retooled lineups in long-standing bands

What makes a retooled version of an old band "ok" by you, versus a situation where too many lineup changes makes you jump ship? Does "authenticity" play into it - do you go to a concert and hear notes that sound aesthetically pleasing but feel deep down "it isn't the same" just because some of the people on stage are just hired guns? How much of it is based in musical technicality - ie "y'know, Matt Sorum is a proficient drummer, but he brings a heavy metal feel instead of Adler's rock 'n roll swing, so it changes the sound for me a bit"? What does it generally take for a musician to be considered irreplaceable, particularly at the bass/drum positions? How do your feelings differ on record vs live?

I feel like it's case by case with me and sometimes I can't figure out why I'll react one way with one band, differently with another. I can't listen to the new Alice in Chains, for instance, because AiC were such an integral part of me growing up, and Layne's voice just *was* AiC to me. Whereas, for all intents and purposes, I should completely *hate* Accept with Udo out of the band, and yet I like the new guy just fine on record.

yet guitar players kind of come and go as they please and usually it's forgiven? though I had a hard time originally adjusting to Judas Priest being Glenn Tipton and....Richie Faulkner, though I warmed up to it when he acquitted himself well on Redeemer of Souls. Yet I still have trouble accepting AC/DC without Malcolm (at least, live) - even though they weren't a duo even as long as Tipton/Downing. perhaps it's the brother factor?

Sometimes all I care about is the ear test - I've seen Suffocation on some occasions with as few as two original members and haven't given a shit, and yet I once saw Foreigner with Mick Jones plus a bunch of free agents and it felt so phony to me. It was musically competent, but it was weird - guessing stature of the band also plays a role?

anywho - what's your experience with lineup changes affecting your enjoyment of a band, either live or on record.

I know the current incarnation of 10,000 Maniacs has a fanbase, but once Natalie left and Richard Buck died there was no reason to give a shit imo.

wow, I didn't know about that one.

(death, that is)

xp Oops I meant Robert Buck.

New post-2011 NRBQ strikes me as just about as accomplished as the classic lineup, maybe even more streamlined as a vehicle for Terry Adams.

xpost Slayer was another one, like for all intents and purposes I should have jumped ship without Hanneman. I still enjoy their live shows (and to a MUCH lesser degree, their last album) despite Lombardo being gone (again) and it being Gary Holt on guitar (Kerry doing it all in the studio). not that it feels *exactly* the same, but I was surprised by how unbothered I was by it - perhaps because I'd seen that lineup before Hanneman died?

I'd also be completely cool seeing the new Queensryche without Tate even though his voice is so tied to the essence of Ryche - perhaps his dickishness bleeds into my enjoyment of the band.

Case by case for me too, but I think it absolutely matters who in particular is playing/singing, competent musicians are not hard to find, many cover/tribute bands are competent as anyone, yet "Appetite for Deception" is not Guns n' Roses

Matt Sorum bothers me deeply. I don't think he brings a heavy metal feel as much as he brings a shitty feel, competent or proficient as he may be.

For real though look up a clip of him playing "Vasoline" with Velvet Revolver, there is just no excuse for that playing, he isn't even old yet

What interests me is the dynamic within the dynamic - the cases where it's (supposedly) completely a matter of everyone on an equal footing

What if Peter Buck had left, not Bill Berry?

I think it also helps when the new blood adds something different while still maintaining a quality product, see Fleetwood Mac for instance, where the only constant is the drummer and bass player, and they somehow managed to come up with pretty consistently great records for two decades

Mac is a funny one, because they'd basically been a revolving door since the very beginning, but once Buckingham and, later, Nicks left, and they brought in Dave Mason and Bekka Bramlett, the whole world basically said "Yeah, no thanks!"

I like Dave Mason, but he's no Stevie Nicks

I was just skimming through the Behind The Mask and Time albums earlier, and they're not terrible. Billy Burnette is a fine guitarist/songwriter, but Buckingham is a huge pair of shoes to fill.

Bekka Bramlett's vocals are without any sort of distinction whatsoever.

In metal this is usually just a case of players who don't wanna work at mickyD's using an established/legendary band name to score a bigger slot at festivals and stuff. See: Asphyx, Mayhem, and Gorgoroth for a while (I can't even remember who's in the band now).

Whatever. Changing for the worse or for the better are certainly both possible with all the original members in the band too.

Funny that Fleetwood Mac never tried to refresh the lineup one more time. Think I remember reading that at one point there was talk of bringing Sheryl Crow into the fold? Which sounds...bad, but who knows what Buckingham might have done with a Sheryl Crow song.

maybe this is somewhat about the extent to which a band's music (inclusive of dramatic/symbolic aspects probably) can manage to exist as its own thing, like a contribution to the repertory, despite the heavy dependence on performing styles and personalities that there still is in recorded (semi-)popular music

Throwing Muses have always kicked arse despite losing everyone except Kristin and Dave. Some may disagree with me re Tanya Donnelly, I dunno.

Agreed re 10,000 Maniacs upthread, I loved them with Natalie but have had no interest in them since then.

