and is it the reason I won't be going to see Journey?
Can you imagine, 2032 and Fergie's fledglings of 1992 still going out playing as Man Utd, all around the age of 60?
It's not going to happen is it?
And yet The Rolling Stones keep getting away with it, and for more and more money aswell!
You can change the members of a football team as many times as you like and it still remains Manchester United. Alright, some fans will always grumble that 'it's not the same without so and so', but that only lasts a week or so, and then it's business as usual.
So why don't bands do this? Why don't they audition new, younger players as they get a bit long in the tooth and rejuvinate the band whilst keeping the back catalogue and fan base going?
What will become of all the Status Quo fans when Rick or Francis pop their clogs?
Some bands are doing it to a limited degree - I know that John Lord is pretty much retired now, but Deep Purple keep on gigging with a new keyboard player, and YES have recently got a new keyboardist and vocalist who are both involved in producing and touring new material.
But is it the fact that most bands have atleast one or more iconic figure who IS essentially the band to the fans?
Even there, some bands have achieved amazing success - Lynyrd Skynyrd are still touring and writing with only one original member.
I remember thinking that AC/DC were kaput when the news of Bonn's death hit me, but saw both the 'Back in Black' tour and the 'For Those about to Rock' tour and was immediately impressed with Mr Johnson.
Genesis survived losing Peter Gabriel by replacing him with Phil Collins, who actually sounded quite like him at the time.
And I clearly recall the tidal wave of despair at college when it was revealed that following the departure of Ozzy, Ronnie James Dio ('what, that f**king midget') was to replace him in Black Sabbath.
If bands were to regularly change members, wouldn't we get used to the idea that a band is more than the original members? Wouldn't it be great to think that our great grandchildren could go and see a live virtual stadium tour of Metallica or Rush on Mars?
Or is it also the fact that most bands are reasonably short lived (in the grand scale of things) and so don't get boring?
For me it is definitely the iconic thing - I mean, would you accept a line-up of Led Zep without Robert Plant? Or The Doors without Jim Morrison?
This is getting to be a problem now, in my opinion. Thin Lizzy are touring again and I'm sorry, but I don't think they should be. Apart from the fact that a band that is not producing new material, but only running through the back catalogue is actually a 'tribute' band, you simply cannot have a line-up of Thin Lizzy without Phil Lynott.
Personally I would rather go and see a certain band of this site who don't even profess to be a 'tribute' band, but play the music with the passion and devotion it deserves, without playing (pardon the pun!) on the name.
And can you even consider a band calling itself Queen without Freddy? 'An evening of Queen music with a different singer' maybe, but Queen? I don't think so.
Maybe it is the very singleness of musicians that is in the end the downfall of bands. You can't simply take a handful of talented musicians and be guaranteed a succesful band, You need a certain chemistry and something that the fans latch onto.
Which is why I didn't get Journey tickets. For me (and this is only my opinion) it ain't Journey without Steve Perry.
I may only be a drummer , but I know what I like!!
Love to all
Alyerpal