Pulp only have Jarvis from the original line up!
How many bands are still going without any original members?
3 of 4
Techincally Fleetwood Mac only have one original member in Mick Fleetwood. As John McVie did not join the band (even though it was named after him and Mick) until about a couple of months after the band was formed. Bob Brunning was bassist for the first few shows and plays bass on the track Long Grey Mare from the first album, the rest is McVie.
There must be loads of bands touring with no original members left, essentially they become a tribute band.
I read about a band touring as T Rex comprising of the roadies of the original group - I think that would make a great TV script.
However I can't think of anyone before the Sugababes that record with an entirely different line up. The closest is the original 1971 version of Brotherhood of Man who recorded United We Stand. They were just session singers and when they decided to form a working, touring, recording group they recruited a different line up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brotherhood_of_Man
I read about a band touring as T Rex comprising of the roadies of the original group - I think that would make a great TV script.
However I can't think of anyone before the Sugababes that record with an entirely different line up. The closest is the original 1971 version of Brotherhood of Man who recorded United We Stand. They were just session singers and when they decided to form a working, touring, recording group they recruited a different line up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brotherhood_of_Man
Originally Posted by jackbell:
“However I can't think of anyone before the Sugababes that record with an entirely different line up.”
“However I can't think of anyone before the Sugababes that record with an entirely different line up.”
No Doubt pre-date Sugababes by a decade.
Originally Posted by Dizagaox:
“No Doubt pre-date Sugababes by a decade.”
“No Doubt pre-date Sugababes by a decade.”
Did they release music with an entirely different line up?
Originally Posted by jackbell:
“Did they release music with an entirely different line up?”
“Did they release music with an entirely different line up?”
Yeah. There haven't been any original members since 1995.
To be fair, I think this debate is getting a bit technical, because to me, the real question is one of definition, of what is "original members" etc?
For me, the thing about bands with no 'original' members is really the lineup for which history remembers them, or their classic lineup, or probably even more specifically, the lineup with which they first rose to prominence. In most people's minds this tends to be the start of their chart career and similarly generally ends with their drop from prominence, it hit-making career.
I wouldn't tend to agree that potentially myriads of early members who came and went in weeks and months should be entered into the debate simply because they were technically there first, because at least 90% of bands have those people and for me they don't count. For me it's the lineup that rose to prominence and that fans first came to love.
Example - the Jam had Steve Brookes for around 3 years but then he left and they suddenly got famous. No Jam fan would count Steve Brookes as 'original lineup' if Weller suddenly about-turned and decided to do a full reunion.
Example 2 - Another of my favourite bands Squeeze started rising to prominence with Harry Kakoulli on bass but quickly replaced him with John Bentley and for me that is/was the classic Squeeze lineup.
Example 3 - Say Lennon, Harrison and Sutcliffe were still alive, would anybody seriously say that an original lineup reunion should include Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best (who is still still alive)? Of course not.
So for me, all the debate about early musicians before being famous is superfluous, not relevant. It's the lineup that became famous first that counts.
Oh and by the way, it's right, some band are calling themselves Dr Feelgood with no classic lineup members. It's the three who were Dr Feelgood when Lee Brilleaux died and carried on with a new singer, and have been like that almost longer than Feelgood were around before them! An absolute travesty and to me, as a Feelgood fan, they should be sued, and flogged and then shot.
For me, the thing about bands with no 'original' members is really the lineup for which history remembers them, or their classic lineup, or probably even more specifically, the lineup with which they first rose to prominence. In most people's minds this tends to be the start of their chart career and similarly generally ends with their drop from prominence, it hit-making career.
I wouldn't tend to agree that potentially myriads of early members who came and went in weeks and months should be entered into the debate simply because they were technically there first, because at least 90% of bands have those people and for me they don't count. For me it's the lineup that rose to prominence and that fans first came to love.
Example - the Jam had Steve Brookes for around 3 years but then he left and they suddenly got famous. No Jam fan would count Steve Brookes as 'original lineup' if Weller suddenly about-turned and decided to do a full reunion.
