| Archive for MiB Forums Burning Up Time Forums |
| wanderlust |
band nameHere is a controvesial poll I'm going to do.. |
||||
| yellowcakeuf6 |
Crikey wanderlust, with these polls you are spoiling us!  Polltastic!
A categorical 'NO' by the by. |
||||
| PaulinLondon |
An absolute No to name change. The vote (like the fishing rod) is cast. | ||||
| Fredib |
They should have changed the bands name because their sound had also disappeared at the time (until Norfolk Coast...) From Norfolk coast, it's the stranglers, no problem for me, we've got the bands trademark back again. But in between 1991 and 2003 ... Nothing in their productions reminded me of the band I once loved... So It makes sense to me if they had changed their name. | ||||
| paulinblack |
Weren't they the Strugglers after 90 ?
Paul |
||||
| nickinblack |
They were 'The Strangers' to me. | ||||
| Fredib |
As titled in the French rock mag' ROCK'N'FOLK after Hugh departure, THE BURNELLERS !! | ||||
| gizzard |
Thats what Captain Sensible calls them. 
|
||||
| theraven1979 |
Without a doubt YES - woulda done them the world of good.
Jim |
||||
| gizzard |
You been on the drink Jim!? Most ridiculous thing I've read on here in ages! |
||||
| theraven1979 |
The amount of bad press they got for carrying on and calling themselves the Stranglers was a complete nightmare. Plus no one wants to work with the Stranglers these days. Wasn't it Marillion or someone who changed the band name to get them in the charts and it worked.
Makes perfect sense I can't understand anyone else suggesting it was a wise move to carry on the name. Even JJ said they shoulda done it. Plus on top of all that the Stranglers just aren't the Stranglers are they? Jim
|
||||
| pigeon |
With the go against the rules attitude they have i''ll say no they shouldn't. It's jets band and what he says goes, and JJ named them so why would they change their name to sell more records?
There happy selling records the way they want to and what they believe in & not conform to some guy with a ponytail in a record company that just wants to make a fast buck out of them. |
||||
| Fredib |
BURNELERS !!!
|
||||
| Alias |
My French is totally crap, what does "Paul Roberts a une
super voix" mean? 
|
||||
| Fredib |
|
||||
| wanderlust |
Off the topic a bit..Who designed the stranglers logo? | ||||
| gizzard |
A guy called Kevin Sparrow. Took his own life in my memory serves me correct around 1980.. |
||||
| Toiler On The Sea |
I heard that they ditched the idea after finding out that "Bucks Fizz" had already been used. 
|
||||
| Paul |
no they should never change their name.
what they should have done though is take 2 years off. reform, do a comeback tour on the back of one single, then milk the publicity for all it's worth. it's worked for madness, sex pistols, duran duran, take that, and now the police, all of which were shit anyway, were spent forces and had no careers left at all. wouldn't be the stranglers thing to do though.
|
||||
| wanderlust |
[quote="Paul"]no they should never change their name.
what they should have done though is take 2 years off. reform, do a comeback tour on the back of one single, then milk the publicity for all it's worth. It was unusual as the stranglers are the only band to change their format like that, and as you say should have taken a few years off to think of new idea's If John Ellis would have had been able to sing and taking over hugh's place like Baz has now this may have been slightly more acceptable to the fans who lost interest after 1990.. |
||||
| ravenlunatic |
No! No! No! can I vote 1000 times? The very idea of changing the name is completely absurd. Nonsense, foolishness, stupidity, preposterous, ridiculous. The thought of it is causing me to become agitated, I might have to go outside to calm down.
For fucks sake what utter fucking bollocks! How can anybody stand in front of that stage and think "mmnn, I really think they should be called something else"? Change the name? fuck my old boots! Load of old pants! 
|
||||
| paul b |
they should have changed the name to -
THE DANGLERS and kept us all happy.  
|
||||
| Cola Can |
I've often considered whether they should have had a breather for a while. I've no doubt they would have been very successful on their comeback and we woudl have been delirious...but what we have had to tal about for the last 17 years?
and for fucks sake the moment I start worrying about what Take That are doing or the Police then I really know I've lost the plot... |
||||
| Alias |
|
||||
| MULLY |
A resounding negatory - why should they?
Bands change personnel, members leave/die, whatever... but still continue. In that case should The Who become The Whom? The Rolling Stones become The Strolling Crones, etc... Adam and the Ants (probably the most drastic change) Should The Manics still continue?? Nah - fair play to the remaining three - they have as much right as anyone to retain the name and continue recording/gigging. I'm glad they continued - and long may they continue
|
||||
| theraven1979 |
Yeah the Danglers fuckin hell the man's a genius!
Jim
|
||||
| Jon the Impaler |
No .
75% of the original band still there , why should they have changed their name ? Hugh left , his decision ......... why should the others have to start all over again in something new ,they have the right to retain the name ...........incidentally , how many units would ITN , About Time , WIR and CDG have sold without The Stranglers name attached .......... not many I think ...therefore I believe we wouldn't have had Norfolk Coast or Suite XV1 as they wouldn't have been able to continue due to lack of popular demand . Thats what I think anyway . |
||||
| serya |
I say no....as much as I think Hugh took a Hugh piece of the band with him when he left, I am glad there is the band Stranglers still around to follow and add to the great history. | ||||
| Frederik |
Didn't JJ say he thought they ought to call themselves the Strangers - drop the L for Christmas - or something
Stranglers - In the Night 
Record label called Psycho
All a bit too obvious and unimaginative - a kind of cheap Addams Family theme - bring on the cobwebs and spiders - oh sh*t! they've gone and done that
What would they have called themsleves ... Stranglers 2 The New Stranglers The Paul Roberts Band |
||||
| evonx |
never in a million years.... bands like Genesis or the Damned or Stiff Little Fingers or Yes and many more have had like 12 line up changes without ever changing their name
with 75% of the band on board: no need whatsoever.
