Monday, July 21, 2014
Reflections on Band Member Changes
What’s An Original Band, Anyway?
(An original essay I wrote recently, and which was posted on 27 Forever
What’s An Original Band, Anyway?
It can never become what some bands become... just a band name with a bunch of hired guns" - T. Petty [Runnin' Down a Dream (2007)]
I just watched Peter Bogdanovich's excellent documentary, "Runnin' Down A Dream," about the life and times of the Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers band. It's just shy of 4 hours, and there is not one boring moment. I plucked that gem from it to highlight my thesis.
A band is a collection of musicians that make music and usually have a common urpose and goal. Sometimes it's one member's vision that drives it; often times it's a communal effort. Like autism, it spans a spectrum. I would have you consider the question - when a member leaves, or is dismissed or dies, at what point does it stop "being the band"?In your opinion, should they continue as a band? And that is not the only question. There are others...
If they attempt to continue, will people consider them as being no different than before, and will the fans continue to attend their performances and buy their music? Should they continue to function as the same band?Should they market themselves as such? Should the fans continue to buy their (new) music and attend their live shows? And -- Would YOU still buy their (new) music and go to see them play live?
So let me offer a few examples by way of clarification. The list is not exhaustive by any means, and can only touch on a couple of segments of the line. As I suggested above, I believe this ranges across a spectrum. (Oh, how I want to use the phrase "spectrum disorder"!) I'm deliberately limiting my examples, both for brevity, and because I am a child of the Classic Rock era. As I see it, at one end, we have the prototypical example: Guns and Roses; Axl Rose perfectly exemplifies Tom Petty's fear. At the other end, candidates that spring to mind are ZZ Top, U2, The Tragically
Hip, and if you ignore their interim guitarist substitutions from years ago, Aerosmith. I am positive there are many others.
-----
We had been talking, last time, about when a band is and is not demonstrably “original.” One notable (and minor) exception you also might allow is Rush: the original drummer played on one (the first) album, and the current line-up has been together for 40 (!!) years. And at this point, if anyone left, I doubt they would continue. In point of fact, when Neil Peart was suffering through family tragedies, and was unsure if he could continue, the other members were willing to give him all the time and space he needed to grieve. If they were to have to dissolve the band because he would decide he wasn't going to return, they seemed content
with that. We will revisit this scenario (and those questions posed earlier).
The middle section is the murky part. You have two major segments with some overlap. Bands like Styx, Deep Purple, The Who and the Rolling Stones gradually replaced members over time as needed. Deep Purple makes no secret of it, even to the point of qualifying the rosters as Mark I, Mark II, etc. If you squint, they are essentially the same machine, much like a car that's had engine and body work done. Most would consider that it's still a 1967 Camaro even after the engine and transmission were rebuilt, and the body welded and repainted. To me, however, the Stones are a cover band of themselves. But that's just me.
Another segment comprises outfits in which the leader(s) or main songwriter(s) eventually whittle away until it becomes "their band.” You could include Heart and Steely Dan among others here. Kiss would also be a candidate. And with these three (and doubtless others), you now have the circumstance where the original version of the band might be inducted into the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame, and the current line-up is the one that plays their signature tunes. With Heart, one would be hard pressed to decide on a line-up: not including the Wilson sisters, there have been some 35 different players over the years. At this writing, Kiss decided not to perform at their induction.
Perhaps we could, and likely should, consider some extreme cases. On the one end, we offer up The Beach Boys. Early on in their career, their main composer/songwriter Brian Wilson soon decided to stay off the road, write new songs, help record them (with the help of Phil Spector's crack session crew), then send the others back out to play the new tunes. Over
time, several of the touring musicians were made members of the group. Ultimately, the output of new music became sporadic, as were Brian's on-stage appearances.
Finally, it split into two camps, both sometimes touring with the name (or variations thereof). The last several decades have seen lawsuits for the rights to the name and allegedly owed royalties, and tours that smacked of nostalgia, as nothing but the old hits were performed. Along the way, two of the Wilson brothers passed on.
-----
There are other bands that don’t quite fit any pattern. Genesis is like a less extreme version of Steely Dan: it got pared down, but it didn't feel diminished. They continued to produced music at the same level, and enlisted the same people to "rebuild/restore" the band for the live shows. There's a level of constancy with them, at least until Mr. Collins left.
At that same end, but in a different shape, we have the great progressive rock band Yes. They have been through a myriad changes, which have, for the most part, been amicable. Only one member (the bassist!!) has been a constant in all this time, which is just over 45 years. They have released 20 studio albums of new original material. Despite the rosters changes - at last count, 20 different players can be counted as Yes-men - the brand is strong with this one.
In point of fact, the line-ups were constant over long periods of time, the most stable being the 1970s, with Chris Squire, Jon Anderson, Steve Howe, Rick Wakeman and Alan White, and the 1980s, when Trevor Rabin replaced Howe, and Tony Kaye (one of the originals!) taking back his keyboard duties from Wakeman. This brought a harder-edged, less-epic, more radio-friendly musical format.
In 1991, the two current factions, colloquially called Yes-West (the current line-up) and Yes-East (made up of previous members and once called ABW & H), happily collided. They all collaborated on, and then recorded, the "Union" album, with the bassist Chris Squire at the pivot point. Although it is now disliked by the members, it sold one-and-a-half million copies. From there, there was a hiatus, and notable personnel changes, with Wakeman's son taking over his father's keyboard duties, and a vocalist from a Yes tribute band (!) in place of Jon Anderson. (On a side note, we need to mention that after all that music, they have yet to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. And who will perform on that glorious day?)
Along the scale, we have so many scenarios. We have already mentioned Rush. They would also be a member of that slice of bands where the very beginning lineup changed or got tweaked early on, but everyone sees that as the original. Or consider Deep Purple. They make no qualms about the fact that the various configurations continued as "true" Deep Purple. As I noted above, we (or was it they) have even "numbered" these more-or-less stable configurations (ie Mark I, Mark II, etc.)
The classic line-up is, to me (and I believe, many, many others) the second one - Blackmore, Lord, Paice, Gillan and Glover). Throughout it all – even to this day - the only truly "original member” is the drummer Ian Paice. Again, to revisit Kiss, many people consider the initial line the only true one. As time progressed, they could now be considered no different than a brand - like Heart and Steely Dan - with the principals running the show, and sidemen filling the requisite positions.
When the Beatles broke up, there was no return, there could be none; there was no thought of it, no glimmer of hope. While the remaining members eventually still played the tunes, it was a tribute more than anything else. Paul performed the the songs, as was his right since he (co)-wrote most of them. (Sting still regularly plays Police tunes.)
Nirvana is another perfect example at that far end point of the spectrum. Queen should have been there as well: Freddy Mercury was not replaceable in any sense of the word. Touring with two members and saying it's not a "reproduction or an imitation" is being disingenous. And it's just one step away from being a cover/tribute band.
Again, recent viewing provides another convoluted example. Bruce Springsteen had already entered the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a solo artist. Fifteen years later, the band itself is inducted - with Bruce giving the speech. That outfit was rather constant, undergoing minimal changes, with players leaving and then returning (and even re-added to the line-up, as the replacement(s) were not ousted but kept).
Which brings us to Led Zeppelin, the band that brought all this to the fore. They decided, and rightly so, that when Bonham died, they could and would not continue. But they eventually did, when Page and Plant got together and played the tunes, and released two albums. Over the years, they have played several shows and reunions (Live Aid, Tribute to Atlantic Records & Ahmet Ertegun). I think maybe Plant likes to tease, and won't completely close the book on this great chapter of his life. Page, the man who essentially put the group together, would like it to continue. He's the keeper of the flame (and the faith), so to speak. The show in 2007 with Bonham's son is the closest they would ever get to the original.
And here's where I have the problem: Plant didn't mind touring with Page and without Jones. So why not tour with Jones and Jason? It would have made more money that the next two biggest tours combined. It would have boggled the collective mind of Rock'n'Roll. Don't do a half-assed thing, and then later turn down what would be as close as you can get to the original. It might even be closure for everyone! Other bands have offered (and delivered) much worse. And if they really are done, why the recent re-released, re-mastered, value-added version of their albums?
I am convinced that there are many, many more examples, but like Da Vinci said of art (be it books or record albums or paintings - or this essay) this won't ever be finished, only (gently) abandoned. I leave it to the reader to pick it up and add to it.
(An original essay I wrote recently, and which was posted on 27 Forever
What’s An Original Band, Anyway?
It can never become what some bands become... just a band name with a bunch of hired guns" - T. Petty [Runnin' Down a Dream (2007)]
I just watched Peter Bogdanovich's excellent documentary, "Runnin' Down A Dream," about the life and times of the Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers band. It's just shy of 4 hours, and there is not one boring moment. I plucked that gem from it to highlight my thesis.
A band is a collection of musicians that make music and usually have a common urpose and goal. Sometimes it's one member's vision that drives it; often times it's a communal effort. Like autism, it spans a spectrum. I would have you consider the question - when a member leaves, or is dismissed or dies, at what point does it stop "being the band"?In your opinion, should they continue as a band? And that is not the only question. There are others...
If they attempt to continue, will people consider them as being no different than before, and will the fans continue to attend their performances and buy their music? Should they continue to function as the same band?Should they market themselves as such? Should the fans continue to buy their (new) music and attend their live shows? And -- Would YOU still buy their (new) music and go to see them play live?
So let me offer a few examples by way of clarification. The list is not exhaustive by any means, and can only touch on a couple of segments of the line. As I suggested above, I believe this ranges across a spectrum. (Oh, how I want to use the phrase "spectrum disorder"!) I'm deliberately limiting my examples, both for brevity, and because I am a child of the Classic Rock era. As I see it, at one end, we have the prototypical example: Guns and Roses; Axl Rose perfectly exemplifies Tom Petty's fear. At the other end, candidates that spring to mind are ZZ Top, U2, The Tragically
Hip, and if you ignore their interim guitarist substitutions from years ago, Aerosmith. I am positive there are many others.
-----
We had been talking, last time, about when a band is and is not demonstrably “original.” One notable (and minor) exception you also might allow is Rush: the original drummer played on one (the first) album, and the current line-up has been together for 40 (!!) years. And at this point, if anyone left, I doubt they would continue. In point of fact, when Neil Peart was suffering through family tragedies, and was unsure if he could continue, the other members were willing to give him all the time and space he needed to grieve. If they were to have to dissolve the band because he would decide he wasn't going to return, they seemed content
with that. We will revisit this scenario (and those questions posed earlier).
The middle section is the murky part. You have two major segments with some overlap. Bands like Styx, Deep Purple, The Who and the Rolling Stones gradually replaced members over time as needed. Deep Purple makes no secret of it, even to the point of qualifying the rosters as Mark I, Mark II, etc. If you squint, they are essentially the same machine, much like a car that's had engine and body work done. Most would consider that it's still a 1967 Camaro even after the engine and transmission were rebuilt, and the body welded and repainted. To me, however, the Stones are a cover band of themselves. But that's just me.
Another segment comprises outfits in which the leader(s) or main songwriter(s) eventually whittle away until it becomes "their band.” You could include Heart and Steely Dan among others here. Kiss would also be a candidate. And with these three (and doubtless others), you now have the circumstance where the original version of the band might be inducted into the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame, and the current line-up is the one that plays their signature tunes. With Heart, one would be hard pressed to decide on a line-up: not including the Wilson sisters, there have been some 35 different players over the years. At this writing, Kiss decided not to perform at their induction.
Perhaps we could, and likely should, consider some extreme cases. On the one end, we offer up The Beach Boys. Early on in their career, their main composer/songwriter Brian Wilson soon decided to stay off the road, write new songs, help record them (with the help of Phil Spector's crack session crew), then send the others back out to play the new tunes. Over
time, several of the touring musicians were made members of the group. Ultimately, the output of new music became sporadic, as were Brian's on-stage appearances.
Finally, it split into two camps, both sometimes touring with the name (or variations thereof). The last several decades have seen lawsuits for the rights to the name and allegedly owed royalties, and tours that smacked of nostalgia, as nothing but the old hits were performed. Along the way, two of the Wilson brothers passed on.
-----
There are other bands that don’t quite fit any pattern. Genesis is like a less extreme version of Steely Dan: it got pared down, but it didn't feel diminished. They continued to produced music at the same level, and enlisted the same people to "rebuild/restore" the band for the live shows. There's a level of constancy with them, at least until Mr. Collins left.
