18 years ago...

[Jaminbenb]

Bands like Styx just shouldn't call it Styx anymore, same with Kansas...I mean come on guys...even Yes... I honestly think that a band is 99.9% it's lead singer. As far as Styx, they are only Styx when Tommy Shaw sings...when the other guy tried to do Dennis DeYoung, then it's not Styx anymore..

 

 

 

This is too true, Queen trying to tour without Freddy is just plain sad. (Journey and Bad Company get an honorable mention as well.)

 

 

AC/DC got really lucky in finding Brian Johnson when Bon Scott died. I was only about 13 and didn't realize until a few years later there was a different singer on Back in Black then Highway to Hell.

 

I didn't really KNOW AC/DC, so when that came out, it was the first I heard, so I had no preconceptions...later on, I heard some of the older stuff, but by then, too late...

 

Van Halen would have been a tough band to rename when Dave left...

 

I went to see Rossington/Collins Band after their second album came out, and was a little disappointed that the only Skynrd tune they did was Free Bird (with no vocals, but they put a spotlight on the mic stand at center stage whenever the vocal part was supposed to come in...then they threw it off stage when the jam section started, and played that section for like 25-30 minutes!) But there's a band that "did it right" at first, then decided to "market it" later on by using the name!

[Entre_Perpetuo]

Giant, rambly response to the conversation about bands and lineup changes and stuff:

 

I'd have to say it really truly depends on what band it is, where they are in their career, why the lineup change occurrs, and who gets replaced. With bands like Styx or Journey who won't reunite with their original lead singers, both of whom are still alive and considered essential to the band being the band, it's just sad to see them touring around with replacement singers who are chosen to sound just like the original, or at least come really close. Usually part of what makes you love a band is their whole identity as a band, a group of people who are intent on sticking together and making music because they like playing/singing with each other. When that band decides they just cannot get along with each other anymore it is of course sad, but understandable, as it happens to many many groups, but when they find replacements for the most beloved members who are chosen not to bring their own contributions to the band but to sound like the guy who left without causing as much trouble, it seems greedy and fake. This is why I don't really care to go to a Styx or a Journey concert. I can accept that the original singers just can't be with their bands anymore, but I don't see why the bands don't have enough artistic integrity to find new people who really add to the bands and their music rather than just replicate the old voices.

 

In the case of Queen or AC/DC, a dead member is a much different case than one who can't get along with the band. Choosing to go on touring because you have many adoring fans who want to hear your live show, and many new ones who've never heard it before, is a brave a respectable decision. Choosing to make new albums with the new member because you know your career isn't over yet is perhaps even braver and more respectable. But the key is to avoid replication. When Queen lost Freddie, it was true that Queen would never exist again as it had existed before. Even the band knew this, hence the Queen + ____ titles rather than just Queen. However, many people, such as myself, are huge Queen fans who have found their timeless music in the modern day and heard the legends or their amazing live show but have no chance of seeing the band as they once were or hearing new music from the original band. A project like Queen + Adam Lambert aught to be (and in my opinion is) a wonderful idea for people such as this. Adam Lambert is a famous solo artist without the aid of Queen, and while many similarities have been noted between him and Freddie, it's generally accepted that they are not the same and do not sound the same. However, Lambert can certainly perform all of Freddie's old parts very well and craft a connection with the audience and stage presence quite close to the level of Freddie's. With Roger and Brian just getting older but not too old to perform well, audiences and many millions of new fans ready and willing to buy tickets to see a great Queen show, and Lambert not trying to imitate Freddie but still being able to perform just as effectively as Freddie could and taking cues from Freddie's style, it only makes sense to put on new shows with Lambert and Queen together and create a concert experience which is still just as satisfying as it was thirty years ago. While it is also unfortunate that John has retired from the music industry altogether, and while he played a hugely important role in creating the band's unique sound, the truth remains that he has never really been the main attraction to Queen, not with everyone else singing and constantly showing off their amazing abilities as musicians. Hardcore fans will notice the absence, but Queen is such a popular band in general that replacing the bass player because he won't come back goes unnoticed by many.

 

...wow that's a long post that has little to do with Rush...

Rush are different. They did change members early on when it was necessary and before anyone got too in love with any one member (also before they toured, which has a huge impact), and perhaps a lineup change between 74 and 87 wouldn't have failed completely (though it certainly would have been greatly frowned upon and likely failed greatly considering the band, each member, and especially the fans) but a lineup change at this point would be absolute nonsense, even if someone died. No one can replace any one of these guys, pull off the part without imitating, or even begin to find an ounce of acceptance from such a cult and hardcore fanbase. Every member is as valuable and irreplaceable as the singer in most bands, and fans simply won't accept any lineup changes, no matter the circumstances. Not many bands have that kind of dedication to each individual member from basically everyone who would go to a show (i.e. everyone who considers themselves a fan). So to put those kinds of expectations on other bands is asking a lot.

 

Many bands have one or two members who are considered essential by anyone who knows the band, and the rest are just background characters to the average fan. A few bands (like Yes) are chocked full of these "essential" kind of members, but they set such a precedence for lineup changes while the height of their careers were still going that the band identity gets paired down to whoever has remained constant throughout the changes (a lot of prog groups have histories like this). Probably the majority of bands are kind of a combination of these two, perhaps having used a lineup full of seemingly essential members early on, but making enough changes while before hitting their peak that the lost members are no longer seen as essential to the band as new members bring new (and probably more popular/successful) sounds in and surviving members take center stage with the fans. Still other bands (e.g. Genesis, Floyd, AC/DC, Van Halen) do lose a member who continues to be considered essential to the band's sound, but the replacement member works so well (without imitation) that the band doesn't fail, but actually gains more success with both a new sound and a new member than had previously been imagined. Often times this new sound is so radically different that the band, while perhaps still going by the same name, is considered to be a different band all together, or at least a band in its second phase (e.g. new Genesis vs. old Genesis, Barett vs. Gilmore, Van Hagar vs. Van Halen). If this succeeds, it is often because the band's new sound appeals to different people and garners a new audience which may blend with, replace, or combat the old one. an interesting thing about Rush is that they managed to create this kind of musical, fan-splitting change in sound at least twice without having to make lineup changes (except in the case of the debut vs. FBN). Perhaps this is a subtle partial cause of many people's avid Rush fandom, their ability to completely and radically readjust themselves sonically while keeping a consistent lineup that never fails to bring in certain member-specific elements to the band's sound which form the core of their sound. Perhaps this is more connected to their longevity, and one might argue that it is the sheer longevity of Rush which has finally gotten them the kind of critical, commercial, and general success and appeal they have always deserved in recent years. A band like Queen might have had similar longevity and heightening of success due to their willingness to change sound without changing members over the course of multiple decades if Freddie hadn't passed away just as they were finally recapturing their mid-seventies greatness and success, and this is probably the story with many bands. So many groups are led by a couple of members to morph and change their sound and approach as time wears on, explore different routes, when, right in the middle of all the change and success, someone else in the band almost always calls it quits or fires the member causing the changes due to "creative differences." Some bands change members to progress, and some bands change members to keep from progressing. Ultimately it is usually the band who decides to progress (within reason) that lasts longer, hence Yes' success in both the early seventies and the early eighties.

 

 

So anyway, people complaining about this possibly being Rush's last big tour? Yeah, that's annoying. I feel lucky to be able to see them at all, seeing as this will be my first ever Rush concert. If you've seen them like five times already and you're complaining, just remember the sixteen year old kid and his dad who are going to see them for the first time ever on this final tour and realize how lucky you are to have seen them all those times that you did.

[WorkingAllTheTime]

Geddy said it best during the hiatus. Rush is three specific members. Without the others, it's not going to happen.

 

Who here would pay to see Rush with a drummer or than Peart? Rush with a guitarist other than Lifeson? A bass player/keyboardist/singer/jack of all trades other than Lee?

 

The post hiatus Rush was indeed a gift beyond what most understand (keep in mind there are a few on this board who were in elementary school or younger during the hiatus and truly don't remember, let alone understand, what happened).

 

People are going to bitch. People are also, collectively, stupid. Do the math, folks. We are all people. This means we are all, at some point, going to bitch or be stupid.

 

The fact the band bothered to tell everyone this is the final tour "of this magnitude" (translation: this is it, people) is a pleasant head's up. Anyone who says otherwise is either just bitching or being stupid. Probably both.

 

Sorry, just being honest. Math don't lie.

Edited May 4, 2015 by WorkingAllTheTime

[Jaminbenb]

Giant, rambly response to the conversation about bands and lineup changes and stuff:

 

I'd have to say it really truly depends on what band it is, where they are in their career, why the lineup change occurrs, and who gets replaced. With bands like Styx or Journey who won't reunite with their original lead singers, both of whom are still alive and considered essential to the band being the band, it's just sad to see them touring around with replacement singers who are chosen to sound just like the original, or at least come really close. Usually part of what makes you love a band is their whole identity as a band, a group of people who are intent on sticking together and making music because they like playing/singing with each other. When that band decides they just cannot get along with each other anymore it is of course sad, but understandable, as it happens to many many groups, but when they find replacements for the most beloved members who are chosen not to bring their own contributions to the band but to sound like the guy who left without causing as much trouble, it seems greedy and fake. This is why I don't really care to go to a Styx or a Journey concert. I can accept that the original singers just can't be with their bands anymore, but I don't see why the bands don't have enough artistic integrity to find new people who really add to the bands and their music rather than just replicate the old voices.

 

In the case of Queen or AC/DC, a dead member is a much different case than one who can't get along with the band. Choosing to go on touring because you have many adoring fans who want to hear your live show, and many new ones who've never heard it before, is a brave a respectable decision. Choosing to make new albums with the new member because you know your career isn't over yet is perhaps even braver and more respectable. But the key is to avoid replication. When Queen lost Freddie, it was true that Queen would never exist again as it had existed before. Even the band knew this, hence the Queen + ____ titles rather than just Queen. However, many people, such as myself, are huge Queen fans who have found their timeless music in the modern day and heard the legends or their amazing live show but have no chance of seeing the band as they once were or hearing new music from the original band. A project like Queen + Adam Lambert aught to be (and in my opinion is) a wonderful idea for people such as this. Adam Lambert is a famous solo artist without the aid of Queen, and while many similarities have been noted between him and Freddie, it's generally accepted that they are not the same and do not sound the same. However, Lambert can certainly perform all of Freddie's old parts very well and craft a connection with the audience and stage presence quite close to the level of Freddie's. With Roger and Brian just getting older but not too old to perform well, audiences and many millions of new fans ready and willing to buy tickets to see a great Queen show, and Lambert not trying to imitate Freddie but still being able to perform just as effectively as Freddie could and taking cues from Freddie's style, it only makes sense to put on new shows with Lambert and Queen together and create a concert experience which is still just as satisfying as it was thirty years ago. While it is also unfortunate that John has retired from the music industry altogether, and while he played a hugely important role in creating the band's unique sound, the truth remains that he has never really been the main attraction to Queen, not with everyone else singing and constantly showing off their amazing abilities as musicians. Hardcore fans will notice the absence, but Queen is such a popular band in general that replacing the bass player because he won't come back goes unnoticed by many.

 

...wow that's a long post that has little to do with Rush...

Rush are different. They did change members early on when it was necessary and before anyone got too in love with any one member (also before they toured, which has a huge impact), and perhaps a lineup change between 74 and 87 wouldn't have failed completely (though it certainly would have been greatly frowned upon and likely failed greatly considering the band, each member, and especially the fans) but a lineup change at this point would be absolute nonsense, even if someone died. No one can replace any one of these guys, pull off the part without imitating, or even begin to find an ounce of acceptance from such a cult and hardcore fanbase. Every member is as valuable and irreplaceable as the singer in most bands, and fans simply won't accept any lineup changes, no matter the circumstances. Not many bands have that kind of dedication to each individual member from basically everyone who would go to a show (i.e. everyone who considers themselves a fan). So to put those kinds of expectations on other bands is asking a lot.

