Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: 123Next
Current Page: 1 of 3
OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: RollingFreak ()
Date: November 24, 2017 17:14

With all the talk of Eagles and Steely Dan, and now reading the AC/DC page I'm thinking of Angus continuing AC/DC with no one but himself, I got to thinking about is there a line with anyone about bands and who should be in them or if they should continue. I promise I'm asking this with no judgement and just out of genuine curiosity I'm interested to hear where people come from with this view cause everyone really is different. I've gotten into (what are hopefully) friendly fights with people on here that think I am so far off and I think they couldn't be more wrong, so I'm just curious:

Is there a line you reach where its just too much? This band shouldn't continue without this person, etc. I'm not talking about bands that are all original and too old to get it done. IMO they have a right to do whatever they want, its their band. But bands that you feel have a certain class that would be ruined if continuing without someone key or someone that died.

I also like to see whether people are consistent or it really is a band to band type of mentality. Like me, I like to think I'm pretty consistent. To me the Eagles isn't the Eagles without Glenn Frey, but it is without Don Felder, it just might not be a band I want to see. I can get why they call it that though. I don't see Grand Funk Railroad as that without Mark Farner who wrote, sang, and played guitar on almost all their songs. To me, AC/DC was never JUST Angus Young even though I saw them with Axl Rose and he could get it done on his own cause he's that good. But you're just seeing Angus solo. The same way GNR wasn't GNR with just Axl Rose, but many did and still accept it that it was.

So again, just really curious. Especially from those that are totally on board (again, no judgement whatsoever) with the current Eagles tour now continuing as a band, Steely Dan. Is there a line for you for a band that would be like "nah, thats too far"? Cause genuinely at this time I can't tell if there is with certain people, and maybe I'm wrong for thinking there should be. Sure The Who isn't really the Who without John and Keith but I at least see how you could convincingly pass it off as such as long as you have the singer, guitar player and writer/arranger. To me what SOLELY makes a Beach Boys band "legit" is whether Brian Wilson is involved or not (back in the old days as long as he was writing, and today if he's a touring member). So its interesting to see how views vary band to band. I never considered Pink Floyd Floyd without Roger Waters.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-24 17:16 by RollingFreak.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: loog droog ()
Date: November 24, 2017 17:41

We all know deep in our hearts that the Stones aren't "real" without Brian.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: Silver Dagger ()
Date: November 24, 2017 18:01

Dr Feelgood and The Temptations. Not one original member in either.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: bye bye johnny ()
Date: November 24, 2017 18:09

Quote
Silver Dagger
Dr. Feelgood and The Temptations. Not one original member in either.

Otis Williams, founder of The Temptations, still performs with them.

[www.temptationsofficial.com]

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: Nate ()
Date: November 24, 2017 18:26

Queen

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: roryg ()
Date: November 24, 2017 18:33

An odd debate, as many bands with all or almost all original members consider themselves cover bands of their younger versions. We saw The Yardbirds a few years ago with the original rhythm section to kill some time at a festival and, after a couple of songs, we realized we were seeing a very good cover band which we quite enjoyed. This also happened with Foghat; in fact, a recent festival show was more enjoyable than shows with original members from way back when. Good songs played well usually works.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: NICOS ()
Date: November 24, 2017 18:37

Quote
Nate
Queen

Your right Nate .......if the singer is "replaced" it's done

__________________________

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: November 24, 2017 18:43

I'm sure there are some bands that should stop due to not having any original members - or hardly any. Like the current mess that is Lynyrd Skynyrd (I had to Google that just to see how it was @#$%& spelled!), with some really old original members coming back, etc. The current lineup has zero to do it the rise of the band, though.

There are bands with the core group - with the Stones it became Mick, Keith and Charlie after Bill quit.

Drive-By Truckers have 3 that are 'the group' with Patterson Hood, Mike Cooley and Brad Morgan. They had 9 other members before their current lineup.

The Cult is Ian Astbury and Billy Duffy - although drummer John Tempesta is now the longest serving third band member in their history of band members coming and going.

Def Leppard doesn't have either of their original guitarists.

The Who... down to just Roger and Pete.


