View Poll Results: Who is the least replaceable band member

Voters
29. You may not vote on this poll
  • Lead Singer

    20 68.97%
  • Lead Guitarist

    4 13.79%
  • Rhythm Guitarist

    1 3.45%
  • Bassist

    1 3.45%
  • Drummer

    0 0%
  • None (all are replaceable)

    3 10.34%
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 61 to 65 of 65

Thread: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

  1. #61
    Stuck on the Border Jonny Come Lately's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Watching the hazy sun sinking in the sea in England
    Posts
    1,974

    Default Re: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

    Interesting question, and one I can't offer an immediate answer to. So, I'll answer it by looking at five of my favourite bands and determining which members are least replaceable:

    Pink Floyd - Neither Roger Waters or David Gilmour were truly replaceable I think - Roger's solo career and David's Floyd (A Momentary Lapse Of Reason and The Division Bell) were probably not as good as what they could have put out working together, with Roger's work lacking musicality and David's work often having weak or average lyrics (though I think Division Bell is an improvement on Momentary Lapse in this respect). Rick Wright is not as irreplaceable although his various keyboards were essential to Floyd's sound and he wouldn't have been easy to replace. Nick Mason I think could easily have been replaced though, the drums aren't all that important to Pink Floyd's sound and he wasn't a singer or a songwriter.

    Eagles - Don and Glenn are pretty much irreplaceable as the main singers and the main songwriters in the band. If I'd been around in 1973 I'd have said Bernie was irreplaceable as he was the best musician and was a crucial part of their country rock era sound, but history has shown otherwise - I don't think he was missed at all on Hotel California. Randy Meisner was difficult to replace as a great high harmony singer and a very talented bassist but fortunately Timothy was just the ticket. I love Felder's guitar work but he was ultimately replaceable once Walsh joined, his vocals were not especially important to their sound and he wasn't even that involved in the songwriting processes (despite classics like HC and VOL) - look at the number of songwriting credits Stueart Smith has on LROOE. It's purely hypothetical but would Felder have contributed so much to the album had he remained with the band? I doubt it.

    Led Zeppelin - None of the members were easily replaceable IMO. Plant's voice is so distinctive, but so is Page's guitar work, while John Paul Jones was a multi-instrumentalist and John Bonham is my favourite rock drummer so any of them would have been a major loss to the band. Overall I would say Jimmy Page is less replaceable than Robert Plant - I can just about imagine the band with someone else singing, but I simply can't imagine another guitarist playing those songs.

    Dire Straits - Clearly Mark Knopfler was irreplaceable - as their only lead singer, full time lead guitar player and only songwriter (save for one early song which his brother David co-wrote, the only other writers credited on their songs are Rodgers & Hammerstein, and Sting), and later producer, they literally would have had nothing without him. The other members were therefore all fairly replaceable although I think Pick Withers on drums was a loss when he left and him and John Illsley were a very solid rhythm section.

    Fleetwood Mac - Surprisingly easy for me, I think Lindsey Buckingham is the least replaceable member by far. Not only was he a singer and songwriter as well as being a great lead guitarist he gave them a rock edge (he wrote nearly all of their rockier songs). Stevie Nicks although a great singer and songwriter was not really an instrumentalist - if you removed her songs from the Mac canon I'd miss her vocals but musically it wouldn't make much difference. Christine McVie also has some good songs and provided some good keyboard parts but her some of her songs are a bit too sugary or insubstantial for my liking - most of the songs by her that I like best either feature Buckingham prominently on vocals (e.g. Think About Me) or on guitar (e.g. You Make Loving Fun), whereas I don't care for songs like Tusk's Never Forget. Mick and John, while being an iconic rhythm section, were not singers or songwriters. Frankly, I don't think FM would be close to being one of my favourites without Lindsey. The fact that they needed to two guys to replace him after Tango In The Night (one to sing his parts, the other to play guitar) shows you just how important he was.

    Overall then, I'd say that the main songwriter(s) are the least replaceable member of any band as their departure would be likely to lead to changes in the songs the band made (e.g. the emphasis on lyrics compared to the music, the style of writing). However, out of the options originally listed I would go for the lead guitarist - the guitar just makes a slightly bigger difference to me than the vocalist as it defines the band's sound. In short, the lead vocalist might be the first impression I get of a band, but it's usually the music itself that determines whether I keep listening and as I mainly like rock and folk (and folk-rock) the lead guitarist is usually the most important in defining the sound.
    Last edited by Jonny Come Lately; 12-18-2014 at 07:11 PM.

  2. #62
    Stuck on the Border
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,948

    Default Re: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

    I don't agree that Roger's solo work lacks musicality. Amused To Death is musical as hell. Too Much Rope is up there with anything Floyd has ever done IMO. One of the greatest albums ever (again, IMO). On the other hand there are Gilmour songs that have two-note "melodies". Keep Talking is Sorrow part 2. The same "melody" with two notes and the same ordinary Em, D, C chords with the E bass. IMO both songs are far from great musically. There's another song on Momentary Lapse that also has the same two-note melody, but I don't remember the title because the album is so bad. Even Learning To fly doesn't have much of a melody or interesting chords, although I do like the song. I agree that Gilmour is no lyricist, but IMO Roger's stuff doesn't lack musicality as much as people tend to say it does. The Final Cut is full of melody - more so than the post-Waters Floyd albums IMO. Even on Roger's first solo album, which no one seems to like, Go Fishing is a musical masterpiece (IMO!).
    You can probably read from between the lines that I'm a Roger fan.

