An interesting, although not entirely convincing, article from the BBC

I think a pretty spot on article...what wasn't convincing for you?

In some other thread last week I opined much the same thing vis-à-vis Mick J's lack of solo success.

The brand becomes bigger than the band...in MJ's case, the brand is synonymous with MJ and hugely loved, so MJ solo is a threat to the potential loss of the brand.

I just thought choosing The Who, who at least have the main singer and songwriter/guitarist was not comparable to other bands who tour with almost no original/principal members.

Quote
peoplewitheyes
I just thought choosing The Who, who at least have the main singer and songwriter/guitarist was not comparable to other bands who tour with almost no original/principal members.

I see, that makes sense.

I think The Stones have been lucky really, when they got rid of Brian Jones and replaced him with Mick Taylor they sort of changed up a gear and went in a new direction so being a new band in a way and probably better than before.

Then when MT left, Ronnie was such a good replacement as he was a ready made Stone and it made no difference to fan appeal. Of cause we all miss Bill but to be honest it didn't make a lot of difference and then bringing in the backing singers they again went in a new direction.

I can't think of any other band that have moved forward like the Stones have and been just as good if not better than the original lineup.

Quote
pgarof


I can't think of any other band that have moved forward like the Stones have and been just as good if not better than the original lineup.

Good points for sure...

The only one I can think of would be Fleetwood Mac. Entirely different from the original band but still pretty successful.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
pgarof


I can't think of any other band that have moved forward like the Stones have and been just as good if not better than the original lineup.

Good points for sure...

The only one I can think of would be Fleetwood Mac. Entirely different from the original band but still pretty successful.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Yes Fleetwod mac, they reinvented themselves in the 70's and became a much better band and now still touring with all those members.
came in
Maybe same said about Pink Floyd after Syd left and Dave, they became a bigger and more succesfull band

Interesting article, thanks pepswitheyes. The fact that the core band is still around forty years (including Ronnie, of course) is what makes our band so unique and more the reason to go and see them while you can.

Quote
pgarof

Quote
mr_dja

Quote
pgarof


I can't think of any other band that have moved forward like the Stones have and been just as good if not better than the original lineup.

Good points for sure...

The only one I can think of would be Fleetwood Mac. Entirely different from the original band but still pretty successful.

Peace,
Mr DJA

Yes Fleetwod mac, they reinvented themselves in the 70's and became a much better band and now still touring with all those members.
came in
Maybe same said about Pink Floyd after Syd left and Dave, they became a bigger and more succesfull band

Better? Ew

I've got two words for Stevie Nicks...Peter Green

To each his own

Quote
pgarof

I can't think of any other band that have moved forward like the Stones have and been just as good if not better than the original lineup.

They became 'better' with Taylor because he reflected the popular music of that time, and the radio had moved on from the brilliant musical flourishes Brian added to their pop singles. I don't think they became 'better' when Ron Wood joined, as much as they survived and perhaps Ron was better equipped to handle the funkier music being made in the mid and late 70s. It's not like Ron made memorable musical additions to the Stones after the early 80s. In fact, if he had been replaced at the 5 or 6 year mark like Taylor, we might have had a guitarist that could have helped them be more relevant in that time period. And that also coincided with the creative death of the group, and eventual slide to nostalgia act after Wyman left.

For my money I don't think any group will ever be quite as good as the early Stones, when Brian was still engaged and ramrodding his energy through the group, Keith's nimble fingers were aping and upping Chuck Berry, and Bill and Charlie were the best rhythm section around. Mick has been the only consistent one, whose powers are largely undiminished as a vocalist.

I'm shocked the story never brought up the Stones. That's the most obvious example of a brand being bigger than the band on stage. That tongue logo promises something that it can't quite deliver anymore, but audiences eat it up.

Yes, that is spot on.

Very good example is Queen. Or actually B.May and Roger Taylor touring as Queen + Adam Lambert. As much as I think they are both still excellent musicians, they are no more than a revival band with Lambert. Yet they are selling arenas without any problem.

Robby Krieger and Ray Manzarek were pretty much in exactly the same position, but since Densmore prevented them from using the name Doors, they toured under the name Manzarek and Krieger of the Doors. And they were touring clubs and small halls. I saw them with two different singers and they were both very good and fitted in really well, unlike Lambert in Queen. Yet the result in attendance and therefore in the cash is tremendous. And I am sure it is not because May nad Taylor would be better musicians than Manzarek and Krieger.

Quote
Happy24
Yes, that is spot on.

Very good example is Queen. Or actually B.May and Roger Taylor touring as Queen + Adam Lambert. As much as I think they are both still excellent musicians, they are no more than a revival band with Lambert. Yet they are selling arenas without any problem.

Robby Krieger and Ray Manzarek were pretty much in exactly the same position, but since Densmore prevented them from using the name Doors, they toured under the name Manzarek and Krieger of the Doors. And they were touring clubs and small halls. I saw them with two different singers and they were both very good and fitted in really well, unlike Lambert in Queen. Yet the result in attendance and therefore in the cash is tremendous. And I am sure it is not because May nad Taylor would be better musicians than Manzarek and Krieger.

Since this generation can never see the Queen (no, not that one), it'll settle for a Queen with 'this generation's Freddie Mercury' (if you'd like to call him that).

I'm still miffed that The Who had the audacity to go on after Doug Sandom left.

Once Keith Moon replaced him, they were never the same band again.



Of course, if it would make "brand" critics happy, they could ask Sandom to come back, and they would once again have three core original members.

I think the rock world is ready for an 85-year-old drummer showing off his chops on My Generation.

Quote
stonehearted
I'm still miffed that The Who had the audacity to go on after Doug Sandom left.

Once Keith Moon replaced him, they were never the same band again.



Of course, if it would make "brand" critics happy, they could ask Sandom to come back, and they would once again have three core original members.

I think the rock world is ready for an 85-year-old drummer showing off his chops on My Generation.

Don't get me started on the Beatles!