• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Keeping a Name?

notes:

Jimmy - old singer
Wade - old singer
James - current singer
David - old drummer
Jessie - current drummer
Lauriel - guitarist
myself - bassist

Back in March Jimmy came to myself and Lauriel about starting a band. The band was called Empire. We then found David to do drums for us. One night at practice Jimmy had a falling out with the 3 of us and left the band.

2 weeks later we bring in Wade to do vocals. we decide to change the name from Empire to Double Barrel Hangover (DBH) since Empire was Jimmy's name. The music also changes from straight hardcore to sludge/doom/hardcore

DBH does it's first show and soon after Wade leaves the band as he's moving to Louisiana.

Jimmy shows up at the practice spot one day and jams with us and we let him back in the band. We do a gig with him and soon after he's having personal problems that were affecting his work with us and our friendships. at the same time the drummer isn't working with us anymore and only talks to us if he needs a ride across town. frustrated I leave the band first then Lauriel does.

now Lauriel and I are in a band with a new singer (James) and drummer (Jessie). We're keeping a few of our old songs and still writing music in the same genre.

Can we keep the same band name or should we change it?
 
we decide to change the name from Empire to Double Barrel Hangover

Very rare that a 'collective' names a band....who was the one that originally placed this (DBH) on the table?....that's who owns the name, and that should be respected.

If the member that came up with it, is still a member, then it's fine to keep...if not, it should be changed IMO.
 
It depends on the amount of time spent on promo, media, websites, and getting your name out there. If you have no reputation it really doesn't matter. To me it depends on how much effort, if you really need a fresh start and how much you may not like the existing name.

I've spent many hours and many dollars promoting my band. There's no way I'm giving up the name just because someone leaves. WAY too much effort to start over. Plus I'll keep the gigs already booked under the name. Heck, I'll even use the promo with the other guys picture until I can get a new one.
 
Um...that's not only incorrect, it's slightly unprofessional to view it that way IMO.

There are certain things in our industry that should be respected, and coming up with a band name is one of them.

Not to be argumentative, but someone would have to show me a law that states someone can own a name because they happened to mention it.

I'll just let it go at that.

:)
 
Not to be argumentative, but someone would have to show me a law that states someone can own a name because they happened to mention it.

As for “professional”… I dunno... talking to musicans, it can mean anything.

I'll just let it go at that.

:)

There are in fact a few ways to legally protect a band name.

Professionalism, of course you are right, a grey area.
 
It depends on the amount of time spent on promo, media, websites, and getting your name out there. If you have no reputation it really doesn't matter. To me it depends on how much effort, if you really need a fresh start and how much you may not like the existing name.

I've spent many hours and many dollars promoting my band. There's no way I'm giving up the name just because someone leaves. WAY too much effort to start over. Plus I'll keep the gigs already booked under the name. Heck, I'll even use the promo with the other guys picture until I can get a new one.

+1

Your name is valuable to you if it makes marketing easier. A shift in musical genre won't change that.

If your current band wants to use the name, you could also make sure the other former band members are cool with it, and then go ahead.
 
In a casual arrangement, loosely speaking the band would "own" the name, not the person who thought of it. They "give" it to the band when they concede to the band using it.

This, of course, is in the absense of actual legal protection of the name such as a trademark or contractual agreement.

Nothing unprofessional or wrong about a band continuing to use a name invented by a departing member. I've left bands that I named and what, they should buy it from me? Stop using it?? Hogwash.

And since you not only thought of it, but there is no longer a group using it, by all means, use it. Especially since it's a great name!
 
In a casual arrangement, loosely speaking the band would "own" the name, not the person who thought of it. They "give" it to the band when they concede to the band using it.

This, of course, is in the absense of actual legal protection of the name such as a trademark or contractual agreement.

Nothing unprofessional or wrong about a band continuing to use a name invented by a departing member. I've left bands that I named and what, they should buy it from me? Stop using it?? Hogwash.

And since you not only thought of it, but there is no longer a group using it, by all means, use it...

Sounds reasonable.

:)
 
Cart before the horse much??

Since it seems no one but the present and former band members know the name(s) involved, what does it matter which name gets slapped on your next attempt?

I've always marveled at the amount of energy wasted over band names. If there was something besides ego at stake it is of course a different story, until then...

Think of it this way, band name ownership only gets dicey when it's about to go on the second million liner sleeves and someone wants to carp about who owns the rights to said name.

Concentrate on solving the revolving door personnel situation first. Band names come and go, the real trick is getting (and keeping) good players.