NEW PAUL & NIRVANA SONG
-
edcrawf:
I can't be the only one to post this, but I heard the group referred to as Sirvana by the press. I quite like the name (all due respect to Kurt Cobain of course......)
I like it! I'll take it a step further: I think Paul has finally found his rhythm section for his first-ever all-Fireman tour. Just a thought.
-
audi:
edcrawf:
I can't be the only one to post this, but I heard the group referred to as Sirvana by the press. I quite like the name (all due respect to Kurt Cobain of course......)
I like it! I'll take it a step further: I think Paul has finally found his rhythm section for his first-ever all-Fireman tour. Just a thought.
They should do a project and call themselves 'Elysium'. Look that one up 'Sirvana'... C'mon that's too funny to be the actual name, cheapens the whole thing. And btw I'm in the minority I know on this, and I'm not even sure if it was this thread where I read it, but I am against Queen performing as Queen without Freddie Mercury. And I'm against Alice In Chains, or Sublime, or any other band that carries over the name. That's all just marketing, and to me it's lame. I'm in a band called Canary Robbery and if I die I'll come back to life and tell the members they are assholes for carrying on with the name I invented. Bastards btw good for Paul and the remaining members of Nirvana for never calling themselves the Beatles or Nirvana post Lennon/Cobain.
-
audi:
edcrawf:
I can't be the only one to post this, but I heard the group referred to as Sirvana by the press. I quite like the name (all due respect to Kurt Cobain of course......)
I like it! I'll take it a step further: I think Paul has finally found his rhythm section for his first-ever all-Fireman tour. Just a thought.
that idea is fab
-
I'm in the minority but I didn't care for it.
-
kapoo:
audi:
edcrawf:
I can't be the only one to post this, but I heard the group referred to as Sirvana by the press. I quite like the name (all due respect to Kurt Cobain of course......)
I like it! I'll take it a step further: I think Paul has finally found his rhythm section for his first-ever all-Fireman tour. Just a thought.
They should do a project and call themselves 'Elysium'. Look that one up 'Sirvana'... C'mon that's too funny to be the actual name, cheapens the whole thing. And btw I'm in the minority I know on this, and I'm not even sure if it was this thread where I read it, but I am against Queen performing as Queen without Freddie Mercury. And I'm against Alice In Chains, or Sublime, or any other band that carries over the name. That's all just marketing, and to me it's lame. I'm in a band called Canary Robbery and if I die I'll come back to life and tell the members they are assholes for carrying on with the name I invented. b**tard btw good for Paul and the remaining members of Nirvana for never calling themselves the Beatles or Nirvana post Lennon/Cobain.
this discussion is as old as rock and roll and here we are again Virtually all the bands have changes in their line ups with the years (Queen have got some kind of record in that cause they didn't change in 18 years, but that's very strange) Sometimes the point is that well, if "a minor" member of the band is not in the band anymore then it doesn't matter but if a "important" (virtually always "the singer") is not there they just can't be named the same. For instance, Ringo was a replacement in The Beatles. Technically they just should not go on with "The Beatles" without Pete Best. Then there's the Stones without Brian Jones, and then without the bass player... I think the most relevant of all situations is Pink Floyd. Roger Waters left and didn't want the name of the band to stay the same. Guilmour said something like "then when Syd Barrett left we should have stopped calling ourselves Pink Floyd". Syd was then the singer and the writer of most of the stuff. So the 1970s "Pink Floyd" was not really Pink Floyd. But the others carried on and made it a even better band than it was... Then there are surreal bands where nobody was a original member.
-
21st Century Paul:
kapoo:
audi:
edcrawf:
I can't be the only one to post this, but I heard the group referred to as Sirvana by the press. I quite like the name (all due respect to Kurt Cobain of course......)
I like it! I'll take it a step further: I think Paul has finally found his rhythm section for his first-ever all-Fireman tour. Just a thought.
