ZZ Top Carries On With Elwood Francis.......

Gotta say, I am not really behind this. I don't see them going on with a "replacement" any more than Rush without Neil. It's alike a 3-legged stool missing one of the legs, and to me the better part of valor would have been to let it rest - I just don't see how this serves the memory of Dusty. That's just me though.
 
gball said:
Gotta say, I am not really behind this. I don't see them going on with a "replacement" any more than Rush without Neil. It's alike a 3-legged stool missing one of the legs, and to me the better part of valor would have been to let it rest - I just don't see how this serves the memory of Dusty. That's just me though.
Click to expand...
You aren't alone on this. It's kind of disrespectful to me to carry on from a beloved key member who dies, especially when you have decades with them.

I love AC/DC with a passion and while some argued they should've folded when Bon died, they WERE still technically new and on the cusp of a big breakthru when that happened, so carrying on made sense. But when Malcolm died, it was a different story as he was THE founding member, chief writer and mastermind. As much as it would've upset me to see them wrap it up then, i would've understood why.

The Stones are carrying on without Charlie Watts as well and that too seems wrong to me.
 
But…what about the fact that, reportedly, Dusty WANTED the band to continue with Elwood in the event of his death?

If that’s the case, it would actually seem more disrespectful to Dusty to disregard his wishes and terminate the band.

ultimateclassicrock.com

Dusty Hill Insisted ZZ Top Not Break Up Following His Death

The death of longtime bassist Dusty Hill won't result in the breakup of ZZ Top, Billy Gibbons explained in July 2021.
ultimateclassicrock.com ultimateclassicrock.com
 
smitty_p said:
But…what about the fact that, reportedly, Dusty WANTED the band to continue with Elwood in the event of his death?

If that’s the case, it would actually seem more disrespectful to Dusty to disregard his wishes and terminate the band.

ultimateclassicrock.com

Dusty Hill Insisted ZZ Top Not Break Up Following His Death

The death of longtime bassist Dusty Hill won't result in the breakup of ZZ Top, Billy Gibbons explained in July 2021.
ultimateclassicrock.com ultimateclassicrock.com
Click to expand...
I get that aspect but still, doesnt seem right busting up a 3 piece with the same 3 guys for over 50 years to me anyways. That's family and you cant replace family
 
Elwoods been "part" of that family for decades I believe...... not like they grabbed some fresh faced kid and kept going.....(see ROLLING STONES---)

I have always been a huge Dusty fan ... always will be -- and I was interested to see how this would play out -- I think they made a good choice--

HA @StrumerJoe -- I was typing about the same thing when you posted

ultimately its not OUR decision to make --- and Im rather SUre the Right Rev. Billy F Gibbons -- would not dishonor his compadre.
 
Clockworkmike said:
You aren't alone on this. It's kind of disrespectful to me to carry on from a beloved key member who dies, especially when you have decades with them.

I love AC/DC with a passion and while some argued they should've folded when Bon died, they WERE still technically new and on the cusp of a big breakthru when that happened, so carrying on made sense. But when Malcolm died, it was a different story as he was THE founding member, chief writer and mastermind. As much as it would've upset me to see them wrap it up then, i would've understood why.

The Stones are carrying on without Charlie Watts as well and that too seems wrong to me.
Click to expand...

I come from a showbiz family and ive been the hired replacement for injured - and deceased - musicians, so my perspective is different.

The show must go on...

In the case of Brian Johnson, Bon Scott actually told the band that he believed the only singer who could ever take his place was Geordie's Brian Johnson.
 
Robert Herndon said:
I come from a showbiz family and ove Bern the hired replacement for injured - and deceased - musicians, so my perspective is different.

The show must go on...

In the case of Brian Johnson, Bon Scott actually told the band that he believed the only singer who could ever take his place was Geordie's Brian Johnson.
Click to expand...
I get carrying on but when it comes down to a situation where you have 1 original member and all the others have died or been retired, it kinda seems like ripoff to the fans. Example for that would be Lynyrd Skynyrd, who I have seen when it was still 3 original guys but now its down to 1 ( Gary Rossington). At that point it becomes a tribute band in my opinion.

Foreigner is guilty of this and about 3 years ago they passed thru here with NO original members or any members from a relevant period. Fans were pissed when they noticed Mick Jones was not even present at least

At least with ZZ Top and the Stones, I guess you still do have a 2 key personnel minimum ( In the Stones case, ill argue for Ronnie Wood as a 3rd due to longevity during relevant years). As for AC/DC, its still 4 key members but losing the engine in Malcolm doesn't sit right with me. Still glad to see them touring and recording obviously but its not the same
 
Clockworkmike said:
I get carrying on but when it comes down to a situation where you have 1 or 2 original members and all the others have died, it kinda seems like ripoff to the fans. Example for that would be Lynyrd Skynyrd, who I have seen when it was still 3 original guys but now its down to 1 ( Gary Rossington). At that point it becomes a tribute band in my opinion.

Foreigner is guilty of this and about 3 years ago they passed thru here with NO original members or any members from a relevant period. Fans were pissed when they noticed Mick Jones was not even present at least

At least with ZZ Top and the Stones, I guess you still do have a 2 key personnel minimum ( In the Stones case, ill argue for Ronnie Wood as a 3rd due to longevity during relevant years). As for AC/DC, its still 4 key members but losing the engine in Malcolm doesn't sit right with me. Still glad to see them touring and recording obviously but its not the same
Click to expand...
Another big offender to me is The Who.

I wouldn't mind at all if they went out as Daltrey/Townsend or Towsend/Daltrey though.
 
StrumerJoe said:
Another big offender to me is The Who.

I wouldn't mind at all if they went out as Daltrey/Townsend or Towsend/Daltrey though.
Click to expand...
Very true! Losing the legendary Keith Moon was one thing but moving forward as The Who without John Entwistle wasnt right. It was worse that Pete Townsend kinda wrote him off as not that important anyways in an interview a few years ago. Just pissed on his longest comrade
 
Clockworkmike said:
I get carrying on but when it comes down to a situation where you have 1 original member and all the others have died or been retired, it kinda seems like ripoff to the fans. Example for that would be Lynyrd Skynyrd, who I have seen when it was still 3 original guys but now its down to 1 ( Gary Rossington). At that point it becomes a tribute band in my opinion.

Foreigner is guilty of this and about 3 years ago they passed thru here with NO original members or any members from a relevant period. Fans were pissed when they noticed Mick Jones was not even present at least

At least with ZZ Top and the Stones, I guess you still do have a 2 key personnel minimum ( In the Stones case, ill argue for Ronnie Wood as a 3rd due to longevity during relevant years). As for AC/DC, its still 4 key members but losing the engine in Malcolm doesn't sit right with me. Still glad to see them touring and recording obviously but its not the same
Click to expand...

I really like Stevie Young, but I can dig your feelings...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top