WHY CAN'T YOU ACCEPT THAT HE'S NO LONGER IN THE BAND?

[RJhog (Admin)]

So Scott's SHT post on who is in the band now got me to thinking.  

Here's a phrase you hear quite often..."I haven't liked ___________ (insert band name) since ____________ (insert musician's name) left the band".  

So my questions are, and I'd love to get as many opinions as possible here, is there a band and musician or musician's you feel this way about?  

And if so, why?

I wanna know why we can't accept replacements in our favorite bands.  We gladly accept them in our favorite sports teams.  Everybody knows an athlete cannot compete forever.  So when Dan Marino retired, did you start saying that you no longer like the Dolphins since he left?  Probably not.  Most people are life long fans of their respective sports teams.  Why can't we be like this with our favorite bands?

[Scott]

First a football response because your Marino comment reminded me of a dork in my neighborhood...  A new Jersey guy, moves here because he loves all things Carolina; Nascar, GameCocks, Tarheel, Panthers, Hurricanes, etc...  A real sports nut.

 

But opts out of his PSL renewal for the Panthers when they draft Cam Newton because he doesn't like him and now is no longer a Panther fan - weird to me, just freaking weird!

[RJhog (Admin)]

So I guess there are exceptions to the rule...

[Scott]

I'll start with one I've been hoping would get addressed in the near future, but I'm losing hope...

 

"I haven't liked SUPERTRAMP since ROGER HODGSON  left the band".  

 

Technically since Brother Where You Bound was released.  It is such a great album, I thought they were off to great start without him.  But it turns out that most of that material was previously written and the subsequent Supertramp albums weren't that good..  But in each of the last couple of years theres been some nugget of hope that him and Davies would reconcile.  That seems to be fading fast...

[RJhog (Admin)]

Funny that you should mention Supertramp...stay tuned.

[Scott]

I thought you didn't like them?

[RJhog (Admin)]

I never liked them, even their pop hits (except for Goodbye Stranger) in my youth.  But I have recently picked up several albums, with Breakfast In America being the only one I've given any attention yet.  Based on Breakfast, my opinion has definitely changed.

[Jon]

Interesting thread and I really don't have a band that I can say I haven't liked since _______ joined. I accept things for what they are, I suppose. I'm tolerant.

[Jon]

Oops! Or if ______left the band.

[Gordon Williams]

I'll just add in that without Derek St. Holmes, Nugents albums and shows just were n't that good. But, when Derek is part of the band, it's just classic stuff...Nugent, Free For All, Cat Scratch Fever, Doulbe live Gonzo....and then, when they reunited in the mid 90's, Spirit Of The Wild was/is a great listen.

I'll also say that Dio's best work was clearly when Vivian Campbell was still the lead guitarist. Now, I still like the post-Campbell stuff, but it does not shine like the early stuff w/Vivian.

[Scott]

Good response!

 

I must admit to having a preference for Dio with Campbell on guitar to the point he released Magica, now I think Goldy is a great 1a to Campbell's 1...  plus I really liked Goldy's work on the Guiffria debut as well, so a bit of a bias and underdog thing going on there.

[Niels (Mod)]

It depends on who left the band and why and also when. And then it depends on how the band carries on, and how good albums they are releasing. The Beatles is the only band for me who stopped at the top, and that's one of the reasons why they are the huge legend today. They never made a bad record, and never replaced a member with another one. I wish, that The Who had stopped, when Keith Moon died, then they would also had stopped at the top with only good albums. Led Zeppelin did the right thing, because Bonham irreplaceable. That concert with bonham Jr. a few years ago was great, but luckily it was a one night only-concert, so they didnøt really ruin anything. I do not want a new "Zeppelin"-record or tour, even though they are my favorite rock-band.
KISS has ruined a lot by continuing with a plastic-Ace an a plastic-Peter. Imo, they should never had put on the make up again in 1996. But when Criss left in '80, he wasn't such an impotant member, so it was kind of okay, that they carried on. If Simmons had left, I'm sure the game was over, and it should had been. Do you really accept any replacement at all, RJhog? Is the current G'N'R really G'N'R to you?
I've got tickets for Black Sabbath in November, but I hate the fact, that Bill Ward is not a member, because it would had been fantastic seeing the original band, and most of the times, original bands are very important to me.
Rolling Stones ain't really The Stones without Bill Wyman.
It's all because of money. If the remaing members of a band carries on with the band-name, then the fans will buy their lousy records, just becuase it's a new "Deep Purple-record". Well, it ain't DP to me without Blackmoore.
If I should fill out the blanks in your sentence, it would take a while and some space.

[Scott]

Deep Purple is the one exception to the rule because they were put together with the intention of members changing a lot, so it doesn't really hurt their name, IMO.  I guess because they started that way and they've behaved that way, then at least its done with intention.

 

KISS?  I really tried to hang on to them but they totally lost me when they put Spaceman and Cat makeup on Thayer and Singer.  Total sell out!  And I think they fully intend on that brand continuing even after Simmons and Stanley step away...

 

Stones?  yuck..  never got into them