Up to a few years ago I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you.
Then I saw Roger Daltry on stage with Pete’s brother Simon and two young musicians on bass and drums. He was opening for Eric Clapton. His group basically lit off a string of vintage Who songs. Simon plays lead as good as Pete used to play.
The sound was pure 70’s Who all the way. The set was so tight and true to vintage Who that it occurred to me that only an act like Clapton’s could follow it and not be fearful.
After sadly witnessing the Super Bowl halftime Who fiasco it warmed my heart to hear the music played with the intensity and precision it deserved.
Reading this, and as a Wilco fan, a thought just occurred to me. Whenever this is the case, does that not mean that the “band” really isn’t one, but instead just a solo act with a changing cast of back-up players and side men?
Bassist John Stirratt is irreplaceable and Tweedy is on record as saying that if John ever decides to leave the band, that it will be the end of Wilco. He’s been with Tweedy since Uncle Tupelo, and throughout the entirety of Wilco’s history.
Everyone else in the band can be replaced, though they’ve have a really great run w/ this current lineup.
But the point is that evryone except Trent or Morrison is replacable. This thread is not about not replacing the one or two members everyone knows about but where the bassist or drummer can’t even be replaced without changing the sound or feel of the band.
Obviously The Beatles could replace the drummer and still be The Beatles. Also, they could lose Stu Sutcliffe.
Sting is not The Police. His solo output is nothing like The Police. Without Andy and Stewart, he’s basically Kenny G.
Remember, this thread is not about bands where you can’t replace the lead creative force. It’s about bands where every member is a lead creative force, and therefore you can’t replace any of them. It’s not about bands with one or two leaders and a bunch of talented session players.
It’s certainly arguable that George Harrison could have been replaced. Switch George with Pete Townsend or Jeff Beck or somebody, for example, and tell me that doesn’t get you at least as good a band. It changes the complexion of the group, certainly, but the Beatles changed so radically during their relatively brief tenure that this would have been par for the course.
Rutsey was a competent, solid drummer, but Peart’s addition completely changed the sound and direction of the band. And since Peart replaced Rutsey in between the release of the first album and the band going on tour to support that same album, Rutsey may as well have been a hired studio musician.
Although it’s interesting that, judging by the old archival Rush videos I’ve seen from when Rutsey was still in the band, he was essentially the band’s spokesman - he did all the talking to the audience between songs.
If you consider Indigo Girls to be a band and Amy Ray and Emily Saliers to be the only members of the band (they often have other people on stage with them but those people are not part of Indigo Girls), they qualify. Their continued existence as a duo hinges on their two voices and their peculiar approach to songwriting. They don’t collaborate on their songs - there are Emily songs and Amy songs. Replacing one of them would change the sound and lose half of the songs. Nobody wants to hear someone else sing an Emily Saliers song with Amy Ray and nobody wants to hear someone else sing an Amy Ray song with Emily Saliers. When one of them wants out it’s over.
I’m too lazy to read back over the thread, but aren’t you the first to make such an observation? You’ve single-handedly made it unnecessary for anyone to mention Simon and Garfunkel or the Everly Brothers, for instance.
