tim wrote:i don't really see them losing out on much. if they feel like it's in their creative and or business interest to do so, have at it.
What if they wanted to change their name once a month, then how would you feel?
tim wrote:at the end of the day slip/smmd fans are a diehard bunch.
Of course...it won't scare the regular fans from going to the shows, and at face value, a shorter name is easier to remember.
tim wrote: i don't see too many people being left out of the loop. even if we're not talking we're still paying attention and word will get around by the time they're ready to drop the album and hit the road.
True...they won't just change the name and start touring...or start touring under the new name right away (or will they?)
tim wrote: it'll be interesting to see what they change it to though
Now that I think of this again...how many songs have changed names how many times? Some maybe three times? Or more if you count working titles. So a band name change...we're used to it by now.
tim wrote: i always though six syllables in a band's name was pushing it.
And seven syllables is definitely way over the limit!
tim wrote:seems like most established bands just tweak their name to make an f'ing awful name less shitty (see umelt and the breakfest). but there's also the rare occasion that a band changes it's name and makes one of the best rock anthems ever (jefferson starship 'we built this city'), maybe that'll be the case for SMMD.
I thought "Psychedelic Breakfast" was a much better name and had a ring to it. "Breakfast" or "The Breakfast" is just too normal to be interesting. And breakfast typically isn't my most interesting meal of the day.
A simple name like "The Beatles" carries so much meaning with just a basic pun. And we all have lots of respect for "The Slip". Would it be fathomable for The Slip to change their name?
I just happen to like the ring of "Surprise Me Mr. Davis" and hope they don't pick some goofy name I'll trip over when I tell my friends...that's all I meant by it. I also don't mean anything personal by "goofy"...who am I to judge? If there's thought in it and craftiness, I'm sure I'll grow to like it (or might just like it right away). But I'm not going to say I like it until I see it (or hear it) for the first time. I like to reserve judgement even if it's not right to judge...we're all critics or why bother having any opinions at all if we're not going to share them?
Criticism of music (art) hearkens back to the philosophy of aesthetics, but that's also redundant and way beyond the subject matter. In comparison, I didn't like the angry red background at first either...then after Jeff spiffed it up, I grew to like it. Red is now one of my seven favorite colors (behind green, blue, violet, orange, aquamarine and
lightgoldenrodyellow 
).
Then we have to go back to the "Led Zeppelin" name argument...at first, people thought it was a stupid name (and a joke, thanks to Moon). But it was just silly enough that it caught on. And noone would accuse Zep of being a silly band (except fools), but they were way more soaring than their name would suggest (epically transcendent and even revolutionary, according to most who at least pretend to care about music).
However, this was also the beginning of the "opposition movement" in superlatives. People say "man, that was the *bomb*" when they mean really fantastic, as in "you guys really blew that shit up!!!", so in that sense, "bombtastic" or "exploding enema" might be a GREAT band name...I mean a real BAD band name (BAD = the new "good"). I say (in order of precedence):
"That was the
bomb" = really good
"That was the bomb
factory" = totally phenomenal
"That was the bomb
lab" = mind-meltingly epic
I guess I could just say "epic", but now that's getting overused (well, so is "bomb"...I might have to start using more creative).
But at the end of the day, it doesn't amount to a flock of neutrons in a pile of uranium.
-From the primer to the charge,
Phrazz