    As for Nick Mason, I agree that he was the most replaceable member. However, I think that what Nick didn't play, as well as the laid back fills and stuff, was a huge part of the Floyd sound. If they had had a more egoistic drummer, Pink Floyd would've had a less "mystical" feel IMO.
    Last edited by chaim; 12-19-2014 at 02:34 PM.

  3. #63
    Stuck on the Border Jonny Come Lately's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Watching the hazy sun sinking in the sea in England
    Posts
    1,974

    Default Re: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

    Fair points, I think - I must admit I am not entirely familiar with Roger Waters' solo career (I've heard the odd bit and piece on the 4everFloyd stream, although someone with fairly similar tastes to mine on another forum said he tried listening to Amused To Death and found it dreary) although from The Wall onwards there was a marked shift in the importance of the lyrics compared to the music. I think this is why most people consider his work to lacking in musicality. I will admit that the only Pink Floyd-related solo album I own is David Gilmour's 1978 self-titled album - I tend to be quite wary of solo projects in general so I tend not to listen to them with a few exceptions (I do have Don Henley and Mark Knopfler solo albums, but most of my other solo artist albums are by acts like Bob Dylan who made their names as solo artists rather than as part of bands).

    I can't argue with you about the musicality of those two post-Waters compositions. I actually think Sorrow is one of the better songs on Momentary Lapse (although that isn't saying too much), this is mainly due to Gilmour's solo parts though, but Keep Talking is my least favourite from The Division Bell and often gets skipped. Oddly enough this is the opposite to my overall view of these two albums - I like Division Bell quite a lot, but am not a fan of Momentary Lapse.

    I'm guessing the song you mean from Momentary Lapse is Dogs Of War? I think that's one of the worst songs by any version of Pink Floyd, the lyrics are awful (and worse for attempting to mimic Roger's style), the music is overbearing with the refrain clearly borrowing from One Of These Days and I don't like the vocals either (where David seems to attempt to imitate Roger, again).

    I agree about Nick Mason, he may not have been a spectacular drummer but as you say his drumming suited Pink Floyd's style and allowed Gilmour's guitar and Wright's keyboards/organs/synths in particular the space to shine (not that the bass wasn't important, but those two to me at least defined the sound of classics like Echoes and Shine On You Crazy Diamond as well as most of The Dark Side Of The Moon).

  4. #64
    Stuck on the Border
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,948

    Default Re: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

    I checked the song I was thinking of. I remembered the words "One kiss, one single kiss". So it's Yet Another Movie. That two-note melody again. Don't get me wrong. I love Gilmour. I just don't agree with the usual "Dave & Rick - music, Roger - lyrics" thing that even David talks about. Personally I don't think it's that black'n'white. However, if someone - like your friend - really takes the time to listen to Amused To Death and still doesn't like it, I'm not going to argue!
    I agree that Roger may have become a bit too "wordy" somewhere around The Wall period. So it's rather ironic that on Amused To Death a lot of the lyrics were actually improvised, and then written down - stream of consciousness. The album has an awful lot of lyrics, but it's not heavy in the "what does it all mean" way. It's not very issue-oriented stuff. In fact one interviewer asked Roger about one line, and Roger couldn't tell what it means.
    And yeah, I definitely agree that Dave and Rick were the most important guys soundwise. Rick was actually the most important IMO.
    Last edited by chaim; 12-19-2014 at 02:50 PM.

  5. #65
    Stuck on the Border WalshFan88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    11,238

    Default Re: Who is the least replaceable member of a band?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonny Come Lately View Post
    However, out of the options originally listed I would go for the lead guitarist - the guitar just makes a slightly bigger difference to me than the vocalist as it defines the band's sound. In short, the lead vocalist might be the first impression I get of a band, but it's usually the music itself that determines whether I keep listening and as I mainly like rock and folk (and folk-rock) the lead guitarist is usually the most important in defining the sound.
    Well said. I completely agree.

    And on the case of the bands you listed that I like:

    Pink Floyd - David is Pink Floyd to me...I do not care for the Syd years and am only a mild Roger fan.

    Led Zeppelin - In this case, Jimmy is Led Zeppelin to me... The guitar playing, the production, the vision, etc.

    Fleetwood Mac - To me, both Lindsey and Stevie is Fleetwood Mac to me. Lindsey certainly was the master musician - guitarist, arranger, writer of the music, etc. But I feel without Lindsey AND Stevie, Fleetwood Mac wouldn't have been as big as they are now. They would have remained an underground blues band I think.

    Dire Straits - Certainly, Mark is Dire Straits. Especially for his guitar playing - if he just sang I wouldn't be as inclined to say that but he was the do-it-all guy in the band - singing, playing, and writing.

    Eagles - For me it was a group effort and the group made them at the time in both the Leadon era and the Walsh era. I don't feel comfortable saying they could have been as sucessful with a different batch of musicians with DH and GF, I feel that group's chemistry is what led to success, and I don't believe for one second they could have done that with just any bassist or lead guitarist(s).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •