This is kind of interesting...at least our boys, the Stones still have 3.75! (Counting Woody as a 3/4 original!)
[ultimateclassicrock.com]

KISS has been very vocal about how they will soon be continuing without Gene and Paul. I have a feeling THAT'S when the authorized tribute bands without any original members becomes big. We'll see if it succeeds or fails.

Dr. Feelgood.


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

K3!
(This is something only Belgian and Dutch people understand)

Quote
GJV
K3!
(This is something only Belgian and Dutch people understand)

Great band ! :-)

Quote
RollingFreak
KISS has been very vocal about how they will soon be continuing without Gene and Paul. I have a feeling THAT'S when the authorized tribute bands without any original members becomes big. We'll see if it succeeds or fails.

KISS just might get away with it because they are more known for their cartoonish characters. Fans acceptance of the current replacements wearing Ace and Peter's original makeup testifies to that. Now....Mick and Keith could probably front any line-up they want and at least some people would be OK with calling it The Rolling Stones. But....could two other guys get plastic surgery to look like Mick and Keith and carry on the band/brand name. Dear God....I hope not!! Almost as ridiculous have having Sean Lennon, Zak Starkey, Dhani Harrison and James Macartney being called The Beatles II!

The current Temptations has none of the original 60's members.

Quote
DGA35
The current Temptations has none of the original 60's members.

True - like the article showed, there's a lot of bands like that out there...

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
DGA35
The current Temptations has none of the original 60's members.

True - like the article showed, there's a lot of bands like that out there...

True, and I agree with everything you said about KISS/Stones. I think the thing is a band like the Temptations no one really ever knew the members. If its a faceless band, its a bit easier. For example, Frankie Valley can tour with anyone he wants in the Four Seasons, and people would still consider it the Four Seasons. I think if a band like KISS gets away with it, it'll be an interesting development. I think if they don't, it'll kind of kill off that whole trend. Bands like the Temptations could still do it, but you won't have people continuing the bands as much with no members. At least not ones that play bigger places. Foreigner currently does it, but if they aren't packaged into something they are playing theaters at most. Most bands I don't think could get away with it.

Quote
RollingFreak

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash

Quote
DGA35
The current Temptations has none of the original 60's members.

True - like the article showed, there's a lot of bands like that out there...

True, and I agree with everything you said about KISS/Stones. I think the thing is a band like the Temptations no one really ever knew the members. If its a faceless band, its a bit easier. For example, Frankie Valley can tour with anyone he wants in the Four Seasons, and people would still consider it the Four Seasons. I think if a band like KISS gets away with it, it'll be an interesting development. I think if they don't, it'll kind of kill off that whole trend. Bands like the Temptations could still do it, but you won't have people continuing the bands as much with no members. At least not ones that play bigger places. Foreigner currently does it, but if they aren't packaged into something they are playing theaters at most. Most bands I don't think could get away with it.

Well put!

I guess if Ian Paice were to hang it up, then Deep Purple would qualify .....(Gillan and Glover aren't original)

I never understood this theory of being the same band but having no original members. its not the same band, call it what you like and pretend it is, but it can never be. some bands survive personel changes, as the stones have done but I wouldn't want them to change any more members.

some things can change members and have entirely different personel like football teams or even the red arrows and call thierselves the same name but for bands I just don't get it.

Quote
buttons67
I never understood this theory of being the same band but having no original members. its not the same band, call it what you like and pretend it is, but it can never be. some bands survive personel changes, as the stones have done but I wouldn't want them to change any more members.

some things can change members and have entirely different personel like football teams or even the red arrows and call thierselves the same name but for bands I just don't get it.

Artistically speaking, it's just not right to carry on a band's name if all the originals are gone, but it's really about money. Certain band/brand names will sell a lot more tickets than if they changed the name of the band. Would a band named after the lead singer of Deep Purple sell as many tickets as Deep Purple? Of course not and the suits make sure the name stays the same...Goes for Foreigner and so many others too....

Quote
DGA35
The current Temptations has none of the original 60's members.

I think Otis Williams still performs with the group, but perhaps that's changed in recent years. He's the last surviving original member, and last left from the classic 60's lineup (Ruffin-Kendricks-Paul Williams-Melvyn Franklin).

It happens because a lot of bands today are just tribute bands -- you go to see what the band sounded like 20 years ago.
In the case of an act like The Temptations, this is most obvious. Also, the Temps were just the four singers with a backing band, and really four young guys can make the songs sound as good as if you had four 70-year-old men up there. Also, a lot of those Motown acts were owned by the producers and not the band members.
Also, most concert goers probably couldn't tell you who is in the band beyond the lead singer and guitarist. Really, who played bass for Foreigner!

The cool thing about the Stones is that they have generally had distinctive musicians who all did their own thing. Even Bill and Charlie weren't session men like their counterparts in most bands.

Quote
buttons67
I never understood this theory of being the same band but having no original members. its not the same band, call it what you like and pretend it is, but it can never be. some bands survive personel changes, as the stones have done but I wouldn't want them to change any more members.

some things can change members and have entirely different personel like football teams or even the red arrows and call thierselves the same name but for bands I just don't get it.

Devil's Advocate Says:

It works for every other association, group, or organizing body: street gangs, charities, ball teams, book clubs, religions, theatre troupes, and corporations. Perhaps the question to ask is Why can't it work for a band?

Or at least, why not try it and see how it goes? Many bands are closer to businesses now than they are to what a band was when the Stones started out.

