Heartland

Yeah but they carried on after Bon Scott, so why not? After all, "we owe it to the [s]bank balance[/s] fans!"

Yeah. Very rock n roll huh?

I read earlier that people are already asking for refunds on their tickets

Pista wrote:The recent Axl Rose to front AC/DC made me think of this thread.

In seriousness, I think they should have just jacked it in once Johnson was put under doctor's orders.

weird one huh? after seeing him sing with Geordie, Bon Scott (spookily) told the band that if ever they needed to replace him Brian Johnson was the man, and it would be hard to find someone more fitting.
now, if Axl is just joining to complete the tour then you cant really complain. of course it's about money we're going to be talking A LOT of money, so understandable they dont want to lose out, especially if it s the end of the band. however if theres any hint of it becoming a permanent arrangement, especially if theres new material involved then it cant be considered to be AC/DC in my opinion. i'm surprised they carried on without Malcolm to be honest; and even though Rock or Bust is pure AC/DC by numbers and sounds like the last god-knows how many albums its fair to say they havent brought out a new studio LP since For Those About To Rock.

So it's the only Angus from original members that left. To me, as long as other band members agreed (or have nothing agianst that), people buy records and go to their gigs, it's all fine. After all, there are some bands that are practialy one-core-member bands; I not sure, but I guess that we all can name at least one.

Bartek wrote:.... but I guess that we all can name at least one.

Scorpions ?

Τhe Pogues did an album without Shane which i think no one remembers, the frontman is always the most important member of a group.
As for Hooky, ok he was/is a great bass player but New Order seem to do quite well without him and since i mentioned him i think he's a real c**t exploiting the joy division legend with his tribute band.

Silence is platinum wrote:Τhe Pogues did an album without Shane which i think no one remembers, the frontman is always the most important member of a group.

To be fair, I think Tuesday Morning single from the Shane free album, was The Pogues most successful single, other than the obvious Fairytale of New York.

EvilBastard wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:good question. i think its partly down to who exactly leaves...

If Hussey (Marx, Gunn) had tried to make the band his own I have little doubt that it would have fallen flat on its arse.

There's a quote from Wayne that says as soon as he joined the Sisters, Gary asked him to leave and form another band.

I genuinely believe that if Wayne, Craig & Gary had won the name battle (or if Von had decided to leave the music biz) and released a couple of albums in 86/87/88 consisting of the 1st Chapter/Gathering Dust/Gods Own Medicine songs, the Sisters crowd would have been more than happy.

Obviously by the time they reached the Carved in Sand/Stop the World material they'd have a problem with quality control but many 80-85 SOM fans weren't entirely convinced by Floodland & VT anyway.

It's a speculation. Is also posible that "Carved in Sand" would never be recorded.

Ach That was a good one too..where have I been!
I had the Sisters sound down to that heavy bass more than the drum machine, and the very distinct guitar sound, but definitely the voice. Craig changed his sound when he left The Sisters, for me it wasn't as good, not as distinctive as his Sisters stuff. It was the bass that first hooked me into this band.
I remeber an interview with Eldritch where he was asked why he kept the name. He said that if he didn't he'd forever be seeing ex Sisters of Mercy in brackets on any promotional stuff.

As for the original question...I just dunno ..sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't...Nazareth without Dan McCafferrty...nah! Motorhead without Lucas Fox...fine.

That alternate reality were The m*****n became The Sisters is pretty chilling! And would they have still been The Sisters after Craig left - like he did with The Mish. How many more Sisters Of Mercy splinter groups would there be on Facebook...

Well, for me it´s complicated, you would need a algorithmcomputer to really sort things out. Like Charisma, effort, position, longevity, credibility, which music is played, is the lead singer important, the sound, what was the purpose of the band, and so on.... Like Tangerine Dream, now no member original at all, but its founder said to them to continue with the name though.
I would stick to it at least "project".

Spiggy's hat wrote:

EvilBastard wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:good question. i think its partly down to who exactly leaves...

If Hussey (Marx, Gunn) had tried to make the band his own I have little doubt that it would have fallen flat on its arse.

There's a quote from Wayne that says as soon as he joined the Sisters, Gary asked him to leave and form another band.