Example 2 - Another of my favourite bands Squeeze started rising to prominence with Harry Kakoulli on bass but quickly replaced him with John Bentley and for me that is/was the classic Squeeze lineup.
Example 3 - Say Lennon, Harrison and Sutcliffe were still alive, would anybody seriously say that an original lineup reunion should include Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best (who is still still alive)? Of course not.
So for me, all the debate about early musicians before being famous is superfluous, not relevant. It's the lineup that became famous first that counts.
Oh and by the way, it's right, some band are calling themselves Dr Feelgood with no classic lineup members. It's the three who were Dr Feelgood when Lee Brilleaux died and carried on with a new singer, and have been like that almost longer than Feelgood were around before them! An absolute travesty and to me, as a Feelgood fan, they should be sued, and flogged and then shot.
Originally Posted by elnombre:
“Not as much ass as they'd kick if their last 20 years output wasn't one decent regular album, a tepid christmas album and 3 or 4 hits/live compilations.”
“Not as much ass as they'd kick if their last 20 years output wasn't one decent regular album, a tepid christmas album and 3 or 4 hits/live compilations.”
I think anyone seeing the Moodies wants to hear the songs from the classic 7 era.
They are never going to better those, so I'm all for them still going strong with a back catalogue like theirs.
Originally Posted by officialsimon:
“To be fair, I think this debate is getting a bit technical, because to me, the real question is one of definition, of what is "original members" etc?
For me, the thing about bands with no 'original' members is really the lineup for which history remembers them, or their classic lineup, or probably even more specifically, the lineup with which they first rose to prominence. In most people's minds this tends to be the start of their chart career and similarly generally ends with their drop from prominence, it hit-making career.
I wouldn't tend to agree that potentially myriads of early members who came and went in weeks and months should be entered into the debate simply because they were technically there first, because at least 90% of bands have those people and for me they don't count. For me it's the lineup that rose to prominence and that fans first came to love.
Example - the Jam had Steve Brookes for around 3 years but then he left and they suddenly got famous. No Jam fan would count Steve Brookes as 'original lineup' if Weller suddenly about-turned and decided to do a full reunion.
Example 2 - Another of my favourite bands Squeeze started rising to prominence with Harry Kakoulli on bass but quickly replaced him with John Bentley and for me that is/was the classic Squeeze lineup.
Example 3 - Say Lennon, Harrison and Sutcliffe were still alive, would anybody seriously say that an original lineup reunion should include Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best (who is still still alive)? Of course not.
So for me, all the debate about early musicians before being famous is superfluous, not relevant. It's the lineup that became famous first that counts.
Oh and by the way, it's right, some band are calling themselves Dr Feelgood with no classic lineup members. It's the three who were Dr Feelgood when Lee Brilleaux died and carried on with a new singer, and have been like that almost longer than Feelgood were around before them! An absolute travesty and to me, as a Feelgood fan, they should be sued, and flogged and then shot.”
“To be fair, I think this debate is getting a bit technical, because to me, the real question is one of definition, of what is "original members" etc?
For me, the thing about bands with no 'original' members is really the lineup for which history remembers them, or their classic lineup, or probably even more specifically, the lineup with which they first rose to prominence. In most people's minds this tends to be the start of their chart career and similarly generally ends with their drop from prominence, it hit-making career.
I wouldn't tend to agree that potentially myriads of early members who came and went in weeks and months should be entered into the debate simply because they were technically there first, because at least 90% of bands have those people and for me they don't count. For me it's the lineup that rose to prominence and that fans first came to love.
Example - the Jam had Steve Brookes for around 3 years but then he left and they suddenly got famous. No Jam fan would count Steve Brookes as 'original lineup' if Weller suddenly about-turned and decided to do a full reunion.
Example 2 - Another of my favourite bands Squeeze started rising to prominence with Harry Kakoulli on bass but quickly replaced him with John Bentley and for me that is/was the classic Squeeze lineup.
Example 3 - Say Lennon, Harrison and Sutcliffe were still alive, would anybody seriously say that an original lineup reunion should include Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best (who is still still alive)? Of course not.
