Indispensible Band Members ("It's Not _ Without _")

Cafe Society
1

This question arises because my wife and I went to see Boston the other night (yes, we’re old fogies stuck in the 70s, and we freely admit it).

Was it the original band? No- but Tom Scholz and Brad Delp are still there, so as far as I’m concerned, it’s still Boston. TO my way of thinking, Tom and Brad could hire ANY bassist and ANY drummer, ANY backup musicians they want, and it’s Boston.

But on a regular basis, I see advertisements for old (or “classic,” if you actually like them) bands on tour- but often, it turns out that there’s only one original band member left, and it’s not someone fans really care about. I mean, suppose an old Grand Funk fan read that Grand Funk was putting on a concert, bought tickets, then found that the band was really just old bassist Mel Schacher and 3 young guys who probably weren’t even BORN yet when Grand Funk was popular! That fan would feel cheated, I’d bet (though he might be delighted to see Farner and Brewer with 2 unknown sidemen.)

I’m wondering, where do YOU draw the line? At what point do lineup changes force you to say, “They’re not really the band I knew. I have no interest in seeing them”?

A few of my opinions (feel free to argue):

In SOME cases, a “band” is really a one person operation. So, as far as I’m concerned:

Mark Knopfler and ANY group of musicians he hires can call themselves “Dire Straits,” and I’d pay to hear them.

Chrissie Hynde and ANY group of musicians can rightly call themselves the Pretenders.

Ric Ocasek and ANY set of hired musicians can call itself the Cars.

Beyond that:

No disrespect intended to Charlies Watts, Ron Wood or Bill Wyman, but the Stones are Keith & Mick. As long as THEY’RE together, they can call themselves the Rolling Stones, in my opinion.

No one has used the name “Creedence Clearwater Revival” in ages, but Cosmo Clifford and Stu Cook tour as “Creedence Clearwater Revisited.” Sorry, but in my book, John Fogerty could hire a backup band off the street and that band would have more right the old name than Cook & Clifford.

The Byrds’ sound was defined by Roger McGuinn’s vocals and 12-string guitar. So, illogical as it may sound, I’d accept McGuinn and 3 unknowns as “the Byrds” more readily than I’d accept a band WITH David Crosby, Gene Clark and Chris Hillman, but without McGuinn.

2

It’s not Pink Floyd without Roger Waters. They can call it Pink Floyd until they are blue in the face, but without Roger it is not Pink Floyd.

3

Yeah, without Roger, it’s good music again.

4

It is not INXS - without Michael Hutchins, I know he died and I know there were 6 members in the Band, but He was INXS.

Also The Doors are not The Doors without Jim Morrison - The Lizard King.

I wish these bands and others who have lost members because of death, would not reform, especially when you lose a Front Man/Face of the Band. Sorry it just isn’t the same.

5

Even though he wasn’t an original member, if you ask me, it ain’t Yes without Steve Howe.

I have to disagree with ya on the Pretenders thing. Without the two dead guys, it isn’t the Pretenders. Chrissy Hynde sucks.

About the Stones: I’m kinda bummed Bill quit. Kinda takes a little of the luster off the whole experiance. If Charlie quit, I would say it ain’t the Stones no more.

If anybody quit Rush, the band is done.

Actual headline: “Church ends probe of Gay Bishop”

6

Without Ian Anderson there is no Jethro Tull. There have been dozens of Tull members over the last 30+ years but he is the tie that binds.

7

Axl Rose himself is not Guns N Roses. What a travesty.

8

Yeah it wouldn’t really be the Dave Matthews Band without you know, Dave Matthews.

9

It’s not the Dead Kennedys without Jello Biafra.

They keep touring around without him and I refuse to go see them, even if it’s true that he did screw them on royalties or whatever the hubbub’s about.

And I don’t know how it’s going to be Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds without Blixa Bargeld, pretty much the only constant Bad Seed that’s remained through all the years. I love Nick Cave more than anything, but I don’t know if I’ll go see them live now knowing that Blixa isn’t there. :frowning:

10

Steely Dan is Donald Fagen and Walter Becker. By design.

The Allman Brothers quit being brothers (plural) when Duane died in a bike wreck, yet the band has lived on.

The Pat Metheny Group without Lyle Mays would cease to be the group that matters.

All this reminds me of the bit with the ax.

11

It’s not Van Halen without David Lee Roth…

Which brings up a question, it seems to be nearly unanimous from the above posts that the lead singer is indispensible. There have been some disasterous attempts over the years to do so and it appears nearly impossible.

Two exceptions that would appear on the surface to be indispensible but weren’t: Ozzy in Black Sabbath, and Bon Scott in AC/DC

12

Genesis did pretty well without Peter Gabriel, and Manfred Mann managed to survive the departure of Paul Jones.

13

Ian himself has said, quite rightly, that he would not continue the band if Martin Barre left.

14

What exactly is so bad about Black Sabbath without Ozzy? Dio did a very good job coming in after Ozzy. I even enjoy some of the other Sabbath material as well. Sabbath is Iommi.

Iron Maiden got Dickinson after DiAnno, and some including me enjoy the Blaze era Maiden. Priest was the same, though not as good with Ripper.

Helloween has gone through three singers and is still strong, as has Savatage.

Maiden is and always will be Steve Harris. Just as Motorhead will always be Lemmy.

15

I’d also add Martin Barre to that list. He’s been the guitarist since their second album, and while he’s not the flashiest guitarist out there, he does add a lot to the sound.

As for my entry to the list, if it’s got Fripp, it can call itself King Crimson.

16

Steven Tyler, I think, is a no-brainer. So’s Joe Perry. “Rock in a Hard Place”- you guys weren’t kidding!

Gwen Stefani makes No Doubt No Doubt, I think.

17

I agree with GargoyleWB on Black Sabbath. Black Sabbath remained Black Sabbath to me even after Ozzy left and Ronnie James Dio stepped in to perform on “Heaven and Hell” and “Live Evil.” He wasn’t Ozzy, but he was still good. We still had Tony Iommi, Geezer Butler and Bill Ward in the lineup. Once RJD left and Ian Gillan of Deep Purple fame stepped in to appear on the Born Again album, it was still Black Sabbath to me. When “Seventh Star” was released, however, it was Tony Iommi and three unknowns. The songs on this album were nothing like the Black Sabbath I was more familiar with. The band just wasn’t the same at that point.

I also have to agree that Val Halen lost its “Van Halen”-ness when David Lee Roth stepped down and Sammy Hagar took his place. The music was so vastly different that I couldn’t even recognize that it was Van Halen. I never bought 5150, OU812 or anything else that was released afterwards. Sammy Hagar was better off as a soloist and DLR ruined his career by going solo, IMO.

18

Well, that would allow us to discount all those lousy albums they did with Trevor Rabin! :stuck_out_tongue:

To me, it’s not Yes without Jon Anderson–so throw out Drama, too.

19

I was going to say, Rage Against the Machine just isn’t RATM without Zach De La Rocha… Then I realized, they aren’t RATM anymore. Now they’re Audioslave and have brought in Chris Cornell from Soundgarden.

This is how good bands break up, and re-form as something else. Better, worse, you be the judge. But at least the remaining three RATM members aren’t pounding the clubs, using the old name and trying to get some guy to sound just like de la Rocha. They have an entirely different sound, but you still hear hints of the old RATM sounds.

I’m babbling now.

20

Screw that. It’s not Pink Floyd without Syd Barrett.

Given that he actually he left the band before I was born, I base this only on my general fondness for Syd Barrett. my preference for “Lucifer Sam” over “Comfortably Numb” and my desire to be bloodyminded about it :D.