Apparently neither Steven nor Matt are irreplaceable...I'd be interested in knowing how you make that distinction. Is it because Steven was replaced, but you like UYI, so it's ok that he was replaced? Why can you accept that change, and not others?
I think Steven is NOT replaceable because I like him so much, he is the best drummer in my book. But somehow I also think that he IS replaceable because Guns n' Roses sound was not based on his drumming. If you put another guy on drums, but if you keep the core of the band (Axl, Izzy, Slash, Duff) you still have Guns n' Roses AND the Guns n' Roses sound - at least on live performances. I actually LIKED when Fred Courey replaced him in 1987, those gigs with Fred SOUND great, THAT is Guns n' Roses sounding great with another drummer.
About Matt, I don't like him a lot, but I think he was OK in 1991. Izzy said best about him. He can be a "better" drummer, his techinique may be better, but he doesn't have the groove that Steven has. Anyway, to be sincere, I think Guns n' Roses would sound great even with some shitty drummer like Ringo Star on drums.
Also, regarding the idea that this applies especially to musicians, should AC/DC have not added Brian Johnson, after Bon's death? I mean, Bon was a musician, right? So he's irreplaceable. And Back in Black should have never been recorded. Correct? If you truly believe so, then that's fine, but that opinion is destined for the trash bin of history. I'm sure a reasonable number of people thought so at the time, but they have long since been silenced.
Bon is NOT replaceable for the simple fact that he is unique. Nobody can duplicate him. But he was dead and Brian Johnson came in and he just sounded GREAT and Back in Black is right up there with Appetite as one of the best rock records of all time and I am sure you agree with that.
Musicians are replaceable.
You didn't understand me correctly. I didn't say musicians are not replaceable. I meant SOME musicians are not replaceable and among them I put Axl, Izzy, Slash and Duff. Maybe, just maybe, you could replace Duff, but in my book, if you don't have Axl, Izzy and Slash, you do NOT have Guns n' Roses. That is why, for me, Guns n' Roses was over when Izzy left in 1991. Not just because Gilby totally destroyed the guitar intertwining that was the coolest thing on GNR but also because the band became a circus with two hundred additional musicians.
I say some musicians are replaceable and some are not. I say AXL, IZZY and SLASH ARE NOT REPLACEABLE. Nobody can write songs and play like them!
Whether the replacements are better than the original members is a matter of opinion.
Sure, no doubt.
The extent to which replacements are valid pieces of a band's history is decided after the fact, by the quality of the music they produce and the willingness of fans to accept them, rather than by hastily conceived ideas that this member or that is "irreplaceable."
I agree with you when you say that "The extent to which replacements are valid pieces of a band's history is decided after the fact, by the quality of the music they produce". Right now, in my opinion, the music that Axl's new band is producing is like "half good" - Better and Chinese Democracy are, in my opinion, the only genuienely CATCHY tunes of the nine or ten new songs that we have heard so far. The other songs are really NOT SO GOOD, and the best thing about them all is Axl voice and the vocal melodies that he created. Also, the sound has NOTHING to do with the rock n' roll that was the main foundation of GNR sound. That is why I don't like this band and that is why it is NOT Guns n' Roses and will never be. When Brian Johnson replaced Bon Scott, AC/DC was stil AC/DC, for the good (Back in Black, Ballbreaker, For Those About to Rock, etc) and also for the bad (they did some shitty records in the eighties like Blow up yout Video). But when Axl gets new musicians and creates a whole different sound, he should just ASSUME that it is NOT Guns n' Roses and move on. He can't fool me. His band is not Guns n' Roses and, like I said many times, even the rocks at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean know that!
I don't agree with you when you say that "The extent to which replacements are valid pieces of a band's history is decided after the fact, by (...) the willingness of fans to accept them". I don't give a fuck about what "fans" think. If the new Axl band sells 400 million records and make a 10 year world tour with 50 thousand people at every show, that won't matter. What matters is the quality of the music, and THAT is always a matter of PERSONAL TASTE.
Luciano
***********
Author