When I was a youngster, I went to a Whitecross / White Heart
concert with my youth group. In short,
it was epic, but not the point of this story.
The band opening for them was a local group called 20/20 Blind, and I
very much enjoyed them. I got their CD
and I still have their tunes on my iPod.
It was a solid record. One
short-lived band I was in actually worked on covering one of their tunes, but
we broke up before we could perform it live.
Anyway, several years later, I started to look up the band
to see if they put out anything else or were still together or what. It took some hunting, but I found 2020 Blind
and saw that they had some new music. It
was free, so I downloaded the songs and took a listen.
And it didn’t sound the same at all. I mean, not even a little bit.
I looked at the website.
Sure enough, “2020 Blind” was not the same band as “20/20 Blind.” The latter was a Houston band that was broken
up. The former was a new group forming
in a completely different state by someone who was not involved in the
original. I do not think the name was stolen – the local band here
didn’t “make it big,” so it was probable that the names were the same by sheer
chance.
The point is this: I was expecting something specific because of the name,
and it’s not what I got.
That was a harmless example, but trademarks are a serious
business. They mean something, they
convey a message. If I open an insurance
office and call it “State Farm,” then not only will my customers be expecting
something specific, but the actual State Farm will come a-knockin’.
The name of a band conveys a similar message. I promise you that I will buy the next U2
album. Very little chance that I
won’t. I have all their releases, I love
the band, and that name has a message for me – quality music that I will be
able to listen to for decades. I will
buy it. When Genesis’ Calling All Stations album came out, I
just grabbed it because of the name, and I was disappointed, because the name
Genesis meant a particular thing to me, and when Phil Collins was not singing,
I realized that I should have read some reviews before getting it.
All that as an introduction to this blog post by Five Iron Frenzy member Reese Roper regarding their new video.
As a note, I have not been a fan of the band. I’ve never been into ska, so I just didn’t
follow them. I don’t know whether they
are really good or not – I don’t listen to them. I’m having to take a lot of what is said by
second-hand information, so if I err in this, please correct me, but I think I
got the facts all right.
Originally, the band was made up of Christian members and
was even classified often as a Christian band, who would end their shows with
praise songs. There was a lot of talk
about Jesus and such. The band broke up,
as bands are apt to do, but they have recently reunited with a small difference
– two of the band members are now atheists.
What this means in practice is that there aren’t any more
praise songs at the end of shows.
There’s a lot less talk of Jesus, “unless it is in reference to the song
we are then performing.”
Naturally, the fans from back in the day are confused and
upset. This is not the band we used to
like. This is something different.
And I think this is where Roper is not understanding what is
going on. He seems to think that the
problem with the fans is that they are expecting the band to be dishonest and
force the atheists to play praise songs just to make the fans happy when they
don’t believe them.
But that’s not it. It
seems like the fans are asking Five Iron Frenzy to be Five Iron Frenzy, not a completely
new band that is using the same name.
Now, I don’t mind at all that a band with a couple of
atheists in the group refrain from playing praise songs. That’s fine.
But there is a difference between “a” band doing that and “this
particular” band doing that, and that is what Roper doesn’t seem to
understand. What they have done is
created a whole new band, essentially different than the old one, but retained
the name. Is it any wonder that people
are confused?
In 1995, U2 teamed up with producer Brian Eno to create an
experimental album where they would make up movies and then write a song to be
part of the soundtrack of the fake movie.
It has a definite soundtrack feel to it, sometimes very atmospheric, but
even the “normal” songs on it have particular tones to them that you would not
have expected on a U2 album.
Now, it was U2 playing these songs. There was no change in the band itself. And Brian Eno had produced for them before,
and so there was no change there either.
But U2 did the right thing and released the album under another band
name – Passengers. Why? Because it wasn’t a U2 album. It was essentially different. If the fans had grabbed the album with the
name U2 on it, we would have been very confused and probably disappointed. As it was, we understood from the very start
that this was something different, even if it was the same musicians playing
it.
Roper really shouldn’t get upset that Five Iron Frenzy fans
are expecting to hear the band they used to like, when Roper himself is
claiming the band to be back. If they
want to do something different, that’s fine, but be up-front about it and do it
as a different band. If you don’t do
that, you have to expect some confusion and some disappointment. Don’t blame the fans for expecting you to be
“dishonest.” Truth is, you told them you
were one thing, and then did something else once they were in the door. Was that on purpose? Probably not.
But it happened, and Roper really should make an effort to understand
what is going on rather than blaming fans for wanting something different.
