Does it matter if most of the original members of a band have left?
Shawn Amos
2010/01/20 13:19:02
|
|
|||||
|
22 votes
|
|
76% | |||
|
7 votes
|
|
24% | |||
Is Queen really Queen without Freddie Mercury? It is the same songs but not the same sound.
Or the Beatles or even Smashing Pumpkins?
Should they even call themselves by the same name without the original members?
It bothers me that an old sixties band called the Guess Who only has one of the original members in it, all the others have moved on after 40 something years. But he still calls it the Guess Who and it's not really the Guess Who it is a bunch of old guys singing Guess Who songs.
I think the only reason they use the original name is for recoginition to maintain their former status.
Or I suppose you could look at it like being ran like a business with new employees.
To answer, however: yes and no. One great example to support the idea that a rock band can be creative with new members would be Deep Purple. Rod Evans and Nick Simper left. Enter Ian Gillan and Roger Glover. A few years later, Blackmore leaves. Enter Tommy Bolin. Cut to 1993: Blackmore leaves for good, and in comes Steve Morse. To some, these latter-day Purple years are among the best of the band's entire career, even though Ian Paice is the only member who's played in every permutation of the band.
I think the G'N'R case study offers a perfect example of the contrary view, though admittedly, that band was imploding from 1989 onward, when the classic lineup was still extant.
By the same token, who is to say that switching singers is a bad thing? Would you like a compelling list of bands that have replaced their lead singers with singers who sounded nothing like their original counterparts and continued on with creative and commercial success? AC/DC, Deep Purple, Rainbow, Iron Maiden...let me know when to stop.
You're giving too much credit to singers, much less to musicians, and absolutely none to the songwriters in a band. I think that's heinously wrong.
I sometimes wish that more rock bands held similar aspirations, nahmean?
Alas, you opened up another can of worms with your "going with the flow" reference. Where would Deep Purple, Styx, Whitesnake, Iron Maiden, Journey and many other bands be without the introduction of new ideas by new band members? I'm not saying that the other way can't be true. Not all bands are democracies, but they needn't all be dictatorships or oligarchies, either.
read the rest of it where i also said add their own ideas and suggestions. i didn't say they weren't entitled to that just they need to keep in mind that they are joining an already created band in which the core members had already laid out the foundation of what they want the band to be.
Fans can be complete douchebags though - they have no idea what it's like being in a band, most of them. I for one thought Zeitgeist was a freakin' AMAZING album. Believe it or not, it takes SO MUCH TIME to get into that album. I realized that after listening to that album and liking it, I was a much less mainstream person and I focused on the band instead of fans.
D'arcy was kind of a bitch and left without a reason, but we all still love her. James and Billy had a few fights here and there but nothing stopped him from being in the band 'til the breakup in 2000, then Billy decided to regroup again, because he claims that the band was his life. I can understand, he was very abused and he was free when he released Siamese Dream, he could let go of the pain. And Billy himself grew so much in his carrerr
The reason why his mus...
Fans can be complete douchebags though - they have no idea what it's like being in a band, most of them. I for one thought Zeitgeist was a freakin' AMAZING album. Believe it or not, it takes SO MUCH TIME to get into that album. I realized that after listening to that album and liking it, I was a much less mainstream person and I focused on the band instead of fans.
D'arcy was kind of a bitch and left without a reason, but we all still love her. James and Billy had a few fights here and there but nothing stopped him from being in the band 'til the breakup in 2000, then Billy decided to regroup again, because he claims that the band was his life. I can understand, he was very abused and he was free when he released Siamese Dream, he could let go of the pain. And Billy himself grew so much in his carrerr
The reason why his music is so different now is because he won't write music for teenage angst now - He's done with that. And I agree with him - it's not great listening to sad music all the time. I'm glad he changed, he hasn't let me down yet. Musically, the fans are getting tired and that only makes them blind to the truth about The Smashing Pumpkins.
WHOO!! lots of typing. What can I say they're my favorite band.
This also goes for Alice in Chains and Aerosmith as other examples:
Steven Tyler changed the name Aerosmith because Joe Perry left. That was such a failure, but it didn't matter: both him and Joe were the main songwriters, IT'S OKAY.
Jerry Cantrell did MORE WORK when it came to Alice In Chains than Layne, all Layne did was sing, and co-write the songs, but believe it or not Jerry was the main mastermind. People accept Layne as the leader because he died and that's not right.
To me, here's my whole answer in one sentance: Only the songwriters should decide the name of the band, or the main contributers.
Answer your question?
I agree with your take on TSP and all, but you blundered on that claim.
I was so stoned I posted that!!! I was trying to talk about Gun's N' Roses LOL
Other bands, however, would crumble if the original members left.