Should bands continue?

[UndertheWire]

We've had lots of discussion about whether Eagles should have continued after the death of Glenn Frey. But what about other bands? Is anyone up for such a discussion?

The most extreme case I can think of is The Little River Band which continues to tour, despite not having any original members. Wikipedia lists 31 former members! According to the current bass player it’s not the players but the songs that matter for bands that have been around as long as LRB..

[NightMistBlue]

Well he would say that, wouldn't he We all need to make a living. And it's not an easy life to be traveling extensively when one is in their 60s and 70s.

If people still want to see a certain band and enjoy their music, what could be the harm?

Some critics have been saying for years that the Stones should hang it up. But every time I've seen them - from the late 1990s to the 2000s - they were outstanding, absolutely magic.

[shunlvswx]

I guess it depends. I will give you some example.

Journey: They have been through a lot of personnel changes through the years, but only have one original member who technically stayed with the band even when they took a break that's Neal Schon. Sad to say. I wouldn't see Journey without Steve Perry. That's just me.

Styx: They've been through a lot of personnel changes over the years too. They got rid of their original lead singer, Dennis DeYoung and still have some of their original members in there even though one has died. To think aboutit . I think I would see Styx without Dennis DeYoung. I actually Tommy Shaw and Dennis is still touring.

Chicago: I'm a Peter Cetera fan. So I won't see them without Peter and actually Peter is coming to my state in September. So I will see him then.

Foreigner: I'm not really a Foreigner fan, but I did like Lou Gramm. They continued on and I think Mick Jones is the last original member still in the band.

Van Halen: They continued after David Lee Roth left and got Sammy Hagar.

Queen: Their lead singer has been dead going on 26 years and John Deacon has been gone from over 25 years, but I would see them because I actually like Adam Lambert and two of the original members are still in the band.

Earth, Wind, and Fire: They continued after Maurice White retired from touring and I have seen Earth, Wind, and Fire without Maurice and they still sounded good.

Genesis: They continued after Peter Gabriel left and Phil Collins became their permanent lead singer instead of sharing leads with Peter.

The Who: They continued after Keith Moon and John died. They could had easily stopped when John died, but Pete and Roger are the singers the fans think and know as the Who. If you lose one of them, I think they would break up.

The Rolling Stones: If Mick was gone, that's it with the Rolling Stones.

The Temptations: OMG!!! How they have been through a lot of changes. Majority of their original members are dead. The only surviving, founding original member that's still alive is Otis Williams. He has new people touring with them and he has the legal rights to use the name "The Temptations" since he founded that group. I think I remembered their was a lawsuit back in the day of former members wanted to use the name. They lost and Otis won.

The Eagles: Everybody in the group is popular, but here you have two members who has been there since the beginning. Even though Glenn is gone and he was a founding/original member who has been there the longest with Don, Don is still there and and like Don said. You are hear for the music. I would had still seen the Eagles if it was Don. If Glenn decided to continued, who would sing Don songs. Scott Crago would do the drumming, but who will sing Don songs. Would Irving and Glenn asked one of Don's children to help. Don has said his son was a great drumming, but can he sing? Don also said Sophie has a nice voice, but would she want to do that? But that's another story. I'm getting off topic.

SO should they continued? It depends. They are going to continue no matter what. On one hand, the fans will still see them because their favorites are still in the band. On the other hand, some fans would not see them because their lead singer they like is gone.

Its probably been a handful of groups that stopped after their lead singer or popular person left or died. If you're not up front or don't know any of the band's members, nobody is going to see you.

[UndertheWire]

And then there's Fleetwood Mac who just played a show with only their original drummer and bassist.

I'm softening in attitude to these partial groups. For me the key thing is whether they can still play and sing well enough.

Last year, my brother saw Wishbone Ash. He said they were pretty good. I might have passed because the only original member is guitarist Andy Powell and yet I would have seen Martin Turner on his "Argus 45th Anniversary Tour" if I'd realised he was playing locally (how did I miss that?). For me, he's the voice and writer of the classic Wishbone Ash.

[shunlvswx]

I forgot about Fleetwood Mac. So many members went through and their popular lineup was Stevie, Lindsey, Christine, Mick and John. Stevie, Lindsey, and Christine left the group after different times, and tried new people, but it didn't work. I think it didn't even work when Lindsey left and Stevie/Christine were still in the group. They had to get two guitar players after Lindsey left.

[UndertheWire]

The Fleetwood Mac lineup with Peter Green was popular, too. I've just learned that Peter Green was part of the Fleetwood Mac RRHoF induction but instead of playing with Fleetwood Mac, he played "Black Magic Woman" with Santana (a song he wrote and played with Fleetwood Mac and that Santana covered a few years later and had a big hit).

