I was wondering about this because of the topics about Adema and Midnight Panic. Personally, I think the lead singer should get to continue using his/her old band's name. I think it's the vocals that really define a band.
Whoever started the band. If the guy who started the band leaves, the remaining members reserve the right to keep or change their name. Personally, I think bands should change their names when they lose a vocalist. Vocalist changes are usually the most drastic when it comes to altering the band's sound. Case in point: Adema.
If a key member of a band leaves usually it would be for the best if they split up altogether, or started over with a new name and replacement. Led Zeppelin and Rage Against The Machine are examples.
The remaining members should keep it. I think it makes sense. Think of nightwish. If Tarja The Bitch had taken Nightwishes name that wouldn't have been good
I think that the remaining members of the band have the right to keep their band's name or to choose a brand-new band name. It depends on who left, though. As Mark said, if the vocalist leaves, the band should change its name no matter what, simply because vocalists are, usually, the defining points of most bands. However, if it's a guitarist who leaves the band, the rest of the members have the right to keep or to change their name as they see fit, unless that guitarist was the one who started the band. This brings in the scenario of who and how many people started the band, though. If it's just one person and that one person leaves the band, the band should change its name. However, if more than one person started the band and one of them leaves, the others who started the band with the member that left should decide whether or not they want to keep their name or to change it, simply because the band name doesn't fit their band anymore since a part of their band left. I thought about this one a lot before.
Adema was going to sound like that even if Mark stayed. All of the instrumentals were done before Mark left. Only thing that changed were the vocals and what few lyrics Marky already had.
Zao would have stopped existing years ago if that were the case. But then again, A) It's probably different with hardcore bands. All you really need is someone who can scream/growl/both really well, and B) Zao no longer has any of the original band members in their line-up anymore, so I guess they should have changed their name.
Adema was going to sound like that even if Mark stayed. All of the instrumentals were done before Mark left. Only thing that changed were the vocals and what few lyrics Marky already had. [/b][/quote] It was primarily the vocals and lyrics that made 'Planets' one of the worst albums of 2005, in mine and many others' opinions. Marky was Adema. None of the other members were exactly amazing at what they did, but Marky gave them a unique sound with his vocals and good lyrics (not great, but good). You take Marky out of the equation and you've got a below-average band.
It's really up to everyone involved in the band. I don't think it's fair for one person to have say over 3, 4, 5, etc. other guys just because he "founded" the band. The founding member(s) are no more important than a non-founding member, in my opinion.
Look at Killswitch engage, they got Howard Jones in to replace Jesse. I don't see a problem there. But Adema replacing Marky, they should've changed their band name. I don't see it as who you replace but the significance in the change in the music, if the band gets a new vocalist but sounds similar to the band they once were, then by all means keep the band name, but if like Adema they sound completely different then IMO they should change the band name. But it doesn't really only apply to vocalist's. Like Gun's N' Roses without Slah just aint Guns N' Roses no more, or if Joey or Mick left Slipknot that just wouldn't be Slipknot anymore.
Most likely, the band will sound a hell of a lot different with a different vocalist, thus changing the lyrical style and the vocal style which is a main part in more modern music. Therefore, I think that no one should use the name anymore because it wouldn't be the same band if the remaining members kept the name or if the vocalist kept the name.