Pere Ubu is effectively David Thomas and others.
Natalie Merchant and 10,000 maniacs
Beyonce and Destiny’s Child
Bands that are actually "Johnny and his guys"
Southside Johnny and the Asbury Jukes
Johnny and the Hurricanes
Gwen Stefani and No Doubt
The Velvet Underground was Lou Reed.
It’s definitely Billy’s band. But I understand the point. To me, SP really wasn’t SP without Jimmy, much in the same way the Who without Moon don’t sound like The Who to me.
Oh, hell no. Hell no. The Police was Copeland’s band, if anything. But I wouldn’t even say that. I would say it was equally Stewart Copeland, Andy Summers, and Gordon Sumner aka Sting. But there is no way in hell the Police were just a backing band to Sting. If pressed, I would say Sting was easily the most replaceable. But only if pressed. I think all three were equally responsible for the sound that is “the Police.”
And definitely John Cale, who co-founded the group and was influential on the first two albums. Reed certainly carried on without him, but I doubt The Velvet Underground would exist as known without Cale.
Didn’t the Anderson Bueford Wakeman and Howe incident pretty much cement that Yes is Chris Squire’s band, no matter how much the others may contribute on various albums?
I’d say Squire’s sound was sorely missed on ABWH, but the album still sounds more like Yes than Big Generator. If anything, the various lineups in Yes have sold me on the idea that Anderson, Howe and Squire are the core of the band, and any two of them working together effectively represents Yes.
99% of bands are Johnny and the boys unless there are 2 Johnny’s and those are so few and far between.
The Rolling Stones are the shining example. Their 2 best eras were driven by guys who got the boot or left(Jones and then Taylor.) These guys were crucial to some of the best Rock ever made. They were driven out because of Jagger and Richards being the stars.
If Sambora got uppity, Jovi would drop him in a heartbeat. Same with most bands.
Wow. I profoundly disagree. Most “bands” I listen to, to me, are really “bands” in the collective sense. There may be one visionary and driving force behind it, but there is almost always a second force, too, tempering and shaping the vision of the band.
Like, for me, one example mentioned before–The Pretenders. For me, that wasn’t Chrissy Hynde. James Honeyman-Scott was essential to the sound of the band. As was Martin Chambers (drums), but, for me, mostly those two. After James died, the band simply wasn’t the same to me. And I came to them way after their heyday.
Yeah, This is a fact. It has become fashionable to champion the second two albums, which are influential in their own right… But aren’t at the same level as the first two. Cale brought ALOT to the table.
99% might be an overstatement but who are you talking about? I can see some genres with more sincere artists having more group ethos.
Chrissy Hynde is a highly ethical, intelligent lady.
Pretty much any band. Even a band like The Smashing Pumpkins, which is popularly known as Billy Corgan’s brainchild, I feel is at least Billy and Jimmy, and the stuff he’s done since with the new band does not sound like SP. I know that’s a very outdated example, but it was brought up in this thread. I find it difficult to think of bands where members are truly replaceable.
Um…yes? Is there a typo in my post or something that I’m missing? What do ethics and intelligence have to do with this discussion?
I was agreeing.
Ethics have a lot to do with the subject. Band dynamics are as much a ethical situation as any other business.