[sodascouts]

And then there's Fleetwood Mac who just played a show with only their original drummer and bassist.

Isn't it crazy how the two fundamental members of that band, its namesakes, are the drummer and bassist? I think that may be unique in all of rock'n'roll.

As much as I love Stevie and Lindsey, they're not necessary to Fleetwood Mac. Oh, I guess they are commercially at this point, but that's not what I'm talking about. They're not Fleetwood Mac. They are part of its current line-up. Mick and John are the heart of Fleetwood Mac.

John McVie was diagnosed with cancer a few years ago, and we fans wondered if the band would continue if he died from it. Thankfully, he went into remission, but it's a black could that hangs over the band. It's a similar situation to Glenn. And, like with Glenn, I would think it wasn't really Fleetwood Mac if they continued without John McVie.

"But can't they just hire a session musician to duplicate his sound?" You might ask. "Wouldn't it sound just fine?"

Yeah. Yeah, I'm sure it would.

Maybe it's just stupid to care about such things.

ETA: Sorry, didn't mean to bring the thread down. Thinking about that scenario made me really sad because it might very well happen. Anyway, I guess you have to take it case by case in terms of whether you think a band should continue or not. So many circumstances come into play.

[sodascouts]

To lighten things up, this is something related that will amuse you...

What if a band's manager decides a band should continue with NONE Of the members in it?

That actually happened with Fleetwood Mac!

In 1974, manager Davis booked a band called Fleetwood Mac for several dates in America. However, the band that showed up was not Mick Fleetwood and co, but four other people!

Davis claimed that HE owned the named Fleetwood Mac, and if he decided to give it to another four guys, he had every right to. A few lawsuits later, Davis was forced to concede that was not the case.

More details in this Rolling Stone story from 1974:

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/ne...-tour-19740228

[longtimeeaglesfan]

Isn't it crazy how the two fundamental members of that band, its namesakes, are the drummer and bassist? I think that may be unique in all of rock'n'roll.

As much as I love Stevie and Lindsey, they're not necessary to Fleetwood Mac. Oh, I guess they are commercially at this point, but that's not what I'm talking about. They're not Fleetwood Mac. They are part of its current line-up. Mick and John are the heart of Fleetwood Mac.

John McVie was diagnosed with cancer a few years ago, and we fans wondered if the band would continue if he died from it. Thankfully, he went into remission, but it's a black could that hangs over the band. It's a similar situation to Glenn. And, like with Glenn, I would think it wasn't really Fleetwood Mac if they continued without John McVie.

"But can't they just hire a session musician to duplicate his sound?" You might ask. "Wouldn't it sound just fine?"

Yeah. Yeah, I'm sure it would.

Soda - I respect your thoughts but aren't you contradicting what you said in the Eagles 3.0 thread? Regarding Eagles 3.0 you said,

My objection had to do with one thing and one thing only: Glenn is fundamental to the Eagles not only in theory but in sound. If he's not there, the band cannot legitimately call themselves the Eagles any longer.

To me, when I watch a video from the Classic showing Vince Gill singing "New Kid in Town", I feel like I'm watching a cover version that happens to have the former Eagles playing on it.

Wouldn't you feel the same way about Fleetwood Mac if Stevie Nicks were to pass and Sheryl Crow went on tour with them and sang Gypsy, Landslide, etc.?

I agree with your comments regarding Vince Gill singing "New Kid in Town." or anyone singing Glenn's songs. But to me, I felt the same way when Glenn was singing, "Take it to the Limit."

I think the vocals are the key ingredient. If I listen to "Hotel California", it is now missing Glenn, Randy and Don Felder but it sounds like the Eagles - it is the Eagles.

Granted, Stevie and Lindsey didn't come along until later but would you rather see them and Christine perform with different drummers and bassists or see Mick and John with new vocalists?

I certainly enjoyed seeing the Eagles with Glenn more than the 2017 lineup but still think they are Eagles.

[chaim]

Procol Harum & Gary Brooker? Fisher's Hammond and Trower's blues playing were a huge part of the original sound, but it seems that for most people Procol Harum is Gary Brooker. On the new album there's not a single lyric by Keith Reid, which is a huge change.

Is it ok that Jeff Lynne performs and records as ELO when there are no band members - just him on the albums and him with backing musicians in concerts?

Martin Barre wasn't on the very first Jethro Tull album, but he was there from the moment (2nd album) they found their own way of doing things to the last recorded album - so is it ok when Ian Anderson performs under the name Jethro Tull without Barre?

There is a huge fight at the moment concerning the two bands with former Yes members in them.