Views on bands continuing when members have passed away.

That is the same exact experience I had with D21K. I never saw the Doors, and that was the closest I was ever going to get. I came out of that concert completely blown away.

 

It is up to band of they want to carry on, and up to me if I want to keep following them. It depends on the band and who they lost.

Queen is a good example of one where Freddie was, for me, too much of the show for it to work. But they are doing it and people enjoy it (maybe I would if I tried), so best to them.

The Allman Brothers kept going and over time gave some great shows and made some very good albums with non-original members. They made it work.

It's not up to me to tell the musicians what they can do or fans what they can enjoy. We all draw our own lines.

 

This exactly. And also, I'm not so arrogant to think that just because I don't like it doesn't mean others can't (or shouldn't) get enjoyment out of it. Personally, I would never pay to see Queen + Whoever, or the Beach Boy, but I certainly wouldn't belittle anyone who did want to go. Different strokes, that's all I'm sayin'.

 

I saw Queen & Lambert Saturday in Vegas. I went in with mixed expectations, but gotta say I was blown away. It works because Lambert can hit the notes, but doesn't try to be Freddie. He has his own persona on stage & I think Brian & Roger let him run with that. Adam was very respectful of Freddie & acknowledged that he isn't Freddie & never will be. There are multiple tribute tidbits throughout the show that are (I think) reminders to everyone that they too realize it isn't the same & that it is a celebration of the music & legacy (with a nice payday, no doubt). I certainly acknowledge that it isn't Queen, however that said, if you're like me & never saw Queen with Freddie, I think you're doing yourself a big disservice to dismiss it out of hand.

 

There's no doubt that a band can carry on and be superb on stage without a key member who has died.

But..
I can't listen to anyone else singing with Queen except as a guest.
The Who without John Entwistle (and with Pino Palladino) is not my cup of tea. The whole dynamic has been removed.

 

It can work probably AC/DC pulled it off the best

Alice In chains for example has made some good albums after Layne died. However as good as AIC albums have been not having Layne is a HUGE hole in the band. Duvall is a good singer and guitar player but he lacks Layne's edge and obvious pain and aguish in his singing and lyrics.

I'm not insulted AIC eventually carried on, they got Layne's Mom's permission and Duvall is good musically but it is kind of sad to hear them and not have Layne singing. He is non replaceable and a very unqie voice in Rock history.

 

Pink Floyd would have had to quit since Syd was by far the recognized leader. In the End I think each case has to be judged by itself and you can;t make blanket statements on it.

 

I just find him to be a little to milktoast, no raw energy of vocal inflections like how Layne would sing. technically he is good just something is missing

 

Cher-Bot 3000 presents the "Turn Back Time" Tour

 

Slightly off-topic but I was just thinking of this the other day.

Shortly after the plane crash that took the lives of members of Lynyrd Skynyrd a friend of mine went on a rant about (are you ready for this?) the Rossington-Collins band. He said they shouldn't even continue making music! I told him he was crazy and that other members of the band didn't need to retire from music for the rest of their lives to show respect.

 

Peart wasn't the original Drummer

 

I put Floyd and Fleetwood Mac in the young band category. Plus their founders left, they didn't die.

 

I guess you haven't watched any alice in chains gigs from 1990 - 94. Layne was untouchable in that era. The best voice I've ever heard in rock. Duvall is a very good singer, but staley was on another level.

 

Well they can but I would respect them more if they changed the name or just tour using there names so with Queen they could change the name to the badgers

 

I saw the Doors "Other Voices" tour -- no drama or danger, but a solid enjoyable concert. And The Wackers opened ! (the real reason I went).

 

$$$

 

Disagree whole heartedly....why should a band quit when someone dies if the will and ability is there for them to continue...why should there be a rule???

Queen from a non-fan point of view seem to be doing alright.
New Stone Temple Pilots singer sounds great.
I'm sure Steely Dan will do great.

Sure Nirvana couldnt continue without Kurt.

But each to there own......

 

They could have found a power drummer like Cozy Powell or Carl Palmer and continued.
It would have been about the new songs whether they would have continued their success.

 

The other week, I witnessed the bizarre (on paper) spectacle of a Magic Band, sans Beefheart. John French 'played' the Captain backed by three musicians young enough to be his grandchildren.

The concert was superb and this current (and final) iteration of the Magic Band is arguably the best one of all, as the personnel have the music in their bones. They didn't create the idiom but they've been reared in it.

The whole thing was a triumph - and having 'Drumbo' on board provided the all-important 'authenticity' element.

 

I think if the main songwriter(s) and at least original singer or guitarist is present the band is still viable. So no problem with the Who as they are (though they need 3 players to replace what Entwistle did). Frankly the new 'Lambert' Queen are actually very good. Yes aren't Yes without Anderson however. It all depends what works.

 

Thin Lizzy contiues without Phil Lynott. That seems strange to me, but I've no idea what their gigs are like....

 

Motorhead featuring Adam Lambert? Funny ****!! Seriously, though, you've cited perhaps the most glaring example possible. Phil Lynott was a one-off; completely unique in every way. As much as I've enjoyed Scott Gorham's guitar playing since the 70s, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why he's never toured as The Scott Gorham Band. After years of milking the Thin Lizzy name on the live circuit, the decision not to record new music as Thin Lizzy was the correct one. I suspect the uprising from Lizzy fans on the internet was strong enough to make Gorham & Co. come up with a new name. While I applaud that decision, I wonder if "Black Star Riders" is deliberately tongue-in-cheek or simply grand irony, as none of the members would have a fraction of the drawing power, if not for Lynott and his catalog of brilliant songs. But, I think I'm sounding more bitter than I really am here. I know they have the blessing of Phil's mother, Philomena, to play Phil's songs and to go out occasionally as Thin Lizzy. It's really just a marketing thing (aka cash grab), IMO, but since Phil felt the weight of responsibility for the livelihood of everyone in the Lizzy camp during his life, maybe his mother is perpetuating that mindset in honor of her son, I don't know. That said, I can't help but cringe when I hear Gorham (and others in similar situations) claim it's not about the money, but "keeping the music alive". If that's the case, donate the proceeds to the Rosin Dubh Trust or something in Phil's name. To fans who have loved Thin Lizzy since the 70s, evillouie is correct: Phil Lynott WAS Thin Lizzy. And while I usually refrain from stating my opinion as if it was fact, I have to make an exception this time. There cannot and should not be a Thin Lizzy without Phil Lynott. The two are synonymous and inextricable. If Gorham, Warwick, etc. want to play full concerts of Lizzy songs, I suggest Paper Thin Lizzy as a more appropriate name.

 

This

 

Funny, but I never thought of the name "Black Star Riders" in that context or with that interpretation, but now that you've pointed it out, it is there, whether intended that way or not. But I think Philomena's blessing is important, and I think Phil himself would be happy that his music is continuing to be played, and keep in mind that money is going to the Lynott estate from Thin Lizzy shows in the form of performance royalties. If you don't wish to see Thin Lizzy without Lynott, don't go, but I saw the band twice (with Gorham, Downey, Sykes, Mendoza) and they were quite good, and it's a opportunity for Lizzy fans to see musicians they like in a communal experience (which is what live music is all about).

 

Some think that bands/groups are no different from sports teams. Is a band (or a group) a musical ensemble with a specific line-up or is it merely a corporate logo?

We have doo-wop and R&B vocal groups out touring the oldies circuit with none of the original members being as they've all died.