Mitch Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Badfinger is playing in Cleveland tonight at the Quicken Loans (Gund)Arena along with Tommy James, The Turtles, Mary Wilson, & The Boxtops.Anyone else going ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ira Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 What a great show!Have you seen the Tutles in person?-funny.Tommy James-Note perfect.Wonder if Boxtops will do 5 songs & out.-Ira. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Allen Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 I think Mitch meant to say that Joey Molland was playing. Badfinger hasn't played since, well, the early '80s. And now, since 3 out of the 4 members are dead, it would be virtually impossible to see Badfinger in concert, right?PS: Tommy James is indeed note-perfect live, bless his soul. Got a weird hair thing going on however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachberry Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 Unfortunately, it is/was billed as Badfinger, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Posted March 18, 2006 Author Share Posted March 18, 2006 I see I have to watch how I word things here. I thought it was safe to assume that the intelligent people on the board here already know the status of Badfinger. I mostly posted this to see if anyone else was going and maybe give a heads up to anybody in the area that might not be aware of it. Ira, I've seen the Turtles several times in the past & love their show. They're not only very talented, but alot of fun as well. Tonight's gonna be a special night for me & my wife. We have front row seats & backstage passes for Tommy James. He's always been one of my favorites. We saw him a few years ago with The Turtles & The Grassroots (1 original member) and he was great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill C Posted March 18, 2006 Share Posted March 18, 2006 I agree on the "Badfinger" dig on Joey Molland Bob. But if he still has the rights to the name it's no different than the evolution of bands that change members over the years. I agree that it's really not the Badfinger we remember but I think it's a personal interpretation. (But if Richard Carpenter goes on tour again, I think he should just be..The Carpenter) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lew Bundles Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Joey has the rights to the name and should use it...Its not the same Badfinger, but it is this years version of Badfinger...Did the Yankees cease to be the Yankees when Babe Ruth was gone?...No...They just carry on with new people...But, they are still the Yankees... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiggsherby Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 I'm glad to hear that Tommy James is back on the road, I saw him a few years ago and he was terrific...I hope to see that show come to the Philly area!!! I could never get my kids to dig the Raspberries but the Tommy James and the Shondells greatest hits CD they actually enjoy and actually ask me to put it on!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierson Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 terrible comparison Lew...the Badfinger we came to know and love and cherish was Pete Ham, Tom Evans, Mike Gibbins and Joey Molland... a baseball team always changes players... a great rock band should be the antithesis of that...and as far as input is concerned, Joey was on the low end of the three, although it wasn't as obvious as a "John Paul & George" ratio...I never felt the least bit uncomfortable with the fact that Joey and Tom continued with "Badfinger" after Pete Ham's death... they did the legacy justice... but after Tom died, whenever Joey made an album, it was "Joey Molland."To respect the fans & the audience, this is the way it should be.Joey should not go out on the road as "Badfinger." He should tour as Joey Molland (from Badfinger) and perform the songs he wrote and sang on with all the rest of his solo stuff. Hearing him do songs Pete Ham once sang, doesn't really do anyone any favors except reinforce how much we truly miss Pete Ham and his rare gifted voice.That said, I know it's an irrational concept. Since he needs to put food on the table, it seems impossible for him to tour as "Joey Molland" and that going out as "Badfinger" is a necessity. Don't think for a minute that the thought that he can't go out as "Joey Molland" and make the same amount of bread hasn't crossed his mind. But that's not his fault. It's just the lame reality we have to live with. And he doesn't do a bad job of the Badfinger hits when he sings them. It's just the purist in me that takes offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill C Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Like I said, Personal Interpretation. There's something inside of some of us that thinks it's wrong to assume the name of the band when the core players have changed. How about Little River Band, Chicago, Journey, Styx, Foriegner, Fleetwood Mac, Beach Boys,.....uh Raspberries 4th album? Do we only draw the line because of death? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierson Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Do we only draw the line because of death? Lines should be drawn that make sense... and they should respect the band's integrity... if they had any...Integral members can mean anything from John Bonham (one of the most important "band" decisions ever made imo) to Keith Moon (one of the worst band decisions ever made imo)... You can not sit there with a straight face and say The Who made the better decision. Led Zeppelin stand tall as beacons of good taste & judgement. The Who looked desperate, despite putting on a good face.It's not so much about death as it is who's in the band. As much as I hate the idea of bands keeping their name after their original lead singer leaves, it's NOT a definitve point to "end" the band, if the core remaining members want to keep it going and do a reputable job of it... Pink Floyd and Genesis come to mind... although by "And The There Were Three" Genesis should've called it "Asia" or something... The Small Faces were smart to finally drop the "small" and go with Faces after Rod replaced Steve... On the downside was the post-Ozzy Black Sabbath which just doesn't make sense... Van Halen after David Lee Roth might've opted for a name change, although it's the brother's band, so it's OK... just not the same...As far as 21st century rules go, a lot of these reunion bands have ruined the legacy of rock which was for those of us who grew up with it, a different world from the previous one where faceless '50s pop bands toured without any of the original members or with long distant cousins of the lead singer backed with the drummer's uncle and and a bunch of union musicians...Granted, seeing Paul Rodgers sing with Queen or Ian from the Cult w/ The Doors isn't the worst thing in the world, but it smacks a little of desperation, or just a bunch of old dudes looking to get their rocks off with not enough respect to the original band. The New Cars is very close to a worse case scenario. I think Ric Ocasek sleeps very well, while Todd Rungren & Elliott Easton have many recurring nightmares and are always watching their backs. Not a cool way to be when, in Todd's case, you have so many options at your disposal. Granted, it (a Todd solo tour) would be a smaller paycheck, but it wouldn't be seen as such a lame