Last week, Stone Temple Pilots announced that Scott Weiland was
fired from the band. He responded in a statement that he was confused by how he could be fired from a band in
which he co-wrote many songs, fronted, and co-founded. He later then tried
saying that the incident was part of a publicity stunt. In fact, Scott Weiland just last night played
Core and Purple in their entirety at the Rapids Theater, so would Stone Temple Pilots still be Stone
Temple Pilots without him? What if they got a new lead singer and continued with
the STP name and played their songs? What if Scott Weiland continued playing
STP music with a different band at the same time? Could two STP exists and
would both parties have a legitimate claim? All of this got me wondering about
what a band’s identity is. Is it the name or is it the people who are in it
that make a band? Are certain band members more important to a bands identity
than others?
Take R.E.M for example. This band is a
consistent group of people. Throughout their entire run,
the same four people were a part of this band. When their drummer, Bill Berry,
quit, R.E.M didn’t end, but they didn’t replace him either. Instead,
they continued on as a trio. For R.E.M, they wouldn’t be R.E.M if a band member
changed.
Some bands don’t have such a unity amongst members. In fact,
the band seems more to like a backing band for a lead vocalist. The Foo
Fighters are this type of this band. They should really be called Dave Grohl
and the Foo Fighters because besides their bassist, Nate Mendel, he is the only consistent
band member and if he was gone, the rest of the band would be done. Foo
Fighters has seen several drummers and guitarists come and go over their span
but throughout, the same identity of Foo Fighters remained.
When the members of Rage Against the Machine, without their
lead singer, teamed up with Chris Cornell as lead vocalist, they didn’t keep
the Rage Against the Machine name, but rather became Audioslave. The three Rage Against
the Machine members switched one member and changed their name while Foo
Fighters switched several and kept going. The lead singer seems to be the key
to a bands identity.
There is a famous anecdote involving the Rolling Stones
about band member importance. As it goes, Mick Jagger called Charlie Watts and asked where his drummer was. In response, Watts punched Jagger. Fun story but let’s be real here. If
Watts left the Stones, no one would notice at the next concert. But if an
arena full of people showed up for a Rolling Stones concert and Jagger wasn’t
there, people would want a refund.
That is part of a long standing stereotype that drummers are
replaceable and so they don’t get much respect within the band. But could Rush
be Rush without Neil Peart? This band is an example where if you took away any
one of the band members, that band would probably cease to exist. But they too
had a different drummer before Peart. That however was before they became
famous. The integral members of a band then, who make up their identity, must
be around when the band becomes famous. Is anyone going to argue that Pete Best
was a Beatle?
Another common denominator in these bands is the lead singer
and guitarist who exist at a bands high point. It is those two components that
give a band its identity and without both of them the band does not exist. This
can be seen in bands like \the Who and Led Zeppelin. Both of those bands
continue without their original drummers but still have the lead singer and
guitarist and so have kept the name.
But then there are two bands that are exceptions to this. One
would think that it would be impossible to have Guns N’ Roses without Slash but
they still exist and even released an album without him. Journey’s only
consistent member throughout their history has been the lead guitarist though.
Their vocalist, the one there for the biggest years of the band is no longer a
part of the group and has been replaced.
There is no consistent pattern to what makes a band a band
so it’ll be interesting to see what happens with Stone Temple Pilots.
