How many original members maketh a band?

[smittykins--70s pop RULES!]

This is a question that I've been considering lately. As you might expect, I'll use Chicago as an example.

As most of you know, they're down to four original members--keyboardist Robert Lamm, trumpeter Lee Loughnane, trombonist James Pankow, and woodwind player Walter Parazaider. Now, I admit that I haven't seen them since 1989, but through fan-club newsletters and Internet message boards, I've learned that the band has used subs for Parazaider and Pankow at different times in the past couple of years(Larry Klimas and Nick Lane, respectively), and I believe Loughnane was subbed for at one point due to his wife's illness. It's my understanding that Pankow had medical issues as well, and Parazaider simply wanted extra time with his family. Awhile back, there was quite a debate on the chicagofans.org board about this, as several posters felt cheated when they went to a concert, expecting all the original members to be there, only to find one or more being subbed for.

So my question is this: How many personnel changes--either temporary or permanent--are you willing to accept before you decide it's not worth coming to the shows(or buying the records)?

As for me, I'm one of those who think they stopped being Chicago when Terry died, but that's a whole 'nother story...

[Railyn]

Interesting topic, Smitty.

We now have a law here in PA that if you are going to advertise yourself as, oh for example "Herman's Hermits", then you must have "so many" original members to call yourself that. I use that example because many years ago, mom and I went to see what was billed as Herman's Hermits, but it was only one or two of the originals, and Peter Noone was nowhere to be found.

I say that in the case where a group is strongly tied to a person(s), like Herman's Hermits (Noone), or Creedence Clearwater Revival (Fogarty), or Nirvana (Cobain) - even though Nirvana never tried it, it's the same point. Conversely, in the case where largely only the headliner remains, like in Guns 'N Roses, it's also kind of not right.

Personally, I won't go see KISS anymore because I am a Peter Criss fan, and he was kicked out. I might have considered, but after Ace left, there was really no point for me. Same goes with Duran Duran. While I'm not an Andy Taylor fanatic, it's not the same without him. My interest in the band began to wane when the originals left over the years, and for the ticket prices they command (as well as KISS), I'll take a pass.

That's not to say that I wouldn't go see a reformed band, but I won't pay premium prices for it, and I'd appreciate knowing ahead of time what I'm seeing.

[Dawn]

For me, it depends on the artist. Most of the artists I go to see in concert these days have been around since the '60s and '70s, so it's rare to find a group with all original members.

I'm usually ok with one member being replaced in concert, particularly if it isn't one of the vocalists that are more crucial to the group's distinctive sound. With two or more, it depends on the size of the group and how badly I want to see them, as well as the quality of their newer music if they're still recording.

In the case of Chicago, I saw them twice this past year. Robert, Walt, Jim and Lee were all present for both, and they put on a great show each time. But if any of those four were to be replaced for some reason, particularly Robert, I doubt I'd have much interest in seeing them again, as too much of the group's sound would be lost. (And I agree with you Smitty, Terry is very much missed; would have loved to have seen him in person!)

I saw the Doobie Brothers as part of KRTH's 35th Anniversary Celebration in Irvine a few weeks ago. Of the lineups from both the Johnston or McDonald eras, only Pat Simmons and Tom Johnston remain. They put on a good show, but to me it wasn't really seeing the Doobie Brothers. Ditto the Beach Boys, who under that name have just Mike Love and Bruce Johnston as original members (and even Bruce was a replacement back in '65). I saw them once last year, but have no desire to see that particular lineup again. I have seen Brian Wilson multiple times (and will definitely go again when he next tours), but that's a different situation, as even though he plays Beach Boys hits in his set, it's billed as a solo tour. (And the quality of the show is much better than Mike and Bruce's set!)

[55dodger]

I saw the Guess Who this past summer, although, not the real Guess Who. They still have three of the original members, but, Randy & Burton were not part of the three. The kid they had doing most of the vocals & playing guitar was very good, however, it just wasn't the same.
I also saw the Lovin' Spoonful a few years ago, sans John, but with three of the original. Again very good show, but without John, not the same.

Kinda of the point Railyn made about groups being closely tied to an individual, and the Guess Who & Spoonful kinda were.

But it was still fun to see them, and I saw Lovin' Spoonful with my kids & they had fun. My daughter actually used Do You Believe in Magic in her wedding, which I thought was pretty cool.

[H2IZCOOL]

I think you guys are hitting it right. Sometimes it's how many; but it's also soemtimes who.

As long as you have Don Henley and Glenn Frey, it's The Eagles, regardless of who else or how many more people are there.

Mick and Keith ARE The Stones.

But you get Paul and Ringo to tour together for ten years, and it ain't The Beatles. Even if John or George (but not both) were still alive and joined the tour. It wouldn't be the Beatles.

Van Halen is Eddie and nothing else. You might LIKE David Lee better than Sammy. You may be pissed that Wolfgang took Michael Anthony's place. It doesn't matter. Van Halen is Eddie.

[jbd]

i love singer/keys man ROBERT LAMM, but for many years now, i've had a difficult time knowing that lead singers TERRY KATH or PETER CETERA are not a part of CHICAGO. i think JASON SCHEFF and BILL CHAMPLIN are fine "later members", but they have such big shoes to fill.

i imagine most bands have to find subs for their regular members occasionally. for example,
i saw THE SMITHEREENS a few summers ago, and they introduced a substitute bass player for their regular guy whose wife was having a baby. it was okay by me, since their lead singer/guitarist PAT DINIZIO was on board.

the VILLAGE PEOPLE replaced their original, troubled lead singer VICTOR WILLIS almost 30 years ago, with RAY SIMPSON, the brother of VALERIE SIMPSON (of ASHFORD & SIMPSON fame) and scarcely anyone noticed. by now, they've repaced almost everyone else too, for various reasons. i think only the INDIAN and the SERVICEMAN are still intact from the first lineup.

THE DOOBIES' only constant member, through well over half a dozen lineups, has always been singer/guitarist PAT SIMMONS. guitarist TOMMY JOHNSTON sang & wrote the majority of their early hits, then retired due to illness just as new singer MICHAEL MCDONALD was being recruited. i've seen three completely different DOOBIES lineups over the course of 30 years, and all had merit. the most recent lineup, starring PAT,TOMMY, and drummer MIKE HOSSACK from the original four man lineup, still manage to crank out a good show, devoid only of the relatively small handful of MCDONALD hits.

but these acts like HERMAN'S HERMITS and LITTLE RIVER BAND, who boast only one original member (i think it's the drummer in both cases) are shams to me, and not worth my time. let alone all the so-called PLATTERS, COASTERS, & DRIFTERS over the decades. i've seen both the PETER NOONE-less HERMAN's HERMITS, and PETER NOONE himself. guess who put on the best show?...

[daniel]

I remember when I worked at the Oldies station ages ago there was talk of sponsoring a concert with the Beach Boys. The program director axed that idea saying "They want too much and there's barely any original members!"

[cairnterrier]

Good question that has spurred some very interesting responses.

I think what constitutes how many original members make a band depends on the band itself. Some bands can survive as long as they can at least maintain the most recognizable members at the same time. Like what was said above by H2...the Rolling Stones are Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. The band will do just fine with any other member replaced, but without either of those two, you just don't have the Rolling Stones.
Van Halen also is an example. While Edward is a big face of the band, he would have to have either David Lee Roth or Sammy Hagar up on stage with him. The failed VH version with Gary Cherone on lead vocals showed how much the band needed their frontman to compliment the guitar player. Despite some fans complaining, VH has done very well this past year without Micheal Anthony, and one can argue that in the slim to none chance that drummer Alex Van Halen would leave, the band could still draw a crowd as long as Edward and Dave/Sammy were present.

Then there are the bands who's whole identity and success depend on that one "frontman". What would Huey Lewis and the News be without Huey? The Grateful Dead without Jerry Garcia? Twisted Sister without Dee Schnider. You get the picture.

Then there are the bands that need all the members...any one member missing and it just won't work. Can you imagine the Beatles trying to make a mid 70's reunion without Ringo? It just would not be complete. And how would have the millions of teen girls of the early 90's reacted to the New Kids on the Block suddenly replacing Donny Wahlberg or Jordan Knight with some new face?

Some bands reinvent themselves after original members leave. Nobody can argue how successful Genesis has been in the post Peter Gabriel incarnation.

Then there are bands that can make it just on the music. The Village People were mentioned above....great example. As long as the fans get to hear "YMCA" or "In the Navy" and at least a few original members are in the line up, then all is fine. Despite what some people may feel about Chicago....they still can fill music venues Summer after Summer despite the loss of several members over the years. It's the music that is the face of the band. The same goes for STYX.

Then there are the bands that have suffered too many losses yet still try to carry on. Guns and Roses...Axl Rose should just let this deal go....too many vanished members and the sound that made them unique has disappeared . Such as for Bad Company....later years of this group's efforts are too far off from the BC we all knew and loved. Like two totally different bands.