idea.I forget who's still touring these days, but there shouldn't be any band out there as "Thin Lizzy" "Lynyrd Skynyrd" "Sweet" "Yardbirds" "Badfinger" "Beatles" "Little Feat" "Jimi Hendrix" "Mamas & Papas" etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lew Bundles Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 The guy owns the name and he should be able to use it...He goes out as Joey Molland's Badfinger...Maybe you dont like the Yankee analogy...Lets bring it to another scenario...Did "Cheers" become blashemous when the "Coach" died or should "Dallas" become obsolete when "Jock Ewing" died in real life...Unfortunately, the product was not as good, but if someone dies at your company, do you fold the whole business or just get new people in, make the same products and carry on...Art/music/consumer goods are basically all the same...Created and maintained...Sometime advanced,sometime regressed, but everyone should be entitled to make a living...He bought the name, he is the only living member and he should carry on(although I would have a hard time, if Mccartney died and Ringo went on the road as "The Beatles")... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Pierson, I agree with you. And you did a great job of articulating your position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill C Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 I've been giving this more thought, I'm always trying to define the perameters of a situation. (It's not always easy or possible). I'm starting to think that if you cannot continue the level of success with new or different members, you shouldn't exist off the past success. (this is just my criteria of why I except some bands who continue and frown on others) Here are some examples.Raspberries...I believe the "Starting Over" Line-up was equally talented and true to the music as the past line-up therefore it's ok. The legacy of Eric Carmen's lead vocals and hit writing ability are an integral part of the band. The Raspberries could not be "Raspberries" without Eric.Van Halen...Although I liked the David Lee Roth version better...They had continued success with Sammy so I give them the nod too. Badfinger...simular to the Raspberries in that the commercial success was attributed to Pete Hamm and his vocal and writing abilities. I don't think it's Badfinger without him.I'm not arguing with anyone, I just think it's an interesting conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiggsherby Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 I saw the Queen with Bad Company show on Tuesday in Philly and the place was rockin'...yeah, it's not quite the same without Freddie but it was better then most would have expected and I surely got my money's worth!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill C Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 I guess it's easy to just figure it's not going to be as good but if it's worth the money? What the heck. At least there not calling theselves "Bad Queen" which some have thought appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Allen Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Re: the post directly above and the fact that you got your money's worth. Basically, you were ripped off. But, hey, if you're OK with it, what the hell?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiggsherby Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Ripped off...I'd say not, go over to Queenzone.com and you can read positive review after review for each of their shows. The Spectrum was about 75% full and the tickets ran from $35 to $200...people left the show satisfied and fulfilled. Paul Rodgers, Brian May and Roger Taylor pulled off what would have been unthinkable a few years ago...a successful Queen tour without Freddie Mercury. For $35 I certainly got my money's worth...most in the audience paid much more and they were all pretty darm happy about it too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill C Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Tiggs, Like I've said in my other posts, it's all your own personal opinion. I haven't seen the show, I won't judge it. I would think it would be pretty hard to pull it off. If you got your money's worth...maybe they did!! Let's see if they can come out with new hit material under the name Queen. If they can't, to me it's just a really good show, it's not Queen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadfingerBarb Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Lew, perhaps a better analogy would be Fleetwood Mac. That band went through several incarnations with only the rhythm section remaining constant. Obviously, I'm a big Badfinger fan. I enjoy seeing Joey's band as often as I can. As anyone will attest, they put on a great show. It would be great if we could see the original band, but we can't. So if the choice is to not see any Badfinger shows or see Joey's Badfinger; it's a no brainer. I have no interest in Queen, but I realize that there are a lot of fans out there who enjoy their music and who are enjoying the Rogers/Queen tour. Who am I to say they are wrong in enjoying it because Freddie Mercury is dead. My suggestion is for all the "purists" to lighten up and come out of their ivory towers and enjoy what we still have while we do. At the very least, try not to piss on other people's parade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill C Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Good One! Worrying about whether someone deserves to be making money off the past success of the original band is just......well who cares? If they can sell tickets, if they can make new music....well who cares?......I met Joey last year and he seems like a good guy who wishes he could turn back time. He had some great contributions to Badfinger. Granted, he wasn't the "voice" that was commercially successful, but I like a lot of the stuff he's put out since. Not his fault everyone's dead but him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pierson Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 i'm not trying to piss on anyone's parade as much as i'm trying to talk about the reality...I would much rather see Joey Molland tour as Joey Molland (of Badfinger) and perform all the stuff he wrote & sang and do his solo stuff... the fact that it doesn't draw people out to see him is what doesn't allow him to do it... that says a lot more about the people than Joey... Joey is a class act and does a great job at doing something that's not the easiest thing to do...I saw his "Badfinger" show about a year ago and I thought he looked and sounded great, but it didn't make me want to go back and see it again. the Fleetwood Mac anaolgy isn't a great one either... Fleetwood Mac was always a band with changing members (especially singers)... but I doubt when the Buckingham Nicks version exploded they were puling out any Peter Green material... or doing "Black Magic Woman"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raspberrywine Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I say more power to him. One Badfinger member worth 3 to 4 members of most bands. (Especially if compared to RUSH or Poison. ) It seems an homage in some regards to use the name Badfinger after all the tragedy involved, what the heck. My favorite Badfinger tunes: We're For the Dark, Name of the Game,Day After Day. Im sure he does a really enjoyable show, would love to see him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.