Wasn't the OP about musicians instantly identifiable by their surnames, rather than musicians who referred to themselves by their surnames?
Alternatively, 'OK- let's make this the big one for Otway!'
Wasn't the OP about musicians instantly identifiable by their surnames, rather than musicians who referred to themselves by their surnames?
Alternatively, 'OK- let's make this the big one for Otway!'
It was both.
Mr Toyah Wilcox was able to credit himself as Robert Fripp or Fripp (and did) and still be immediately identifiable.
Morrissey hasnt been mentioned yet. Nor Marr. Nor Strummer. Nor Lydon.
Must admit to struggling with concept of thread though. Both Costello & Presley have identifiable surnames & would be recognised as such without Elvis. But Presley especially doesnt need the surname for recognition no matter how unique.
So Miles, Dizzy or The Bird would all be immediately identifiable and unique.
Bird, no definite article. Dizzy was more commonly Diz.
Some can be first name or nickname:
Louis or Satchmo
Lester or Prez
Billie or Lady (Day)
OTOH Bird would be Parker, not Charlie. Coltrane is only ever Coltrane or Trane. Coleman Hawkins is Hawk.
I think Duke Ellington is a case of the childhood nickname becoming the stage name. His family still called him Edward. Similarly, Count Basie was Bill (preferred to Wiliam) to family and lovers.
One reason for surname prominence is composer credits: Lennon, McCartney, Jagger, Richards. But of course their first names used in tandem also create immediate identifiability: John and Paul, Mick and Keith (or Keef). Not sure how many other pairings have achieved this (we don't say Paul and Art, for example, for Simon and Garfunkel).
Surname more familiar than first name because they are composers not singers: Lieber and Stoller; Holland, Dozier, Holland; Rogers and Hammerstein.
Has Zappa been mentioned yet? He lucked out with that name, which was a perfect fit for his art and brand. He wouldn't have got far with a name like, say, Taccheggiatore.
Comment