That is a good question Gearjammer...I will use Helloween as an example, there is only one original member left, the bass player Markus Grosskopf, took over lead guitar duties years ago and became the leader, they still tour and record new material and play the old favorites at concerts, so I guess if you love the music and the band still carries them off live then they are the band and can use the name.
When is a band not a band?
- Thread starter Gearjammer
- Start date
F
FoxyPage
Guest
It really depends. Like I mentoned in another thread, AC/DC still went on to be a huge success, Black Sabbath still rocked with Dio.....I personally think if Zep gets a new singer, they'll suck horribly because no one can replace or do better than Plant. It's just not Zep without him.
^^I agree Foxy, some bands just can't replace someone and carry on, especially the distinct sound of a vocalist like Robert Plant. As for ACDC, I don't hate Brian Johnson, but I much prefer Bon Scott's voice, and I only have Back in Black of their later recordings.
Mr. Shadow
"Classic" Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2009
- Posts
- 2,576
- Reaction score
- 9
Only a few major bands to survived unscathed after major personel changes.
The Beatles improved with Ringo. The Stones remained pretty much the same.
Fleetwood Mac has been rock's butterfly, going through multiple stages of life.
Pink Floyd moved on without Sid, and relaxed when Rogers Waters left.
Groups like Led Zeppelin and The Who were never quite the same with different
drummers. And Zep without Plant leaves too big a void.
The Beatles improved with Ringo. The Stones remained pretty much the same.
Fleetwood Mac has been rock's butterfly, going through multiple stages of life.
Pink Floyd moved on without Sid, and relaxed when Rogers Waters left.
Groups like Led Zeppelin and The Who were never quite the same with different
drummers. And Zep without Plant leaves too big a void.
F
FoxyPage
Guest
^ What other drummer??
Unless you are talking about Jason but they only did one concert with him so I don't see why you would mention him at this point. He's obviously not his father but he's a great drummer and it doesn't make any difference. If you weren't talking about Jason, I have no idea what you are talking about because Zeppelin didn't have any other drummer.
Unless you are talking about Jason but they only did one concert with him so I don't see why you would mention him at this point. He's obviously not his father but he's a great drummer and it doesn't make any difference. If you weren't talking about Jason, I have no idea what you are talking about because Zeppelin didn't have any other drummer.
Mr. Shadow
"Classic" Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2009
- Posts
- 2,576
- Reaction score
- 9
That's who I mean. People seem to think Page, plant, Jones, along with Jason equals Led Zeppelin. It would work, but wouldn't be the same.
F
FoxyPage
Guest
I'd have to disagree with you. Although John was a fantastic drummer, I don't think it makes any impact on the band as a whole. They still sound the same. It's quite different than replacing Plant and his signature sound. Jason is a great drummer and he's only done one show (and I believe a few small gigs here and there) so it doesn't make sense to say they 'were never the same', which would imply that they did more than that one show. They haven't even recorded with Jason yet.
Ezequiel
Senior Member
I think it depends on the band.
Queen without Freddie Mercury cannot be Queen. What about The Doors? Can they be the same band without the lead singer? I think that as long as the lead singer is still part of the group, a band can have the same identity. Without the original lead singer, it's not the same
annie
metal maniac
Not true. Brian May is Queen to me. I was never a fan of Freddy, he was just much too much. I love the sound of the band, not the vocals. I do love the harmonies though and that is a group effort.
Foxhound
retired
Similar threads
