Talk:Little River Band

Federal court

Nobody "won" the Federal Court case in Australia. The action was settled out of court. See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/875.rtf for the court documents that state "The parties do not wish to continue with litigation." – Preceding unsigned comment added by Krford (talk | contribs) at 14:19, 29 May 2006. – Manually attributed by shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

untitled

its sad what happened the the original lrb; being cut from THEIR band, and then being sued for using a name which THEY CREATED, well i suppose that's what money does. Do you think it's possible to add a separate chapter on the disputes had over the 'little river band' name? Because it is a large part of the story of the little river band, and their ultimate 'demise'. – Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.5.13 at 21:29, 25 August 2006. – Manually attributed by shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps not a wise move: both parties, and their respective fans, hold very strong opinions on this matter and rarely agree. I doubt very much if a wiki could be written that is agreeable to both sides. I suspect that it would be subject to constant revision as each side vists Wikipedia. The current LRB article acknowledges the issue without causing too much angst. Best to leave it that way. – Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.79.58 at 21:29, 25 August 2006. – Manually attributed by shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Acording to LRB's own website here: http://www.littleriverband.com/news/current/ Stephen Housden is NOT a current touring member of the band. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Krford (talk | contribs) at 21:47, 24 September 2006. – Manually attributed by shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Reference for song plays?

I could not find information on BMI's website regarding the number of airings of songs. Where does this information (i.e. 4 million air plays of LRB's Reminiscing) come from? Reference needed. Origen 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

References added to article WWGB 23:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Defining LRB Today

This entry should at least make it clear that while (as it says) "Little River Band continues to play 100s of shows in the USA every year", the entity today known as LRB is arguably more of a tribute band than much else. It seems ludicrous that the three main original members are together and playing their original hits that this article about Little River Band ends with a reference to a group which holds the legal right to be called LRB today but for the greater meaning of the label "Little River Band" over the years it just isn't a good note to round out the entry. Shorrock etc's current activities deserve as much of a mention in the rounding up as those of the "current lineup"70.189.213.149 (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is correct, except for the number of performances. Not exactly the full lineup, but a sub-structure of the originals band still performs under the band name and they do perform extensively internationally. I could be wrong, but I believe that's somewhat correct. --rm 'w avu 13:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no! The current LRB has NO original members. Stephen Housden, who was the band's fourth lead guitarist, owns the rights to the name, but he no longer tours with the band. Wayne Nelson (the band's fourth bass player) now fills the role of lead singer. All other players are salarymen who are employed by Housden. The band tours North America each year, with very rare forays to other places like New Zealand. The original LRB singers and songwriters (Glenn Shorrock, Graeham Goble and Beeb Birtles) have no connection with the current LRB. They perform and record as Birtles Shorrock Goble. WWGB (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Little River Band is touring Germany soon. They were just in New Zealand. An international tour is in the works.This page really needs to be cleaned up. It is so biased against the current LRB. The bias is quite frankly obvious and obnoxious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DinaMoore (talk • contribs)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merging of albums

Following a discussion here, I am proposing that the band's albums be merged into this article. Either that, or into an article called something like Little River Band Discography. Does anyone have a view on this? TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I found reviews of some of these albums on the AllMusicGuide. Given that, and the lack of response to this, I've decided to play safe and keep the articles as they are. I've added links to the reviews on the relevant pages. TheRetroGuy (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Discography

Little River Band discography created. Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Discographer, I need your help here. I had added several studio albums that got removed by a disgruntled fan. How can we get the studio albums listed here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DinaMoore (talk • contribs)

Photo

OH MY GOD: The fact that you called them the horrible lineup shows your bias. They are the current touring LRB and it does not matter what your personal opinion of them happens to be. HELP!! I need some editors with clout here to stop THE MADNESS. DinaMoore (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Should the main photo for this article really be the horrible current line up of LRB? Those guys didn't even write the songs, they're not who people think of when they think of LRB. I think the photo should be changed to a photo of the original line up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.243.85 (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The current band should be featured on this page since they are the touring band. This page is causing clear confusion in the market place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DinaMoore (talk • contribs)

