When is a band no longer the same band?

[DougJones43]

The 'Chinese Democracy' thread got me thinking -- at what point should a band no longer be considered the band? The new "Guns N' Roses" consists of Axl, and a bunch of new dudes. Is that really GNR?? I really don't think they should even use the name anymore. What about when all the band members are still together, but the frontman is changed? If only one (relatively) unimportant member of a band is replaced, it seems easy to consider the band to be still in tact, but where do you draw the line?

 

I'm curious to find out people's opinions on this. Please provide specific examples if you think of some!

[DuWayne Steurer]

It's probably my post that stirred that pot. A band with only one original member isn't really that band anymore, in my opinion of course.. I think I used Steven Tyler without Aerosmith and Mick Jagger without the stones as my other examples.

 

A band with just a new singer, as long as the singer wasn't the main song writer (music, not lyrics) is probably mostly the same band. A band with a new guitar player who writes a different style of riff, but still has the same basic feel, is the same band.

[Invader3K]

I do kind of agree that when the "band" is down to one original member, it shouldn't be considered the same band...but I guess if they're doing the same songs, no one really cares. There are a lot of bands from the '80s that are good examples of this.

[Cracked Bat Collector]

To me it's when the band has a new singer. The singer is the face of the band so to speak imo.

[And That]

I think it largely depends on how much you associate any individual member with a band and it is largely a personal opinion. Some bands are dominated by individual personalities, some are dominated by the idea of the band itself.

 

For instance, Led Zeppelin is considering releasing a new album without Robert Plant as the lead singer (or John Bonham on drums obviously). To me, Plant is a big enough part of Zeppelin whereas if they released a record without him on lead vocals, I'd have a tough time calling it a Zeppelin record even though Jimmy Page, John Paul Jones, and Jason Bonham were all present (Page especially). The flip side of this is two of my favorite bands - Wilco and Spiritualized - have had tremendous lineup turnover. However, Jeff Tweedy and Jason Pierce respectively are the center of their bands and all parts around them can and have changed, and the band is still essentially the same due to its core member.

 

On the other hand, there are many bands that have undergone wholesale changes to its core and have still continued under the same name to the satisfaction of their fans. Lynyrd Skynyrd comes to mind first for me, Yes, The Jazz Messengers (of course not ignoring that Art Blakey was the constant member), The Yardbirds, maybe Big Star, etc.

 

If you think Axl Rose has always been the driving influence behind GnR so that essentially GnR=Axl Rose, then maybe you could consider it the same band. Music is great that many people can have many differing outlooks on it, so maybe there isn't a definitive answer the question. It's personal taste and affiliation.

 

To me it would be when the essence of the band changes, even to the extent that the same group of musicians starts making drastically different music. For instance when Wire went all new wave in the late 80's-early 90's, I consider it to be a new incarnation of the band and it to be essentially different from the Wire of the late 70's that put out those great albums. Or the Kinks of the same time period. Mercury Rev after Boces was not really the same band at all, though I like them a lot more without Dave Baker.

 

Basically... it's up to the listener to decide.

[danzig6767]

One of my favorite singers was Layne Staley of Alice in Chain, i just love his voice. He died of a drug overdose years ago and the band fairly recently hired a new singer and did a tour, i couldn't get the desire up to see them without Layne.

 

Anytime a band hires a new lead singer, it's near impossible for me to view that group as whatever their original name is. A good example for me was Van Halen. Once Roth was booted from the band, i never liked anything else they put out with Sammy Hagar, should have renamed the group Van Hagar. In the case of Guns and Roses, it's the reverse, it's just Axl Rose and new band members, it's basically IMO a solo project that's instead being called Guns and Roses.

 

The Zeppelin deal And That brings up i agree with, you can't remove Plant and call anything new made Led Zeppelin to me, he's simply way to influential in their greatness. Same with Black Sabbath. After Ozzy was kicked out, their stuff with Dio was tolerable, but it no longer felt like i was listening to Black Sabbath anymore.

 

I understand why Axl chose to make this CD under the Guns and Roses name vs calling it a solo project, it'll sell better using the Guns name. That said, if you have only the singer left from the original band, how can it be viewed as anything except a solo project?

[logan82]

For me it is usually after their 2nd or 3rd album. The attitude and feeling of a band usually changes dramatically after that point. Same members, but what originally drew me to a band is different. Obviously there are exceptions to this.

[Roscoe Chill]

To be fair, Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones have said it won't be Led Zeppelin if Robert Plant is not involved.

[in the navy]

I think it largely depends on how much you associate any individual member with a band and it is largely a personal opinion.

That would be the same as if ELO did another album without Jeff Lynne. Throughout their history, the other personnel changed, but Jeff Lynne was there since the start. This would never happen though because Jeff is ELO and they rock by the wayhttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[TracyThom]

This Guns N' Roses is certainly more authentic than a Gary Cherone led Van Halen. Even though Cherone was the only change, it just wasn't Van Halen. Can we all agree on that?

[Teatoe993]

Are any of the Beach Boys actually in the Beach Boys anymore?