Have no interest in Fairport Convention after Hutchings, Denny and then Thompson left, or Kraftwerk after Bartos, Flur and then Schneider left.

Kind of feel Einstürzende Neubauten were never quite the same after FM Einheit left.

Tindersticks are an interesting one, half the band left including Dickon Hinchcliffe whose violin had been central to their sound. After he left they dropped the strings altogether and pushed up the brass more, I still love them but it's not really the same band.

black sabbath are an interesting case - the dio-era albums 'feel' more like sabbath to me than never say die even although that album features the classic ozzy-tony-geezer-bill lineup, and the second dio album only has two original sabbath members on it.

I feel like it's case by case with me and sometimes I can't figure out why I'll react one way with one band, differently with another. I can't listen to the new Alice in Chains, for instance, because AiC were such an integral part of me growing up, and Layne's voice just *was* AiC to me.

new aic is pretty great, imo.

This is something I think about a fair amount. I really think AC/DC should have hung it up after Malcolm Young got sick - I mean, the evidence is right there on record; Black Ice wasn't great, but it was solid (if too long), but Rock or Bust was pretty much garbage.

Motörhead are a great example of a band where some people really identify with the "classic" Lemmy/Fast Eddie Clarke/Philthy Animal Taylor lineup, but that version of the group was only together for what, 6 years? 1976-82? The final lineup, with Phil Campbell and Mikkey Dee, was together for over 20 years, and a lot of their records were just plain better than the ones by the late '70s lineup.

I definitely think the revolving door of members has hurt Megadeth creatively.

I saw Slayer with both Dave Lombardo and Paul Bostaph on drums, and while the Bostaph-era albums are OK, I rarely if ever listen to them, but I listen to the Lombardo albums (even Christ Illusion and World Painted Blood) all the time.

Danzig completely fell apart creatively once that initial lineup from the first four albums disbanded.

Yes have got to be the ultimate example of this - they made a lot of classic albums after booting out a member that they felt was underperforming, but the "this isn't Yes" argument has been going since like..Drama, which was released 36 years ago. Now they've got Howe and White (neither original members, but 'classic Yes' enough), a Jon Anderson impersonator, the dude who played on Open Your Eyes, and one of the Buggles...Yes or No?

They're actually touring without White at the moment.

Van der Graaf Generator reformed their "classic" line-up in 2005, but sax player David Jackson left a couple of years later and since then Hammill, Banton and Evans have soldiered on as a trio. While I yield to none in my admiration for Hammill as a songwriter or Banton as an organist I have to say that the two Jackson-less albums (with another one due for release next month) have both been rather lacking in excitement.

no great beef against any of the variously named splinterwings of yes touring "the music of yes" but it really can't *be* yes w/o squire rip :(

http://i.imgur.com/pVykK5R.jpg

D: This band would be nothing without Richard.

S: I know, right?

no White? who's drumming then??

Can sorta fit this too didn't they? The albums with members of Traffic were mostly fine, but it really was a totally different group.

I like lots of Yes albums post-Tales from Topographic Oceans (the only one to actually feature the "classic" Anderson/Howe/Wakeman/Squire/White lineup) but agree that Yes without Chris Squire is a big No, from me at least.

I'm of the mind that Pink Floyd didn't become worthwhile until they got rid of Syd Barrett, but I know mine is a minority opinion, particularly on ILM.

can kinda sounded like a different band from album to album anyway, so while i'm not as fond of the later albums it's hard to say whether it's because of lineup changes or whether they were just not as intensely creative and exciting as they once so

*as they once were

no White? who's drumming then??

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/alan-white-back-surgery/

“Until I’m able to rejoin the tour, my good friend Jay Schellen will be performing with the band and keeping my drum stool warm. Please welcome him to our Yes family; he’s doing a great service by stepping in last minute so as to not disappoint everyone hoping to see Yes music performed live this summer.”

Case by case for me too, but I think it absolutely matters who in particular is playing/singing, competent musicians are not hard to find, many cover/tribute bands are competent as anyone, yet "Appetite for Deception" is not Guns n' Roses

Matt Sorum bothers me deeply. I don't think he brings a heavy metal feel as much as he brings a shitty feel, competent or proficient as he may be.

I never cared enough about them to really notice but following a documentary I saw recently, I read some stuff about Izzy saying that the band wasn't the same (and was bad) when Adler was kicked out. That the songs only worked with his groove and without him, it all fell apart (musically).
I don't know. I can't really imagine how different UYI would have been with Adler playing instead of Sorum.

xp that's probably a good change then - White was definitely a monster in his day but he's definitely slowed in his old age and I think the band has had to accommodate that. still...makes you wonder to what extent this is even Yes anymore. I wonder what will happen once Howe kicks it (though I assume he's going to play until he's 200)

http://ultimateclassicrock.com/files/2014/12/Yes-630x420.jpg

"cruise to the edge 2015" promo images, ringwraith edn :( :( :(

man, the crypt keeper has really let himself go

I hear Sublime's out there with an even younger singer.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u120/kingkonggodzilla/20160824_113858_zpsimxmwqfv.jpg