STOP CHANGING the photo on this page. THE CURRENT TOURING LRB HAVE TO BE AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE. You can have the original band photo in the HISTORY of the band area. HAVING THE ORIGINAL BAND up on this page is confusing the public confusion. Venues pull this info off the page for promotional purposes and then the band gets accused of using the wrong photos to deceive the public. THIS PAGE is causing confusion. IT NEEDS TO STOP NOW! All of this is being documented for legal purposes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DinaMoore (talk • contribs)

DAB Richard Bryant

I DAB'd David Briggs and "supergroup", but there's no page for the Richard Bryant mentioned here; I'd redlink him, but am not sure what to even call him. As a member of both Doobie Brothers and LRB I'd say he ought to have one, but I don't have time to make one right now, so hopefully someone can and DAB him here. Darguz Parsilvan (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

LRB in media

They're featured (discussed, named) in 'The Other Guys' comedy. CapnZapp (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations tag

I have tagged this article re improving the number of citations. In the "History" section, the first four pages have only one extremely lonely citation. This situation is totally unacceptable. Unfortunately, I am up to my ears in work at Wikipedia, which is a pity because I would like to help. Australian music deserves better than this. CaesarsPalaceDude (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright of songs - Fake U.S version of little river band has zero rights over the songs

GLENN Shorrock is trying to legally silence the ( FAKE ) American version of Australian band Little River Band.

The US version of LRB contains no original members, but owns the rights to the band’s iconic name. But Not To The Original Songs

Glenn Shorrock said, “I wrote a letter to Jimmy Fallon and said ‘If you decide to put that version of LRB on your show please pass a message on to them that they’re grinding our good name in their dust and that they can go f--- themselves". - Quote from Glenn Shorrock.

- Glenn Shorrock is trying to stop the American version of Little River Band from appearing on US TV.

News article from the Australian media company, News corporation.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/music/glenn-shorrock-is-trying-to-stop-the-american-version-of-little-river-band-from-appearing-on-us-tv/story-e6frfn09-1227179991272

&

- The Tonight Show's Jimmy Fallon told 'Go f--- yourselves' by original Little River Band member Glenn Shorrock News article from the Sydney Morning Herald.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/the-tonight-shows-jimmy-fallon-told-go-f-yourselves-by-original-little-river-band-member-glenn-shorrock-20150109-12krv2.html#ixzz3URJNffbF

&

- A river too big to cross ... Article from the AGE Newspaper. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/15/1023864363299.html

&

http://www.noise11.com/news/beeb-birtles-says-screw-you-to-current-little-river-band-20121209 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.40.200 (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The current version of the opening sentence is:

"The Little River Band (LRB) is an Australian (now American) rock band, formed in Melbourne in 1975."

The history of the band, however, makes the claim that the band is "now American" more than a little problematic in my view. Whilst there is an American band with the legal right to use the name of "Little River Band" does this fact accurately represent or distort the bigger picture of the history of the group founded by Glen Shorrock etc? In my view it is a distortion and the opening sentence(s) of the article (as well as the rest of the article) needs to represent the facts more appropriately. Your comments and / or suggestions please. Afterwriting (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

We are required by WP:NPoV to represent the material in this article as neutrally as possible. We, as editors, should not be taking a position either for or against the claims (both legal and other) of opposing views of the band, its naming rights or national status. I believe the best solution is to remove any claims/counter claims to national identity and replace that opening sentence with a less contentious one. My suggestion is "Little River Band (LRB) are a soft rock band, which formed in Melbourne in March 1975."