[homer]

There are certain guys that are the heart and soul of a band - McCartney and Lennon, Tyler and Smith, Plant and Paige, Jagger and Richards, etc. Take one away and the 'band' ceases to exist. In GnR's case it's Slash. Without him, it just isn't GnR.

[pogokat]

The Clash ceased to be the clash when it was just joe strummer...

 

although, they didn't...

 

honestly, its so subjective that it really depends on if the new music is good..

 

for example, if Chinese Democracy is a critical smash, people will say "Gnr at its finest"

 

if it's not, people will say "they wern't really gnr anyway"

 

this seems like par for the course to me...

[bork]

Are any of the Beach Boys actually in the Beach Boys anymore?

Al Jardine and Mike Love had a lawsuit over who could use the Beach Boys name (they each had a band). I know it was settled, but I don't recall the details. At least one of those two is still with the band, maybe both after the settlement. But I agree, it's not the Beach Boys anymore.

[tchimmay]

while the original band was together, the members of joy division agreed that the band name would change if any of its members left the band for any reason. after lead singer ian curtis committed suicide, joy division's remaining members became new order.

this change, however, is much easier to do when the original band had little commercial success, like joy division. putting "led zeppelin" or "guns 'n roses" on the cover of an album is going to almost guarantee a million records sold.

[blkhwk91b]

It's all a "rights" thing with Axl. Axl was always a jerk and back in the day he threw his band-mates under the bus. What I heard; back in the heyday of GNR, Axl gave the rest of the guys an ultimatum, either sign over your proprietary rights to the GNR name etc, or I quite the band. The band made the choice to sign it over to Axl knowing that his voice was what kept them in business. Lessor of the two evils I suppose. Now the GNR name is the only thing Axl has that can potentially bring him revenue. So, it doesn't supprise me that he is releasing an album under the GNR banner.

[Electric Elf]

Joy Division and New Order, despite being essentially the same group, really don't sound that much alike. (Compare the Joy Division and New Order recordings of "Ceremony"--and those were made one year apart!) Part of that is, well, Curtis and Sumner having completely different voices, but New Order did change direction very quickly.

[Invader3K]

I think if the core members of the band stay with it, it's still the same band. Kiss became somewhat different after Ace and Peter left, but since you still had the two main vocalists and "leaders" of the project, it was still Kiss (with or without the makeup).

 

It really is remarkable when the same group of musicians can stick together for any extended length of time. U2 is pretty notable for this, having been together for about 30 years, and consisting of the same four guys.

[RyDogg66]

Smashing Pumpkins are on tour right now, I think, and consist of Corgan and maybe Chamberlin. Iha and D'arcy have left. Dont know if that is Smashing Pumpkins or not. Id say they, along with GnR are a good test case for bands that still have the frontman but are not really the same band.

 

Foo Fighters have had a revolving door at guitar since their inception, but since the first album was Grohl playing all of the instruments anyway, I dont know if the rest of them really count, although Nate Mendel has been there all along and Taylor Hawkins since The Colour and The Shape.

 

REM lost Bill Berry a few years back, but to me they are still REM, even though their music has been pretty stagnant since Up was released.

 

Years ago, the first time Weiland went into the pokie/rehab the rest of STP took on a new lead singer (Dave Couts?) and called themselves Talk Show. They were pretty bad.

 

Pearl Jam has gone through their fair share of drummers before landing a great on in Matt Cameron (soundgarden)

[Invader3K]

There are some "bands" that are basically just one man projects. Smashing Pumpkins could fall into that category...while they started as a group of peers, after their rise to fame, it was pretty clear that it was Billy Corgan's band. I believe he played all the instruments on their last couple albums, too.

 

The Cure would be another example...pretty much Robert Smith has been the only consistent member. It's his band.

[Crewin06]

AC/DC after they lost their lead singer Bon Scott??

[TooLiveBrew]

I'm a big Dave Matthews Band nerd, and their sax/flute player LeRoi Moore died recently. He was my favorite member of the group, so for me his absence will probably be more notable than it will for others. I haven't heard anything from the band without Moore yet, nor what their plans include. Overall he can probably be replaced relatively well, but there's no question I won't ever think of the band in the same light.

 

Then again, it's not like GNR or heck even the Temptations -- do the Temps still tour? Last I knew iirc they were down to one original member. Great topic, fwiw.

[Fatter than Joey]

The Tempts still tour -- Otis Williams is the only original member still alive. A lot of them died after collaborating with Hall & Oates,

[PaulRigdon]

What about when there is two of the same band? Which one is the real one?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.A._Guns

[RyDogg66]

I'm a big Dave Matthews Band nerd, and their sax/flute player LeRoi Moore died recently. He was my favorite member of the group, so for me his absence will probably be more notable than it will for others. I haven't heard anything from the band without Moore yet, nor what their plans include. Overall he can probably be replaced relatively well, but there's no question I won't ever think of the band in the same light.

 

Then again, it's not like GNR or heck even the Temptations -- do the Temps still tour? Last I knew iirc they were down to one original member. Great topic, fwiw.

I was going to mention DMB and LeRoi Moore, but then I didnt want anyone to know that I listened to DMB. (I dont anymore, honest.)