I genuinely believe that if Wayne, Craig & Gary had won the name battle (or if Von had decided to leave the music biz) and released a couple of albums in 86/87/88 consisting of the 1st Chapter/Gathering Dust/Gods Own Medicine songs, the Sisters crowd would have been more than happy.

Obviously by the time they reached the Carved in Sand/Stop the World material they'd have a problem with quality control but many 80-85 SOM fans weren't entirely convinced by Floodland & VT anyway.

Anyway, in reality Floodland and Vision Thing brought about their own Sisters fans, who had never heard of The Sisters before and explored their back catalogue out of interest ... and some were disappointed by the 80ies stuff. If you ask some of the youngerr people at gigs, they mostly would mention This Corrosion, Dominion, More, Dr Jeep as what got them into the band.

Is a band still THE band without (all) its founding members ... of course, as long as one of them is still involved. As to Tangerine Dream ... yeah, IMO, it's better someone does continue an extraordinary project as wonderful as that one, than not. Bad enough how culture has gone down worldwide and in particular in the Western world over the past few decades, and how good ideas, good developments have disappeared and/or deliberately got swept under the carpet to preserve certain conservative and merely capitalist views and rules.

Spiggy's hat wrote:

EvilBastard wrote:

eastmidswhizzkid wrote:good question. i think its partly down to who exactly leaves...

If Hussey (Marx, Gunn) had tried to make the band his own I have little doubt that it would have fallen flat on its arse.

There's a quote from Wayne that says as soon as he joined the Sisters, Gary asked him to leave and form another band.

I genuinely believe that if Wayne, Craig & Gary had won the name battle (or if Von had decided to leave the music biz) and released a couple of albums in 86/87/88 consisting of the 1st Chapter/Gathering Dust/Gods Own Medicine songs, the Sisters crowd would have been more than happy.

Obviously by the time they reached the Carved in Sand/Stop the World material they'd have a problem with quality control but many 80-85 SOM fans weren't entirely convinced by Floodland & VT anyway.

Sometimes it's the sound. Sometimes something more ethereal like a feeling or vibe. Sometimes it's exactly whatever a group or people do regardless of what it sounds like. Sometimes it's just one persons vision.

Myself, I would not have liked that reality where The m*****n was The Sisters of Mercy. I've given them plenty of tries but I have never really liked one single song. I do however love Floodland and like bits of Vision Thing. Not to mention The Sisterhood. Had Von done Floodland and Vision Thing under another moniker than TSOM I would've still liked it. It's good music. Had The m*****n done their albums as TSOM I would've still not liked it one bit and would probably felt a bit cheated.

Riders on the Storm would be another failure.
Despite great technical ability by Ray Manzarek and Robbie Krieger and good vocals by Ian Astbury, they totally failed to capture the spirit of The Doors.
Looked great on paper, but was far too reverential with the music live.

Erudite wrote:Riders on the Storm would be another failure.
Despite great technical ability by Ray Manzarek and Robbie Krieger and good vocals by Ian Astbury, they totally failed to capture the spirit of The Doors.
Looked great on paper, but was far too reverential with the music live.

Saw 21C Doors at Wembley - the one when they came back out after the lights went up. Once we got over the while Ian thing it was surprisingly good - Manzarek was great. I'd never claim to have seen the Doors though.

czuczu wrote:

Erudite wrote:Riders on the Storm would be another failure.
Despite great technical ability by Ray Manzarek and Robbie Krieger and good vocals by Ian Astbury, they totally failed to capture the spirit of The Doors.
Looked great on paper, but was far too reverential with the music live.

Saw 21C Doors at Wembley - the one when they came back out after the lights went up. Once we got over the while Ian thing it was surprisingly good - Manzarek was great. I'd never claim to have seen the Doors though.

first things first -before i get pidgeon-holed (incorrectly) once again- i love the Doors. but i have no idea as to why Jim had the charisma and appeal he had. ok he was a pretty boy with a nice voice. maybe i wouldnt have so little respect for him if everything he did and said wasnt viewed through the mocking rear-view filter of his lame-ass alcoholism, heroin addction and embarrasing lightweights death in a bathroom in paris. (yeeuck! imagine that! the shame of dying in paris!) BUT theres no two ways about it -no Jim, no Doors. this was proven long before the 'n Astbury fronted the band with the album 'other voices'.