My favorite band has always been the Pixies and when Kim Deal left the Pixies a few years ago, I was pretty bummed. When they announced Kim Shattuck would take over, my initial reaction was "meh".

Time passed and when they announced they were working on new material for Indie Cindy, they had already replaced Shattuck with Paz Lenchantin. Same initial reaction, although after listening to the new album several times, I had to admit that I was pretty impressed. She didn't just replace her... she moved with the band in a new direction. Not good, not bad... just different.

Kinda curious to hear how people feel about this. I feel its ok if and only if the new lineup improves on the original in some way. Whether its moving the band into a new creative territory or simply adding something complimentary to it that didn't otherwise exist before, as long as "new" band members aren't just there to fill a hole, I'm ok with it. What's your opinion?

 

The better question is...
If you change members AND change musical direction is it now a new band? I say yes. Especially if the people changed are the founding members of the band.

 

New members new band. PERIOD

 

I can see the logic in saying new members = new band but there are some cases where the founding members who stay to continue with the bands legacy are actually the whole reason the band exists, and their creative look/style/feel is almost exclusively created by them. The Pixies without Kim Deal isnt the same Pixies, but its nowhere near as different as if say Charles or Joey left...

Which is also an interesting point.

Vocals have a tremendous impact on the sound of a band, I would even say its more important than the actual instruments. When David Lee Roth left Van Halen, I couldn't warm up to Sammy Haggar's voice but they still went on to make some really great music without David. Just like when both Charles and Kim went off to do their own projects after the Pixies (Charles solo and with the Catholics, Kim with the Breeders).

 

It's like the Ship of Theseus

 

The brand seems in these cases seem more important than the band. It makes sense to me that when the majority of a "group" changes then it really is no longer the same ground anymore in terms of chemistry and genetic mix and pure sound that the concept was originally founded on. Change too is good. It is no big deal either way as long as one enjoys the music coming into ones ears though.

 

I think Kim Deal was the best thing about the Pixies, just listen to Cannonball,
in fact pretty much all of Last Splash, freaking excellent , without the Black Francis manic darkness

 

It heavily depends on the number of member and how intense the change of style is imho. If there always was just one main songwriter and he/she leaves - that'll impact a band to a level where it most probably will sound entirely different. The return of Head to Korn is quite an example for that since the new songs so far sounded much like the old Korn (aaand I like that). On the other hand there are bands that are based on one person and the others seem to be exchangeable. Nightwish. The voices can be different you could replace the guitarist with someone who prefers a different type of sound but it's just Tuomas' band.

But there's one indicator for your band not being the same band anymore: if the list of your (past) members has its own wikipedia entry.

 

Example: Yes without Chris Squire is NOT Yes. Is Led Zep with Bonhams son Led Zep? Maybe. Are the Stones still the Stone? I guess. But I guess it depends how important the member was to the id of the band. So lets see, Eagles without Glen Frey? Even with Jackson Brown or whoever? I'd say no but still worth seeing for sure. My point is it's case by case.

 

I'm really digging Michael Jackson.. w/o Michael Jackson...

Prince.. not so much

 

I would have Kim's baby.

 

The Misfits without Danzig? Black Flagg without Rollins? A couple of old school bands that I "almost" went to see

But, the new singer for Journey? Hes really good.

And old Megadeth, the first album with Marty Friedman on guitar Rust In Peace. The best lineup they had.

Queensryche without Geoff Tate? No go. But his solo work is more like Queensryche than the band is.

 

Last edited: Oct 1, 2016

indeed.. I'm quite smitten by that frisky smile of hers too..


so does anyone have a band that they think actually got better when the original
line up changed? disappointment seems to be the predominant reaction.

tho VanHagar was hugely popular and successful.. a great many people
approved.. but I couldn't really get past just thinking of him as a fill in singer
for VH part II. Diamond Dave pretty much defined the image and attitude of that band,
and I have sometimes wondered if that's why Eddie seems to have felt a bit.. unsung..
(pardon the pun )

 

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 1, 2016

Sammy who?

 

Genesis!
Peter Gabriel

Phil Collins

and just magic

and

 

Last edited: Oct 2, 2016

yeah Genesis did go on to be very popular...with Peter Gabriel being a star with his solo stuff..
was a long time in coming.. the Phil Collins Genesis came into its own around umm '81 ?

 

Genesis came into its own around umm '81 ?
Well maybe but the records start selling off with the first one after Gabriels left the band (And then there where 3?) but this one, was for me. almost like The dark side of the moon ... a total hit and world changer in my musicial direction ;) (and I end up doing reggae music :D)

 

@eboe and do you know Natty Bong personally?

 

i love the pixies, no, revere them!
so it seems a little sad and a little lacklustre to see them trying to kick-start again. i don't personally think kim leaving was so awful, but she was an essential part of their sound. and joey santiago is still an amazing guitarist to my mind. i will just cherish those first 3 incredible records. i can't be dealing with the disappointment of what is obviously a below par frank black when i have heard their new stuff...

 

It totally and confounds me how a drummer can flail around on a drumset and sing at the same time.
Absolutely an amazing album. I remember at the time feeling it impossible for the band to continue after Gabriel left the scene wondering and how they could actually move forward without him. Boy was I wrong and gladly so.