Topher - A Middle-Aged Kid

I’ve been seeing quite a few concerts over the last handful of years. It’s become a running joke with my wife that I never listen to any new music. I guess I kind of worked my way into a groove in the mid 1980s, and haven’t really ventured too far from there since. There have been some more recent performers that I have come to appreciate, and certainly some that I’ve gone to see live (almost always attending with others who were fans of those acts.) But I usually get excited when a band that I’ve loved for 30 or 40 (or more) years has a concert near me.

A few weeks ago, my wife and I went to see the Doobie Brothers. I’ve seen them before – the last time was around 2011 or so. The lineup then and now was a little different. It got me to thinking. the only 2 founding members still with the band are Tom Johnston and Patrick Simmons. Now, don’t get me wrong – the Doobie Brothers put on great shows at both concerts. And they played all of the great hits that I came to hear. But I started thinking about other bands that are still touring – both those that I’ve seen live, as well as those I haven’t seen, but that I liked “back in the day.” Bands like Chicago, Eagles, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Deep Purple, Blue Oyster Cult, Styx, REO Speedwagon, ZZ Top, Red Hot Chili Peppers…. The list could stretch on for miles. But my point is that NONE of them still have all the original members. Members were fired, retired, died, or quit for other projects.

In fact, in some cases, there are NO original members in the lineup. I saw Lynyrd Skynyrd last summer. Two of their original members died in a plane crash in 1977. The rest of the band continued after they had recovered, with other talent taking the place of those absent. Johnny Van Zant (younger brother of the original – now deceased- lead singer Ronnie Van Zant) explained that the last surviving ORIGINAL band member, Gary Rossington, had died earlier that year, and they had dedicated the tour to him.

I began to ponder the idea. If the original members are gone, is it STILL the band, or does it morph into a tribute band? And is the “official” band any more sacred than a group that was inspired by the original, and who preforms that material? Tribute bands names are often a play on words to the originals’ name or songs. Bands such as Brit Floyd, ZUSA, American Eagle, and Rumours are all tribute bands that bring a well honed representation of their source act.

Here’s my takeaway. When you see a tribute, they are bringing their interpretation of a band, at its prime – the “classic line up” of that group, in their heyday. Their goal is typically to sound like the best iteration of that group.

Contrast that with the “name brand band.” They may not have the original players, but they typically carry with them the traditions and sounds that have evolved over time. They usually play a lot of hits, as well as newer material that has continued to move them forward. People don’t go to see a tribute band to hear them play the original group’s latest, current record. They want a “best of” experience. But seeing the “real” group (even after a long line of changes,) continues that evolution.

I’ve seen excellent examples of both. I see a tribute band as a reenactment. They provide an experience – “as if you were there.” Compare that with a current lineup of an original band- it’s like a favorite sports team. A Yankees fan may look back lovingly on the days of Mickey Mantle. Some of those fans weren’t even born while he was playing. But the Yankees remain THEIR team. If they visit NY, they want to see a real game, as “preformed” by THE CURRENT TEAM. Mickey Mantle (or Joe DiMaggio, or Babe Ruth) have been dead for years. There are no “original” members. But they’re still the Yankees.

The bottom line (at least for me) is this. The “name brand” (I really need a better way to describe them than that!) carries the fans along with them – old and new – into who they ARE today. A tribute group is a picture (albeit a photo shopped one) of the greatest moments of that group; like a docudrama is to an historical event.

Both can provide a great experience to the music fan. If the new sound of your old favorite is something you have enjoyed as they evolved, continue to see that group. If you prefer the “glory days” of something that no longer exists, see the tribute. No matter what – as the Doobie Brothers suggest – listen to the music.

-Toph

I’m a “Swords and Sorcery” geek. I can’t remember when it started; that file is buried pretty deep in the archives. I do remember getting into Fantasy literature sometime in late elementary school, though. A lot of kids were reading J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit. I have come to appreciate Tolkien’s work -A LOT- since then, but at the time, it didn’t really work for me. I had a hard time getting past the first scene, with all the dwarves showing up unannounced and wrecking the place. I just found it annoying. Had I gotten past that part as a 10 year old, I think I would have become a Lord of the Rings fanboy from the get-go. But as it was, I had to leave Dwalin, Balin, Fili, Kili, (Silly, Billy, and Willy-Nelly, et al.) to cool their heels on the bookshelf for a few years.

I did, however, find a series that absolutely caught my eye: Michael Moorcock’s Elric saga. Elric is easily Moorcock’s most well known character. Literary scholars like to put fantasy into various sub-genres or categories. They throw out terms like “High Fantasy,” “Low Fantasy,” “Epic Fantasy,” etc. This particular series meets the criteria for just about every category. It has a vast, rich setting, world changing ramifications, and complex characters, like those from Tolkien or J.K. Rowling. It also offers as much action as any of Robert Howard’s Conan, or Fritz Leiber’s Lankmar series. So it really is a hybrid. However, I never really worried about fantasy categories as a kid. I just liked the character.

They say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. No truer words can be said about Emperor Elric of Melnibone (you go ahead and try to pronounce it…Melna BONE, Mel NEB a NEE, Melna bow NAY? Whatever.) When I first read it, I found it totally cool. He’s a bad-ass fighter, and a sorcerer. He carries a possessed magic sword. And he has a faithful sidekick who sticks with him through to the end. And the paperback cover artwork by Michael Whelan is fantastic.

As I am re-reading the series for the 3^rd (maybe it’s the 4^th?) time, I am seeing so much more. The plot is simpler than I had remembered it, and at the same time, the underlying philosophical concepts run much deeper. He is a perfect example of a character suffering an existential crisis. And he almost defines the tragic hero, who is literally damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t.

I am thoroughly enjoying the series. I even dug out the old comic series I bought back in high school. I know the stories have inspired both tabletop and video games. There have been new tales added to the mythos by other authors; an excellent compilation of such new stories is “Tales of the White Wolf.” Geralt of Rivia (the title character of the Netflix series The Witcher) appears to be heavily inspired by Elric of Melnibone. I personally think the Games Workshop’s Dark Elves draw from Melnibonian culture to the extreme. Although the Elric character predates the Dark Elves by 5 years, GW would probably claim that Moorcock preemptively stole their intellectual property – that’s just how they roll. There have even been whispers for years about a live action movie, but nothing has come of it yet. Only time will tell.

Until then, I’ll continue to return to the original. It’s just too good to simply collect dust on the shelf. If you are looking for a Swords & Sorcery treat, Elric certainly deserves a try.

-Toph

Author: Topher

It’s Still Rock and Roll to Me

Like this:

A Return to Melnibone

Like this:

Let others know!

Like this:

Let others know!

Like this: