aeroplane
In Urgent Need of Advice
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2010
- Posts
- 1,842
- Reaction score
- 0
Fair question. What do you consider to be the "original" lineup of a band?
I raise this question because sometimes it can be murky depending on which group is in question. For a lot of people who don't study bands in-depth, they simply refer to the lineup on a band's first recording, which is typically either a single or a full album.
However, some bands have been known to have members who either wrote with them or gigged with them before they ever signed a record deal or made a recording. Maybe they were around for a few months or maybe it was a few years. And by the time that band did sign a deal or record any music, that person was gone.
So other than old stories and photos, there isn't much to document their time with that group. These type of members usually become a footnote and fans who really study that band are obviously aware of their brief history but the casual fan doesn't know any different. Hell, some bands who linger around for a few years before getting anywhere may have a few of these "temp" members pass through.
Then you have scenarios such as The Beatles who have at least one recording with Pete Best and AC/DC who have at least one recording with Dave Evans, who was singing in the band before Bon Scott. But aside from that, there is little else.
What I'm looking for here is your thoughts on this topic and also any examples pertaining to one group or another that you'd like to share in support of your particular opinion.
I'll open this by saying that even though I study the history of most groups I enjoy, I am one of those who generally leans toward whoever happens to be on the first recording, which obviously some here won't agree with.
I raise this question because sometimes it can be murky depending on which group is in question. For a lot of people who don't study bands in-depth, they simply refer to the lineup on a band's first recording, which is typically either a single or a full album.
However, some bands have been known to have members who either wrote with them or gigged with them before they ever signed a record deal or made a recording. Maybe they were around for a few months or maybe it was a few years. And by the time that band did sign a deal or record any music, that person was gone.
So other than old stories and photos, there isn't much to document their time with that group. These type of members usually become a footnote and fans who really study that band are obviously aware of their brief history but the casual fan doesn't know any different. Hell, some bands who linger around for a few years before getting anywhere may have a few of these "temp" members pass through.
Then you have scenarios such as The Beatles who have at least one recording with Pete Best and AC/DC who have at least one recording with Dave Evans, who was singing in the band before Bon Scott. But aside from that, there is little else.
What I'm looking for here is your thoughts on this topic and also any examples pertaining to one group or another that you'd like to share in support of your particular opinion.
I'll open this by saying that even though I study the history of most groups I enjoy, I am one of those who generally leans toward whoever happens to be on the first recording, which obviously some here won't agree with.
