exploremusic

Earlier this year, Courtney Love announced that she was resurrecting Hole. Not long at all after that announcement, former Hole bassist Melissa Auf der Maur expressed her confusion in an ExploreMusic exclusive interview and former Hole guitarist Eric Erlandson questioned Love’s right to use the band name.

Nevertheless, Hole is the artist name that will be on the cover of the long-delayed Nobody’s Daughter album.

“Wherever I lay my head is Hole,” Love tells Rolling Stone. “It’s four letters. It is one of the best band names in f***ing history, if I do say so myself. For a while I was a little embarrassed it was maybe vulgar, but at least it’s not phallic. It’s H-O-L-E, it’s a great band name, and it’s mine.”

I wonder why Love released that one album America’s Sweetheart under her own name if Hole "is one of the best band names in f***ing history."

What I really wonder about is whether or not she should be releasing this album as Hole when it’s more of a solo project by the sounds of it, and it’s definitely not featuring anyone else from the band Hole that we all remember.

There are some bands that are really projects led by a single member even though there are consistent, full lineups for live shows and on albums. I’m talking about bands like Nine Inch Nails, KMFDM, and Filter.

It’s a weirder situation when a band goes through lineup changes until they’re, well, an almost entirely different band with the same name. Think GN’R.

Then again, Smashing Pumpkins are in a similar (but more confusing) situation, but it makes more sense to me because SP was always sort of under one person’s creative control.

The ownership of the name can give individuals the right to continue releasing albums and continue touring under the band name, but in what situation should they do so and when should they just give the band or project a different name?