Not trying to be argumentative, and you probably know a lot more of the fine details than I do, but I was under the impression there had never been a line-up officially called ‘Yes’ (for recording or performing purposes) that didn’t include Jon Anderson. Am I wrong?
In a Yes video I used to own (before I loaned it to a friend and never saw it again), Rick Wakeman said he hoped ‘Yes’ would go on and on, much like one might refer to ‘the London Symphony Orchestra’ ie the thing itself, with its traditions and reputation, goes on, and it doesn’t matter if the actual constituent members change over time. I thought this was a novel way of looking at it, and there are some bands who could probably make this concept work.
Yes, but so is Endemic. Jon Anderson was not a part of Yes on their 1980 album Drama and the subsequent tour. He was replaced by Trevor Horn, who continued to work with the band in a production capacity after the reformed with Anderson for 90125. (There were also a couple of vague Yes lineups that existed while Anderson was off doing Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe, but that’s a long story…) It’s bassist Chris Squire who has been a member of every version of Yes, and indeed it’s he who prevented ABWH form being able to call themselves Yes.
FWIW I think losing a key creative force is the only thing a band can’t truly survive. I think if it loses a distinct sound quality (key singer or instrumentalist) it simply becomes something else, regardless of what they call it.
So, it becomes almost like a gene characteristic chart wherein you lay out the members and lose one or change one, it becomes something else. As long as the key creative force is there it will remain similar enough to continue on. However drop that key force and it just keeps repeating the same stuff over and over again or becomes a a pale imitation of that.
As mentioned upthread, it was Graham Coxon that legged it. Huge loss, being that Coxon gave the band their unique guitar sound and backing vocals. New Blur is interesting but a different band. If you like Old Blur (Modern Life Is Rubbish and the harder stuff on Parklife) you’ll like Coxon’s most recent solo stuff.
This is 100 percent correct, as I understand. Berry was one for storming out or refusing to play crap. The last track on Green, the one that has no title, had drums played by Mike Mills, I think. Berry was of the opinion that “no-one can play that badly for that long.”
Berry was known as the pop-sensible member of the band and more or less wrote “Everybody Hurts.” Sonically he’s replaceable, but in the songwriting process he was essential.
That was probably billed as Queen+Paul Rodgers. Actually, John Deacon has retired and didn’t tour, so that was really two blokes from Queen, a replacement bassist, and Paul Rodgers filling in for Freddie Mercury.
Oasis is pretty much the Liam and Noel Gallagher. In their latest CD, every other member of the band has been replaced except for the two brothers.
I’m going to throw my hat in the ring regarding the Who: without Keith Moon, they weren’t the Who. He was charismatic, original, and essential to their music. I just listened to some of Tommy to refresh my memory—so often you get strummed whole note guitar chords with truly insane & interesting beats over them. If you take away Moon and, say, replace him with a workman-like drummer, those songs just aren’t nearly as good (IMHO).
Actually, I’d say that’s a fair test for this OP. Take the band you’re thinking of and replace the possibly superfluous member with an average, fairly-skilled musician, say, a bass player who can do the root-note thing & stay in the pocket or a drummer who plays tight but un-inventive beats or a guitarist who can strum a bit & do some hot lick and imagine if the band would really suffer from that. Beyond that, if we’re thinking of any member who has significant song-writing credits, you can count him or her out too. I don’t think my criteria is perfect, mind you, but it’s working for me.
I’d say, nine times out of ten, if we’re talking about prolific bands, you really can’t replace members & expect them to remain at the same level…even Aerosmith’s bassist wrote Sweet Emotion…
I’m inclined to agree. Of major bands with more than three members, I can think offhand of just two where losing any member irreparably mars the band’s identity: the Beatles and the Who. The Who with Kenny Jones was still good, but the chemistry was indisputably off.
I naturally disagree with Lemur866 about the Beatles. Sure, they dispensed with Stu Sutcliffe and Pete Best in the pre-Fab days, but once they were John, Paul, George, and Ringo, it was set in stone.
But if he hadn’t died, they’d have got rid of him. He was only in the band because he was John’s buddy.
Back to Ringo. Ringo was famously replaced by a session drummer on some early Beatles recordings, right? He did fit in with the early Beatles look, so subbing in a 6 foot blonde swedish drummer wouldn’t work. But he was always the odd one out, the hired hand. He didn’t write any Beatles songs, all “his” songs were written for him.
Yeah, the Beatles would have been different without him, but they would still have been “The Beatles”. The Beatles were John, Paul, George, and a drummer.
