Original or Nothing?!

I've come accross a few people who think that with some bands it's "original lineup or nothing". One band that this is most apparent with is KISS. Some people say that anything that was not done by Frehley,Simmons,Stanley, and Criss is worthless or a waste of time. That's interesting, I wonder how Eric Carr fans feel about that?

So along that line of thinking with "original or nothing"......

If Black Sabbath had stuck to "original or nothing" then we never would of had fantastic albums such as Heaven and Hell, Mob Rules or Born again

If ac/dc had stuck to "originals or nothing" then Back In Black never would of happened

If Van Halen had stuck to "originals or nothing" then no 5150 or OU812 (I know some people would say that's a good thing but that's the old Roth vs Hagar debate and a topic for a different thread).

If Iron Maiden had stuck to "original or nothing" then no Number of the Beast and all the amazing albums that were done with Bruce Dickenson

If KISS had stuck to "originals or nothing" Dynasty would of been their last album (yeah Peter is on the cover of Unmasked but he had nothing to do with that album)

and many others....

Now here's something to consider....

On a sports team many players wear the uniform of the team, the names may change, but the team goes on.

So why is this such a huge issue for some bands. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to call yourself a fan of a band and then say "original lineup only"?

Interested to see opinions on this topic

Disclaimer :THIS TOPIC AND THIS THREAD IS IN NO WAY MEANT TO OFFEND ANYONE

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DravenousOne on December 2, 2008 at 5:06am: Ok..
for me.. it depends on the band.

Kiss w/ Eric Carr was my FAV version of the band. (shoot me.. it's ok, I LOVED that MAN!)

I think.. (my opinion only) that it has to do with the sound of the band.
Does the new member change the way the band sounds?
OK.. here's a lame example.. Would Pearl Jam be Pearl Jam without Eddie Vedder's distinctive voice?
NO..

I think it also has to do with the popularity of the band.
AC/DC was not a huge success prior to Bon Scott's passing.. most of the world's first listen to the band was with Brian as the vocalist...

And finally.. I think it has to do with circumstances.
If a member dies, I think people are much more open to a new line-up..
Another lame example would be Alice in Chains.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by SabreTooth on December 2, 2008 at 5:22am: It is a matter of making music. When Dickinson replaced DiAnno in Maiden, he did a better job inspite of the fact that DiAnno was a great vocalist himself & The No. of the Beast became their best album. When Bayley joined he was unable to create that magic, so they flopped. Roger waters was the architect of Pink Floyd, but even after he left albums like Momentary Lapse & Division Bell became big hits, because they were good. Same is the Case with Van Hagar

If a record is good, no doubt it will be a hit & new members will be accepted. There are some bands like WASP, Megadeth, Whitesnake & even Dire Straits, where the main member is the band, so in that case, everything will change if he leaves.

I agree with Dravenous that if a member dies, people are more open to new lineups. BTW, who do you think can take Dimebag's place in Pantera?; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by phoenixheart on December 2, 2008 at 6:31am: IF Pantera were to ever play together again, there would only be a handful of acceptable replacements....Zakk being one of them, but that's assumming that Vinnie and Phil can make ammends...doubtful; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by phoenixheart on December 2, 2008 at 6:35am: I think that a certain combination of members makes the sound of the band, I also believe when a member leaves/fired/passes away the "makeup" of the band changes and the sound undoubtably changes....Its an issue of whether the fans are willing to accept the change and if the sound is good...Like Ac/Dc, Bon Scott was amazing, but when Brian Johnson joined the sound did change a bit....not better or worse but different...and people embraced them....I think it also depends on the member(s) that have come and gone...if the main song writer is still the same the sound will stay the same....Ted Nugent, Megadeth, ect....there really about the main player in the band....
oh PS DN I hate kittens and puppies;); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by SlamThunderhide -- MFA Admin on December 2, 2008 at 6:39am: Good post, KM --

I think it is ridiculous to be patently unwilling to accept change on ANYTHING in life. Shit changes all the time. People who aren't willing to move on are going to get left behind to wallow in their own sorrow and pity.

If idiots applied this logic to everything in life, women and African-Americans could not vote in the USA. Do you HAVE to like the new lineup of a band? Of course not -- but not listening to them or disliking them simply because they changed members is ridiculous, close-minded and very stupid.

Oh -- and to add to your list - -we'd never have much of anything from Metallica if they applied this logic.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dirtydeeds101 on December 2, 2008 at 7:20am: its my preference to listen to 70's KISS
thats what I like...thats what I listen to..thats KISS for me.
if you want to or like KISS from later dates that up to you what you put on your stereo.
can't say I don't like it..I've never really listened to much of it since Peter and Ace have gone.
as far as the sports team thing goes..took me a few games to adjust to Sundin, Tucker and my fav. Domi not playing with TML anymore but I'm still a Leafs Fan all the way.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by dirtydeeds101 on December 2, 2008 at 7:47am: just to clarify I don't consider myself a hypocrit cuz I prefer Sabbath with Ozzy, AC/DC with Bon Scott, Kiss with its original members, GNR with ALL its original members, DLR to Sammy Hagar...its what I prefer and I am a fan of that...very much so.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Carlo on December 2, 2008 at 12:55pm: Agree 100%; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by larry on December 2, 2008 at 7:33am: as a general rule it is in most cases true that the original is better,however that is not always the case! take my favorite band for example actually with iron maiden the opposite is true!
although the original lineup with paul di'ano was good most everybody, myself included, agrees that the one since then with bruce dickinson is that much better!
thats just one example.
i do agree with you though that in most instances that is not the case but there are also exceptions to the rule!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeanne aka MetalMystriss on December 2, 2008 at 8:03am: Some people are just closed minded and don't like change. It probably doesn't help when favorite bands replace someone who isn't as talented as the 'original' lineup...example: Skid Row

If the new line up puts out great music who cares if there's a replacement.

I don't care who I offend with my opinion myself!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by AnythinGoes on December 2, 2008 at 8:05am: But GNR can never do with Axl alone hahaha; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeanne aka MetalMystriss on December 2, 2008 at 8:07am: backed!; ▶ Reply to This

RSS

Welcome to
MamasFallenAngels.com

Sign Up
or Sign In

MFA Merchandise: Buy Some.

MFA shirts, hats, bumper stickers, and all kinds of other ridiculous products are now available, and we ship worldwide. Buy some MFA shit for yourself or the hardcore metal maniac in your life! (More products are coming soon, by the way...)