At that same end, but in a different shape, we have the great progressive rock band Yes. They have been through a myriad changes, which have, for the most part, been amicable. Only one member (the bassist!!) has been a constant in all this time, which is just over 45 years. They have released 20 studio albums of new original material. Despite the rosters changes - at last count, 20 different players can be counted as Yes-men - the brand is strong with this one.
In point of fact, the line-ups were constant over long periods of time, the most stable being the 1970s, with Chris Squire, Jon Anderson, Steve Howe, Rick Wakeman and Alan White, and the 1980s, when Trevor Rabin replaced Howe, and Tony Kaye (one of the originals!) taking back his keyboard duties from Wakeman. This brought a harder-edged, less-epic, more radio-friendly musical format.
In 1991, the two current factions, colloquially called Yes-West (the current line-up) and Yes-East (made up of previous members and once called ABW & H), happily collided. They all collaborated on, and then recorded, the "Union" album, with the bassist Chris Squire at the pivot point. Although it is now disliked by the members, it sold one-and-a-half million copies. From there, there was a hiatus, and notable personnel changes, with Wakeman's son taking over his father's keyboard duties, and a vocalist from a Yes tribute band (!) in place of Jon Anderson. (On a side note, we need to mention that after all that music, they have yet to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. And who will perform on that glorious day?)
Along the scale, we have so many scenarios. We have already mentioned Rush. They would also be a member of that slice of bands where the very beginning lineup changed or got tweaked early on, but everyone sees that as the original. Or consider Deep Purple. They make no qualms about the fact that the various configurations continued as "true" Deep Purple. As I noted above, we (or was it they) have even "numbered" these more-or-less stable configurations (ie Mark I, Mark II, etc.)
The classic line-up is, to me (and I believe, many, many others) the second one - Blackmore, Lord, Paice, Gillan and Glover). Throughout it all – even to this day - the only truly "original member” is the drummer Ian Paice. Again, to revisit Kiss, many people consider the initial line the only true one. As time progressed, they could now be considered no different than a brand - like Heart and Steely Dan - with the principals running the show, and sidemen filling the requisite positions.
When the Beatles broke up, there was no return, there could be none; there was no thought of it, no glimmer of hope. While the remaining members eventually still played the tunes, it was a tribute more than anything else. Paul performed the the songs, as was his right since he (co)-wrote most of them. (Sting still regularly plays Police tunes.)
Nirvana is another perfect example at that far end point of the spectrum. Queen should have been there as well: Freddy Mercury was not replaceable in any sense of the word. Touring with two members and saying it's not a "reproduction or an imitation" is being disingenous. And it's just one step away from being a cover/tribute band.
Again, recent viewing provides another convoluted example. Bruce Springsteen had already entered the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a solo artist. Fifteen years later, the band itself is inducted - with Bruce giving the speech. That outfit was rather constant, undergoing minimal changes, with players leaving and then returning (and even re-added to the line-up, as the replacement(s) were not ousted but kept).
Which brings us to Led Zeppelin, the band that brought all this to the fore. They decided, and rightly so, that when Bonham died, they could and would not continue. But they eventually did, when Page and Plant got together and played the tunes, and released two albums. Over the years, they have played several shows and reunions (Live Aid, Tribute to Atlantic Records & Ahmet Ertegun). I think maybe Plant likes to tease, and won't completely close the book on this great chapter of his life. Page, the man who essentially put the group together, would like it to continue. He's the keeper of the flame (and the faith), so to speak. The show in 2007 with Bonham's son is the closest they would ever get to the original.
And here's where I have the problem: Plant didn't mind touring with Page and without Jones. So why not tour with Jones and Jason? It would have made more money that the next two biggest tours combined. It would have boggled the collective mind of Rock'n'Roll. Don't do a half-assed thing, and then later turn down what would be as close as you can get to the original. It might even be closure for everyone! Other bands have offered (and delivered) much worse. And if they really are done, why the recent re-released, re-mastered, value-added version of their albums?
I am convinced that there are many, many more examples, but like Da Vinci said of art (be it books or record albums or paintings - or this essay) this won't ever be finished, only (gently) abandoned. I leave it to the reader to pick it up and add to it.
