Irreplaceable Instruments in a Band?

For me, and the bands I like, it’s definitely voice.
No Liz Frazier, no Cocteau Twins. Sure, the other instrumentalists make a very distinct sound. But it’s the voice that distinguishes them, and they wisely never continued without her.
There are bands that did continue, where I stopped listening and still follow the singer solo, like 10,000 Maniacs and The Stranglers.

I have been surprised by how much I love Johnny Marr singing on his own plays of Smiths songs, though.

The Mills Brothers and the Bobs were primarily acapella “bands” who often vocally imitated physical instruments. With the right voices, everything else is optional. But an all-kazoo band can be a bit much.

Yeah, I think a lot of people are taking this in a different direction than the OP intended. It might have been clearer to title the thread “Irreplaceable Instrumentalists in a Band.” But it’s clear to me that the OP is talking about replacing someone in a band with a different person who plays the same instrument.

And I agree with Mr Pudding: it depends on how distinctive the musician is. Nobody’s literally irreplaceable, but some replacements make it hard to consider the two lineups “the same band.” Is Van Halen with David Lee Roth the same band as Van Halen with Sammy Hagar (or Gary Cherone)? Is The Who without Keith Moon still The Who? How many different Fleetwood Macs have there been?

The 80’s proved that synthesizers could replace everything.

But they usually sounded awful, like most of the 80s. What an awful decade for production. Jangly strat sound, and the worst - those awful “drum machines”

I couldnt disagree more. Electronic based music has long eclipsed rock. Techno, hip hop, ambient and even some of those 80s bands like Depeche Mode and the Pet Shop Boys are still popular. When Vegas was still open the dominant music played was electronica.

Hey, wait a minute! “She Blinded Me with Science” was our Senior prom theme!*

[small]* Not actually true[/small]

I’m talking about music quality, great albums, etc… But even popularity, when I go to concerts, I always see a ton of 18-year olds at shows by bands who started in the 70s (even the Eagles), while I never see them at a band that started in the 80s (The Cars, for example).

The Cars started in the 80’s? :dubious:

You can do a lot more with a synthesizer today than you could in the 1980s, and research is still ongoing. Anyway, then as well as now, you could either take the time to understand synthesis at the deepest level and create something original, or just spend the money and punch up a few presets. Not that the latter is useless: today you can buy an entire virtual orchestra on DVD, and increasingly lifelike sequenced as well as live performance is becoming possible.

I consider them an 80’s band. You could add Duran Duran, and many other bands young people won’t attend, even though its closer to their time.

I guess somehow great music transcends time.

I see one or two youngins in the audience.

I skimmed it over, it was hard to see to be honest with you…

I wonder how much of a difference there is from the US (where I’ve seen all my concerts) vs. the UK… The one thing I know if you ask the average person, or even the average young adult, their favorite bands will either be really new or really old.

The Dregs had vocals on Industry Standard. Though they dropped the Dixie from the name in an effort to gain more commercial appeal. Other than the addition of guest vocalists the band is the same except Allen Sloan was replaced by Mark O’Connor. However it is the same band.

Slee