FAO BWOD RE: When does a band stop being a band

It varies, depends on which members are missing. Queen haven't been Queen since 1991. INXS weren't INXS without Michael Hutchence either, however hard JD Fortune might have tried.

The Fall are a good example. You're never more than six feet away from someone who used to be in The Fall and the line-up when they started and when they finished were still The Fall until Mark E Smith died. Same could be said of Robert Smith too, when the unthinkable happens.

The Manics survived the death of their songwriter because he wasn't the lead singer and because the remaining members never replaced him. The other three were also good at writing songs in a similar style to Richey Edwards. They've slowly veered away from his style but have been a band longer without him than they were with him, so they're still the Manics. Likewise, REM replaced Bill Berry with a drum machine and anyone who says that Up and Reveal are s**t albums because of that are WRONG.

As a general rule, if the lead singer and songwriter goes, you have to start a new band. See Joy Division/New Order, or Mother Love Bone/Pearl Jam. The South might think that they're still The Beautiful South because four former members are still in the band but without Paul Heaton and David Rotheray, they're just a rubbish tribute band and you're better off seeing the ACTUAL tribute band, The Southmartins for a more authentic experience.

There are exceptions to the lead singer rule, as some bands are better off without their lead singer (see The Glitter Band, for example). You also couldn't say you'd seen The Smiths without Johnny Marr, or The Stones without Keith Richards, Ronnie Wood etc. Pink Floyd survived fine without Syd Barrett too.

As for the Sugababes, are they the only group ever to currently have no existing members of the original line-up while the ACTUAL original line up are still altogether in another band (Keisha Mutya Siobhan)? That's just ridiculous.

Posted By: tim berry, Aug 1, 22:48:22