 

Many bands have one or two members who are considered essential by anyone who knows the band, and the rest are just background characters to the average fan. A few bands (like Yes) are chocked full of these "essential" kind of members, but they set such a precedence for lineup changes while the height of their careers were still going that the band identity gets paired down to whoever has remained constant throughout the changes (a lot of prog groups have histories like this). Probably the majority of bands are kind of a combination of these two, perhaps having used a lineup full of seemingly essential members early on, but making enough changes while before hitting their peak that the lost members are no longer seen as essential to the band as new members bring new (and probably more popular/successful) sounds in and surviving members take center stage with the fans. Still other bands (e.g. Genesis, Floyd, AC/DC, Van Halen) do lose a member who continues to be considered essential to the band's sound, but the replacement member works so well (without imitation) that the band doesn't fail, but actually gains more success with both a new sound and a new member than had previously been imagined. Often times this new sound is so radically different that the band, while perhaps still going by the same name, is considered to be a different band all together, or at least a band in its second phase (e.g. new Genesis vs. old Genesis, Barett vs. Gilmore, Van Hagar vs. Van Halen). If this succeeds, it is often because the band's new sound appeals to different people and garners a new audience which may blend with, replace, or combat the old one. an interesting thing about Rush is that they managed to create this kind of musical, fan-splitting change in sound at least twice without having to make lineup changes (except in the case of the debut vs. FBN). Perhaps this is a subtle partial cause of many people's avid Rush fandom, their ability to completely and radically readjust themselves sonically while keeping a consistent lineup that never fails to bring in certain member-specific elements to the band's sound which form the core of their sound. Perhaps this is more connected to their longevity, and one might argue that it is the sheer longevity of Rush which has finally gotten them the kind of critical, commercial, and general success and appeal they have always deserved in recent years. A band like Queen might have had similar longevity and heightening of success due to their willingness to change sound without changing members over the course of multiple decades if Freddie hadn't passed away just as they were finally recapturing their mid-seventies greatness and success, and this is probably the story with many bands. So many groups are led by a couple of members to morph and change their sound and approach as time wears on, explore different routes, when, right in the middle of all the change and success, someone else in the band almost always calls it quits or fires the member causing the changes due to "creative differences." Some bands change members to progress, and some bands change members to keep from progressing. Ultimately it is usually the band who decides to progress (within reason) that lasts longer, hence Yes' success in both the early seventies and the early eighties.

 

 

So anyway, people complaining about this possibly being Rush's last big tour? Yeah, that's annoying. I feel lucky to be able to see them at all, seeing as this will be my first ever Rush concert. If you've seen them like five times already and you're complaining, just remember the sixteen year old kid and his dad who are going to see them for the first time ever on this final tour and realize how lucky you are to have seen them all those times that you did.

 

I think Queen laid off of it long enough and have done some good things in Freddie's memory, the fact that they sort of go out with a different singer and name the guy is pretty good...but as a friend of mine complains about (big Queen fan from way back) He's upset that John Deacon doesn't do it, and wishes they'd just end the Queen name (said he'd respect it more if it WERE the three remaining guys and the lead singer)

 

As far as Yes goes...they never really DID have a stable band from the beginning, and there was always that revolving door... in the 80's when they did Drama, it was a little odd since Jon wasn't there, but they WERE planning on not calling it Yes before Jon got involved again, but when he did, there was no choice.... Now that Jon's not involved, a lot of people just wish they'd end the name Yes, and be done with it....I saw them in 2008 and have them listed as Howe Squire & White (Yes) on my database (not that it means anything officially) but that's how it sort of felt when I saw them... going to see them again this year (but mostly because they're touring with Toto)