The whole article is problematic with its article history showing, at times, volatile and abrasive commentary about the group. The article's current form is poorly organised and requires considerable re-writing. I had made some seven to eight edits of this article from 2008 to 2010 but have largely stayed away due to my perception of various editors displaying a biased PoV. However, with the group as inductees of the ARIA Hall of Fame, the article deserves to be improved to B-class or higher. I am going to start an overhaul of the article which may take over a week to be completed. Other constructive edits are welcomed.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on. I have great faith in your impartiality and your writing skill. I look forward to your improvements. WWGB (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm now finished my reorganising, expanding, verifying and neutralising this article. It may well have further problems with expression: but I've assessed it as B-class.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I get an assist on cleaning up this article. It is a mess and so biased once again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DinaMoore (talk • contribs)

Little River Band and updating current information

I am trying to update LRB current information and it keeps getting taken down. Why?

This is what I am trying to put up. Billboard Magazine has “Reminiscing,” being Little River Bands highest ranking song to date reaching #3 and 20 weeks on the Billboard charts. “Night Owls” with Wayne Nelson singing lead is listed as being the 2nd highest ranking song reaching #6 with 21 weeks on the charts http://www.billboard.com/artist/307633/little-river-band/chart?f=379

Little River Band kicked off 2016 with a “sold out” show in Pompano Beach, Florida that met with rave reviews. http://pompanotoday.com/2016/01/a-rocking-revival-of-the-spirit-at-the-pompano-beach-amphitheatre/ Little River Band is slated to play at least 90 shows this year with already 71 on the books. http://www.bandsintown.com/LittleRiverBand

Can somebody please tell me why this information would be taken down several times in the last 2 days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paige Marie Turner (talk • contribs) 23:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Because you added your own research/synthesis to assert "The Night Owls" had spent more weeks on the charts when that was not the focus of the cited article.

2. Because there is nothing notable about a single concert over the thousands performed previously.

3. Because the cited link does not list "at least 90" shows in 2016. WWGB (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with WWGB's analyses here. Not everything about this group is notable enough to be put into this article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have now added the Top 20 information here. WWGB (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• The table highlights the paucity of articles for LRB's works: only 4 out of 10 of these singles have their own articles! Unfortunately I'm busy elsewhere and can't start those off.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Tone of the article

I have no stake in this either way, but it seems the tone of this article is pretty one sided in recounting the recent disputes over the touring Little River Band. A reviewer may not like a particular concert or appearance, but for every negative review, i'm sure there is at least one positive review. Do we want this page to be neutral regarding the disputes about the band, or should this page take the pro-Birtles/Shorrock/Goble stance? That seems inappropriate as a Wikipedia page. This matter has been decided in the courts, and like it or not, Stephen Housden is the legal owner of the name Little River Band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.59.85 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there is quite a bit of irrelevant material here that seems out of place in a wikipedia entry. Many accusations border on slanderous and are often unsubstantiated by the references provided. This is particularly so in the 1998-today section. One example is the suggestion that the current band uses the previous members' images and voices in promotion. This is unsubstantiated (the reference links to an advertisement created by a promoter, not by the band). The EPK the band publishes contains video and audio recordings of the current band playing the hits interspersed with historic footage of Wayne Nelson. The mention of the band's coninued references to the band's past hits or accolades (some of which Wayne Nelson is directly involved in) doesn't seem like NPOV. There are times that this article does appear to be engaging in the dispute rather than reporting on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.8.244 (talk • contribs)

Can somebody help with the obvious BIAS being demonstrated on this page. This is supposed to be an actual factual publication with verifiable information, not an opinion publication. I have seen comments in different LRB groups where people editing this page chuckle about how they misconstrue things. They are having quite a lot of fun trying to make the current touring Little River Band look bad. I have the name of one of the editors doing this. Who do I report that to and how can we stop this from happening?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DinaMoore (talk • contribs)

I agree that this article seems to have a strong bias against the current LRB. Look, no one has to like what was decided in the courts; you all are free to diss the current band as much as you like; but a Wikipedia page is NOT the place for that. Nobody in the current band is doing anything against the law or trying to smear the reputations of past members. They are simply doing what bands do when certain members decide to quit - carrying on playing the music for people that want to hear it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.68.62 (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Just reading the lede, it is obvious that there is at least one editor with an axe to grind against some incarnation of the group. Any disputes should be documented in the article, but it needs to be given neutral and appropriate focus. Ashmoo (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hal Tupaea

The Hal Tupaea LRB bass player spells his surname "Tupaea" not Tupea."NGĀ TAONGA". nga taonga. New Zealand Archive of Film, Television and Sound. 2018. Retrieved 19 July 2018.

Maybe now, yes, but his name was previously written in reliable sources as Hal Tupea.[1][2] We use contemporary spelling. If he rejoins LRB, we will use the current spelling then. WWGB (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

In 1998, contemporary LRB website LRB.net spelled his name as Tupaea.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.8.244 (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

But you were seeking to change the spelling for the period 1992–1995. WWGB (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The attempt was to correct all misspellings of the name in this article. The sources you have cited are not contemporary to 1992-95 either. Peter Beckett's website also contains the spelling Tupaea under the band photo from 1996.[4] Hal Tupaea also has a posting of the same music video you cited on Youtube contemporaneous to the Beckett posting.[5] I would argue that the reference on the LRB website is more contemporaneous than those you cited and, as it comes from a reliable source at the time he was in the band, that the spelling should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.8.244 (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with WWGB: by way of comparison – what is Goble's first name? How was he referred to during most of his tenure in the LRB? Should the article be re-written with the earlier spelling of his first name?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Holmgren also has Tupaea, see 3/12/98 archived version.

OLD VS. CURRENT LRB

Acording to LRB's own website here: http://www.littleriverband.com/news/current/ Stephen Housden is NOT a current touring member of the band.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DinaMoore (talk • contribs)

This page is so biased. These guys were not CUT from the band. Each one left on their own accord, one by one. The 3 originals didn't even like each other and in fact recorded their parts in the recording studio separate from one another. A band is a business. That is why they call it the music business. Just because you don't like it does not give you the right to do this. This website is not to be used as a slander page that does nothing but disparages the current touring LRB. I am not going to get into an argument with the bias Australian or Tami. Yes we know who you are. I am getting paid to monitor this page so I can keep this up daily - every single day. I am also going to get to someone here at WIKIPEDIA to make this stop.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DinaMoore (talk • contribs)

Obvious bias at the LITTLE RIVER BAND page

It is obvious that people with a "conflict of interest" are editing this page. Every single section of this page needs to be cleaned up from the main photo, to newer studio albums in discography and the removal of editorial and opinion paragraphs.

There are many citations that lead to nowhere, (articles and links that have been disabled)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DinaMoore (talk • contribs) 19:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@DinaMoore and WWGB: In reviewing this article, the one failing that I see is its overuse of quotations. I counted no less than 44 separate quotations made in this article. This overuse of quotations has become so cumbersome that the editors who have placed them have even become confused in their use, with quotations that:

1. Carry an extra quotation mark in an already existing pair of marks, where there should not be any (When asked about the Hits Revisited album, founding member Beeb Birtles said "That to me is the comedy album ... " [sic]They re-arranged all the songs and it's bloody awful. They're nothing more than a tribute band.")
2. Quotations being both italicised and not italicised in the same paragraph, for no apparent reason (On 13 November 2017, founding member Beeb Birtles was interviewed on Australian news program Studio 10. When asked if the original band would ever reunite he said; "I don't think that's going to happen. We can't do it without the name, that's the problem. We played some shows as Birtles, Shorrock, Goble and had some success with that. Once that folded we all realised it wasn't going to go any further than that. It's unfortunate how we lost the name and everything, but if its ruled in the court that way all you can do is walk away from it." Shorrock offered to bury the hatchet in 2015 saying "Let's get up on stage and play some music. Forget about all this bullshit." When asked to respond to a Little River Band reunion featuring original members, the current owner of the name and trademark, Stephen Housden, responded "Not in this lifetime.)
3. Quotations being used without inline attribution to whom is speaking the words (During the recording there were "frictions and competition between the band members" such that Birtles, Goble and Shorrock each "recorded separately in the studio... as much as possible.")

These missteps are glaring and are testament to the editor's poor understanding of MOS:QUOTES. That being said, I don't see much of any particular edit requests that are actionable here, beyond the odd placement of the infobox's picture outside of the infobox and the article's use of 13 dead links (12% of all sources used for the entire article). Please advise on any particulars I may have missed. Regards,  Spintendo  22:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The most "obvious bias" in my observation is that some people, one in particular, want to whitewash the controversies about LRB out of the article by constantly trying to remove information regarding this. This indicates a much greater potential "conflict of interest" than including such information in the article. Yahboo (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anybody wants to whitewash anything. The wiki articles should be truthful pieces without people putting commentary. Adding things like, "no Australian's remain in the band." What different does that make? This band has had over 32 personnel changes. The fact that there are no Australians means nothing. There is also nobody from England or no Dutch but that doesn't seem to be needed and I don't know why not since as you know, Shorrock was not an Australian and neither was Birtles.

Taking quotes out of Birtles book is also bias. Birtles is clearly not speaking from a neutral position so quotes from his book should not be acceptable. Wikipedia should be something that is factual accurate and this article clearly is not. DinaMoore (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Shorrock was not an Australian and neither was Birtles", you are confusing place of birth with citizenship. Shorrock and Birtles were both Australian citizens.

Re: "The fact that there are no Australians means nothing". Wow, you clearly do not understand anything about enduring legacy. Little River Band will always be remembered as an Australian band, just as The Beatles = British and Abba = Swedish.

Re: "Taking quotes out of Birtles book is also bias". So, a founding member who wrote and sang hits is unreliable? He was there while it all happened! Your assertion is akin to saying that Brian Wilson's comments on The Beach Boys should not be acceptable, just because he is no longer in the band.

I will continue to challenge you if you try to remove sourced content from the article, just because you do not like it. WWGB (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Simple statements of facts is not "commentary". Removal of such facts is often an indication of a personal agenda to either censor or whitewash an article because those facts conflict with what someone wants others to think are the facts. I believe that is what you are trying to do. Yahboo (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Yahboo and WWGB:Just finished going through the refs, and they should be good now. That page link was very useful Spintendo; hadn't seen it before. Managed to fix most via wayback, or find replacements. I did have to remove some material that had dead (and seemingly unresurrectable) refs- If anyone can manage to find live refs feel free to put it back in. Had a quick look at the quotes mentioned and tweaked them a bit too. They need more work though. Curdle (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Facebook claims

I removed a paragraph about bickering on Facebook, which was only sourced to the Facebook posts in question, per WP:PRIMARY. There was also a claim about the band's FB page being unavailable in Australia in 2019, which had no sources - there are sources supporting the band blocking Australian FB users from viewing their page in 2017, but not the more recent claims. If secondary sources are provided, there is nothing to stop the info from being restored, but we need to be careful about not adding too many trivial details. --bonadea contributions talk 09:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:TOOBIG

The article is huge! As of 11 October 2020 it has 125,944 bytes (see here). According to WP:TOOBIG: "> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided".

What can be divided off?

1. Awards and nominations received by Little River Band could be started and populated from this article.
2. Discography subsection: Top 20 U.S. Singles – could be moved to Little River Band discography.

@Bonadea, Curdle, DinaMoore, WWGB, and Yahboo: I'd like to get the opinion of interested editors before I undertake these actions.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Shaidar cuebiyar:, I agree that "Awards and nominations" is an obvious candidate for a split-off article. Can I also boldly suggest that the "name use dispute" furore would make a good standalone article? No doubt you are aware of the ongoing dispute and hostility between the two sides, so any edits will come under close scrutiny. That said, I think it could make an interesting separate article. Happy to help along the way. Regards, WWGB (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@WWGB: thanks for your prompt response. I'll wait awhile to see what others say.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Shaidar cuebiyar: Dividing both of those off sounds like a good idea. Some of the quotes could probably be trimmed down as well. The rest of the page is looking better since I last saw it though:). Curdle (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Curdle: Some good ideas there. Thanks for the feedback.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bonadea, Curdle, WWGB, and Yahboo: I'm currently incubating a new article, We Two Pty Ltd v Shorrock (2002), on one of my sandboxes. Once the proto-article is sufficiently ready I'll remove much of this article's discussion about the group's name use.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I have created We Two Pty Ltd v Shorrock (2002) as well as List of awards and nominations received by Little River Band and moved Top 20 U.S. Singles to the discography list article. I will now return to trim much of the latter two sections of the article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

