Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Group lineup change right or wrong?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-02-2013, 11:34
Steve_Harriman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 179

i have been thinking a lot at the moment about groups who change the lineup. Is it a good idea and does it really work? Should the group split up when a member leaves? i am a massive fan of 2 unlimited and when Ray and Anita left in 1996 2 females took over . Even though the album by the new 2 unlimited was brilliant the fans along with me rejected the new line up as it wasnt 2 unlimited anymore. When you follow a group its not just the music you follow but the people in the group as well.My dad is going to see the who next month and argued th fact that its not really the who as it is not the origianal line up. My dad said it still has some of the old lineup so to him its the who. For me 2 unlimited had chemisty and that was important for the image of the group.
And groups who change line up often fail. This is also the same when a member leaves a group i think its not the same group no more.

what do you all think?
Steve_Harriman is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 08-02-2013, 11:36
little-monster
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 15,843
When Keisha was kicked out of Sugababes, for me they were no longer sugababes. Sweet 7 proved to me an amazing album but the magic was lost and still will be lost. I didn't the like inclusion of Jade
little-monster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 11:55
bryemycaz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,755
It all depends on what a new member can bring to the band.

The original version of Deep Purple made 3 albums and got nowhere, bar a minor hit in America.

The Mk 2 line up is what made them, and whilst that line up lasted a short while its the best remembered. Mk 3 was also very good.
bryemycaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 11:55
Steve_Harriman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 179
When Keisha was kicked out of Sugababes, for me they were no longer sugababes. Sweet 7 proved to me an amazing album but the magic was lost and still will be lost. I didn't the like inclusion of Jade
The sugababes turned in to a joke and cleary was only in it for the money. Fans do care about the people in groups and it matters to them if one leaves etc etc. .It also shows that the record lables are just in it for themselves as well. i know Tensions build up in groups but i bet it effects the other members as well. Bonds and freindships get broken when a member leaves and yet we never get to see that side when we buy or download a album,
Steve_Harriman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 11:59
Star_Bright
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,571
When Keisha was kicked out of Sugababes, for me they were no longer sugababes. Sweet 7 proved to me an amazing album but the magic was lost and still will be lost. I didn't the like inclusion of Jade
Same here!
Star_Bright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 12:00
Steve_Harriman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 179
It all depends on what a new member can bring to the band.

The original version of Deep Purple made 3 albums and got nowhere, bar a minor hit in America.

The Mk 2 line up is what made them, and whilst that line up lasted a short while its the best remembered. Mk 3 was also very good.
But surley its not the same group no more?

Take that are a good example. Gary wanted to change the name when they returned in 2006 without Robbie as he said something along the lines its not really Take That without all 5 of us and he was right ,only a band vote which went agaisnt him stopped him changing the name.
Going back to 2 unlimited many of us fans would of be quite happy with the new line up if they changed the name to 2 as then it would of distance its self from the old 2 unlimited and stopped them taking all the credit for the old hits. The producers owned the rights to the name so did what they wanted but got just derserts when the album flopped.
Steve_Harriman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 12:06
bryemycaz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,755
But surley its not the same group no more?

Take that are a good example. Gary wanted to change the name when they returned in 2006 without Robbie as he said something along the lines its not really Take That without all 5 of us and he was right ,only a band vote which went agaisnt him stopped him changing the name.
Going back to 2 unlimited many of us fans would of be quite happy with the new line up if they changed the name to 2 as then it would of distance its self from the old 2 unlimited and stopped them taking all the credit for the old hits. The producers owned the rights to the name so did what they wanted but got just derserts when the album flopped.
I look at it this way if the Band formers, in the case of Deep Purple. Jon Lord and Ritchie Blackmore were there it is that band still. They hired the other musicians in the band and decided on the name so they get the choice on who is in the band.

Now Deep Purple still exist but Jon Lord retired and has since passed away. Whilst Ritchie Blackmore has changed musical styles and left the band. Now without those two I don't class it really as Deep Purple.

Other people think otherwise as Ian Gillan and Ian Paice are still there. but Gillan was the 2nd vocalist the band had and Paicey has always been the drummer. However the sound of Deep Purple was the combination of Guitar, Organ and Drums. without this combination I don't class it as the same.
bryemycaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 12:17
Steve_Harriman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 179
I look at it this way if the Band formers, in the case of Deep Purple. Jon Lord and Ritchie Blackmore were there it is that band still. They hired the other musicians in the band and decided on the name so they get the choice on who is in the band.

Now Deep Purple still exist but Jon Lord retired and has since passed away. Whilst Ritchie Blackmore has changed musical styles and left the band. Now without those two I don't class it really as Deep Purple.