I dunno. I guess I've not paid attention to who all is out there. There's always "The Beach Boys" and that load of crap excuse.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: MisterDDDD ()
Date: November 24, 2017 18:50

Quote
NICOS
Quote
Nate
Queen

Your right Nate .......if the singer is "replaced" it's done
Brian Johnson says hello.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: MisterDDDD ()
Date: November 24, 2017 18:55

Never really a much of a fan, but the Beach Boys aren't really the Beach Boys without Brian Wilson.. Particularly (depending on who you believe) since Mike Love fired him and Al Jardine after their 50th anniversary tour. It'd be like Mick firing Keith and Charlie and continuing on as The Rolling Stones..wouldn't work.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: November 24, 2017 18:58

Maybe Lynrd Skynyrd, but they've been going at it semi-successfully in their diluted form for so long now, who am I to say?

As Nate said above maybe Queen. Out of respect for Freddie, maybe they should have renamed themselves "The Queens"...or maybe "King"...or something else, but again who am I to say?

The Doors tried to continue without Jim Morrison, but the writing was on the wall and they pretty much gave up on the idea. Thankfully.
The Stones without Mick, Zeppelin without Plant, The Who without Roger...not a good idea imo and would never happen.

As for Steely Dan, since Donald Fagan is a founding member and obviously a key member of the partnership with Becker (and also probably the most known because of his vocals on a majority of tunes), so I don't see a problem. BUT...if Fagan also died and some former tambourine player (or bongo player) tried to continue with the name, I'd have a problem.

As for the Eagles, they've been through several phases since the beginning - Bernie Leadon and Randy Meisner are missed, but they carried on. So losing another key member with Frey (RIP) shouldn't be the end of the evolution. Yes he was a key founding member/songwriter/vocalist, and yes it is sad to lose him, but Henley's still there - a key founding member/ songwriter and vocalist, and arguably the most well known throughout their entire history. If Henley passed away and they (whoever they are) tried to continue on as The Eagles, it might be a problem. But then there's Joe Walsh whose been with the band for something like 40 years, not to mention Timothy B Scmidt whose not far behind, so some might say even then it's still legit if they carried on as the Eagles. Throw Don Felder back in the mix, and what more could an Eagles fan ask for? lol. Might be an odd speculation, and I doubt it would ever go that far, but who am I to judge?

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-24 19:01 by Hairball.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: November 24, 2017 19:38

Quote
NICOS
Quote
Nate
Queen

Your right Nate .......if the singer is "replaced" it's done

Not always the case though - Deep Purple being a prime example.
If they called it quits after original singer Rod Evans left, we would have never been gifted with what has come to be known as the classic lineup with Ian Gillan on vocals.

And Fleetwood Mac...adding Christine McVie and then Bob Welch signaled a complete change of direction for the band - some might even prefer that to the original Peter Green version.
Then adding Nicks and Buckingham (after Welch left) didn't hurt, and some actually prefer that version the best - whatever the case probably the most successful version of the band.

Can't think of any other examples right now though - maybe those are the only two case where it worked out?

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: Mongoose ()
Date: November 24, 2017 19:44

Another great example of this problem is the current Blood, Sweat, and Tears, without one single original member. Bo Bice, from American Idol, on vocals.

I'm sure they perform the songs well, and if all you want to do is hear those tunes and sing along to the hits, more power to ya.

However, in my book, anyone who leaves that show and says, "hey, I saw BS&T last night," I think what they really saw was a BS&T tribute band.

In 1970, I saw the REAL BS&T with David Clayton-Thomas,and even THAT version did not include original member Al Kooper. But, it was all the members who recorded all of the hits.

If you have seen the Beach Boys and there was at least one person on the stage by the last name of Wilson, to me, that's the real thing. Going out to hear Mike Love and company, not so much.

What do y'all think?

Cheers....

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: November 24, 2017 19:52

The Beach Boys toured for years in their heyday without Brian Wilson while he stayed behind the scenes crafting the hits.
But if there's no Wilson's involved live, it's closer to a tribute than the real deal.

Some people either don't care or are unaware though, and to hear Mike Love's vocals on Good Vibrations, etc. might be enough for them.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: geordiestone ()
Date: November 24, 2017 19:55

It's a strange deal with The Killers at present. Only Brandon Flowers and Ronnie Vanucci play on stage with session musicians but yet the whole band play on the latest Album. Odd.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: Javadave ()
Date: November 24, 2017 20:19

The Allman Brothers had a nice long run after the deaths of Duane Allman and Berry Oakley. The Kinks made a lot of good music after Pete Quaife left. Arthur Lee switched out all of Love and continued making great music using that moniker. I don't care much for the Guess Who after Randy Bachman left. Joe Strummer and Paul Simonon erred in firing Mick Jones and recording the mostly horrid final Clash record without him. Mick, Paul and Topper Headon have done well by avoiding any Clash reunion without Joe. The other Talking Heads made an album without David Byrne, "No Talking, Just Head", and it flopped.

