Should group members be replaced?

What do you think about groups/bands that hire replacements to fill the void of departing members? Groups like Journey, Foreigner, Destiny's Child, New Edition and Chicago come to mind. Is it good to keep the line up number, or do new members make the group feel more counterfeit to you?


Discuss.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Van Halen fans will always debate between David Lee Roth and Sammy Hagar. Some fans of the Stones and Pink Floyd have never heard of Brian Jones and Syd Barrett.

Generally I think the table should keep the same number of legs. If you started out a 5 man group, and one leaves, then replace that member. When 5 becomes 4....4 becomes 3....etc., etc., it seems incomplete.

Depends on the group, but seeing a bunch of new faces every time a member leaves after a while feels disingenuous. It just stops being the same group.

I am used to seeing some of my favorite bands lineups change every few albums. It doesn't bother me when a new face comes in as long as they're actually doing something and it compliments the ensemble. I can accept when five becomes four, but for some reason I don't like it when the lineup becomes less than that.

It depends...
Example: Bon Scott, orginal singer for ACDC. Died at such a young age... the band went on to bigger things (although I think that they were better with him)... It worked okay.

Example: Guns n Roses. Only orignal member today is Axl Rose. Most GnR fanatics aren't interestd in seeing this group today. Without Slash AND Axl, its not quite right.

It depends on the dynamic of the group, the stage for their career and whether the additional members are indeed better (although most fans would say this is rare)