Other people think otherwise as Ian Gillan and Ian Paice are still there. but Gillan was the 2nd vocalist the band had and Paicey has always been the drummer. However the sound of Deep Purple was the combination of Guitar, Organ and Drums. without this combination I don't class it as the same.
well said a member leaving does change the dynamics of a group. even more so when the group plays drums etc etc. i know some hard core oasis fans and they refused to support the band in anuyway when they replaced the Drummer. same for sterophonics . The way the drummer was treated and then kicked out lost them a lot of fans.
Steve_Harriman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 12:31
LandslideBrad
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,655
I think a lineup change is ok as long as it's not my favourite that leaves
LandslideBrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 12:35
RealDonkey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 115
What a group achieves is often far in advance of the individual talents within the band. The Smiths are a great example, an awesome rock and roll band that sum of the talent of Morrisey / Marr / Joyce and O'Rourke far surpassed the individual talents of each separate member nd as such there is no way the could carry on without a member. The Beatles were very much the same.

However other bands rely on a core of talent and so can survive member line up changes, The Who for example managed to continue without Moon because they replaced him with an equally talented drummer, losing Entwistle in my opinion was when they should have called it quits.

The Beautiful South could easily carry on with the ever changing female vocalist, however when Heaton left that was the end of the band regardless what the rest attempted to do. Queen are another example, Mercury was teh band and what has been attempted since is a farce.
RealDonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 12:51
MysteriousOz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,640
When Keisha was kicked out of Sugababes, for me they were no longer sugababes. Sweet 7 proved to me an amazing album but the magic was lost and still will be lost. I didn't the like inclusion of Jade
I was a Huge fan of the Sugababes but the reports I read and what I believe happened is Keisha was a bully and Heidi and Amelle has quit the sugababes because of this and thats when management stepped in a fired Keisha and added Jade

I feel bad for Heidi and Amelle if anything. Keisha was so obviously the main reason for the countless line up changes right from the beginning

I quite liked the sound with Jade too
MysteriousOz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 13:00
Fast Fuse
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 117
What a group achieves is often far in advance of the individual talents within the band. The Smiths are a great example, an awesome rock and roll band that sum of the talent of Morrisey / Marr / Joyce and O'Rourke far surpassed the individual talents of each separate member nd as such there is no way the could carry on without a member. The Beatles were very much the same.

However other bands rely on a core of talent and so can survive member line up changes, The Who for example managed to continue without Moon because they replaced him with an equally talented drummer, losing Entwistle in my opinion was when they should have called it quits.

The Beautiful South could easily carry on with the ever changing female vocalist, however when Heaton left that was the end of the band regardless what the rest attempted to do. Queen are another example, Mercury was teh band and what has been attempted since is a farce.
Agree with all this.
When a group line up changes then the chemistry changes.
I don't think the Who were the same after Moon died.

If (when...?) the Smiths re-form I hope they include all original members - apparently Morrissey won't play with Mike Joyce again after he took him to court. Hopefully time will heal and the original line-up will re-form.
Fast Fuse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 13:45
Steve35
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,338
i have been thinking a lot at the moment about groups who change the lineup. Is it a good idea and does it really work? Should the group split up when a member leaves? i am a massive fan of 2 unlimited and when Ray and Anita left in 1996 2 females took over . Even though the album by the new 2 unlimited was brilliant the fans along with me rejected the new line up as it wasnt 2 unlimited anymore. When you follow a group its not just the music you follow but the people in the group as well.My dad is going to see the who next month and argued th fact that its not really the who as it is not the origianal line up. My dad said it still has some of the old lineup so to him its the who. For me 2 unlimited had chemisty and that was important for the image of the group.
And groups who change line up often fail. This is also the same when a member leaves a group i think its not the same group no more.

what do you all think?
Little bit of a difference between The Who and 2Unlimited
Steve35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 14:11
RealDonkey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 115
Agree with all this.
When a group line up changes then the chemistry changes.
I don't think the Who were the same after Moon died.

If (when...?) the Smiths re-form I hope they include all original members - apparently Morrissey won't play with Mike Joyce again after he took him to court. Hopefully time will heal and the original line-up will re-form.
Agreed the Who were never the same as there was something unique about moon, and although the chemistry changed the dynamic didn't. There was still an awesome rhythm section adding foundation to the creative force of the band.

The Smiths should never reform, I was lucky enough to see them and they were truly awesome, but a certain element of of their time about them. Marr has moved on musically, Morrisey hasn't I can't see how it would work
RealDonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 14:23
Steve_Harriman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 179
Little bit of a difference between The Who and 2Unlimited
lol well yes but as they are one my fav bands i picked them lol.
Steve_Harriman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 14:25
Steve_Harriman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 179
What a group achieves is often far in advance of the individual talents within the band. The Smiths are a great example, an awesome rock and roll band that sum of the talent of Morrisey / Marr / Joyce and O'Rourke far surpassed the individual talents of each separate member nd as such there is no way the could carry on without a member. The Beatles were very much the same.

However other bands rely on a core of talent and so can survive member line up changes, The Who for example managed to continue without Moon because they replaced him with an equally talented drummer, losing Entwistle in my opinion was when they should have called it quits.

