Changing stage name; Y/N?

[Krakmann]

Salud!

Just to add two useless cents, "ruca" in Spanish is a wild flower or, in Argentina and Chile, a Patagonian aborigen hut. I'm from Spain and didn't know the word.

 

[darwin-bass]

First rule of name picking is think of the snide variations that critics will come up with. You'll be happier if you have a name that is not easily mangled into something ... unrefined, shall we say?

 

[Yellow Bang66]

• Firstname Lastname and the Badfish Ruca
• Firstname Lastname and Badfish Ruca
• Firstname Lastname with Badfish Ruca
  
• Firstname Lastname and/with/and the ______
• Badfish Ruca presents Firstname Lastname
• Badfish Ruca featuring Firstname Lastname
• ...etc...

how about "Sammy nilla's Revenge featuring the Bad fish RUca Band" just my2¢

 

[morgansterne]

We had a local cover band here called Oasis. Not the famous british brothers. No one got confused as far as i know.

You could do a "Ruca featuring Singername" deal. Folk duo The Story did this for a while after Jonatha Brooke became better known.
Then if the singer leaves you could perhaps continue using the band name without her, trading on that nane recognition in the future.

 

[Yellow Bang66]

I have been playing music As a duo with a gal who has been killing it on the music scene for the past six years. She's developed a great reputation as a singer and has done some stellar gigs (mayor's ball, corporate, etc). During this entire time, she'd perform under her real name.

Last year we added a third member, and the group continued to expand into a larger ensemble of musicians that would work in rotation based on availability.

This warranted a slight name change, though not significant as it was just "First Lastname Project".

A month ago, she texted all of us asking for opinions on a new, completely different name; Badfish Ruca.

I suggested changing nothing, that after six years and a strong local following, a name change would leave people clueless. No one would know this "new" act. Barhoppers wouldn't see the name and associate the performer with the name.

It keeps coming up, and I keep saying the same; it's your choice, but I don't think it's a good idea.

Any opinions?

1. It's a bad name
2.Its derivative of sublime( unless your a tribute band)
3.It's abad name for a band
Let me submit again(since 1st time it got buried in post)
My2¢... "Sammy nillas" Revenge!"

 

[swafran]

Why not let the rest of the band name itself rather than go with the (seemingly unpopular) suggested "Badfish Ruca"? That way they can also have their own following, with a name they want to perform under.

Yep that was the idea behind option "Firstname Lastname and _____"

 

[J_Bass]

I am not Spanish, I'm portuguese.

Be careful with "ruca", because it can also mean prostitute.

 

[51PRI]

If the impetus for the change is someone else with the same name, have her stick her middle name in there.

John Mellencamp didn't like the fact that his manager named him "Johnny Cougar", but when he decided to reclaim his name, he said people would hang up on him if he called and said "Hi, I'm John Mellencamp". So.....he became "John Cougar" for a while, then "John Cougar Mellencamp" for a few years, and then (when everyone was used to Mellencamp) eventually dropped the "Cougar". Point is, incremental change can help keep your audience - wholesale change, and they won't know it's you.

Well, it can be done. The Rock is in the process of changing his name from "The Rock" to Duane "The Rock" Johnson and finally to Duane Johnson. Ron Artest changed his name to Metta World Peace. Lew Alcindor changed his name to Kareem Abbul-Jabbar. But those are all personal individual names, not band names.

The Young Rascals tried to change their name to "The Rascals." Chicago was "Chicago Transit Authority" for their first album only. Has any famous band successfully renamed themselves?

 

[micguy]

Has any famous band successfully renamed themselves?

Usually, incremental: Jefferson Airplane, Jefferson Starship, Starship. Grateful Dead, Dead and Company, that sort of thing. Most of the time, when bigger name changes happen, it's a big personnel shift - the Beatles/Wings, The Tourists/Eurythmics.

Of course, we also have to consider The Thamesmen, The Originals, The New Originals,.....

