Why do famous bands replace their bassists so often?

[NielsBass]

On Wikipedia you find alot of bassists in exmember lists of many famous bands.

For example a Band like Atreyu replaced their bassist 4 times, Tool replaced their bassist (as only member), Rolling stones replaced their bassist 2 times, etc...

It seems like bassists are the least "loyal" to their band, or maybe bands aren't very "loyal" to their bassists.

Are bassists considered less of a bandmember than other musicians or do bassists get bored of bands quicker than other musicians?

 

[Frohman]

If a guitarist og singer leaves, the band is more likely to change name or disband, I guess. Just because of their prominence in the band. The stones is like Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, and then what... two or three other guys no one knows the name of? With drummers and bass players thats not as common, because let's face it; no one notices anyway?

 

[Jazz Ad]

A rock band is made by a charismatic singer and a good songwriter.
Sometimes, a guitarist is essential.
All other members are disposable.

 

[DiabolicLow B]

I think drummers are replaced more often than bass players, just look at Spinal Tap!

 

[Stranger Danger]

If a guitarist og singer leaves, the band is more likely to change name or disband, I guess. Just because of their prominence in the band. The stones is like Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, and then what... two or three other guys no one knows the name of? With drummers and bass players thats not as common, because let's face it; no one notices anyway?

Those guys names are Brian Jones, Ian Stewart, Ron Wood, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Mick Taylor, Darryl Jones. You should know who Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman are because they comprised one of the tightest rhythm sections in Rock history.

 

[AltGrendel]

As far as the Stones go, Bill Wyman retired. Call it quitting if you want, but apparently it was amiable.

 

[Frohman]

Those guys names are Brian Jones, Ian Stewart, Ron Wood, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Mick Taylor, Darryl Jones. You should know who Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman are because they comprised one of the tightest rhythm sections in Rock history.

Oh, come on. Now you're just showing off.

 

[puddin tame]

Of course we're talking your average person, not music nerds on bass forums

 

[AcidFripp]

Oh, come on. Now you're just showing off.

Nah, mate. Probably just 30 seconds on wikipedia.

 

[waleross]

+1 for the Stones. Their drummer is the best and when I finallly heard them live I couldn't believe how great Charlie Watts sounded. Unless the bass player (like Rush) is the leader and writing the bands material, the bass player is expendable.......

 

[Gus Borden]

But on the other hand, a good bass player should have two things as a credit to their name:

1. Easily slide into any band situation - being flexible and versatile are important.
2. Difficult to replace. If we're so disposable, then it's on us to be less so.

 

[Jim Dep]

I think the most of "super groups" of the 60's and 70's kept their nucleus's together, including the bass players. Beatles, Stones, Zep, Cream, Hendrix, Jefferson Airplane, Santana (except for Brown's drug related absence), Beach Boys, Journey, Ten Years After, CCR, etc etc..

I lost track in the mid 80's.

 

[T-MOST]

Like Gus said... a really good bassist is hard to replace. You realize just how good they were when everyone else you hire just doesn't seem to hit the tunes right on the head. Maybe thats why some bands go through so many.

 

[chicago_mike]

Rolling stones tight??? Have way too many discussions with other muso's on how sloppy and out of time and not in sync those two were, but they still created a groove.

 

[Johnny Crab]

But on the other hand, a good bass player should have two things as a credit to their name:

1. Easily slide into any band situation - being flexible and versatile are important.
2. Difficult to replace. If we're so disposable, then it's on us to be less so.

This.

 

[KevInDaBassment]

A lot of bands can "dumb down" their rhythm section and get away with it (depending on genre of course), but the upside to being a bassist is that there is ALWAYS work to be found =)

 

[bluewine]

If a guitarist og singer leaves, the band is more likely to change name or disband, I guess. Just because of their prominence in the band. The stones is like Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, and then what... two or three other guys no one knows the name of? With drummers and bass players thats not as common, because let's face it; no one notices anyway?

C'mon, Ron Wood has been with them since 76 anybody thats into the scene knows who he is.

Hmmm , come to think of it, if you asked my GF to name 3 Stones, she would probably be stumped after Mick and Keith.

 

[faulknersj]

Eric Avery was the bass player on all the early Janes Addiction albums and was such a driving force in that band. Flea is great for the Red Hot Chili Peppers, but painful to listen to during a live Janes Addiction concert.

 

[Korladis]

Drummers seem to rotate even more often, actually.

Motorhead has never replaced their bassist... nor has Iron Maiden or even Judas Priest.

 

[peledog]

Depends on the style of music.

The Stones were not tight. They grooved, and part of the appeal is that they were sloppy. That's rock and roll. Even some of Jimmy Page's leads in any LZ track can sound sloppy - but it worked for what it was.

Back on topic - I don't really notice replacement players that much - again depends on their role. If they were song writers, tougher to replace.

But there are bands where you can't replace the bass player because he/she IS the identity of the band. But for the other 90% or so or bands, the singer or the guitardist is the prominent member.