Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Sugababes spark philosophical dilemma

Someone else to shake their botty instead of Keisha.

Today's announcement that Sugababes got rid of Keisha Buchanan, their last founding member, triggered discussions over whether it is appropriate for a band to carry on while members keep coming and going like a revolving door.

The Guardian online has just started a comment thread titled: "When is a band not a band?", asking whether a group can "really carry on regardless with a completely new line-up".

But none of the people who were asked to perform under the Sugababes banner ever penned a single song, did the artwork, or wrote the lyrics, therefore the question is absolutely irrelevant. It's like Huw Edwards taking over from Peter Sissons to read the Ten O'Clock News on the BBC.

This is no Johnny Marr quitting The Smiths. Simply, someone else will shake their botty instead of Keisha.


Chris Baldwin said...

It's not just in this sort of music - the last guy who played on Napalm Death's debut left the band in about 1992, but they're still going strong.

PhilH said...

Here's NewsBiscuit's reliably excellent take on the matter.

Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said...

They are a franchise aren't they?

Some bands are a brand, some aren't.

Dave Semple said...

What's worse is that the band members actually regard themselves as a brand - it's not just the record label and the marketing people anymore. Oh no, it's the singers too. In their interviews they prattle about all the different ranges of items they want to sell.

Whatever happened to, y'know, just singing?