Should a band fold if a member leaves?

New Order did it right by revamping the name and the concept. That's the best way to go.

Any IMPORTANT band or UNIQUE band should probably quit, coz that individual was probably someone that created their style;

The Who should have stopped after Keith died. The Talking Heads (The Heads) shouldn't have bothered after Byrne left. The whole New Order/Joy Div. thing.

Then there are the bands that are unextraordinary. They can put in anyone they like 'coz the instrumentation was so weak to begin with:

The Chili Peppers have made a living switching players seemingly at random. Van Halen has switched through three or four lead singers, inc. Diamond Dave TWICE. Zeppelin COULD have continued because by the time Bonham died he had a few million imitators waiting in the wings. Duran Duran... the list goes on.

Then there is the catchall:

The Doors should stop recording things with different singers because they were irritating to begin with...

new order is ok but overrated as hell. at least by people like you guys.

And all these bands STUNK even harder afterwards. Skynard needs all those guitarists and singers and whomever else dies. The post-Brian Beach Boys are, in a word, horrible.

> REM did.

REM didn't loose Stipe, and he's the only one that matters in that band. Imagine REM without him... the other parts are interchangeable.

> Duran Duran did.

See the first part.

> Guns 'n' Roses

The very idea of Guns 'n' Roses without Slash is laughable, let alone without the entire rest of the band. Axl can't produce anything meaningful without Slash's riffs and gunslinger mentality. I don't even know who the new guys are.

The Shamen?

Also, I want to point out the tragedy of the Left Banke in their post- Brown period. I think it does come down to the "genius" factor -- as important as Cale was to the early VU sound, without Reed they would have folded. VU without Cale is feasable, without Reed is crazy.

Hey, what about Destiny's Child? Of course they should have gone on... Smashing Pumpkins while they were on their Mellon Collie tour should also have gone on, but only until they finished the tour, at which point Corgan should have left and folded the band.

interpretation left up to YOU.

Had Depeche Mode quit, we wouldn't have gotten _Ultra_, which is a great album. You bring up New Order as another good example. It really depends on the creative dynamic shared by the surviving members. I mean, imagine if Andrew Ridgely had kept recording under the name Wham!. The horror, the horror...

I'd also like to reiterate the term KEY MEMBER, cf. REM - the only key member of that band to me is Michael Stipe (WHO IS A PRICK BASTARD). Like lyricists or writers or main personalities or someone who, when you say the bands name, they come to mind. I mean, you can change drummers 8 million times, but when the drummer isn't say Keith Moon, who gives a fuck? That's a very blatant generalization that is begging for someone to say, "Well, I think the Backstreet Boys drummer is very important" or something, but it's mainly true, if not 100% true.

It's like, again, Mick Jagger versus Charlie Watts - which one is more likely to negatively affect the band by leaving? If only Mick would leave and get on with his life in nursing home, actually...

incidentally, would any of this have been said of r.e.m. in 1984? the drumming is one of the best things about _chronic town_ and _murmur_.

Here's the idea for me, and it seems to work for just about 95% of bands I run across: Oasis has changed drummers about 40,000 times now, and they go on. Oasis could not lose the Gallaghers, either of them, and still have anything.

No comments about the fact that they seem to have lost their way anyhow ;)

and secondly, michael stipe being the only key member of REM? as far as i can gather michael stipe is a lyricist and not particularly renouned for his songwriting (music) skills. the music is pretty much all written by Buck and Mills. Even Bill Berry wrote a few...

i think REM would sound very different if you took away Buck or Mills. they already sound very different now that Berry is gone. and they have yet to produce an album on a par with Automatic or Out Of Time.

Do I dare bring up Pink Floyd or Genesis? :)

Guns N' Roses without slash, izzy, and duff is a joke. Its the Axl Rose solo project now. Even worse, he pollutes the GNR legacy that he thinks he is soley responsible for (very important, but Izzy and Slash were very much a part of GNR).

When bands like Judas Priest and Iron Maiden went with new lead singers it was also a joke. The fans hated it and the music sucked.

The only band that would be nothing without any one of its members is Rush. That trio had a lineup in which Neil Pert, Geddy Lee, and Alex Lifeson were all quintisential towards the music. Pert is an amazing drummer.

As for drummers, they are usually easy to replace unless they are an important part of the band. Look at the Who who continued after Keith Moon died. Some hardcore fans still liked it, but considered it nothing like their older stuff. Look at Zepplin who called it quits upon Bohnam's death. Just think of the millions of fans who are kicking themselves that they can never see Led Zeppelin in concert and flock to see Page and Plant or Page and the Black Crows; all prying for the next best thing. I don't know which band made the better decision.

Getting back on track. It depends on the stage of development of the band, the importance of that member within the band, and whether there is someone else willing to 'try and do it better'.

(There was a long history lesson on the Teardrop Explodes here but I couldn't be bothered to finish it). I think it depends on the 'vision' of individuals within the band and the collective 'vision' of the band, and how they match up. Cor, that sounds deep. It also depends on whether there's a fan base waiting for the 'new boy' to mess up. It also gives fans a chance to say "What if..." forever, which is what seems to be happening here. Sigh.

Uh, uh, uh......do we mean "a bastard's gentials" here? Because pricks must be attatched, y'know.

Derek Forbes to thread

Once a band member leaves, the band should really split up and reform under a different name in order to avoid confusion. In order for there not to develop a shortage of good band names, which could quickly happen, with bands having to start calling themselves more and more outlandish things (you can well imagine), a rule should be put in place that once a band splits up, their former name is then up for grabs by another band.

a band should split up just before a member leaves. that way the other members can say "you can't quit because we already broke up" and win