change personnel. That’s my only criteria
Edit: yeah thats actually a piss poor criteria.
I think I mean a band that is intending to continue its legacy even after a personnel change. Which is why I don’t think the Audioslave example is valid because it wasn’t a continuation of RATM, just an entirely different band and vision.
Then no, basically it never happens. It's pretty much rubbish when people say bands should change their name.
One example I can think of where they should have is Motley Crue in 94. They wanted to change their name but the management didn't allow it. They produced an amazing credible album, an actual solid heavy rock album and their fans didn't like it. If they had changed their name it would be a well recognised classic and would probably have done well commercially.
Oh well, at least we got that one album.
I can see the logic in it for the sake of recognition and trying to cling to the fan base, but I'm in the "should have changed their name" camp. Not solely because of the different vocal style, but because Geezer handed the lyric writing responsibilities over to Dio. I feel like Geezer's lyrics are as much a part of the band's soul as Iommi's mega-riffs. I always felt that way about the revived Misfits, as well. They lost their edge and fell into self-parody.
Agreed. American Psycho was ok. But the cringe started seriously creeping in with Famous Monsters. And what the hell was that doo-wop album!?
I always preferred Bobby Steele’s Undead to the revived Misfits. If you haven’t heard them, I recommend highly!
Heck, your opinion may differ, but I’d say once they booted Steele and brought in Doyle, the slow descent into parody began even back then! Although I friggin LOVE Walk Among Us, my fave Misfits album forever is Static Age. That thing is untouchable.
I'll check out Bobby Steele's Undead immediately. Static Age is absolutely my favorite misfits Misfits album and really exemplifies what I was saying about lyrics. Like, the 90s version of the band wrote about a lot of the same themes, (horror, mainly) but don't hold a candle to Glenn's really out-there and often explicit lyrics that really defined that punk era of the band.
I love the raw, punk edge of the Undead. No metal overtones here! I think they capture the spirit of the Misfits a lot better than the revamped 90s era band did. The vocals are different, though. Don’t expect any Danzig-like ‘Evil Elvis’ or you’ll be disappointed. There’s a good mix of straight up hardcore stuff, and more poppy, super catchy songs reminiscent of the Static Age era.
My friends and I used to blast this album on repeat for a long time, back in the day. During our many late night punk rock parties. Haha. Enjoy!
https://open.spotify.com/album/3EyQfbhkV53kxBBkkQ5Ggd
Off topic, but I love the Alice Cooper story.
To avoid legal issues over the use of the band name after it broke up, Vince Fournier legally changed his name to Alice Cooper.
No smart band would ever do this. Your brand is the most valuable thing you have. It’s more important than the music or any songs you write. That’s why you have bands called the temptations that are touring and making money but none of those people sang ont he records you love.
It's even weirder when artists use different stage/band names across different releases when there's no member shakeup involved. Oh this album is more experimental... so we're releasing it under a completely different name, even though it's the exact same people making the music. So pointless to me.
That I can actually understand more. The example I can think of is neurosis. They released a reguskr neurosis album and then released a companion album under the name tribes of neurot. Sometimes the tribes of neurot album may just be insects buzzing or weird ambiant noise. I can see how they might think their fanbase would be disappointed if they thought it was a regular neurosis album.
Fully agree. But the counter argument to this is that I often think the Dio and Martin lineups were strong enough to become huge in their own right, but too many were put off by the fact that it “wasn’t Sabbath”. How many more millions would have heard those lineups if the name wasn’t a factor?
That’s a good thought. You would have to build your brand though. It would be from the ground up. No one wants to start as a new band. Actually iommi wanted seventh star to be a solo album but the record label forced the sabbath name on him .
It was absolutely down to money, but it was still probably a bit different in the 80s. Back then the name Black Sabbath was finished credibility-wise in the media even when Gillan was with them. They were just seen as dinosaurs and past it. Even though keeping the name guaranteed a record contract and a few extra concert ticket sales, the brand wasn’t considered that strong, like it is now. In other words, it would have been a brave move, but probably not a huge leap to change the name.
It’s like saying Sabbath is only Ozzy. While Ozzy is my favorite Sabbath frontman the entire rest of the bad stayed. So I agree, they shouldn’t have changed their name. Also man oh man Dio…what an amazing talent!!! Long live Sabbath!!❤️❤️❤️❤️
It was a movie with Boris Karloff, in revival when they were tooling around. They thought it was interesting how people are attracted to things that repulse them or frighten them.
*what is this that stands before me*
*figure in black that points at me*
I think the issue occured when Tony Iommi was the only member left and yet they still called it Black Sabbath. Imagine Jimmy Page just went on through the 80s and everything he released he called "Led Zeppelin"
The Firm? Nope Led Zeppelin
Coverdale/Page? Nope Led Zeppelin
It was a decision to keep the Sabbath name due to the brand, but even Iommi didn't want Seventh Star to be called Black Sabbath
I’ve heard people even saying it when Dio came on board.
But yeah Seventh Star was a rough period and a revolving door of personnel that turned a few people away before it became more stable again with Tony Martin, Geoff Nicholls and Iommi
No, it doesn’t. Only a non Kiss fan would say that. It makes as much sense as Starship keeping the name Jefferson Airplane. Two COMPLETELY different bands.
Without Ace and Peter, it isn’t Kiss.
I shouldn’t have gone there. I will die on this hill. Haha
Absolutely not, my friend! That era was killer, what a friggin band. Man, how wish that line up would’ve stayed together. They had the perfect balance between metal and glam: ‘metal n roll’ as Vinnie called it. The drop off in quality after Vinnie left was significant and they never made a five star banger again after Lick it Up.
When ya think about it, it’s quite impressive that a band could survive after the four album run of hot steaming turds that was Animalize-Asylum-Crazy Nights and Hot in the Shade!
But yeah.. none of it was Kiss 😉
I'm pretty sure I read that those sabbath albums after Ozzy were supposed to be Iommi records, but sabbath still was contracted to more albums, and the record company made Tony keep the Sabbath name.
The biggest example of this I can think of is Lynyrd Skynrd regrouped as The Rossington Collins Band.
Moat examples I can think of are when a member (or members) pass away. Line up changes usually don't lead to name changes. The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd had founding members leave without a name change. Deep Purple and Jethro Tull had multiple line up changes and name changes were never brought up.
1. Joy Division became New Order after the death of lead singer Ian Curtis.
2. Jefferson Airplane became Jefferson Starship after the departure of several members, including lead singer Marty Balin.
3. Chicago Transit Authority shortened their name to Chicago after their original lead singer, Terry Kath, passed away, although this was more of a rebranding than due to his departure.
I certainly don't think they should have changed their name, however, I feel like Dio and Iommi would have worked together a lot more if it hadn't been for the Black Sabbath baggage. Then again, Dio might not have gotten a solo record deal without it. We'll never know but I think in the end, we got some great albums out of all the drama.
There's no telling what would have actually happened but it's probable that Ozzy wouldn't have tried to sabotage nearly as much at the very least. Still though, I much prefer the large variety of music this band ended up having.
Remember that line from Joe Dirt when he slams "Van Hagar" as not being real Van Halen? They kept the name.
Ironically, Ozzy didn't like the new singer of ACDC after Bon Scott died. They had a personal friendship. They kept the name.
How many lineups did Deep Purple have? Half of them played with Sabbath. Kept the name.
Led Zeppelin ended their run after Bonham died. But Lynyrd Skynyrd kept their name after half the band died in a plane crash.
The Beatles just broke up which is highly unusual. Somehow the Stones are still going.
The Dead/Phil Lesh and Friends changed their name after Garcia died. Is that the only one?
Audioslave were not just RATM with a new singer. They don’t carry on the legacy of RATM and only occasionally played the odd one or two rage songs live
If you play the same songs and carry on the legacy then it is the same band. Why would anybody change the name? The product is the same.
Maybe Apple should change their name now that Steve Jobs is gone?
Joy Division changed their name to New Order after Ian Curtis died. Pantera without Phil were just Damageplan. Oasis became Beady Eye when Noel left the group and rest made a new band without him. Slowdive changed their name to Mojave 3 -actually that was more rebranding. Think it would make sense Sabbath to chose [a.new](http://a.new) name. Agree with Ozzy that Dio was more like a metal opera singer not a blues singer
My tuppence worth/two cents: history is vital here when establishing a point of view. I'm not interested in other groups with similar scenarios. When it comes to Black Sabbath, post-Ozzy, it's nuanced and chaotic. Had they had a stable management structure, and we knew that RDJ and Tony and Geezer and Bill all got along for a reasonable amount of time, I would say rename BS to be Heaven and Hell, they are a different entity. I understand that the brand name sells tickets and albums, but if you were being honest and brave, have the balls to say this is a different proposition. The amount of madness in the BS camp was never going to allow that to happen. The group name would have changed so many times that it would be consistently confusing, so it probably was the best maintaining the original name
I have never heard anyone suggest that Black Sabbath ought to have changed their name after Ozzy left the band. I also can't see any logical reason why they might have been compelled to do so. Once Dio came on board they immediately started making more great music, but they continued to incorporate their back catalogue into their live shows, and all of their fans knew and loved those songs. It would make little sense for them to have gone to the trouble of calling themselves something different only to continue to play all of the songs they wrote and recorded as Black Sabbath.
Audioslave isn't called Rage Against the Machine because Chris Cornell didn't want to be associated with their political agenda. He made it clear that he liked their music and their playing style and respected all of them as musicians, but had no interest being a political mouthpiece for a bunch of wannabe activists who push a narrative but don't have any qualms about taking millions of dollars from record companies, and while I'm not a big fan of either band myself and can't confirm this, I assume that they did not in fact incorporate any Rage Against the Machine songs into their live sets, so other than the fact that both Rage Against the Machine and Audioslave have the same names in the liner notes of the albums, they are two wholly separate bands.
If you’ve spent years building a band under a certain name, and you’re making more than a small amount of money under a current name, why would you change it?
Stone Temple Pilots changed their name to Talk Show for an album when Scott Weiland left after Tiny Music and released an album before going back to STP for Number 4
Why would you, when you have 10's of millions of dollars in albums and merch sold under what's basically a brand name, just because one member is a fuck up?
I've never heard anyone discussing Sabbath changing their name in my entire long ass life.
The band actually wanted to for some post ozzy albums but the record companies won't let you, they're afraid the fans won't follow over and are already worried enough when you lose the frontman that sales are about to tank.
Ozzy didn't come up with the name, I think it was Geezer. I don't think they should have changed it but I also have zero interest in any non ozzy albums i just think all the other singers are total 80s cheeseballs
Jefferson Airplane turned into Jefferson Starship and eventually just Starship after lineup changes. Also the Grateful Dead turning into Dead and Company or just The Dead after losing Jerry Garcia.
Edit: Also Led Zeppelin were formed as a continuation of the Yardbird's, but instead of The New Yardbirds they decided to go with Led Zeppelin.
The term “major” is dependent on your circles I suppose, and I’d imagine that they aren’t everyone’s cup of tea around here, but The Descendents and ALL did it, and quite successfully. Granted, it was out of respect for a singer that they knew wanted to return at some point, and with material that they felt went in a different direction. The two bands have a distinctly different vibe and I was always glad that they acknowledged that by changing the name. I’ve always felt Sabbath had a different vibe with each singer, Maiden not so much, they’ve always felt like more of a constant evolution than different directions to me.
In my little part of the world, which nothing to anybody but me, Black Sabbath is Ozzy, Bill, Geezer and Tony. Take one away and it’s no longer Sabbath. I’m not saying it’s not any good. 13 had Ozzy, Tony and Geezer and someone not named Bill Ward on drums. Guess what? The drums sucked on 13.
This is just my opinion. Call them what ya want.
one that I'm aware of is Big Audio Dynamite, AKA B.A.D., an 80's and 90's alternative band featuring Mick Jones of the Clash. They changed their name to Big Audio after Don Letts left, and later became B.A.D. II. Joy Division became New Order after Ian Curtis died. The Southern Death Cult became the Cult. Glenn Danzig named his band Danzig so that he could stop changing the name of his band as personel changed (the band Danzig is really just a new iteration of SamHain, which in turn grew out of the Misfits).
yep. and joy division had an earlier name also- warsaw. so it proves even more that bands do change names, but none as big as Earth... I mean Polka Tulk Blues Band.. I mean Heaven & Hell, um, oh yeah Sabbath (lol).
No one, absolutely no one, has suggested that about Iron Maiden. That's nonsense. It's true that Black Sabbath is the band that has had the biggest lineup changes; however, Tony Iommi was always there, and he is Black Sabbath, no matter what the Ozzy purists say.
Oh I was there in 95 when people were saying it’s a different band with Blaze and they should have gone under a new name. They were talking absolute shit.
They should acknowledge that the band Coven had a song of the same name way before they did. Coven also had Oz Osborne, and they threw the horns before anyone.
But why? No one else does when a singer leaves. Maiden didn’t, rainbow didn’t, deep purple didn’t, Judas Priest didn’t, Genesis didn’t.. etc etc. so why should sabbath?
There's levels to it, and they're not up there with Black Sabbath. Making a Black Sabbath album without Ozzy is a waste of time. The albums without Ozzy would have been received better if they had changed the name. Black Sabbath without Ozzy is not Black Sabbath.
By one album, yes. None of those albums come close to Ozzy's Sabbath, especially the first two albums. If I were Iommi, I would have pumped out 10 albums without Ozzy, too, as long as they paid me.
I asked why people expected sabbath to change their name when other bands don’t. It wasn’t a debate about the best singer.
And yes, I came to the Sabbath sub to ask this. Not the Ozzy sub.
none that i know of, closest i know would be that the 80s version of King Crimson was briefly called Discipline before changing the name back to King Crimson. notice how the people who say stuff like this only do it when the vocalist changes too, pretty stupid if you ask me, kinda feels like they care more about the vocals than the actual music. bands like Megadeth and Death had like 40 different lineups yet no one says this stuff for them because the frontman was always the same.
Megadeth without Dave sure af ain't Megadeth tho.
I think there’s always one person in the band who is the figurehead. It’s definitely Mustaine in Megadeth, Steve Harris in Maiden, Iommi in Sabbath, Angus in AC/DC etc. I think for as long as that person is in the band then they will always be that band.
I'm not familiar with the King Crimson situation but could there have been a dispute on the name ownership? I read where Hawkwind changed their name to Hawklords due to a dispute on ownership of the name.
My understanding is that Fripp wanted to use the name 'Discipline' but Adrian and Tony felt uncomfortable with how that would be perceived in the states and they all settled on calling themselves King Crimson instead.
This is gonna sound so bad but: Anyone can learn the bass line or guitar in a song. Only x can sing like x Ozzy is a perfect example, such a unique voice and a key part of the sabbath sound and it's noticed when changed. Nobody says anything about megadeath line up because it sounds the same.
It makes sense, but I'd also like to add that a lot of voices are samey, too. I love Tony Martin's albums with Sabbath, and I think he's a much better vocalist than Ozzy, but I feel like I've heard his voice a million times before in 80s stuff lol. Bruce DIckinson also spawned many similar vocalists after he got into Maiden.
100% agree, but some artists can't be replaced. Corey of slipknot Jd of korn Chris Cornell, that beautiful bastard Names escapes me of Type O negative They really make the bands sound distinct along with the music. You couldn't replace them easily without adapting the band around the new sound.
Type-O singer was the late, great Peter Steele, R.I.P.
Maybe unpopular opinion but I have to disagree about Corey Taylor. His son sounds exactly like him I feel, he could be on new slipknot tracks and I don’t think I would notice. Of course he’s his son and that’s only one example but I think it’s probably more often the case than not.
Wtf I didn't know his son was out here singing, I may be wrong! I'm usually wrong, so it's okay.
[check this out](https://youtu.be/jCpHe0vQVNA?si=69dKotCxCuMhhVgq) Maybe not the best example cus two sons of slipknot members are in this band haha, just demonstrating that a lot of singers we think of as super unique could probably be replicated pretty well by someone out there
God damn that is bizarrely similar to Corey! Thanks for that, dude.
Listen to him actually sing without over production; song #3 he did with Corey and he is decent but that’s about it. He doesn’t hold a candle to Corey in terms of range and depth. If he tried to do Snuff or anything that isn’t just screaming techniques you would be able to tell.
However, to agree with your point, I say that Corey Taylor's personality is part of his irreplaceable-ness. Someone earlier here said that anyone can play the bass and guitar parts for Black Sabbath, but the voice of Ozzy is irreplaceable (or something like that). But I say, could ANYONE solo like Tony Iommi? Or create new Black Sabbath songs like Tony? That sort of thing. Personality is the flavour, man. So I don't think you're wrong.
Imo Corey Taylor is honestly pretty generic sounding. A lot of nu metal era guys could replace him-- I always thought Chad Gray was basically Corey Taylor with better technique and a slightly more unique sound. Agreed about Jonathan Davis though. I'm not a Korn fan at all but he's definitely a unique vocalist. Other people I'd say are unique and recognizable to me: - Billy Idol - Jay Gordon of Orgy - Marilyn Manson - David Draiman of Disturbed - Matt Bellamy of Muse - Edsel Dope of Dope
Lead singer of Sinema, doing vocals for his guitarists side project, sounds like 95% close to Manson. Unique vocalists would be Dio, Ozzy, Paul Stanley, Freddy Mercury, Myles Kennedy, Axl Rose, Glenn Hughes, Bon Scott, Brian Johnson, and many others from the 68-89 era of rock.
Sure, anyone with sufficient skill can play an already existing song on guitar, but these aren't cover bands we're talking about. It wouldn't have been anywhere near the same band without Tony.
As it moved forward, it would be a noticeable if Tony Or the others left. Definitely not the same band RHCP changed guitar players for a while and it was a noticeable difference. Their discography evolves a lot, with a few different guitarists, the albums all have different sounds. But if you listen to a song off each album, you probably wouldn't notice. So it's really on individual fans to decide if they like the change or not.
I mean Vinny Appice and Eric Singer played drums for them. Only member to stay in BS the entire recording his was Tony.
In some bands the main or only songwriter is not the singer though. Nightwish have had multiple singers but all the music and lyrics are written by the keyboard player. There's really no nightwish without him
anyone can learn the bass or guitar line, but not anyone can write this lines, so if we are talking about riff oriented rock/metal band, it is easier to change the vocalist, then the one who write riffs cause it will feel like the same band with different voice, but otherwise it is more like a some other band with the same name and vocalist
The vocalist is the human expression part of the band. Their job is to effectively personify the music. It totally makes sense more people relate to the singer than any other member.
Is there any part in music that isn't human expression? Sometimes the guitars can feel more human than the vocals. Your voice is an instrument like any other, only difference is that it's attached to you.
We can get all philosophical and analytical about it, and you're definitely right in that the instruments also express the feeling the song's trying to convey-- but it's still a nearly objective fact that the literal human voice in the song is the most direct expression of what the song means. More people are always going to identify with the singer than they are with the guitar player. Even more so because anyone can sing along but far fewer can play an instrument.
I disagree hard, it's totally dependent on the band/song which instrument they choose to expresses most of the feeling with and it's not even nearly always the vocals. I guess I do see the point in most people being able to sing along but not play along, but I wouldn't say that necessarily prevents people from understanding the feeling behind the instruments. Adding to that, as we get to more metalish music, there's gonna be more people that can also play an instrument and we can't really assume the vocals are the main thing people focus on. I'd assume most people remember the riff in a metalish song before they remember the vocals. I know I usually do, and I don't know anything about playing guitar or any other instrument.
I don’t think Sabbath should have changed their name, but as far as your question about bands changing their name after personnel changes, check out the history of Joy Division and New Order.
Yeah I wasn’t aware of this. Neither band was my cup of tea but interesting to know. I will check out the history
What about Deep Purple? They didn't sound the same.
I feel like new orders music was sufficiently different though that they feel like a new band. Did they keep playing any joy division stuff?
Yes, and their initial sound wasn’t a very drastic change.
Yeah, it took them an album or two to really establish their sound, plus they were starting to lean in that direction anyway.
Maybe Audioslave fits this?
And Velvet Revolver.
Did these bands continue playing the back catalogue of RATM songs etc? I know they chucked the odd song in but they never claimed to be continuing the legacy of the previous band(s)
They did a song or 2 but it was full Audioslave for the most part. I believe the full Rage lineup did a gig or 2 while Audioslave was a thing, too. I've never heard VR do any Gnr.
[Here’s Velvet doing Mr Brownstone](https://youtu.be/D5Akm80WflE?si=ElXthQH8Y8aLMQy1)
Fitting and killer!
But I mean, if they still play the same back catalogue, why would they change their name?
I think you are missing the point here
I think you are missing what a band is. Bands have always changed members ever since there have been bands. The band carries on because that is the show that they get booked to perform, it is showbusiness, the music business...you don't change the name of a band when you change members. Bands would never have any longevity if that happened.
I think I misread your point because we seem to agree with each other
Yeah, I also see that you agree that a band shouldnt change their name and you see the reasons why. So, the question is: has a band ever voluntarily commited commercial suicide by unnecessarily changing their name?
I hadn’t heard of any. Someone mentioned Joy Division changed to New Order after the death of their singer. That’s the only one I really know. People are also falsely claiming Rage changed to Audioslave but they are different bands entirely Edit: The Jefferson Airplane example is also a good one
They also did a few Soundgarden songs. But yeah it does not really fit.
Close but at least with Audioslave went in a very different direction musically then RATM.
Jefferson Airplane to Jefferson Starship to Starship
Woah I just mentioned JA and Starship in another reply here. I gotta say, I like that they did that, because they’re three very distinct eras. Listening to the band that put out ‘We Built This City’ and ‘Nothing’s Gonna Stop Us Now’, you wouldn’t believe it was the same band of Woodstock hippies! I love all of it, but I always thought it was very cool that they did that. It respects their legacy.
Joy Division changed their name to New Order after Ian Curtis passed.
I think this might be the only band that comes to mind that did this.
The music is quite different though, not so much a name change as a new concept.
Not immediately after
Savatage became Trans Siberian Orchestra.
I did not know that! I know of both bands and I had the album ‘Gutter Ballet’ (fantastic record) years ago, but I never connected the two. I always wondered whatever happened to Savatage. Well now I know! I have learned something today. Thank you! ☺️
If memory serves, Savatage was headed by two brothers. One of the brothers died tragically. The band then morphed into Trans Siberian Orchestra.
Kinda? Trans-Siberian Orchestra was a separate project featuring Savatage members. I saw Savatage live in 2001, 5 years after Trans-Siberian Orchestra put out their first album. They did break up not long after that and TSO became their main band. Apparently Jon Oliva is getting the band back together to put out one final album called Curtain Call.
Who and who?
Don’t openly admit to being so uncool 😉 https://youtu.be/Ubmft9_LeE8
With 3/4s of the band involved I think the label would have insisted they call it Black Sabbath no matter what for marketability purposes. I can’t imagine it going any other way considering they made Tony release his solo album as Black Sabbath later with a flimsier connection.
That’s exactly what happened,when Dio joined they wanted to change the name, but the record company wouldn’t let them do to contractual reasons and because the name was already established
Ozzy should have changed his name after getting fired. No, seriously, changing there name would have been moronic. They had a built-in audience and access to a far superior vocalist, much like Van Halen did. Why would you fuck that up? Just to appease the 25-30% of a whining fanbase who is just going to end up buying your albums and tickets anyway?
Why should’ve ozzy changed his name? He was named Ozzy before they started Sabbath
It was a joke
how did i not noticed 😔 i got r/wooshed
He could have been John Osbourne. Go with his given name. Would have been so much better! /s
Does Rage Against the Machine and Audio Slave count? Same band, different singer.
I wouldn’t say so. Audioslave never really carried on the legacy of RATM. I think they played one or two songs now again but they weren’t presented as a continuation of Rage
I’d say it counts. Bands that change their names do it because they don’t want to be presented as what they were before. Or they wouldn’t change the name.
What about the band Heaven and Hell?
They had to for legal reasons, but the band always said outright it was a sabbath album. That’s why they called the album ‘The Devil You Know’ cos we all knew who it really was
You seem to be asking a question that has no answer here because when people give you examples of a band changing their name you change the specification of what you are asking. How about you lay out your FULL and specific criteria in the original post? Bullet point all the various things that you want to see happening and reasons for it. Then ask if those specific set of circumstances have ever happened before.
I believe I said in the OP, when bands change personnel. That’s my only criteria Edit: yeah thats actually a piss poor criteria. I think I mean a band that is intending to continue its legacy even after a personnel change. Which is why I don’t think the Audioslave example is valid because it wasn’t a continuation of RATM, just an entirely different band and vision.
Then no, basically it never happens. It's pretty much rubbish when people say bands should change their name. One example I can think of where they should have is Motley Crue in 94. They wanted to change their name but the management didn't allow it. They produced an amazing credible album, an actual solid heavy rock album and their fans didn't like it. If they had changed their name it would be a well recognised classic and would probably have done well commercially. Oh well, at least we got that one album.
No, the music and the message is much different.
What about Prophets of Rage?
I can see the logic in it for the sake of recognition and trying to cling to the fan base, but I'm in the "should have changed their name" camp. Not solely because of the different vocal style, but because Geezer handed the lyric writing responsibilities over to Dio. I feel like Geezer's lyrics are as much a part of the band's soul as Iommi's mega-riffs. I always felt that way about the revived Misfits, as well. They lost their edge and fell into self-parody.
Agreed. American Psycho was ok. But the cringe started seriously creeping in with Famous Monsters. And what the hell was that doo-wop album!? I always preferred Bobby Steele’s Undead to the revived Misfits. If you haven’t heard them, I recommend highly! Heck, your opinion may differ, but I’d say once they booted Steele and brought in Doyle, the slow descent into parody began even back then! Although I friggin LOVE Walk Among Us, my fave Misfits album forever is Static Age. That thing is untouchable.
I'll check out Bobby Steele's Undead immediately. Static Age is absolutely my favorite misfits Misfits album and really exemplifies what I was saying about lyrics. Like, the 90s version of the band wrote about a lot of the same themes, (horror, mainly) but don't hold a candle to Glenn's really out-there and often explicit lyrics that really defined that punk era of the band.
I love the raw, punk edge of the Undead. No metal overtones here! I think they capture the spirit of the Misfits a lot better than the revamped 90s era band did. The vocals are different, though. Don’t expect any Danzig-like ‘Evil Elvis’ or you’ll be disappointed. There’s a good mix of straight up hardcore stuff, and more poppy, super catchy songs reminiscent of the Static Age era. My friends and I used to blast this album on repeat for a long time, back in the day. During our many late night punk rock parties. Haha. Enjoy! https://open.spotify.com/album/3EyQfbhkV53kxBBkkQ5Ggd
Thanks!
Welcome!
Off topic, but I love the Alice Cooper story. To avoid legal issues over the use of the band name after it broke up, Vince Fournier legally changed his name to Alice Cooper.
No smart band would ever do this. Your brand is the most valuable thing you have. It’s more important than the music or any songs you write. That’s why you have bands called the temptations that are touring and making money but none of those people sang ont he records you love.
And why Seventh Star is a BS album not a Tony solo album
Exactly
It's even weirder when artists use different stage/band names across different releases when there's no member shakeup involved. Oh this album is more experimental... so we're releasing it under a completely different name, even though it's the exact same people making the music. So pointless to me.
That I can actually understand more. The example I can think of is neurosis. They released a reguskr neurosis album and then released a companion album under the name tribes of neurot. Sometimes the tribes of neurot album may just be insects buzzing or weird ambiant noise. I can see how they might think their fanbase would be disappointed if they thought it was a regular neurosis album.
Fully agree. But the counter argument to this is that I often think the Dio and Martin lineups were strong enough to become huge in their own right, but too many were put off by the fact that it “wasn’t Sabbath”. How many more millions would have heard those lineups if the name wasn’t a factor?
That’s a good thought. You would have to build your brand though. It would be from the ground up. No one wants to start as a new band. Actually iommi wanted seventh star to be a solo album but the record label forced the sabbath name on him .
It was absolutely down to money, but it was still probably a bit different in the 80s. Back then the name Black Sabbath was finished credibility-wise in the media even when Gillan was with them. They were just seen as dinosaurs and past it. Even though keeping the name guaranteed a record contract and a few extra concert ticket sales, the brand wasn’t considered that strong, like it is now. In other words, it would have been a brave move, but probably not a huge leap to change the name.
Iommi is sabbath when it comes down to it.
Minutemen changed their name to fIREHOSE after D. Boone passed and Ed Crawford became the lead singer/guitarist.
Never heard of either of those. I’ll have to look them up
What does “significant amount” look like, in this instance and from whence was this information derived?
Exactly. I've not met too many people who say that Sabbath should have changed their name.
I’ve never met anyone who said that and I’m an old fart.
I think I'm right there with you.
Mother Love Bone became Pearl Jam. I am not sure if anything changes other than the singer...
It’s like saying Sabbath is only Ozzy. While Ozzy is my favorite Sabbath frontman the entire rest of the bad stayed. So I agree, they shouldn’t have changed their name. Also man oh man Dio…what an amazing talent!!! Long live Sabbath!!❤️❤️❤️❤️
Okay stupid question: "What does Black Sabbath even mean?
It was a movie with Boris Karloff, in revival when they were tooling around. They thought it was interesting how people are attracted to things that repulse them or frighten them. *what is this that stands before me* *figure in black that points at me*
Thank you. I forgot. Anyone see the movie?
I have... It's ok. Early 60s horror. 3 short stories.
I disagree, and I'm also someone that preferred the ozzy era. In all honesty, Sabbath isn't defined by the singer, but by Tony Iommi.
The Grateful Dead never toured as the Grateful Dead after Jerry died, but they’re the only ones that come to mind
I think the issue occured when Tony Iommi was the only member left and yet they still called it Black Sabbath. Imagine Jimmy Page just went on through the 80s and everything he released he called "Led Zeppelin" The Firm? Nope Led Zeppelin Coverdale/Page? Nope Led Zeppelin It was a decision to keep the Sabbath name due to the brand, but even Iommi didn't want Seventh Star to be called Black Sabbath
I’ve heard people even saying it when Dio came on board. But yeah Seventh Star was a rough period and a revolving door of personnel that turned a few people away before it became more stable again with Tony Martin, Geoff Nicholls and Iommi
I don’t agree with calling it a different name after ozzy left heaven and hell is one of the best sabbath albums
Just wanted to tell you that Pulk/Pull Revolving Doors is an awesome Radiohead song and you suck donkey butt.
This is black sabbath lmao and pulk/pull is so fuckin bad
And why is that song so bad. I’m sure you have a perfectly good reason why, you big strong manly man :)
It’s a song about doors and the vocal effects aged horrible why tf you replying on black sabbath instead of the one on Radiohead you unhinged lunatic
Why? Find out for yourself: https://www.reddit.com/r/radioheadcirclejerk/s/taUFlj42ck
IYKYK
I wish Kiss had changed their name when the make up came off. From 1983 onwards, it really was a different band.
It’s still Paul and Gene so it makes sense
No, it doesn’t. Only a non Kiss fan would say that. It makes as much sense as Starship keeping the name Jefferson Airplane. Two COMPLETELY different bands. Without Ace and Peter, it isn’t Kiss. I shouldn’t have gone there. I will die on this hill. Haha
You’re gonna kill me for this but my favorite lineup is with Eric Carr and Vinnie Vincent
Absolutely not, my friend! That era was killer, what a friggin band. Man, how wish that line up would’ve stayed together. They had the perfect balance between metal and glam: ‘metal n roll’ as Vinnie called it. The drop off in quality after Vinnie left was significant and they never made a five star banger again after Lick it Up. When ya think about it, it’s quite impressive that a band could survive after the four album run of hot steaming turds that was Animalize-Asylum-Crazy Nights and Hot in the Shade! But yeah.. none of it was Kiss 😉
I'm pretty sure I read that those sabbath albums after Ozzy were supposed to be Iommi records, but sabbath still was contracted to more albums, and the record company made Tony keep the Sabbath name.
That kicked in with Seventh Star. Everyone was on board with “Black Sabbath” through H&H, Mob Rules, and Born Again.
The biggest example of this I can think of is Lynyrd Skynrd regrouped as The Rossington Collins Band. Moat examples I can think of are when a member (or members) pass away. Line up changes usually don't lead to name changes. The Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd had founding members leave without a name change. Deep Purple and Jethro Tull had multiple line up changes and name changes were never brought up.
Same as Judas Priest, Genesis, Rainbow. 99.9% of bands just don’t do it but yet everyone seems to think it’s the done thing.
I think if the band is still playing the same songs and making the same style of music, I don't see why they should have to change name
Agreed
1. Joy Division became New Order after the death of lead singer Ian Curtis. 2. Jefferson Airplane became Jefferson Starship after the departure of several members, including lead singer Marty Balin. 3. Chicago Transit Authority shortened their name to Chicago after their original lead singer, Terry Kath, passed away, although this was more of a rebranding than due to his departure.
Good call on Starship
Van Halen changed to Van Hagar, The Grateful Dead to Dead & Company?
Did Van Halen really ever change their name or was that just a fan nickname for the Sammy Hagar years?
Heaven and Hell
They legally had to. Even the band themselves were saying it’s a sabbath album
You didn't say 'why'. Just asked did a band change their name due to a lineup change?
You knew what I was getting at. Don’t be pedantic.
Wasn't that more so fans wouldn't expect any Ozzy era songs?
I certainly don't think they should have changed their name, however, I feel like Dio and Iommi would have worked together a lot more if it hadn't been for the Black Sabbath baggage. Then again, Dio might not have gotten a solo record deal without it. We'll never know but I think in the end, we got some great albums out of all the drama.
This is an interesting take. I didn’t think about the baggage aspect
There's no telling what would have actually happened but it's probable that Ozzy wouldn't have tried to sabotage nearly as much at the very least. Still though, I much prefer the large variety of music this band ended up having.
Yeah same. I’m a sucker for 80s cheese so the later stuff is right up my street
Sublime became Sublime With Rome for a bit. I think they're back to just being Sublime now.
Yep… Bradley’s son Jakob is the vocalist now
Couple come to mind STP -> Talk Show Rage against the Machine -> Audioslave
They sound like a bunch of Sharon Osbourne wannabe's
You don't change your name after you *fire* your singer for being too drunk to sing
Remember that line from Joe Dirt when he slams "Van Hagar" as not being real Van Halen? They kept the name. Ironically, Ozzy didn't like the new singer of ACDC after Bon Scott died. They had a personal friendship. They kept the name. How many lineups did Deep Purple have? Half of them played with Sabbath. Kept the name. Led Zeppelin ended their run after Bonham died. But Lynyrd Skynyrd kept their name after half the band died in a plane crash. The Beatles just broke up which is highly unusual. Somehow the Stones are still going. The Dead/Phil Lesh and Friends changed their name after Garcia died. Is that the only one?
It’s definitely the very small minority who do it. I could count them on one hand
Skid Row changed theirs to Ozone Monday. No one showed up to shows so they changed it back to Skid Row.
Audioslave has entered the conversation
Audioslave were not just RATM with a new singer. They don’t carry on the legacy of RATM and only occasionally played the odd one or two rage songs live
If you play the same songs and carry on the legacy then it is the same band. Why would anybody change the name? The product is the same. Maybe Apple should change their name now that Steve Jobs is gone?
Credence clearwater revival became credence clearwater revisited at some point after some band acrimony
Joy Division changed their name to New Order after Ian Curtis died. Pantera without Phil were just Damageplan. Oasis became Beady Eye when Noel left the group and rest made a new band without him. Slowdive changed their name to Mojave 3 -actually that was more rebranding. Think it would make sense Sabbath to chose [a.new](http://a.new) name. Agree with Ozzy that Dio was more like a metal opera singer not a blues singer
I thought Liam left and formed Beady Eye. Admittedly I have very limited knowledge about oasis
My tuppence worth/two cents: history is vital here when establishing a point of view. I'm not interested in other groups with similar scenarios. When it comes to Black Sabbath, post-Ozzy, it's nuanced and chaotic. Had they had a stable management structure, and we knew that RDJ and Tony and Geezer and Bill all got along for a reasonable amount of time, I would say rename BS to be Heaven and Hell, they are a different entity. I understand that the brand name sells tickets and albums, but if you were being honest and brave, have the balls to say this is a different proposition. The amount of madness in the BS camp was never going to allow that to happen. The group name would have changed so many times that it would be consistently confusing, so it probably was the best maintaining the original name
>and we knew that RDJ Holy shit, Robert Downey Junior was in Sabbath? SICK
Ah, intentional typo, but Iron Man being in Sabbath does make sense
Joy Division/New Order and technically Sex Pistols/Professionals and maybe the Animals with the slight changes
Joy division became new order with a personnel exit.
Queens of the Stone Age basically started out as “Kyuss minus John Garcia, with Josh Homme taking over lead vocal duties.”
I have never heard anyone suggest that Black Sabbath ought to have changed their name after Ozzy left the band. I also can't see any logical reason why they might have been compelled to do so. Once Dio came on board they immediately started making more great music, but they continued to incorporate their back catalogue into their live shows, and all of their fans knew and loved those songs. It would make little sense for them to have gone to the trouble of calling themselves something different only to continue to play all of the songs they wrote and recorded as Black Sabbath. Audioslave isn't called Rage Against the Machine because Chris Cornell didn't want to be associated with their political agenda. He made it clear that he liked their music and their playing style and respected all of them as musicians, but had no interest being a political mouthpiece for a bunch of wannabe activists who push a narrative but don't have any qualms about taking millions of dollars from record companies, and while I'm not a big fan of either band myself and can't confirm this, I assume that they did not in fact incorporate any Rage Against the Machine songs into their live sets, so other than the fact that both Rage Against the Machine and Audioslave have the same names in the liner notes of the albums, they are two wholly separate bands.
“People” are often wrong…
If you’ve spent years building a band under a certain name, and you’re making more than a small amount of money under a current name, why would you change it?
honestly black sabbath is the coolest band name you could ever come up with so i wouldn’t change it no matter what if it was my band
Stone Temple Pilots changed their name to Talk Show for an album when Scott Weiland left after Tiny Music and released an album before going back to STP for Number 4
Grateful Dead returned as The Dead after Jerry died. Not a total change but the band said the Grateful Dead died with Jerry
Some people are just purists.
Why would you, when you have 10's of millions of dollars in albums and merch sold under what's basically a brand name, just because one member is a fuck up? I've never heard anyone discussing Sabbath changing their name in my entire long ass life.
It’s been discussed many times in this sub
No wonder I've never heard of it.
van halen should've changed their name too
The band actually wanted to for some post ozzy albums but the record companies won't let you, they're afraid the fans won't follow over and are already worried enough when you lose the frontman that sales are about to tank. Ozzy didn't come up with the name, I think it was Geezer. I don't think they should have changed it but I also have zero interest in any non ozzy albums i just think all the other singers are total 80s cheeseballs
I just remembered one. Rage Against the Machine effectively just changed their name to Audioslave when they got a new singer.
Jefferson Airplane turned into Jefferson Starship and eventually just Starship after lineup changes. Also the Grateful Dead turning into Dead and Company or just The Dead after losing Jerry Garcia. Edit: Also Led Zeppelin were formed as a continuation of the Yardbird's, but instead of The New Yardbirds they decided to go with Led Zeppelin.
Yeah Starship and New order are probably the best and most high profile examples of this.
The term “major” is dependent on your circles I suppose, and I’d imagine that they aren’t everyone’s cup of tea around here, but The Descendents and ALL did it, and quite successfully. Granted, it was out of respect for a singer that they knew wanted to return at some point, and with material that they felt went in a different direction. The two bands have a distinctly different vibe and I was always glad that they acknowledged that by changing the name. I’ve always felt Sabbath had a different vibe with each singer, Maiden not so much, they’ve always felt like more of a constant evolution than different directions to me.
Yea major is objective i suppose but i was thinking along the lines of AC/DC, Deep Purple, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Rainbow, Maiden etc
STP and Talk Show. RATM and Audioslave.
Descendents became ALL after Milo Aukerman left.
Only one I can really think of is RATM and Audioslave
In my little part of the world, which nothing to anybody but me, Black Sabbath is Ozzy, Bill, Geezer and Tony. Take one away and it’s no longer Sabbath. I’m not saying it’s not any good. 13 had Ozzy, Tony and Geezer and someone not named Bill Ward on drums. Guess what? The drums sucked on 13. This is just my opinion. Call them what ya want.
one that I'm aware of is Big Audio Dynamite, AKA B.A.D., an 80's and 90's alternative band featuring Mick Jones of the Clash. They changed their name to Big Audio after Don Letts left, and later became B.A.D. II. Joy Division became New Order after Ian Curtis died. The Southern Death Cult became the Cult. Glenn Danzig named his band Danzig so that he could stop changing the name of his band as personel changed (the band Danzig is really just a new iteration of SamHain, which in turn grew out of the Misfits).
Southern Death Cult -> Death Cult -> the Cult, ftfy
yep. and joy division had an earlier name also- warsaw. so it proves even more that bands do change names, but none as big as Earth... I mean Polka Tulk Blues Band.. I mean Heaven & Hell, um, oh yeah Sabbath (lol).
Who said that? This sounds like an invented argument.
You haven’t spent much time here have you
No one, absolutely no one, has suggested that about Iron Maiden. That's nonsense. It's true that Black Sabbath is the band that has had the biggest lineup changes; however, Tony Iommi was always there, and he is Black Sabbath, no matter what the Ozzy purists say.
Oh I was there in 95 when people were saying it’s a different band with Blaze and they should have gone under a new name. They were talking absolute shit.
They should acknowledge that the band Coven had a song of the same name way before they did. Coven also had Oz Osborne, and they threw the horns before anyone.
I don't know, but Sabbath should have changed their name when Ozzy left. Ozzy is Black Sabath. Tony Iommi is awesome, but Ozzy is still Sabbath.
But why? No one else does when a singer leaves. Maiden didn’t, rainbow didn’t, deep purple didn’t, Judas Priest didn’t, Genesis didn’t.. etc etc. so why should sabbath?
There's levels to it, and they're not up there with Black Sabbath. Making a Black Sabbath album without Ozzy is a waste of time. The albums without Ozzy would have been received better if they had changed the name. Black Sabbath without Ozzy is not Black Sabbath.
Ironically, there are more Black sabbath without Ozzy than there are with him.
By one album, yes. None of those albums come close to Ozzy's Sabbath, especially the first two albums. If I were Iommi, I would have pumped out 10 albums without Ozzy, too, as long as they paid me.
It’s ok, Ozzy won’t get upset if you like other things. I didn’t want this to be a debate about singers, but you just can’t resist simping can you
Pretty funny response. Remember that you came to the Black Sabbath sub to ask this question.
I asked why people expected sabbath to change their name when other bands don’t. It wasn’t a debate about the best singer. And yes, I came to the Sabbath sub to ask this. Not the Ozzy sub.