What's The Point Of These Bands Still Going On?

I don't know how many artists or bands that have been around for decades and are still going on and while I'm not saying they should all stop, if they wanna continue, fine.


But there are some bands that still exist that don't have many of their original members.

Case in point Chicago.


Sure you still have Robert Lamb.

But Terry died more than 40 years ago and Peter has long since departed and while Robert can sing whatever songs he sung lead on, who wants to hear someone singing Terry's or Pete's stuff?

Though I understand Jim Pankow's still with them thing there are others no longer part of the group.

I also watch YT videos of old Chicago songs and people keep saying, Peter needs to get back with the group.

I say, leave the man be. If he doesn't wanna reunite with them, fine. Just don't go to he concerts if it bugs you that much.

I understand WAR is still in existence but it to has many original members absent.


And The Little River Band I've heard still tour with either no or very original members.

 

My theory as to why old bands, in whatever form they still may exist, keep going is simple - people still need to make a living or top up a pension.

 

As I have suggested before, there are MANY bands that go thru personnel transitions early and often.
Chicago is a particular favorite of mine - the original group, not the “ tribute” lineup.
I have seen them perform in both structures. Once in 1974 and once in 2001. Both were pleasant experiences.
If they were to release a new album tomorrow I would buy it without reservation. I only care about music of a genre that I appreciate delivered with precision and passion.

Questions for you:
1. Should the Beatles have changed their name when Pete Best was booted?
2. Should The Who have been made to change their name when Moon passed? Or Entwhistle?
3. Should Led Zeppelin have hung it up when Bonham died?
4. If Paul, Ringo and George had performed in tribute to John, should they have been billed as a trio from Liverpool?

As I’ve said before, go to see whom you want. Listen to whomever pleases you most. If these acts want to perform - let them.
It’s their lives - their careers - their passion.

 

It's probably because it's the best way of making money for people that have had the same job for a long time. It's like saying a business owner should just not open his store after his first batch of employees leave.

 

MONEY.

 

They're dead but they don't know it…

 

And they still enjoy performing

 

What he said....and the need to be on a stage.

 

I once went to see a band I'd formed, a couple of years, at least, after I'd left. We'd had a couple of low level indie chart entries and BBC sessions, that kind of thing. Enough that the chancers who'd replaced the chancers who'd replaced us thought it worthwhile keeping the name. Everyone else in that first lineup had left too. I was introduced by a mutual acquaintance after the show. None of them had the vaguest idea who I was or that I'd written most of their set. They weren't sure who had. It was hilarious.

There are certain kinds of people who want to be in bands, and some of their motivations defy all understanding...

 

They's got a brand name. That's what promoters want.

 

I saw Chicago two years ago (for the first time) and the show was great. Much better than I expected. They're musicians, they love playing music. And as long as people come see the show, why not?

 

What I find interesting, and a bit puzzling at the same time, is the general public's sort of adhesive, clingy relationship with "labels" (as in band names, not record labels) Why any of the bands who continue with only one or two, or in some cases no original members, cannot simply part ways with the brand while at the same time publicising their resumé, as it were, or credentials as a way of letting the public know what they are about and what fans can expect at a live performance, is something I find a bit odd.

 

I didn't really say they should or shouldn't hang it up.

Plus I'm not gonna waste my time answering these silly questions.

 

Everyone's got a right to make a living.

 

Because it beats wearing a nametag behind a countertop cash register?

 

I was thinking this yesterday while looking at the new "Specials" album on Amazon. It's debuted at #1 in the UK (their first ever to do so), and being a fan of their previous work in the 80s, I was curious. Reading the reviews, though, raises similar questions to the OP here.

Is it really "The Specials" when Jerry Dammers isn't involved, two of the other key original members have passed away, and you have people like the bloke from Ocean Colour Scene writing and performing on the new record?

I've always enjoyed Terry Hall's music, so that might be enough in itself for me, but this does feel like branding a sort of extended FB3 reunion project into a "Specials reunion/comeback" purely for the commercial benefits and raised profile it will get. The #1 chart entry pretty much justifies that, I suppose, but I'm never fully comfortable with it even if my 2nd favourite band are Fleetwood Mac and Lindsey Buckingham twice did a similar thing with solo projects (Tango, Say You Will).

 

No original members here. Playing magical tunes for the smartphone zombies out there.

 

We, mere mortals, usually wait for the day we can retire and rest until our final breath, because what we do for a living isn't necessarily what we dreamed of.

But bands aren't made of mortals like us.

 

I thought Chicago was made of all Russian guys now, in the entire band! I'm sure I saw a video about it online.

 

$$$$$

 

For most of these bands there is only one promoter, and it doesn't book bands on the basis of who's in them.

 

It's way more Specials than the late 90s version, which had more original members but no proper lead singer. I saw both them and the current Terry Hall version and there's just no comparison. I don't love the new album but it's better than anything from the last comeback.

 

This.

I just saw the latest incarnation of the Glenn Miller Orchestra recently. Absolutely fantastic show. Lots of talent on that stage.

 

I would be so sad if someone came to my place of work and told me I shouldn't be there anymore. We all have to make a living. I think those disturbed by bands who are still around don't like being reminded of their own mortality. Pete Townshend and Roger Daltrey may be in it for reasons of economy but they still have the energy and enthusiasm for live performance.