IT'S A GAS, GAS, GAS!!
MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVES/WEEKLY ROCK POLL POST
Return to Gasx3/Poll Post Board Homepage
Name: Fender Bender
E-Mail:
Subject: RE: RE: RE:Could McCartney & Starr perform
Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2016
Time: 7:27:03 AM
Remote Address: 70.212.41.138
Message ID: 304316
Parent ID: 304309
Thread ID: 304298
Once a band loses a key member it is never the same. For me after Brian left The Rolling Stones became the rolling stones. And still some of their best work occurred in the years that followed, and Mick Taylor and Ron Wood deserve much of the credit for this. The Beatles are an especially unique category. Once Ringo joined and international fame ensued the line-up was set forever. There would never be replacing any of them under the banner of the Beatles. Period. And I'm sure that Paul and Ringo realize this. The Who became the who after Keith Moon died. And John Entwistle's death further eroded the band's authenticity, although still having the original singer and guitarist/leader/songwriter present is way more credible than, say the "Yardirds" with one original member (drummer McCarty) in tow. Other bands have lost most of their original line-up but re-invent themselves under the original name. Fleetwood Mac for example, which started as a purist blues band and evolved into a pop-rock dynamo has been anchored the bassist and drummer, who are neither front line members or songwriters.
Lots of subjectivity here, but again, if there was ever a band that required four particular members to justify its name, it's The Beatles.
Note: Do not hit the "Post Message" button more than once, even if it is taking a long time to post your message. Doing so may cause a double post to appear and could slow down your posting time even more.
Download your free, customizable Burton Networks Message Board now!
© 1998 - 2022 by Keno Internet Services, except where otherwise noted. All rights reserved.