Devo has been know to open for themselves as...Dove.

And there's also.....Rash.

 

[vvvmmm]

We need a "worse band names" thread.

 

[oldrocker]

Usually, incremental: Jefferson Airplane, Jefferson Starship, Starship. Grateful Dead, Dead and Company, that sort of thing. Most of the time, when bigger name changes happen, it's a big personnel shift - the Beatles/Wings, The Tourists/Eurythmics.

Of course, we also have to consider The Thamesmen, The Originals, The New Originals,.....

Devo has been know to open for themselves as...Dove.

And there's also.....Rash.

Beatles to Wings was a personnel shift??

 

[micguy]

Beatles to Wings was a personnel shift??

Absolutely! - a pretty big one, granted, but there are bands that have that much personnel shift, and keep the name (King Crimson).

 

[Downunderwonder]

It is my opinion that there is no need to change things. It's a question I can't answer because I don't know my musical partner's mind well enough to know the real reason behind the proposed changed. The sharing a name with a non-performing individual doesn't sit right with me, but the fact remains; it's not my choice. Our input is considered, but ultimately, not the final decision.

The main reason front people have stage names is their own name is unsuitable to go up in lights. Your BL doesn't seem to have that problem.

If the one non performer with the same name is giving her grief then I guess the change is warranted if she is uncomfortable with the noise.

Not that name.

 

[Bassdirty]

How bout "Badname Ruca"?

T$

 

[twinjet]

Why not let the rest of the band name itself rather than go with the (seemingly unpopular) suggested "Badfish Ruca"? That way they can also have their own following, with a name they want to perform under.

The rest of the band is rarely ever under the same stage lighting at the same time. I'm the longest running member, having actually had a dedicated duo performance stage name. Anytime the others join, it's Firstname Last Project. Her and I get Name & Name. We are that cool.

If its hers choice, and she wants to change the name why does it keep coming up. Would think if it were really her choice the name would have changed already.

She just really respects our thoughts, I think is why she hasn't done it. Couldn't ask for a better LS, ime.

Go with the name change. The whole “being named after a person” project thing sucks and is played out. I’m in a band that’s going through this. We are about to change to an actual band name. We are all stoked about it, including the guy it’s currently named after.

I thought so too, but didn't want to say it. Ha!

are you in a sublime coverband? if not then not badfish ruca.

edit: I posted this after reading the first post only. my point still stands.

Nope. We do maybe one sublime tune.

We had a local cover band here called Oasis. Not the famous british brothers. No one got confused as far as i know.

You could do a "Ruca featuring Singername" deal. Folk duo The Story did this for a while after Jonatha Brooke became better known.
Then if the singer leaves you could perhaps continue using the band name without her, trading on that nane recognition in the future.

If the singer leaves, the band is done. We formed to support her covers and originals and likely wouldn't meet again as she's the one with the gigs. Pretty much all of us are support players, not front people.

 

[51PRI]

Beatles to Wings was a personnel shift??

Absolutely! - a pretty big one, granted, but there are bands that have that much personnel shift, and keep the name (King Crimson).

I have to take issue with this. From The Beatles to Wings was not a "personnel shift." That was a completely new band with only one band member in common between the two bands. That's like saying The Plastic Ono Band was a personnel shift for John Lennon. Both not correct.

 

[vvvmmm]

"Beatles to Wings was a personnel shift??"

"Absolutely! - a pretty big one, granted, but there are bands that have that much personnel shift, and keep the name (King Crimson)."

Ooooh - I gotta contest this. IMO - worth $.0280 - Beatles to Wings was Macca going out on his own, building a new band for his new stuff. KC was and is the Frippster continuing the KC concept. As I think of it, Macca was doing pop - Fripp did some pop but kept right on doing the conceptual, instrumental experimental stuff.

Mebbe it is the same, but to me "personnel shift" was Fripp more continuing on, versus Macca more starting anew.