Views on bands continuing when members have passed away.

I for one can't stand it.

Queen without Freddie is just stupid.

The Beach Boys (Mike Love version ) is beyond stupid.

Imagine Nirvana without Cobain!!!

What does everyone else think?

Maybe I'm alone in this.

 

It depends.

Depends on who is gone, their role in the band, who they'd be replaced with, etc.

I initially thought that AC/DC without Bon Scott would never work, but it did. However, I agree re Queen.

 

In the case of the mighty Temptations,it's a testament to the resilience of Otis Williams,the only group in soul music history with five lead singers.

 

If done right, it's OK by me.

Terrapin mentioned AC/DC and Bon Scott. There's also keyboardist Jon Lord retiring from Deep Purple in 2001, and being replaced by Don Airey; with Lord's blessing. When Jon Lord passed away in 2012, Deep Purple easily avoided the wrath of Diorama.

 

I think it's okay.

 

Life has to go on at some point.

 

Don't care as long as the music is good, even if it's way different than before. Changing the name might help. New Order is fantastic, and I'm a big Joy Division fan. Love the Stones & Floyd too

 

If the music is awesome then all is forgiven. If not, then they made a bad decision.

 

Yeah true about AC/DC.

Floyd for me was always better minus Syd, I do like Syd in Pink Floyd tho.

 

I agree about changing the name in the case of New Order like you said. That I don't mind.

 

It depends.
Examples where I can except the group:
Stones (yes Brian left a month earlier, but it's so close it might as be replacing a dead member)
AC/DC
Metalica(to a point)
Red Hot Chili Peppers

 

It totally depends.

Alice in Chains without Staley? Ridiculous. Change the name.
Chili Peppers with Frusciante after Slovak died? Far better band.

 

JOHN PEPYS: Died in a bizarre gardening accident the police said was "better left unsolved". First of many.

 

So if one member from a 5-piece band dies, then the other 4 can't play those songs for the rest of their lives?

Bands can continue and fans can decide if they support or ignore. Too much good stuff out there to get caught up on silly drama.

Some acts I still follow and other I ignore out of hand, BUT IT's case by case. For instance, I'm OK with the Roger/Pete version of The Who, but the Pixies without Kim Deal is dead to me.

 

The Doors without Jim Morrison. They tried but hmm...

 

With Metallica, I know this is sacrilege to many folks, but aside from good work on Master of Puppets, which is probably my second favorite album of theirs, I was never a fan of Cliff's playing. I'm not a huge fan of their first two albums in general (more sacrilege), although I don't dislike the first two albums, but particularly some of the live stuff from the Cliff days is pretty rough in my opinion--and not just on Cliff's part.

 

I'm glad Type O was laid to rest along with Peter...

 

I think it's totally up to the remaining members. They are free to do whatever they wish with their music and their band. But I reserve the right to ignore them if I don't like it. Which is very likely if it's a key member who dies/leaves.

I totally respect bands like Zep and the Grateful Dead who chose not to continue under the band name when a key person died.

My fave band is Yes, but I have largely ignored them since they sacked Jon Anderson. I personally find it disrespectful to even call the band Yes now that Squire is gone. The band has no original members left.

But It's their choice to continue and my opinion is for me alone. There are many who still enjoy Yes music played by the current lie-up (oops- line-up; a Freudian slip???). Who am I to say they should call it quits? I do wish they'd do like the Dead and just slightly alter the name though. The Affirmatives; Oui; Yesterdays; etc. But it's their band and totally their right to do what they please. I can dislike it, but that should mean nothing to anyone but me.

 

They're musicians. They have the right to continue to earn a living.

 

Half of the original Alice in Chains lineup is dead (including lead singer Layne Staley), but their latter-day output is still really good.

 

Also, William DuVall does a better job singing the classic material live than Layne ever did in concert.

 

I agree Queen without Freddy is just stupid. I'd be like the Stones without Mick!

AC/DC was one of those rarities that worked.

Zeppelin did the right thing.......

 

I hope you know Yes is touring with Anderson, Wakeman, and Rabin since Howe's verson of the band is on hiatus.

Instead of bands continuing on after the deaths of key members, how's about band members leaving due to reasons of health.

Malcolm Young comes to mind.

 

The show must go on!

I saw the Doors 21st Century (with Ian Astbury) at the Orpheum in Boston, and it was an unbelievable show. They absolutely crushed it. Later incarnations weren't as good, but I wasn't born until 1974, so it was as close as I was ever going to come.

Queen's a tough one, but in most cases I think it's ok.

 

I do know ARW has been billing themselves as Yes, but as much as I believe Jon is the most critical element in the group, they are still not Yes imo. For me, it requires Jon, Chris and Steve to be the real Yes. But that's just me.

I would go see ARW if they came near me though, even though I skipped Yes when they played right downtown a few years back. They played an amphitheater on the outside mall and I was going to just go and stand outside and listen, but I even decided against that.