Why do people usually bitch when someone is replaced???

[Alex]

So there are bands that replace someone either because that person has left or because they've unfortunately died. You can't expect the other members of the band to just stop caring about music, they'll usually want to carry on and finding a new member is usually the only way.

I was checking out Sublime with Rome (The surviving members of Sublime with new guitarist and vocalist Rome Rameriz) and the stick they were giving the guy was unbelievable, yes he's not Bradley Nowell but he can sing decently and can play the guitar so whats the problem.

Another one was William DuVall replacing Layne Staley in Alice In Chains. The guy is a good singer and brings his own thing to the table as he's not trying to emulate Staley at all.

So why do people bitch when the new guy turns up, they either complain they sound different to the previous member (different playing styles of playing or singing) or they sound to much like the member they're replacing.

Recently John Frusciante left Red Hot Chili Peppers and was replaced with Josh Klinghoffer, some people I talked to said the new album would be shit because Frusciante had left, others (like myself) decided to wait until we'd heard what Klinghoffer could do before passing judgement.

So is it because people are just not comfortable with change or is it something else???

 

[Dave]

The way I see it, people don’t like change.

Whether that change is in the musical styling’s of a band or the change of personnel, they are very likely to hate it and that is just part of what it is to be a fan. Whilst none of the bands I truly love have had a major change in personnel, I imagine that people get worried that the band they have come to know and love will change and the initial magic of that band will be lost. What’s more, people will likely feel that the music will change as someone with different tastes and influences is added to the mix.

Most of the time though, these people are wide of the mark and I couldn’t think of a band that has literally changed the way they make music because someone new has come into the fold. In my opinion, a band is always going to have problems and if that means bringing someone else in to remedy the situation, I am all for it. Music is great and bands are what make it so great. One person doesn’t often make a band and replacing them is just natural at the end of the day. I am pretty sure the reason people get so insecure about it is because they have no idea how their favourite band will come out at the other end. They could be better because of the change or they could be a lot worse because of the difference of opinions.

Most of the time, I just put it down to people caring about the band too much to let them go.

 

[SorgFamily]

People can't possibly even have an opinion on William Duvall because the new album is basically Jerry Cantrell featuring William Duvall on backing vocals so f*uck those people.

Anyways as for the topic overall, I think it's just the fact that people get attached to bands and it becomes a thing like, "This is my band and you don't f*uck with my band. Whether you're changing members or changing your style you just don't." Obviously a crappy way to think when you call yourself a fan but it's the way it is. When a band changes it style you shouldn't jump on it. First of all you should give it a chance and then if you deem that you don't like it......................don't listen to it. Listen to the other stuff that you like and then move on. Why sit there and mope about how they're not good anymore when you could move on to one of the other millions of other bands that are in the world. I'm a huge STP fan but I personally can not stand they're new cd. So I listened to the WHOLE thing and then you know what I did? Went out, discovered Blind Faith and Buffalo Springfield and now while I don't listen to the new STP cd I have five new cd's I can listen to.

In short people need to learn to grow up and learn that the world doesn't revolve around them. Unfortunately that usually comes with age. I think the people that you're talking about tend to be between the ages of 13-18 and think that things can never change because it would disrupt their life.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

People can't possibly even have an opinion on William Duvall because the new album is basically Jerry Cantrell featuring William Duvall on backing vocals so f*uck those people.

Yeah, Jerry does dominate the vocals on "Black Gives Way To Blue" and the band still sound fkin amazing!

I saw them live and when the old Layne-era stuff was played and Duvall did sing, he definately did credit to the songs like Man In the Box, Would? and Angry Chair. If you shut your eyes, and listened to Duvall and Cantrell singing their alternate lines in Man In The Box, you could almost imagine Layne being there. Awesome band, they were and they still are

 

[The Crock]

Recently John Frusciante left Red Hot Chili Peppers and was replaced with Josh Klinghoffer, some people I talked to said the new album would be shit because Frusciante had left

I was very irritated by people who thought that. Josh Klinghoffer toured with the Red Hot Chili Peppers during the Stadium Arcadium tour and he sounded great. He has a style very similar to John's and his backup vocals are great. I mean for god's sake John and Josh made an album together and it was awesome so why would the new RHCP album suck?!

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Well because Rome isn't Bradley. It's not the same band without Brad, that band died with him and should have stayed dead. I'm probably the biggest Sublime fan on the forum, but I don't want to see them carry on with out Brad.

