Hawkwindforum

I saw Motorhad in Bradford in 2006 on the 'Kiss of Death' tour and thought they were still great! It was the first time I'd seen them since 1983 on the 'Another Perfect Day; tour with Brian Robertson. Granted, it's not the same as it was with the classic Filthy Phil/Fast Eddie line up. When I was a kid, going to a Motorhead gig was about the most dangerous thing you could do apart from throwing yourself off a building! Chances were you most likely come out injured and certainly deaf for days after.

They're not quite as dangerous as the used to be - but they still want to hurt you! After all that time, it felt like I was coming home - which is a good indication.

Hawkwind line ups are a different matter entirely. If you bear in mind that the line up was always fluid from the start. Hawkwind are a different proposition to bands like for example Led Zep, who's career was based around a stable line up. Not even Dave Brock has been to every Hawkwind gig!

this is a good topic, on reflection it would have probably sat better in any other biz but i'm not going to move it again

anyway here's my input for what it's worth, also note moderator hat is off this is a fan perspective

unless it's a band like Led Zep or U2 who have gone their whole career with a sinlge stable line up then you are basically saying that every other band in existance is a covers act, now i'm pretty sure no one here would agree with that.

i think it's more down to spirit and attitude and if that is right within a band then it is fully entitled to be deemed the real thing (thats assuming it's got at least one original member).

i'll use Iron Maiden as an example, i'm sure most people would consider the classic line up to be -

Steve Harris
Bruce Dickinson
Dave Murray
Adrian Smith
Nicko Mc Brain

It took the band 4 studio albums to get to that point in their career with only 2 "originals" remaining from the first record, but to me they are Iron Maiden and i'm sure the millions who have seen them over the last 25 years or so would for the most part agree (we'll keep 3rd guitarist Janick Gers out of thios equation for simplicity sake).

i think it's also possible if you are suitably attuned and see a particular band often enough you can sense when things are good and positive amongst it's members and when things are not so great, for instance i know i saw a far happier deep Purple with Steve Morse on guitar than the previous time with tricky Dickie Blackmore, although a bit of edge is always good i think a more contented comfortable band usually puts in a better display and ultimately people will decide for themselves, this thread started with mentiion of Wishbone Ash, both current versions dont exactly sell bucketloads of tickets, probably in part due to the fact that folks know neither are as good as the original band was in it's heyday, and the fact that there are 2 bands trading under the same name in esscence probably helps neither.

anyway a bit of a ramble and i could go on - but i won't!

thanks for reading

regards

dave

i'm not saying that any band that isn't composed solely of original members becomes a covers band. i agree about iron maiden and deep purple.the 'classic' line ups were not always the first. the same applies to erstwhile proggers then chart toppers genesis.the third album was the first of their best. the covers band argument kicks in when the band only plays a greatest hits set without any fire cos they are fed up to the back teeth of playing the same old material year after year but keep going because it keeps the fans in the comfort zone.
i have no objections to covers bands per se providing there is no slavish following of the original all the time.

two of my favourite 'serious' bands of this ilk were 21st century schizoid band - which contained more of the king crimson classic line up than kc - and the crimson jazz trio. by their very nature, they are 'a covers band' but extend the format and take it to a different level. both bands sadly gone now due to the untimely death of ian wallace. admittedly this is a bit of a biased statement cos they are basically playing the same material but most of it the current band does not touch.

Well the biggest covers has to be KI$$, sorry KISS, with Eric and Tommy wearing Peter's and Ace's make up. That said their latest album, Sonic Boom, is rather good.

Of course it's difficult to keep everyone happy when you have been going for some time but most bands throw in 4 or 5 from the new album and the rest from the back catalogue, that's always been the way pretty much. What do you expect Motorhead to do? Play all new stuff? Personally I would love that but then you would moan that they didn't play the classics! I must say however that on the Wildhearts recent tour (after polling the fans about it) they started the set by playing the whole of the new album from start to finish followed by a 2nd set of older material and it was great.

The reality or the perceived nature of 'authenticity' often comes down to one member - would Motorhead be Motorhead without Lemmy? SLF without Jake Burns? The Damned without Vanian? There are odd exceptions but who can honestly say that they saw Thin Lizzy without Lynott and thought it was the same? Or the latest incarnation of The Doors? That's not to say they weren't enjoyable but in both cases there was no new material on show, half the original members and so yes, a parody of themselves is probably justified in those cases. If you can take a band and move on with new material like The Stranglers did (admittedly not always in a good way) then good luck to you and what's wrong with that?

I have no problem at all with what Hawkwind are doing, as others have pointed out the line up has always been fairly fluid and they have always mixed the set up and continued to record. I think it keeps them interesting, to constantly have new input - it doesn't always work of course but then it never lasts that long in those cases. Anyway I'm bored of my own reply now so I'll shut up