They should do a project and call themselves 'Elysium'. Look that one up 'Sirvana'... C'mon that's too funny to be the actual name, cheapens the whole thing. And btw I'm in the minority I know on this, and I'm not even sure if it was this thread where I read it, but I am against Queen performing as Queen without Freddie Mercury. And I'm against Alice In Chains, or Sublime, or any other band that carries over the name. That's all just marketing, and to me it's lame. I'm in a band called Canary Robbery and if I die I'll come back to life and tell the members they are assholes for carrying on with the name I invented. b**tard btw good for Paul and the remaining members of Nirvana for never calling themselves the Beatles or Nirvana post Lennon/Cobain.
this discussion is as old as rock and roll and here we are again Virtually all the bands have changes in their line ups with the years (Queen have got some kind of record in that cause they didn't change in 18 years, but that's very strange) Sometimes the point is that well, if "a minor" member of the band is not in the band anymore then it doesn't matter but if a "important" (virtually always "the singer") is not there they just can't be named the same. For instance, Ringo was a replacement in The Beatles. Technically they just should not go on with "The Beatles" without Pete Best. Then there's the Stones without Brian Jones, and then without the bass player... I think the most relevant of all situations is Pink Floyd. Roger Waters left and didn't want the name of the band to stay the same. Guilmour said something like "then when Syd Barrett left we should have stopped calling ourselves Pink Floyd". Syd was then the singer and the writer of most of the stuff. So the 1970s "Pink Floyd" was not really Pink Floyd. But the others carried on and made it a even better band than it was... Then there are surreal bands where nobody was a original member.
If a founding member who is the main songwriter and lead singer dies, that band should definitely not carry on with the same band name. I get your point Ollie, it's all a big gray area and probably easiest to keep with the same band name when possible. Just saying my opinion. Like the stones definitely had the right to keep their name because the brain trust was still in tact. Like Pink Floyd with Sid Barrett, even though he and Brian jones for the Stones may have been the early leaders, they were still part of the band when the clear changing of the guard within the group happened. They had no issue with the band using the name even after they left the groups and were still alive. As a writer I think today, Roger Waters has the best claim to the name Pink Floyd, but I don't loose sleep over it. The Dead did a smart thing in their rename being similar but different from the Grateful Dead after Jerry died. In the case of Nirvana, it's no contest. If they did choose to carry on they should do so under a different name, even if its one that hinted at the original name would be fine. But I'm weird like that. To me stuff like that is important. To pay proper tribute. Come to think of it though I can't really even think of a group that carried on with the same name after the lead writer and singer died. So I'm probably just making a point that's moot. So this Fireman band idea is interesting, but Youth needs to obviously play a role or its not the Fireman. It's Elysium
-
e·ly·si·um - /iˈliZHēəm/ 1. The place at the ends of the earth to which certain favored heroes were conveyed by the gods after death 2. A place or state of perfect happiness Atta' boy, K.
-
When David Byrne ended the Talking Heads in the '90s, the remaining members tried to respect the legacy by updating their name, going on as The Heads. And that a-hole Byrne had the nerve to sue them! He lost. Their album did very well! Also: It's really hard to sell me on a band-name when the key figures aren't involved. At one time, the only original member on Bad Company's records was just the drummer. That doesn't fly. And the cavalcade of Steve Perry sound-alikes fronting Journey these days have sucked every drop of the band's integrity by becoming its own, incestuous tribute act. The Four Tops continued to perform under that name, although Levi Stubbs died several years ago. I'm sorry: It just ain't The Four Tops without Levi. Queen is different. They were all integral to the songwriting/studio-recording process, but -- when the "queen" of Queen is no longer amongst us... Same with INXS. This Sirvana thing is OK. It is the official reunion of the surviving members, and it is a moment in time that will most likely go down in the history books as "closure." So, I hope Nirvana enthusiasts don't freak out too much.
-
Dare I say it but as good as the Sandy Relief Benefit concert was it makes me think Paul needs a fresh backing band! I love them and know their a great band but Paul needs to try something new, the Nirvana guys were a great example!
-
MaccaBeatles:
Dare I say it but as good as the Sandy Relief Benefit concert was it makes me think Paul needs a fresh backing band! I love them and know their a great band but Paul needs to try something new, the Nirvana guys were a great example!
I'd love to see Paul work with The African Express again, and I have high hopes for "Cut Me Some Slack," with some sort of follow-up. But "My Band" should remain Paul's primary band...and it's time for Paul to challenge them with newer material.
-
audi:
When David Byrne ended the Talking Heads in the '90s, the remaining members tried to respect the legacy by updating their name, going on as The Heads. And that a-hole Byrne had the nerve to sue them! He lost. Their album did very well! Also: It's really hard to sell me on a band-name when the key figures aren't involved. At one time, the only original member on Bad Company's records was just the drummer. That doesn't fly. And the cavalcade of Steve Perry sound-alikes fronting Journey these days have sucked every drop of the band's integrity by becoming its own, incestuous tribute act. The Four Tops continued to perform under that name, although Levi Stubbs died several years ago. I'm sorry: It just ain't The Four Tops without Levi. Queen is different. They were all integral to the songwriting/studio-recording process, but -- when the "queen" of Queen is no longer amongst us... Same with INXS. This Sirvana thing is OK. It is a true reunion of the surviving members, and it will most likely be a moment in time that will even more likely go down in the history books as "closure." So, I hope Nirvana enthusiasts don't freak out too much.
Audi my friend, it appears we are on the same page on this! And glad someone is with me on how sweet a fit the name Elysium would actually be for a group name of that Paul/Nirvana combo act. I challenge anyone to come up with a better one ! Not to stroke myself but I named every band I've ever been in didn't always sing lead, but I can name bands baby And Maccabeatles, I'm with ya. There was a real sense of spirit on stage when those guys did their thing. It was fresh and exciting. Tough to say if the parties involved would be interested in doing an album, but I guarantee it would work. Gear Un Teeit.
-
kapoo:
Come to think of it though I can't really even think of a group that carried on with the same name after the lead writer and singer died. So I'm probably just making a point that's moot.
well.. AC/DC, I'm not sure if Bon Scott was the lead writer or so... he wrote the lyrics of Highway To Hell, for instance, so kind of.
-
21st Century Paul:
kapoo:
Come to think of it though I can't really even think of a group that carried on with the same name after the lead writer and singer died. So I'm probably just making a point that's moot.
well.. AC/DC, I'm not sure if Bon Scott was the lead writer or so... he wrote the lyrics of Highway To Hell, for instance, so kind of.
Not a bad example Ollie, however Bon was actually the 2nd singer in that band, having replaced the earlier Dave Evans. So the band AC/DC existed before he joined. Plus he died before the band released its most successful album Back To Black. While Bon was a great member, I have no problem with them carrying on as AC/DC.
-
Saw this on FB today. http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/430973_10152334767745008_1949816145_n.jpg
-
walliebaby:
Saw this on FB today. http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/430973_10152334767745008_1949816145_n.jpg
haha already?????
-
For those who don't know yet:
nobodytoldme:
The studio version of 'Cut Me Some Slack' is out now: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/sound-city-real-to-reel/id585812146
-
nobodytoldme:
For those who don't know yet:
nobodytoldme:
The studio version of 'Cut Me Some Slack' is out now: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/sound-city-real-to-reel/id585812146
YES!!!!!!! Awesome news--buying it right now.
-
kapoo:
And glad someone is with me on how sweet a fit the name Elysium would actually be for a group name of that Paul/Nirvana combo act. I challenge anyone to come up with a better one ! Not to stroke myself but I named every band I've ever been in didn't always sing lead, but I can name bands baby
If you don't want to stroke yourself, I will! (wait, that came out wrong!) ops: Great name for their band! My son had a band called No Such Number. I don't think he even knew the Elvis connection there (audi will get that right away)
-
talking bout band names, there was a spanish band named Nirvana in the 70s... they weren't popular...
-
Does anyone else think this has the potential to be Paul's biggest hit in years? If i'm correct I think that My Brave Face was his single to reach the top 25/30.