Just thinking about the Chaz West and Asia posts from before?
Where do fans draw the line on a band no longer being acceptable as the same band?
Giant - replace Dann Huff and there's braying for blood, "how could Frontiers do this, it's not Giant, i'll never buy another album... blah blah blah"
Hardline - the singer records a project entirely written and produced by a hired backing team of Italian guys who also all write and play on many other albums together not under the name "Hardline", and they are suitable headliners for Firefests 10th Anniversary?
Foreigner, Journey, AC/DC, Styx have all replaced the unreplaceable and been largely embraced, and had great success and longevity.
Yet the same fans who embrace these guys would turn their noses up at bands like Giant, John Payne's Asia (I know it's ridiculous that he introduces songs he, nor any other band member, had anything to do with as "a song from our album", but that's the nature of performing at state fairs and summer festivals where no-one really knows who the fuck any of you are... at the end of the day he and Guthrie had longer tenures in Asia than John Wetton or Steve Howe ever did), Sweet, Vixen, and so many others...
What's the difference?
I'm not shit-stirring, i'm genuinely curious. I tend to like a band no matter who's in it, if the music is good or at least to my liking.
If Firefest had been headlined by the Dann-less Giant and Over The Rainbow, this noticeboard would have been full of detractors and nay-sayers... but Hardline and Legends feat Joe Lynn Turner, Eric Martin & Fergie Frederiksen playing the hits of Rainbow, Mr. Big and Toto, are somehow more acceptable... why is that?
Intrigued...
Niv