A band name is about as important, I think, as the name of a person. Which is to say that it can help or hurt in minor ways early on, but is basically inconsequential in the end. Where actual human names differ from band names is that we can benefit from our lineage. If I’m the evident son or daughter of so-and-so, it may have a positive impact on my life and career. That doesn’t work for bands. Example: I could gather four friends and a few instruments and invite you to the first ever performance “Pearl Jam Two.” The name might make you double-take. Maybe you’d laugh. But you wouldn’t assume anything—at least anything positive—about our talent. And unless you were really bored or lonely, I hope you wouldn’t come to our show.
Talent, of course, trumps a name. Take ‘The Beatles.’ Thinking about it now, I’m genuinely uncertain whether ‘The Beatles’ is a great name, an awful one, or somewhere in between. What I do know is that when I think about the band, I don’t imagine a group of small, scuttling insects with hard exoskeletons. And not just because the Fab Four spell the word with an “a.” Their legendary status has eclipsed the actual meaning of the name.
This happens to all great bands. We’re (rightly) conditioned to consider the product rather than the title, and in the midst of interesting melody and lyrics, it’s a fairly easy job. Who cares about a Beatle? Still, when looking back at the greats, it’s possible to evaluate their names on a rigorously independent great/good/average/poor/terrible scale. Here’s an example of each:
Great: The Smiths
Morrissey and Marr conjured a fantastic—and rare—synthesis of name and content. In the broadest sense, their songs were about England—all the strangeness and contradictions and absurdity contained in a place choked with surface propriety—while its former glory continued to fade. “The Smiths,” a representative surname and a prototypical family, evokes all that stiff normalcy on one hand, and all the subterranean oddities and neuroses on the other. In fact—and this is important—you don’t have to know the music to understand the band. It makes you laugh. It’s perfect.
Good: The Velvet Underground
Now would be a good time to note that I’m judging these names in a vacuum. The music, along with the back-story behind the name and the intent of the artist, doesn’t matter. Band names have to be judged alone. “The Velvet Underground” is a poetic example that sounds cool and calls up an interesting scene. It doesn’t blow your mind by encompassing all aspects of a specific society and era like “The Smiths,” but it’s damn good anyway.
Average: The Rolling Stones
It’s simply “average” because it references a personality type in an interesting way, but cannot on its surface claim a broader significance or an especially clever commentary. And I’m frankly not sure whether Mick Jagger should be applauded or booed for naming his group after a Muddy Waters song. In either case, the result isn’t cringe-inducing, and that accomplishment is harder than it appears; just ask Rage Against the Machine.
Poor: Metallica
Names that try to sound like they’re badass (or controversial, or flip) tend to get a poor rating. See also: ‘The Beastie Boys,’ ‘The Sex Pistols.’ Today, there are fewer of these examples. Coy irony and self-deprecation have largely replaced overt masculinity in the poor category.
Terrible: U2
It’s a flimsy kind of shorthand that, on its surface, feels hollow and superficial, like a text message from a 12-year-old who you’ve just wished a Happy Thanksgiving. (Put down your pitchforks, Bono devotees; I remind you that we’re judging these names by themselves, and this is no commentary on the music.)
Now that we’ve established criteria that are neither objective nor entirely clear, let’s take a gander at the new kids. What were the best new band names of 2011? What were the worst?
Note: for this list, I’ve consulted a variety of sources. I’m familiar with the music of some, and unfamiliar with others. I tried not to let talent, or lack thereof, affect the choices. Obviously, the idea of a “new band” is pretty hard to define. All these bands were around, and making music, before 2011. Some of them have released albums before 2011, and some of those may even have been on labels. But insofar as such things can be defined, these groups gained a legitimate following this year. I’m putting them in order for my own amusement; #1 is best, #1 is worst. First, a bonus:
Most Hilarious, Least Internet Searchable Band Name: