What's the deal with "replacements" in a band.

[Blazer]

On every single forum I posted about Paul Stanley's heart problems I got the same reply: "Kiss isn't Kiss anymore with those two replacements." With which Eric Singer and Tommy Thayer's musical ability is just shoved aside. Afterall they are only "replacements"

Kiss 2007: Gene Simmons, Eric Singer, Tommy Thayer and Paul Stanley.

So my question is were Eric Carr, Vinnie Vincent, Mark St John and Bruce Kulick also "Just replacements" or were they legit members of the band?

And it's not just about Kiss. Take Genesis for example. The Line up with Daryl Steurmer and Chester Thompson is longer in existence than the classic line up with Peter Gabriel and Steve Hackett.

Genesis 1978: Chester Thompson, Mike Rutherford, Phil Collins, Daryl Steurmer and Tony Banks.

Genesis 2007: Chester Thompson, Mike Rutherford, Phil Collins Tony Banks and Daryl Steurmer.

But be honest, would you guys consider Daryl and Chester legit members of the band?

If Tommy Thayer is looked down upon because he replaced Ace Frehley and Daryl Steurmer is looked down upon because he replaced Steve Hackett then why isn't Ron Wood being looked down upon because he replaced Mick Taylor and why isn't Mick Taylor Looked down upon because he replaced Brian Jones?

What did Ron Wood and Mick Taylor did right to be considered Legit members of the Rolling Stones and not Just "replacements?"

[Rsmacker]

Depends on where you are looking at it from. If you are 18 years old right now, Robert Trujillo (sp?) IS the bassist in Metallica, for me who was 16 when Puppets came out, Jason Newsted was "the replacement", and always was, fine player though he is. This gurning idiot will always be the bass player from Suicidal Tendencies, can't wait for him to stop depping and go back to his "proper" band.

If you only heard the Mk2 (or Mk3) lineups of Deep Purple, Maiden, Sabbath, Van Halen etc, you wouldn't think they were the same bands, and their output is strong enough to stand alone. When you have grown up with a band, watched their internal politics, then you become biassed and yearn for the good old days, even if those days were actually quite shit! Releasing a timeless classic LP always helps "replacements" become accepted.

[surfreak]

I think in this context they are "replacements" because they haven't added anything new or memorable to the band's music, both in terms of songs and live performances.

Tommy Thayer was hired to learn Ace's solos note for note, period, not to contribute creatively.

[Bengal]

The problem I have with Tommy Thayer is that he's wearing Ace's makeup and costume. Same with Eric. Are they good musicians? Without a doubt. But should he be wearing Ace's makeup? I don't think so. Vinnie had his own makeup. Eric Carr had his own makeup. But for some reason, Gene didn't want to go that route with Eric and Tommy. Why? Because he thought it would fail. And we know Gene, he has to have that money. So for him, it's all about the cash...

But yes, Tommy and Eric are replacements. So was Vinnie, Eric and Bruce. To me, KISS is Paul, Gene, Ace and Peter. But since Gene ownes the look, he can do what he wants. Doesn't mean I have to spend my money on it though...

[DTP]

They come out and play the parts of Peter and Ace, that's why they get ragged on.

If they came out and played themselves like the others did, they probably wouldn't be called just replacements.

J.

[Spivonious]

Full respect to Paul and I hope his "heart problems" are nothing super serious, but I never saw the appeal of Kiss. They have dumb songs and cheesy makeup and are the definition (well Gene at least) of a sellout band.

Maybe someone can enlighten me?

I view any member as a replacement if they were replaced after the band made it big. I didn't start listening to Metallica until 96, but I still thought of Newsted as the new guy, mostly because they rose to fame while Cliff was still in the band. Another example: Iced Earth. Barlow was the third singer, but he is the "original" in my mind. Tim Owns will forever be a replacement.

[thetroy]

People are considered replacements when they don't write or do anything new and GOOD to put their own identity into the band. Alternatively sometimes people who are hardcore will consider someone a replacement no matter what the new guy does like Sammy in Van Halen, Dio in Sabbath, etc

[DyersEveLV]

Friedman - to me personally there's pre-Marty Megadeth and post-Marty Megadeth.And the one in the middle is real Megadeth - with Marty.
No way he was a "replacement" member.
Glen Drover on the other hand...

[CharvelRocker]

Friedman - to me personally there's pre-Marty Megadeth and post-Marty Megadeth.And the one in the middle is real Megadeth - with Marty.
No way he was a "replacement" member.
Glen Drover on the other hand...

Peace Sells is not the real Megadeth? As for replacements, heres my look at it: a new member coming into a band to replace a member who left is of course a replacement for that member, but they are still a band member. Now if they become their own person in the band depends on how they are with the creative process, how involved they are, etc.

[Norton]

Friedman - to me personally there's pre-Marty Megadeth and post-Marty Megadeth.And the one in the middle is real Megadeth - with Marty.
No way he was a "replacement" member.
Glen Drover on the other hand...

Glen Drover's a VSTi. You just drag&drop the midi file onto him and he plays it.

[Racerx2k]

Some very valid points made here. I agree with the whole "nothing new, so hence, a replacement" argument. Absolutely.
As for Megadeth, I 100% agree there is pre, Marty-era, and post Marty. As for which is REAL Megadeth? Well, they ALL are. I just happen to prefer the Marty-era, myself.

[Rsmacker]

The thing is with bands like Megadeth is that they are really one person - in this case, Dave Mustaine. The rest of them are just sidekicks, hired hands, if Mustaine grew another 3 pairs of arms, he'd be quite happy doing the lot himself.
Same with Motorhead, who knows who is in Motorhead? Motorhead is Lemmy. After the "classic" line-up split ( Fast Eddie left ), nobody really gave a shit.

[Bengal]

Full respect to Paul and I hope his "heart problems" are nothing super serious, but I never saw the appeal of Kiss. They have dumb songs and cheesy makeup and are the definition (well Gene at least) of a sellout band.

Maybe someone can enlighten me?

I can try, don't know if it will work or not...

I'm going to assume that your younger than I am. I'm 38. I remember, quite clearly, when Destroyer came out. Back then, they were the most dangerous band on the planet. Up to Destroyer, that is. Just listen to Alive, one of the best Live albums ever, IMHO. They owned, and everyone got on board. Now, not too long after that they became a shell of what they were. They started putting them in 17 Magazine and Tiger Beat and all that crap. At that point, when the money really started kicking in, it changed them. They got to be a joke. Kiss Meets The Phantom Of The Park anyone? Pinball machines? Dolls? Kiss Cards? They oversaturated themselves. And the music suffered. Perfect example of image before substance. But back before they blew up, they were a hungry Rock and Roll band that just went out and slayed people. The Kiss DVD that came out not too long ago is a great example of just how good they were back in the day. So guys like me remember that and respect that and give them some slack because I remember what it use to be like...

Younger dudes may just see what they've done recently (the past 20 years) and think they are a joke. I can understand that. But for those of us that were there in the heyday, we remember...

As for Megadeth? IMHO Megadeth is Dave, Gar, Chris, and Dave. Those first 2 albums were the shit. So that's my lineup. Back when they were hungry. After that, I'll take Jeff Young. I know that's not a popular stance but So Far So Good So What is possibly my favorite Megadeth album. But I take nothing away from Marty. Rust In Peace is fantastic. After that... Ummm... Well.... Sigh....

[Racerx2k]

I'm 39, and I got into Kiss for maybe a brief while, when I was young, and the whole makeup-image thing was everything. But, as I got older, I realized it was style over substance. I never thought their music-writing was that great, and as time went on, I think it showed, to everyone, including them. Gene obviously realized that what people still loved was the old days of makeup, and since retro 70s and 80 was so popular, it was time to cash in on THAT.
Kiss have never been about innovation. They're fad-surfers: They see a wave coming, and they ride it, and suck as much money out of it and the fans as possible, in the meantime, cause let's face it, fads = popularity, popularity = Gene's favorite thing, even besides himself, money. the classic Kiss was nothing more than a mixture of the comic book fad with Alice Cooper thrown in. Animalize?, animal prints were big. When dayglo was big, there they were, making sure they wore some. Years later, when harder music was becoming big, all of a sudden they apologize for the years of music they put out, and released songs like Unholy. 70s and 80s retro comes back, and there they are, throwing on the platform boots, and smudging on the makeup. The fact that Gene is willing to cash in on someone's death by selling the Kiss casket, speaks volumes. There's one color to Kiss that count, and it's not black, it's "green".

[nor]

Glen Drover's a VSTi. You just drag&drop the midi file onto him and he plays it.

:ROTF: