Legacy acts

Genesis, my thoughts....Peter Gabriel solo is better than Peter Gabriel Genesis, but Lamb Lies Down and Selling England are classic. HOWEVER, Genesis in that era indulged all the worst parts of the theatrics of prog and art pop. Phil Collins-led Genesis better? Hmmm, matter of taste. I'd prefer listen to Lamb Lies Down over anything else they ever put out, but Phil brought hits and, for better or worse, there's no denying where he brought them.

Another prog group (who gets comparisons to Genesis): Marillion. The Fish albums - Misplaced Childhood, Clutching at Straws - are hallmarks of their career. But Steve Hogarth has helmed that band for decades (and much longer than Fish) and also put out some great albums (e.g. Brave, Afraid of Sunlight).

But I don't look at these as either/or propositions.

As far as a core element to a band with changing line-ups that works, a period at the end of that sentence: Robert Fripp & King Crimson.

To be a bit contrarian to some (including my own) examples, there is a difference to legacy acts like Miley & the Doors (or anytime they've toured w/ singers not JM), Journey, Queen w/ Adam Lambert, AIC, Sublime w/ Rome, etc. and groups like Genesis, AC/DC, or Iron Maiden. The former are running on steam and the "legacy" of their past (yes, I know groups like AIC and Journey have put out new albums w/ their new line-ups but does anyone beside them care?). The musical foundation upon which they are built is in the past and the new members are channeling past glory. Groups like Genesis, AC/DC, Iron Maiden, Van Halen built distinct and cherished catalogs with multiple iterations. So, no one would accuse Phil Collins of having been to Genesis as Adam Lambert is to Queen. Or AC/DC...Brian Johnson is no Arnel Pineda. I would also say, for AC/DC, the idea that "The singer in AC/DC is just an instrument. You find someone who can fill that instrument competently and you’re the same" ignores the inimitable sound that both Bon and Brian brought to the group. Yes, the riffs and guitar work of the Young boys is in the DNA of the band, but just because you have the DNA of a tiger doesn't mean you're showing me the tiger.

Point being, a lot of these "legacy" acts being presented, including my own above, aren't really "legacy" acts but rather acts with multiple lives.

I mean, purists would tell you that Pantera without Terry Glaze is not Pantera. And they'd be right, in that they're purely stupid.
 
Lord Diaper Baby said:
Genesis, my thoughts....Peter Gabriel solo is better than Peter Gabriel Genesis, but Lamb Lies Down and Selling England are classic. HOWEVER, Genesis in that era indulged all the worst parts of the theatrics of prog and art pop. Phil Collins-led Genesis better? Hmmm, matter of taste. I'd prefer listen to Lamb Lies Down over anything else they ever put out, but Phil brought hits and, for better or worse, there's no denying where he brought them.

Another prog group (who gets comparisons to Genesis): Marillion. The Fish albums - Misplaced Childhood, Clutching at Straws - are hallmarks of their career. But Steve Hogarth has helmed that band for decades (and much longer than Fish) and also put out some great albums (e.g. Brave, Afraid of Sunlight).

But I don't look at these as either/or propositions.

As far as a core element to a band with changing line-ups that works, a period at the end of that sentence: Robert Fripp & King Crimson.

To be a bit contrarian to some (including my own) examples, there is a difference to legacy acts like Miley & the Doors (or anytime they've toured w/ singers not JM), Journey, Queen w/ Adam Lambert, AIC, Sublime w/ Rome, etc. and groups like Genesis, AC/DC, or Iron Maiden. The former are running on steam and the "legacy" of their past (yes, I know groups like AIC and Journey have put out new albums w/ their new line-ups but does anyone beside them care?). The musical foundation upon which they are built is in the past and the new members are channeling past glory. Groups like Genesis, AC/DC, Iron Maiden, Van Halen built distinct and cherished catalogs with multiple iterations. So, no one would accuse Phil Collins of having been to Genesis as Adam Lambert is to Queen. Or AC/DC...Brian Johnson is no Arnel Pineda. I would also say, for AC/DC, the idea that "The singer in AC/DC is just an instrument. You find someone who can fill that instrument competently and you’re the same" ignores the inimitable sound that both Bon and Brian brought to the group. Yes, the riffs and guitar work of the Young boys is in the DNA of the band, but just because you have the DNA of a tiger doesn't mean you're showing me the tiger.

Point being, a lot of these "legacy" acts being presented, including my own above, aren't really "legacy" acts but rather acts with multiple lives.

I mean, purists would tell you that Pantera without Terry Glaze is not Pantera. And they'd be right, in that they're purely stupid.
Click to expand...
Good point. I agree there is a distinction to be made between legacy acts that would acknowledge that’s what they are (Cyrus, Lambert), and bands that have survived multiple iterations and kept on chugging. No doubt some gray area in between, but a good distinction nonetheless.
 
Russ I said:
Good point. I agree there is a distinction to be made between legacy acts that would acknowledge that’s what they are (Cyrus, Lambert), and bands that have survived multiple iterations and kept on chugging. No doubt some gray area in between, but a good distinction nonetheless.
Click to expand...
In fact, the way I've always heard "legacy act" used has had nothing to do with changing band members but rather simply a group that is no longer putting out new music (or at least new music that charts or really has much of an impact on the evaluation of their larger body of work).

For example, I've often heard Rolling Stones referred to as a legacy act; in so much, that people are still going to see them because of the legacy of their hits. They may have toured behind Blue & Lonesome - but, let's be honest, no one was paying $300+ a ticket to see them put weight behind that album. And they probably would've toured even if they hadn't made an album. At this point they're making $ off of that legacy - high-earning tours, merchandise, and a trademark.

The above example is how I've always defined legacy act. TBH, I don't think it is a term that has anything to do with line-up changes (while there may be some overlap in that Venn Diagram, it's hardly a requisite and, I'd argue, more the exception than the rule).
 
Last edited:
Lord Diaper Baby said:
In fact, the way I've always heard "legacy act" used has had nothing to do with changing band members but rather simply a group that is no longer putting out new music (or at least new music that charts or really has much of an impact on the evaluation of their larger body of work).

For example, I've often heard Rolling Stones referred to as a legacy act; in so much, that people are still going to see them because of the legacy of their hits. They may have toured behind Blue & Lonesome - but, let's be honest, no one was paying $300+ a ticket to see them put weight behind that album. And they probably would've toured even if they hadn't made an album. At this point they're making $ off of that legacy - high-earning tours, merchandise, and a trademark.

The above example is how I've always defined legacy act. TBH, I don't think it is a term that has anything to do with line-up changes (while there may be some overlap in that Venn Diagram, it's hardly a requisite and, I'd argue, more the exception than the rule).
Click to expand...
This is basically right IMO.

Pearl Jam = legacy act
Wilco = not a legacy act
The Strokes = legacy act but they don’t know it yet
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top