English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I was just reading this brief article about Alicia Keys, and how her mother helped her choose her stage name. She had flirted with the name "wild", but didn't go with it. Her mother feels that if Alicia had gone with her instincts that her image, and how she is perceived, would be quite different:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071111/ap_en_mu/people_alicia_keys;_ylt=Alyv83XsS1TnEQgI8PX9du2VEhkF

How much of an impact do you think name selection has? Can you think of any examples where someone's name has played a role in their career, either positive or negative?

2007-11-12 03:39:24 · 15 answers · asked by Sookie 6 in Entertainment & Music Music Rock and Pop

Given2Fly - that avatar is cracking me up... :)

Good call on Prince - totally forgot about that.

2007-11-12 03:47:49 · update #1

Dave - another good one.

2007-11-12 04:03:42 · update #2

lovnrckets - John Cougar IS bad ***! I thought that name always worked for him.

2007-11-12 04:05:42 · update #3

Dani - Engelbert...awesome!

2007-11-12 04:06:54 · update #4

Bowzer - Tom Jones is an interesting example. I wonder what direction is career would taken if he had a different name...or maybe it would be exactly the same?

2007-11-12 04:39:00 · update #5

Malice_Embrace - I don't listen to a lot of European music, so that's an angle I didn't even think of.

2007-11-12 04:39:56 · update #6

15 answers

Alicia Augello-Cook???

OK, name change needed there for sure, and Keys was a better call than Wild ("stripper name" - right on the money, Mom!)

And I love the simple but logical reasoning - it's "keys" from the piano, stoopid. Hmmmmmmmm, that could be interesting if applied more widely: "Eric Plectrum", now there was a missed opportunity. Mind you, one of the most famous guitar distortion pedals in the market has the brand name "Big Muff", so you gotta be careful about taking this whole "name yourself after your gear" thing too far...

Not sure a great stage name always helps. "Tom Jones" is as anonymous a name as you could wish for, yet, for better or worse, the singer isn't.

(Yet.)

Some are just right for the role, I guess. Saul Hudson or Slash? No doubt which fits him better.

2007-11-12 04:15:19 · answer #1 · answered by Bowzer 7 · 2 0

Here it is: Artist: Byrds Song: So You Want to Be a Rock 'N' Roll Star Album: The Byrds So you want to be a rock 'n' roll star? Then listen now to what I say Just get an electric guitar Then take some time and learn how to play And with your hair swung right And your pants too tight It's gonna be all right Then it's time to go downtown Where the agent man won't let you down Sell your soul to the company Who are waiting there to sell plastic ware And in a week or two If you make the charts The girls'll tear you apart The price you paid for your riches and fame Was it all a strange game? You're a little insane The money, the fame, the public acclaim Don't forget what you are You're a rock 'n' roll star! Don't strive to be famous. Strive to be good. In today's world, there is often a HUGE difference between the two.

2016-05-29 08:27:28 · answer #2 · answered by cathy 3 · 0 0

It really does.

For example, Alicia Keys came out when I was in elementary school. All of us though it was such an astounding coincidence that her last name was Keys and she played the piano! It lead us to appreciate her just that much more.

If she was Alicia Wild? First of all, that doesn't sound that catchy. Second, it really does sound like a loose girl... And it really wouldn't have fit with any of the songs she did on her first CD. o_o

Names and album covers are important because they may be the first thing people see or hear. What if you were a gospel singer named 'Bloody Hell'? That would turn off some more shallow potential listeners immediately, even if your CD has the greatest music ever on it. I can't think of any real examples of this however.

I don't think someone would care as much if it was your birthname.

2007-11-12 04:02:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

It depends on the focus of the act. If one musician is going to be the main focus, then it's necessary. That musician's name has to compete with other band names to catch the attention of the average listener, who often use image to determine quality and sincerity of a performer. On top of that, it's about marketing. Which t-shirt would be worn more, what name will people remember, etc
This is particularly true in the Rock and Pop world, but doesn't really apply to nearly the same extent elsewhere (think Country).
Positive: Sex Pistols (that band was based on image)
Negative: Soil (kept many people from taking a good band seriously)

2007-11-12 04:42:44 · answer #4 · answered by Master C 6 · 1 0

I'm not sure how much it affects image, but it certainly used to affect an artist's appeal. Would people have listened to any of these under their real names? :~

Bob Dylan ~ Robert Zimmerman
Cliff Richard ~ Harry Webb
Elton John ~ Reginald Dwight
Lulu ~ Marie Lawrie
Billy Fury ~ Ronald Wycherley
Cilla Black ~ Priscilla White
Ringo Starr ~ Richard Starkey
Peter Green ~ Peter Greenbaum
Grace Slick ~ Grace Barnett Wing
Alvin Stardust ~ Bernard Jewry


Edit :~

Cinnamon, I don't know : I think Duff would have been ok as
'Michael McKagan' :)

2007-11-12 04:13:21 · answer #5 · answered by Lady Silver Rose * Wolf 7 · 2 0

I hate the whole "stage name" concept. If you got talent, it shouldn't matter what your name is unless you go with something totally retarded like the aforementioned Prince. I am not convinced that performers can't succeed using their birth names.

John Cougar, lol. Now there was a bad a$$ name. His early image reminded me a lot of James Dean.

Rob Zombie does have a nice ring to it, but he'd still be cool as Cummings.

2007-11-12 03:54:23 · answer #6 · answered by Rckets 7 · 5 0

Oh, i wonder who Cinnamon's going to talk about...



Every member of Guns N' Roses [apart from Steven Adler] changed their names.
I somehow think; Saul Hudson, Bill Bailey, Jeff Isbell and Michael Andrew McKagan wouldn't quite have the same effect as Slash, Axl Rose, Izzy Stradlin and Duff McKagan.
Perhaps that's just me.
hehe

x

2007-11-12 04:43:43 · answer #7 · answered by Cinny [1334♀] 6 · 2 0

I think it has a big impact, just the way that a band name does. it is an alter ego, a whole other personality.

Now I dont really listen to Slipknot, but I know one member's (possibly the singer) name is Corey Taylor. I really would have changed that. His name is so teeny-bopper-like, even more so than the Backstreet boys' real names.

2007-11-12 08:17:49 · answer #8 · answered by ƎIΝΟƆ 6 · 1 0

Well, considering I listen to most European metal it is better for band members to take on a stage name because they're real names are real hard to pronounce, especially for us, the American audience. Take for example Demonaz from Immortal it is easier to remember and pronounce than Harald Nævdal. Lol, I had to look his name in the Wikipedia since I really don't know it. So in a way, not only are they creating a persona for their band, but it's also making it easier for foreigners to recognize them.

2007-11-12 04:22:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I think it has a decent impact on the performer, especially if their image is a big part of their whole package.

Zakk Wylde........I don't think I could call him Jeffrey Wiedlandt (his real name)
Ozzy........definitely helped
Rob Zombie.......I don't think Rob Cummings would have the same effect

Engelbert Humperdinck........ I don't think people would remember Arnold Dorsey....definitely caused people to remember him


LnR: Rob would be awesome with any name

2007-11-12 03:55:45 · answer #10 · answered by Dani G 7 · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers