Should bands continue?

[Annoying Twit]

It really is complicated, as the way that bands end up with few original members, or whether or not the original members are the most important, happens in different ways.

For The Guess Who, I think that the way that the ownership of the name was acquired was a bit underhanded. Hence, I personally think it's a bit off that they continue as they do. They do have two original members, Jim Kale (bass player), and Gary Peterson (drums). However, they didn't really contribute much to the songwriting. And, as I mentioned, the method by which the name was acquired doesn't impress me.

For 10cc, the band split in half. You can't really have two bands with the same name, and Goldman/Stewart released an album with the name first. Even before Stewart left, the albums they released became less and less interesting, and I wouldn't have gone to see them live recently. Now that Stewart has left and only Goldman remains, then I don't think it's wrong for him to call himself and his backing band '10cc', but I wouldn't want to see them. Which I can prove as they came to Leicester and I didn't go see them. I'd see a reformed original 10cc in a shot. They do have members such as Rick Fenn who has been a member of the band for a long time, but I'm not aware what he has contributed artistically to the band. I've nothing against what Goldman is doing.

Deep Purple has only one original member, their drummer Ian Paice. However, they have three members from one of their glory periods who contributed artistically to the band. Ian Gillian, Roger Glover, and Paice. Other newer members Don Airey and Steve Morse contribute artistically to the band, but I've not really enjoyed the recent DP albums, so probably wouldn't go see them. They have even fewer original members than The Guess Who, but I think DP continuing is on much firmer ground.

Fleetwood Mac is a special case, with personal changes and reinvention of the band being central to what the band is. But, the personnel changes stopped working later on, with the songwriting suffering with Christine possibly becoming less motivated, and new members contributing songs that didn't stand up to the Rumours era songwriters. (In my opinion.) Hence, the reformation of the Rumours lineup makes sense. If they had released the Buckingham McVie album as FM, I would have found that entirely reasonable. But, I understand why they didn't; they wish to keep Nicks onside for live tours.

I will say that it's entirely reasonable for anyone to decide that they do or do not want to see a band, and that no explanation of any such decision is necessary. However, whether bands should continue is mostly up to the band members themselves. When new members are brought in and act as more than just sidemen (e.g. Deep Purple, Fleetwood Mac), then I think that their artistic investment in the band justifies them having choice over what happens. And in such cases, it can be quite reasonable for bands to continue even with few or no original members.

BTW: I thought that Mick Jones had left Foreigner, and that there were no original members left.

EDIT: I'm listening to 'Jeff Lynne's Electric Light Orchestra' album 'Alone in the Universe'. It's about as solo an album as it can get. Jeff Lynne played all the instruments and provided all the vocals, apart from a few backing vocals and a bit of percussion. His reason for using 'ELO' in the title is that he said that many people have been using the ELO name for tribute bands etc., so why shouldn't he?