He probably felt that way himself to some extent. But he was also the most recognizeable Beatle, at least in America; the one who was the “hook” in the Beatlemania days. He was the short, homely-cute one, the one with the big nose and the rings and the funny name, the one who didn’t play a guitar. He was an indispensible part of the band’s mystique. Sure, the Beatles would have continued to be a great musical group if, instead of welcoming Ringo back when he walked out during the White Album sessions, they had called, say, Jim Capaldi in to replace him. But it would have been a devastating blow to the band’s identity and image.
Well, he was part of the band’s image in the Beatlemania days. But when Beatlemania was over and they became a studio band? Now that the Beatles weren’t appearing on stage, would anyone notice? Ringo played the music he was given, he wasn’t much part of the creative process, not even to the extent of vetoing the excesses of the other three.
(A very old post, but I keep seeing it quoted at the top of this page.)
Not as badly as Greg Lake’s absence showed when they were 3 (Emerson, Palmer, and Robert Berry). Apart from one or two tracks, the album that lineup made was truly rancid.
ELPowell was pretty damn good, in my opinion. It wasn’t ELP by a long shot, but as a side project, it worked.
“3”, on the other hand, was atrocious (as Biffy said)
Jethro Tull couldn’t exist w/o Ian Anderson, but I doubt they could lose Martin Barre either. Any lineup without Barre is basically an Ian Anderson solo album.
Clearly, the most difficult member to replace is the lead singer. Next comes lead guitarist, and for some guitar-hero bands (Van Halen, Deep Purple, etc.) the guitarist may even be more critical than the singer. Bassists, keyboardists & drummers seem to be interchangeable in nearly every case, with the exception of Rush. Indeed, Rush seems to be the only band mentioned so far that could not survive the loss of any member.
The bands Dio, Halford, and King Diamond probably could not continue without their lead singers.
Interesting; I had always assumed that his leaving and their sucking were more coincidental than anything, but it makes sense.
Phish would not have been Phish without any of the four members, which is why I’m glad they split up when they did, before the tension drove anyone out of the band. (Of course, the one most likely to quit would have been Trey, and they definitely wouldn’t have been Phish without him.)
Yeah, Geddy Lee’s solo album was definitely not a Rush album. You could take a Rush fan who somehow didn’t know that Geddy made a solo album, play it for him and say, “Check out the new Rush!”, and that fan would say, “That’s not Rush.” Sure, that’s Geddy’s voice and Geddy’s bass, but it’s not Rush.
Judas Priest is an interesting case. Talk about “replaceable” drummers! I think they went through five or six in their first ten years. Dave Holland (1980-1989?) was the most rudimentary player of all Priest drummers, and yet the band had their most successful years during his tenure. That may have simply been a case of the right drummer coming along at exactly the right time. Priest’s sound was defined by Halford’s vocals and the twin lead guitars of K.K. Downing and Glenn Tipton, so perhaps Holland’s simpler drumming style eliminated the conflict of trying to intertwine too many fancy licks. He and (bassist) Ian Hill laid down a simple, solid foundation that allowed the band to play to its strengths: Halford, Downing and Tipton.
Heavy metal band Manowar has managed to maintain a consistent sound for more than 20 years despite the fact that the most expendable position in that band is the lead guitar job. Eric Adams’ vocals … nobody can sing like he does. Bassist Joey DeMaio is the band’s founding member and primary songwriter/composer. Scott Columbus is the right drummer for that band.
The bands Dio, Halford, and King Diamond probably could not continue without their lead singers.
[/QUOTE]
Peter Green started the band and named it. In fact, the original name of the band was Peter Green’s Fleetwood Mac, Featuring Jeremy Spencer. And Fleetwood and McVie have always been the least interesting thing about that band. OK, Stevie Nicks’ silly lyrics and ridiculous Wiccanslut posturing give them a run for their money.
I agree that the Eagles aren’t the Eagles without Frey or Henley. Walsh would be a serious hit. Schmit is dispensible, though they’d have to find another bass player who could sing as well…and, of course, then we have Felder. I saw them with Felder and without. There’s something missing, for sure. But it’s not essential. Still, I wish they’d iron out their differences.
VanHalen without Roth doesn’t work.
I’m going to come down on the side of Moon not being essential to the Who. In his latter years he was so strung out that he was barely there at all anyway.
Journey without Steve Perry isn’t Journey at all, even though I know that he wasn’t an original member.
I saw Chicago without Peter Ceteris. Wasn’t the same.
Oh, and Genesis without Phil Collins wouldn’t be the same.
