A local band I happen to like is breaking up. Kinda. The band still may play shows, but with most of membership replaced, which made me ask myself, "What constitutes a band?"
We can't mean the people in the band because we can all agree that replacing one member (typically a bassist) doesn't constitute forming a new band. See, for instance, Weezer.
OK, so how about the sound that's made? That would be a fine definition of a band, but if that's the case, wouldn't a note-perfect cover band be as accepted as the original?
Or how this: A band is whatever medium a songwriter to create her art? Now we're getting closer, but it makes me wonder whether we'd be essentially calling some guy's computer a band.
When the Red Hot Chili Peppers replaced John Frusciante with Dave Navarro they were undoubtedly a different band, but they were still the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Their music was different, but that difference was acceptable because their sound remained the same.
When Scott Weiland left STP, however, they remaining dudes had to start an entirely new band because their sound was markedly different (and quite shittay). Along the same lines, Sammy Hagar was the new voice of Van Halen, but thanks to his luxurious locks, the band's image (read: sound) didn't change.
So at its essence, a band is some combination of a sound and the people who produce that sound. But what percentage each part counts seems completely changeable and impossible to quantify.
0 comments:
Post a Comment