Do you think it's right when a band moves on after the death of one of it!
Question: Or do you think after a band member dies the band should call it quits.
Bands that went on:
AC/DC
The Who
Def Leppard
Metallica
(These are just a few, can you list more?)
Bands that never went on:
Pantera
Nirvana
Led Zeppelin(though they have had a few shows)
(just to name a few, do you know of any more?)
Answers: Or do you think after a band member dies the band should call it quits.
Bands that went on:
AC/DC
The Who
Def Leppard
Metallica
(These are just a few, can you list more?)
Bands that never went on:
Pantera
Nirvana
Led Zeppelin(though they have had a few shows)
(just to name a few, do you know of any more?)
No, they shouldnt quit, but sometimes they suck after. Didnt Nirvana become Foo fighters after Kurt Cobain died??? That sucked.
It's only wrong if the person who died was the leader and main songwriter in the band. Like Megadeth couldn't continue without Dave Mustaine, Maiden couldn't continue without Steve Harris etc...
I dont know, its kind of a case by case deal. Some bands continue playing in honor of their fallen member some quit for that exact same reason. I don't think it's wrong either way
and you can add The Doors to the bands that never went on
Yes, sometimes the bands actually get better.
Others shouldn't..like Nirvana.
They were all about the lead singer in that band.
Both Feeder and Alice in Chains have moved onwards,
i think its a really personal thing within the band, if they decide it's worth going on they will. Altho as the above comment mentioned, if the main songwriter dies then its probably best to call it a day and move on to other things like Dave Grohl with the foo's.
i think its ok why shld there career end because a member died? It's sad and all but everyone moves on...
The only band i can think of is hawthorne heights.
Drowning Pool went on.
I think it's different depending on which band member dies. The singer dying/quitting the band usually makes a huge difference with the sound of the band. That is usually how I can tell the difference between bands - but I don't have an ear for the difference in guitar/bass/drum style.
I think it is alright to move on after a death.. to a certain extent.
In regards to Drowning Pool... after having their 3rd singer on their 3rd CD, I think they sound more like Soil (which is the band their current singer is from) rather than what Drowning Pool used to sound like at the beginning.
Why not? Just b/c one person dies, do you expect the rest of the band to just stop playing music?
I think they may have to release something
to get some cash when they've AGED but
for the most part age doesn't matter that much :)
depends really on the situation... for example, if the sex pistols went on without sid, it would be fine...
but if nirvana continued, it would be dumb cause kurt was the face of nirvana. but instead they made a new band...which was good.
so really, it depends
but alice in chains is still going on with a new singer, but i think they should of atleast changed their name if they were to continue.
Queen still goes on, even after the death of Freddie Mercury and the retirement of John Deacon.
Personally, I think if a band still has new music to produce and can captivate an audience, they can (and should) continue on. The audience just has to realize that it is not the same band. Taking the Who, if it was Pete Townshend who died in the 70s, the band would have ended then and there. These days, The Two live on--Roger Daltrey still acts as the voice for Pete's words. And they're still producing good, new music (see Endless Wire, released in 2006).
Excellent question!
If you can find a great replacement then yes...look at AC/DC with Brian Johnson, Or Drowning Pool.
Pantera was already broken up long before Dime Bag (RIP) was murdered.
What member of Def Leppard died?
well a band shouldn't be held back just because of a death, the band member that died might have wanted them to got on and make their music. well it's really up to the band to decide to go on or just stop.
Well a good example of a band that went would be the red hot chili peppers. When Hillel Slovak died in '86 they also lost their drummer but then they found John Frusciante and Chad smith and are going strong
I agree that it should be a case by case decision. If the band still wants to go on then it should be okay...however as a fan I am always disappointed if it was a group I really liked and then they replace a very talented individual with someone not so great, especially if it was the frontman.
reminds me of keane, they lost a member, and as a consequence, changed their sound and became popular... i think its a little weirder in my opinion if they continue after they have become a well known group though its like an integral part of the band is now missing, and they wont ever get that back
Yes it does help the band improve sometimes in a good way
It's double edge sword, first you want to go on with the show, some people live by the "show must go on" creed because they still want to make music and tour for their fans. On the other hand you have some guys that really can't be replaced because they were the heart and the soul of the band, they can be the singer guitarrist, bassist drummer and if someone is pulling double duty as singer/guitarist than it complicates the oridinal sound and fans will say thar the band sold out their sound to make money and other will say that the new singer or whatever can never replace that person.
Of course it's alright! They have a passion and as long as they continue what the band was originally about then it's ok. With Pantera and Nirvana, the dead members WERE the band, without them the band wouldn't be the same. That is what made them legends.
Think of it as when a member quits/gets fired, they still go one with someone new.
Pantera would have never had a reunion... and I dont think a "staple band'' such as nirvana or sublime should continue. I think it is a shame that Alice in Chains are going on after Lane Staley died.