Or do you only truly care about the music and not the individual members?

Ronnie Lane leaving The Faces (due to ill health) was my saddest experience of that.

I think it usually depends on who goes & who stays tbh. As an example, my favourite Metal band lost both guitarists, the drummer & the keyboard player early last year. Retaining the original singer & the bass player, both of whom wrote all the songs. Since the lineup change, the band's actually got bigger. Partly because the singer's pretty much the main person that most fans care about & the new guys are arguably better than the old ones anyway.

Depends on who it is.

With Duran Duran, I can still enjoy their music even though guitarist Andy Taylor has left.

Whereas when INXS auditioned for a new lead singer, it wasn't the same anymore because the main reason I loved the band was because of Michael's voice.

Yes, I think changing the singer's the biggest danger point for a band. Obviously some bands not only survive it but go on to bigger things eg AC/DC, Genesis, Black Sabbath but it does seem to be a setback for most established bands.

Depends on how long the band has been together. If a band has only been together for a short time with a couple of albums, it doesn't bother me. But if a band has been together for a long time, like for example 15 or 20 years or more always using the same lineup, and then all of a sudden there's a change, I find that sad and it does bother me.

Some bands become backing artists to a singer it's not technically a band anymore!
Best example would be paramore. It effectively turned into Hayleigh Williams and a backing band although the brothers state otherwise I reckon they were unhappy at the fact she had outgrown the band and they left. They were replaced by two people who are yes men and don't care about the fact she is what makes them.

Kasabian recently lost their bassist to beady eye.... No big loss there and likewise I don't think beady eye are gaining a big musical influence,
Gem archer joined oasis and really helped noël out in my opinion!

When I was young it affected me quite badly when my favourite bands broke up, or one member left or was replaced. I was in a sort of shock for days!

When all the young fans needed help after Take That split up, I kind of understood, although that wasn't my type of music and was decades later.

Oasis were never the same after Bonehead and Guigs left. As much as I've always loved Oasis and Gem is an outstanding guitarist, the true spirit of Oasis died when they left. It was no longer a group of mates from Manchester. Although to most people, as long as Liam and Noel were there, it didn't really matter who the other band members were.

The Undertones without Feargal Sharkey, Dr Feelgood without Wilko Johnson, The Stones without Brian Jones, Joy Division without Ian Curtis, Thin Lizzy without Phil Lynott.... None of those were ever the same but some made a good go of it.

Wilko Johnson & Brian Jones were the guitarists, not the lead singers Imagine the Stones without Mick Joy Division became New Order. Thin Lizzy are still plodding along but few take much notice of them. Undertones....meh.

I was thinking leaders of the groups rather than just singers. Wilko was the prime mover of Dr Feelgood, actually was a singer and sang some songs as well as Lee. They were never quite the same band after Wilko.

I was thinking that Brian Jones was the original leader of the group and I suppose his influence was fading before he passed but The Stones might have been a more creative force had he survived.

Ian was the leader of JD and New Order were a different band really, took a different direction without him.

And if there was a central creative force in Thin Lizzy it was Phil. They were nothing without him.

With the Undertones, Feargal had a truly distinctive voice....it just doesn't sound right without him.

I wouldn't was Ian Curtis was the "leader" of Joy Division at all. They were very much a band. After he committed suicide Joy Division effectively ceased as a band, the remaining members changed direction as New Order.

However how many bands who achieve success do so with the true original line-up? Very, very, few. After ZZ Top and Rammstein I would be struggling to name any.

Well U2 are still doing well.

As I'm not a fan they would never come to mind, but in general there are very few bands it would apply to.

What I find strange, though, is how such a distinction is made for some bands but not others. I read a review for Alice In Chains recently, where the writer made a point of saying that the band now consisted of only 50% of the original line-up, but such a distinction is never made of other bands who have had line-up changes, like The Rolling Stones, AC/DC, etc.

Well the "classic" line-up of some bands is not always the original. Some changes are for the better.

E.g. The Beatles, Yes, Deep Purple, Hawkwind, The Cure...

Rare for a major band to stay together over decades. I wouldn't want U2 or Radiohead to change personnel.

The most famous line up change of course was in Fleetwood Mac with basically two completely different bands with only the name and back line in common. Peter Green showed a lot or sagacity and vision on how things would turn out with that one.

Coverdale better than Gillan? pfft

Creative centre then rather than leader...without Ian, New Order definitely took a new direction. Actually it didn't really bother me as musically it was great but the lyricism wasn't as strong.



If you mean exactly the same members throughout the entire creative output of a band, it could be limiting, but it might be better to allow a degree of tolerance. That would mean a lot of bands might have no significant member changes throughout the main part of their careers. For example, The Beatles , ABBA, Radiohead, Led Zeppelin, Pixies, Talking Heads, Spandau Ballet, Coldplay, The Sex Pistols...


Is the distinction not part of what was said above...it is about whether a personnel change made a significant change in the creative direction of the band/group?

I like the idea of new band members coming on like substitutes in football. You might want to 'freshen up the lineup', or 'bring a new dimension into the play' or just 'try something different'. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

OMG cant believe no-ne has mentioned the Sugababes yet

There is quite a lot more to Fleetwood than the Pete Green era and the Buckingham/Nicks era - there are 6 albums and 7 years inbetween Pete leaving and Self Titled/Rumours album.

That is little is known of or talked about that period says it all.

That one had me spluttering too.

Gillan is THE singer for Deep Purple. No questions about it.

Most bands will have to make changes as they get older, but the singer makes the most difference usually, and that's where they can fail.

The Who were one of the best live bands of all time, and lost two key members through death, but with Daltrey and Townshend there, they still sound like The Who, and the recent Quadrophenia tour was one of the best I've seen them do.

Sugababes lineup changes obviously bothered everyone. Thats why they arent here anymore.

Lynrd Skynrd had a line up change that bothered a few people.