The Beautiful South could easily carry on with the ever changing female vocalist, however when Heaton left that was the end of the band regardless what the rest attempted to do. Queen are another example, Mercury was teh band and what has been attempted since is a farce.
At least The remaining members of The Beutiful South changed the name even though i think they had to lol. now i think they are just called The south. Queen should hand thire heads in shame for replacing Freddy a complete and utter disgrace
Steve_Harriman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 14:45
Fast Fuse
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 117
The Smiths should never reform, I was lucky enough to see them and they were truly awesome, but a certain element of of their time about them. Marr has moved on musically, Morrisey hasn't I can't see how it would work
You saw them? I'm jealous!

Morrissey has repeatedly said The Smiths will never re-form but you never know...
Fast Fuse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 16:59
RealDonkey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 115
You saw them? I'm jealous!

Morrissey has repeatedly said The Smiths will never re-form but you never know...
Yep Wolverhampton in 86 Strangely to keep this on topic, this is of course the tour with Craig Gannon as the 5th member

As for a reformation I really can't see it happening, But I said that about Pixies and was in the crowd for that show too

As for "The South" they did indeed have to change their name from The New Beautiful South when Paul complained. To be fair he was OK with them playing his stuff and making a living, until they played some of his more personal songs that he'd askk them not to play
RealDonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 17:53
Hollie_Louise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somewhere Only I Know
Posts: 15,054
I only really know of two groups where there are no original members, Sugaabes and Pussycat Dolls..

Sugababes changes were gradual, by the time Keisha went Heidi had been in the group for 8 years, longer than Siobhan and Mutya, and Amelle for 4, roughly the same amount of time as Siobhan had.. The original line-up, whilst good, had very little success and it wasn't until Heidi joined they got that success, it isn't all down to her but part of it was.. There was suddenly at least one girl who wasn't moody 100% of the time in front of a camera, she would smile at Mutya and Keisha and get nothing back, there was someone that the public could see was enjoying it.. Keisha said back in 2006 that it wasn't until Heidi joined that Sugababes became Sugababes yet in a documentary after leaving, she never felt comfortable with Heidi and Amelle, she didn't feel like a sugababe unless she was with the originals.. I think Sugababes should continue in the line-up they have..

Contrast that with the Pussycat Dolls, all six original members had left by mid 2010.. Since 2010, there has been SIXTEEN confirmed members of PCD, that is crazy and they shouldn't continue under the name.. Gradual line-up changes I agree with, sixteen girls in less than three years however I don't
Hollie_Louise is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 18:37
JamieHT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,714
This is what I said in a similar thread:

I don't know. The one I feel particularly passionate about is Ace of Base. The new singers are good but they don't sound like the originals any more. Couple this with the fact that Jenny feels upset that they're using the name Ace of Base without her I don't like listening to them. I didn't mind so much when Linn left because she had been fading into the background for ages and Jenny coming tongue fore was fine as she was an original member and took the lead on some of their hits.

The Sugababes - it's just something you come to expect now.

Atomic Kitten - not sure. It'll be weird if Kerry starts singing the tracks I associate with Jenny.

The Honeyz - I'm disappointed Naima's not in the reunited group, but she wasn't the lead so they'll probably sound the same.

The Vengaboys - they're back to a similar lineup aren't they??!
JamieHT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 19:02
nikproffitt
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,554
There are also groups which arnt really groups e.g Nine Inch Nails is basically a rotation of musicians around a main artist, I.e Trent Reznor. Same with the Eels, with the main artist being E.

Eels were originally set up as a touring band around E, quotas already released 3 solo albums. One of the original 3 members left after the second album, the other a couple of albums later. Now there are 5 or 6 members with only E as the original member,as long as the main talent arrives its fine. Although on the new album there is more writing credits, usually it is mainly just E. However if E left there would be no more Eels as he is so important.
nikproffitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 19:20
rfonzo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,975
You can never beat an original lineup.
rfonzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 19:44
degsyhufc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 50,523
I would have preferred Guns N' Roses to split. Slash has more previous GnR members in his projects than the current GnR line up.


Like some others I refer to the old Fleetwood Mac as Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac, or I at least reference him to distinguish the two eras of the group.
degsyhufc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 19:49
CLL Dodge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 71,326
The first lineup isn't always the "classic" lineup. Deep Purple have been mentioned but there are many others, including the Beatles, Moody Blues, Pink Floyd, etc.

Very rare that a band goes decades at the top with the original lineup (U2 and Radiohead spring to mind).
CLL Dodge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2013, 20:08
AdzPower
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,938
I don't necessarily think line-up changes are that bad, Sugababes for example were gradual, so by the time someone else left you had already gotten used to the previous addition, it can be confusing listening back to older songs lol but as a whole it's ok, but completely changing a group at once is going to far.
AdzPower is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:07.