Angus Young, lacking a return to the stage by Brian Johnson, needs to bite the bullet and retire the AC/DC brand, show some stones and go out under his own name.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: Cooltoplady ()
Date: November 24, 2017 20:26

The Grass Roots. No original members. Rob Grill died years ago and his backup band continue on with the Grass Roots name. The bass player now sings lead.

Three Dog Night. No Corey Wells no Three Dog Night

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: Jah Paul ()
Date: November 24, 2017 21:28

Quote
Mongoose
If you have seen the Beach Boys and there was at least one person on the stage by the last name of Wilson, to me, that's the real thing. Going out to hear Mike Love and company, not so much.

What do y'all think?

I agree. Although I think the real turning point was when Carl passed away...at least it was for me, having been a fan since I was a kid in the early '70s. Al was gone soon after, then it was really just Mike and Bruce. The 2012 reunion was great, with David Marks appropriately added...whenever it was time for one of Carl's famous solos, my man David came through!

Have never seen Mike & Co. - he may be able to legally use the name through his licensing agreement with Brother Records (himself, Brian, Al and Carl's family), but to me it's not the Beach Boys.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Date: November 24, 2017 21:31

It depends on what member(s) are most important to a listener. So it is a personal experience.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: DGA35 ()
Date: November 24, 2017 22:02

Quote
Hairball
Quote
NICOS
Quote
Nate
Queen

Your right Nate .......if the singer is "replaced" it's done

Not always the case though - Deep Purple being a prime example.
If they called it quits after original singer Rod Evans left, we would have never been gifted with what has come to be known as the classic lineup with Ian Gillan on vocals.

And Fleetwood Mac...adding Christine McVie and then Bob Welch signaled a complete change of direction for the band - some might even prefer that to the original Peter Green version.
Then adding Nicks and Buckingham (after Welch left) didn't hurt, and some actually prefer that version the best - whatever the case probably the most successful version of the band.

Can't think of any other examples right now though - maybe those are the only two case where it worked out?

Brian Johnson was mentioned previously. His debut with AC/DC became the second biggest selling album of all time worldwide behind Thriller.

Also, when Sammy Hagar joined VH. 4 number 1 albums in the US, huge sales and big tours. Biggest difference between AC/DC and VH situation is that Brian sang lots of old Bon era songs whereas Hagar didn't want to sing any of the classic songs that made VH huge, which was my biggest complaint. Jump, Panama and Ain't Talkin Bout Love were pretty much the only classic era songs they would do. Now hopefully VH tours for the 40th Anniversary of VH1!

My brother saw Foreigner recently in Penticton BC and Mick Jones was sick so he didn't play. Therefore, no original Foreigner members played. Despite that he said it was a good concert. Paul Rodgers lives nearby in Summerland BC.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: slewan ()
Date: November 24, 2017 23:07

Bob Dylan and his band without Bob Dylan would be shit…



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-24 23:10 by slewan.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: NICOS ()
Date: November 24, 2017 23:08

Quote
Hairball
Quote
NICOS
Quote
Nate
Queen

Your right Nate .......if the singer is "replaced" it's done

Not always the case though - Deep Purple being a prime example.
If they called it quits after original singer Rod Evans left, we would have never been gifted with what has come to be known as the classic lineup with Ian Gillan on vocals.

And Fleetwood Mac...adding Christine McVie and then Bob Welch signaled a complete change of direction for the band - some might even prefer that to the original Peter Green version.
Then adding Nicks and Buckingham (after Welch left) didn't hurt, and some actually prefer that version the best - whatever the case probably the most successful version of the band.

Can't think of any other examples right now though - maybe those are the only two case where it worked out?

I meant it's done with the name of the Band for me, your sample of the Mac is the best sample the New Fleedwood Mac. has nothing the do with the Peter Green Mac so my opinion they should have used an other name New or whatever.........Eric Burdon did it with the New Animals

__________________________

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: slewan ()
Date: November 24, 2017 23:16

I guess the most important question is when. If an original member quits relatively early in a band's history it seems easier to except a replacment. After more than let's say 20 years replacements are not done/accepted ver easily – at least not for core members. The Stones were able to survive Brian Jones (who left the band rather early in their career), Stu (who became some kind of out of foucs guy to most of the audiende) and Bill Wyman (who wasn't seen as a core member by most people outside the hardcore fans since he let others – Mick and Keith – do the show). If nowadays anybody in the (core) Stones would (have to) quit the band – that'll be the end of the band.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: Leonioid ()
Date: November 24, 2017 23:20

Quote
geordiestone
It's a strange deal with The Killers at present. Only Brandon Flowers and Ronnie Vanucci play on stage with session musicians but yet the whole band play on the latest Album. Odd.

The Killers are interesting. I guess (think I read) the other members really hated touring, but love making music... and they became insanely wealthy in a short period of time they can/could do anything they wanted and actually broke up the band for a while... then quietly came back and they new band model is as you say.

It would be nice to see the full real band, but I will take the current setup. I wonder if the other guys join them when they play in Vegas.

I also wonder how the money is shared regasrding touring... if it was me Id say 2 guys doing the work get paid and the lazy @#$%& sitting at home get bouttreefiddy...

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: Aquamarine ()
Date: November 24, 2017 23:45

Quote
NICOS
Quote
Hairball
Quote
NICOS
Quote
Nate
Queen

Your right Nate .......if the singer is "replaced" it's done

Not always the case though - Deep Purple being a prime example.
If they called it quits after original singer Rod Evans left, we would have never been gifted with what has come to be known as the classic lineup with Ian Gillan on vocals.

And Fleetwood Mac...adding Christine McVie and then Bob Welch signaled a complete change of direction for the band - some might even prefer that to the original Peter Green version.
Then adding Nicks and Buckingham (after Welch left) didn't hurt, and some actually prefer that version the best - whatever the case probably the most successful version of the band.

Can't think of any other examples right now though - maybe those are the only two case where it worked out?

I meant it's done with the name of the Band for me, your sample of the Mac is the best sample the New Fleedwood Mac. has nothing the do with the Peter Green Mac so my opinion they should have used an other name New or whatever.........Eric Burdon did it with the New Animals

I know what you mean, but the Nicks era band still had both Fleetwood and Mac, so the name was still viable. Which reminds me that I can't think offhand of any other bands named after their rhythm section.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: Hairball ()
Date: November 25, 2017 00:21

Quote
NICOS
Quote
Hairball
Quote
NICOS
Quote
Nate
Queen

Your right Nate .......if the singer is "replaced" it's done

Not always the case though - Deep Purple being a prime example.
If they called it quits after original singer Rod Evans left, we would have never been gifted with what has come to be known as the classic lineup with Ian Gillan on vocals.

And Fleetwood Mac...adding Christine McVie and then Bob Welch signaled a complete change of direction for the band - some might even prefer that to the original Peter Green version.
Then adding Nicks and Buckingham (after Welch left) didn't hurt, and some actually prefer that version the best - whatever the case probably the most successful version of the band.

Can't think of any other examples right now though - maybe those are the only two case where it worked out?

I meant it's done with the name of the Band for me, your sample of the Mac is the best sample the New Fleedwood Mac. has nothing the do with the Peter Green Mac so my opinion they should have used an other name New or whatever.........Eric Burdon did it with the New Animals

Yes I hear where you're coming from regarding Fleetwood Mac, and maybe they should have changed the name after Peter Green left, but I like all eras and it's no big issue for me. Like Deep Purple, they're divided unofficially by eras - Mk1, MkII, MkIII, etc. in Deep Purples case, and the Peter Green, Bob Welch/Mcvie, and Buckingham/Nicks era's in Fleetwood Macs case.

As for Eric Burden, coincidentally I just a heard a blurb on the radio that he's playing a show at Irvine Meadows Ampitheater (in SoCal) under the name "Eric Burdon And The Animals" - and also a show out in Vegas. There's no "New" in the name anymore, and hasn't been for quite awhile.