Yes
Ratt
Heart
Blackfoot
Thin Lizzy
Quiet Riot
The Hollies
Canned Heat
Little River Band
Blood, Sweat & Tears
and most appropriately . . . Renaissance.

And GWAR . . . but who ever knew who was in GWAR in the first place?

Perhaps we'll see them next New Year's eve on Dick Clark's Rockin' New Year's Eve:



. . . five years after Dick died.

Worth a read: Is a Band Without Its Original Members Still the Same Band?


On the internet nobody knows
you're Mick Jagger



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-25 05:51 by camper88.

The current version of Iron Butterfly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-25 03:33 by boogaloojef.

60's and 70's AM top 40 band the Grass Roots. No originals.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-25 07:01 by More Hot Rocks.

sometimes foreigner

Quote
BluzDude
I guess if Ian Paice were to hang it up, then Deep Purple would qualify .....(Gillan and Glover aren't original)

I know what you mean, but they could still probably get away with it. Whether they'd want to is another call, but they could easily tour with Gillan and Glover still in the band, call it Deep Purple, and really not have it affect ticket sales. Although I could be wrong.

Quote
buttons67
I never understood this theory of being the same band but having no original members. its not the same band, call it what you like and pretend it is, but it can never be. some bands survive personel changes, as the stones have done but I wouldn't want them to change any more members.

some things can change members and have entirely different personel like football teams or even the red arrows and call thierselves the same name but for bands I just don't get it.

I agree, and its why I really liked what Thin Lizzy did. I'll preface by saying I'm not a Thin Lizzy fan (just don't know the music well, not that I don't like them). But they started back up again, without their frontman Phil Lynott of course who was basically THE band. Or huge. They started it up again in tribute to him, with various people, I think some were original or played with Phil for awhile. Then they did a bold move and changed the band name. They said "this is what's left of Thin Lizzy, but its not Thin Lizzy. We'll still play that stuff, but we should prove ourselves if we're gonna keep doing it." And they did, and by all accounts their two most recent albums are great. So in that case I really applaud them, cause they didn't have to do that (Phil's family was fine with them continuing with the Thin Lizzy name) but they felt this was more appropriate and it is.

Really, who wants to live their life playing in a band where NO ONE from it is from its golden period that wrote the actual music? Thats why I don't get who would want to replace Paul and Gene in KISS. You have everything to lose and not much to gain. Well, you have money to gain, playing a character that someone else created. Joe Schmo can't walk in and play The Demon however he wants. No, he has to act like Gene Simmons. If you can play an instrument, I'd rather start my own band.

I saw Animals last year with their original drummer John Steel...well they played Animals-songs but....that band without Price, Chandler and Burdon is parody of the origin band...

2 1 2 0

Dr Feelgood

Quote
Jah Paul

Quote
DGA35
The current Temptations has none of the original 60's members.

I think Otis Williams still performs with the group, but perhaps that's changed in recent years. He's the last surviving original member, and last left from the classic 60's lineup (Ruffin-Kendricks-Paul Williams-Melvyn Franklin).

Last I heard, there were two touring versions of the Temptations; one featuring original member Otis Williams, and the other fronted by non-original member Dennis Edwards, who was David Ruffin's original replacement and who and sang lead on much of their late 60s and early 70s material.

I saw the Otis Williams version a few years ago performing with the Four Tops, who are also down to just one original member, so out of the two group's total of nine members, only two were originals.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-25 13:39 by tatters.

The Blackwood Brothers, formed 1934.

None of the original members of the quartet are around of course, but the current members are keeping busy.
A couple of years ago Bob Dylan suggested he might do some recordings with them, which could have been interesting.
On the other hand he might have been having us on.

Starship (alias Jefferson Starship alias Jefferson Airplane).

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
This is kind of interesting...at least our boys, the Stones still have 3.75! (Counting Woody as a 3/4 original!)
[ultimateclassicrock.com]

3 3/4 of what? Out of 4, 5, 7, 8?

Quote
Monsoon Ragoon

Quote
HonkeyTonkFlash
This is kind of interesting...at least our boys, the Stones still have 3.75! (Counting Woody as a 3/4 original!)
[ultimateclassicrock.com]

3 3/4 of what? Out of 4, 5, 7, 8?

Basing that on the original lineup as of the first album: Jagger, Richards, Jones, Wyman, & Watts. 3 of them are still there, plus Woody should rate as a 3/4 original given his loyal 41 years of service...I know we could go back and argue that Stu was once considered an official member, but I figure the status of the band's official membership as the first album is a good place to start....so 3.75/5...well..3.75/4 given that today they are officially a foursome....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2016-05-25 16:08 by HonkeyTonkFlash.

Quote
Come On
I saw Animals last year with their original drummer John Steel...well they played Animals-songs but....that band without Price, Chandler and Burdon is parody of the origin band...

we're talking about band with no original members.

Whats the definition of "original members" ?
In the case of The Beatles, Ringo was not, strictly speaking,an original member
In the case of The Stones, there is a case for including Stu.
When their first company was formed however, around June 1964, it was just the 5 core members who were the directors.

Quote
jlowe
Whats the definition of "original members" ?
In the case of The Beatles, Ringo was not, strictly speaking,an original member
In the case of The Stones, there is a case for including Stu.
When their first company was formed however, around June 1964, it was just the 5 core members who were the directors.

I would define "original members" as being those who were a band's "official" members as the time of releasing their debut album; thus for the Stones: Mick, Keith, Bill, Charlie and Brian.