What percentage of a band should be original members in order to allow it to use the original name?

[bbernardini]

Setting aside certain members having the legal right to use a band's name...I got to thinking about this after hearing that Queen was on American Idol last night. At the moment, Queen only has two of its original members (Brian May and Roger Taylor). I once saw a version of Asia that officially only contained one original member (Geoff Downes), but had another along as a "special guest" (Steve Howe). I've seen the Tubes with only 3 of the 7 original members. (At the same show, I saw both Missing Persons and A Flock Of Seagulls with only one original member in each.)

Thoughts?

[Jokerman]

1. Depends on the band and who is missing.

Queen without Freddy will never be Queen in my book. Brian May is extremely talented and I would pay to see him play as a solo act but the band should have been laid to rest with Freddy.

I was a huge fan of Chicago but after Terry Kath died they became just another band. I mention them because a large number of their fans came on board after Terry's death and don't even know who he was.

On the other hand, AC/DC not only survived the loss of their first lead singer, in my opinion, they got even better.

[southpaw]

2. It really does depend on the missing members.

To varying degrees, anyone is replaceable... but some just shouldn't be replaced.

I think once the replacement members outnumber the original members, it becomes a tribute act and should be billed accordingly.

That said, I fully support David Gilmour, Nick Mason and the late Richard Wright continuing with the Pink Floyd name... even though the three were outnumbered 2 to 1 by supporting musicians and backing vocalists when they toured. But that's just because Gilmour is God.