Just looked this up, and not sure how accurate this is, but here's some info via wiki:

Eric Burdon

In June 2003, he formed another Eric Burdon and the Animals, with keyboardist Martin Gerschwitz, bassist Dave Meros, guitarist Dean Restum, and drummer Bernie Pershey. They disbanded in 2005. During 2008 Burdon toured again as Eric Burdon and the Animals with a variable line-up of backing musicians.[14]

On 13 December 2008, Burdon lost a three-year legal battle to win the name "the Animals" in the UK. Since then drummer John Steel owned the rights in the UK only. Burdon still tours as Eric Burdon and the Animals, but was prevented from using the name "the Animals" in Britain while the case was under appeal. Steel was a member in its heyday and left in 1966, before the band split up 3 years later in 1969. Steel later played in various reunion versions of the band with Burdon.[15] On 9 September 2013 Burdon's appeal was allowed.[16] Eric Burdon is now entitled to use the name "The Animals" in the UK.

In 2016, Burdon formed the current lineup of The Animals, including Johnzo West (guitar/vocals), Davey Allen (keys/vocals), Dustin Koester (drums/vocals), Justin Andres (bass guitar/vocals), Ruben Salinas (sax/flute), and Evan Mackey (trombone)

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: jlowe ()
Date: November 25, 2017 00:51

Originally they were called 'Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac,' so they DID change their name!

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: rattler2004 ()
Date: November 25, 2017 01:09

Is Van Halen still a band? The should’ve changed their name when Hagar joined them. I know they toured with Roth, but it’s basically a nostalgia act now isn’t it? Like the Moody’s Blues or Beach Boys.

Before I saw them I’d have said The Who, but they put on a powerful and good show so why not?...I never got to see them with Moon, but I did see them in ‘82 and they were (gasp) much better at the Desert Trip. (Although, yes I missed The Ox)

Steely Dan...the recent lawsuit garbage aside, the band still puts on a good show, the Steely Dan Orchestra that currently tours has been around since the early 2000s...longer than the original touring act....apparently Becker’s wife sees a lot of value in them, cause she wants to be a 50/50 partner in the band.

The Eagles...I don’t know, don’t know how they can continue without Glen. I’m interested to see how long this current incarnation will last...

After the losses of 2017, if you want to see an act, go see them, don’t skip an opportunity...nobody is promised tomorrow, and nobody is getting any younger.

I still regret skipping on Miles Davis on his last tour.

Incidentally I did see The Doors of the 21st Century with Ian Asbury, it was a good show...no Jim Morrison, but not money I regretted spending.

the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2017-11-25 01:22 by rattler2004.

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: NICOS ()
Date: November 25, 2017 01:39

Maybe it's better not to use a band name just use your own................David Bowie who the heck is concerned who is in the band (although I think the Spiders From Mars are the best) but he still be David Bowie ;o)

__________________________

Re: OT: Are there any bands you think shouldn't continue/aren't "real" without certain members
Posted by: GasLightStreet ()
Date: November 25, 2017 02:47

Quote
rattler2004
Incidentally I did see The Doors of the 21st Century with Ian Asbury, it was a good show...no Jim Morrison, but not money I regretted spending.

As close as anyone can get to Morrison, though. Astbury did a great job - and was incredibly humbled by the experience, not just singing Morrison's words.


Q: In 2002, you became part of the Doors of the 21st Century. What did that experience mean to you?

A: I thought it was necessary because Ray (Manzarek) and Robby (Krieger) really wanted the opportunity to play these songs one more time.

So when I was asked, I immediately said yes, and I knew immediately it wasn’t going to be an easy ride. I’m going to get beaten to the ground because people have such a reverent and personal identification with Jim Morrison and the Doors. I knew it came with a huge responsibility.

And being a Doors fan/devotee, it meant a lot to me. So I immersed myself in the music and in the subtext. I had Ray and Robbie kind of mentor me.

Every show, every rehearsal, every encounter was a learning experience, even just having dinner with Ray on my own, for example, was a learning encounter. He was a mentor, a friend.

I did 150 shows with Ray and Robbie, and it reached a point where I felt that everything that could have been done was done. We toured the world, I had the experience and I felt it was time to move on. But it was very hard to leave, knowing I’d never perform those songs again. It was like, take one of your favorite experiences or most incredible romances and rip that from your heart and never do it ever again. It was an incredible sacrifice, but I knew it was necessary. I had to get out and move on from that.

It was a whole other life. I got to do songs like “L.A. Woman,” which, obviously, Jim Morrison never performed live. There were so many memorable and intimate moments.


[www.kansascity.com]

Goto Page: 123Next
Current Page: 1 of 3


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Online Users

Guests: 1241
Record Number of Users: 206 on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests: 9627 on January 2, 2024 23:10

Previous page Next page First page IORR home