So for me, all the debate about early musicians before being famous is superfluous, not relevant. It's the lineup that became famous first that counts.
Oh and by the way, it's right, some band are calling themselves Dr Feelgood with no classic lineup members. It's the three who were Dr Feelgood when Lee Brilleaux died and carried on with a new singer, and have been like that almost longer than Feelgood were around before them! An absolute travesty and to me, as a Feelgood fan, they should be sued, and flogged and then shot.”
BIB yes I have seen them on Youtube and whilst they play the songs well. TBH they are nothing more than a tribute band.
I would have liked to see a small tour with Wilko, Figure and Sparko but sadly that wont happen now.
Originally Posted by officialsimon:
“
Oh and by the way, it's right, some band are calling themselves Dr Feelgood with no classic lineup members. It's the three who were Dr Feelgood when Lee Brilleaux died and carried on with a new singer, and have been like that almost longer than Feelgood were around before them! An absolute travesty and to me, as a Feelgood fan, they should be sued, and flogged and then shot.”
“
Oh and by the way, it's right, some band are calling themselves Dr Feelgood with no classic lineup members. It's the three who were Dr Feelgood when Lee Brilleaux died and carried on with a new singer, and have been like that almost longer than Feelgood were around before them! An absolute travesty and to me, as a Feelgood fan, they should be sued, and flogged and then shot.”
Well seeing as it was Lee's final wish for them to carry on I think they can claim some justification for doing it.
In other news; I may have got these stories slightly mixed up and I can't be bothered to research them properly right now but I think that both Yes and Bad Brains (not two bands you usually group together) had a situation where over the years original members left the band one by one and were replaced with new members. Then the original band decides to get back together but legally the name belongs to the "new" band so the reformed band have to choose a new name.
That's rock 'n' roll for you.
They should do what Michael Schenker does,call it the Micheal Schenker group (for others add the name) and whoever comes and goes the original member is still there.
Originally Posted by officialsimon:
“
Oh and by the way, it's right, some band are calling themselves Dr Feelgood with no classic lineup members. It's the three who were Dr Feelgood when Lee Brilleaux died and carried on with a new singer, and have been like that almost longer than Feelgood were around before them! An absolute travesty and to me, as a Feelgood fan, they should be sued, and flogged and then shot.”
“
Oh and by the way, it's right, some band are calling themselves Dr Feelgood with no classic lineup members. It's the three who were Dr Feelgood when Lee Brilleaux died and carried on with a new singer, and have been like that almost longer than Feelgood were around before them! An absolute travesty and to me, as a Feelgood fan, they should be sued, and flogged and then shot.”
They bought the rights to the name I understand...
Originally Posted by Dizagaox:
“Just came across this thread!
No Doubt are probably the most high-profile band with no original members. Gwen and Tony joined in 1987 (Gwen was a background singer for the band in 1986, but only part-time and occasionally - she wasn't a band member), Tom in 1988 and Adrian in 1989.”
“Just came across this thread!
No Doubt are probably the most high-profile band with no original members. Gwen and Tony joined in 1987 (Gwen was a background singer for the band in 1986, but only part-time and occasionally - she wasn't a band member), Tom in 1988 and Adrian in 1989.”
There are probably many more examples of this scenario. For instance (hypothetically) if Ringo Starr had assembled some new 'Beatles' around him, they would have been a band with no original members, as Pete Best was the drummer who exited before their period of fame.
Originally Posted by dd68:
“Didn't the same thing happen with the Supremes?”
“Didn't the same thing happen with the Supremes?”
Originally Posted by Davey T:
“I think Mary Wilson was the only one who was with them from the beginning until they split in 1977, or so Wiki says anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supremes”
“I think Mary Wilson was the only one who was with them from the beginning until they split in 1977, or so Wiki says anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Supremes”
Yes, Mary was a Supreme for the duration. The line-up changed several times after Diana Ross exited for her solo career.
Scherrie Payne and Lynda Laurence who were both in The Supremes during the 1970's tour as 'Former Ladies of the Supremes' with another lady but there is also a dodgy 'Supremes' act touring which is run by a woman who performed as a backing singer for Mary Wilson AFTER the Supremes had ended and who falsely claims that she IS a Supreme. Mary Wilson ever lost a court action against her.
Originally Posted by Pitman:
“tbh, it's utterly pointless to keep a band going if every member has left, this sugababes seems more like a brandname than a band
”
“tbh, it's utterly pointless to keep a band going if every member has left, this sugababes seems more like a brandname than a band
”
Yes, couldn't agree more but in every respect except financially. Money talks and bs walks.
Intresting thread. I would often class a original member of a band as someone who has been on every studio album they have made. Theres numerous bands with only one original member remaining: whitesnake, 10cc, guns n roses etc but they don't count in this debate. the most high profile band with no original members must be the sugerbabes god knows whats happened there. I do agree when a band finds itself with no original members they should call it a day. Thin lizzy toured with no original members for years but thankgod when I saw them brian downey had re-joined on drums meaning they had one original member and when Brian downey left and they decided to record a new album they now have a different name: black star riders
Mentioned before by me, but No Doubt are probably the biggest band without any original members (technically).
Foreigner toured not so long back with mick jones only playing part of some shows and he was not there at all for some gigs so they played live with no original members. Can see a few members of older bands retireing soon and franchiseing out name, kinda official tribute act
Originally Posted by chemical2009b:
“2 Unlimited reformed with two different members.”
“2 Unlimited reformed with two different members.”
Yes they did with two women infact. The album was brilliant but it flopped . Ray and Anita returned to 2 Unlimited and have been touring ever since from 2009
Originally Posted by Cinderelly:
“
Lynyrd Skynryd's only constant is Johnny I think.”
“
Lynyrd Skynryd's only constant is Johnny I think.”
Johnny Van Zant took over on vocals from his brother Ronnie when the latter died in the plane crash. Gary Rossington is the only original left now, and having survived over forty years with a band best described as 'unfortunate' is quite clearly unkillable...
Originally Posted by gomezz:
“I think the London Sympony Orchestra has no original members left in its current line up.”
“I think the London Sympony Orchestra has no original members left in its current line up.”
An interesting point, Simon Nicol of Fairport Convention is the only original member, although Dave Pegg,a relative new boy joined in 1970 and the newest member has been there for about 15 years, has said that he quite likes the idea of the band being continued by a new generation, in the manner of an orchestra.
The MoTown groups are classic examples; Take "The Drifters." Apart from the current line-up which has none of the original members, over the years there's been forty-seven who have come and gone.
An even older jazz close harmony group, "The Four Freshmen" started in the late forties, lost their last original member in the mid nineteen-nineties.
The "four" have been an assortment from a total of twenty-four, over the years.
An even older jazz close harmony group, "The Four Freshmen" started in the late forties, lost their last original member in the mid nineteen-nineties.
The "four" have been an assortment from a total of twenty-four, over the years.
I suppose the Three Degrees too.
Fayette was the only original member and quit to be replaced by a returning Helen (who wasn't quite an original member) during the height of their success.
Though that probably happened with a lot of groups of this type back then.
Fayette was the only original member and quit to be replaced by a returning Helen (who wasn't quite an original member) during the height of their success.
Though that probably happened with a lot of groups of this type back then.
Originally Posted by PhilH36:
“Back in 1999 when I saw them in Nashville The Platters only had one original member left-the bass player-as the others were all dead. I don't know if he is still there or whether they're actually still going.”
“Back in 1999 when I saw them in Nashville The Platters only had one original member left-the bass player-as the others were all dead. I don't know if he is still there or whether they're actually still going.”
There have been various groups claiming to be the Platters touring concurrently since the 1970s and many law suits and injunctions flying around. I saw one version out in Spain in the 1980s. They looked suspiciously young for a group harking back to the mid 1950s!
Looking up on Wiki, the last original member Herb Reed, left in 1969 and was also the last original member alive, until he died in 2012. Apparently there are over 100 singers who have performed in the various Platters' groups.
3 of 4
