Views on bands continuing when members have passed away.

It often doesn't work but it did for AC/DC & Van Halen, and arguably for Rainbow & Marillion.

 

Doors 21st Century in Columbus Ohio was wonderful also. I liked the Full Circle/Other Voices albums also.

To answer the thread question, if the surviving members want to go on, who am I to deny them making a living.

 

The irony here of course is that all eight of the 60s-early 80s members of The Hollies are very much alive.

 

Hey, the other band members have to eat! So why not tour with the band name? It's not like the old music with all the original members goes away.

 

Death should be the exception.

If someone living leaves the band they should be forced to disband.

 

Also a factor is how long after the death the new lineup goes out. Fans get desperate a band's music. The Doors mistake was just carrying on right away without Jim as nothing happened. But the Jim McCarty Yardbirds and the post Lowell George Little Feat fine; (the Mike Clark Byrds not so much). If done well I have no problem with Joey Molland going out as Badfinger in 2017. In 1976 it would have been sacrilegious.

 

Continuation after a band member dies is up to the band, but off the top of my head I can't think of a band where I liked them as much in the new formation other than the Rolling Stones after Brian Jones. I didn't like them more, but at least as much. And technically he left before he passed away.

 

If bands were forced to disband, I (and many others) would've missed out on some great albums.

So...what groups made you want to force disbandment?

 

There is a little saying in the entertainment business, which music is a part of, that the show must go on. That’s what they did. The fans don’t get to dictate how, when, or even if it will go on when a band loses a member. The Doors’ way of coping with the loss was getting right back to the grind. Yes in their case they not only also lost a lead singer but a pivotal songwriter. That doesn’t mean they should have carried Jim’s ghost around with them.

Look at a similar situation with a different outcome, Led Zeppelin with Bonham death. In this case, Bonham contributions were minimal and his loss relatively insignificant in terms of the band actually being able to go on. No disrespect to drummers but they’re probably the most replaceable band member. Yet, they hung it up when he passed. Honestly, I feel they hung it up not in tribute to him but to stop the rest of them from going down the same downward spiral that they were heading down at the time. Plus they were burning out creatively so it was perfectly convenient for them to stop then.

The Who lost Keith and kept going but fan resentment for their new drummer was more ignorant fanboyism than anything.

 

Still upset about Pete best.

 

I am late to this thread so I am sure this has already been discussed,but Brian and Roger calling themselves Queen...

 

Late to this thread as well :

Like others here have mentioned, it really all depends on the group of artists involved. I feel that when there are no original members left, a name change is in the best interest of everyone, else it be perceived by many as nothing more than a group of 'hired guns' cashing in on the artistic accomplishment of others ~ classless at best; fraud at worst. I remember hearing a story once of a band of 'legal imposters' touring under the name granted to them (not by any of the original band's members, but through some sort of contractual loophole) where they would get up on stage and say to the audience " ..back in 1958 we did a song called ____... and we'd like to do that song for you now " ~ when in fact none of the people on the stage that night were in the original group in 1958. I don't know if the story is true or not but if true that would certainly constitute an example of the type of fraud I'm referring to, however 'legal' it may be within the scope of any contracts or what not.

In a case of all personnel changing except for the front man, such as with the Animals in late '66, the step of changing their name to Eric Burdon and the Animals was an adequate, if still somewhat confusing, rechristening. Or another instance - if the band was always one musician's project, then as long as that one artist is present and owns the rights to the name, they should still be able to continue calling the project by the same name regardless of the supporting personnel changes that may take place around them.

 

Proof that just carrying on isn't enough-- You've also gotta do a better job of it. (See also: Doors of the 21st Century)

 

I don't really care, but I for one find it difficult to continue to follow as the dynamics in the band usually change quite a bit. Basically the chemistry changes enough to render it a different band. Same thing as when you have a major player quit a band.

 

So Apple should have closed down stopped selling i-whatevers when Steve Jobs died ?

 

without the lead singer the band is just a shell...just ask The Doors...slammed shut when Jim passed away.

 

Wow- I totally disagree w/ this opinion. I think Bonham was an integral part of the Zep sound. He may not have been a song-writer, but his contributions were very significant imo. He was the power and the backbone of that sound.

This may be true in many cases, but not true in many cases as well. Moonie was irreplaceable imo. Yes, the songs are still good, yet a pale imitation of what they were. His "sloppy drumming" was one of the bands hallmarks and a critical part of their sound.

I only ever saw the Who w/o him, but his absence was palpable. And that is not a comment on the quality of his replacement; it's just that his unique style was an integral part of the Who sound.

All imo of course- and admittedly from someone who thinks the rhythm section is the most important part of a live band and almost always under-appreciated.

I think you can have a great live band w/ a great rhythm section and merely good other players, whereas I think all the other players can be great but if the rhythm section is merely good, the live band will never be better than merely good.

BTW- rhythm is the best ever word for hangman too!

 

frankly: as faust said in goethe's book: "everything alive deserves to die"! that's the reality. sometimes enough is enough.

 

But this thread is about does the death of a member automatically mean that's enough, as well as corollaries such as "who gets to say when it's enough?"

Personally, I'll go w/ Bob Weir: too much of everything is just enough! But that's off-topic, so... never mind.

 

i was speaking about all those groups who continues even if members are dying one after another. again and again. i don't like that.

 

England Dan & John Ford Coley are just not the same without England.

 

The Who was never the same band after Keith

 

Whether we want to admit it or not, bands are, for all intents and purposes, corporations. They've established a name for themselves and developed a following (of loyal customers). They've paid exorbitant percentages of their income to record labels to promote, market, and distribute their product. Nostalgia aside, it makes no sense to shutter these 'music generating corporations' just because the one or more of the principles is no longer involved. KFC carried on without Colonel Sanders, so there's very little reason to believe bands with revolving membership should be shuttered or shunned. The market will always weed out those which don't make the cut.

 

Yes- very true. And musicians end up acting as CEO's. The ones w/ empathy then end up feeling the responsibility for a large group of folks, their employees. Which causes a great deal of stress and sometimes compromising the own ideals/desires/etc. The show must go on or a lot of folks who've been extremely loyal to you end up in difficult financial straits.

This leads to tours when artists want (and need) some time off. And more relevant to this thread, sometimes the need to continue a band when they might prefer to do other projects.