I still prefer thát period (about time: a very underrated lp!) to the bloodless overproduced soulpop of Aural Sculpture - Dreamtime - 10, where (apart from JJ penned tracks like North Winds and Never to look back) we had to put up with Hugh's songs like mayan skies, punch n judy, mad hatter, lets celebrate etc. |
||||
| NMH1965 |
Naaah-they were right to stick with THE STRANGLERS, I agree along with many people that 3 out of the 4 are still in the band so they should keep the name.
Besides would that mean a different name every time the line-up changed??
|
||||
| Bear Cage |
But did 'In The Night' & 'About Time' have any less in common with the 'Stranglers Sound' which "had also disappeared at the time (until Norfolk Coast...)" than '10' or 'Dreamtime', I don't think so.
The Stranglers and their sound has always changed/developed and apart from the occasional bum steer ('10' and 'Written in Red') has produced a lot of good and some truly great albums.
|
||||
| mabus |
A resounding YES!!!!!. They should have changed their name.
The Stranglers were much, much greater than the sum of their individual parts. I would liken them to 4 x 10%s who when combined created a magical 100%. Every member was irreplacable and for the band to think otherwise is beyond me. For them to just wheel in new members and more importantly, new songwriters is nothing more than production line Stranglers. It also showed a massive lack of confidence in their abilities and so they hid under the safety umbrella of the brand name The Stranglers Led Zeppelin - Joy Division - These bands understood that vital ingredients make a great band, not plodding along with the same name and different members. Also since the departure of Hugh the high quality songmanship associated with the Stranglers has now been diluted almost to the point of mundane, which would have been the same problem had Hugh carried on under the name The Stranglers with the other 3. As JJ said at Brixton in the early 90s 'Cause its not the fucking same!' So why call it the same?? |
||||
| theraven1979 |
Should Hugh have taken the Stranglers name?
Jim |
||||
| mabus |
yes. Just as soon as he got Jet, Dave & JJ playing with him again
The stranglers for me are a certain 4 people that had an amazing chemistry. Take away one. Take away the chemistry. Maybe Hugh could have took the stand Peter Hook is taking
http://www.xfm.co.uk/Article.asp?id=448711 |
||||
| ThruBeingCool |
No. Then you get a Stranglers with one original member as opposed to a 3 original member version. Don't think a Hugh without the other three version would have fared any better either. Still, it's better to have a Stranglers that still produces good music and performs excellent live gigs than none at all. IMHO 
And you have Hugh as an alternative if Mk4 don't float yer boat 
|
||||
| serya |
Ahhhh- The Paul Roberts Band.
And now they would have to change to The JJ Burnel Band. A bit insulting to Jet and Dave. And no matter what you think of the '92-04 Stranglers, they were closer to proper Strangled territory than perhaps Hugh solo has been. No, Stranglers was the only way to go, in hindsight, I suppose. |
||||
| Frederik |
No - it's more Jets - no Off License & ice cream van - no Stranglers. No - it's more JJ's - he thought of it. No - it's more Dave's - they were nothing until he joined. No - it's more Pauls - he's the best singer they ever had. No - it's Ellis's - he wrote all of the MKII stuff you know, except wot JJ wrote No - it's Baz's - he can play the Golden Brown solo - piece of piss init. |
||||
| theraven1979 |
Didn't Strummer write the "song" "We are the Clash" to wind Mick Jones up after he was given the heave ho?
Jim |
||||
| Frederik |
What's in a name, what's in a sound?
Ellis should have changed his bl**dy guitar. That new bloke knows what to do. |
||||
| Tracy |
your on the drink right 
|
||||
| theraven1979 |
I thought Ellis was quite creative/inventive. I'm sure he coulda quite easily played songbook Stranglers.
Jim
|
||||
| Frederik |
sadly, no - just tongue in cheek
look at the parallel careers of Bucks Fizz - "Band name dispute Shortly after David Van Day left Bucks Fizz, he teamed up with Mike Nolan and two new female recruits to form a new version of Bucks Fizz. Confusion was averted when Nolan agreed to call his band "Bucks Fizz starring Mike Nolan"; their website said the new band was an amalgamation of Bucks Fizz and Dollar (using the slogan "Bucks Fizz plus Dollar equals Lots of Cents"). This version of the band released two singles including a Rick Astley cover [Sheesh!!! we were spared that - is Summer in the City close?] and several compilations which featured new vocal versions of old hits [New versions of old hits - seems familiar]. Particularly noted was a dance remix of Making Your Mind Up released in 1998. [Clubbed to Death] Sometime thereafter, Nolan left his version of Bucks Fizz but Van Day continued to tour under the moniker "Bucks Fizz". As Heidi Manton, now owner of the name "Bucks Fizz", still continued to play with Bobby G in the official version of Bucks Fizz, much confusion was caused and Bobby G brought a case in the High Court against Van Day. In 2001, a judge refused to grant a court injuction against Van Day as he been operating in "Bucks Fizz" for five years at the time. The feud and legal battle between Bobby G and David Van Day as to who owned the name "Bucks Fizz" was the subject of a BBC television documentary, Trouble at the Top [2]. The case was settled out of court in 2002 when David Van Day agreed to call his version of the band "David Van Day's Bucks Fizz Show". [Black in Town - getting close]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucks_Fizz_%28band%29
|