opening is incorrect

the opening statement in this article is wrong.

this is a quotation from the end of the article Mississippi(band) as follows:-...... "In early 1975, the individuals members, Birtles, Goble, Pellici and Shorrock, had returned to Australia and reformed Mississippi, with the addition of Graham Davidge on lead guitar and Dave Orams on bass guitar. After a few concerts, on the way to a gig in Geelong, in March, they decided to change their name to Little River Band, after passing by the town of Little River. Under the guidance of Wheatley, they became one of Australia's most successful bands in the US". this band was NOT started in Melbourne, as stated in the quotation from the Mississippi Article. Again Quoting from the Mississippi article, the intro states "Mississippi were an Australian soft rock band (1972–1975), which included Graham Goble on lead vocals and guitar, Beeb Birtles on lead vocals and guitar, and Derek Pellicci on drums. The band had started as Allison Gros in Adelaide in 1970 and moved to Melbourne in 1971 where they recorded as Allison Gros, Drummond and, early in 1972, became Mississippi. As Drummond they issued a cover version of "Daddy Cool" (July 1971), which peaked at No. 1 on the Go-Set National Top 40 for eight weeks. As Mississippi they reached No. 10 with "Kings of the World" (October 1972). In early 1975, with Birtles, Goble and Pellici aboard and the addition of Glenn Shorrock, the group were renamed, Little River Band." Pga1965 (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

What point are you making? Of course LRB was formed in Melbourne. WWGB (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Little River Band vs Love Runs Blind

Someone deleted my 'don't confuse' cap, but LRB (Love Runs Blind) is sometimes credited as Little River Band. See Shukh (album). Vziel (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That record cover is misrepresentation amounting to fraud. Wikipedia cannot condone illegal practices. WWGB (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Who says it's necessarily a fraud though? Could be easily a coincidence, I don't think a lot of people in Bangladesh know about the subject of this talk. Vziel (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Splitting the article?

I am wondering whether we should consider splitting the article into two separate articles due to the problems and confusions caused by the band name dispute. The current American band legally called "Little River Band" is clearly not the "Australian rock band" formed in Melbourne in the 1970s and its claims to be a direct continuation of the original band are dubious at best in my view.

So what about having two articles called something like "Little River Band (Australian rock band)" and "Little River Band (American Rock band)"? These are just suggestions, other article names may be better than these.

Any thoughts and suggestions about this will be appreciated. Thanks. Yahboo (talk) 05:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

When would the "Australian" band end and the "American" band begin? WWGB (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

We know when the Australian band began and that it effectively ended when all of the original members had stopped playing as LRB and then lost use of the name - at which point, more or less, the American band under Housden's leadership began when it started playing using the LRB name. Is there another way of considering these matters? Under current laws governing such matters, a band cannot use a name unless it includes at least one original member and the American band doesn't. So the American band is, essentially, not the band that this article is principally about but another band with the same name. Yahboo (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The last original member, Derek Pellicci, left the band in December 1997. However, in the next iteration of the band, all members were Australian-based (Steve Wade, Stephen Housden, Paul Gildea, Roger McLachlan, Kevin Murphy, Adrian Scott). So, this group could not be called an "American" band. Any division of the band based on membership is not simple. Anyway, if Wikipedia tried to separate the current band from the founders band, Housden would hit Wikipedia with a law suit in a flash. He is the legal owner of the name "Little River Band" and we have to accept that, like it or not. WWGB (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)