| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 16:19:10
OK, here's something to stave off boredom - why do some bands appear reasonably democratic, whereas others literally couldn't exist without one member. Sometimes, although difficult, it would be possible to replace the other band members entirely. For example, there would be no:
Pixies without Charles Thompson
Nirvana without Kurt Cobain
Motorhead without Lemmy
Beatles without Lennon/McCartney
Radiohead without Thom Yorke
Here's a tricky one: no Doors without Jim Morrison?
 "Ee-hee! Shamone!" |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| fudd |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 06:32:16
Color me clueless: what is MCA? |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 01:30:22
True fudd, but MCA: Doors of the 21st Century? A conundrum, I'm sure you'll agree.
Pulp without Jarvis Cocker
Rolling Stones without Jagger *and* Richards
I guess some of these bands are just one step away from a vanity solo project.
"Ee-hee! Shamone!" |
| fudd |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 21:32:06
ACDC managed to replace a singer. |
| mun chien andalusia |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 19:27:32
The Cure without Robert Smith, the Doors without Jim Morisson etc. Anyway i believe that more than the songwriting skills it's the singer's voice that defines a band. I can immagine Depeche Mode without Martin Gore but not without David Gahan.
 join the cult of errol\and you can have a beer\without having to quit smoking
|
| fudd |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 19:21:38
No Oingo Boingo without Danny Elfman. |
| VoVat |
Posted - 06/18/2004 : 18:16:38
Well, if one band members writes and/or sings most of the songs, they're probably going to be more important than the others. Doesn't necessarily mean the others can be replaced with absolutely no effect on anything, but they're not quite as important.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