The thing most people have a problem with is when it's a new lead singer, since that's the easiest thing to hear the difference in comparing the interchanged band members. Obviously if you know what you are listening for you can tell the difference between different guitarist and drummers, but the easiest one to tell is the singer. So that's why most people have problems with change. That and everyone loves to bitch.

 

[LigerBomb]

C'mon. Let's be honest. A band gets over because of what it is i.e. their sound and who they are at a specific moment. Then they ride that wave as long as they can. Once that formula changes things tend to head south regardless of who's at fault. Always? No. More often than not? Yea, probably.
In some instances when it's a guy in the back it's forgivable largely because it's not very noticeable, but when it's an integral member of the group --be it a songwriter, lyricist, virtuoso instrumentalist or just the "face" of the band-- then really, the majority of the time it's the best thing for everyone involved (on both sides of the stage) to rename the group and make it clear that this is something different and that they are not here to trade on the name(s) that people may remember and that got them to this point.
Some people just make a band and it's that unique synergy that, much like lightening, can't be captured in a bottle twice. Sometimes like it or not, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. For ex: Layne Staley is/was a huge part of Alice in Chains. Without Layne that band will never be AiC and shouldn't try. It's a waste of their time.
Sometimes it can work around the change but even still no one confuses Ozzy Sabbath with Dio Sabbath. They are not the same group. Nor is Van Halen the same as Van Hagar. Sure, if you're lucky you can garner success with someone else but it is not going to be easy, and fans will obviously delineate a change whether you like it --or acknowledge it-- yourself. Why try? It's really a unnecessary uphill battle.

 

[SorgFamily]

Sometimes it can work around the change but even still no one confuses Ozzy Sabbath with Dio Sabbath. They are not the same group. Nor is Van Halen the same as Van Hagar. Sure, if you're lucky you can garner success with someone else but it is not going to be easy, and fans will obviously delineate a change whether you like it --or acknowledge it-- yourself. Why try? It's really a unnecessary uphill battle.

Why try? I think a musicians love for music is the most obvious answer. Most of the time when a singer leaves a band the band tries to keep going because they love the music. When Scott Weiland first left The Stone Temple Pilots the other members formed a group with a guy named Dave Couts called Talk Show. Anyone who's lucky enough to have heard their album which is hard to find knows that Scott wasn't the only thing the band had going for it. Reverse that and Weiland later ended up with Velvet Revolver, which despite negative reviews and angry fans that constantly tried to compare Scott to Axl Rose, had mega success. Cornell also famously teamed with Rage minus Zack De La Rocha and had mega success in Audioslave. It's true these instances are few and far between but I for one am glad Audioslave and Velvet Revolver came along. And if you take the time to look around sometimes you find gems (Talk Show) that you never would have heard had a band not tried something new.

 

[TheAnimal]

I think its because of people generally not liking change but also because they associate the band with the members and maybe in their eyes its not the same band because of the same people not being there. Its unfortunate if the people in the band dont stay together for whatever reason, but as was rightly stated, the rest of them would still want to make music. Its probably because its a different entity, the RHCP that they knew would not be the same so they dont like that.

 

[LigerBomb]

Why try? I think a musicians love for music is the most obvious answer. Most of the time when a singer leaves a band the band tries to keep going because they love the music. When Scott Weiland first left The Stone Temple Pilots the other members formed a group with a guy named Dave Couts called Talk Show. Anyone who's lucky enough to have heard their album which is hard to find knows that Scott wasn't the only thing the band had going for it. Reverse that and Weiland later ended up with Velvet Revolver, which despite negative reviews and angry fans that constantly tried to compare Scott to Axl Rose, had mega success. Cornell also famously teamed with Rage minus Zack De La Rocha and had mega success in Audioslave. It's true these instances are few and far between but I for one am glad Audioslave and Velvet Revolver came along. And if you take the time to look around sometimes you find gems (Talk Show) that you never would have heard had a band not tried something new.

Um, yea... that all well and good, but you muddled up the point I made. I said "why try?" with regards to attempting to keep the band the "same" (as in retaining the name for example). In fact, what I said was that I'm all for people changing the group's name, getting new members and carrying on making music (like Talk Show, Velvet Revolver, Audio Slave etc).

...the majority of the time it's the best thing for everyone involved (on both sides of the stage) to rename the group and make it clear that this is something different and that they are not here to trade on the name(s) that people may remember and that got them to this point.

So actually in essence you just backed me up. Thanks!